The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Nehemiah6]

How does it make sense in Originals Onlyism to lift up a Bible and declare it to be the Word of God, when it is full of errors and problems?

The doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture is equally important as the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Inspiration demands inerrancy, and preservation demands the same truth. And since God is the one who inspired the original writers, He is also the one who ensured that the majority of manuscripts would agree with one another, and thus no errors would be found in Scripture. The Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church are an important witness to the traditional texts. As a result we have the printed TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts. And had unbelieving critics left the Bible alone, those are the texts which would have supported all translations (as they did before 1881).

 

[Dino246]

I also think it is only fair to turn the tables here. Why do you believe in the error of Originals Onlylism?
Please list your reasons. Why do you think your reasons are better than our reasons?
Do we see Originals Onlyism in the Bible? Do we see the good fruit in history as a result of Originals Onlyism?
What kind of compelling evidence do you have? How does it make sense in Originals Onlyism to lift up a Bible and declare it to be the Word of God, when it is full of errors and problems? Will you die for a book that has the stink of men’s errors upon it? Why do you believe God has failed to keep his Word perfectly today? You must have compelling evidence. What standard do you follow? There is not even one of you who agrees with each other because they all have differences of opinion on what the original languages say. Not even all NIVs are the same. Not all ESVs are the same. Not all Lexicons are the same. Not all Greek manuscripts are the same. How do you choose the right one? Do you know how to speak, read, write, and listen in these original dead languages? If not, you're toying with a dead language you do not know. You just randomly choose some Lexicon/Concordance of your choice by faith. What not another Lexicon? How do you know you don’t got the wrong one? How do you decide? Where is the Word of God? Can you point to it? How can all bibles be the Word of God when they all say different things?

Firstly, who are you asking?

Secondly, you're highjacking a thread you didn't start.

Thirdly, has anyone claimed to believe in "originals onlyism"?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Firstly, who are you asking?

Look at the OP (Original Post). Who was poster "presidente" talking to specifically in his first post of this thread? There was not one poster he was talking to. He did not quote anybody but we know he is speaking in general to everyone. He was not referring to just one person alone. In other words, if you have been on forums long, then you should know that the post I provided was similar to the OP to a larger audience or group of people of the opposition to KJV-Onlyism.

Secondly, you're highjacking a thread you didn't start.

Not at all. Generally on forums, when you share a view, opposing opposite views is to be expected.
If one believes KJV-Onlyism is in error, then they have to have their own position on the matter that they believe to the contrary. In fact, the OP goes into defending their position of Hebrew and Greek as being the languages once delivered unto the saints (Jude 1:3). The problem is that he is defending this by quoting English and not the original languages because nobody would understand him. But the point here is that he used Scripture to back up his position (Although I disagree with his interpretation respectfully).

Thirdly, has anyone claimed to believe in "originals onlyism"?

If you studied the issue for any length of time, you will know that many church websites say that only the originals are inspired and perfect. While not specifically stated, this was implied by the poster in post #11 of this thread. They don't believe any perfect word-for-word translation exists and only in the originals this was the case. Now, some of you may believe that there may be perfect copies that could be inspired in the past, but you don't have those today. So you don't have a perfect Bible that you can hold in your hands today. Anyways, even if you do not hold to "Originals Onlyism," the point here is that is a predominant viewpoint in this discussion because we see it in many debates, videos, and discussions like these over the years. It is by no means a new thing that we invented. It's simply the reality of our discussion here.

I hope this helps.

May God bless you.

 

[Obedience]

Although I don't know Hebrew and Latin, I'm glad I can read the Bible versions in two languages.I found that after checking the versions of the two languages,There are indeed some places where the translation is very bad.Fortunately, in the two versions, one of them is correct in translation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Although I don't know Hebrew and Latin, I'm glad I can read the Bible versions in two languages.I found that after checking the versions of the two languages,There are indeed some places where the translation is very bad.Fortunately, in the two versions, one of them is correct in translation.

