The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Stan_the_Man]

It’s not natural for woman to want to do that.

Exactly, and because Eve listened to the devil and was deceived... women are more likely to be deceived and that's been going on ever since the garden. It's like there's an open door for deception.

On the other hand, men are more likely to straight up rebel against the Lord even though they know and fully understand what they are doing is wrong.

Eve was supposed to have had the desire to be in agreement with her husband BEFORE the fall, but after the fall women are open to NOT being in agreement with the husband.

No matter how you slice it, this came after the fall and is obviously on going to this day.

 

[Dino246]

Can you post an example? Thanks!

I'm not going hunting back through years of posts to find an example of your hypocrisy.

 

[Dino246]

How do you know they did not do so?

2 Kings 8:26 has this in the Hebrew text: עֶשְׂרִ֨ים ‘eś-rîm (twenty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two).

2 Chron 22:2 has this in the Hebrew text: אַרְבָּעִ֨ים,’ ar-bā-‘îm (forty) וּשְׁתַּ֤יִם ū-šə-ta-yim (and two)

The King James translators -- unlike modern text critics --were not going to revise what was actually in the Hebrew. They faithful translated exactly what was there. And this was evidently a Hebrew scribe's error. So don't falsely blame the KJV translators.

Therefore all your attempts to denigrate the KJB are BOGUS.

Are the texts discussing the same man and the same event? Yes. Do they contradict each other? Yes.

It's still an error. Obviously the KJV is not "reinspired".

 

[Dino246]

Exactly, and because Eve listened to the devil and was deceived... women are more likely to be deceived

Fallacious, mysogynistic, despicable, and wrong, all in one. Golf clap.

 

[Dino246]

Their desire is to please their husband as the KJB correctly says.
It is a part of what God hardwired them to do because of what happened at the Fall.

That's foolish reasoning.

God cursed the ground and the serpent, and He declared unpleasant consequences on the man and the woman, so you must think that a woman pleasing her husband is an unpleasant consequence.

No, the KJV is not correct on this.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Exactly, and because Eve listened to the devil and was deceived... women are more likely to be deceived and that's been going on ever since the garden. It's like there's an open door for deception.

On the other hand, men are more likely to straight up rebel against the Lord even though they know and fully understand what they are doing is wrong.

Eve was supposed to have had the desire to be in agreement with her husband BEFORE the fall, but after the fall women are open to NOT being in agreement with the husband.

No matter how you slice it, this came after the fall and is obviously on going to this day.

Again, I have already shown that the ESV is in error by way of other doctrines. So your claim that it is true in the Genesis account is not accurate. All I have to do is show one bad doctrine in that translation and it is no longer trustworthy. That‘s why we hold to the King James Bible. It does not have problems like the ESV, NIV, NAS95, etcetera.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Are the texts discussing the same man and the same event? Yes. Do they contradict each other? Yes.

It's still an error. Obviously the KJV is not "reinspired".

Any supposed errors in the KJB are not on the same heretical level of Modern Bibles, though. That’s the difference.
So even if you do spot errors in the KJB (Which is wha you desire to see), it is not as bad as removing the word “fornication” or direct references of the Trinity or teaching Jesus is a demi-god (i.e. a non eternal God). The heretical nature of Modern Bibles is puke worthy. No wonder the movement was started by two men who denied the blood atonement, the substitutionary atonement. They even had Unitarians on their RV Translation team. Unitarians!!!!! Why would I follow a movement that Unitarians help to start?

 

[Stan_the_Man]

Again, I have already shown that the ESV is in error by way of other doctrines. So your claim that it is true in the Genesis account is not accurate. All I have to do is show one bad doctrine in that translation and it is no longer trustworthy. That‘s why we hold to the King James Bible. It does not have problems like the ESV, NIV, NAS95, etcetera.

After the fall.... women want to have authority over men. It's ALL around us.

You're thinking of good women who don't do that.

Most women are not good women just like most men are not good men.

And the KJV is not perfect ya know. It's all I use myself and I've found it to be pretty accurate but there are in fact errors since the translators were not the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Ghost on the level of the original writings of the Apostles.

A good example is the KJV version using "easter" in place of passover. That was done in error.

 

[Dino246]

Can you post an example? Thanks!

Here's a perfect example:

Any supposed errors in the KJB are not on the same heretical level of Modern Bibles, though. That’s the difference.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's still an error. Obviously the KJV is not "reinspired".

The error was in the Hebrew, and the KJB does not claim inspiration. However leaving the Hebrew error in place shows the integrity of those translators. The following versions "revised" 2 Chron 22:2 which they had no right to do: NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, ISV, Holman's, NET, Darby's, Young's.

 

[Dino246]

So even if you do spot errors in the KJB (Which is wha you desire to see), it is not as bad as removing the word “fornication” or direct references of the Trinity or teaching Jesus is a demi-god (i.e. a non eternal God).

