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.
It doesn't mention tribity or even trinity, kjv uses Godhead, and also says that anyone that denies the father and the son is an antichrist, i'm not sure of your position would you rather that verse wasn't included? Or rather, what part of the verse do you think shouldn't be in there
Mathew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Jesus restored things to Gods way
But hang on a second... all versions I have seen state the same law, would you rather the law was taken out of scripture
Sounds like you like to pick and choose what should be in bible, it's not a good thing to try be a bible corrector
Publicly announcing you are a bible denier is not a good thing
There are no originals of the greek to study, and you don't know original greek, you can try and pretend to be an authority, but you can only pretend
To pretend to be a person who is qualified to teach the Greek who tries to correct the bible is what people would refer to as. Fake
If you think you know Koine Greek are you prepared to prove it
The thing is your theories you have and your evidence you try use to change what the bible says has been taught to you by men, you can't back up your denial of the bible based on what the bible says alone, you have been taught by men what you are pushing
The Jews rejected the Apocrypha, Rome included the apocrypha and was in use at the time, the interpreters put it outside the New and Old Testament and labelled it outside accepted cannon, they did the world a big favour at the time the catholic church included them as canonical.
Mathew 19:8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
Jesus restored things to Gods way
But hang on a second... all versions I have seen state the same law, would you rather the law was taken out of scripture
Sounds like you like to pick and choose what should be in bible, it's not a good thing to try be a bible corrector
Publicly announcing you are a bible denier is not a good thing
There are no originals of the greek to study, and you don't know original greek, you can try and pretend to be an authority, but you can only pretend
To pretend to be a person who is qualified to teach the Greek who tries to correct the bible is what people would refer to as. Fake
If you think you know Koine Greek are you prepared to prove it
The thing is your theories you have and your evidence you try use to change what the bible says has been taught to you by men, you can't back up your denial of the bible based on what the bible says alone, you have been taught by men what you are pushing
The Jews rejected the Apocrypha, Rome included the apocrypha and was in use at the time, the interpreters put it outside the New and Old Testament and labelled it outside accepted cannon, they did the world a big favour at the time the catholic church included them as canonical.
The LXX in my view has nothing to do with the KJV. Folks are misunderstanding what the “seventy“ meant when the KJV translators referred to the “seventy.” Some Textual Critics also like to point to how the KJV also used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate (Which is Catholic) but this is also not the case, either. The KJV translators criticized the Douay-Rheims Catholic Translation that came out entirely in 1610 (Which is the English equivalent of the Latin Vulgate). So they obviously would not have used manuscripts from that came from that line of manuscripts.
The seventy are who then? surely you jest. While I agree that consulting the LXX is unnecessary for looking at the New Testament, the KJV translators were not as narrow minded as a KJV-onlyist. They already knew the Textus Receptii had typos. You can change the facts, but you can demonstrate that the TRs follow the cursives more closely than Von Soden or the so-called Majority Text.
The Vaticanus manuscript containing 1 John 5:7 demonstrates that a significant textual variant was known for 1 John 5:7 in the 4th century. In 1995 Philip B. Payne discovered "umlauts" (double dots) in the margins of various places in Codex Vaticanus. He and many scholars agree that these umlauts indicate lines where a textual variant was known to the scribe. You can read his work, The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus here: Vaticanus Text Critical Symbols
Interestingly, an umlaut appears next to the phrase "τρεις εισιν οι μαρτυρουντες" in Vaticanus. Payne briefly discusses and seemingly dismisses the significance of the umlaut in 1 John 5:7 (p. 112, footnote 34), but without a doubt, the umlaut is there. The graphic displayed is a scanned image of 1 John 5:6-8 in Vaticanus and the red arrow points to the double dots.
The screen capture of the transcription of the picture below is from the official digitized Nestle-Aland on the University of Munster Institute website.
There is only one known variant in 1 John 5:7 and that is the Johannine Comma which is now contained in the Textus Receptus. This means the Comma existed before the Codex Vaticanus was written.
Source:
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Editorial/Umlauts
Also, Textual Critics ignore the witnesses of the early church fathers.
Modern Scholars actually have nothing much to say on Fulgentius.
But this video goes into a deep explanation of his official debate involving the Comma.
So of course they are hiding things like this from you.
They also ignore that a top Greek grammarian (who is not KJB Only) who lives in Greece and his native tongue is Greek says there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. See this video here:
Keep in mind that many of the Textual Critical scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek.
I think there jobs are at stake if they admit they are wrong.
Plus, I can show you in English in context of why 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in the text.
1 John 5:7 tells us the witness of God in Heaven, which is the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.
1 John 5:8 gives us the witness of man in that man is made up of water, blood, and spirit. As we can note, both blood and water poured out of Jesus’ side at the cross when the spear pierced Him.
1 John 5:9 says the witness of God is greater. So without the witness of God in 1 John 5:7, it does not contextually make any sense.
