Now as far as the verse I use as my basis for why the King James Bible is the only ENGLISH translated bible we should be using, is Ecclesiastes 8:4 “Where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou?” By this basis if a king says that this (KJV) is the Bible, then I will believe him. Besides if you do your study of the two bibles that were directly before it, one was very weak, the other was overly authoritative and gave too much power to the nobleman… -ChristsCombatant777

Every now and then KJVOist try to use Ecclesiastes 8:4 as proof the KJV is the only perfect English Bible. Over the years, I’ve been told various things about Ecclesiastes 8:4, but the above quote added a new spin to it. In their zeal to defend the false KJV only doctrine, some are willing to throw all reason and logic under the bus.

The one common denominator that all KJVOist share is a disregard for context and biblical time periods when dealing with the Scriptures. No matter if they are using Ecclesiastes 8:4 or Psalm 12:6-7 to defend their doctrine, when these passages were written and to whom it was written is irrelevant. KJVOism is one of the easiest false doctrines to debunk, but it is also one of the most frustrating because many who spew out this nonsense should know better. All one has to do is simply read Ecclesiastes 8 and Psalm 12 in context to see the errors pushed forth by many KJVOist.

  1. stannj51 says:

    What a stretch. The only way that Eccl. 8:4 could work for the KJVOist is if it read, “Where the word of King James is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou?” Certainly King Solomon speaks about the absolute authority of kings in general, and by extension, of God himself who is a king.

  2. Cori Venturini says:

    The only difference that counts between the King James Bible and the newer versions is the Greek manuscripts from which they are translated. Most newer versions are not even translations; most are dynamic equivalency or paraphrase versions so you get the opinion of the one doing the work. This is problematic, but using the corrupt Greek text is even more so! People need to study manuscript history! Thanks for letting me comment.

  3. Cori,

    What do you consider corrupt Greek text and what sources do you use to back up this claim? I am curious as to why you believe this and I would like to read your soure(s).

    As far as modern versions are concerned, I do not recommend any paraphrased version or any version that has an agenda like the TNIV, NWT, etc… Solid translations like the NASB, ESV, and NKJV are accurate to the underlying text.

    Thanks for your time,

    David J

  4. stannj51 says:

    The KJV translators could not avoid a certain amount of dynamic equivalency because it is simply impossible to translate perfectly between any two languages. God did not by some mysterious means make that difficulty go away with regard to the scriptures. He knew they would be translated eventually. We have to accept the fact that humanity can never have 100% pure translations of the originals. It should be needless to say that that includes English.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s