The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Hi brother Kroogz,
I just don't understand your presentation here and I also doubt that the basis of KJV which is Scriveners you are saying which actually is not. Scrivener is part of the Revise Committee and had to back-translate using the KJB to form his Greek TR. Also, he made some changes to the Greek text used by the KJB translators It might be helpful if you could state in the English language you intend to bring out. Thank you
I just don't understand your presentation here and I also doubt that the basis of KJV which is Scriveners you are saying which actually is not. Scrivener is part of the Revise Committee and had to back-translate using the KJB to form his Greek TR. Also, he made some changes to the Greek text used by the KJB translators It might be helpful if you could state in the English language you intend to bring out. Thank you
-
1
- Show all
In fact it does prove that a handful of manuscripts were corrupted and have thousands of additions, omissions, deletions, and false transpositions. At the same time it has been fully and properly established that the Hebrew Masoretic Text and the Greek Received Text (the traditional texts) fairly represent the whole body of manuscripts (including the Lectionaries of the Greek Orthodox Church) ranging from the 1st to the 14th centuries.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
The apostles never stated
1. Let’s check the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts
2. I think a better translation would be…
3. Let’s update Gods word to a more understandable language.
4. Words don’t matter, just the thought of the passage.
5. Minor doctrines don’t matter, just the major ones.
6. We don’t need all the words of God to grow to maturity.
1. Let’s check the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts
2. I think a better translation would be…
3. Let’s update Gods word to a more understandable language.
4. Words don’t matter, just the thought of the passage.
5. Minor doctrines don’t matter, just the major ones.
6. We don’t need all the words of God to grow to maturity.
-
3
-
1
- Show all
William Tyndale actually invented the English word “Passover.” Before that time, the word “Easter” was used. We see various Textus Receptus Bibles use Easter and Passover interchangeably in other places of the Bible. A great book that documents this fact is the book called,
It’s short read and affordable to read via Amazon Kindle.
But people see error in the KJB because that is what they desire to see.
“Don’t Passover Easter” by Bryan C. Ross.
It’s short read and affordable to read via Amazon Kindle.
But people see error in the KJB because that is what they desire to see.
-
1
- Show all
How is any of that an argument for KJV onlyism. They could have said something like 1, btw. There was a choice of Hebrew or a Greek translation for the Old Testament, and many of the Jews though the Greek translation was miraculously translated, especially for the Pentateuch. The KJV onlyists don't even have a story of 70 translators all working independently and translating it the same.
First, actually, that would be Jude 1:3.
Jude 1:3
”Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
There is no such thing as Jude 3:4. But I am sure that is a typo on your part.
Second, how do you know Jude 1:3 is even true? Manuscript evidence alone?
However, faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).
In other words, you don’t have faith because some scholar tells you this Bible is based on the oldest and best manuscripts, etcetera.
You believe because the Word of God is something you receive and it is spiritual.
The moment you introduce “error” into your Bible is the moment that YOU or the SCHOLAR becomes the real authority, and not God.
Also, if you were to read the commentaries by Westcott and Hort, they deny the deity of Christ, and the blood atonement.
If you were to read their biographies, they were heretics. They basically started the Modern Translation movement.
These changes in Modern Bibles that comes from their line of manuscripts are for the worse and not for the better.
Yes, yes. I know. You follow the Nestle and Aland now. But Mr. Epp (a Modern Textual Critic) did a comparative study and said the Nestle annd Aland is barely any different from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text. Furthermore, to make matters worse, the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland states that it was supervised by the Vatican. But you’re probably thinking, “Yeah, but there is no changes in doctrine.” Not true. Just Google “Kieth Piper NIV” and go to page 21-22 and you will see the 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church. Some of these changes are different even from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text. So yes. They added more Catholic junk in your Bible. Westcott and Hort were also into Catholicism. Hort said, “Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400).
