The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • 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.

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,778
113
The Catholic Church did not exist in the 4th Century.
How did you arrive at that conclusion (which is incorrect)?.
"The quietly mounting pressure against paganism in the 4th century culminated in the decrees of Emperor Theodosius I (reigned 379–395), who made Catholic Christianity the official religion of the empire and who closed many pagan temples. By the end of the 4th century, therefore, Christianity had been transformed from a persecuted sect to the dominant faith of the empire, in the process becoming intertwined with the imperial government." Britannica.

And Britannica is deemed to be reasonably reliable.
 

Kroogz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2023
865
346
63
That truly is sad! I am looking for a recent post of yours in this thread (could have been as long ago as last
weekend?) where you commented on how those who compiled the KJV recommended using multiple sources...
Found it sis.:)

An article I found:

It is perhaps ironic that the KJV 1611 translators themselves, if they were alive today, would not survive for long in the "KJV-Only" camp. They spoke out about the folly of relying on only one reading of the biblical text to the exclusion of other possible renderings. In fact, they criticized Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) because he didn't allow variant readings in the margins of his version of the Latin Vulgate. They wrote, "They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it might be the other."

The KJV 1611 translators also encouraged the use of a "variety of translations" in order to ascertain the meaning of Scripture. Here's what they said: "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." It is clear that the KJV-Only advocates make claims about the KJV that even the translators themselves did not make.
~~~~~~~~
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,138
30,286
113
Found it sis.:)

An article I found:

It is perhaps ironic that the KJV 1611 translators themselves, if they were alive today, would not survive for long in the "KJV-Only" camp. They spoke out about the folly of relying on only one reading of the biblical text to the exclusion of other possible renderings. In fact, they criticized Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) because he didn't allow variant readings in the margins of his version of the Latin Vulgate. They wrote, "They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it might be the other."

The KJV 1611 translators also encouraged the use of a "variety of translations" in order to ascertain the meaning of Scripture. Here's what they said: "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." It is clear that the KJV-Only advocates make claims about the KJV that even the translators themselves did not make.
~~~~~~~~

Thank You! God Bless You
:)
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Found it sis.:)

An article I found:

It is perhaps ironic that the KJV 1611 translators themselves, if they were alive today, would not survive for long in the "KJV-Only" camp. They spoke out about the folly of relying on only one reading of the biblical text to the exclusion of other possible renderings. In fact, they criticized Pope Sixtus V (1585-1590) because he didn't allow variant readings in the margins of his version of the Latin Vulgate. They wrote, "They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it might be the other."

The KJV 1611 translators also encouraged the use of a "variety of translations" in order to ascertain the meaning of Scripture. Here's what they said: "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." It is clear that the KJV-Only advocates make claims about the KJV that even the translators themselves did not make.
~~~~~~~~
Again, this really doesn’t matter. John the Baptist said he was not Elijah and yet Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah (i.e., John came in the spirit of Elijah). In other words, there are times a believer can operate and think by God and His working and there other times in their life that this is not case. This can even be without their knowledge.

So God used the KJV translators to preserve God’s words and they did not know it just as John did not know he was Elijah as Jesus claimed.

Even Joseph’s brothers were being used by God for a greater plan for good. What they intended for evil, God intended it for good.

Even the Jews crucified their own Messiah. What they intended for evil, God intended it for good.
 

Kroogz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2023
865
346
63
Again, this really doesn’t matter. John the Baptist said he was not Elijah and yet Jesus said John the Baptist was Elijah (i.e., John came in the spirit of Elijah). In other words, there are times a believer can operate and think by God and His working and there other times in their life that this is not case. This can even be without their knowledge.

So God used the KJV translators to preserve God’s words and they did not know it just as John did not know he was Elijah as Jesus claimed.

Even Joseph’s brothers were being used by God for a greater plan for good. What they intended for evil, God intended it for good.

Even the Jews crucified their own Messiah. What they intended for evil, God intended it for good.
They did not know, but you do. How did you find out if the translators themselves didn't even know?

No need to answer.
 
Dec 29, 2023
1,327
238
63
The Catholic Church did not exist in the 4th Century.

