Question - "Why should we accept modern Bible translations that follow Westcott and Hort's manuscripts, especially in verses like 1 Corinthians 13:3, when KJV Onlyists claim these scholars are heretics whose work is unreliable?" The criticism of modern Bible translations and their alleged reliance on the work of Westcott and Hort especially by those in the KJV Onlyist camp often stems from a misunderstanding of textual criticism and a flawed logical framework. It is essential to evaluate these translations based on scholarly rigor, historical evidence, and the broader context of biblical scholarship, rather than on ad hominem attacks or conspiracy theories. In light of 1 Cor. 13:3, consider the following arguments: 1.) The major errors and logical fallacies associated with the KJV Only position, particularly concerning Wescott and Hort, are as follows: a.) The major error of KJV Onlyists is their insistence that scholars and textual critics today completely and … [Read more...]
Does Psalms 12:6 refer to the King James Version ?
DOES PSALM 12:6 refer to the KJV version ? "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6) - As Christians we are suppose to study, rightly dividing the Word of Truth. I am sorry to say that the KJV only camp does is one of the worst exegesis of this verse .... in some sense I am no surprised as a lot of people in the KJV only camp are fond of eigesis instead of doing proper exegises (May God forgive them for mishandling His Words, adding to what His Words really mean .... for they know not what they do .... or do they ?) Arguments that Psalm 12:6 does not apply to the KJV are as follows: ARGUMENT #1 - This is a completely wrong interpretation of the verse. Frankly speaking I am ashamed to call myself of pastor if this is the way I interpret the verse. Such interpretation of the said verse that it refers to the KJV is one of the many lies, illogical fallacies and serious misinterpretation of Scripture that the KJV … [Read more...]
Response to KJV Only arguments on Proverbs 30:28
Here once again is another response to a non-sensical, illogical argument made by KJV onlyist that only the KJV got the translation right in Proverbs 30:28. "empirical evidence" ? What evidence is he talking about ? hmmmm…. Dealing with this kind of twisted logic is such a waste of time, but I won’t let this get away so that everybody may know how the KJV Only camp employs twisted kind of logic such as this just to prove something. Let this be a showcase of KJV Onlyisms sick logic. The argument of the above meme can be presented syllogistically as follows: Argument 1: Premise 1: There are 1 million spiders per acre of land on earth Premise 2: 100% of homes in North Carolina has spiders in them Conclusion : It is easy for Kings to have a lizard free palace, but not so for spiders as EVERYBODY HAS HOUSE SPIDERS. Not everybody has house lizards. Argument 2: Premise 1: Everybody has house spiders Premise 2: Not everybody has house lizards Conclusion: The King … [Read more...]
Response to KJV onlyist arguments on Proverbs 18:18
In my usual interaction with KJV onlyist online, I saw this (once again very annoying and misinformed) meme alleging that the New King James Version is a defective translation as opposed to the King James Version. The problem issue is actually with the Hebrew word “laham” (לָהַם)This Hebrew word could either mean to burn in, ranke – wound or could mean swallow greedily, swallowed, dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty morsels. As in any word with multiple meanings, context is therefore the key to drawing out the right meaning of this word in this particular context. The verse says “Prov. 18:8 The words of a talebearer are like ___________, And they go down into the inmost body.” Now which would make sense ? Wounds going down into the inmost body or dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty morsels ? Take note that whatever is likened to is likened to the “words of the talebearer.” Obviously, dainties, delicacies, choice morsels, dainty … [Read more...]
Response to KJV onlyist arguments on Acts 8:37
Here’s another refuting the false logic and unscriptural position of KJV Onlyist. This time the text in question is Acts 8:37. Here is the false and illogical accusation of a KJV Onlyists on this particular text: “Acts 8:37 – Unbeliever’s Baptism And Philip said, If you believe with all your heart, you may. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. (KJV) Omitted. (ESV and other Vaticanus-based versions) The KJV refutes infant baptism. It is omitted or bracketed as spurious by the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and modern translations, thereby providing support for baptizing people who have not believed, such as infants and the dead. Phillip said baptism was contingent on saving faith when the Ethiopian eunuch asked if he could be baptized immediately: And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? (Acts 8:36) Baptizing adults who professed faith in Christ … [Read more...]