In addition, Modern Bibles change words in the book of Revelation and therefore, those who made such changes are in danger with the Lord because there is a warning not to add or take away from God’s words. In other words, if there is not a perfect set of His words that are error free, then we could not really know which words would be addition or a subtraction.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God does not exist in the past only to give the benefit of a perfect Word alone to only the apostles and the early church. Also, if we are to follow your line of logic, then God should have never had the New Testament Scriptures written in Greek. They should have stayed in Hebrew and Aramaic. But God moved with the times and provided the New Covenant Scriptures in Greek instead. Also, where was Jesus Christ before the Incarnation? He existed as the second person of the Trinity, and He made pre-incarnate appearances in the Old Testament. But the point here is that there is a connection between the Living Word (Jesus) and the Communicated Word (the Bible). Nowhere did the early church have the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures bound into one book. That would be something that would happen later after Gutenberg invented the printing press. But we do see in Scripture hints of a future Word of God. I would recommend checking out the Bible study on Isaiah 34:16 here by Brandon Peterson. He goes into explaining in context Isaiah 34:16.
[Continued in my next post]
Jude 1:3
”Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
There is no such thing as Jude 3:4. But I am sure that is a typo on your part.
Second, how do you know Jude 1:3 is even true? Manuscript evidence alone?
However, faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (Hebrews 11:1).
In other words, you don’t have faith because some scholar tells you this Bible is based on the oldest and best manuscripts, etcetera.
You believe because the Word of God is something you receive and it is spiritual.
The moment you introduce “error” into your Bible is the moment that YOU or the SCHOLAR becomes the real authority, and not God.
Also, if you were to read the commentaries by Westcott and Hort, they deny the deity of Christ, and the blood atonement.
If you were to read their biographies, they were heretics. They basically started the Modern Translation movement.
These changes in Modern Bibles that comes from their line of manuscripts are for the worse and not for the better.
Yes, yes. I know. You follow the Nestle and Aland now. But Mr. Epp (a Modern Textual Critic) did a comparative study and said the Nestle annd Aland is barely any different from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text. Furthermore, to make matters worse, the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland states that it was supervised by the Vatican. But you’re probably thinking, “Yeah, but there is no changes in doctrine.” Not true. Just Google “Kieth Piper NIV” and go to page 21-22 and you will see the 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church. Some of these changes are different even from the 1881 Westcott and Hort text. So yes. They added more Catholic junk in your Bible. Westcott and Hort were also into Catholicism. Hort said, “Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible." (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400).
In addition, Modern Bibles change words in the book of Revelation and therefore, those who made such changes are in danger with the Lord because there is a warning not to add or take away from God’s words. In other words, if there is not a perfect set of His words that are error free, then we could not really know which words would be addition or a subtraction.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God does not exist in the past only to give the benefit of a perfect Word alone to only the apostles and the early church. Also, if we are to follow your line of logic, then God should have never had the New Testament Scriptures written in Greek. They should have stayed in Hebrew and Aramaic. But God moved with the times and provided the New Covenant Scriptures in Greek instead. Also, where was Jesus Christ before the Incarnation? He existed as the second person of the Trinity, and He made pre-incarnate appearances in the Old Testament. But the point here is that there is a connection between the Living Word (Jesus) and the Communicated Word (the Bible). Nowhere did the early church have the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures bound into one book. That would be something that would happen later after Gutenberg invented the printing press. But we do see in Scripture hints of a future Word of God. I would recommend checking out the Bible study on Isaiah 34:16 here by Brandon Peterson. He goes into explaining in context Isaiah 34:16.
[Continued in my next post]
God’s Word teaches that copies of His Word are inspired Scripture. If you were to compare the existence of the Isaiah scroll in the New Testament with Luke 4:17, along with the existence of what appears to be another Isaiah scroll in Acts 8:28, Acts 8:32-33, at least one of these scrolls would have to be a copy and not the original. Each of these manuscripts of Isaiah are called Scripture. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15). Again, these Scriptures he had would have been copies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. ALL Scripture is inspired, and not just some. Meaning, copies that are called Scripture are given by inspiration of God and not just the originals (See video here to learn more) (Note: Keep in mind that while the author of this video does offer some insightful truths in Scripture, I do not agree with his wrong and hateful attitude at times).
It is actually more systematic than just pointing out a few flaws actually. While I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King james Bible being the Pure Word of God, there are actually 10 categories of evidences that defend the KJB being the Word of God.
For a list of changed doctrines, see here, and here.
For a list of the categories that defend the KJB, see here.