It started when Constantine made Christianity he state religion which resulted in the Gospel being corrupted with pagan teachings and it's been going downhill ever since!

It's always funny to see catholics try to explain WHY the doctrines they espouse aren't even in the Word of God!
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Where to start?? Where to start??
First, I never went to Bible College. I went to seminary for 7 years where I got straight As and top student in Greek. I also went to a theological institute and studied theology for a few years till my RA hit my hand, and I couldn't type. Then Long COVID finished me off. I took second year Greek online from Bill Mounce, one of the top Greek scholars in the world, whose father was also a Greek scholar, and started teaching him Greek at age 3. He spoke classical Greek, and modern Greek and would often share interesting things about the changes in Greek over thousands of years, or things that stayed the same. He told every student to learn modern Greek, and his text books were full of modern Greek. I did work on modern Greek for a while, but ended up going back to Ukrainian, which was the language of my grandparents. But I can often read Greek on a map, based on Koine Greek. Plus, I am in a group on FB that examines the original languages, with many professors, and they always tell people to learn modern Greek. I don't know where you got your info, you probably have never met a Greek scholar, and are just quoting one of your KJV Only websites. Dr Mounce said everyone he worked with on translation committees all knew modern Greek, plus they talked to each other in it. So, more false info!

As far as modern manuscripts being supervised by the Catholic Church, Erasmus was a Catholic priest. That is the basis of the KJV text. Better look into that!

Another error you have made, is I came to my conclusions about the Byzantine text by looking at and reading numerous examples of the texts. And all the copyist errors, including a one letter difference, which makes it a different word. How dare you tell me I read only scholars? Besides which, not all scholars say the same things. If I am digging deep into a topic I will read up to 50 sources on the issue. Then I go back to the Bible, to decide my preference in the matter. Always being open to consider new information as new manuscripts are found. For example, Daniel Wallace, the author of the top second year Greek grammar got permission from the Greek gov't and Orthodox churches to photograph every single manuscript in their churches & libraries, in Greece and Istanbul. He was discovering amazing things. It will be interesting to read some of his conclusions regarding the material, But then, you've never met an actual Greek scholar or looked at manuscripts, especially over generations of copying, to see how the mistakes and the margin notes get copied into the next generation of manuscripts. And yes, I have seen it with my own eyes. But I also trust my Greek professors. Bill Mounce was phenomenal. A master teacher. He never presumed upon his knowledge but put so much preparation into each lesson. And such a depth of knowledge. But so humble, without knowing it. He told us a story about a brilliant Bible scholar and teacher, and wondered how he could even consider himself a scholar compared to this man.

You obviously have never stepped into any post -secondary institute to have such an ignorant understanding of scholarship, and the time, effort and intelligence and hard work and dedication it takes to earn those "fancy" degrees. Real degrees take constant and dedicated work. Many of my fellow students were pastors, seeking to learn more about God. One young man was a missionary, living in a jungle in southern Mexico, and having to drive to a town for the online classes. He also had 4 children, and was brillant. He also almost died of COVID, and God touched him and he was instantly healed! A Southern Baptist.

You have an anti-education attitude. You put down anyone who knows more than you, because of the huge effort they made to study themselves approved. That is from the KJV! Funny how so many put down higher education for Christians, when there are so many excellent conservative seminaries & theological schools. Everyone I knew felt called by God to go to seminary including me. I disobeyed God, cause it wouldn't give me any increments for teaching in public school, and I thought women couldn't be preachers. Not that I wanted to be a preacher. Then I got really sick. When I finally found good meds my, God called me again. I never waivered, and when the going got rough, that call remained in my heart.

There are many reasons the Jonannine Comma should not be there. Including that the earliest manuscripts don't have it. The only reason it is in the KJV, is that the Catholic Church demanded Erasmus leave it in for theology's sake, even though he could find no evidence of its existence. But he left it in to get the Imprimateur's stamp of approval, and the KJV used his translation as the basis of their work. You know, the Roman Catholic priest. As far as witnessing about the Trinity, to whom would that be done? Unsaved people need to hear the gospel. Yes there are some Christian cults that don't believe in the a Trinity. We have a friend who was United Pentecostal. Oneness, no Trinity. He even reads only the KJV. Having that verse there has done not a thing to convince him of the Trinity. I've argued other verses with him, but "God told me!" God tells him all kinds of things that are in conflict with his KJV Bible, but he is stubborn and his theology is stuck. I'd much rather use other texts to argue the Trinity, cause almost everyone knows 1 John 5:7 is spurious. Better to show the Trinity in other places!

