Great Discussion on the King James Version Only Myth

CD-Host has started a conversation with a well known KJVO defender, Will Kinney. Mr. Kinney has, for years, lurked on various Yahoo Groups and other message boards defending the KJV as the only inspired word of God. I once learned from Will, but due to his refusal to answer questions by a bible believer, my eyes began to be open. When I challenged Sam Gipp’s assertions on the Deuterocanon, I was essentially banned from his group. It is in large part due to Will’s lack of answers and his very unChristian like manner (which you can partially see in the above conversation) that my eyes were opened to the myth of King James Version Onlyism. His promotion of name calling, of bible burning, of tactics that destroy people’s faith shows the vileness of this doctrine.

You may also want to check out this message on the Versions group.

You Might Also Like

98 Replies to “Great Discussion on the King James Version Only Myth”

  1. I know Will Kinney. I have read much of what he has written. I have never known him to have committed any of the crimes you have described in this character assassination. Are your words Christian in tone? I should say not.

    Will does not lurk. He is clear as to his identity whenever he writes.

    You said: “It is in large part due to Will’s lack of answers and his very unChristian like manner (which you can partially see in the above conversation) that my eyes were opened to the myth of King James Version Onlyism. His promotion of name calling, of bible burning, of tactics that destroy people’s faith shows the vileness of this doctrine.”

    I read the posts that included Will’s answers. None of what you stated is there. Will is not “unChristian” in any of his responses. He answered all the questions completely and thoroughly, and never once attacked the character of the interviewer. I saw no reference to Bible burning, and certainly there were no tactics to destroy peoples faith.

    You, sir, have lied about Will Kinney. You have attacked his character. You owe him a public apology. You need to repent.

    Joe

  2. Again, I have found no intended insults coming from Will Kinney. I have not read of any character assassinations by him. You on the other hand are assassinating his character. I looked at the article concerning Steven L. Anderson. I did not find Will Kinney mentioned.

    OK then, don’t apologize. I am not your judge. It was just a suggestion from one man who also reads Will Kinney’s well written discussions.

    Maybe you can provide a quotation from Will that demonstrates the poor character you describe. Perhaps you would also be so kind as to give a web address and article or blog comment that would substantiate the quotation so that the context of this statement may also be reviewed.

    Thanks,

    Joe

  3. “Maybe you can provide a quotation from Will that demonstrates the poor character you describe. Perhaps you would also be so kind as to give a web address and article or blog comment that would substantiate the quotation so that the context of this statement may also be reviewed.”
    Joe

  4. It is your burden to prove your point about Will Kinney. It is your choice not to do so and thus destroy your testimony.
    I have no idea what “Versions group” is. A simple reply to my request would suffice.
    Go ahead and continue to “hate” those who appreciate the KJV Bible. I cannot change your mind. Philippians 2:13 “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure. ”
    I find it difficult to believe that your character assassination of Will Kinney, a brother in Christ, is God’s “good pleasure.”
    Do then what you will.
    Joe

  5. More of the same jargon without proof. This is only the ninth comment here, my fifth. What did you mean by “9 times?”  I have found no link, unless you mean the “versions” link, which has no Will Kinney responses. It has, along with this article, ” When is ti okay to deface bibles?”
    I think it is perfectly useless to continue conversing with you.
    Goodbye

  6. Dear Brother In Christ,
    I would like for you to take some time and read the words of Steve Rafalsky found on these site addresses.
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/responding-james-white-aomin-44382/
    http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/answering-alan-kurschner-aomin-24839/
    Next, because of Steve Rafalsky’s rebuke of others, I apologize to you for any unkindness you have found in my rebuke. We are Brothers in Christ, so far as I may determine. Because we are brothers, I must demonstrate to you the very best manners in any of my responses as God has given me instruction in my heart. Though Steve’s articles deal with the KJV issue, it is not particularly this issue with which I am most concerned. The issue of what is in my heart is most important.
    Those who read our words should recognize our love for one another as two people who are walking with our Lord Jesus.
    I think we both also should respect Mr. Will Kinney as well, at least for his scholarship, which I understand (and admire) to be “self gained.” Of course our Lord has caused him to become so much more informed than I concerning Bible translations.
    However, as Steve Rafalsky has clearly stated, our arguments concerning Bible versions may well serve to destroy the faith of other brothers and sisters, especially if we argue that we have no firm and inerrant Biblical version. I believe this also to be Will Kinney’s desire in his sharing of his faith and scholarship, that is, to support the faith of believers reading by encouraging the idea of a “perfect” and trustworthy version of the bible. We both need to admit that the multitude of modern versions, based almost entirely on modern textual theories that more often rely upon the processes of man and somewhat disregard faith, have not improved our faith. (Please accept this with the tone as being gentle and not accusatory.)
    Because we also walk in this world, especially if we are following the daily political scene, we have soiled our feet with the world’s rhetoric and with its ugliness toward our fellow citizens. This is not to exist in the Kingdom in which we have become citizens, that is, Christ’s Kingdom.
    So in the spirit of being a good example to those who may read our words, I do repent of hard heartedness toward you or anyone that may be offended by my former words on this blog.
    Steve Rafalsky has been a very good example to me.
    LICJ,
    Joe

