Refuting KJV Only Mythology

[Obadiah]

Ill ask you the same you ask of me. Is there any "denominations" that say their people can only use the KJV. What are those denominations?

I will be glad to, right after you answer my question, which so far you have not answered. Otherwise we are simply playing a game of answering questions with questions, and I don't care to do that.

 

[IwreckNsow]

me neither. Have a good night

 

[Obadiah]

me neither. Have a good night

Very well, you are the one who made the statement "...denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines" and when asked by more than one person to clarify which denominations these are to prove your point, you have refused to answer. When pressed, you only seem to throw up smoke screens by answering a direct question with more questions that do not clarify your statement, and by going off on tangents about specific word translations that have nothing to do with your statement that was questioned by at least two of us. This is typical of the tactics I have seen used by almost all KJV onlyists that I have spoken to when asked to defend their positions, and quite frankly, it proves to me that your statement had no basis at all.

 

[IwreckNsow]

Refuting KJV Only Mythology. Theres what this thread is all about. You have refuted nothing. You proved nothing. Its still ole King James, the best. Theres no refuting that

 

[IwreckNsow]

To prove that the interpreters of certain books were in a certain denomination would take more work than I would wish to put into this. But....I know

 

[Obadiah]

... You proved nothing. ...

Absolutley correct, I have proven nothing. That's because there was no burden on me to prove anything. You are the one that made a statement and were asked to substantiate it by at least two of us, and you failed to do so. Since you made the questionable statement the burden of proof is on you, not on me or anyone else.

 

[Obadiah]

To prove that the interpreters of certain books were in a certain denomination would take more work than I would wish to put into this. But....I know

Than perhaps you shouldn't make such inflammatory statements when you are not willing to put out the effort to back them up with any evidence or proof.

I personally like the KJV and use it much, by the way. I have nothing against it.

 

[evenifigoalone]

I can't speak for every church there is, but most of the churches I know of, and the one I attend, uses a variety of translations. At my church I have seen the NKJV, NIV, ESV, NLT, NASB, Message, and others preached out of. Before our pastor retired earlier this year (not long after I started attending), I believe he used the NKJV. I don't think my church has ever used the KJV in sermons, but they are definitely not anti-KJV. (In fact one of the church leaders mentioned preferring the KJV over the NIV.)

(Excuse me while I go put my kitten in time-out. He keeps trying to steal my sandwich and I've been batting him away again and again while trying to type.)

The debate over the KJV vs. modern versions is center mainly on the manuscripts used. The KJV, NKJV, and YLT (Young's Literal Translation) have a TR base, while the others are based on older, Alexandrian manuscripts. (At least as far as the New Testament is concerned. Old Testament is a bit of a different deal. Haven't done as much research on that.)
About which manuscripts are better I won't debate, but when I was researching this I thought it was pretty striking that the manuscripts agreed and backed each other up in the vast majority of places. Something between 95%-99%, and apparently most of the differences are so minor they make little difference.

There are thousands of Biblical manuscripts, and they are alike enough so that what we have today is 99% accurate to them. There are only about 700 or so manuscripts for Homer's Illiad and Odysee, yet the Biblical manuscripts have fewer differences between themselves than they do. That's pretty incredible proof for the credibility of the Bible and Christianity as a whole.

That's all I really have to say. I'm not here for a back-and-forth debate. It matters little to me if someone prefers the KJV or not. It's a good translation.

 

[WIP]

Catholics have their own, niv is used more by those who make void Gods law and the Ole King James is used by the legalist. These observations come from being on boards for 20 yrs or so

It doesn't seem that you have any proof to back up what your saying so at this point it's basically your personal opinion then?

 

[mondar]

I am one of those Ole king James only guys. To much truth is lost when denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines.

The first translation that comes to mind that are the product of a single denomination is the KJV itself. In 1611 it was the Church of England that produced the translation. Out of all the major translations (not counting non-translations such as the New World Translation), it is the only translation done by a single individual denomination.

 

[mondar]

KJV only advocates generally do not refer to manuscript evidence to support their opinions. Are there any exceptions? Are their any KJV only people that try to establish their argument by pointing to manuscript evidence? Do any actually get as detailed to compare the variants? Do any even understand these questions?

I once had a teacher who gave preference to the Byzantine readings to establish what he thought was in the autograph. But he would never have said he was "KJV only."

 

[evenifigoalone]

KJV only advocates generally do not refer to manuscript evidence to support their opinions. Are there any exceptions? Are their any KJV only people that try to establish their argument by pointing to manuscript evidence? Do any actually get as detailed to compare the variants? Do any even understand these questions?

I once had a teacher who gave preference to the Byzantine readings to establish what he thought was in the autograph. But he would never have said he was "KJV only."

I used to be KJV-only, and some of what I was taught regarding that did involve arguments about the manuscripts. I can think of at least two books in what was my dad's library (and there may be more) that at least touch on that subject, and then here and there I heard of references to the Alexandrian manuscripts being forged by some sort of cult and thus they are discredited in that way.
Although from the research I did on my own, I haven't found anything on that and I suspect there isn't much evidence to back it up. That, and when I went to take a good look the doctrines I had always been told had been missing from modern versions (as a result of being from corrupt manuscripts), they didn't appear to be missing after all.

