# Korean KJV Onlyists



## tellville (Aug 9, 2009)

So I just met some Korean KJV onlyists. They barely knew English. It was weird. That's all I have to say.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 9, 2009)

tellville said:


> So I just met some Korean KJV onlyists. They barely knew English. It was weird. That's all I have to say.



I have met Chinese KJV onlyists who had a very limited command of English. But they knew their Bible!!! They exclusively relied on the Lord Jesus only to teach them. I am no KJV-onlyist but the humility and simplicity of these precious brethren was a real eye-opener to me.


----------



## TimV (Aug 9, 2009)

> I have met Chinese KJV onlyists who had a very limited command of English. But they knew their Bible!!! They exclusively relied on the Lord Jesus only to teach them.



That would seem to be in contention for the Most Contradictory Statement of the year award ;-)


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 9, 2009)

Maybe they're referring to the great Kim Jong Version...


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 9, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I have met Chinese KJV onlyists who had a very limited command of English. But they knew their Bible!!! They exclusively relied on the Lord Jesus only to teach them.
> 
> 
> 
> That would seem to be in contention for the Most Contradictory Statement of the year award ;-)



How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations. 
Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries.........


----------



## Kiffin (Aug 9, 2009)

Yep this is nothing new. The KJVO hardcores are very aggressive in spreading their theology (or lack of...j/k). They have a huge influence in the Philippines.


----------



## TimV (Aug 9, 2009)

> The KJVO hardcores are very aggressive in spreading their theology (or lack of...j/k).



Exactly, except you're not joking. At least when their defenders can write things like:



> How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations.
> Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 9, 2009)

TimV said:


> > The KJVO hardcores are very aggressive in spreading their theology (or lack of...j/k).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I am not a KJV-onlyist. Rather I am a 1599 Geneva Bible onlyist(A Joke)
But seriously the TR on which the KJV NT is based is far superior to the CT on which the modern Translations base their NT. Why use a text in which hundreds of words are missing(the CT).
I have little formal schooling(not even High School). The first Bible I used before and after conversion was the KJV and I never had any problems with understanding the text. I found it easier to read, understand and memorize than the NIV. I followed Martin Luther's advice in his Table Talk in which he counseled one to pray to the Lord Jesus for illumination and understanding before approaching the Bible. This humble piece of advice from the Great Reformer who studied Ibn Ezra Torah Commentary! I say this because study of commentaries and books is extremely important. I would not have accumulated a 10,000 book Theological and Rabbinical collection, if I thought otherwise. But humility before God in the pursuit of wisdom is more important. This is something in which I have often failed in! Peace be upon you Brother.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 9, 2009)

James White is rather devastating against the KJVOnly movement. He is, in my opinion, less convincing in dealing with the arguments of people who appeal to the superiority of the Byzantine texts, shorn the unique (and more extreme) KJVOnly beliefs.

White delineates a range of views from "I Like the KJV Best" to "The Textual Argument" to the "Received Text Only" to the "The Inspired KJV Group" and finally "The KJV As New Revelation."

Views #4 and #5 ARE extreme in my opinion. But, treating people in the first two camps as one would those afflicted with Ruckmanism is a methodological error bordering on bearing false witness. Regardless of what one thinks of Hodges, Farstad, Pierpont, or Robinson they are NOT Peter Ruckman or Gail Ripplinger!


----------



## LawrenceU (Aug 9, 2009)

Very well put, Dennis.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 9, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> James White is rather devastating against the KJVOnly movement. He is, in my opinion, less convincing in dealing with the arguments of people who appeal to the superiority of the Byzantine texts, shorn the unique (and more extreme) KJVOnly beliefs.
> 
> White delineates a range of views from "I Like the KJV Best" to "The Textual Argument" to the "Received Text Only" to the "The Inspired KJV Group" and finally "The KJV As New Revelation."
> 
> Views #4 and #5 ARE extreme in my opinion. But, treating people in the first two camps as one would those afflicted with Ruckmanism is a methodological error bordering on bearing false witness. Regardless of what one thinks of Hodges, Farstad, Pierpont, or Robinson they are NOT Peter Ruckman or Gail Ripplinger!



