One language onlyism

[Brent Riggs]

I hope this is the right place to start this thread. If not, please let me know where this belongs! I believe the English Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures is indeed the word of God in English, in the form that God wanted English speakers to have. To spare myself the time of retyping, I enclose a previous discussion about "language onlyims" or "elitism".

The issue is, in case you missed it, elitism of one language onlyists. I addressed this issue and demonstrated the stumblingblock of both forms of elitism, English Only and Hebrew/Greek Only.

My points were as follows:

1) God inspired His word, not languages. His word is found in many languages which are not limited to Hebrew, Greek, or English as the elitists falsely presume.

2) Recognition of the word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God) is based on the same principles regardless of language or time. Elitists have the mistaken belief that if one version doesn't match 100% with the word of God previously given that that alone is proof that the latter (the other language Bible) is "corrupt".

a) The Jews in Moses' day did not resort to textual criticism as a principle for recognizing the word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God). Based on textual criticism Textual Critics would have falsely assumed that one of the various versions of the 10 Commandments could not possibly be the word of God based on differences. Presuming falsely, just as the elitists do, that all those variations could not possibly have faithfully reproduced the autographs and surely nuances were lost with the use of different words. If textual criticism is the criteria for recognizing the word of God in any language or generation (including Moses') then by rights the Jews should have rejected Moses' variant versions. Yet, all the versions of the 10 Commandments were received as the very word of God despite the differences. This is sufficient proof in my mind that textual criticism (comparison of versions checking for differences) is NOT the criteria for recognzing the word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God) in any language at any time in history. Some other criteria was used. Textual Criticism is the error of the Hebrew/Greek Only elitists and the English Only elitists. Both have worked themselves into the corner and are forced to label all differences from their preferred language versions as errors, corruptions or worse. They both are at least consistant in their conclusions, but the basis for their conclusions is erroneous as I have proved.

b) The elitists' mistake is thinking that differences prove error. Both sets of elitists recognize the word of God in their preferred language and then presume that any differences in other versions is proof that they both can't be original or that nuances were lost and therefore can't both be the very word of God. My use of the four Gospels, not just the synoptics, demonstrate this. One of the Gospels was written first and recognized by believers in that day as the very word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God). Take your pick, let us presume it was Matthew. The believers began reading, heading and believing all the words as found in the Gospel of Matthew. Along comes this fellow named Luke (not an apostle!) who writes his version of the Gospel which is different than Matthews in grammar, word count and words(nuances must have been added and lost). Applying the elitists' premise, textual criticism (comparing of versions and rejecting differences), the believers who had previously received Matthew's Gospel as genuine should have rejected Luke's Gospel based on differences. Yet, BOTH were received as the very word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God), demonstrating once again that textual criticism (the elitists' error) is not nor has ever been the criteria for recognizing the word of God in any language.

c) Jesus quoted the Scripture and read the Scripture. What he quoted and read is called SCRIPTURE (that which is given by inspiration of God) not derivative Scripture, but Scripture!!! Yet, what Jesus quoted (and others in the NT as I demonstrated) and read does not match (there are more differences than just nuances) the extant Scriptures of the Old Testament in any language - not Hebrew and not English. Again, the criteria for recognizing the word of God (that which is given by inspiration of God) is not what the elitists would have us to believe - their form of textual criticism.


By the way, I know of no KJVO elitist who suggests that the English captured every nuance of the Hebrew and Greek. Could you name me one?

Your premise is wrong and is proven wrong by the Scriptures. Again, the quotes of the Old Testament as found in the New Testament were themselves translations! God must not be worried about nuances, or gnats for that matter. It is the will of God to translate His word! it is the will of God for believers to BELIEVE and submit to every word of their God given translation despite lost nuances. The emphasis on lost nuances is what has lead elitists to the mistaken idea that only their LANGUAGE has the "true" word of God.

You stated: "Therefore, the KJVO elitist sets up English as better than the original languages" to which I reply, the original language elitsit sets up Hebrew and Greek as better than English (or any other language). God made ALL languages so that men might seek Him. Note: God hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us. See also Acts 2, 1Cor 14, and the commission to go into all the world and preach the gospel.

You stated:
"No one here suggests that one is required to read Hebrew and Greek. Though, for a missionary and pastor, this should be a requirement."

Apparently you don't see the contradiction in your statement. Hebrew and Greek is not required for anyone, not even pastors and missionaries. By the way, learning English isn't required for anyone, anyone includes pastors and missionaries. A pastor is a GIFT, the office of a Bishop (elder, pastor, overseer) requires a calling, a gift and a testimony - nothing about learning "languages" is required.

Well, my time is up. Hope this helps.

[Laura]

I am blissfully ignorant in my knowledge of matters of the Greek and the Hebrew. I have a Bible that is God's word to me in my language and I've just always known "instinctively" that the KJB is God's word. I felt slighted, as a 10-year-old child, when I received a "Good New for Modern Man" instead of a KJB, and I grew up in a non-Christian home. I wasn't saved till I was 29.

"Language onlyism" seems like just another tack that the scholars use to distract people from just reading what the Word says! It can be a very subtle form of deception, I think: preoccupy the theologians with studies about God's word instead of studying the Book itself. They're the ones that I think Festus should have been referring to, instead of Paul...

Ac 26:24 ¶ And as he thus spake for himself, Festus said with a loud voice, Paul, thou art beside thyself; much learning doth make thee mad.

You've raised some good points in this discussion, brother. Thanks!

[William]

Well, "one language onlyism" is nonsense. I have stated, in your "Test" thread, that I believe the King James to be the only perfect Bible on earth; that does not mean that good, reliable editions don't exist in other languages. I also indicated that it was superior to the Textus Receptus. But I don't think that the King James is the only Bible God has ever used, or ever uses.

You know, probably better than I, the excellent versions in other languages. A Puerto Rican brother has shown me things in the Valera that are perfectly beautiful, and I've seen some wonderful insights in various French Bibles (when I was studying French). These are perfectly adequate and are, for non-English speakers, God's word.

But in every area, there has to be an absolute standard, against which all else is measured. In the International Bureau of Weights and Measurements, there used to be a platinum bar that was the absolute standard of a meter; this has now been replaced by a laser device. The point is, an absolute standard must exist. The King James is God's absolute standard.

That's one reason why I dislike the term "King James Only." I believe that God's word is available in other languages; I just don't think it achieves the same perfection as the King James.

That's not "English onlyism." It's just a recognition of how God has chosen to reveal Himself propositionally.

Saying that God has only one perfect Bible is no more snobbish or condescending than saying that He has provided only one Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ!

[Samuel]

The King James Version is the absolute standard, by which all other Bibles must be measured by. My 2 cents worth.