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.
Your failing to connect the dots, my friend. The Nestle and Aland is the textual basis for most all English Modern Translations, which would include the NIV. In fact, it has been reported that the NIV is the chief flagship representative of Nestle and Aland. I also compared the differences between Westcott and Hort’s English translation (ERV) with the NIV and there are added differences with the Nestle and Aland.
In this article here, David Cloud mentions the type of name calling Ruckman has employed in the past.
Granted, I do agree with Ruckman in that the KJV is advanced revelation but I believe this only applies to the 6 Major KJV editions (purifications) throughout history. Meaning the small variations or differences between the KJB editions over the years is advanced revelation or God editing His own Word (of which we see in Jeremiah). I see the seventh purification (Pure Cambridge Edition KJV, circa early 1900) as perfectly reflecting the originals (As close as one can get from translating from one language to another) (Note:: Meaning, there were English idioms that were not in the originals but the same concept or idea was expressed).
I also agree with Ruckman that the King James Bible is inspired. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
But David Cloud lists also some odd beliefs by Ruckman at the end of his article, too.
Granted, I do agree with Ruckman in that the KJV is advanced revelation but I believe this only applies to the 6 Major KJV editions (purifications) throughout history. Meaning the small variations or differences between the KJB editions over the years is advanced revelation or God editing His own Word (of which we see in Jeremiah). I see the seventh purification (Pure Cambridge Edition KJV, circa early 1900) as perfectly reflecting the originals (As close as one can get from translating from one language to another) (Note:: Meaning, there were English idioms that were not in the originals but the same concept or idea was expressed).
I also agree with Ruckman that the King James Bible is inspired. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).
But David Cloud lists also some odd beliefs by Ruckman at the end of his article, too.
Keith Piper (from Australia) had written his NIV Omissions study in 1998.
So his study would have been off of the 1984 NIV edition.
The 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland came out in 1993.
So is this a problem in what I stated? Not exactly.
The point of the NA27 was to show that the Vatican was officially involved.
Unofficially, they already were working on the text beforehand.
Carlo Maria Martini was added to translation committee in 1968 for the 1975 Nestle and Aland 26th edition.
He is a Catholic cardinal.
Carlo Maria Martini working on the 26th edition of the Nestle Aland (1975) is confirmed by a Modern Textual Critic website who is against the KJB renderings:
Source:
https://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html
Wikipedia Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Martini
So his study would have been off of the 1984 NIV edition.
The 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland came out in 1993.
So is this a problem in what I stated? Not exactly.
The point of the NA27 was to show that the Vatican was officially involved.
Unofficially, they already were working on the text beforehand.
Carlo Maria Martini was added to translation committee in 1968 for the 1975 Nestle and Aland 26th edition.
He is a Catholic cardinal.
Carlo Maria Martini working on the 26th edition of the Nestle Aland (1975) is confirmed by a Modern Textual Critic website who is against the KJB renderings:
Source:
https://www.bible-researcher.com/bib-a.html
Wikipedia Sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Testamentum_Graece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Maria_Martini
@Dino246
In addition, I just did a comparative study between Keith Piper’s List of 14 Changes that Favor the Catholic Church with the NIV.
The Nestle and Aland 27th edition came out in 1993.
The ESV came out in 2001.
11 out of 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church can be found in the ESV.
In addition, I just did a comparative study between Keith Piper’s List of 14 Changes that Favor the Catholic Church with the NIV.
The Nestle and Aland 27th edition came out in 1993.
The ESV came out in 2001.
11 out of 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church can be found in the ESV.
@Dino246
I just did another comparative study between Keith Piper’s List of 14 Changes that Favor the Catholic Church with the NIV.
11 out of 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church can also be found in the NASB (current edition) and NAS95.
The number of Catholic changes is less with the RV (Revised Version), which is the Westcott and Hort English translation of their NT Greek Critical Text (including a different source text also for the OT). Meaning, Westcott and Hort worked on the RV (Revised Version) in 1881. This translation has fewer Catholic changes than recent Modern Bibles like the NASB, and the ESV. So more Catholic changes were made in later Modern Bibles.
There are only 5 Catholic changes in the RV (Revised Version).
I just did another comparative study between Keith Piper’s List of 14 Changes that Favor the Catholic Church with the NIV.
11 out of 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church can also be found in the NASB (current edition) and NAS95.