I agree that views#4 and #5 are extreme and I do not often meet people spewing that nonsense; In my humble opinion the Received Text is the most accurate copy of the originals. Lots of Reformed scholars hold to this view as well. 
I do not believe that the KJV is the best translation out there. In my humble opinion, that distinction belongs to the 1599 Geneva Bible which I use almost exclusively. I find that the 1599 Geneva Bible is easier to read and understand than almost any translation out there.


----------



## toddpedlar (Aug 9, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> TimV said:
> 
> 
> > > The KJVO hardcores are very aggressive in spreading their theology (or lack of...j/k).
> ...



Criticism of the differences between the CT and the TR goes far deeper than a statement like this. If all we're going to do is talk about word count, one could just as well make the statement "Why use a text in which there are so many words added (the TR)?" 

By the way, I'm not saying anything one way or another about the preference for the TR vs. the CT.... I'm just making the point that it's much more complicated than a simple statement of word count because each side can make the simple (and inconclusive) argument in different directions.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 9, 2009)

toddpedlar said:


> VilnaGaon said:
> 
> 
> > TimV said:
> ...



The differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text are minuscule compared with the differences between these 2 texts and the Alexandrian Texts. Also the majority of NT manuscripts are Majority Text and Received Text. The only reason why the Critical Text prefers readings from the Alexandrian Manuscripts is that they are older. Age does not necessarily mean accuracy especially when the Alexandrian Manuscripts date to the time of the Christological Controversies when heretics had an interest in tampering with the texts.


----------



## TimV (Aug 9, 2009)

deleted by author


----------



## A.J. (Aug 9, 2009)

Kiffin said:


> Yep this is nothing new. The KJVO hardcores are very aggressive in spreading their theology (or lack of...j/k). They have a huge influence in the Philippines.





Very true. 

I am also disturbed by the rampant antinomianism in their circles.

-----Added 8/9/2009 at 10:09:32 EST-----



VilnaGaon said:


> How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations.
> Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries.........



Independent fundamental baptists (including KJV-only ones) in my country run schools which require their students to memorize verses from the KJV. So even if the students are not good in English, they gradually find themselves learning the Bible in KJV-English. As someone who speaks English as a second language, it's an extremely effective method in my opinion.


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 10, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> The differences between the Majority Text and the Received Text are minuscule compared with the differences between these 2 texts and the Alexandrian Texts. Also the majority of NT manuscripts are Majority Text and Received Text. The only reason why the Critical Text prefers readings from the Alexandrian Manuscripts is that they are older. Age does not necessarily mean accuracy especially when the Alexandrian Manuscripts date to the time of the Christological Controversies when heretics had an interest in tampering with the texts.



If we are talking about differences, aren't there something like 3,000 differences between the Aleph and Vaticanus, two leading Alexandrian texts which happen to be our oldest Alexandrian exemplars!

I am enough of a purist that I want the text closest to the original autographs. That is what got me reconsidering my CT bias in the first place. Some of the arguments on the PB in favor of the Byzantine textual tradition struck me as cogent enough to warrant deeper study. 

However, before we lop off too many heads from our "heretical" brethren for holding a different opinion on textual traditions from our own, it might be worth noting that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.


----------



## Hungus (Aug 10, 2009)

DMcFadden said:


> that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.



Quick question: given that the Masoretes did not exist until the 5th -11 century how did the early church have access to the Masoretic texts?

or do you simply hold to a different definition of early than I do? Talmudic texts existed previously, but they were eclectic and thus ostensible reason for the Masoretes to harmonize the text to what we know as the Masoretic texts.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2009)

It is scary that these doctrines were probably taught by American missionaries.

Why aren't these Korean and Chinese beleiver using Korean and Chinese bibles? Are they hymn-singing in English too? YIKES!


----------



## ewenlin (Aug 10, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> It is scary that these doctrines were probably taught by American missionaries.
> 
> Why aren't these Korean and Chinese beleiver using Korean and Chinese bibles? Are they hymn-singing in English too? YIKES!



Maybe someone with experience can shed some light on Korean or Chinese translation works...


----------



## DMcFadden (Aug 10, 2009)

Hungus said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > that the early church had both the MT and the LXX, treating both of them as the Word of God despite their wide differences.
> ...



Oops! Good catch. I was being sloppy in my expression. What I meant was that the "traditional Hebrew text that led to our MT" stood side-by-side with the Greek translation, representing a different textual tradition.


