The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Kroogz]

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!

Here's one:
NASB
Gen 49~~ 6May my soul not enter into their council; May my glory not be united with their assembly; For in their anger they killed men, And in their self-will they lamed oxen.

KJV
6O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

עִ קְּ רו oqru ~~~~they-~~~~felled

־ - שׁ)ר shur~~~~~~ bull : :

The NASB cleared it up for me. The more I look into this, the more I like the NASB. Maybe it is the inspired one?~~Put's on helmet~~

 

[7thMoon]

Did you take an entire year of Greek too Moon?

I have been self-teaching err myself. I have bought many editions of Mounce and other grammars.

 

[Magenta]

I highly doubt the Jews gave Timothy the originals. There were multiple synagogues. Do you think they all had the originals when they did their readings of Scripture? No, of course not. They had copies of Scripture. Paul says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. One either believes what Paul says on 2 Timothy 3:16 when he says, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God” or they don’t believe those words. I believe those words by Paul. When he says ALL Scripture that would extend to the copies of Scripture of which Timothy had, and which the Ethiopian eunuch had. They did not have the originals. Jesus also had the same scroll of Isaiah that the Ethiopian eunuch had? Surely not.

Original Scriptures as In Old Testament. The Tanakh. He said so, and so did I.

Your lack of comprehension is cause for concern when you fail to understand plain English.

 

[7thMoon]

Original Scriptures as In Old Testament. The Tanakh. He said so, and so did I.

Your lack of comprehension is cause for concern when you fail to understand plain English.

Not everyone has listened to counter-missionaries among the Jews. For the record, I don't agree with them on anything about the NT.

 

[Magenta]

Not everyone has listened to counter-missionaries among the Jews. For the record, I don't agree with them on anything about the NT.

Not sure how that relates... since when someone says the original Scriptures and
further clarifies by saying Tanakh, I see nothing to assume anyone means the original
Scripture scrolls, or anyone is saying anything about counter-missionaries among the Jews.

 

[7thMoon]

I am not sure how that relates...

Tenak for Old Testament has not fully made the rounds, if you ask me.

 

[Magenta]

Tenak for Old Testament has not fully made the rounds, if you ask me.

Still don't get it. Whan Paul said Timothy knew Scriptures from a child, he was referring to the Tanakh.

This was clarified in original message, and in subsequent posts as well.

 

[Blain]

regardless what translation you read what version speaks to you the most it is the word of God and if something as futile as human translation has enough power to affect what we call the living word then why do we bother top study it? for all you you may be unknowlingly reading the wrong translation and thus getting the wrong message a part of learning is accepting your own thoughts might be wrong but the holy spirit though.

He is not bound by us he is God a very sacred aspect of him the one person who abides in us he is not a God of confusion or division he is truth look at us as a whole can you all us this? Can you not see what is going on here? is this what faith can do? this is how we show the light of Christ? are you rrally ok with how things are? where is his power than cannot be explained in words? where is this wonder and beauty? where is this ocean of soothing healing of the body heart mind and soul?7

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I have been self-teaching err myself. I have bought many editions of Mounce and other grammars.

OK. I can't fault you for learning Greek.
I hope you learn much of the Bible that way.
There was a lady on here last summer who was taking a first semester class and I have hopes that she will continue reading her Bible in English until she connects with me again. In all honesty, if I devoted 8 hours per day, from now on, I could never be one as fluent as a native speaker or one on the translation committee teams of our old KJV.
You normally have to start young, have a propensity for languages and be around other Greek speakers to excell.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

It seems that many KJV only people do not realise that not all Christians speak English. When I was first saved, I was bailed up after church by a KJ wielding nut job telling me how the KJV was the only true version. I thought to myself, if reading the KJV does that to you, leave it alone. And every preacher would read from the KJV and say it said "this" but really meant "that". I skipped the learn Elizabethan English and how to deal with bowels and went for alternative versions. Now I read the Berean mostly. I also check out literal translations. I've somehow survived 50 years in the Lord without the KJV.

But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.

FYI Anderson isn't in the Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger camp. He's been the biggest critic of them I've heard from Baptists.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Thank you for your explanation. I'm glad you found errors in one of the common "go tos" for KJV users. Exhaustive word studies are very revealing.

A friend once started a Bible Greek class with me and part way through he got mad at me while I was reading the KJV out loud. He jumped on me and shouted the short verse was WRONG! IT DOESN'T SAY SUCH AND SUCH! IT REALLY SAYS.....____________________________......(on and on for a long paragraph.)
The friend was part way through the first year introductory Greek. He already (thought he) knew more than the 54 scholars on the KJV translation committee who spoke fluent Greek, Latin and many other languages. Lol. 😄

Yes. The problem is when they say the Greek word means something TOTALLY different than what the King James Bible says.
That is a BIG PROBLEM. God has guided me into the Greek word studies on rare occasions (like on the study on hell and the Lake of Fire), but it by no means undoes what the KJB translators have done with the KJB. If an online Lexicon/Concordance has a Greek definition that contradicts the English word entirely in the KJB, I throw it out. If a person is employing such tactics of disregarding the English in the KJB with Greek words, I look at them like they are looney. They would not have any other Bible if they lived during the 1700s here in America. The Modern Bible movement came afterwards and it only made things worse in this Laodicean age. It did not lead to people trusting the Bible more, but questioning it. It also led to them trusting corrupted manuscripts, as well.

 

[Kroogz]

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!

Here's one: A real whoopsie. 8 times it was used, KJV got it right 4 times. 50% ain't bad?

KJV
Exo 15:14~~The people shall hear, [and] be afraid: sorrow shall take hold on the inhabitants of Palestina.
פְּ לָ שֶׁ ת~~~~phlshth ~~~~Philistia

Palestine~~No such thing at this time. Philistine was around though.

NASB
Exo 15:14~~14The peoples have heard, they tremble; Anguish has gripped the inhabitants of Philistia.

 

[Blain]

But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.

I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

but the ting is when you call it the word of God then if your truly hold it as such then when has his word ever come back in void? his word does not abide to our reality if his thoughts are not our thoughts then why would his word abide otherwise? translation? do we listen to the holy spirit or translation? the language of God or man? the kjbv people who follow that verson only give the power to the translation not the God they follw

 

[Dino246]

I never stated non-Christians, you did.

Uh huh... I did, because it's relevant. There is no sound rationale behind claiming anything about "people" without identifying which people... unless you truly mean "everyone". In that case, just say so.

 

[John146]

I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

I may be wrong, but I believe James Earl Jones has an audio reading.

 

[Dino246]

Just like in the English language, the Bible has homonyms in it.

You provide the correct definition for 'homonym' but demonstrate that you don't understand it. The word you want is "synonym": similar meaning, much different spelling, and likely different origin. Please do your homework.

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.

Their credentials are irrelevant if their product is misleading and confusing, as on their conflation of three distinct Greek concepts to the English "hell". It's just poor scholarship.

 

[Dino246]

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.

Well said, Lady Magenta.

 

[Blain]

I may be wrong, but I believe James Earl Jones has an audio reading.

I actually have no idea who that is is he simaly to morgan freemon?

 

[Dino246]

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.

I see you either didn't read or completely disregarded my response to your "purifications" twaddle.