The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
I don't think the English language had changed that much in less than a decade after Queen Elizabeth I passed away.
Shakespeare was writing in poetry, also, not Elizabethan prose.
This was Early Modern English.
Straw man. I never said I was an originals onlyist. An accurate copy of a document has the same words. The KJV is not a copy of the scriptures. It is a translation of it.
Timothy did not have a King James translation. Jeremiah wrote in Hebrew, not King James English. So these are arguments against your position.
Don't make junk up and attribute it to God. You don't know what concerns God had about original manuscripts of scriptures beyond what had been revealed. At the end of the book of Job, Job was to make a sacrifice and pray for his friends who had wrongly spoken about the Almighty.
Again, not the King James translation, but rather in Hebrew, so this is an argument against KJV-onlyism.
That KJV is not a copy. It's a translation.
If you make up ideas or attitudes and attribute them to God, why wouldn't you do that about me?
Where did I bring up or defent Textual Criticism? The KJV is partly translated from the Textus Receptus, the result of textual criticism, so if you are against textual criticism, you should oppose the KJV.
There are many blatant corruptions in the NIV, ESV, NAS95, and all other Modern Versions as I have demonstrated multiple times in this thread that easily disqualifies them as being the genuine Word of God. The supposed errors you pointed out in the KJB are not even on that level. We are talking about the changes in doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better. The very underlying texts of Contemporary Bibles are corrupt coming from two heretics named Westcott and Hort (the 1881 Westcott and Hort text), which later was updated slightly by the supervision of the Vatican with the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text. The 27th edition (not the 28th edition) of the Nestle and Aland states that it was supervised by the Vatican.
As I have demonstrated, your Modern Bibles are Catholic Bibles that have 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church. Just Google, Keith Piper NIV, and look at pages 21-22 on his PDF. This also does not begin to mention all the other corrupt doctrines in Modern Bibles and blatant errors. Plus, Theo Hikmat shows in one of his videos a Catholic Bible. In that Bible, it has a Catholic dictionary that he shows up on the screen. It has a category forbidden for the Catholic layperson is forbidden to read. The only book listed in that category that they were not to read was the King James Bible. Granted, this video was created a few years back. But it is not super old. The Catholic Church has even decided to change its position recently on this, seeing they created a Catholic version of the KJV (with their apocryphal books inserted into it) back in 2020. But the point here is that the majority of history shows that the Catholics never really liked the King James Bible. They even tried to destroy King James and his translation with a super bomb (i.e., the gunpowder plot).
Anyway, Psalms 12:7 is corrupted on the matter of preservation of God's Word. While it is true that the needy and the godly will be preserved, it is also His words that are preserved in this statement, as well. Modern Bibles refer only to the people and thus eliminate the doctrine of preservation along with purity, which just happens to conveniently align with the Textual Critics' beliefs. Proverbs 30:5 is corrupted on the purity of His Word in a small select few Modern Bibles, as well. The NASB95 and ASV are corrupted to remove the truth about the purity of God's Words. Again, this is highly suspicious that the very bibles that are on the Modern Bible movement side have bibles that just conveniently align with their beliefs in that no Bible is pure or perfect.
You said:
There are lots of things I read. Just because I read them does not mean they are inspired.
I look at Modern Bibles like I would a dictionary. Are all dictionaries infallible and or 100% error-free?
I am sure they are accurate to a great degree, but I am sure somebody could find errors within them if they really were diligent.
The point here is that while I may use Modern Bibles to update the archaic wording in the KJB at times, they cannot be my final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines. This is simply a fact unless somebody has bought into the false doctrines of Modern Bibles and thinks they are totally normal. This has been the case with particular false doctrines in Modern Bibles. Some believe Jesus was stripped of His divine privileges during His earthly ministry. This is taught in the ESV and NLT. We are not talking about minor facts in the KJB that look like they are potentially in error here. We are talking about actual changes in doctrines in Modern Bibles. Big things. Jesus basically said to the Pharisees that they strained at a gnat, and yet they swallowed a camel instead (See: Matthew 23:24 KJB). This is what I believe the Modern Textual Critics have done. No offense of course. I love you in Christ, this is just the way I see things based on many years of study involving this topic.
You said:
Yes, it is and God is in the translation business if you were to do a Bible study on the translations mentioned in the Bible.
God would not naturally approve of translations that He does.