And yes, there are definitively liberal, progressive scholars who attack the Bible & doctrine. I've personally never met any of them, my seminary was very conservative. We had people from many denominations attend, even charismatics. The seminary even let them take an extra theology course from their own denomination. Like a Lutheran student studied with a former Lutheran professor. Two Mennonite students studied with a Mennonite scholar. Plus we had many different Baptist Conferences in our seminary. One, because his Baptist denomination had become so liberal, he left it and wouldn't go to their seminary, which was a few blocks from his home, but travelled across the province to get a quality conservative education at our seminary. The seminary had an excellent reputation!

So, just because there are bad professors in seminaries that have gone astray, doesn't mean they all have. Instead of listing the negative, look into how many conservative scholars there are, from a variety of denominations, and independent ones. My theological institute was not affiliated with any denominations, and we all got along so well, and I learned so much from excellent professors who believed every word of the Bible.

Anyway, you definitely suffer from hearsay and a lot of lies that have been fed to you. You've never met a conservative scholar or been to a conservative seminary. That's ok, you're not an academic! But stop criticizing things you don't know anything about. You accuse me of learning from professors, and I freely admit I have. Then turn around and spout internet garbage, without even quoting the source. Maybe next time, I'll put some of your internet stuff into a Google search, to find where all this KJV Only nonsense comes from. Read the KJV if you want, but don't tell others it is the best and true Bible, because it isn't!
As for Dan Wallace:

Check out these articles here:

https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/staggs-wallace.html

https://biblefortoday.org/Articles/reply.htm

Uncertainty about scripture

I have never said in our debates that we are absolutely certain of the wording of the text of the New Testament. So, I would agree with him that “we really don’t have any way to know for sure” . . . . He is right that classical scholars do not ‘know exactly’ what these classical authors wrote. This is what I have said regarding the New Testament, too! We may have a high level of confidence, but it never rises to the point where we know exactly with absolute confidence what the text said. – Dan Wallace.

Source.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
You obviously have never stepped into any post -secondary institute to have such an ignorant understanding of scholarship, and the time, effort and intelligence and hard work and dedication it takes to earn those "fancy" degrees. Real degrees take constant and dedicated work.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were going to be date tested but it was stopped.
Imagine if they discovered they were not older manuscripts. It would shatter such an institution.
By the way,. It is just a theory that if the manuscript is older is more reliable and trustworthy.
Paul said that the Scriptures were being corrupted in his time.
So just because something is older, does not mean it is better.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
You have an anti-education attitude.
While I am sure you can learn things there that may be true that we may be agree with, ultimately Education of God's Word is not in a seminary. Neither is it in a Bible college. God can teach a person His Word without these things and without having to learn the original languages. While I do see the occasional word study helpful (like on the word "hell" having different meanings), I also realize that life is short and to truly know these languages would be a lifes times pursuit.

You said:
You put down anyone who knows more than you, because of the huge effort they made to study themselves approved. That is from the KJV! Funny how so many put down higher education for Christians, when there are so many excellent conservative seminaries & theological schools. Everyone I knew felt called by God to go to seminary including me.
2 Timothy 2:15 in the KJV is not telling you to go to Seminary or Bible College to study. That's not what it is referring to. It simply means to study the Scriptures and no school is necessary to do that. See 1 John 2:27.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
There are many reasons the Jonannine Comma should not be there. Including that the earliest manuscripts don't have it.
This is just a THEORY that the Vaticanus and Sinaitucus are the oldest manuscripts and therefore better. As I said before, they have not been chemically date tested. They were about to be tested but they stopped. Even if they were older, it does not mean they are a more accurate representation of the originals. Paul said the Scriptures were being corrupted during his day.

Besides I have already provided proof to the contrary that proves otherwise. You are simply not wanting to see such evidence.
