The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[GaryA]

The phrase 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' in 2 Timothy 3:16 is translated from three Greek words which mean "all writings divinely inspired" - where 'writings' is referring to 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

So, therefore, we know that - because God does not make mistakes - but manuscripts and translations may be corrupt - it necessarily follows that this can only apply to the original writing of 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

If you say that 'writing' may apply [directly] to the translation of scripture, then it must [equally] apply to all translation of scripture.

What you are left with is the determination of what may be defined to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures' - which, I suggest, is a simple matter of answering the 'manuscript' question:

"Is the [actual] manuscript (from which the scripture in question comes from) a valid copy of the 'autograph'?"

('valid copy' = 'exact copy' of the original 'writing' by the original author)

This is the question that must be answered. And, any manuscript that is not a valid copy of the 'autograph' cannot be considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

If one or more people write their own manuscript, it cannot be considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures' - because, it is not a valid copy of the 'autograph'.

Which takes us back to what I said earlier:

good manuscripts + good translation = good bible version

corrupt manuscripts + (does not matter) = corrupt bible version

You cannot get a good bible version from corrupt manuscripts!

~

It all comes back to the manuscripts.

A bad/corrupt translation may certainly be made from good manuscripts - and, would be considered to be a bad/corrupt bible version derived from 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

However, an invalid manuscript is automatically disqualified from being considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

It is all about the manuscripts - are they valid or are they not - this is the question - and the answer.

 

[GaryA]

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.

I don't see "in the flesh" anywhere in that NASB verse.

'begotten' = "in the flesh"

no 'begotten' - no "in the flesh"

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

As long as people understand the translators did make some errors so we need to keep our greek and hebrew dictionary handy. That's all I have ever used is the KJV since it goes with my Strong's Concordance, but there are some errors in the KJV.

Problem. Nobody knows Hebrew or Greek.
Granted, I am not saying we cannot benefit to a degree, but it should not say something different than the English word in the KJB.
Also, the dictionaries that we have today are from corrupted recent Modern Scholars.
Take for example James Strong, who made the Strong’s Concordance (that you brought up).

Strong’s liberal views got him a Committee seat on the corrupt Revised Version (RV) of 1881 with Westcott, Hort, and Vaughan, as well as a seat on the American Standard Version (ASV) committee with Schaff and Unitarian J. Henry Thayer (finally published in 1901). Westcott and Hort sought American Bible critics to join them in their work on the Revised Version. In 1870 the British Committee voted “to invite the cooperation of some American divines” (Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p. 11).

Not sure if you caught it. UNITARIANS were on the team!
These folks deny the Trinity and you wonder why they prefer a Bible that eliminates 1 John 5:7?
There were other kinds of problems with those worked on the RV and ASV teams, as well.

As an example, there's one place there the KJV uses the word "easter" (Acts 12:4) which is definitely not in the original text.
Christians celebrate the resurrection or passover - meta to pascha means "after Passover", rather than using a term derived from Pesach (Hebrew) / Pascha (Greek) for Passover.

Easter is a word used in pagan culture that has to do with pagan rituals and Christians should not be using this term as its not biblical. But, the KJV translators put this world in which was done in error.

The Lord doesn't use pagan words or rituals as the Lord is holy and set apart from sin so He never uses this words such as this when He was telling the Apostles what to write.

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,

“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.

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.

But, over all I've found the KJV to be the most accurate. I definitely have no use for any of the modern translations as they are choked full of error and bias towards teachings from certain groups.

Glad to hear. I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for 101 Reasons. I also came up with 10-11 major categories, as well. I am still in the process of doing my write-up, though. I have the reasons, I am just working on the sub articles. Then I need to add in all the end notes and source links.

 

[Inquisitor]

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.

 

[Inquisitor]

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.

Vulgate only.

Those modern translations such as the KJV came along nearly 1200 years later. Not worth the paper they are printed on.

Use a translation that uses manuscripts that may have only been copied once or twice.

The Vulgate is not a Catholic translation. The Catholic Church was merely the Roman Church in the late fourth century.

The Vulgate was the only real Bible for over a thousand years.

The Vulgate had significant cultural influence on literature for centuries, and thus the development of the English language, especially in matters of religion.[65] Many Latin words were taken from the Vulgate into English nearly unchanged in meaning or spelling: creatio (e.g. Genesis 1:1, Heb 9:11), salvatio (e.g. Is 37:32, Eph 2:5), justificatio (e.g. Rom 4:25, Heb 9:1), testamentum (e.g. Mt 26:28), sanctificatio (1 Ptr 1:2, 1 Cor 1:30), regeneratio (Mt 19:28), and raptura (from a noun form of the verb rapere in 1 Thes 4:17). The word "publican" comes from the Latin publicanus (e.g., Mt 10:3), and the phrase "far be it" is a translation of the Latin expression absit. (e.g., Mt 16:22 in the King James Bible).[73] Other examples include apostolus, ecclesia, evangelium, Pascha, and angelus. (wiki)

Do those modern translations use the vocabulary of the Vulgate?