You said:
God can operate in ways that go beyond our sight. We obviously do not have ALL the manuscripts in existence to trace them back to the apostles perfectly. There is no straight line we can trace back to the originals. So then, what do we do? Do we look to history alone or primarily to build our faith? Do we look to the scholar and bow the knee and kiss his ring in the hope he may give us the answers? No. We look to the Bible first and see what it says. It then becomes a faith issue first and then the other facts or evidences start to align with that faith or belief. That's how it works. But you want to put the cart before the horse, building evidences of sight first rather than using the Bible as your lens or guide to how your faith should look like.
You said:
You have assumptions about inspiration that is not in line with the Bible and so this is why you see contradictions or problems.
You said:
Lets say by 1% chance you could be wrong in that the KJB is the Word of God that is pure. Imagine the horror you will face by the Lord if you attacked His Word and said it was a lie. Again, we are not without our good reasons that are very sound. I have 101 Reasons for the King James Bible being the Pure Word of God and have 10 categories that defend the KJB being the Word for today. You would have to explain them all way, and I have not seen that even. I try to even be critical with the points that defend the KJB on my list. So I am not falling over myself trying to make something true that is not true. You simply are in lack of knowledge on this topic and your filter or lens does not allow you to see basic truths.
Again, what should wake you up in cold sweats in the middle of night is the situation between Eve and the serpent. One of the serpent's tactics is that he questioned God's Word. The serpent said, "Yea, hath God said....?" (Genesis 3:1). This is exactly what Textual Criticism does. It gets you to question or doubt God's words (Which is a tactic of the devil). Footnotes is one example. But at the heart of Textual Criticism is to question or criticize the text and not believe God has divinely preserved His words perfectly through time.
You said:
Look, my friend. You got forncation taken out entirely in Modern Bibles. Some remove the frequency of the word (i.e., it waters it down). So it should be no surprise that many Christians today do not think fornication (i.e., sex before marriage) is not a problem with God.
You got your Modern Bibles teaching Jesus was a created God. It's heresy. Yeah, and you want me to think your side is correct.? That's silly. I have demonstrated time and againt he King James Bible is the best there is. Your not going to find another good one like it.
You don't even have personal pronouns in most of your Modern Bibles. So when you read words like "you" in your Modern Bible, you will be clueless to when it is referring to a single person vs. two or more people. So yeah. You have on Modern Textual Critical glasses that will not allow you to see the obvious. Sorry, I love you in Christ, but this is just the way I see things.
May God bless you and your family even if we disagree strongly on this matter.
Correction: I said, “ Modern Bibles refer only to the people and thus eliminate the doctrine of preservation along with purity"
I wanted to remove the words, "along with purity" but it went outside my 5-minute window to correct it. Psalms 12:;7 is what is altered in Modern Bibles attacking the doctrine of preservation. I was not intending to say that the purity of doctrine was attacked in Psalms 12. The doctrine of the purity of God’s Word is attacked in a few select Modern bibles in Proverbs 30:5
I did not mean to say, "God would not naturally approve of translations that He does."
It should read: "God would naturally approve of translations that He does."
*Sigh* This 5 minute window thing is really frustrating. You guys should at least change it to 15 minutes or something. Anyway, I meant to say the word "fornication" and not the misspelling of that word, "forncation."
Translations are translations of the Bible. So is the KJV. It is not error free. There are web pages you can look at that contain examples. I showed an example where the KJV sided with the Pharisees, as opposed to Christ, on it's translation of Deuteronomy 24. This isn't something that can be explained away with double meanings. While the Hebrew word could be translated different ways, the Pharisaical interpretation does not align with what Christ taught.
Your underlying premise is just wrong here--- that some translation becomes the Bible, as opposed to being a translation of it.
Red Herring. It doesn't prove your premise that one translation has to be error free.
Is it your position that the manuscripts the KJV was translated from ceased to be the word of God?
The KJV relies on a manuscript that was developed using textual criticism.
This verse was written in Hebrew. The KJV translation of it is just a translation.
God can operate in ways that go beyond our sight. We obviously do not have ALL the manuscripts in existence to trace them back to the apostles perfectly. There is no straight line we can trace back to the originals. So then, what do we do? Do we look to history alone or primarily to build our faith? Do we look to the scholar and bow the knee and kiss his ring in the hope he may give us the answers? No. We look to the Bible first and see what it says. It then becomes a faith issue first and then the other facts or evidences start to align with that faith or belief. That's how it works. But you want to put the cart before the horse, building evidences of sight first rather than using the Bible as your lens or guide to how your faith should look like.
You have assumptions about inspiration that is not in line with the Bible and so this is why you see contradictions or problems.
Your emotional epistomological issues are no solid basis for creating a new doctrine that is not part of the faith once delivered to the saints.