The number of Catholic changes is less with the RV (Revised Version), which is the Westcott and Hort English translation of their NT Greek Critical Text (including a different source text also for the OT). Meaning, Westcott and Hort worked on the RV (Revised Version) in 1881. This translation has fewer Catholic changes than recent Modern Bibles like the NASB, and the ESV. So more Catholic changes were made in later Modern Bibles.
There are only 5 Catholic changes in the RV (Revised Version).
"When the Lord began to speak through Hosea, the Lord said to him, “Go, marry a promiscuous woman and have children with her, for like an adulterous wife this land is guilty of unfaithfulness to the Lord.” 3 So he married Gomer daughter of Diblaim, and she conceived and bore him a son." Hosea 1:2-3 NIV
Rather than quote the KJV which is difficult to understand because of the archaic & obsolete words, and difficult grsmmmar, particularly in these 2 verses, and see what they say in a modern Bible.
Gomer is a promiscuous and adulterous woman. Period. A prostitute.
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife inclined to infidelity, and children of infidelity; for the land commits flagrant infidelity, abandoning the Lord.” Hosea 1:2-3 NASB
So infidelity means unfaithfulness to her husband.
"
When the Lord first spoke to Hosea, He said this to him:
Go and marry a promiscuous wife
and have children of promiscuity,
for the land is committing blatant acts of promiscuity by abandoning the Lord." Hosea 1:2-3 HCSB
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” 3 So he went and took Gomer, the daughter." Hosea 1:2 ESV
Even the KJV clearly says the same thing:
"The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord." Hosea 1:2
A wife of whoredoms is a whole.
Rather than quote the KJV which is difficult to understand because of the archaic & obsolete words, and difficult grsmmmar, particularly in these 2 verses, and see what they say in a modern Bible.
Gomer is a promiscuous and adulterous woman. Period. A prostitute.
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take for yourself a wife inclined to infidelity, and children of infidelity; for the land commits flagrant infidelity, abandoning the Lord.” Hosea 1:2-3 NASB
So infidelity means unfaithfulness to her husband.
"
When the Lord first spoke to Hosea, He said this to him:
Go and marry a promiscuous wife
and have children of promiscuity,
for the land is committing blatant acts of promiscuity by abandoning the Lord." Hosea 1:2-3 HCSB
"When the Lord first spoke through Hosea, the Lord said to Hosea, “Go, take to yourself a wife of whoredom and have children of whoredom, for the land commits great whoredom by forsaking the Lord.” 3 So he went and took Gomer, the daughter." Hosea 1:2 ESV
Even the KJV clearly says the same thing:
"The beginning of the word of the Lord by Hosea. And the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the Lord." Hosea 1:2
A wife of whoredoms is a whole.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
Ruckman and Riplinger have done a great disservice with all their nonsensical publications. Yes. Ruckman uses a lot of foul language which does nothing for his position. They DO NOT represent sane and sober KJV advocates . David Cloud, on the other hand, is a diligent and honest researcher and has written a number of articles on this subject. And the Trinitarian Bible Society has established itself as one which will publish nothing except the KJV (or translations based upon the traditional texts).
-
1
- Show all
No, while these two words may have meant the same thing in the past (Canon Law - 16th century), the words "promiscuous" and "prostitute" used today do not have the same meaning.
"Promiscuous" is an adjective that generally describes a person's behavior or lifestyle characterized by engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners without commitment or exclusivity. It is a more general term and doesn't specifically imply the exchange of money for sexual services.
"Prostitute," on the other hand, refers to a person who engages in sexual activity in exchange for money or goods. It specifically involves a commercial transaction for sexual services.
While both terms involve sexual activity, "promiscuous" is a broader term that doesn't necessarily involve any financial transaction, while "prostitute" is specifically linked to the exchange of money for sexual services.
Source:
ChatGPT (A database software program)
Just look at the CollinsDictionary, or current Dictionaries and the meanings are not interchangeable in definitions.
Generally in the Bible, we let the Bible interpret the meaning of a word when possible. In Genesis 38, we get a definition of both "harlot" and "whoredom" in the context that it can refer to prostitution.
Genesis 38:15-18
15 "When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him."
But there are other cases where the word "whoredom" or "whore" is referred to as idolatry / spiritual idolatry (See: Ezekiel 16:17) (Revelation 17:1).
The problem with Modern Textual Critics, select Modern Bibles, and the majority of Christianity on this point is that they believe God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. Some may take that to mean as you say, and others take that to mean prostitute as we understand that word today. So many today believe that God was telling Hosea to marry a practicing prostitute who was engaging in sex for money.
Yet, the King James Bible says, "Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD." (Hosea 1:2).
