The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[John146]

So, what doctrines will I lack using the NASB?

i already answered that. Christ lives in me. I see it as you do. And I study from the NASB. Christ does the Justifying, not my faith.

When we are faithless,He is faithful. What doctrines will I miss from studying the NASB?

Any serious student isn't going to read these verses and think," Faith alone in my faith alone for my salvation."

In the NASB justification is through the faith of the believer. In the KJV justification belongs through the faith of Jesus Christ. You will not see the phrase, "faith of Christ" anywhere in the NASB.

 

[John146]

This thread is not about the ESV.

How old was Ahaziah when he became king? 22? or 42? Every word matters. How can you know the will of God if you don't have His perfect words?

You know I have posted the reconciliation for Ahaziah. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. However, the new versions blatantly lie about who killed Goliath.

 

[Dino246]

I believe, by now, most realize Satan's device is to: 1) question, 2) add to,
3) subtract from, 4) water down, and 4) outright DENY God's Word Of Truth, eh?


Interesting choice of words, so, In Light Of:

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration Of God, And Is Profitable for​

doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:​

That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all​

good works." (2 Timothy 3:16)​

​

So, which is it?

1) Only the Original Scriptural copies "are Inspired" and Profitable?

If True, then what do you do with "the king who burned the Original
scroll," in Jeremiah 36:1-32? Was the Second copy then UNInspired?:

"Then took Jeremiah another roll, and gave it to Baruch the scribe,​

the son of Neriah; who wrote therein from the mouth of Jeremiah​

all the words of the book which Jehoiakim king of Judah had burned​

in the fire: and there were added besides unto them many like words."​

(v 32)​

​

Another question, In Light Of Deuteronomy 4:2, and 12:32:

Was not then Jeremiah disobedient when he "added besides unto
them many like words" To The 'Only Inspired Original' Scriptures
that the king burned?

​

Or:

2) All Scriptures:
whether Original, prayerfully/carefully made NON-corrupted copies, and All translations, no matter the language, from these ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑ ↑, are:

All God's Preserved And 'Inspired' Scriptures, And Are ALL 'Profitable'?

Which for you, all precious friends, who wish to be men/women
"of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works"
"receiving rewards at The Bema Judgment Seat (1Co 3:8-15)?

Amen.

So many errors.

The most blatantly obvious is "false dichotomy". There are more than the two options you provided.

Your argument might seem plausible to the unthinking, but it's actually ridiculous. You're using an example of the original human author who again wrote the same words he was previously inspired to write. He simply penned them a second time. That's not remotely, let alone directly, comparable to other people writing in another language their best interpretation of the authors' original intent, hundreds if not thousands of years after the original.

smh...

 

[Dino246]

You know I have posted the reconciliation for Ahaziah. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. However, the new versions blatantly lie about who killed Goliath.

You spew a "reconciliation" for Ahaziah and reject EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE OF RECONILIATION for Goliath.

Your hypocrisy disgusts me.

 

[Dino246]

In the NASB justification is through the faith of the believer. In the KJV justification belongs through the faith of Jesus Christ. You will not see the phrase, "faith of Christ" anywhere in the NASB.

Nor in most other translations, because it's a poor choice of words that is misleading.

 

[presidente]

Seems to me, the argument here is that God can or can not protect the validity of His Written Word. I guess God must not
be as all powerful as we have been taught, huh? That being said, if we did not hear the word
of God from Jesus Himself, we have received corrupted teachings?

(mountain, molehill; one can turn into the other)

No,

That is not the argument at all. It is a question of whether a certain translation of the Bible, which we can see has a few mistakes in the translation here and there, is a 100% perfect, translation, and whether canonical inspiration was being given to KJV translators in 1611.

 

[Kroogz]

In the NASB justification is through the faith of the believer. In the KJV justification belongs through the faith of Jesus Christ. You will not see the phrase, "faith of Christ" anywhere in the NASB.

Once again, I study from the NASB and I have come to the same conclusion as you. So, What will I lack from further study in the NASB?

 

[presidente]

Wasn't King James considered the proverbial "pope" of the protestants at the time? So, it makes sense that many still hold his version the same as Catholics' hold to theirs.

Not for non-Anglicans.

 

[GaryA]

You continue to make this claim (bolded) but continue to fail to list these allegedly impacted doctrines. Step up.

Here is a good start:

https://christianchat.com/christian...slation-is-your-favorite.198605/#post-4541119

 

[John146]

You spew a "reconciliation" for Ahaziah and reject EXACTLY THE SAME NATURE OF RECONILIATION for Goliath.

Your hypocrisy disgusts me.

I don't recall your reconciliation for Goliath. Let me guess, there was another giant from Gath named Goliath?

 

[presidente]

Who killed Goliath?

ESV
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

I was just thinking of a script for an ancient TV. "I'm Darryl, and this is my brother Goliath, and my other brother Goliath."

 

[John146]

Nor in most other translations, because it's a poor choice of words that is misleading.

Misleading? How? How is the believer justified? When my pathetic, wavering faith fails, the faith of Christ never fails. He is the just and the justifier of them which believe. He's the Just one, not me or you.

 

[John146]

I was just thinking of a script for an ancient TV. "I'm Darryl, and this is my brother Goliath, and my other brother Goliath."

That's funny! I'm glad to see someone can keep these discussions light.

 

[John146]

Once again, I study from the NASB and I have come to the same conclusion as you. So, What will I lack from further study in the NASB?

The word "begotten" is an important doctrine that is missed in the NASB. God had many sons, but only one begotten.

 

[presidente]

My question to the doubters is, since you do not profess to have a perfect bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"? Would God's word have errors? Would God's word need correcting by you or any other theologian expert? We are never meant to question God's word, but just believe it.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Think about what that scripture actually meant to the people who originally hear or read it? Did Paul deliver to then a copy of the entire complete 1611 NKJV, and is that what he means by 'the word of God'? Did he even mean the Greek text of the New Testament scripture, along with Hebrew and Aramaic scriptures?

They may have taught out of the Old Testament, but no doubt he and his co-workers preached a message to them. You seem to be making an exact equation between 'word of God' and 'the Bible' which does not work here in this verse, and even more strangely, are you equating the 1611 KJV with 'word of God' in this verse'?

Do you actually believe that Paul gave them a copy of the KJV? If not, why would you make this argument?

 

[GaryA]

How about the most famous verse in scripture, John 3:16. Taking the word “begothen” out, makes the false. Jesus was not God’s only Son, but was his only begotten Son.

Let's start with the meaning of the word. What does "begotten" mean, that it is critical to this verse?

What "doctrine" is changed by the addition or subtraction of "begotten"?

The virgin birth of Jesus.

 

[Kroogz]

The word "begotten" is an important doctrine that is missed in the NASB. God had many sons, but only one begotten.

Yes, I believe in Gods only begotten Son.

Love ya brother. Maybe God will move me someday to the KJV. And if I ever see a major doctrine lacking from the NASB, I will surely drop it.

 

[GaryA]

I like my stake to be very rare.

'rare' as in "never" ?

 

[Dino246]

The virgin birth of Jesus.

Nope. Try again.

 

[Dino246]

The word "begotten" is an important doctrine that is missed in the NASB. God had many sons, but only one begotten.

The word, "begotten" is not a "doctrine". No doctrine is built on one word, or even one verse. Perhaps if you had learned proper hermeneutics you would make such silly claims.