The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Cameron143]

But God's Word says that His words are pure words, and that they will be preserved forever.
Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
There are missing words of Jesus in Modern Bibles.
Modern Bibles even make Jesus appear to sin sometimes. It's horrible.
But people bend over backwards trying to see otherwise of course.



The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no Bible verse or passage to support this claim.

Does God promise to preserve His word on earth, or simply preserve His word?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Before I address you post here, I would like to correct you on a previous statement in regards to Chuck Missler and the KJV: Chuck did in fact recommend the KJV as the most trustworthy translation in his book, “How we got our Bible.” Just look at the reviews on Amazon, and it show you a reviewer disagreeing with Chuck’s favor of the KJV. So yes. Chuck believes the KJV is the most trustworthy translation. Buy the book and read it if you don't believe me. I have his Kindle Book of "Learn the Bible in 24 hours." In that book, he defends the longer ending in Mark (Which generally goes against the popular Modern scholar view or the Modern Bible Movement). Chuck speaks negatively of the Alexandrian texts (like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - which is the two foundational NT Greek texts used for most of your Modern Bibles today). If you noticed the video I sent to you before, Chuck attacks Westcott and Hort who were the defenders of these two manuscripts (i.e., the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the current Modern Bible Movement. What makes matters worse is that Westcott and Hort used deception when putting forth their English translaton called the Revised Version. It says in the half title page that it was the version set forth in 1611AD. But this is a lie. The changes are evident between the KJV vs. Revised Version because many of the same key verses that are corrupted by current Modern Bibles the same holds true for the Revised Version. Even Modern scholars today know that the Revised Version is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. One poster here who is in defense of Modern Bibles admits to Westcott and Hort's deception involving the Revised Version and he does not care. To make it even more insane, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian on their translation committee, as well.

Modern Bibles say that certain verses are missing because they are not in the oldest and best manuscripts. They are referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and yet they generally do not tell you this (as if they have something to hide). What do they have to hide? Well, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the best manuscripts. They have corrections on them. For example, we read this about Codex Vaticanus (B) — “The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.” More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. Those who study manuscripts say, All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript “the oldest and the best.” On the next page you will see an example of the problems that come into play when there are multiple corrections within a manuscript. The page is from 4th century Codex Vaticanus. Here we see Hebrews 1 of Codex Vaticanus. Though hard to see in this size, notice the marginal note between the first and second column. A corrector of the text had erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in its place. A second corrector came along, erased the correction, reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin to castigate the first corrector. The note reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, which was a Greek Orthodox Monastery, by Constantin Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the manuscript until 1859. Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting off four different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems! The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen’s corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So much for the oldest!! “On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.” He goes on to say, “…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” (Source)

Meant to say..... address your post here, and not..... you post here.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Does God promise to preserve His word on earth, or simply preserve His word?

Believe what the Bible plainly says like a child, and do not believe the scribes or the scholars.

 

[7thMoon]

It is that simple. Your side wants me to study languages that are long dead to get the real meaning of God and I have to bend the knee and kiss the ring of the scholar in the hopes that he will give me the understanding on what the Bible truly says. But in the Bible believing view, all I have to do is just read and believe the Bible simply and like a child. Everyone knows 1600s English is easier to know than dead languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. You speak these languages to people in English speaking countries, and most will not understand it. That's the point here that you are side-stepping. You are ignoring reality, dear sir.

On a side note: By any chance, are you in support of the Biden administration?

First off, all you need is to buy the textbooks. William Mounce's textbook is often given as an example.

Secondly, I don't support Democrat politicians. You can not easily find one that is honest, but I admit the pool of honesty is scarce in politics.

 

[7thMoon]

Also, you must surely know that if God did decide to preserve His words perfectly in the Waldenses Latin Italic Bible before He preserved His words in the KJV, then this argument is a moot point.

You don't know this nor is that true.

 

[Cameron143]

View attachment 261849
View attachment 261850

Believe what the Bible plainly says like a child, and do not believe the scribes or the scholars.

