Ten Questions for KJV-only Supporters: But first, What KJV-onlyism: Basically, KJV-onlyism is the belief that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the true Bible. That is, that it is totally inerrant, totally infallible, and totally inspired - not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and that any deviation of the words, even minutely, constitues changing Gods word, as the text of the KJV is exactly how God intended the Scriptures. It equates the word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs, with the King James Version. A large part of the KJV-only position hinges on preservation. Supporters of KJV-onlyism say that God promised to preserve word-for-word the Scriptures, and that the KJV is the fulfillment of that promise. Unfortunately for both sides of the debate, we dont have ANY original manuscripts of the Scriptures, which would put an end one way or another to this whole debate. What we do have are copies and copies of copies, etc. The problem with the KJV-only position of preservation is that even the KJV differs from the Hebrew and Greek it was translated from, thus where are the word-for-word preserved Scriptures prior to 1611? Also, even if you believe God promised to preserve the Scriptures word-for-word, there is no mention in the Bible about this promise being fulfilled 1600 years after Christ, and then only in English, and only in one translation. Basically, the common beliefs that define KJV-only are: - the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV. - the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV. - the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing Gods word (and thus no other English translations are the word of God) - God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries. - the idea that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates. There is a range of KJV-onlyism. The following beliefs are held by SOME, not all KJV-only supporters, but youll run into these beliefs before long if you get into the issue in any detail: - the idea that all other translations are inspired by Satan. - the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have ulterior motives - the idea that Christians who use other versions are spiritual cripples at best, and destined for Hell at worst. - the idea that where the KJV differs from the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated, the English is an improvement over the Greek and Hebrew. - the idea that English is the language God chose to give us Scripture in, and if anyone on Earth wants inerrant Scripture, they must learn English so they can use the KJV. - the idea that we no longer need the Greek and Hebrew. - the idea that the KJV translators were super-human (i.e. much more qualified than any translators before or after them). - the idea that the KJV translators were under divine inspiration when translating, but totally out to lunch when they wrote the preface, marginal notes, and cross-references - the idea that someone who doesnt agree with them about the status of the KJV is automatically a heretic or an apostate, and is certainly unteachable. Those views are not held by all KJV-only supporters, but they are quite common in the KJV-only side of the debate. What KJV-onlyism Isnt: KJV-onlyism is not simply a preference for the KJV. Many people, myself included, use and love the KJV without being KJV-only. Nor is KJV-onlyism the belief that the KJV is simply superior to all other translations but still has problems. * PLEASE NOTE: Some people that support the KJV because they believe its underlying text base is the closest to the originals. People that believe this are not KJV-only - they can be described as KJV-preferred. They are people who simply prefer the KJV over all other versions, while agreeing that the ideas of the translation itself being inerrant, infallible, exclusively the word of God, etc., are not justified. 1) Is/was the Latin Vulgate the word of God? Why or why not? (Note: the Latin Vulgate was the standard Bible, by which all else was compared, more universally and for a longer period of time than the KJV has been) 2) Is/was the Septuagint (LXX) the word of God? Why or why not? (Note: despite its obvious imperfections and inclusion of apocryphal books, the KJV translators still called it the word of God) 3) Is/was the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, Matthews, Tyndales, etc. the word of God? Why or why not? 4) Which edition (year) of the KJV is uncorrupted? Why do they differ, even occasionally in words? (And if your response has to do with printing problems, why would God inspire a perfect translation only to have it corrupted by the printers? The common people would still be lacking an uncorrupt word of God. And how can we know the printing errors were all found, and all properly fixed?) 5) Who publishes the uncorrupted KJV? Cambride, Oxford, Kirkbride, Scofield, AMG, Zondervan, one of the Bible Societies, or one of the many other publishers? Why do they differ slightly, even occasionally in words? 6) If passages like Psalm 12:6-7 and Matt 5:18 are about the KJV, what did these passages mean in 1610? In 1500? In 500 AD? Do these things, in the original context, have anything to do with a 17th century English translation of scripture? 7) When you encounter an archaic term or phrase in the KJV, or come across a contradiction, why do you rely on fallible tools (dictionaries, etc) to interpret the infallible? 8) Suppose you lived in the 10th or 15th century. How would you define preservation as it related to Gods word, so as to not contradict the KJV-only position? 9) The KJV came out in 1611. Where was the final authority, the preserved word of God in 1610 and prior? Why does the KJV differ from it, and how was it final if the KJV replaced it? Explain. 10) If scripture is the sole authority for matters of faith and doctrine, then by what authority should anyone accept the doctrine of KJV-onlyism? Since scripture does not teach the doctrine of KJV-onlyism, is it not then an extra-Biblical doctrine? Why should we accept a doctrine needing a second authority, proclaimed by those who argue that there is only one authority for matters of doctrine in the first place?
Posted on: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 02:52:36 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015