If this was the only argument, then I could see this being a problem. Remember, we have to build our case and look at all of the evidence to make an informed decision. We do not base our decision solely on one reason alone as to why we believe the KJB is the pure Word. It may start off that way when we are new in the faith and we see the doctrinal changes that are for the worse, but as we study this issue involving the Bible and history, we cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the KJB as being the Word of God for today. Anyway, the point of authority is Scripture. Jesus and the apostles did not talk about textual variants or argue over how a word could have been better rendered in the Scriptures. Christ and His followers quoted Scripture with authority. That’s a biblical fact, and should play into how we have faith today. Nowhere does Scripture teach that His words would pass away and would be up to us to piece them together like some kind of Frankenstein monster.
Why would they say this?
Because it aligns with what the Bible says.
Ecclesiastes 8:4
”Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”
But again, not all KJB believers are saying this is the sole reason or even the greatest of all reasons for the KJB.
It is only one link in the chain of evidences that show that the KJB is a book unlike any other books in human history.
I mean, where else in history can you find another team of translators that was comparable to the 47 KJB translators. Their credentials are unmatched by any recent scholar of today. If you were to study their credentials and compare it with any else in Bible history, you would see that they were the cream of the crop or the best that came to us in history. But again, this would not be our sole reason. There are many evidences that show that the KJB is the Word of God. We look at all the evidences to determine this truth, sort of like how a detective looks at all the evidences to solve a crime.
Scripture did not last long. They had to keep making copies and copies and more copies. So nothing stayed in the original languages. The idea here is that we do not have the originals. Not even the apostles were dealing with original Hebrew Scriptures anymore. They had copies of copies. It does not make the copies any less the Word of God or inspired. So if a copy can be inspired, then so could future copies of Scripture in another language. In fact, we know God translates languages just fine in Scripture.
God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.
Besides, there is nothing said that God’s Word had to remain in the original languages. By looking at how God moved the language to Greek with the NT Scriptures proves that God was not stuck to just preserving His Scriptures into one set original language.
Before the King James Bible, I believe it is possible that the Bible may have perfectly existed with the Waldenses who dated back to the early church. Unfortunately they were wiped out by the Catholic Church. The Bible they had was the Latin Italic Bible.
There was no need for KJB Onlyism until the 1800s.
See “For the Love of the Bible PDF (WayofLife):
https://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/For_Love_of_the_Bible.pdf
While the Geneva Bible was popular here in America when they first settled it, but later that would change.
The Bible here in America was the King James Bible since the 1700s (18th century).
The first Bible printed on American soil was the Aitken’s King James Bible, and it was approved by Congress.
Granted, it did not go over well financially, but other publishers quickly took up the helm of publishing the KJB and it became this nations national book until the early 1960s (Which was around the time they also just took the KJB or the Bible out of public schools).
The KJB had an affect upon US presidents and other notable figures in US history.
It is actually more systematic than just pointing out a few flaws actually. While I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King james Bible being the Pure Word of God, there are actually 10 categories of evidences that defend the KJB being the Word of God.
For a list of changed doctrines, see here, and here.
For a list of the categories that defend the KJB, see here.
If this was the only argument, then I could see this being a problem. Remember, we have to build our case and look at all of the evidence to make an informed decision. We do not base our decision solely on one reason alone as to why we believe the KJB is the pure Word. It may start off that way when we are new in the faith and we see the doctrinal changes that are for the worse, but as we study this issue involving the Bible and history, we cannot escape the inevitable conclusion that the evidence overwhelmingly points to the KJB as being the Word of God for today. Anyway, the point of authority is Scripture. Jesus and the apostles did not talk about textual variants or argue over how a word could have been better rendered in the Scriptures. Christ and His followers quoted Scripture with authority. That’s a biblical fact, and should play into how we have faith today. Nowhere does Scripture teach that His words would pass away and would be up to us to piece them together like some kind of Frankenstein monster.
Why would they say this?
Because it aligns with what the Bible says.
Ecclesiastes 8:4
”Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?”
But again, not all KJB believers are saying this is the sole reason or even the greatest of all reasons for the KJB.
It is only one link in the chain of evidences that show that the KJB is a book unlike any other books in human history.