In addition, for hundreds of years, Christians had this verse and they obviously used it as God’s Word in defense against those who denied the Trinity. So these Christians were deceived for hundreds of years and helping others with 1 John 5:7 means nothing? Okay.
Furthermore, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus text type is Alexandrian. So if the manuscripts can be traced to Alexandria Egypt, that is not good. If you were to Google the origins of Arianism, you would see that a large fountainhead of that movement was from Arius who resided in the Alexandria Egypt area. Coincidence? If you believe in such things.
I mean, if I washed up on a deserted island, and I knew nothing of Christianity, and all I had was Modern Bible, the chances of my knowing about the Trinity would be harder to figure out unless I had a King James Bible instead. All DIRECT references of the Trinity are removed in Modern Bibles. Not only is 1 John 5:7 removed, but the word “Godhead“ which appears three times in the KJB (Meaning Trinity) is changed to “divinity.“ There are also Latin witnesses (manuscripts) in the earlier centuries that Modern Scholars ignore, as well. But Latin was one of the three languages that was written on the sign that was above Jesus.
To make matters worse for the Textual Critic, they actually try and deceive us by moving the part of 1 John 5:8 that says the words, “For there are three that testify:” to replace the empty space in 1 John 5:7 to fool the new reader into thinking there is no missing verse there that is important. To me this should raise alarm bells for you. But I am sure it will not for many in the Textual Critic camp. They will just say, “Nothing to see here.” “Move on.” If this was some minor fact in the Bible that does not change doctrine, I could see, but this is a major doctrine of who God is.
-
2
- Show all
Read the PDF.
It is really easy to refute the idea of an LXX without getting all scholarly.
JESUS. He is the reason. Jesus referred to jots and tittles, which are marks that make up the Hebrew letters.
Jesus also did not want to have anything to do with the Gentiles during His earthly ministry.
Yes, He made exceptions for them, but He did not come to the Gentiles and He told His disciples not to go to Gentiles.
Only after Christ’s resurrection did this change. Jesus said salvation was of the Jews. The point is that Jesus was very Jewish and the Scriptures were in Hebrew and not Greek. So there was no LXX that predates Jesus. That would be insulting to a normal reading of the gospels. The Jews were the guardians of sacred Scripture and not the Gentiles.
It is really easy to refute the idea of an LXX without getting all scholarly.
JESUS. He is the reason. Jesus referred to jots and tittles, which are marks that make up the Hebrew letters.
Jesus also did not want to have anything to do with the Gentiles during His earthly ministry.
Yes, He made exceptions for them, but He did not come to the Gentiles and He told His disciples not to go to Gentiles.
Only after Christ’s resurrection did this change. Jesus said salvation was of the Jews. The point is that Jesus was very Jewish and the Scriptures were in Hebrew and not Greek. So there was no LXX that predates Jesus. That would be insulting to a normal reading of the gospels. The Jews were the guardians of sacred Scripture and not the Gentiles.
I believe the KJB is the perfect Word of God without error, but I do agree in using Modern Translations in helping to update the archaic language within it. I believe this actually necessary. There are many times Modern Bibles have helped me with a difficult reading in the KJB. Yet, at the same time, Modern Bibles cannot be my FINAL Word of authority because I know Modern Translations teach false doctrines and they water down and remove other important essential doctrines to the faith, as well. This is why I am Core KJB and not KJV Only. The King James Bible is my core foundational text for all matters of faith and practice, but that does not mean I will not use a Modern Bible to help flesh out what the KJB says in difficult places or readings.
I do like the AMP and AMPC sometimes. I also like the NLT Paraphrase at times. While I believe all Modern Translations are corrupt, I feel the ESV is really bad.
I do like the AMP and AMPC sometimes. I also like the NLT Paraphrase at times. While I believe all Modern Translations are corrupt, I feel the ESV is really bad.
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
From Matthew 4:4
Side Note:
Do you believe 1 John 5:7 should be in the Bible?
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
From Matthew 4:4
Written after Jesus was risen when salvation went out to the Gentiles.
The Mishnah, which is the earlier component of the Talmud came out in 200 CE (i.e., 200 AD).
The LXX was created sometime between this point and led the Jews to believe there were writings in another language that predated Christ when this was not the case at all. It was a forgery that convinced them to write this. In other words, the Mishnah was not written before Jesus Christ, which proves that this later document (doctored to look older than it was) serves only as proof that it fooled them to believe it was real (When in fact it wasn’t). Hardcore proof would be evidence that dates back before Christ. But no such evidence exists.
The Mishnah, which is the earlier component of the Talmud came out in 200 CE (i.e., 200 AD).
The LXX was created sometime between this point and led the Jews to believe there were writings in another language that predated Christ when this was not the case at all. It was a forgery that convinced them to write this. In other words, the Mishnah was not written before Jesus Christ, which proves that this later document (doctored to look older than it was) serves only as proof that it fooled them to believe it was real (When in fact it wasn’t). Hardcore proof would be evidence that dates back before Christ. But no such evidence exists.