King James Onlyism supported

[missmuffet]

33 minutes ago, WBO said:

Yes I’m a King James Only Believer. And it’s very comforting and faith building when I realized that the Bible means exactly what it says. I’m glad I’m not smart enough to believe that the Bible has errors.

This is why I do not support the King James only movement:

 

Question: "What is the KJV Only movement? Is the King James Version the only Bible we should use?"

Answer: Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.
The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

https://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

 

Edited December 11, 2019 by missmuffet

[Michael37]

On 12/12/2019 at 10:37 AM, WBO said:

You either believe in a perfect Bible or you don’t. Believe that it’s without errors or you believe that it’s corrupt.

Is that a law you're spouting? Wisdom would have it that we humans are at times prone to bias and tend to justify our actions to hide our true intentions. At the behest of King James and his advisors the KJV was produced with wordings that were intended to place the clergy firmly in control of the people. That is not to say that it is corrupt in its entirety, but it is somewhat biased towards a hierarchical structure.  

Use of the word office where function is meant is one example. Putting the word rule where guide or lead is sufficient is another.

[WBO]

Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

⁶ The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

⁷ Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER.

 

God’s word is pure to perfection. And According to this Scripture it is God’s job to preserve His Word forever. I can respect if you don’t think the KJV is the perfect Bible. But Just know that there is a Perfect Bible. 

[Jayne]

3 minutes ago, WBO said:

Psalm 12:6-7 King James Version (KJV)

⁶ The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

⁷ Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation FOR EVER.

 

God’s word is pure to perfection. And According to this Scripture it is God’s job to preserve His Word forever. I can respect if you don’t think the KJV is the perfect Bible. But Just know that there is a Perfect Bible. 

Psalm 12 is not about the King James Bible.  It's not about any one Bible at all.  It's about the singular meaning and message of his holy and perfect word whenever and wherever he speaks.

Any reputable Bible is God's holy word.  Perfect, inerrant in meaning and message, and should be read and applied.

Despite any copyist mistakes or words that change in meaning over time or words that could have been translated a whole lot better - God's message is flawless and perfect in every reputable Bible in every language on every continent.

[WBO]

11 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Psalm 12 is not about the King James Bible.  It's not about any one Bible at all.  It's about the singular meaning and message of his holy and perfect word whenever and wherever he speaks.

Any reputable Bible is God's holy word.  Perfect, inerrant in meaning and message, and should be read and applied.

Despite any copyist mistakes or words that change in meaning over time or words that could have been translated a whole lot better - God's message is flawless and perfect in every reputable Bible in every language on every continent.

The Bible is the Word of God. That’s where we find the words of God. And it’s purified to perfection. All translations differ from each other and all differ from the KJV and there are some minor differences and there are some major differences. Like Philippians 2:6 for example. 

[LadyKay]

5 hours ago, WBO said:

Yes I’m a King James Only Believer. And it’s very comforting and faith building when I realized that the Bible means exactly what it says. I’m glad I’m not smart enough to believe that the Bible has errors.

Well I am glad you are glad. I am glad that the King James makes you happy.  But I don't understand why you must bring this all up. I never see NIV Bible readers post that they are NIV only and that NIV is the one and only true translation.  So I don't understand why King James readers feel the need to do so. Well I guess I will just add that to my list of things I don't understand about people. 

[Wayne222]

I like the ESV myself. I use to use the KJ for many years. It's still great. But I enjoy the ESV more. I think the king james only are misled. James White did a good video on this. He really shows that you can use many different version and still have the word of God.

[Jayne]

3 hours ago, WBO said:

The Bible is the Word of God. That’s where we find the words of God. And it’s purified to perfection. All translations differ from each other and all differ from the KJV and there are some minor differences and there are some major differences. Like Philippians 2:6 for example. 

I don't wish to argue and I have to tell you that I like the King James.  I also like the ESV, NASB, and a handful more.

My question is this.  On what basis do you make the King James Bible the perfect standard.  It is like the others - a translation of......not even the originals.  But a translation of translations before it.  Just like the Geneva and Coverdale and other good Bibles before it.

What makes you believe that the King James is somehow God's standard?  And which King James are you speaking of - the 1611 or the 1789?  They are differences.

Edited December 12, 2019 by Jayne

[JustPassingThru]

@WBO   I really hate to rain on your parade, ...but there are many, many more countries in the world that do not speak English that those that do speak English, ...what do they do for a Bible?

 

I have 5 French versions of the Bible, ...here is a verse that is more "correct" in French than my KJV and the other English Bibles I have:

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.  Isa 8:20

A la loi et au témoignage! Si l'on ne parle pas ainsi, Il n'y aura point d'aurore pour le peuple.  Isa 8:20 LSG

The KJV translates the Hebrew word, shachar as light, ...when actually the word means "dawn." 

The French translates it as  aurore, ...which is that time of the night when the sun's rays just start to pierce the darkness, causing the rays to produce a light from the water molecules in the atmosphere to reflect a deep purple.

So which is "correct," does false teaching have any light in it as when we observe the "light" of dawn, ...or is false teaching as dark as the black night sky?

Lord bless

[WBO]

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

I don't wish to argue and I have to tell you that I like the King James.  I also like the ESV, NASB, and a handful more.

My question is this.  On what basis do you make the King James Bible the perfect standard.  It is like the others - a translation of......not even the originals.  But a translation of translations before it.  Just like the Geneva and Coverdale and other good Bibles before it.

What makes you believe that the King James is somehow God's standard?  And which King James are you speaking of - the 1611 or the 1789?  They are differences.

Hi Jayne. I’m very sorry for my manners. Bible study is everything to me and I get passionate about certain topics.

I came to my KJV only belief when I just had an experience of baptism of the Holy Ghost in July 2018. Been Christian since 2011 but this Holy Ghost experience was a new thing for me. In that period I bonded with my Bible and the words just seemed so powerful to me reading it in a plan simple KJV. I come from a church background where they exalted the Greek and Hebrew so much that I couldn’t really trust what the text plainly said. So I would always second guess my favorite verses and they would lose their power in my life. So in summary when I had the Holy Ghost experience I had gain faith that the KJV Bible was perfect and I didn’t need the confusion that was taught by my church and my Bible college. My joy overflowed when I realized that God means exactly what He says. I came to the conclusion that God is not out to confuse. And that led to me doing research and I did find other KJV only teachers that Defended the KJV in a way my Spirit couldn’t resist. God bless you