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.
Thanks for your opinions. I really don’t care about what fundamental Christians have claimed through the years. Btw, not the ones I listen to and follow. The fact is, a translation can be inspired by God, for there are many examples throughout scripture. The italic words needed to be added to make it the pure form in the English language.
Misreading your one post because I was tired does not equate with telling a bunch of lies about you. If you feel I have misrepresented your belief elsewhere, I would be happy to apologize if indeed it was something that was not true. Please provide post numbers and specific words and then explain your real belief in contrast to what I said. Thank you, and may God bless you.
Yes, making it appear like we are doing evil should be abstained. But I believe this verse also covers the way one dresses or appears, as well. Why? It relates to what you said. If Rick looks evil, like at Halloween putting on a costume that they are a murderer or a thief, or like a demon, they are depicting themselves as something that would do wrong things. If a guy who dresses in a way where a woman would be scared to open the door because they look like a criminal, then they are having an appearance of evil. One’s outward appearance reflects what’s going on the inside of that person. The Jews had the opposite problem. Jesus told them to clean the inside of the cup first. They were called white washed tombs. Meaning, they looked pretty and nice on the outside, but inwardly they needed to be clean or purified.
King James Bible believers believe only the King James Bible is the real Word of God. What KJB Onlyists or KJB believers are saying is that if you don’t believe the King James Bible as the perfect Word of God and it is just another of one many Bibles to pick and choose from to believe in (like eating at a buffet), they are saying you don’t believe the King James Bible because you don’t believe all of the words in it. If you claim the KJB has errors and or you don’t agree with every doctrine that the KJB teaches, then you would not be in agreement with the Bible they are defending as the true Word of God. For example: Most who are against the KJB (not saying you), do not believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the Bible. They say it is not in the oldest and best manuscripts (i.e., the precious Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Those who are against the KJB look to Westcott and Hort as if they were these great men when in reality they were not. What is your view of Westcott and Hort?
The KJB marginal notes and the KJB translators opinions do not matter. We know from Scripture that God can accomplish His purposes despite what men think or desire to do. We see this with Saul and his men prophesying when that was not their desire or real goal (1 Samuel 19:18-24). In John 1:21, John the Baptist says he is not Elijah. Yet, Jesus says that John is Elijah (Matthew 11:14) (Note: Meaning, John the Baptist came in the spirit of Elijah and not that John was actually Elijah). But the point here is that John the Baptist thought one thing, and yet Jesus corrected what John thought even though John was used by God to speak the truth of God’s words elsewhere. So just because a man can speak or write inspired words of God at one point in time does not mean everything they say or write later is perfectly from God’s mouth elsewhere. The fact that John later questioned if Jesus was the Messiah proves this even more. Yet, John initially said Jesus was the Lamb of God who took away the sin of the world. So your argument here is not valid to prove the KJB is not God’s Holy Word. Many other evidences prove that it is. I believe only those who do not want a perfect Word to be held accountable to do not want to see this truth.
Should have said, he actually acted as if I believed the Bible was originally written in Elizabethan English...
If you are referring to me, I believed you were mocking us who believed that the Bible was written in Elizabethan English (of which we do believe). But please take note there are others who have done so over the years. There are believers who actually said they hate the King James Bible.
I can be over zealous sometimes about those who do not believe the King James Bible is the pure Word of God. I do realize there are a ton of different beliefs out there. There are KJB preferred types. There are those who just look to a bunch of Modern English Bibles in general. There are those who look to the Majority Text. There are those who look to Nestle and Aland or the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as superior and they make it their mission to attack the KJB while also praising it at other times. I do apologize deeply if my statements just put you into a certain box or mold of something you do not believe. The general belief is that most hold to Textual Criticism and the KJB is a punching bad while it is oddly praised at other times. So if I did say something untrue to what you actually believe, you have my deepest apologies. I am being very serious here. Please forgive me if I said something that you said was not true to what you believe. It is just when you fight in this battle in defending God’s Word, most are on the Textual Criticism side and they think Westcott and Hort are these great men.
