The Major Errors of KJV-Only
Someone signing as Morgan Sorensen just left a comment on my old post (11/28/2006), and I want to promote it to its own post, because it demonstrates the core errors of the KJV-Only position in a very small space.
I’m printing the entire comment but I’m interspersing it with comments on the core errors that are displayed.
Henry Neufeld, You are the one, in error here . These two verses do NOT say the same thing, unless you have graduated from “Dumbness school”.
In what way do they not say the same thing? Surely since you believe that in order not to see it I must have graduated from “dumbness school” you can provide details.
Furthermore, two important factors from the scriptures hang you , and James White out, as the deceivers that you are.
One, is the first pillar, (of two) on the doctrine of scripture. That the Word of God came not by the WILL of MAN. Therefore, any changes to this Word of God, by the WILL of Man, must result in “sriritual blood poison”.
Here’s the key KJV-Only error. They assume that the KJV is the one and only word of God, thus any changes from it become errors because you can’t change the word of God. But the word of God is not limited to one translation, and it didn’t come into existence in 1611. By this standard, the KJV is “spiritual blood poison” because of the alterations it makes from the source Greek and Hebrew texts.
Of course that isn’t the case, because they, like other Bible translators, were simply working with what they had, and they did a pretty good job. Their translation shouldn’t replace the source texts. How could it? But it was very good for its time.
Secondly, the Word of God is; “Forever settled in Heaven”, it is”pure”, it is by Jesus’s own explanation, the “Lifeblood” of the Christian. Jesus said; “My Words are life unto you”.
In Leviticus 17, we read that the LIFE is in the blood. You fellas are tampering with that “life”, and inserting the tincture of “scholastic arsenic” into that “God given Pure bloodstream” of the traditional text, and presenting the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure, when you ought to know, it is not.
Now she also assumes that the “traditional text,” a rather ephemeral object is equal to the “word of God. Which is it? Is the KJV the word that cannot be changed, or is it the “traditional text?” And what represents the traditional text? The textus receptus, the majority text, or some reconstruction of the Greek text used by the KJV translators?
Considering some of the completely unique readings in the latter chapters of Revelation, again, the KJV might well be accused of adding this “spiritual arsenic.” Of course, no such thing is true. They did the best they could with what they had–and it was an excellent job. The translators themselves would be horrified at the type of arguments KJV-Only advocates use in supposed support of their work. With friends like these . . .
Further, who presents “the corrupted Alexandrian mss. as pure”? I’m an advocate of an eclectic text, and don’t regard any hand copied manuscript as “pure” in this sense. All are subject to error, and all disagree with one another in some way. If the scriptures are corrupt, that corruption was introduced pretty early.
Your stupid mis-caricature of Mrs. Riplinger, shows both you and James White’s cowardice and un-gentlemanly behaviour.
Anyone who speaks the way she does about others has no grounds to complain about how she is treated. She has slandered many men of God and her book contains an overwhelming number of errors.
Not that I in any way need to defend Mrs. Riplinger, as both you and James white, could not scholastically measure up to her ankles. You both stand exposed for your lies and deception.
I eagerly await the first time that you expose my lies and deception. All you did in this comment was assert that I was a liar. Try again.
Forget the errors, what, in the world, is going on, with that comma, usage???
“Henry Neufeld, You are the one, in error here”
What, does that, second one, mean??
That’s a tough one. But the problem with KJV-Only writings is generally so many errors, so little time.
It’s, that, bad.
That’s almost as annoying as using parenthesis all the time (although I do this often myself). Or even worse forgetting to close them (which is especially annoying.
Jeff
Wow.
You did an incredible job replying back, considering the amount of vitriol and ad hominem attacks. I probably would have said, “Oh yeah, well… you’re stupid. You probably graduated from dumbness school, too. Or something.” and then promply stuck out my tongue.
and by that I mean “promptly.”
Yeah. Guess I was valedictorian there 😉
Henry, growing up KJVO and then entering KJVO academia (ha!) I have come to expect nothing less than the vitriol that your commentator used. They will continue to use unbiblical behavior when defending their idol (yes, idol). They follow ‘scholar’, such as Gail and Gipp, etc… who have been proven to lead less than holy lives while using less than honest scholarship. I enjoyed your response.
BTW, I am no longer KJVO, have been shown the error of my ways.
Out of curious nature only,being a minor academic in the study of Gods word,but sincerely wanting truth only,do you believe to be a better translation than the KJV.I’m not even sure if this is an appropriate question,because I know little about your website and your goals.Do you have empirical evidence that there is a better translation?Or is this just a hobby or witch-hunting?Sincerely curious.Thank you.
In Christ,Scotty
Scott-I’m not sure precisely what your question is, as I have pointed out what I believe are logical difficulties with the KJV-Only position already. Yes, I have empirical evidence, in that I can read both Hebrew and Greek and can check for myself, as well as consult substantial references for the source languages.
But if I get the direction your going, I think you’re asking for a particular translation that I would advocate and claim was better than the KJV. In answer to that I would simply say that one of my main objections to KJV-Only is that no translation can be independently authoritative. Thus I would never argue that some newer translation should be the one and only translation either.
I think the vast majority of modern translations are better than the KJV for modern audiences simply because they know the language, whereas despite constant claims I hear to the contrary, many modern speakers of English don’t understand the KJV.
Henry Nuefeld, You claim to know Hebrew and Greek, but you seem to struggle with English, if you cannot tell the difference of the KJV, and the NASB in the passage of Isa.26:3
NASB;
“The steadfastness of mind you will keep in perfect peace, because he trusts in you”
KJV;
“Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on thee: Because he trusteth in thee”
The words “because he trusts in you” in the NASB, has no meaning, because there is no first premise laid in the text that referrences God as the object of steadfastness.
Faith must have an object. I submit yo you , that if it was not for the fact that the KJV clearly identifies the object of faith that this person has his mind stayed on, (which someone can crossreferrence) this verse in the NASB, would make no sense at all.
The KJV emphasizes correctly according to the masoretic Hebrew text, that the reason for God keeping this person in “perfect peace”, is because this person has stayed his mind on God, the only entity that can give one perfect peace.
Just having or posessing a steadfast mind, does not mean the same as having ones mind stayed on God.
Having a steadfast mind, is a self actuated natural act, that can even be motivated by stubborness. And the added “for he trusts in you” has no merrit to the first premise of a steadfast mind.
On the other hand, the first premise in the KJV, of the act of faith by having ones mind stayed on God, (the object of faith)
is in total harmony with the God of the scriptures, which declare that “without faith, it is impossible to please God”.
If you think I am incorrect, then take this passage in both Bibles to an English professor at you local University, and after you have been corrected, sign up for English classes.
You obviously did not understand anything I said about the two pillars of the doctrine of scripture.
I am not interrested in interacting with you, just happened upon this site, and thought I needed to clarify.
Morgan Sorensen
Morgan Sorensen – Obviously you don’t want to “interact,” even though you comment, because your assertions will not stand examination.
I have quite clearly understood what you said, despite your incredibly poor writing. The problem is that you are wrong.
All elements of the thought are there in both versions. If you don’t see that, it’s not an English professor you need to see, but a primary school reading teacher.