Is the KJVO myth Scriptural ?

robycop3

Active member
I carefully re-read Will Kinney's article, "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?", and, while he SAYS it is, he FAILS TO PROVIDE ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS IT IS ! ! !

Instead, he posts several verses that are found in every other valid English Bible translation, & includes the disproven "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" as well. (The AV 1611 itself proves that "thingie" wrong with its footnote for the 2nd "them" in V7 - "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.")

He refuses to acknowledge any of the KJV's goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, the ADDITION of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, or the OMISSION of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.(Remember, both addition and omission of any of God's word is as sin !)

Mr. Kinney cannot answer the "no Scriptural support" fact, so he tries to reverse the fact by saying that no other version is mentioned either. However, he ignores the FACT that, by not limiting Himself to any one translation in any language, God allows men to make new Bible translations as He wills. As Master of all language, God knows languages change over time, by His will, and thus, new translations of His word are needed. He originally caused His word to be written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek because those were the languages used by His chosen penmen, and by His intended readership at that time. When God's time came to spread Christianity beyond the Jews & those peoples whom they lived among, God caused His word to be translated into other languages. Now, it's translated into some 2500 languages & dialects, even into some which have no written forms.

The TRUTH is, GOD IS NOT LIMITED in English, or any other language, to just one translation ! While some languages have only one translation, that's because they're recent ones, & that particular language isn't changing much. Mr. Kinney is simply COMPLETELY WRONG! But his obsession with the KJV & the KJVO myth won't let him see the truth.

The answer to the article's title question is a resounding "NO !"
 

Sherman

Active member
I also found in the King James a copyist mistake when reading Chronicles.

2 Kings 8: 25-26
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.


It's important to note that his father Johoram lived for forty years before dying of 'sore diseases'. This make the copyist mistake stick out.

2 Chronicles 22:1-2
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
I also found in the King James a copyist mistake when reading Chronicles.

2 Kings 8: 25-26
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.


It's important to note that his father Johoram lived for forty years before dying of 'sore diseases'. This make the copyist mistake stick out.

2 Chronicles 22:1-2
And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

The LXX doesn't make this mistake. The issue is with the stream of Hebrew documents reproduced in the MT.
 

UncleAbee

Member
I carefully re-read Will Kinney's article, "Is King James Onlyism Scriptural?", and, while he SAYS it is, he FAILS TO PROVIDE ONE QUARK OF SCRIPTURE THAT SAYS IT IS ! ! !

Instead, he posts several verses that are found in every other valid English Bible translation, & includes the disproven "Psalm 12:6-7 thingie" as well. (The AV 1611 itself proves that "thingie" wrong with its footnote for the 2nd "them" in V7 - "Heb. him, I. Euery one of them.")

He refuses to acknowledge any of the KJV's goofs & booboos, such as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, "Thou shalt not KILL" in Ex. 20:13, the ADDITION of "and shalt be" in Rev. 16:5, or the OMISSION of "through our Lord Jesus Christ" in Jude 25.(Remember, both addition and omission of any of God's word is as sin !)

Mr. Kinney cannot answer the "no Scriptural support" fact, so he tries to reverse the fact by saying that no other version is mentioned either. However, he ignores the FACT that, by not limiting Himself to any one translation in any language, God allows men to make new Bible translations as He wills. As Master of all language, God knows languages change over time, by His will, and thus, new translations of His word are needed. He originally caused His word to be written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, & Koine Greek because those were the languages used by His chosen penmen, and by His intended readership at that time. When God's time came to spread Christianity beyond the Jews & those peoples whom they lived among, God caused His word to be translated into other languages. Now, it's translated into some 2500 languages & dialects, even into some which have no written forms.

The TRUTH is, GOD IS NOT LIMITED in English, or any other language, to just one translation ! While some languages have only one translation, that's because they're recent ones, & that particular language isn't changing much. Mr. Kinney is simply COMPLETELY WRONG! But his obsession with the KJV & the KJVO myth won't let him see the truth.