Obviously the land is referring to people here and thus the people have committed great whoredom departing from the LORD. This is idolatry. The word "idols" is mentioned in Hosea chapter 4. The context is spiritual idolatry with idols. The whole land was not engaged in selling their bodies for sex.
Yes, Gomer later became a prostitute (engaging in sex for money) but this was not before she was married to Hosea.
Anyway, this is the end of this conversation on the point involving Hosea and Gomer. If you disagree, you are free to believe as you wish. I am not going to debate this point because it is not the only link in the chain that defends the King James Bible as the Word of God.
"Promiscuous" is an adjective that generally describes a person's behavior or lifestyle characterized by engaging in sexual activity with multiple partners without commitment or exclusivity. It is a more general term and doesn't specifically imply the exchange of money for sexual services.
"Prostitute," on the other hand, refers to a person who engages in sexual activity in exchange for money or goods. It specifically involves a commercial transaction for sexual services.
While both terms involve sexual activity, "promiscuous" is a broader term that doesn't necessarily involve any financial transaction, while "prostitute" is specifically linked to the exchange of money for sexual services.
Source:
ChatGPT (A database software program)
Just look at the CollinsDictionary, or current Dictionaries and the meanings are not interchangeable in definitions.
Generally in the Bible, we let the Bible interpret the meaning of a word when possible. In Genesis 38, we get a definition of both "harlot" and "whoredom" in the context that it can refer to prostitution.
Genesis 38:15-18
15 "When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face.
16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?
17 And he said, I will send thee a kid from the flock. And she said, Wilt thou give me a pledge, till thou send it?
18 And he said, What pledge shall I give thee? And she said, Thy signet, and thy bracelets, and thy staff that is in thine hand. And he gave it her, and came in unto her, and she conceived by him."
But there are other cases where the word "whoredom" or "whore" is referred to as idolatry / spiritual idolatry (See: Ezekiel 16:17) (Revelation 17:1).
The problem with Modern Textual Critics, select Modern Bibles, and the majority of Christianity on this point is that they believe God told Hosea to marry a prostitute. Some may take that to mean as you say, and others take that to mean prostitute as we understand that word today. So many today believe that God was telling Hosea to marry a practicing prostitute who was engaging in sex for money.
Yet, the King James Bible says, "Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD." (Hosea 1:2).
Obviously the land is referring to people here and thus the people have committed great whoredom departing from the LORD. This is idolatry. The word "idols" is mentioned in Hosea chapter 4. The context is spiritual idolatry with idols. The whole land was not engaged in selling their bodies for sex.
Yes, Gomer later became a prostitute (engaging in sex for money) but this was not before she was married to Hosea.
Anyway, this is the end of this conversation on the point involving Hosea and Gomer. If you disagree, you are free to believe as you wish. I am not going to debate this point because it is not the only link in the chain that defends the King James Bible as the Word of God.
Added note: Historically, the word "prostitute" or "prostitution" has been used for sex in the exchange of money. So while there was a canon law establishing a particular meaning for these two words being synonymous at the beginning of history (involving these words), it simply never took hold as having that meaning for the majority of history. It definitely does not have that meaning today.
This is an interesting article on how to have a discussion with a KJV Onlyist.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-graciously-engage-kjv-believers/
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-graciously-engage-kjv-believers/
Modern Bibles have corruption within them. They teach false doctrines. You can check out 25 of them starting in my previous post here. So they disqualify themselves as being entirely “inspired Scripture.” Paul said in his time that the Scriptures were being corrupted.
2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
-
1
- Show all
I can see why they don't want them to talk about Textual Criticism. Because it is a practice not found in the Bible. Our belief is based on the Bible in the fact that God's Word tells us to, "Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: (Isaiah 34:16), "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." (Psalms 119:140), and "...the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you." (1 Peter 1:25).
Again, the heart of Textual Criticism is questioning or criticizing the text.
It is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting you to question certain words in your Bible.
Yet, back in the garden, the serpent questioned God's Word with Eve.
The serpent said, "Yea, hath God said....?" (Genesis 3:1).
Textual Critic Christians really do not have an answer for this that is Scriptural.
They just blow this one off and or dismiss it.
It is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting you to question certain words in your Bible.
Yet, back in the garden, the serpent questioned God's Word with Eve.
The serpent said, "Yea, hath God said....?" (Genesis 3:1).
Textual Critic Christians really do not have an answer for this that is Scriptural.
They just blow this one off and or dismiss it.