----------



## VilnaGaon (Aug 10, 2009)

For 1900 years the Church used the Majority Text and the Received Text for its NT. Then in the late 1800s these Alexandrian manuscripts surface, and we ignore 1900 years of Tradition(yes I used the ""bad word"" tradition)!!!
Unbelievers and scoffers mock at us Christians regarding our Translations, saying we can't even agree on a NT text and that the New Testament cannot be inspired because NT Texts have so many words missing between them. Orthodox Jews and Muslims say that all the time! The trouble is we Believers have bought into the lie of Moral Relativism which is the curse of our society, by believing that contradictory opinions can all be right. They can't. 1900 years of Church Tradition is right and the Alexandrian Manuscripts are corrupt, and should be ignored like the ""Gospel of Thomas"".


----------



## TimV (Aug 10, 2009)

> For 1900 years the Church used the Majority Text and the Received Text for its NT.



Jacob, there was no Received Text for 1500 years. It didn't exist. The the MT is even more recent. You really need to learn a bit about the subject matter before you become so passionate.




> The trouble is we Believers have bought into the lie of Moral Relativism which is the curse of our society, by believing that contradictory opinions can all be right.



The MT and RT contradict each other, Jacob, as you yourself pointed out in this very thread.



> They can't. 1900 years of Church Tradition is right and the Alexandrian Manuscripts are corrupt, and should be ignored like the ""Gospel of Thomas"".





> have little formal schooling(not even High School).



But that can be remedied through a thorough regimen of reading and study. Until then, when you call the Bibles most of us use, at least occasionally the equivalent of the Gospel of Thomas, and in the same breath use the type of reasoning that should embarrass any well read person regardless of a HS diploma, don't be surprised when the reaction is one of mild amusement or even pity.


----------



## christianhope (Aug 10, 2009)

Brother Tim,

You stated: 



> Jacob, there was no Received Text for 1500 years. It didn't exist. The the MT is even more recent. You really need to learn a bit about the subject matter before you become so passionate.



I have responded with evidence to the contrary from Robinson's famous introductory to the greek NT. Note, this is not dogma, this is fact from a well respected historical text scholar. The received text was embodied within the byzantine tradition, and was used as a 'received' text within the church during that time- although it did not yet have that name given to it. This is clearly evidenced by the lectionaries which were specifically formated for Lord's Day readings.

Quoted from reference below:
The "Byzantine" Textform (otherwise called the "Majority" or "Traditional Text") predominated throughout the greatest period of manual copying of Greek New Testament manuscripts -- a span of over 1000 years (ca. AD 350 to AD 1516). It was without question the dominant text used both liturgically and popularly by the Greek-speaking Christian community. Most Greek manuscripts in existence today reflect this Byzantine Textform, whether appearing in normal continuous-text style[9] or specially arranged in lectionary format for liturgical use. Of over 5000 total continuous-text and lectionary manuscripts, 90% or more contain a basically Byzantine Textform.[10]

Introduction to Robinson & Pierpont

Respectfully stated to a brother in Christ,

Josh


----------



## TimV (Aug 10, 2009)

> I have responded with evidence to the contrary from Robinson's famous introductory to the greek NT. Note, this is not dogma, this is fact from a well respected historical text scholar. The received text was embodied within the byzantine tradition, and was used as a 'received' text within the church during that time- although it did not yet have that name given to it. This is clearly evidenced by the lectionaries which were specifically formated for Lord's Day readings



Josh, we've been through this a thousand times here. It will start when I ask you to show an example of a text identical to the TR prior to 1510, and you won't be able to. Then you will respond by more cut and paste. Then will try to get you to admit that the TR is compiled of about a half dozen Greek manuscripts, *all of which contradict each other*, and you will reply with more cut and paste.

To save time, please tell me. If there are 200 Byzantine texts of Rev. 16:5, and every single one of them uses the phrase Holy One instead of the word Lord (as per the TR) would you be willing to change the TR on that verse to conform to the Byzantine reading?


----------



## christianhope (Aug 10, 2009)

TimV said:


> > I have responded with evidence to the contrary from Robinson's famous introductory to the greek NT. Note, this is not dogma, this is fact from a well respected historical text scholar. The received text was embodied within the byzantine tradition, and was used as a 'received' text within the church during that time- although it did not yet have that name given to it. This is clearly evidenced by the lectionaries which were specifically formated for Lord's Day readings
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well Tim, I don't know how many texts there are of Rev 16:5 so I cannot tell you that. Nor do I believe I'm qualified to make a subjective judgment over the Word of God based upon the information you have provided me with. 