I mean, where else in history can you find another team of translators that was comparable to the 47 KJB translators. Their credentials are unmatched by any recent scholar of today. If you were to study their credentials and compare it with any else in Bible history, you would see that they were the cream of the crop or the best that came to us in history. But again, this would not be our sole reason. There are many evidences that show that the KJB is the Word of God. We look at all the evidences to determine this truth, sort of like how a detective looks at all the evidences to solve a crime.
Scripture did not last long. They had to keep making copies and copies and more copies. So nothing stayed in the original languages. The idea here is that we do not have the originals. Not even the apostles were dealing with original Hebrew Scriptures anymore. They had copies of copies. It does not make the copies any less the Word of God or inspired. So if a copy can be inspired, then so could future copies of Scripture in another language. In fact, we know God translates languages just fine in Scripture.
God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.
Besides, there is nothing said that God’s Word had to remain in the original languages. By looking at how God moved the language to Greek with the NT Scriptures proves that God was not stuck to just preserving His Scriptures into one set original language.
Before the King James Bible, I believe it is possible that the Bible may have perfectly existed with the Waldenses who dated back to the early church. Unfortunately they were wiped out by the Catholic Church. The Bible they had was the Latin Italic Bible.
There was no need for KJB Onlyism until the 1800s.
See “For the Love of the Bible PDF (WayofLife):
https://www.holybibleinstitute.com/files/For_Love_of_the_Bible.pdf
While the Geneva Bible was popular here in America when they first settled it, but later that would change.
The Bible here in America was the King James Bible since the 1700s (18th century).
The first Bible printed on American soil was the Aitken’s King James Bible, and it was approved by Congress.
Granted, it did not go over well financially, but other publishers quickly took up the helm of publishing the KJB and it became this nations national book until the early 1960s (Which was around the time they also just took the KJB or the Bible out of public schools).
The KJB had an affect upon US presidents and other notable figures in US history.
-
1
- Show all
If any certain written word could save anyone, the tablets would've done it.
Deutoronomy 29
29The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:1 speaks concerning a distinct covenant apart from the one given at Sinai, of which is the law v. 29 speaks toward. It seems only the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Literal Standard Version and the Young's Literal Translation are the clearest in it's expression of this distinction that translates it " apart from," unless you count those that use the word, "besides" rather than "beside" or "in addition to." Though the latter two ways of saying doesn't rule out the distinction it does leave room for a sort of a mingling of the law rather than setting them apart, Even though both, the law given at Moab and that given at Sinai are holy, each are set apart for distinct purposes. The law given at Sinai is a taskmaster that is purposed to bring you to the law given at Moab.
This is the law that Romans 10 clarifies in citing Deut 30
5For concerning the righteousness that is by the law, Moses writes: “The man who does these things will live by them.”a 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’b (that is, to bring Christ down) 7or, ‘Who will descend into the Abyss?’c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.
Deutoronomy 29
29The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, so that we may follow all the words of this law.
Deuteronomy 29:1 speaks concerning a distinct covenant apart from the one given at Sinai, of which is the law v. 29 speaks toward. It seems only the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the Literal Standard Version and the Young's Literal Translation are the clearest in it's expression of this distinction that translates it " apart from," unless you count those that use the word, "besides" rather than "beside" or "in addition to." Though the latter two ways of saying doesn't rule out the distinction it does leave room for a sort of a mingling of the law rather than setting them apart, Even though both, the law given at Moab and that given at Sinai are holy, each are set apart for distinct purposes. The law given at Sinai is a taskmaster that is purposed to bring you to the law given at Moab.
This is the law that Romans 10 clarifies in citing Deut 30
5For concerning the righteousness that is by the law, Moses writes: “The man who does these things will live by them.”a 6But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’b (that is, to bring Christ down) 7or, ‘Who will descend into the Abyss?’c (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).”
8But what does it say? “The word is near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart,”d that is, the word of faith we are proclaiming: 9that if you confess with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. 10For with your heart you believe and are justified, and with your mouth you confess and are saved.
-
1
- Show all
I'm sorry to disagree with you!
The JEWS were celebrating Pesach - not Easter. Jesus had not died yet for Christians to celebrate Easter, so Tyndale came up with the English word, "Passover" to describe more accurately what Jewish holiday was being celebrated.
Source: The Use of ‘Easter’ in Acts 12.4
If you want to only study from KJV, that's fine, but God also blessed other translations too because not everyone has the same reading comprehension levels and He wants to be able to help people understand what He's trying to teach them.