The question remains if the dictionary of those two biblical languages is accurate; In a sense these dictionaries are also translations, but disguised as a dictionary (Making you blindly trust it because it is a dictionary). I believe the only way to truly know the certainty of the words of truth of God’s words is to believe the Bible in what it says about itself. The King James Bible (being the most printed book in the world and causing great revivals unlike another) is of a different line of texts than of Modern Version Bibles. There are a bunch of doctrines that are changed between the KJB and Modern Bibles by way of comparison. We look to a Bible not only how its superiority in doctrine, but if it had any positive influence upon mankind. Does the translation have the hand of God upon it? The KJB was almost destroyed by a super bomb. The King James Bible (KJB) comes from the Textus Receptus New Testament Greek texts primarily. Two of the Textus Receptus Bible translators before the KJB were martyred by the Catholic Church. Today, all your Modern Bibles are influenced by the Catholic Church. There are many clues that proves this fact. Changed doctrine or truths that align with Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles is one big clue.

“That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth;​

that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”​

(Proverbs 22:21).​

The NIV, ESV, CSB, etc. erase this truth about having the CERTAINTY of the words of truth. Today, most in Christianity do not have the certainty of the words of truth because they do not believe there is any word-for-word perfect Bible in existence today. So then they become the authority in correcting God’s errors.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is a good point I hadn't thought of.

All glory be unto Jesus Christ for any truth revealed.

It was inspired by a KJB video I was watching by Joey Faust. He is pretty intense, though. I am still watching his video, though.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture is equally important as the doctrine of the divine inspiration of the Bible. Inspiration demands inerrancy, and preservation demands the same truth. And since God is the one who inspired the original writers, He is also the one who ensured that the majority of manuscripts would agree with one another, and thus no errors would be found in Scripture. The Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church are an important witness to the traditional texts. As a result we have the printed TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts. And had unbelieving critics left the Bible alone, those are the texts which would have supported all translations (as they did before 1881).

I agree.

May the Lord Jesus shine His good ways unto you today.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is a good point I hadn't thought of.

Here are the two videos I watched that inspired me to write what I did to you.

Side Note:

Although it is a popular view within Christianity, I do not agree with this Joey Faust’s view on sin and salvation.
I believe Paul was talking about refuting Circumcision Salvationism in Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, etcetera (See: Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, and Acts 15:24, Galatians 5:2). However, Joey Faust’s defense of the KJB is really good at times. Yet, on the other hand, there are some arguments I would not make personally. Again, Joey is kind of intense in the way he speaks. So if you decide to watch, just be aware of that.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

People rarely are willing to put their own beliefs under the microscope so to speak.
This is what I liked about Joey Faust. If a group of atheists start to humiliate you about your belief in the Bible and laugh at you, then turn the tables on them. Put their worldview under the microscope. Get them to enlighten you with their so-called great evidence. The same is true with the Textual Critic believer. I don’t believe they have any good evidence that is convincing. Folks just sort of latch on to this belief because of credentialism or because some scholar has XYZ degrees attached to their name. However, we should be good Bereans and test all things with Scripture. However, Textual Criticism is never examined in light of Scripture.

 

[wattie]

Here are the two videos I watched that inspired me to write what I did to you.

Side Note:

Although it is a popular view within Christianity, I do not agree with this Joey Faust’s view on sin and salvation.
I believe Paul was talking about refuting Circumcision Salvationism in Ephesians 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, etcetera (See: Acts 15:1, Acts 15:5, and Acts 15:24, Galatians 5:2). However, Joey Faust’s defense of the KJB is really good at times. Yet, on the other hand, there are some arguments I would not make personally. Again, Joey is kind of intense in the way he speaks. So if you decide to watch, just be aware of that.

The issue I have, is :

The way the KJV does and does not capitalize the 's' in spirit. I've heard when it us the start of a sentence there is capitalizing in the Greek, but not in the middle of a sentence.

So whether it is Spirit or spirit depends on the context.

1 Co 12:13 is a prime example of this.

If it is meant to be a small 's' then the passage changes alot.

The KJV also uses church, congregation and assembly for the Greek 'ekklessia'

King James ordered the word 'church' in on some occasions to replace assembly and congregation. To avoid the scrupulousness of the Puritans. They had assembly and congregation I think every time.

As did bibles before the KJV..not using 'church' ..but assembly or congregation.

I've bought this up before but haven't found good resolution on it.

 

[fredoheaven]

The issue I have, is :

The KJV also uses church, congregation and assembly for the Greek 'ekklessia'

King James ordered the word 'church' in on some occasions to replace assembly and congregation. To avoid the scrupulousness of the Puritans. They had assembly and congregation I think every time.

As did bibles before the KJV..not using 'church' ..but assembly or congregation.

I've bought this up before but haven't found good resolution on it.