I've asked about preservation. Does it say it will be perfectly preserved on earth. Simple yes or no please.
Most Bibles are sufficient for salvation whether perfectly preserved or not.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

First off, all you need is to buy the textbooks. William Mounce's textbook is often given as an example.

That would be the equivalent of drinking poison to me. It’s just dumb. I listened to Mounce before, and stopped listening to him when he said God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. The Modern Bibles teach this nonsense but not the KJV. Even the story with Abraham and the offering of his son is distorted in Modern Bibles. I used to think God told Abraham to sacrifice his son, but this was a lie from Modern Bibles, and not the KJV. The KJV simply says offer his son. Yet, you have to do backflip twists through hoops of fire while poodles bit your fingertips to ignore such nonsense. Anyway, little did I realize Mounce is a defender of the wrong line of Bibles that come from Westcott and Hort who employed deception with their Revisioned Version. They deceived people to think this was a KJV update when in reality it was no such thing. They even had a Unitarian on their translation committee. Westcott said in one of his NT commentaries on a particular passage that it could bear the Arian meaning. These men were heretics and deceivers. Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. This was not revealed when they were pushing their Revised Version. All your Modern Bibles are based on the two texts that Westcott and Hort promoted (Which is the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). They are the fathers of the Modern Bible movement and one can easily compare doctrines between the KJV vs. Modern Bibles and see that the changes are for the worse in Modern Bibles and not for the better. But, many of course do those backflip twists through hoops of fire ignoring the big pink elephant in the room.

Secondly, I don't support Democrat politicians. You can not easily find one that is honest, but I admit the pool of honesty is scarce in politics.

While no politician is always truthful, currently the more less evil or more Christian (not exactly Christian) is the popular Republican side at this moment in time. While I do not vote, I do hope there is a leader who will do more good for this country and less harm. Currently, the leftist agenda has done more harm than good pushing things that are extremely anti-biblical. In the UK, you can be arrested for praying outside an abortion clinic. It’s insane what this Leftist movement has come to. There are exceptionally dark forces in this world seeking to change America and take away our Christian freedoms. Usually liberals or liberal Christians support Biden because they like his evil or immoral policies. I have talked with a liberal Christian who loves Biden, and yet they think KJVO is from hell. This person also supports their child in their sodomy. They have no problem also of the slaughter of the innocent (like babies).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I've asked about preservation. Does it say it will be perfectly preserved on earth. Simple yes or no please.
Most Bibles are sufficient for salvation whether perfectly preserved or not.

The verses I gave you should have given you big hit on the head by a baseball bat as to the answer. Obviously if you do not have to go to a cave or go to heaven to get his words, and they are near to you, then that means they are on Earth. Please slowly re-read the verses I posted. It just seems like you did not really digest what those words said.

 

[Cameron143]

The verses I gave you should have given you big hit on the head by a baseball bat as to the answer. Obviously if you do not have to go to a cave or go to heaven to get his words, and they are near to you, then that means they are on Earth. Please slowly re-read the verses I posted. It just seems like you did not really digest what those words said.

Another non answer. Thanks for your time.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You don't know this nor is that true.

There is a source from a book that I did not purchase yet on the history of the Waldenses that shows that they gave the Reformers a pure Bible. In either case, let’s just say the story is not even true. It doesn’t matter. Why? Because I have a thing called “faith.” I trust God’s Word when He talks about the doctrines of the purity and preservation of His own Word. That is my starting point. It’s like the resurrection. Did you need evidence to believe in it? No. Of course not. But when it comes to the doctrines of purity and preservation people do not like that teaching in the Bible because they want some kind of wiggle room or control over what God’s word said. They want to sit in the seat of God and say what God said and did not say. They become the authority and not God.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Another non answer. Thanks for your time.

No, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I made it clear in my last post to you, but I don’t think I actually had to do that because the verses are plain in what they say to lead you to the conclusion that His words are on Earth. There, I said it again. So no. It’s not a non-answer. What grade level education are you? What were your grades in English?

 

[Stan_the_Man]

I love Chuck's teachings, but I did not agree with him on everything, such as being a pre-Tribber.

