The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Cameron143]

But the copyists were not inspired. Big difference.

If I copy a passage of scripture, is my copy inspired? Yes. Is it scripture? Yes. But not because I was actively inspired during the process. It is inspired by virtue that the source of the material is the Spirit. It is God breathed. This is what makes something scripture...that it is actually the literal words of God Himself.

 

[7thMoon]

Easter is not a pagan word.
Per The Shorter Oxford Dictionary pp. 624, 1524.

Easter- a festival of Christian Church commemorating the resurrection of Christ, and corresponding to the Jewish Passover.

Passover- 1.The name of Jewish feast, held on the evening on the fourteenth day of the first month Nissan, commemorative to the ‘passing over’ of the houses of the Israelites when the Egyptians were smitten with the loss of their firstborn 2. contextually, the Paschal Lamb figuratively applied to Christ 1 Cor. 5:7



Basically, Easter is the same as Passover in a modern Greek, in the Dictionary, Easter is a commemorative event of the resurrection of our Lord Jesus. The event is the epitome of his death and his burial which Christ as the lamb of God became the Passover lamb, hence closely connected to the Passover event.

View attachment 259280
https://en.glosbe.com/en/el/Easter

View attachment 259281
https://en.glosbe.com/en/el/Passover
View attachment 259282

Timeline would date 1451BC for the Jewish Passover

https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/old-testament-timeline-passover/

Timeline would date 580BCE probably for the Eostre, but if you have the other timeline then I can change my gathered information.

https://www.sctimes.com/story/opini...and-cultural-appropriation-eostre/7317930001/

Timeline for the death of “Paschal/Passover Lamb”, the probable would be April 3, 33 AD a few hours before the beginning of Passover Day.

https://penelope.uchicago.edu/~grout/encyclopaedia_romana/calendar/jesus.html#:~:text=Jesus died, therefore, on Friday,Passover day and the Sabbath.

So, the Jewish Passover is much celebrated long before what Bede said in his writings. Remember, the Hebrew Pesach always correspond to Christ so the celebration of Pascha is not unchristian as per Oxford and other Dictionary. And the Dictionaries are saying that Easter is the resurrection of Christ



The book of Acts was written probably 64-68 AD where the word Easter coined by William Tyndale in his New Testament (1525 ) who also later invented the English word “Passover”.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Passover#:~:text=Coined by William Tyndale (c,Hebrew פֶּסַח‎ (pésach).

This is to note that William Tyndale is brilliant in a way he used the English word “Easter”/ “Ester” connected to the Jewish Passover and not association to pagan festival. He knows that the very sense is of the resurrection of Christ. Early English Dictionaries refers Easter is the resurrection of Christ. John Palsgrave, Conrad Gesner. Previous Dictionaries offer Pascha, pasca means Easter.

John Palsgrave, Lesclarcissement de la Langue Francoyse (1530)

Easter a hye feestla resurrection nostre seignevr s fe, pasques fe.



Conrad Gesner, Abecedarium Anglico-latinum (1552)

Resurrection of the Lord called Easter.



Thomas Elyot, The Dictionary of Sir Thomas Elyot (1538)

Pascha,Easter.



Thomas Elyot, Bibliotheca Eliotae (1542)

Pasca, Easter

Easter is a calendar event; a Passover is part of Jewish holidays.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No doubt the modern translations change stuff and leave stuff out.

I don't dispute that which is why I rarely use any quotes from the modern translation

I will also quote from Modern Bibles at times. I am Core KJB and not KJV Only. I believe the King James Bible is my core foundational text that is perfect and without error. I believe it is a necessity to use Modern Translations and older dictionaries when studying the archaic wording in the King James Bible because 1600’s English can sometimes be difficult. But I do not make Modern Translations my final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines and the origins of Modern Textual Criticism is tied to two men who were heretics (i.e., Westcott and Hort).

Yep.... the KJV is the best translation errors and all!

Again, I think folks see errors in the Bible is because they do not take a step back and see how God can still be correct despite what we think we see. Remember, Balaam. All he could see was the donkey causing problems for him, and yet behind the scenes, something else was happening. God wants faith from us. If His word says it is perfect and that He would preserve those words, then I believe that (Despite what I see). God has the answers in life. But if I start down the road of saying there are errors in His Word it just never stops. I would be saying to God that His Word is in error. I would be correcting God. I would be attacking His Word if I say that. Attacking His Word would be an attack upon God Himself because He magnifies His Word above His own name.