@Magenta
So again, you have my humblest apologies if I said something that does not actually reflect what you actually believe.
Just know that if you don’t believe certain verses should be in the Bible like 1 John 5:7, or the ending of Mark, etcetera, then it would not be incorrect for KJB believers to claim that you are not believing what they believe is the Bible. They believe the real Bible is the KJB. So from their perspective they would be right. From your perspective this would not be the case. But I am not sure of your position here.
So again, you have my humblest apologies if I said something that does not actually reflect what you actually believe.
Just know that if you don’t believe certain verses should be in the Bible like 1 John 5:7, or the ending of Mark, etcetera, then it would not be incorrect for KJB believers to claim that you are not believing what they believe is the Bible. They believe the real Bible is the KJB. So from their perspective they would be right. From your perspective this would not be the case. But I am not sure of your position here.
maybe can you make it simpler and post those verses on here, and Magenta can decide if they are scripture or not according to her belief. Then you will know her position.
She might say I dont recognise those verses or they are not in the Bible I read.
The KJV is the only version that has them?
She might say I dont recognise those verses or they are not in the Bible I read.
The KJV is the only version that has them?
some people are just arguing because they just dont like the archaic langauage the KJV is in.
But then its a translation of a ancient book anyway so....and the Hebrew and Greek are already archaic.
They are not so concerned about the missing words or verses. They just dont like how it sounds or are unable to pronounce the words.
But then its a translation of a ancient book anyway so....and the Hebrew and Greek are already archaic.
They are not so concerned about the missing words or verses. They just dont like how it sounds or are unable to pronounce the words.
I don't know? Higher IQs? Not adhering to a nonsensical premise that one English translation is THE way God 'preserves His word?'
Non-sequitur. The idea that 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.' means that one translation into the English language is foolish. It doesn't make any sense. The verse you quote does not say that.
KJV-onlyism is not part of the 'faith once delivered to the saints.' The Bible does not teach it.
Nope, English has two words for two holidays. The other languages modified Passover and used it for English. But according to the chart you showed, these languages each have two words/expressions, one for each holiday.Nope.
Passover and Easter are merely synonyms that both refer to the Jewish Passover.
In various languages, we can see that Easter is taken from the word Pascha.
Reminds of the same "argument" the recruiter for Bob Jones University used when I was in highschool. I wasn't very smart, but was able to figure out his "reasoning" against inerrancy and preservation in about 5 seconds. Bogus
I have yet to meet one.
Perhaps you are the first one that I've met who holds to the inerrancy of a Bible and it's not the one that has been adopted since it's predecessors.
My pastor used everything you could find at Barnes and Noble.
He eventually threw out half a chapter because guys smarter than him said so.
I said good bye to that evangelical megachurch and a whole lot of investment in ministry, time, money, health, work and relationships.
This is a big issue. I gave him lots of credit where it was due, but saw how he needlessly undermined faith of many.
LOL. Not believing what someone else believes does not translate into me not believing the Bible, and your saying it is so is quite simply ridiculous any way you look at it. The verse given by another was not either of those you cite here, but from Matthew 4, Deuteronomy 8, and Luke 4. I remember the panel I have for it, done by request for another member. I do not recall you apologizing earlier. Just saying that it is not nor cannot be again, if it never happened once already. You declared I believed a slew of things I never said a thing about. I did let you know I am not against the KJV, as I use it in my panels sometimes, have altered panels to have that translation upon request, and recall it when thinking of or trying to recall a particular verse. And I prefer it at times. None of that meant anything to you, apparently. So much for me trying to be nice to you! How you arrived at the conclusions you did is beyond me since as I said, I made no comments about any of the things you claimed I believed. Carry this type of inclination into how you read the Bible and it is no wonder people question your adherence to one version to the exclusion of others, especially after the research @Kroogz just shared with us about those who complied the KJV specifically relating to this matter. They encouraged the use of a "variety of translations" in order to ascertain the meaning of Scripture. And that is exactly what I do.
From Matthew 4:4