Again, if Textual Critical Movement side was honest to begin with, then there would have been no need to move some of the words in 1 John 5:8 to fill in the missing verse in 1 John 5:7. Such a move is deception.

You said:
The only reason it is in the KJV, is that the Catholic Church demanded Erasmus leave it in for theology's sake, even though he could find no evidence of its existence.
This statement is said with no evidence. But I suppose if it is repeated enough, it becomes true to Modern Scholarship. So please provide a reference that is from the history books.

I guarantee you that you will not find it.

You said:
I'd much rather use other texts to argue the Trinity, cause almost everyone knows 1 John 5:7 is spurious.
You mean the Modern Scholars who favor the wrong manuscripts.
1 John 5:7 is NOT spurious. I provided GOOD evidence that proves the contrary. You did not bother to look at such evidence.

You said:
Better to show the Trinity in other places!
Uh, no. 1 John 5:7 is the most clearest and simple way to explain the Trinity because that is the only verse that says that.
You wouldn't even be having this debate with me about it if you lived in 1700s in America.

Textual Criticism is a new religion by comparison to the existence of the KJB.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
So, just because there are bad professors in seminaries that have gone astray, doesn't mean they all have.
I don't think you get it. You don't hear about KJB believers going astray as often as those in Bible College. That's the point. When some students have gone to Bible college they fallen away from the faith. This is because Textual Criticism makes you to doubt the trustworthiness of the Bible. You have footnotes making you doubt parts of the Bible. You have thousands of contradictory translations causing confusion. You have no standard text that is never settled. It's a never ending evolving text and that does not breed trustworthiness in what God said. If God cannot get His Word down correctly, and it is in a constant state of flux, then why on Earth would somebody believe that? This is why some have fallen away at Bible college. The reason is Textual Criticism gets you to question and criticize the text and not to believe it.

You said:
Anyway, you definitely suffer from hearsay and a lot of lies that have been fed to you. You've never met a conservative scholar or been to a conservative seminary. That's ok, you're not an academic! But stop criticizing things you don't know anything about. You accuse me of learning from professors, and I freely admit I have. Then turn around and spout internet garbage, without even quoting the source. Maybe next time, I'll put some of your internet stuff into a Google search, to find where all this KJV Only nonsense comes from. Read the KJV if you want, but don't tell others it is the best and true Bible, because it isn't!
The KJV is the best! It is God's Word that is pure and inspired and perfect.
People attack it because it is God' Word. Did ever think of that?
If banks did not carry something of value within them then they wouldn't be robbed.
The same is true with the Bible (the KJV). If it did not contain the very words of God, it would not be attacked.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
They did not know, but you do. How did you find out if the translators themselves didn't even know?

No need to answer.
I have 101 Reasons for the KJB being the Pure Word of God for today.
But I can point you to just 10 Categories that make it obvious that the KJB is God’s Word.
You can check out the list here (Back in this thread).
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
Luke 14:11
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

John 3:10
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

1 John 2:27
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."



I am sorry to hear.



When I rededicated my life back to Christ back in 2010-2011 I did listen to a few of Mounce's teachings on the New Testament.
I stopped listening to him when he said that God told Hosea to marry a prostitute.
Of course this is the rendering in Modern Bibles but not in the King James Bible.
One does not understand the good nature of God if they believe God would tell somebody to do something evil.



If Mounce is telling the truth, he may be referring to his own Mounce New Testament Translation or other committees that do not involve other Bible translations; or he may be referring to other smaller unknown Bible translations that are not in popular use. But please take note that Mounce's Bible New Testament Translation does not have any great influence or following unlike say the ESV, NAS95, etcetera.

Anyway, we don't live in the 1980s anymore. The internet has evolved to a point where we can actually research the truth without relying on the words of others. In other words, there are articles you can read that are non-KJB-only articles that state the truth about how Modern Biblical Scholars do not all know Modern Greek and some believe this is a concern.



Erasmus did not hold to all Catholic teachings and he was said by Catholics to be the egg that Luther hatched. If you were to go to the Catholic website, they speak unfavorably of him. In fact, they sought to destroy his TR manuscripts. Erasmus died among Protestant friends. The Vatican did not commission Erasmus to work on a translation. He was working without their approval.