Do you agree with him in his belief in once saved always saved where one can sin all they want and still go to Heaven?

I thought he was a pretty good bible teacher till I heard he believed in that, which makes him a false teacher.

What I do have is faith that God preserved a set of His words that are word perfect or with error somewhere.

In other words, God made a few errors along the way?

And when did you become an anti-paragraphite?

 

[Cameron143]

No, you just have a reading comprehension problem. I made it clear in my last post to you, but I don’t think I actually had to do that because the verses I plain in what they say to lead you to the conclusion that His words are on Earth. There, I said it again. So no. It’s not a non-answer. What grade level education are you?

No I don't. The verses you shared could have been using the word to refer to Christ or they could have been saying God was near as Paul did in Acts 17.
Here's another question: did God say His word would be preserved at all times in history?
Don't bother answering. You can only insult people and suggest they bash their head.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

There is a five-minute window to go back and edit posts. This is not long enough time to fix writing errors or typos.
Readers in the know will notice my post aftwards that corrected the error here.
I meant to say, "without error."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No I don't. The verses you shared could have been using the word to refer to Christ or they could have been saying God was near as Paul did in Acts 17.
Here's another question: did God say His word would be preserved at all times in history?
Don't bother answering. You can only insult people and suggest they bash their head.

Okay, my apologies on the baseball bat analogy. Let's says it is a foam baseball bat. I don't intend you or anyone any kind of harm. I believe in New Testament Non-Violence while we live out our faith. It is a figure of speech at your own hard headedness in not being able to read. Again, you appear to not read my admitting that God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth.

Let me say it some more, so that it may get through your thick skull.

God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.

I made this clearly in my last two posts and the verses I posted where basically saying that same truth.

As for whether God preserved His words for all time?

Yes, I believe God perfectly preserved His words for all time involving the Bible we have today.
Once His words were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the Hebrews protected the Scriptures. God did not stop preserving them since they went out in Koine Greek. I believe Psalms 12:6-7 says that the words of the Lord are pure words and they shall be kept from this generation forever. Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Yet, in Modern Bibles, you have missing words of Jesus, and Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin or they make Jesus out to be a demi-god, etcetera. In the Modern Bible Movement it is all about man made translation theories that comes from German Rationalism. There is no hand of God upon the Modern Bible Movement. It’s all man centered. The belief in Modern Textual Criticism cannot even be demonstrated by Scripture.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

Some see Easter as a mistranslation in the KJV in Acts.
But what they don’t realize is that the Passover can sometimes refer to the Passover week and not the Passover day, the 14th.
The Passover week fell during the timing of Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, if you were to look at the origin of the word "Easter" in an etymological dictionary, it can mean "the dawn" or "to shine, as from the dawn." Jesus is the light of the world. Jesus is the sun of righteousness.

I explain more about this in my previous post here.

 

[Cameron143]

Okay, my apologies on the baseball bat analogy. Let's says it is a foam baseball bat. I don't intend you or anyone any kind of harm. I believe in New Testament Non-Violence while we live out our faith. It is a figure of speech at your own hard headedness in not being able to read. Again, you appear to not read my admitting that God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth.

Let me say it some more, so that it may get through your thick skull.

God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.
God's words are perfectly preserved here on Earth now.

I made this clearly in my last two posts and the verses I posted where basically saying that same truth.

As for whether God preserved His words for all time?

Yes, I believe God perfectly preserved His words for all time involving the Bible we have today.
Once His words were written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the Hebrews protected the Scriptures. God did not stop preserving them since they went out in Koine Greek. I believe Psalms 12:6-7 says that the words of the Lord are pure words and they shall be kept from this generation forever. Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Yet, in Modern Bibles, you have missing words of Jesus, and Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin or they make Jesus out to be a demi-god, etcetera. In the Modern Bible Movement it is all about man made translation theories that comes from German Rationalism. There is no hand of God upon the Modern Bible Movement. It’s all man centered. The belief in Modern Textual Criticism cannot even be demonstrated by Scripture.

