Talk:King James Only movement

/Archive 1

Original Research

I added the original research tag to the article because there are way too many statements without sources. It is not good enough to just list a bunch of books at the end of the article under "Further reading" and then synthesize from all of them throughout the article. Each statement needs to be sourced individually. From a practical standpoint, i think the article could be pared to 1/3 of its current length and it would still need 3 times as many sources. See Wikipedia:No original research for more information about Wikipedia's policy on and definition of original research.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup Tag (April 2008)

Kesh added a cleanup tag to this article on April 2, saying, "article is not well laid-out or cited". I agree, and propose that after some time is given for folks to source the claims in the article (maybe 2 or 3 weeks), that all the unsourced claims be deleted. A short well-sourced article is much better than a long article with unverified claims. So, if this article doesn't substantially change, and there aren't any objections, I'll delete everything except the introduction and the "Variations", "See also", "Notes" and "Further reading" sections and move the handful of relevant sourced claims into some new part of the article.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 19:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sorry for the hit-and-run tagging, but things are a little hectic for me. I stumbled across this article from a related one, and… eh. A lot of the presented information looks good, but nearly all of the cites are only in the introduction! Most of the article is uncited, and peppered with citation needed tags, or just in disorganized lists.

I support stripping out the unsourced information, even if this turns the article into a stub. Things can be built back up from there, based on sourced information. It should also be written as prose, rather than bulleted lists. Hopefully I'll have time this week to help with the cleanup. -- Kesh (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, two weeks have passed, and no one made any attempt to add sources or complain here, so I've removed all the unsupported sections. If someone had started to add sources, I would have gladly extended the deadline. Please cite sources when making additions to this article.   — Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Man, this looks good! I think now the article contains only stuff that belongs here. Tempting as it is to use this page as a place to promote your particular opinion on Bible translation (I myself did not resist that temptation), most of that stuff really belonged to other pages (to which the article still links). So, my advice is, even if you have sources to bolster your pro- or contra-KJV statements, just leave them away anyway. The article is so much better without that stuff. Thanks to Chris for his bold move. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Errors

Should there be a section pointing out specific errors in the King James Bible. For example, I want to add a section on how the KJV mistranslates the 6th commandment. It says "Thou shalt not kill.", but the original Hebrew is more correctly translated to "Thou shalt not murder." From a legal standpoint, there is a difference between the two words. Kill means to take a life (plant, animal, human, bacteria, etc.) regardless of outside circumstances, and murder means to intentionally kill an innocent human, usually with malice, which leaves exceptions for a time of war, self-defense, and capital punishment. Emperor001 (talk) 20:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this article is not about the KJV as such, but about a movement in the church advocating its use. So your list of errors would be better placed in Authorized King James Version. But even there, you would have to take care to avoid original research. In your case above, you will have to show cited sources which support your claim that "kill" is an erroneous translation. All in all, I guess such a list would be a great way to start a new edit war - one guy's translation error is another guy's doctrine, so I would probably avoid doing this. Landroving Linguist (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Chick

It is also noteworthy that some fundamentalists like Jack Chick go as far as to claim that it is the only God-approved Bible, even over other languages so that it cannot be translated unto other languages because it would lose its status. I'll try to get a quote for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alejandro 13:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Dr. James White Critical consultants to NASB Update

Dr. James White according to the web site http://www.lockman.org/nasb/nasbprin.php would definely have the King James onlyism divided up to 5 points , especially when he was a critical consultant to NASB Update. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.38.138 (talk) 20:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

TR Wiki site

This site http://textus-receptus.com/w/mediawiki-1.13.2/index.php/Main_Page is a wiki supporting the King James Version. Should there be a links section at the bottom of this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.91.212 (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Ruckmanism"

I started to make an edit to this page on the basis that "Ruckmanism" is definately a
negative bash on the KJVO croud. It was stated that "this belief is often refered to
as ruckmanism..." Well, thats true, but its also quite obvious that the term is only
"user friendly". To quote from Dr. Ruckman, "Theres a screw loose
in the corkscrew of the screwball who's trying to ball things up".lol
I suggest a change be made to the terminology in the article. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Perfect Preservation View

First of all I would like to commend the editor(s) of this article. I think you have achieved a fair level of neutrality within this article. I would like to cite a view that is slightly distinct from any of what is classified under "Variations" section. What I mean by this, is the "Received Text Only" position attributed to D.A. Waite is very close to what I and others would call "Perfect Preservation" view. This would be attributed to Pastor Kent Brandenburg (and many others), whose book is the fourth one listed in the "Further Reading" section. I haven't finalized my research on this topic, but I would like to know, if this would be worth attaching to this article, or should I go ahead and forge another or rather new article on this topic? What say you? Bhardecker (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Advertising

The debate in favour of belief in Divine Preservation entered a new domain in modern times with the work of Gavin McGrath of Australia. The first neo-Byzantine textual analyst in over 300 years, he writes in the tradition of e.g., Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and Elzevir. He is presently working on Received Text textual commentaries upholding the Received Text and King James Version e.g., Volume 1 (Matthew 1-14, 2008, revised 2010) or Volume 2 (Matthew 15-20). These are available on-line at www.easy.com.au/~gmbooks/. (They may also be found via Yahoo or Google at "Gavin McGrath Books".)

This reads like advertising and makes no assertion of its notability, so I removed it. Hairy Dude (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Criticism?

Shouldn't there be a criticism section in this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.10.18.42 (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus' Bible"

I've heard many churchgoers claim that Jesus himself used the King James Version of the Bible, often claiming that "the version with the red letters is the only acceptable one; those are Jesus' own words". Is this a common thing within the King James Only community, or is it simply regional? --24.14.134.193 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2010 (UTC)