My main point, was just to provide evidence for the TR within the byzantine tradition- which, in the best judgment of the reformers I am willing to trust I have the accurate Word of God. The eclectic position to my mind being completely untenable as I believe they overthrow the traditional reading which was used throughout church history within the Byzantine tradition. 

If what you say concerning the 200 byzantine readings we have today on Rev 16:5 contradict the TR- I would still say the TR is much better compared to all the other textual changes brought in by the eclectic method, which I see as destructive on a strategic scale to the church over a long period of time. 

Respectfully stated,


----------



## TimV (Aug 10, 2009)

> If what you say concerning the 200 byzantine readings we have today on Rev 16:5 contradict the TR- I would still say the TR is much better compared to all the other textual changes brought in by the eclectic method, which I see as destructive on a strategic scale to the church over a long period of time



Are you willing to answer? Would you be willing to change the TR if that were the case?


----------



## JM (Aug 10, 2009)

KJVO and the Pretrib rapture is apart of many missionary board statements so it's not all that shocking.


----------



## Marrow Man (Aug 10, 2009)

VilnaGaon said:


> How good a command of English does one need to understand King James English?? The KJV is actually easier to understand than many modern Translations.
> Plus when one comes across a difficult word there are these books called dictionaries



Yes, there is nothing like insisting that someone for whom English is not a first language read the Bible in antiquated Elizabethan English by claiming it is "easier to understand than many modern translations" and then pointing them to a dictionary when they come across a difficult word. Feel free to correct, but I would suspect that most (if not all!) translation dictionaries are designed to translate words using _modern _English and do not give definitions for 400 year old archaic words.

Perhaps someone should point them (or translate for them) the preface of the KJV where the translators themselves insist upon the need to offer a translation of the Bible in the common language of the reader.



> Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray thee," he was fain to make this answer, "I cannot, for it is sealed."


If they want to translate a Korean Bible from the TR, more power to them. But don't insist they use folks who can only speak "See Dick Run, See Jane Run" English need to read something beyond their reading level in order to read the word of God.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2009)

Missions must prioritize "heart language ministry" and missionaries must produce Gospel materials in whatever language is most dear to a people-group's heart (the language that they cuss, talk to their kids in, dream in, etc, so that they Gospel can truly penetrate). 


I highly doubt that old English is the heart language of Koreans. 


Someone ought to track down and expose these missionaries and whatever bone-headed mission board it is that is setting back the work of the Gospel among these people! They ought to be made a laughing stock due to their foolishness.


----------



## tellville (Aug 10, 2009)

Pergamum said:


> Missions must prioritize "heart language ministry" and missionaries must produce Gospel materials in whatever language is most dear to a people-group's heart (the language that they cuss, talk to their kids in, dream in, etc, so that they Gospel can truly penetrate).
> 
> 
> I highly doubt that old English is the heart language of Koreans.
> ...



I wonder if old English is the heart language of 21st century young adults and youth?


----------



## TimV (Aug 10, 2009)

Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.

I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus *and* W&H would have stayed out of the process.

This is just to let you know that I do think you have a point worth serious consideration.

Best
Tim


----------



## christianhope (Aug 10, 2009)

TimV said:


> > If what you say concerning the 200 byzantine readings we have today on Rev 16:5 contradict the TR- I would still say the TR is much better compared to all the other textual changes brought in by the eclectic method, which I see as destructive on a strategic scale to the church over a long period of time
> 
> 
> 
> Are you willing to answer? Would you be willing to change the TR if that were the case?



I'm still studying to answer Tim, I'm not sure what view I take regarding the TR as yet, whether is be wholly without error as Edward Hill apparently held, or what John Burgon held that it could use a few corrections.

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 09:32:41 EST-----



TimV said:


> Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.
> 
> I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus *and* W&H would have stayed out of the process.
> 
> ...



That's great Tim, of course I would agree with you on these points.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2009)

I do not believe that one must be ordained to be a translator. 

There are thousnads of languages out there that need translating. 