  7. Hi Joel Watts, a.k.a. Polycarp.  Here is the link to the KJB discussion you initially were talking about. I was invited by CD Host to present the defense of the KJB position.  After posting, it was then that you came along and we had some discussion together.  You kept saying that you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but when I kept asking you to tell us where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible you SAY you believe in, you completely avoided the issue and would not answer this simple question.
    Here is the link and anyone can take a look at what both you and I said.
    http://church-discipline.blogspot.com/2009/08/king-james-onlyism-interview-concluding.html
    I do call people like you “Bible agnostics” because that is exactly what you are.  You do not know where to find the complete, inspired, preserved and 100% true Bible in any language, simply because you do not believe that such a thing exists.
     
    If I am wrong on this, then all you have to do is to tell us where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible you claim to believe in, so we can compare it to what we are using now to see the similarities and differences.  But you will not do this, will you.  Therefore you are a bible agnostic and not a Bible believer.  You believe selected parts of your various versions, but all of none.
     
    I do not recall calling someone stupid, but I do recall making a reference to those few Christians you run into once in awhile (Robycop, Ed 1611, and others) who try to claim that any 5 or 6 “reliable versions” that contradict each other hundreds of times both textually and in meaning are “all the inspired and infallible words of God”.  I said that when such ridiculous statements are made by professing believers, then it is small wonder that the watching world considers Christians to be idiots.
     
    Joel, you are just a tad bitter because you got backed into a corner of not being able to identify this imaginary bible you say you believe is the complete and 100% true words of God.
    Will Kinney

  8. Dear Brother in Christ (Joel Watts),
     
    I did not rebuke you in my last response.
     
    In the Name of Christ, why do think such evil thoughts concerning me, especially in view of my response. What did I write to incur such wrath? Because I believe Will Kinney to be a Brother in Christ? Because I do admire his scholarship? Because I trat you and he with respect, as ones who also walk with Christ?
     
    Why do you berate me so? Do you not know that we are accountable to God for these words of ours?
     
    Which shall I do?
     
    LICJ,
     
    Joe

  9. Joel Watts,
    You misrepresent me. Any astute reader can see my above comments and know that you have jumped to conclusions. You do not know with whom you are conversing.
    Am I a fool? You have called me that.
    Am I blind? You have written so.
    Am I hate-filled? So you have accused me.
    Am I an unbeliever? You have suggested this by insinuating that I need to call on Christ to help me in my unbelief.
    Did I ask Will Kinney to “help” me? You have conjectured this also.
    Have I placed such an emphasis on the KJV? You have also conjectured this.
    Let your readers decide as you rail on against followers of Jesus Christ. I will not respond in kind.
    I do wish you would read the words of Mr. Rafalsky. His sound advice to another writer was:
    “______, if you know yourself to be a wretched sinner saved by the undeserved favor of the Lord, why can you not show the same graciousness to those who differ with you, or even insult you? I do not see the Spirit of Christ in your dealings with _________ or _____, but rather that of those who opposed the Lord in His earthly sojourn. We are not to rail against others (1 Cor 5:11), but “be gentle unto all men” (2 Tim 2:24).”
     