"Fornication" is a transliteration. There is nothing wrong with replacing a made-up word with a thought-for-thought translation. The removal of 1 John 5:7 has everything to do with evidence and nothing to do with agenda.

As for "wha (sic) I desire to see", once again, you don't know jack about me, so stop with the asinine assumptions.

 

[Dino246]

The error was in the Hebrew, and the KJB does not claim inspiration. However leaving the Hebrew error in place shows the integrity of those translators. The following versions "revised" 2 Chron 22:2 which they had no right to do: NASB, NIV, NLT, ESV, ISV, Holman's, NET, Darby's, Young's.

You're right, the KJV does not claim inspiration, but there are many KJV-only proponents who believe it was reinspired.

 

[Dino246]

After the fall.... women want to have authority over men. It's ALL around us.

If there is something wrong with a woman wanting authority over men, do you think that it is acceptable for a man to want authority over women?

Think carefully before responding.

 

[John146]

There is nothing wrong with replacing a made-up word with a thought-for-thought translation.

Only if one thinks words are not important to God. Fornication is different than the new version, "sexual immorality."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

"Fornication" is a transliteration. There is nothing wrong with replacing a made-up word with a thought-for-thought translation.

When Modern Christians today think fornication is not a problem today, I would say it is not a coincidence they believe that way because their own Bible either does not have that word or it is water-downed. In addition, their Pastor is not going to preach on fornication because it is either gone or diminished in their Bible. You shall know a tree, by it’s fruit. In other words, if you trust the wrong Bible entirely, it will lead you down the wrong path.

The removal of 1 John 5:7 has everything to do with evidence and nothing to do with agenda.

Westcott and Hort, together with their friend Stanley, were instrumental in getting the Unitarian Christ-rejecter George Vance Smith on the ERV translation committee, and when an outcry was made by Anglican ministers against the Unitarian’s presence on the committee, the three men threatened to resign unless he remained. Amos 3:3 says, “Can two walk together, except they be agreed?”

So obviously they chose manuscripts that align with their low regard of the deity of Christ (i.e., 1 John 5:7). Here is one of their commentaries.



So again, they favored corrupted manuscripts that aligned with their false beliefs.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You're right, the KJV does not claim inspiration, but there are many KJV-only proponents who believe it was reinspired.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16). So if an apostle called something Scripture, it was inspired.

 

[Cameron143]

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. Were these all uninspired translations?

We know that God can and has translated scripture. It isn't a matter of can He, but did He. And if He did, when and where has He done so? You are convinced He has. I'm not.

But what I can never get answers to from those who believe the KJV is inspired are these:
Where was the word preserved before the publication of the KJV?
Were there periods of time the word was not preserved?
Are translations of the KJV into other languages inspired?
Does the word of God need to be in printed form to be preserved?
Has the KJV ever been revised?

 

[Cameron143]

That's foolish reasoning.

God cursed the ground and the serpent, and He declared unpleasant consequences on the man and the woman, so you must think that a woman pleasing her husband is an unpleasant consequence.

No, the KJV is not correct on this.

Nice job. It actually means her desire is to have authority over her husband. It is the source of much marital dissension.

 

[John146]

We know that God can and has translated scripture. It isn't a matter of can He, but did He. And if He did, when and where has He done so? You are convinced He has. I'm not.

But what I can never get answers to from those who believe the KJV is inspired are these:
Where was the word preserved before the publication of the KJV?
Were there periods of time the word was not preserved?
Are translations of the KJV into other languages inspired?
Does the word of God need to be in printed form to be preserved?
Has the KJV ever been revised?

God's words have always been preserved, but not always put together in one language in completion in one book. Besides, God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth.

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read...

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. There was a period of time when for about 2000 years only one small nation had the true and pure words of God.

Psalms 147:19-20 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

After the fall.... women want to have authority over men. It's ALL around us.

You're thinking of good women who don't do that.

Most women are not good women just like most men are not good men.

And the KJV is not perfect ya know. It's all I use myself and I've found it to be pretty accurate but there are in fact errors since the translators were not the Apostles who were inspired by the Holy Ghost on the level of the original writings of the Apostles.

A good example is the KJV version using "easter" in place of passover. That was done in error.

You are in error. The Bible claims itself that is perfect. It never once states that we would never have God’s words and they would be corrupted. God’s Word says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); It is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).

Just as Jesus is perfect (Luke 6:40), God’s Word is perfect. Deuteronomy 32:3-4 says,”Because I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is perfect”; In other words, the Bible is God’s work, and it is perfect like He is (Also see: Galatians 3:8 and Romans 9:17). Parallels like this of Jesus and the Word are not an isolated one. Many verses show a connection between the Word & Christ. Also, God’s words are pure words (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140). As a matter of fact, the first half of Proverbs 30:5 says…




As for Acts 12:4:
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.