Non-ordained folks work in literacy, helping local peoples to read the Bible, I see no problem with allowing non-ordained to translate the Bible. 

The missions community as a whole would also disagree with you, you are in the vast minority on this position, Tim (but that is another thread..and already has been another thread).


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Aug 11, 2009)

TimV said:


> Josh, I don't want to come on as slamming you (although I do expect a clear, yes or no answer to my question as I would like to assume you have integrity) so I'll mention that I am on record here saying that I firmly believe anyone involved in translating the Bible should be an ordained Elder.
> 
> I have to believe this, since I, for the life of me, can't see how the gift and qualification of teaching God's people can NOT be a part of the translation process. So, I'd rather that people like Erasmus *and* W&H would have stayed out of the process.
> 
> ...



Tim

It is easy to posit questions that no one can answer about manuscripts that have not been examined. The vast majority of the extant Byzantine Manuscripts have not even been read through once let alone transcribed. You perennially try to build arguments from silence without a Scriptural presupposition.

I have asked you numerous questions on this board and you have ducked answering a single one! It does not give you much credibility in haranging new members on their failure to answer your supposed killer question of Rev 16:5. 

Try starting from a Scriptural presuppositional position and you may find some degree of certainty. I will pose you two questions and then allow you all the time in the world (which you clearly have in your copious unrelated postings). So, here goes:

*(1) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to all the perfect Words of God today?

(2) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to be certain today that there are 66 books in the New Testament Canon?*

Josh - I suggest you avoid answering his red herrings until he answers these foundational questions. It is a bit like arguing with an atheist who refuses to deal with the answering the objective source of his worldview but keeps talking about the supposed light years distance of the stars hoping that you will simply give in if repeated_ ad nauseum_.


----------



## Ron Henzel (Aug 11, 2009)

When I was in my second year of Bible college one of my floormates was a Korean named James Kang. He had a t-shirt that read, "Kang, James Version."


----------



## TimV (Aug 11, 2009)

> It is easy to posit questions that no one can answer about manuscripts that have not been examined. The vast majority of the extant Byzantine Manuscripts have not even been read through once let alone transcribed. You perennially try to build arguments from silence without a Scriptural presupposition.



"It must be out there, since my theory demands it". It's just another demand that one prove a negative, which is typical of conspiracy theories. We went through this with Tree vs. Book in Rev 22:19, with Rob getting a hold of a copy of Hoskier. So I'll call you on this. How many copies are there of Rev. chapter 16? Give me at least some idea. And where are those that have not been read through kept? You and I can personally contact those who have them and ask about the reading of that passage.



> I have asked you numerous questions on this board and you have ducked answering a single one! It does not give you much credibility in haranging new members on their failure to answer your supposed killer question of Rev 16:5.



The fact that you haven't been able to comprehend my answers, or disagree with them doesn't mean I've ducked.



> Try starting from a Scriptural presuppositional position and you may find some degree of certainty. I will pose you two questions and then allow you all the time in the world (which you clearly have in your copious unrelated postings). So, here goes:



7 kids and two businesses don't leave anyone with too much time. I may even get a PhD from an unaccredited online source some day ;-)



> (1) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to all the perfect Words of God today?



As I've tried to explain to you, Christ is our example in all things. 99% of scholars trained in accredited institutes of higher learning throughout the ages say that He quoted from two distinct and at times contradictory textual families. And the way that you and Steve counter that is to say the Septuagint is a titanic conspiracy theory. Actually you have to, otherwise your theory sinks like the HMS Hood, and with the same speed.



> (2) What Scriptural and historical presuppositional view do you have that guides a believer to be certain today that there are 66 books in the New Testament Canon?



Universal agreement from orthodox scholars. In other words, the exact opposite of what you do with the Septuagint. I don't have the arrogance to question that sort of witness.



> Josh - I suggest you avoid answering his red herrings until he answers these foundational questions. It is a bit like arguing with an atheist who refuses to deal with the answering the objective source of his worldview but keeps talking about the supposed light years distance of the stars hoping that you will simply give in if repeated ad nauseum.



Ranks gettin' a bit thin, Mr. F?


----------



## py3ak (Aug 11, 2009)

[Moderator]
*Gentlemen, if you cannot be courteous in replying to one another and overlook offences from the other side, then if you wish to continue the discussion you will have to do so in another venue.*
[/Moderator]


----------