So please don't make that translation an idol. It is far better to trust in God and His leading as you study the Bible than in the translation itself. This is why I prefer to study the Bible in parallel with several different translations, than to stick with just one.
KJV-only people think that KJV is the most accurate, but for me, God oftentimes would point to a different translation that He knows would help me better to understand a concept He's trying to teach than another translation would.
Also, KJV-only doesn't produce the godliest people from what I'm seeing, honestly. If it did, I would have given the KJV-only teaching more serious consideration. I think they're KJV-only because they like the appearance of exclusivity.
🌷
-
1
- Show all
Yes, the Jews were celebrating Passover. Easter is just another word for Passover. They are not different things. They are the same.
You may not believe the KJB is anything special, but the book source I provided proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the word Passover and Easter were used interchangeably in previous Textus Receptus Bibles (before the KJB). The author makes his case that is really good.
Yes, in later times, Easter has evolved in meaning. But this was not the case during Tyndale’s time.
I am actually Core KJB, and not KJB Only. While I believe the King James Bible is perfect and without error (i.e., the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition), I do find value in looking at Modern Translations in helping to flesh out the archaic language in the KJB at times. But I don’t trust Modern Bibles as my final Word of authority because they teach many false doctrines (See here for just a small list). This is simply fact. Doctrines are changed and they are for the worse and not for the better. Of course, there are many other reasons not to place one’s final authority in Modern Bibles, too. Westcott and Hort would be another major reason.
The KJB is my core foundational text, but I do use other Bibles to aid in what it says.
If there is a heretical difference, I side with the KJB.
There is no such thing unless you are claiming that most KJB believers are bowing down to King James Bible as if it was God Himself. But most KJB believers hold to the view that God is a spirit being, and that His Word is merely the expressed thoughts of God and that we can cherish. What do you make of this verse?
Psalms 119:140
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.”
Are they committing idolatry because they love God’s Word?
Surely not.
Just as there can only be one Jesus, there can only be one Bible.
Not all Bibles teach the same things.
The Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, unlike the KJB.
But you need to do the study in order to discover this truth for yourself.
I also look at Modern Translations in gaining insight. But I do so as to gain insight from KJB, and I even quote Modern Translations at times. But the KJB is my final Word of authority seeing it is the real Word of God.
Yes, I am not against God talking to us in other translations. I just believe the translation should not contradict the KJB. If it does, then I need to have a final Word of authority. This is the KJB because of many systematic evidences.
We are living in the last days. So I would not expect to see too many actually following the Bible like the early church did.
There are doctrines that I disagree with KJB Only Christians. For example: They are huge proponents of Unconditional Eternal Security of which I disagree with strongly. But we do agree on the Trinity, and some other things. I am also not in agreement with KJB Only believers saying that we can only benefit by reading the KJB only. This is why I am Core KJB. Modern Bibles can be of a great benefit, but they are also problematic, as well. There are lots of false doctrines people believe these days because of Modern Bibles.
You may not believe the KJB is anything special, but the book source I provided proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the word Passover and Easter were used interchangeably in previous Textus Receptus Bibles (before the KJB). The author makes his case that is really good.
Yes, in later times, Easter has evolved in meaning. But this was not the case during Tyndale’s time.
I am actually Core KJB, and not KJB Only. While I believe the King James Bible is perfect and without error (i.e., the 1900 Pure Cambridge Edition), I do find value in looking at Modern Translations in helping to flesh out the archaic language in the KJB at times. But I don’t trust Modern Bibles as my final Word of authority because they teach many false doctrines (See here for just a small list). This is simply fact. Doctrines are changed and they are for the worse and not for the better. Of course, there are many other reasons not to place one’s final authority in Modern Bibles, too. Westcott and Hort would be another major reason.
The KJB is my core foundational text, but I do use other Bibles to aid in what it says.
If there is a heretical difference, I side with the KJB.
There is no such thing unless you are claiming that most KJB believers are bowing down to King James Bible as if it was God Himself. But most KJB believers hold to the view that God is a spirit being, and that His Word is merely the expressed thoughts of God and that we can cherish. What do you make of this verse?
Psalms 119:140
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.”
Are they committing idolatry because they love God’s Word?