The Nestle and Aland were supervised by the Vatican. Erasmus' work was not supervised by the Vatican.
There is no evidence that Erasmus favored manuscripts or made changes to the text that would favor the Roman Catholic Church.
However, we do have evidence in the NIV (Which is a result of the Nestle and Aland) of 14 changes that favor the RCC.
As I said, all you have to do is go to Google and search for the keywords, "Keith Piper NIV" and then go to pages 21-22 of his PDF and you can see the changes. In addition, there is a Catholic dictionary in one of the Catholic Bibles that forbids the Catholic layperson from reading the King James Version of the Bible. Granted, this has changed a few years ago seeing the Catholics put out a Catholic Version of the KJV with their apocryphal books in it back in 2020. But before this recent change, the Catholics as a whole did not want anyone reading the King James Version. A Catholic named Guy Fawkes even tried to destroy King James and his translation (the KJV) with a super bomb. This was known as the Gunpowder Plot. Skip back further in time, and we know that Catholics killed others for even having the Scriptures or translating Bibles that were not Catholic ones. So I see the Vatican's involvement in the Nestle and Aland text as the RCC changing tactics to get you to trust the scholar or the priest over what the Bible says.



You don't read any scholarly work by KJB believers who are academic. That's my point.
Also, the TR line of manuscripts, or the majority of manuscripts in support of the KJV is not an exact replica of the KJV.
There are bound to be variations. But the majority of NT Greek manuscript witnesses (5,800) manuscripts align with the KJV and not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This is important to understand because Christians would have made copies of the true Scriptures and they would not have touched corrupt manuscripts like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

I believe the Word of God was perfectly preserved with the Waldenses before the 1611 KJV.
However, the Catholics had destroyed many of their Bibles when they massacred many of them.



You don't need to do that. Isaiah 34:16 says to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read.
It's not, "We don't have a perfect Bible and so we have to reconstruct the text again based on some new discovery."
This is just silly and it is unbelief in the promise of God in Psalms 12:6-7.

Anyway, I don't have the time to address everything else you wrote.
It may be a while before I get back to you if I decide it is worth replying to.

May God bless you.
Hosea DID marry a prostitution! Even in the KJV. It's a metaphor for the adulterous Israel. The problem is, you can't really read 16th century English, so you are clueless about what it says.

Not sure if it was you or someone else, and I have said this before - I don't understand Jacobean English, because I have never studied it. I am easily able to read Greek and Hebrew because if studied it, taken courses on it, and practiced it, and read the NT in Koine Greek and the OT in Hebrew. As for anyone being able to read the KJV, I doubt that! You just told us of an error in your reading comprehension, and you read it all the time! Don't force anyone to pick out a few words and call it reading.

Bill Mounce didn't write the NT translation, his father Robert Mounce did. The things you present as truth but are totally in error would fill a book!

Plus, now I have outed you saying Greek scholars don't know modern Greek. I spent several paragraphs explaining they know and speak modern Greek, they encourage students to learn it, and Bill Mounce's textbook for first year Koine Grerk has modern Greek throughout the book. And many translation committees use modern Greek to talk about the text, and any rate, you are not reading and/or retaining what I told you. You don't know any real Greek scholars, so stop spreading your lies. Greek scholars and professors usually speak Classical Greek, Modern Greek & Koine Greek.

As for Guy Fawkes, Mr American, the Gun Powder Plot was to blow up Parliament, and replace the King with a Catholic King. But all the nobles in Parliament were also included. If you knew anything about English history, this battle had gone on since Henry VIII overthrew the pope, then Mary brough it back, then Elizabeth I threw out Catholicism again. Then the Catholics tried again. It had nothing to do with the KJV, and King James was targeted because he was a Protestant King. Your knowledge of history is not good.

As far as Isa 34, you have taken a scrap of verse 16, and read your own meaning into it. There are specific instructions what they are to read:

Look in the scroll of the Lord and read:
None of these will be missing,
not one will lack her mate.
For it is his mouth that has given the order,
and his Spirit will gather them together.
17 He allots their portions;
his hand distributes them by measure.
They will possess it forever
and dwell there from generation to generation.