 

[By Grace]

I am one of those Ole king James only guys. To much truth is lost when denominations translate their books so as to follow their doctrines.

Erroneously you assume that "denominations sponsor their own translations". If that were the case, we would have ,any editions of the X, or Y or Z Bible. We do not have anything remotely like that, excepting for three notable "translations" (and their notoriety comes from their obvious bias, and not the adherence to any translation principles), which are: Joseph Smith Translation, The New World Translation (JW bible) and the Clear Word paraphrase (Seventh Day Adventist) mangling of Scripture.

Since it is the KJVO churches, and others like the IFCA, GARBC etc who insist on the KJV Bible, to the exclusion of all other good and reliable translations, do you understand that your position may then in fact be then be unintentionally creating your own "denominational Bible"?

No I am not being argumentative here, but just pointing to the logical outcome of your own statement, which I quoted.

 

[By Grace]

Ok, as I suspected that was rather unproductive for me. Maybe I just totally missed your point.

I found two references for the phrase “moreover also”, Eze. 20:12 and Acts 2:26. I compared these two verses in 12 different versions and just don’t see any significant change to the meaning in any of them. If there is any difference, to me it is so subtle that it is completely irrelevant.

Once again, what does this have to do with your claim that denominations wrote their own versions of the Bible to fit their particular doctrines?

So we can be on target with the argument of the post,

IwreckNsow said: ↑

Do you have a way to do word searches from different bibles? Search "moreover also" in the ole king James. Youll find a truth. Search any other version and it will not be there

to which you replied

Ezekiel 20:12 in many versions:
12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be prolonged in the land that Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
DARBY

12 Honor thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long in the land which Jehovah thy God giveth thee.
ASV

12 honora patrem tuum et matrem tuam ut sis longevus super terram quam Dominus Deus tuus dabit tibi
VUL

12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
AV 1873

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
ESV

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
ESV OT Rev. Int.

12 “Respect your father and your mother, so that you may live a long time in the land that I am giving you.
GNT

12 Honor your father and your mother so that you may have a long life in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
HCSB

12 Honour thy father and thy mother:that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.

KJV

12 Honra a tu padre y a tu madre, para que tus días sean prolongados en la tierra que el Señor tu Dios te da.
LBLA95

12 Honor your father and mother so that you’ll live a long time in the land that God, your God, is giving you.
The Message

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you.
NET

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the landwhich the Lord your Godgives you.
NASB95

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
NASB

12 “Honor your father and your mother so that you will live a long time in the land that the Lord your God is going to give you.
NCV

12 “Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
NIrV

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
NIV

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.
NKJV

12 “Honor your father and mother. Then you will live a long, full life in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
NLT

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.
NRSV

12 “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land which the Lord your God gives you.
RSV

12 “Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the Lord your God is giving you.
TNIV

12 ‘Honour thy father and thy mother, so that thy days are prolonged on the ground which Jehovah thy God is giving to thee.
YLT


ACTS 2:26 in many versions

26 Therefore has my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted; yea more, my flesh also shall dwell in hope,
DARBY

26 Therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; Moreover my flesh also shall dwell in hope:
ASV

26 Therefore my heart rejoiced and my tongue exulted exceedingly; moreover, my flesh also will dwell in hope [will encamp, pitch its tent, and dwell in hope in anticipation of the resurrection].
Amplified New Testament

26 therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
AV 1873

26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh also will dwell in hope.
ESV

26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; my flesh shall also will dwell in hope.
ESV NT Rev. Int.

26 And so I am filled with gladness, and my words are full of joy. And I, mortal though I am, will rest assured in hope,
GNT

26 Therefore my heart was glad,and my tongue rejoiced. Moreover my flesh will rest in hope,
HCSB

26 That is why my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices, yes, even my body still rests securely in hope.
ISV

26 Therefore did my heart rejoice,and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
KJV

26 I’m glad from the inside out, ecstatic; I’ve pitched my tent in the land of hope.
The Message

26 Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; my body also will live in hope,
NET

26 ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue exulted; Moreover my flesh also will live in hope;
NASB95

26 ‘Therefore my heart was glad and my tongueexulted; Moreover my fleshalso will abide in hope;
NASB

26 So I am glad, and I rejoice. Even my body has hope,
NCV

26 So my heart is glad. Joy is on my tongue. My body also will be full of hope.
NIrV

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will live in hope,
NIV

26 Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad;Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope.
NKJV

26 No wonder my heart is glad, and my tongue shouts his praises! My body rests in hope.
NLT

26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope.
NRSV

26 therefore my hear twas glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will live in hope.
NRSV NT Rev. Int.

26 therefore my heart was glad, and my tongue rejoiced; moreover my flesh will dwell in hope.
RSV

26 Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest in hope,
TNIV

26 because of this was my heart cheered, and my tongue was glad, and yet—my flesh also shall rest on hope,
YLT

BACK TO YOU, IwreckNsow

Assuming that Obidiah was correct in his findings ( I do) I ask you to demonstrate both the differences in the KJV version, and once explaining that, please state the significance of those differences that you maintain are there.

Thank you