The answer to the article's title question is a resounding "NO !"
Hello Robycop3. I agree with the "no" answer you give. I agree for two reasons. Jesus and his followers spoke Aramaic and the original scriptures were written in Greek. The KJV is just another translation of many.
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
The King James Bible is one of the worst bibles in modern English history. There are much better choices than the KJV. The KJV is a product of the murderous despot monarchy of England. A perversion of what God gave full of mistakes that have produced countless men just like king James. Men that seek to enslave, conquer and oppress God's children.
 

CES1951

Member
The King James Bible is one of the worst bibles in modern English history. There are much better choices than the KJV. The KJV is a product of the murderous despot monarchy of England. A perversion of what God gave full of mistakes that have produced countless men just like king James. Men that seek to enslave, conquer and oppress God's children.
(bolding mine)

But.........I thought the KJV wasn't bashed or demeaned on this forum, just KJVOnlyism? Guess I was wrong. Time for me to leave this mess.
 

praise_yeshua

Active member
(bolding mine)

But.........I thought the KJV wasn't bashed or demeaned on this forum, just KJVOnlyism? Guess I was wrong. Time for me to leave this mess.
Hi TMJ. The KJV is the one of the worst English translations there is. You believe the same things about some rather good modern translations.

What's the difference?

There isn't a modern bible you bash that teaches that king james was your ruler. Your King James does just that.
 

CES1951

Member
Hi TMJ. The KJV is the one of the worst English translations there is. You believe the same things about some rather good modern translations.

What's the difference?

There isn't a modern bible you bash that teaches that king james was your ruler. Your King James does just that.
Not sure what or who TMJ is, but perhaps you've confused me with someone else. You haven't seen me bash any modern versions. I posted one comment about this topic, and don't understand your accusations against me....my post:


Why I use the KJV, while allowing anyone else to use whatever version they want.........................I PREFER the KJV. Why? A lifetime of memorizing and using it. Simple as that. Modern versions (most of them anyway) have the same doctrines as the KJV, but, since I have memorized the KJV for so long, they don't "sound like" Scripture to me. I would imagine a younger Christian, who started with an NIV, NASB, ESV, or any other Bible, would find the KJV "awkward". It's a personal choice. I just wish people would quit arguing about it....yes....I said arguing. Reading this thread, and countless others on the internet, there is a lot of un-Christlike posts about the whole topic. That saddens me. After all these years, I've learned one thing. If you're a KJVO person, you're gonna remain a KJVO person, if you're against KJVOism, you're gonna remain against KJVOism. Brothers and sisters in Christ, there are far more important things to be concerned with than bickering over which Bible version someone believes is better than the others. God bless!
My church uses the ESV to preach from, the majority of members use the NKJV, because until a year or so ago, the pastor preached from that. He only recently switched to the ESV. My S/S class members vary from the NIV, NKJV, KJV, ESV, and several others.
Just wanted to make that clear before I leave.
 
Last edited:

praise_yeshua

Active member
Not sure what or who TMJ is, but perhaps you've confused me with someone else. You haven't seen me bash any modern versions. I posted one comment about this topic, and don't understand your accusations against me....my post:
Okay.

Just wanted to make that clear before I leave.

I did the same. I remember the KJV better than most any other version because I've used it the most. So have most anyone else that is my age or older. That is what we used because those before us used it.

That doesn't mean it is the best or that others should do what we did.

In the TR tradition, the Geneva Bible is far superior to any other TR edition. Especially the updated 1599 to modern English. It the English Bible of the Reformation. It was produced by men that didn't have an agenda nor demand to please the king of England.
 

robycop3

Active member
Hmmmm... I see no KJVO has stepped up to the plate & tried to defend the KJVO myth against the ace of trumps - no Scriptural support - that renders that myth automatically false.
 

Shoonra

New member
Nehemiah 8:8 gives Scriptural support for contemporary translations into the language currently used and understood.
 
Top