It's talking about countries and animals. What an exegetical error! Please take a course in how to read the Bible properly. Use the KJV. You've just proved how badly you read, and how badly you read the Bible!
 
Jan 6, 2024
45
22
8
Yes, KJV Onlyism is a clear error. It might have been the Best Translation available at the time, but scholarship has moved on since then. I think Holy Name Bibles are on the right track. The Name of the Lord Jehovah, whom we praise each time we say "Hallelujah", the Proper Name of God the Father, though it is also used of God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (another reason for using that Proper Name! so feared by the Enemy of God, Satan), should be in the Holy Bible. It can be in Caps, or in Red, or in some other way to indicate this is a Sacred Name, and should be pronounced with due reverence, but it should be there. Bottom line, I think some Good Work has been done in Bible Translations, but more can be done, perhaps by 2033 A.D.
 

Kroogz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2023
865
346
63
I have 101 Reasons for the KJB being the Pure Word of God for today.
But I can point you to just 10 Categories that make it obvious that the KJB is God’s Word.
You can check out the list here (Back in this thread).
Sure. The most prestigious, world renowned, God level KJV translators miss the fact that they were inspired when translating the bible.....but you have 101 reasons. Sure.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Sure. The most prestigious, world renowned, God level KJV translators miss the fact that they were inspired when translating the bible.....but you have 101 reasons. Sure.
Joseph’s brothers missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Joseph, God intended it for a greater plan for good in the end.

The Jews missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Jesus, God was saving the world through His Son, Jesus Christ so that He could offer the free gift of eternal life to those who would believe.

King Saul and his men prophesied against their own will or desire.

What you don’t see in the Bible is the recent new religion of Textual Criticism that became popular in the 1700s in Germany.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,086
339
83
Yes, KJV Onlyism is a clear error. It might have been the Best Translation available at the time, but scholarship has moved on since then. I think Holy Name Bibles are on the right track. The Name of the Lord Jehovah, whom we praise each time we say "Hallelujah", the Proper Name of God the Father, though it is also used of God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit (another reason for using that Proper Name! so feared by the Enemy of God, Satan), should be in the Holy Bible. It can be in Caps, or in Red, or in some other way to indicate this is a Sacred Name, and should be pronounced with due reverence, but it should be there. Bottom line, I think some Good Work has been done in Bible Translations, but more can be done, perhaps by 2033 A.D.
The problem in that thinking is believing that the church was deceived for hundreds of years following the wrong or extremely less correct Bible for hundreds of years when times were more simple than they are today. You would have to claim that the church was deceived into believing 1 John 5:7 is in their Bible for hundreds of years and that the removal of "fornication" in their Bible would be a good thing. They would be deceived into thinking that God was telling Hosea to marry a woman who was a people of idolatry rather than God telling Hosea to marry a prostitute (like in Modern Bibles). They would be deceived into thinking God was telling Abraham to offer his son Isaac instead of believing God was telling Abraham to sacrifice his Son like Modern Bibles say. Which is better? One is straining at gnats in the KJB (attacking minor supposed errors in it) over swallowing a camel by accepting all the false doctrines in Modern Bibles.
 

Sipsey

Well-known member
Sep 27, 2018
1,502
713
113
Joseph’s brothers missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Joseph, God intended it for a greater plan for good in the end.

The Jews missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Jesus, God was saving the world through His Son, Jesus Christ so that He could offer the free gift of eternal life to those who would believe.

King Saul and his men prophesied against their own will or desire.

What you don’t see in the Bible is the recent new religion of Textual Criticism that became popular in the 1700s in Germany.
You seem to be endowed with a high degree of self-righteousness.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
61,138
30,286
113
Joseph’s brothers missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Joseph, God intended it for a greater plan for good in the end.

The Jews missed the fact that what they intended for evil against Jesus, God was saving the world through His Son, Jesus Christ so that He could offer the free gift of eternal life to those who would believe.

King Saul and his men prophesied against their own will or desire.

What you don’t see in the Bible is the recent new religion of Textual Criticism that became popular in the 1700s in Germany.
Nobody has missed the fact that God did not mention the KJ Bible anywhere in Scriptures.

Except maybe KJ onlyists. To hear them speak, you would think He had!
.:unsure::oops: