The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Dino246]

Christ’s faith…he alone was obedient even to the point of death.

That isn't faith; it's faithfulness. They aren't the same thing.

 

[Dino246]

Correct, it all circles back to Christ.

Your silly comment just makes all KJV-only proponents look silly.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So, what doctrines will I lack using the NASB?

I already pointed out that the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture was thoroughly undermined. How? We were told to believe that only in the late 19th century was the true Word of God discovered in a handful of corrupt manuscripts (Aleph, A, B, C, D, and E). That was a blatant lie therefore an elaborate theory was cooked up to support it. So how did God preserve His Word? Through faithful copying by scribes and monks. Who corrupted the Word? It was the Gnostics who did so. So now Christians are using bibles based on Gnostic corruptions. I will give you just one example, because it will cause you (and others) to search for all the other corruptions.

JOHN 6:69 ALTERED AND CORRUPTED
As an example of how doctrine can be changed, we take John 6:69 and analyze the changes made to it: “And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God”, has been changed to “And we have believed and have known that thou art the Holy One of God” (Nestle, RSV, NEB, JB, NAS, NIV). Here's how your favorite NASB puts it: And we have already believed and have come to know that You are the Holy One of God.”

(a) “we believe” changed to “we have believed” – by putting this in the past tense, it implies that this believing is not a continuous and continuing faith and trust, but something that occurred in the past;

(b) “and are sure” vs “and have know” are two different things. To know something does not necessarily mean to be sure of something, but Peter stated on behalf of himself and the apostles that they were sure, they were certain, they were positive, they were unshakeably convinced;

(c) “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” is an unequivocal declaration of the Deity (Godhead) and eternal Sonship of Jesus the Messiah. Christ is called “the Holy One of Israel” or “the Holy One” consistently throughout Scripture. However, “that thou art the Holy One of God” was an expression used only by unholy demons when fearfully addressing Christ with full knowledge of their judgment and doom (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34), and not once do we find the apostles addressing Christ in this manner. Thus the words of demons have been put into the mouth of Peter, and there is a huge difference between the two statements. Therefore several Bible doctrines have been changed very seriously through these few alterations. When this is repeated over and over again throughout the Scriptures, we can be sure that Satan is behind these changes.

 

[Kroogz]

a) “we believe” changed to “we have believed” – by putting this in the past tense, it implies that this believing is not a continuous and continuing faith and trust, but something that occurred in the past;

Its not the past tense. It's the perfect tense. A completed aspect/action and carried into present time and on into the future.

b) “and are sure” vs “and have know” are two different things. To know something does not necessarily mean to be sure of something, but Peter stated on behalf of himself and the apostles that they were sure, they were certain, they were positive, they were unshakeably convinced;

Same here. Perfect tense. A completed action/aspect that carries on.

c) “that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God” is an unequivocal declaration of the Deity (Godhead) and eternal Sonship of Jesus the Messiah. Christ is called “the Holy One of Israel” or “the Holy One” consistently throughout Scripture. However, “that thou art the Holy One of God” was an expression used only by unholy demons when fearfully addressing Christ with full knowledge of their judgment and doom (Mk. 1:24; Lk. 4:34), and not once do we find the apostles addressing Christ in this manner. Thus the words of demons have been put into the mouth of Peter, and there is a huge difference between the two statements. Therefore several Bible doctrines have been changed very seriously through these few alterations. When this is repeated over and over again throughout the Scriptures, we can be sure that Satan is behind these changes.

I bet you dollars to doughnuts that you and I have the exact same beliefs on this particular subject.And the above verse in John....and I read the NASB.
I have a KJV and do like it. But this gives me pause to rely on it much. If it made me get to the point to imply that other brothers and sisters are reading doctrines of demons........I don't want much to do with it.

If I am wrong, I trust the Lord will show me when I am ready.

 

[fredoheaven]

The KJV is not "without error". In Matthew 24:3 they translate Aion or "age", for "world" which the greek word is Cosmos. This is in error, or I don't know if error is the right word, but a better translation and what the word meant was AGE. This cult like belief system sets His word to a standard that can be picked apart by very basic arguments. The translation isn't bad of course, it's God's' word, but you trying to impose some kind of magical properties to it that are never even stated in scripture is dangerous and completely unnecessary. His word is amazing enough without us lifting a translation up as a false idol.

I don’t know if you got this right when you said [ Aion or "age", for "world" which the greek word is Cosmos.] though you are not sure if it fits to be an “error”. Saying “a better translation” however, gives a doubt that KJB may be in error. However, your conclusive accusation of a cult-like mind and false idol is not to justify the error you think it seems to be. The fact is you have not given justification/s as to why it is an error on the part of the KJB.

One thing, the Greek word “Aion” cannot only mean “AGE” where the KJB translators are fully aware of this word Aion and its usage. The KJB translators did translated differently 128x and occurred in the KJB for the word “AGE” 3x as in Eph. 2:7, 3:21; Col. 1:26. Obviously not all modern scholars would agree on the meaning of aion. Even the NIV and other modern translations did at times translate this same Greek word as WORLD.

The NIV does this four times - Luke 16:8 "the children of this world"; Romans 12:2 "Be not conformed to this world"; 1 Timothy 6:17 "Charge them that are rich in this world..."; and 2 Timothy 4:10 "Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world."

Now why “World” and not “Age” in the particular passage. The context would just determine us the proper word to be used. The Olivet discourse is about the destruction of the Temple buildings which correspond to the place. Jesus sits on the Mount of Olivet (place) and when the Apostles asked him “When” will this happen then we have an element of time. The word “what” carries both the time and the place. His second coming concerns the time but the signs of the times concern a worldwide event. It will take place at different places. The word “age” which is an element of time cannot carry both the intended meaning but the English word “World” carries both place and time.

Now may I know your justification/s why it is ‘Age” rather than “World”? Thanks

 

[Blik]

Do you actually think they got to the word "Pascha" and had a brain fart and mistranslated the word? They very well knew that it meant Passover, but at that time in history when Peter was in prison, Christ the Passover Lamb had already come ending the Jewish Passover. Biblically, Passover had changed to a new phrase, "Easter" meaning Christ the Passover Lamb. Christians throughout the ages have understood this.

Christ is not a new God, Christ is God the son. Christ fulfilled redemption, he did not end it.

 

[timemeddler]

I've never understood how people get so fanatical about king james only, I had a group of the literally tear a church in half when the old pastor left and there was a shortage of pastors to choose from, but no matter what they would accept a pastor who wasn't king james only. Even after being confronted with the fact that the old pastor wasn't strictly king james to begin with.

 

[fredoheaven]

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."

1 Corinthians 1:18, If a new believer in Christ uses the NASB, he might be confused over the Doctrine of Eternal Security. The NASB says to us who are “being saved” require fulfillment for completeness. Yes, I am not saying we cannot be saved using modern Versions but a new believer in Christ might be confused on this aid doctrine. God bless.

King James Bible
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

New American Standard Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

 

[presidente]

1 Corinthians 1:18, If a new believer in Christ uses the NASB, he might be confused over the Doctrine of Eternal Security. The NASB says to us who are “being saved” require fulfillment for completeness. Yes, I am not saying we cannot be saved using modern Versions but a new believer in Christ might be confused on this aid doctrine. God bless.

King James Bible
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

New American Standard Bible
For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

A good example of where the NASB has a better translation than the KJV. The word translated 'preaching' or 'word' here is λόγος.

 

[Nehemiah6]

A good example of where the NASB has a better translation than the KJV. The word translated 'preaching' or 'word' here is λόγος.

And that justifies its use? Are you serious? The preaching of the cross correspond to "we preach Christ and Him crucified". The NASB is simply another corrupt modern version. Check out its Preface. This translation has had four revisions since it was published in 1971. Yet it was touted as the best and most accurate translation right at the beginning. And one does not revise something that is "near perfect".

 

[Nehemiah6]

For just a small sampling of corruptions in several versions (including the NASB), see this article. "This table is a very small sampling of contradictory verses, not an exhaustive one."

Various Contradictions and Omissions in Bible Translations
https://av1611.com/kjbp/charts/various.html

 

[Nehemiah6]

Frank Logsdon Repudiates the NASB
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

Frank Logsdon was on the translation committee of the NASB, and closely associated with the creation of the NASB. But soon after, he repudiated both the NASB and the critical text on which it is based. That in itself should cause all Christians to reject this translation.

