The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Kroogz]

that Jesus is not God in the flesh is a serious error.

Thanks to the NASB, there is no question that the Son is God in the flesh. Thank God we can use different translations to see clearly, right?
John 1:18~~KJV
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18~~NASB
No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

 

[7thMoon]

Written after Jesus was risen when salvation went out to the Gentiles.

Hod did the Israelites know Greek then?

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.

Aristeas is not a forgery, but it was written by an ignoramus who didn't know any Hebrew/Aramaic. Think about that.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Aren't we gullible?

Do you believe any Bible on the planet exists that is perfect?
If not, then what about the “Book of the Lord” mentioned in Isaiah 34:16?
Keep in mind two things when you read Isaiah 34.

#1. Verses that are in Isaiah 34 line up with verses in Revelation.
#2. The message of “seek ye out the book of the Lord and read“ in Isaiah 34:16 is in context to Gentile nations (mentioned at the beginning of the chapter).

To see more on the details of these two points, check out Brandon Peterson’s Bible explanation on this verse in the context of the chapter here:

So this means to me that we would have an actual “Book of the Lord” today because we are drawing ever closer to the times written in Revelation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yet you continue to provide NO proof that these were removed. That they are in the KJV isn't proof. It's a circular reasoning fallacy.

If I can just prove one of them belongs, then I have won. I think I make a really good case here for 1 John 5:7. Please watch the two videos in the post, as well. They are evidences that your side does not want you to see.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Hod did the Israelites know Greek then?

There were Israelites dispersed all over. If you read Acts 2, at the Pentecost event, these Jews spoke different languages.
So just because certain Jews knew Greek does not prove that there was a Pre-Christian LXX.

Aristeas is not a forgery, but it was written by an ignoramus who didn't know any Hebrew/Aramaic. Think about that.

Read the PDF.

 

[7thMoon]

Do you believe any Bible on the planet exists that is perfect?

There is no perfect bible. There is a good chance all the errors and typos in the Greek text will be caught in time. The TRs are very close to the Byzantine cursives.

 

[7thMoon]

There were Israelites dispersed all over. If you read Acts 2, at the Pentecost event, these Jews spoke different languages.
So just because certain Jews knew Greek does not prove that there was a Pre-Christian LXX.

Israelites were very literate, so yes it does prove there was an "LXX", or rather Greek Tenak.

Read the PDF.

It is unscholarly crud in my opinion.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Obviously, since I know Vaticanus like Sinaiticus to be a recent forgery which hasn't been carbon dated.

State your position. Are you Majority Text? Are you Textus Receptus Only? Are you KJB preferred? Are you some other position? I cannot answer you properly unless I know where you are coming from.

 

[7thMoon]

State your position. Are you Majority Text? Are you Textus Receptus Only? Are you KJB preferred? Are you some other position? I cannot answer you properly unless I know where you are coming from.

I believe the cursives and other medieval manuscripts should be used to correct the Textus Receptii.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There is no perfect bible. There is a good chance all the errors and typos in the Greek text will be caught in time. The TRs are very close to the Byzantine cursives.

Read Isaiah 34:16 in the KJB, and watch the video, and then get back to me.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I believe the cursives and other medieval manuscripts should be used to correct the Textus Receptii.

Is there a name for this position?
Do others follow it?

Any links to this type of belief?

 

[7thMoon]

Read Isaiah 34:16 in the KJB, and watch the video, and then get back to me.

The canon would not be in the Bible itself. Canons were lists of book groups; this prevented lots of errors.

 

[7thMoon]

Is there a name for this position?
Do others follow it?

Any links to this type of belief?

I think I am perhaps one of 3 people who believe it. Some say the medieval witness is good, but I don't see many saying the TRs have typos.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Israelites were very literate, so yes it does prove there was an "LXX", or rather Greek Tenak.

They were fooled enough in missing their own Messiah so their powers of observation are not always the best. - IMHO.
Granted, may the Lord bless them despite this.

It is unscholarly crud in my opinion.

Did you read it to truly know it is crud?
A Textual Critic even says the LXX is a fraud.
So this is not just a KJB Only thing.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I think I am perhaps one of 3 people who believe it. Some say the medieval witness is good, but I don't see many saying the TRs have typos.

Doesn’t sound duplicatable.
Sounds elitist. Are you saying that knowledge of the Bible cannot be known more fully until you three came along?

 

[7thMoon]

They were fooled enough in missing their own Messiah so their powers of observation are not always the best. - IMHO.
Granted, may the Lord bless them despite this.



Did you read it to truly know it is crud?
A Textual Critic even says the LXX is a fraud.
So this is not just a KJB Only thing.

You don't have to believe the LXX is uncorrupt; but you would be wise to know about its significance, especially where those differences are more logical than the current Hebrew.

 

[7thMoon]

Doesn’t sound duplicatable.
Sounds elitist. Are you saying that knowledge of the Bible cannot be known more fully until you three came along?

I am not a textual critic, but it doesn't take much talent. I don't know of anyone competently fixing TR manuscripts or TR copies.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I believe the cursives and other medieval manuscripts should be used to correct the Textus Receptii.

Are you one of the top Greek grammarians in the world? Can you order a pizza in Greek? Is it your native tongue? Do you live in Greece? Granted, Koine Greek is an ancient form of Greek, but obviously need to know Modern Greek first to be able to tackle the ancient form of it. But even still, the problem here is “what if.”

What if God had in fact preserved His Words perfectly in one book today and you are simply messing with His book? See, I wanted to create an update for the KJV a few years ago, and I stopped. Why? Because I could be potentially changing His words. I could be adding and subtracting from God’s words by doing so. The warning in Revelation should scare you. It says if you take away words, God will take your name out of the book of life. If you add words, God will add the plagues within the book upon you. This is just Revelation many of you will say. But Textual Critics also alter the book of Revelation, too. So what if. What if you are wrong? To me, it is too much of a gamble to make my own Bible. The stakes are too high. If I lose my own soul in the process, it’s not worth it.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You don't have to believe the LXX is uncorrupt; but you would be wise to know about its significance, especially where those differences are more logical than the current Hebrew.

There really is no point. I believe God preserved His words perfectly in the King James Bible. What need have I for another language? Yes, I may occasionally look up a Greek word and see it how it is used in the same way for different English words. My study on the different uses of the word “hell” was beneficial because of the Greek. But these are rare instances. My goal is not to explain away what the English says in my King James Bible.

 

[7thMoon]

Are you one of the top Greek grammarians in the world? Can you order a pizza in Greek? Is it your native tongue? Do you live in Greece? Granted, Koine Greek is an ancient form of Greek, but obviously need to know Modern Greek first to be able to tackle the ancient form of it. But even still, the problem here is “what if.”

What if God had in fact preserved His Words perfectly in one book today and you are simply messing with His book? See, I wanted to create an update for the KJV a few years ago, and I stopped. Why? Because I could be potentially changing His words. I could be adding and subtracting from God’s words by doing so. The warning in Revelation should scare you. It says if you take away words, God will take your name out of the book of life. If you add words, God will add the plagues within the book upon you. This is just Revelation many of you will say. But Textual Critics also alter the book of Revelation, too. So what if. What if you are wrong? To me, it is too much of a gamble to make my own Bible. The stakes are too high. If I lose my own soul in the process, it’s not worth it.

What if you are actually gullible? You don't need modern Greek to understand Koine. Modern Greek would make it worse.