I didn't take fornication out of modern Bible translations. I do prefer the KJV's use of 'fornication'. The downside is the word is archaic and has fallen out of common usage. On the other hand, it conveys the concept better than other phrases used. The worst I've seen is the NASB, I think it was, using 'immorality'-- e.g. putting away one's wife for 'immorality' in Matthew 19. Stealing a pack of paper clips is immoral, but it is not grounds for divorce. Other translations say 'sexual immorality', so I read where some argued that witholding sex from a partner is sexually immoral and therefore grounds for divorce. It can be immoral, but it is not porneia. 'Whoring' and 'prostitution', especially the later, have evolved to take on the connotation of exchange of money for sex, which need not be the case for poreneia. But again, fornication is archaic and not in common usage outside of religious circles. So it is a challenge for translators.
I don't think that is really the reason why. I suspect the problem has more to do with church goers who do it thinking that sin is no big deal, probably because of the way grace, etc. is taught or an overall lack of teaching in some churches. If a strong stand isn't taken against a cultural norm, that's another source for the problem.
No I don't. When did I translate that into modern Bibles? And 'firstborn of every creature' shows up in the KJV.
If you think the KJV is the best their is, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is not what I am opposing in this thread. I am opposed to making up an extra-Biblical doctrine that the KJV is inspired like the actual scriptures they translate, that it is a perfect translation, and ripping verses out of context in a ridiculous way to teach it as some kind of doctrine, when it is not a doctrine of the original church.
Between this and the eternal security debate, I don't know if you could find more text book cult like behavior than these subjects. It's ALL insults, assumptions and assertions. That's it. Will not read the words you write, or at least they don't respond to them like they have read them. Never set their feet and build a real argument or make a point that can be examined and stick with it, but worse than that they build strawman argument and present them as what you believe and proceed to hold on to that tactic as if their very lives depended on it. It's honestly an interesting phenomime, and I'm learning a lot as far as how to interact with it online, but how dare you for all those crazy beliefs he listed that you don't believe. Apostate.
Your selection is unrepresentative and does not support your assertion(s).
Criticism without explanation is merely opinion.
No, that's not true at all. The modern translations are printed in English.
Those who desire to study further have long been encouraged to learn the original languages. That has nothing to do with "Modern Textual Critics".
I couldn't, as I don't track such things. I just remember my HS classes. I was a top student in Physics and Maths, but middling in English because, despite my proficiency with grammar, I really couldn't give a hoot about literature. I can only guess what Literature classes were like for people who struggled with grammar.
While different beliefs do exist, there are primarily three positions to my knowledge involving this topic.
#1. The Modern scholar's chosen manuscripts make up the Word of God (Despite their many differences between each other and or their errors). Generally, this is the Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - NT Greek texts), and the LXX (False manuscripts that are supposed to be a translation of the Old Testament before Christ written in Greek). This also could include the Hebraica (and its later variations) that is used in the OT portion for Modern Bibles and this was originally created by a German rationalist who was anti-semitic. This is the most common belief today. They see the Word of God as in a constant state of flux or like evolution. Some words are true and others are false. The individual or the scholar gets to choose. It's like a "Choose Your Own Adventure Bible." There is no real Word of God that can somebody can point to and say this is God's Holy Word.
#2. While it is not as common, you will get a few Christians who primarily just look to all of the Modern English translations, compiled together to make up the Word of God or the Bible. While they may respect the original language copies, they are more focused on the Bible speaking to us in the contemporary languages as being the Bible for today. This is problematic because Modern Bibles contradict even each other in many places. Even the NIV contradicts a previous edition of itself. These were not changes done to perfect printing errors or to get back to the original handwritten master copy, like with the King James Bible.
#3. The King James Bible is the Word of God that is perfect and without error.
Side Note: I am aware there are Majority Text Only folks, and KJB Only preferred type believers. But they are not as common.
If your belief is different to the ones mentioned above, then it is on you to reveal to me and others what you actually believe. Generally, most hold to #1 on my list. If that is not what you believe, please share what you actually believe.
Bible Highlighter said:
You said:
My point was to ultimately refute the popular belief today that says, "Only the original manuscripts" are inspired, and no copy today can be perfect or error-free like the originals. Unless I had a brain fart, and said something off while being overzealous again, which sometimes happens, I was not intending to claim that the KJB is a copy. The Pure Cambridge KJV (WW2) (by A.W. Pollard) is an accurate translation of the originals.
You said:
Not really, my friend.
Textual Critic Christians say that the Bible must be in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek because that is what the original languages that they had written them in. However....
(1) There was never any Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Scriptures bound together into one book by early Christians.