I appreciate the apology, but not necessary. I wasn't offended nor did I think you meant me any physical harm. I was just making a point. You're rude. Whether someone agrees with you or not, why go to all the trouble to study and share if you are only going to share in a manner that ensures people will reject what you share? Perhaps thin skulled individuals could learn something from the those who are osteologically superior.
So is there any relationship between Acts 17, particularly verse 27 to the verses you shared in Deuteronomy?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I appreciate the apology, but not necessary. I wasn't offended nor did I think you meant me any physical harm. I was just making a point. You're rude. Whether someone agrees with you or not, why go to all the trouble to study and share if you are only going to share in a manner that ensures people will reject what you share? Perhaps thin skulled individuals could learn something from the those who are osteologically superior.
So is there any relationship between Acts 17, particularly verse 27 to the verses you shared in Deuteronomy?

After the many disciples left Jesus, Jesus said to His remaining disciples, do you want to leave, too? Was that not rude?
In other words, I believe there is a wrong way to be rude and a good way to do so. Jesus used many illustrations that were harsh and extreme which many would find offensive. The many disciples stopped following Jesus because His words were offensive. I believe if one is loving and desires to see all men be saved, they are going to show that they love you in some other way. (Just as Christ did), even if their words may be offensive at times. Now, if their words were always hurtful or mean or cruel, etcetera., then that would be a different story.

As for Acts 17:27:

I am not sure about whether or not Acts 17:27 ties into Deuteronomy 30:11-14 or not.
But we do get a direct reference of Deuteronomy 30:13 in Romans 10:8. Read Romans 10:6-10 and you will see that the words that the apostles were preaching about Jesus (a fulfilment of Scripture) were coming to pass. By believing the gospel message a person will call upon the name of the LORD to be saved.

Also, if you were to read Deuteronomy 30:11. This was a command that was being given to the Israelite directly from the Torah Scriptures. They were not receiving this from some spiritual means as if God was whispering in their ear or anything. Just read Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and it is obvious.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

To all:

Some see Easter as a mistranslation in the KJV in Acts.
But what they don’t realize is that the Passover can sometimes refer to the Passover week and not the Passover day, the 14th.
The Passover week fell during the timing of Christ's death and resurrection.
Also, if you were to look at the origin of the word "Easter" in an etymological dictionary, it can mean "the dawn" or "to shine, as from the dawn." Jesus is the light of the world. Jesus is the sun of righteousness.

That's no reason to use the word easter instead to lead people to believe the pagen easter celebrations or of the Lord.

The KJV translator were listening to the devil on that one.

 

[Cameron143]

After the many disciples left Jesus, Jesus said to His remaining disciples, do you want to leave, too? Was that not rude?
In other words, I believe there is a wrong way to be rude and a good way to do so. Jesus used many illustrations that were harsh and extreme which many would find offensive. The many disciples stopped following Jesus because His words were offensive. I believe if one is loving and desires to see all men be saved, they are going to show that they love you in some other way. (Just as Christ did), even if their words may be offensive at times. Now, if their words were always hurtful or mean or cruel, etcetera., then that would be a different story.

As for Acts 17:27:

I am not sure about whether or not Acts 17:27 ties into Deuteronomy 30:11-14 or not.
But we do get a direct reference of Deuteronomy 30:13 in Romans 10:8. Read Romans 10:6-10 and you will see that the words that the apostles were preaching about Jesus (a fulfilment of Scripture) were coming to pass. By believing the gospel message a person will call upon the name of the LORD to be saved.

Also, if you were to read Deuteronomy 30:11. This was a command that was being given to the Israelite directly from the Torah Scriptures. They were not receiving this from some spiritual means as if God was whispering in their ear or anything. Just read Deuteronomy 30:11-14 and it is obvious.

You read into the passage rudeness on Jesus' part. You don't know how He said it. He was also setting up Peter to make a statement. Reading rudeness into the words of Jesus is a step too far for me. And I don't recall Jesus ever responding negatively to sincere questions.
Appreciate the discussion.