 

[fredoheaven]

A good example of where the NASB has a better translation than the KJV. The word translated 'preaching' or 'word' here is λόγος.

And why? Thanks

 

[ThewindBlows]

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

Do you think the king James version has errors in it? If so what ones, and if not why change to a version that clearly does

 

[John146]

Christ is not a new God, Christ is God the son. Christ fulfilled redemption, he did not end it.

Agreed, your point?

 

[John146]

And that justifies its use? Are you serious? The preaching of the cross correspond to "we preach Christ and Him crucified". The NASB is simply another corrupt modern version. Check out its Preface. This translation has had four revisions since it was published in 1971. Yet it was touted as the best and most accurate translation right at the beginning. And one does not revise something that is "near perfect".

Maybe the NASB doesn’t want people preaching Christ and him crucified.

 

[John146]

I've never understood how people get so fanatical about king james only, I had a group of the literally tear a church in half when the old pastor left and there was a shortage of pastors to choose from, but no matter what they would accept a pastor who wasn't king james only. Even after being confronted with the fact that the old pastor wasn't strictly king james to begin with.

Guilty! I am fanatical about the word of God.

 

[Jimbone]

Magnifying the word of God is not idol worship. That argument is old.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

But that's not what you're doing, you are lifting a single translation of His word above everything else including facts and common sense. Maybe it's an "old argument" and you hear it all the time because God has been sending so many to tell you that you're in error.
I only have a problem with it taken to the extreme to the point you shut your mind to facts and the truth of how His word exist throughout time. If you love the KJV and only want to read that then fine. No problem. I don't really care to be honest. It's when things like "it's the ONLY true version of God's word", and "completely without error", "you can use the KJV to correct the greek text", and all these unrealistic things that are more opinion and belief than provable fact, then use it to divide and separate the body, that's what I don't like. Nevermind the idea that the world was without God's word until 1700 years later with the english language, I just don't at all see that being rational, logical, or even biblical at all. just seems a weird battle to be so stuck on.

 

[John146]

But that's not what you're doing, you are lifting a single translation of His word above everything else including facts and common sense. Maybe it's an "old argument" and you hear it all the time because God has been sending so many to tell you that you're in error.
I only have a problem with it taken to the extreme to the point you shut your mind to facts and the truth of how His word exist throughout time. If you love the KJV and only want to read that then fine. No problem. I don't really care to be honest. It's when things like "it's the ONLY true version of God's word", and "completely without error", "you can use the KJV to correct the greek text", and all these unrealistic things that are more opinion and belief than provable fact, then use it to divide and separate the body, that's what I don't like. Nevermind the idea that the world was without God's word until 1700 years later with the english language, I just don't at all see that being rational, logical, or even biblical at all. just seems a weird battle to be so stuck on.

1. I lift up the KJV above everything else because I wholeheartedly believe it is the preserved word of God without error. If you felt the same way about what you read, you would too.

2. The enemy will go to great lengths to make sure you don't believe you have the word of God. The enemy wants you to rely on your own education and intelligence to figure it out.

3. No factual arguments have been made against the KJV. Men have been fighting against it for centuries, and yet, the KJV has prevailed.

4. There can be only one true version of God's word, or none. There cannot be multiple versions of God's word that contain different words and even different truths. God is not the author of confusion.

5. Multiple versions has caused confusion and dissension among the brethren (devil's plan), and disbelief among non-believers.

6. Greek text? Where? Do we have the original Greek text? Nope.

7. God has always preserved his word throughout the course of human history. He made it available completed in one book in the KJV.

8. God foresaw the explosion of the English language and the boldness and courage of those who would use his word to evangelize the world. Standing up for the word of God is biblical.

God bless brother

 

[Magenta]

And that justifies its use? Are you serious? The preaching of the cross correspond to "we preach Christ and Him crucified". The NASB is simply another corrupt modern version. Check out its Preface. This translation has had four revisions since it was published in 1971. Yet it was touted as the best and most accurate translation right at the beginning. And one does not revise something that is "near perfect".

From a general search: It is commonly accepted that there have been four real revisions of the King James text before the modern era. There are about 22,000 differences between the first 1611 King James printing and the fourth revision in 1769.