Surely not.
Just as there can only be one Jesus, there can only be one Bible.
Not all Bibles teach the same things.
The Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, unlike the KJB.
But you need to do the study in order to discover this truth for yourself.
I also look at Modern Translations in gaining insight. But I do so as to gain insight from KJB, and I even quote Modern Translations at times. But the KJB is my final Word of authority seeing it is the real Word of God.
Yes, I am not against God talking to us in other translations. I just believe the translation should not contradict the KJB. If it does, then I need to have a final Word of authority. This is the KJB because of many systematic evidences.
We are living in the last days. So I would not expect to see too many actually following the Bible like the early church did.
There are doctrines that I disagree with KJB Only Christians. For example: They are huge proponents of Unconditional Eternal Security of which I disagree with strongly. But we do agree on the Trinity, and some other things. I am also not in agreement with KJB Only believers saying that we can only benefit by reading the KJB only. This is why I am Core KJB. Modern Bibles can be of a great benefit, but they are also problematic, as well. There are lots of false doctrines people believe these days because of Modern Bibles.
-
1
- Show all
A change of meaning does actually weaken it. Again, a new believer in Christ might be CONFUSE because of this change/s. It might not be a change of the whole but its part is destructive. That part will be a hole to the whole for false interpretation.
We got another example as in Revelation 19:8. We know we are saved by faith and not by works. Even in the old, God gave the robe of righteousness to “cover our shame” Romans 10:3. In Isah 61:10 defines each word from “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation” to “he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” indicating God actions in our behalf and God’s righteousness means salvation. Revelation 7:14 mentions those “who washed their robe and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” which I don’t find in the Bible we are robed in our own righteousness. Phli. 3:9, Paul says “not having my own righteousness” and yet, the NASB will confuse a new believer in Christ to do righteous acts to be saved or to maintain it otherwise loses his salvation.
King James Bible
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
New American Standard Bible
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
Another thing about the changes made relative to the doctrine is also found in
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world," KJB says
However, the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world".
I grew up in a Roman Catholic church until I’ve been saved by the grace of God and here the NASB is saying that there is no idolatry in the world. Isn't this a confusion?
We got another example as in Revelation 19:8. We know we are saved by faith and not by works. Even in the old, God gave the robe of righteousness to “cover our shame” Romans 10:3. In Isah 61:10 defines each word from “he hath clothed me with the garments of salvation” to “he hath covered me with the robe of righteousness” indicating God actions in our behalf and God’s righteousness means salvation. Revelation 7:14 mentions those “who washed their robe and made them white in the blood of the Lamb” which I don’t find in the Bible we are robed in our own righteousness. Phli. 3:9, Paul says “not having my own righteousness” and yet, the NASB will confuse a new believer in Christ to do righteous acts to be saved or to maintain it otherwise loses his salvation.
King James Bible
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
New American Standard Bible
It was given to her to clothe herself in fine linen, bright and clean; for the fine linen is the righteous acts of the saints.
Another thing about the changes made relative to the doctrine is also found in
1 Corinthians 8:4 "we know that an idol is nothing in the world," KJB says
However, the NASB says: "there is no such thing as an idol in the world".
I grew up in a Roman Catholic church until I’ve been saved by the grace of God and here the NASB is saying that there is no idolatry in the world. Isn't this a confusion?
-
2
- Show all
One of the many reasons I believe the King James Bible is the Word of God is that all direct references of the Trinity are removed in Modern Bibles. I love how God is triune. But if I have a Modern Bible, I cannot defend that God is a Trinity to those who are Arian. 1 John 5:7 is removed in Modern Bibles and it is the clearest point blank verse that describes the Godhead. In fact, the word “Godhead” (Meaning Trinity) that appears three times in the KJB is changed to divinity.“ So with a Modern Bible, I have lost the battle before I even start. In fact, the Modern Bibles ultimately can be traced back to Alexandria Egypt. Alexandria was where Arianism was a great fountain head. So Alexandria Egypt was also a place where Arianism was on the rise. Coincidence? Okay. Then why does the Bible speak negatively of Egypt and Alexandria? Another coincidence? Okay.
Then there are two videos also help to seal the deal for me, as well.
Then there are two videos also help to seal the deal for me, as well.
-
1
- Show all