  10. The true Polycarp said to the crowd in response to a request to repent and say, “Away with the atheists,” he turned to the crowd and said, “Away with the atheists.” I will answer you clearly: I do not buy into the KJVO myth.
    My house is not burning, I have been delivered by Christ.
    The Scriptural reference, 1 Corinthians 5:11, was a reference given to the writer with whom Mr. Rafalsky was conversing, or rather, rebuking.
    However, I think I will take Paul’s advice found in this Scripture. Our discussion is fruitless.
    The faith of Jesus that is in me is not weak, for He is not weak.

  11. Hi Joel.  Here is the answer you posted to my charge against you as being a Bible agnostic.
    Joel writes: A lie is “You kept saying that you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but when I kept asking you to tell us where we can get a copy of this infallible Bible you SAY you believe in, you completely avoided the issue and would not answer this simple question.”
    The Truth: “We can find inerrancy in any honest translation”
    Joel.  Now this is where you are progressively showing yourself to be one of those fruit loops who try to tell us that 5 or 6 “honest translations” are all “inerrant”.
    Joel, as I have said before, try taking this argument before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the building.
    Tell us Joel, which of the following “honest” translations is “inerrant” (no errors or mistakes”
    “MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

    The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples.  Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV,ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (NIV, NASB); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB,NKJV, RV,ASV) or Merab (NIV,NASB), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV,KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 or 72 (NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (NASB, NIV), or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV,ASV,NASB) or 70 men slain (NIV, RSV),  or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, & Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading – ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva,Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, ESV), or even “32 years old…reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV,NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read THREE (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, NET, Holman or THIRTY from the Syriac NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, ESV) or the fine linen being the “righteousness” of saints or the fine linen being the “righteous acts” of the saints in Revelation 19:8, or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV,ASV,KJB, ESV) or he was 18 years old (NIV), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV,RV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV).

    Joel, are ALL of these “honest” translations inerrant?  If you still answer in the affirmative, then you have simply lost your marbles and are trying to defend a position of belief that is  patently and utterly absurd.
    How in the name of common sense can all these conflicting versions be in the same way and at the same time “inerrant”?
    Will Kinney
     
     

  12. Hi Joel.  It is pointless to try talking to you.  The person who is “ignoring all logic” is the person like yourself who maintains the absurd position that several so called honest translations that differ radically from each other in literally hundreds of texts and verses are all somehow “inerrant”.
    If I do not answer your objections it is not because you have overwhelmed me with your sound logic, but rather that there is no point in trying to reason with someone who is so utterly lacking in the ability to think clearly any more.
     
    Will K

  13. I cannot say anything for or against Wil per se, I am fast learning, never act like asomeone else. While in the versions group, I got tired of seeing my intelligance insulted by some in that group. So, I decided to act like those speaking against the KJV. Thing is, if I do anything, I do not believe in half stepping or not putting all my effort into something. In other words, if I am going to be in sin-why hold back? Eventually I was banned from the Version group despite the fact every time some one told me I was wrong and in sin-I never denied this and actually agreed. Point being-are we going to be consistant in what we allow or is it only going to be for those who agree with the prevailing position that is not in sin or ae we going to see some inconsistancy.

    Now, in the Which Versions group-I took the same exact path though not as sinful in the words-just decided to treat people the way they were acting except this was not about modern version believers, but those whom I agree with more. Now, I was told publicly to stop this nonsense and always my response-are we going to see some consistancy or is how we treat others that we disagree with always be right and those who disagree who uses the same methodology always wrong?

    1. David, I am a part of the Versions group. What you did, with your tirade, was disrespectful to everyone, regardless if they had insulted you. It was disgusting some of the things you said. If someone is sinning, no one in Scripture has allowed to you to let loose on them. Just the opposite as a matter of fact.

      Sin is sin, regardless of the cause or the provocation. If you claim to be a Christian, then we are always supposed to turn the other check, etc…

      It is a heated issue, indeed, but needs not be one which produces sin.

      1. It was not a tirad(?) per se but a calculated post. This done to show sin is sin whether it was appropriate or not. Again, when one who holds a certain opinion that the majority agree with, you can do or say anything you want and will never be confronted as sin.

        So I used a very colorful, childish, immature way that is obviously and very obtusely seen as sin to make a point-most often those whom we agree with is never in sin and the only person who is in sin is those whom we disagree with.

        Besides having the list of members hidden and having no clue who owned or moderated this group-I had no ideal who to appeal to.