Of course they do.

 

[Angela53510]

My usual. The KJV is written in Early Modern English. It is vastly different than 21st century English. Here are some technical reasons it is wrong to use the KJV:
1. Uses 2nd person singular, which has not been used for hundreds of years in English speaking countries, with the exception of perhaps Quakers. We have not been taught how the words are written nor their morphology. It is a major stumbling block.
2. So many archaic and obsolete words. True, you can look them up, but those words are simply not in use. Or worse, they are in use, and the meaning has changed.

A further thing concerns the manuscripts involved in translating to English. KJV uses very late Greek manuscripts that were full of errors, esp added verses that are not found in earlier versions. KJV advocates are always stating that many verses have been left out of modern versions. But if you compare earlier texts from severe different places, such as the Syriac, Vulgate etc, you will find less verses in all of them.

When the Byzantine Empire was flourishing, a lot of time and money was given lto copying the Greek New Testament. But these scribes weren't perfect.

3. They could print a letter wrong, which changed the word meaning.
4. They could hear a dictated word and write a homonym to the text, or just hear it wrong & spell it wrong.
5. They would make comments in the margins, which the next generation would copy into the text, meaning a non-biblical sentence was masquerading as Scripture.


The end result is manuscripts that were not correctly copied with added words. And every error I mentioned can be found in Byzantine manuscripts. Plus, Byzantine manuscripts just popped out of thin air in the 8th century Byzantine Empire days. They have no lineage or pedigree back to the earliest manuscripts.

Further, there are several epistles translated by a Catholic priest - Erasmus. In order to get church approval and be left verses that could not be found in any manuscripts, ever the later ones. The Johannine Comma was one of these. Erasmus was in a hurry. He needed his book/Bible printed immediately, or he would lose a lot of money. So rather than translate. Galatians, from Greek, he translated it from Latin, using Jerome's 4th century very poor Greek to Latin translation. That never changed.

The KJV committee used the Erasmus Greek version as the basis for the KJV. It's a Catholic Bible and was badly translated. So even if you understand Jacobean English, that Bible is filled with errors and issues.

7. Increasingly, I am often seeing bad doctrine coming from. KJV Onlyists. When I challenge people on a theological issue, they always quote the KJV. A lot of people use the KFV who do understand the deficits that limit the usefulness of that Bible.

There is another big translation problem with the KJV. People may have understood the language 100-200 years ago, but there are a lot of sentences that are not correctly translated. The KJC tended to follow Greek word order. It makes for awkward reading. But worse, Greek is an inflected language. It has cases for nouns & adjectives, which tell you what part of the sentence a word is. In English, word order is generally
"Subject predicate". Which becomes:
"Subject- verb indirect object- direct!" Greek words have different endings, depending upon whether they are a subject, possessed by a noun, a direct or indirect object. You can take a subject -the nominative case- and put it to start the sentence, or end the sentence as a predicate nominative. This is perfectly normal to do in Greek. In German and Ukrainian, too! I read a Martin Luther German Bible and it is fo easy to understand, because the word order in German is similar to English.

Faulty word order contributes a lot to people seeing something that isn't there, and strange doctrines coming out if it.

I have read the Bible through cover to cover over 58 times. That includes many different English translations, French, German, Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. They are all saying the same thing! Look for commonalities and a Bible you can understand because it was written in your mother tongue - 21st century English.

 

[NightTwister]

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.

 

[NightTwister]

I don't do discussion by bibliography. Make you case yourself.

 

[7thMoon]

You gave an emotionless emoticon reaction to the book I provided (Involving America and God).
This is deeply disturbing.
How old are you?
Are you not grateful to be an American?
If not, perhaps a country like Venezuela might be better for you.

It shouldn't be disturbing. Perhaps I should change it to OLD.

 

[7thMoon]

There is a lot of false information out there trying to make the founding fathers out to be like they were not Christian. Some of them were not Christian. This is true. But not all of them. There is a great book that refutes Chris Pinto’s film titled, “The True Christian’s History of America.” It is called, “Hidden Facts of the Founding Era“ by Bill Fortenberry.

https://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Facts-Founding-Bill-Fortenberry/dp/1490927867/

I would recommend his book on Benjamin Franklin, too. The book is just Franklin’s writings in chronological order with some minimal commentary.