(2) We are told in Isaiah 34:16 to seek ye out the book of the Lord and read it (See my post here for pictorial examples of verses in Revelation connecting in with Isaiah 34, which shows that Isaiah 34:16 is talking about our having a Book of the Lord during the End Times). How can we read this book if they are in dead languages that are long gone? The only way we can understand such languages is if they are translated.
(3) God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. God does not exist only in the past with these dead languages.
(4) God translates many times in the Scriptures. So it would be consistent about what we know about God if He translated the Scriptures into another language. God did not keep the Scriptures in Hebrew, but He moved them to Greek, proving that God is not concerned with staying in one original language only.
(5) God is concerned about spreading the truth within the Great Commission. This job would be greatly hindered if we had to learn three dead languages, which would be lifetime pursuits.
(6) English is the world language. There are several articles on this., whereby they make their case
(7) The KJB is the most printed book in the world and it is the most influential book.
You said:
Bruce Metzger who is hailed as a great in Textual Criticism does not believe the story of Job actually happened.
Note on Job: “The ancient folktale of a patient Job circulated orally among oriental sages in the second millennium B.C. and was probably written down in Hebrew at the time of David and Solomon or a century later (about 1000-800 B.C.)” (Metzger and May, New Oxford Annotated Bible). (Article Source)
You said:
Look in the mirror.
You said:
If the roles were reversed and I did not believe in a particular belief that the person said, I would not be evasive or mysterious about my belief but I would simply tell them what I actually believe. So what do you believe instead? Will I get an answer?
You said:
You are confused about translation done in the past by faithful men vs. Modern Textual Criticism, which does not believe in the divine preservation of God's Words, and they attempt to handle the text like they would any other man-made document. No special spiritual considerations are taken into account. Modern Textual Criticism also has not been able to come out with one settled text, either. They are always in a constant state of flux or evolution with some new exciting manuscript discovery just waiting around the corner to be discovered in some cave somewhere. They don't fully have the words of God. They have a Frankenstein monster of a Bible with some parts of that being true and other parts being false (With them sitting in the seat of God and determining what God said and did not say). They cannot identify any book that is the perfect and infallible words of God on the planet. So then, they or the scholars ultimately become the authority and not God.
All you have done is shown DIFFERENCES between verses in the KJV and various modern translations. You haven't demonstrated that the modern wording is "blatantly corrupt". You (and every KJV-onlyist I've encountered) throw around the accusation, "Corrupt!" like it's confetti at a wedding.
In order to prove that a particular wording is "corrupt", you would need to start with the original-language text. Not a 'manuscript', but the autograph. I don't see you claiming to have found any lately.
I forgot to leave a link to the pictorial examples showing a connection between Revelation and Isaiah 34.
Here is the post.
This shows that if we are to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read from it, then it must be an actual Book of the Lord that would be in existence during the End Times as mentioned in Revelation. So logic dictates that would have the Book of the Lord today that we can hold in our hands and declare it to be the actual Book of the Lord.
This is because these two things go back to the Garden of Eden with the lies or evil tactics pushed by the serpent.
Evil tactic #1.
The serpent said to Eve, “Yea, hath God said…?” (Genesis 3:1).
This was about questioning God’s Word, which is at the heart of Textual Criticism.
I mean, you got footnotes in your Bible questioning the ending of Mark, and the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery.
Evil tactic #2.
The serpent said to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die" (Genesis 3:4).
This was after Eve said to the serpent about how God told them to not eat of the wrong tree and if they did, they would die.
Today, many Christians believe they can abide in sin and be saved while doing so all because of a belief in Jesus as their Savior. But believers are told to confess and forsake sin to have mercy (Proverbs 28:13) (See also 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 1:7).
What Bible translation are you using? That verse doesn't support KJV-onlyism if we read it in the KJV.
Revelation 6:13-14
King James Version
13 And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind.
14 And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places.
If you discuss KJV-onlyism with KJV-onlyists, arguments for it just keep getting weaker and weaker and weirder and weirder.
Do you think the Greek text of the book of Revelation got uninspired after the King James as released?
Do pictures come up on your screen?
If so, then you are not looking at the screen cap I provided correctly.
Look again at the picture above. It’s not hard to see. The words colored in red in Isaiah 34:4 line up with the words in red in Revelation 6:13. The words in yellow in Isaiah 34:4 line up with the words in yellow in Revelation 6:14.
Connect the dots now.
oh boy. information light here. it is somewhat more complicated than that and you obviously looked it up and did not read the info in its entirety, but just claimed what you thought would place you in 'the know'.
hurray for you
It is a fact that many of the words chosen in the KJV 1611 were already "out of date" or uncommon, but the writers wanted to be precise.