Geneva did use the word 'Church'. A spelling but sounded like the Wycliffe translation used 'chirche'.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The issue I have, is :

The way the KJV does and does not capitalize the 's' in spirit. I've heard when it is the start of a sentence there is capitalizing in the Greek, but not in the middle of a sentence.

Okay, you do not have a Time Machine to talk with the apostle Paul about this. The Biblical Greek is long gone. No living society still perfectly speaks Koine Greek. You are listening to some guy who thinks he knows dead languages when there is no true way for him to truly know. So wherever you learned that from most likely does not even live in Greece or is able to order a pizza in Greek. Even if this person did, the language is long gone and you would need a miracle of God to know this fact.

So whether it is Spirit or spirit depends on the context.

1 Co 12:13 is a prime example of this.

If it is meant to be a small 's' then the passage changes alot.

Sorry. You’re straining at gnats here. There are far more challenging verses in the KJB. Yes, I was able to resolve many of them. I could only find one Modern Bible that would agree with your not capitalizing the word “s” for the word “Spirit” in 1 Corinthians 12:13. But the beginning and ending of the chapter talks about the Holy Spirit in context. But your real problem is not with the KJB. Your attack here really has nothing to do with the accuracy of the KJB. It is your lack of faith in what God says about His own Word. It is a spiritual book and you are either all in or you’re not. Romans 10:17 says faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.

The KJV also uses church, congregation and assembly for the Greek 'ekklessia'

King James ordered the word 'church' in on some occasions to replace assembly and congregation. To avoid the scrupulousness of the Puritans. They had assembly and congregation I think every time.

As did bibles before the KJV..not using 'church' ..but assembly or congregation.

I've bought this up before but haven't found good resolution on it.

Not a problem unless you desire to see one. Again, the Bible does not have a problem with this word.

1 Corinthians 3:9 says,

"For we are labourers together
with God: ye are God's husbandry,
ye are God's building."

So where is your perfect standard? Where is your Bible that has your preferred reading that produces good fruit?

Also, if you are looking for proof that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God, see here:

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

At the end of the day, one is either a Bible believer or a Bible corrector. I choose to believe God in that His Word is pure as it says. I believe God when He says Scripture is holy. Something that is holy has no errors. It all comes down to faith in trusting in what God said.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

@wattie

Read this article here:

https://truewordschristian.org/sermon-inspired-originals-onlyism/

Side Note:

I don’t agree with the author’s sin and still be saved view on salvation. But his defense of the King James Bible is spot on.

 

[wattie]

Geneva did use the word 'Church'. A spelling but sounded like the Wycliffe translation used 'chirche'.

Ah I stand corrected

 

[wattie]

@wattie

Read this article here:

https://truewordschristian.org/sermon-inspired-originals-onlyism/

Side Note:

I don’t agree with the author’s sin and still be saved view on salvation. But his defense of the King James Bible is spot on.

Since my mid 20s.. I haven't been kjvo so I'm still working things out here

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Ah I stand corrected

Are you even aware that the 1611 King James Bible is the first Textus Receptus Bible to make the distinction between LORD (Jehovah) and Lord (Adonai - meaning, master)? Why is this a big deal? See this video here:

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Since my mid 20s.. I haven't been kjvo so I'm still working things out here

I can send you my 101 reasons for the KJB pdf. Keep in mind it needs 23-25 sub-articles, though. But there is still a lot of information. Just PM me.

 

[GRACE_ambassador]

I can send you my 101 reasons for the KJB pdf.

I would like to have it. Thanks.

endrizzi.chris@gmail.com

 

[Nehemiah6]

As did bibles before the KJV..not using 'church' ..but assembly or congregation.

That is incorrect. Here is the word "church" in the Wycliffe Bible: 1 Paul, called apostle of Jesus Christ, by the will of God, and Sosthenes, brother, 2 to the church of God that is at Corinth, to them that be hallowed in Christ Jesus, and called saints, with all that inwardly call the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, in each place of them and of ours...
1 Paul the apostle, not of men, nor by man [neither by man], but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, that raised him from death [that raised him from dead men],
2 and all the brethren that be with me, to the churches of Galatia,

"More than two centuries before the King James Version came into existence, Oxford professor and theologian John Wycliffe undertook the first-ever English translation of Scripture. The hand-printed "Early Version" of the Wycliffe Bible, which first appeared in 1382, offered a literal translation of the Latin Vulgate."

Also, King James could not "dictate" to the KJB translators what to insert and what to leave out. However, he did provide guidelines to them.