There is another book called, The Re-writing of America’s History.
So there is an agenda to change history. and to erase Christianity from our country.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0889650926/

Here is a snippet from my own write-up:

Between September 19, 1777, and October 7, 1777, the Battles of Saratoga (New York) marked the climax of the Saratoga campaign, giving a decisive victory to the Americans over the British in the American Revolutionary War. Samuel Adams and others recommended that Congress set aside a day for thanksgiving and praise to God and a day to seek forgiveness of one's sins with Jesus (if applicable) so as to give God the glory by the Continental Army's much-needed win against the British in the Battle of Saratoga.​

It’s actually documented that the founding fathers told the soldiers to seek forgiveness with Jesus.
But you would not know that if you don’t look for it.

As for George Washington:

Pick up a book about George Washington written during the nineteenth century, and you will probably see that he is described as being a Christian. However, if you pick up a book written in the last seventy years, it will describe him as a Deist. Why the change?​

​

The turning point seems to be a study by historian Paul F. Boller, Jr. entitled George Washington and Religion. His conclusion can be summarized in a single sentence: To the “unbiased observer” George Washington appears as a Deist, not a devout Christian.{5} Most historians since Boller accepted this idea and were less likely to assert that Washington was a Christian.​

​

What do we mean by “Deism”? Deism is the belief that God is merely a watchmaker God who started the universe but is not involved in the affairs of humans and human history. One definition of Deism is that “There is no special providence; no miracles or other divine interventions intrude upon the lawful natural order.”{6}​

​

Was George Washington a Deist? He was not. It is worth noting that even historian Paul Boller admitted that religion was important to Washington as a leader. Boller writes, “he saw to it that divine services were performed by the chaplains as regularly as possible on the Sabbath for the soldiers under his command.”{7} We might reasonably ask, Why would chaplains be important to a Deist?​

​

Boller even admits there are testimonials of Washington’s church attendance. This is important since many historians even go further than Boller and assert that Washington did not even attend church as a mature adult.​

​

Michael Novak admits that some of the names Washington often used for God sound Deist, but that does not mean that he was a Deist. In fact, his prayers for God’s action were just the opposite of what you might hear from a Deist. Washington believed God favored the cause of liberty and should be beseeched to “interpose” his action on behalf of the Americans. He called for public thanksgiving for the many ways in which Americans experienced God’s hand in key events in our history.​

​

Washington used more than eighty terms to refer to God, among them: Almighty God, Creator, Divine Goodness, Father of all mercies, and Lord of Hosts. The most common term he used in his writings and speeches was “Providence.” When he did so, he used the masculine personal pronoun “he.” Washington never refers directly to God as an “it,” as he does occasionally with Providence. God is personal.{8)​

​

If we look at the history of the eighteenth century, there were many with orthodox religious beliefs who sometimes used the philosophical language of the enlightenment. Washington was a Christian, even though he often used terms for God associated with Deists.​

Source for George Washington:
https://probe.org/george-washington-and-religion/

Washington became a deist when he became skeptical of the virgin birth and the trinity doctrine.

 

[7thMoon]

You are seriously misinformed. Did you even look at their credentials? They were the best scholars the world has ever seen. Recent Modern Scholarship is steeped in unbelief and Rationalism.

James White is steeped in unbelief and rationalism? I don't think so.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

NASB confuses me...its a big fat Bible for big fat believers maybe. I think its longwinded.

Anyway theres lots of different Bibles to choose from... a new believer really only needs ONE and they will grow in faith if they find one that they can refer to all the time.

A lot of Bibles are so overcrowded with commentaries and marginalia that you can barely find scripture amongst everyone elses opinions.

That's what the Jewish rabis did.
Eventually they considered the rabid dumb commentaries more authoritative than their perfect Bible.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

No. They took the Bible out public teaching altogether in the early 1960s. The Catholics wanted to have their Catholic Bibles in the public school system, but it never took on a national level. The King James Bible was the approved translation in public schools. It’s because no other translation was around besides the Catholic Bible, and America was predominantly Protestant. Now, during World War 2, the Army gave out two Bibles that I am aware of. They gave out the King James Bible to Protestants, and the Catholic Bible to Catholics.



Never really went to this translation much.



Not good for the creators. There is a warning in Revelation 22:18-19.



I strive to not watch movies that depict Jesus because they are a false idol image of our Lord.
I used to watch and own such films, but I make an effort not to watch them.
If I do, it would have to really interest me, and it only be once to maybe critique it.



Which makes sense because it is the real Word of God.



There were was a liberal Christian I talked with on the forums before who says they love the NIV.
He was strongly against the KJB being the perfect Word of God.
He had made strong statements for his disgust of the idea.
Note: When I say liberal, they seem like they were in support of the agenda.