I mean, can you explain the resurrection?
It is a miracle and it takes faith to believe in it.
One cannot logically explain how that is possible.
Thus it is the same with trusting His Word in what it says about itself (Which involves the doctrines of purity and preservation).
God says Scripture cannot be broken. But you believe it is broken. Who am I going to trust? You? Or God and what He says?

 

[Dino246]

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

If you're okay with your wife committing sexual immorality, you go right ahead.

 

[Dino246]

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.

"Water-downed"? I guess reading the KJV has taught you nothing about proper English grammar.

The problem is that "fornication", being a transliteration, has no cognates in English. Unless you happen to have learned what the word is intended to mean, you would be guessing. Calling it "sexual immorality" makes it much more clear.

In other words, if you trust the wrong Bible entirely, it will lead you down the wrong path.

I have never attended a church where I was regularly using the same translation as the pastor. I don't hold that one should, necessarily, and I don't hold that one should stick to a single translation. So I don't share your concern.

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.

View attachment 259274 View attachment 259275

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

Quotations without citations are not evidence, but rather hearsay. Don't bother using them again.

 

[Dino246]

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

Aaaand... how is that relevant to what I wrote? I'll bet the person who liked your post can't answer that question either.

 

[Dino246]

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

Yes, and it's not "over men" either, as Stan_the_man claims.

 

[John146]

But the copyists were not inspired. Big difference.

The words are inspire…scripture is given by inspiration of God.

 

[John146]

If you're okay with your wife committing sexual immorality, you go right ahead.

Two unmarried people may think they can have sex as long as it’s not immoral sex. Morality is subjective. Look around today.

 

[Dino246]

When Psalms 12:6 refers to the words of the Lord being purified seven times, I believe it is also prophetic.

My Proposed List of the Seven Purifications of the KJB:

1. The 1629 Cambridge
2. The 1638 Cambridge (authored by the King).
3. The Paris 1762 Cambridge
4. The Blayney 1769 Oxford (Authorized Version) (Today this is the 1893 or 1894 Oxford printed editions)
5. Apocrypha Removed in KJB officially in 1885
6. The Updated Public Based Pure Cambridge (used between the 1920s and 1985)
7. The Pure Cambridge (A.W. Pollard) (circa 1914-1918) (WW2) (The KJV Cambridge used today).

I believe that God is in control even over the roll of the dice.
So any small differences between the MAJOR six editions (due to printing errors) could also potentially be true.
(Note: One purification was the removal of the Apocrypha in 1885 by the Church of England ).
We learn in Jeremiah that God can edit His own Word. When the King cut up and burned the scroll in the fire, God told Jeremiah to make another scroll and add many like words to it.
There are approximately 12 subtle or small differences between the 6 major KJB editions to my knowledge.
Granted, there are things that needed to be filtered out of the first KJB 1611 edition like the Apocrypha, the marginal notes, the Greek pagan pictures, and stuff. But the hand written master copy was the reflection of the true Word all along. I believe it was not until the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) when the printing process and standardization of spelling and grammar whereby we had a Word that was finally purified the seventh time.

Others like Matthew Verschuur at BibleProtector.com, and John M Asquith at PureCambridgeText.com have different lists.

Bible Protector’s List of the Seven Purifications in Psalms 12:6.

View attachment 259278
PureCambridgeText.com website offers a different list of the seven purified KJBs, and he offers some great reasons why, although I do not agree entirely with his list.

1. The 1629 Cambridge
2. The 1638 Cambridge (authored by the King).
3. The Paris 1762 Cambridge
4. The Blayney 1769 Oxford
5. The Scrivener 1873 Cambridge Paragraph
6. The Pure Cambridge (A.W. Pollard) (circa 1914-1918)
7. The Updated Public Based Pure Cambridge (used between the 1920s and 1985).

The changes to actual words and their meaning are very minute. But again, this was the fixing of printing errors when see that the words were different.

Prophesied? Utterly ridiculous. I can give three reasons why that doesn't fly.

1. Psalm 12:6 is a METAPHOR. You do understand what a METAPHOR is, don't you?

Let's examine what this METAPHOR actually says and then what it most likely says about the word of God.

When gold is smelted, it is heated in an oven until it has melted. SOME of the slag (non-gold impurities in the ore) is removed by drawing it off the top of the molten gold. The process is repeated until there is no slag. Seven is a convenient number to express this repetition to the point that no further improvement can be made. At this point the gold is considered "pure".