        When confronted, I never denied my actions were sin and never disagreed with who ever said what about me afterwards.

        I always find it fascinating the standards we go by to determine what is right and wrong is not often about actions but about whether the person acting agrees with us or not.

        Interstingly enough, when I see many who decry the behaivor of a KJV believer traffics in the same type of behaivor and is never confronted I often wander who has the most hypocrisy-the KJV only believer who determines because our belief is better gives us an excuse to sin or the non King James Only believer decrying the untoward behaivor of the KJV believer using the same kind of behaivor.

        This is almost the same contradicion found in postmodernism that says there is no such thing as absolute truth and saying this with an absolute truth statement.

        The only differance? I knew I was in sin. Seems like no one else in these discussion groups see their actions as sin or the actions of those they agree with as committing a sin.

        In both cases, as long as one agrees with the prevailing opinion, you can do whatever you want and no one will ever confront your sin. In other words, in both accouts-partiality riegns supreme and not the same standard whether one agrees with you or not.

        The fallacy I am learning of, people think they can control sin. Many think we can control sin and it is okay to do so as long as it does not offend my sensabilities or notions of morality.

        As long as it is not really offensive or bad, while petting whomever on the head, “It is okay son, go ahead and sin as long as it is not so obvious and directed to those whom you agree with.”

        So why did I do what I did? Whatever people viewed my actions as the most abhorred view of the most tackless and tasteless way rightly judged-as shocking as it was, I just happen to think how we so easily sin in our words, what we say about each other, how we treat each other-this is all A O K when I think on both accounts-what people thought of my words is what God thinks of our words when we allow people to act a certain way as long as it is not meant to us personally or is that deliberate.

        In other words, when are we going to see sin through the eyes of the Lord? Only when it is really offensice? Or perhaps we should pray and ask God to teach and show us why certain actions are sinful according to the knowledge of God and not according to the knowledge of good and evil-our own self righteous standard.

        When we go by the sin nature-the free will to determine what is sin and what is not sin apart from the knowledge of God.

        It is interesting to see people all of a sudden decide that my service for my country was less than honorable because I said something sinful long after I was retired.

        Love that fallacy of composition and division.

        Here is my question-after I was banned, did anyone ever talk about what we say to others or how we treat others whom we disagree with-that perhaps we should examine our own words and actions?

        1. David, if you made a willful sin, I would suggest you read the bible on this. What you did was far, far worse than those who by their nature are rude and arrogant. You, who claimed Christ, hid Christ, put Him to shame, denied your new creation, to make a point. That is far worse than the nature of man.

          You can defend yourself, but in the end, you are defenseless. You willfully sinned. You purposely denied Christ to drive home a point. Don’t you see the difference?

  14. christianity was created out of lies,murder,and deceipt. jesus didn’t call himself a christian. the same followers that turned their backs on him created this so-called religion not god or jesus . so the bible is’nt holy because the ones who wrote it wasn’t true followers of god.so this so-call religion is the word of man not god,if we continue to believe in the words of man we will die.god created all man an only a dumb person or a so-call christian would preach and deny god and his creation as a hole.

        1. the ways of god is far beyond you.the phrase you people just showed your lack of religion. see how false teaching by you so-called christian pans out. you just showed the world that you an him are not godly just typical white men that live by your own racist way not god.p.s i’m white

          1. What phrase, on Great Satiny one?

            Typical white men? Um… and you are white? Seems to me that you have your own race issues to contend with in northern Indiana.

          2. yes people that preach this form of hate in the name of christ. your part of the reason man days are limited. go read your man made words satin. you need to fined the true not your own views.you agreed with me when i said what you wanted to hear.see how fast god left your body. do yourself a favor and stop. how look dumb now.

          3. Dumb? Oh Great Satiny one?

            I never agreed with you, Sean. What I do agree with, is my previous statements about you needing help. Why don’t you move this to the discussion page? That way, you can more people about your reality.

          4. Sean, why don’t you pick up a spelling book or something? Really.

            And confront what, oh Great Satiny one? You have to state anything close to a coherent thought, which should be the basis of discourse. Your lackluster performance thus far, your inability to lock down your thesis, and you effort to accuse me of being a soft, sheeny bed covering has thus prevented you from being taken seriously. Perhaps, oh Great Satiny one, revisiting your local Chesterton public school system would help a bit?

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.