In the Christian bookstore, I got a bad feeling just looking at the ESV. When I read it online at Biblehub when comparing verses, it does nothing for me.



I have used the NLT to get the general story of what is happening in the Old Testament or in the book of Acts.
Sometimes the KJB can be difficult in it’s wording to understand what is going on the story. But the NLT is great for just giving you the general idea and then I switch back and reread in the KJB and I get it. The NLT is a paraphrase and it is by no means authoritative.

The Living Translation was created by a guy who thought he talked with the ghost of C.S. Lewis.
The Living Translation originally had a really bad cuss word in it at one point.
So I will not give that Translation the time of day.



It’s a heretical paraphrase.



But tongues would be more accurate because they were speaking real foreign languages or tongues.
Then again if somebody is Pentecostal or Charismatic, I suppose this translation might float their boat.



Like the EXP, it has been helpful on some rare occasions.



The NKJV is a bridge Bible. It is a deception. It is to eventually move the reader to trust Modern Bibles over the KJB.
Theo Hikmat has a great video on this.

The critical text crowd here will correct me if I'm wrong, but the NKJV was never endorsed by King James. It sure road on the coattails of his fame though.

It turned out to be the gateway drug of Bible versions IMHO. A couple of pastors I used to know went through the same experience as David Daniels below.

 

[7thMoon]

The critical text crowd here will correct me if I'm wrong, but the NKJV was never endorsed by King James. It sure road on the coattails of his fame though.

It turned out to be the gateway drug of Bible versions IMHO. A couple of pastors I used to know went through the same experience as David Daniels below.

I think you would get more mileage out of how Von Soden's pathetic Greek New Testament is used to determine the "Byzantine" and "Majority" texts.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Washington became a deist when he became skeptical of the virgin birth and the trinity doctrine.

And you would be buying into false recent history started by one guy whereby others just latched on to what he said. Before that guys write up, Washington was clearly referred to as Christian, and we can see many good evidences that he was. This has been refuted multiple times over on other discussion boards. Besides, this is not even the topic of the thread and it is not something I have interest in debating at this time in my life. Do your own homework and look at the other side. If not, buy into the agenda of those trying to erase Christianity from our nation. The liberal agenda has already succeeded in many other ways with this current presidency.

 

[presidente]

It quotes the LXX, why would they translate Hebrew on the fly in the gospels? Why quote Hebrew in a Greek text, when there is a Greek equivalent? I think you just quote cognate words except YHWH and you get the same meaning.

There are different ways to translate a text, and if you want to draw out a particular truth or application, you may translate it in a way to draw out that alternative meaning. Is Paul's 'gave gives to men' translation of Ephesians 4 the same as the LXX?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

James White is steeped in unbelief and rationalism? I don't think so.

James White is not somebody who has any love for the KJB. He may use the praise and blast syndrome with the KJB that other Textual Critics employ, but one of his main missions is to destroy KJV Onlyism. He has done no write up on the KJB translators and their expertise. He was actually sought after to write his book “KJV Controversy“ because of KJB Only believers. He is the opposition to KJB Only. Have you watched any of his debates against those who KJV Onlyism?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The critical text crowd here will correct me if I'm wrong, but the NKJV was never endorsed by King James. It sure road on the coattails of his fame though.

It turned out to be the gateway drug of Bible versions IMHO. A couple of pastors I used to know went through the same experience as David Daniels below.

I watched a KJV Only debate on the John Ankerberg show. (of which you can see here if you have not seen it) The one guy (Farstad) who was the chief guy who helped to spear head the KJB denies that there are critical text readings in his NKJV translation. He wanted to maintain the illusion that his NKJV translation was soley based on the Textus Receptus. This is a lie or a deception on his part (Which is a common tactic I noticed on their side). The NKJV has critical text readings that line up with other Alexandrian bibles. Theo Hikmat’s video exposing the NKJV is still my favorite video on exposing the NKJV.

The full version of his NKJV video seems to be hard to find nowadays, though. I posted the half version of it. It could have been the NKJV folks coming down on him.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

James White is steeped in unbelief and rationalism? I don't think so.

Ah, I get it now. You are trusting him as a source? If so, that’s funny. His debates I have seen against KJB Only does not really address his opponents really good points that refute his position. He basically side steps their points and jumps into declaring his belief. You also do not have the Word of God if you hold to his position, either (i.e., that the Word of God exists amongst the thousands of manuscripts despite their differences).

God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There are different ways to translate a text, and if you want to draw out a particular truth or application, you may translate it in a way to draw out that alternative meaning. Is Paul's 'gave gives to men' translation of Ephesians 4 the same as the LXX?

Show me in the Bible where God’s Word is like silly putty?