If we apply the metaphor to the word of God, we would have to consider that initially, the inspired word of God was replete with slag. Is that really what the psalmist is saying? I doubt it. So right away we know that a literal application is invalid.

2. Most people who make the ridiculous claim that this passage is specifically about the KJV look at what led to it, not what came after it. You can argue with them. @John146, you're up to bat.

3. To consider that one somewhat obscure line written about 1000 BC is a prophecy about texts most of which did not yet exist and a language that did not exist in a location about which the writer could have no (natural) knowledge stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point.

And here's a freebie: if you actually believed this, you would never again make the claim that the KJV is pure and perfect, or anything near as brazen.

 

[Dino246]

Two unmarried people may think they can have sex as long as it’s not immoral sex. Morality is subjective. Look around today.

Non-Christians aren't looking to a 16th-century publication of the Anglican Church for moral guidance anyway, so why would it concern you? Christians, on the other hand, will find proper guidance in any decent translation of the Bible.

 

[Magenta]

Two unmarried people may think they can have sex as long as it’s not immoral sex. Morality is subjective. Look around today.

Are you suggesting that sex outside of marriage is a moral act?

God is/sets the moral standard.

 

[Magenta]

The words are inspire…scripture is given by inspiration of God.

Yes, and the KJ versions changed words over time.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This is from you:

The KJB should have simply put Tartarus there in place of "hell". The King James translators indiscriminately used the word "hell" for (a) Sheol/Hades and (b) Tartarus, when it should have only been used for (c) Gehenna (the Lake of Fire). They also called "Sheol" "the grave" or "the pit" to add to the confusion. I use the KJB exclusively, and it is a shame to point out these things which have caused so much confusion.

All these places involve “hell” in some way.
Just like in the English language, the Bible has homonyms in it.
Meaning, if you look up a word in the English language, there are sometimes multiple meanings for that one word.
Homonyms are words that look and sound the same but they have different meanings.
Again, we also have to understand that the KJB translators were the best scholars on the planet.
Their credentials are far unmatched by any other group of scholars that came before them or after.
I wish the words “for ever” and ever were translated as ”ages to ages” but God has a reason for everything that He does that we do not understand. It is still accurate, but it is more of a metaphorical way of expressing that idea.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes, and the KJ versions changed words over time.

The KJB hand written master copy remained untouched. The printed editions were difficult to reflect what the master copy said because the printing process back then always led to have supposed printing errors in it. Granted, God is in control of the roll of the dice, so I believe God still was able to communicate truth in the MAJOR KJB Editions over the years despite these subtle differences that does not affect doctrine or major critical truths in the Bible. There were seven purifications and I believe the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa 1900) is the final purification.

 

[John146]

Non-Christians aren't looking to a 16th-century publication of the Anglican Church for moral guidance anyway, so why would it concern you? Christians, on the other hand, will find proper guidance in any decent translation of the Bible.

I never stated non-Christians, you did.

 

[John146]

Yes, and the KJ versions changed words over time.

Examples please…changes as in spelling?

 

[Magenta]

Examples please…changes as in spelling?

Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!

 

[Nehemiah6]

You have a very serious problem!

Add "IMAGINARY" before problem. It is you has the real problem. I have indeed pointed out some flaws in the KJB, but by and large that makes no difference to the excellency of this translation. On the other hand the version you use is THOROUGHLY CORRUPT. So it is you who has the problem.

 

[Magenta]

Add "IMAGINARY" before problem. It is you has the real problem. I have indeed pointed out some flaws in the KJB, but by and large that makes no difference to the excellency of this translation. On the other hand the version you use is THOROUGHLY CORRUPT. So it is you who has the problem.

I do not use any one version to the exclusion of others while pretending the one I prefer has
no errors even as I have pointed them out as you have, while you continue to pretend it has
no mistakes. You have even used the very word, mistake, before, but now because of your
disgusting attitude in general, you refuse to own up to it. So typical of you, Nehemiah.
You really ought to do something about that problem of yours. Very serious problem!

And not imaginary at all. How many times have I corrected you over the years? You have
flat out denied things I said were Scripture until I showed you the verse. What do you do?
Admit you were wrong? Hardly. That is beneath you. Same with all your exaggerations
that cross the line of being honest. And all your false accusations. You are a piece of work.

And it is not agood work, either.