The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

You aren't paying attention. Labels themselves aren't the problem. And I've already discussed biblical labels and their use. I didn't say I don't use labels. I said I don't use certain labels that are extra biblical because the are often used pejoratively.
What I'm not holding to is your misunderstanding of what I'm actually saying.

Extra-biblical labels are not all used contemptuously. The name that describes a belief is not created to mock that very belief. Even words for certain objects can be used as a different label with no issues. For example: The word "Bible" is just another word for the Scriptures. It is another name or label for God's Word. It does not mean one is mocking the Scriptures because they use this extra-biblical word. Bible means book and it is not incorrect to use such a word. Once Saved Always Saved (OSAS) is a belief that OSAS believers are not in disagreement over. They do not consider the use of this name to be used in a mocking manner but as a phrase that describes their belief (Although, I consider OSAS to be unbiblical and immoral). Most OSAS Christians do not see a problem with the use of this label. For example: If you were to type into Google, "Why I am a Calvinist" you would actually get results. Not all Calvinists would find the term Calvinist that describes their belief to be used contemptuously. Churches have names or labels that help to distinguish their church from others. If you were to study Theology and its terms, you would run into extra-biblical words that help to define concepts in the Bible like the Substitutionary Atonement, or the Trinity. These words are not used in contemptous way. If you think so, you are simply not looking at how things really are.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'll rephrase since you are bent this evening on trying your hardest to confuse what I am actually meaning. God's word is inerrant and infallible.

What is God's word in your view?
Is it settled in Heaven where you cannot get it?
Is it a reference to Jesus?
Is it in reference to the original manuscripts that we do not have?
Is it in reference to copies of a sea of many manuscripts in the original languages?
Is it the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus?
Is it the Westcott and Hort text?
Is it the Nestle and Aland text?
Is it the Majority Text?

I have never read any Bible version that was inerrant and infallible.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
If you believe the Bible on certain truths taught in the Bible by faith, then you will be able to see that there is a particular translation or version that is the pure Word of God given to us by God's promise (Psalms 12:6-7).

 

[John146]

And my question to you is, do you think that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us into all truth if we don't have the complete, perfect word of God?

I would say no

 

[John146]

That doesn't answer my question.

You said this: "But those translations cannot be considered the holy, pure words of God without error. "

I asked, "Where is that in Scripture?"

Please answer the question.

As I have stated many times, different translations contain different words and different truths.

 

[fredoheaven]

2 Cor. 2:17 King James Bible
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.

Perhaps this has been corrupted by many modernist versions. They say 'peddle' which is not. The 'many' refers to the false teachers and not "peddlers'. In essence, these false teachers are behind corrupting God's word. They were not peddling for profit during Paul's time.

 

[Dino246]

"Do you think that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us into all truth if we don't have the complete, perfect word of God?"

I would say no

Then your god is too small.

 

[Dino246]

As I have stated many times, different translations contain different words and different truths.

You still haven't answered my question.

 

[John146]

"Do you think that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us into all truth if we don't have the complete, perfect word of God?"



Then your god is too small.

My God is the God of the bible. Can you show your opinion through scripture? How the Holy Spirit can lead a man unto all truth without having the word of God?

 

[Dino246]

2 Cor. 2:17 King James Bible
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.

Perhaps this has been corrupted by many modernist versions. They say 'peddle' which is not. The 'many' refers to the false teachers and not "peddlers'. In essence, these false teachers are behind corrupting God's word. They were not peddling for profit during Paul's time.

You should do your homework before making accusations.

Here's the "modernist" Greek text from BibleHub:

Οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν

And the TR text from Blue Letter Bible:

οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ κατενώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν

There are minor changes later in the verse, but the key word is the seventh, kapeleuontes, which is the same in both versions, and is surrounded by the same words. The difference is one of translation/interpretation.

According to Strongs, kapeleuontes means "to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively):—corrupt. "

It appears that the KJV translators simply used the figurative sense where modern translators have used the literal sense. Neither is "incorrect", and both work within the context of the verse.

Let's not be attributing "corruption" where there is none.

 

[Dino246]

My God is the God of the bible. Can you show your opinion through scripture? How the Holy Spirit can lead a man unto all truth without having the word of God?

The Holy Spirit taught Paul many things that were not yet "Scripture".

 

[John146]

The Holy Spirit taught Paul many things that were not yet "Scripture".

If God taught Paul truth, it was God's word teaching him truth.

 

[Dino246]

If God taught Paul truth, it was God's word teaching him truth.

So Paul obtained all the knowledge presented in his letters (and recorded in Acts) by reading the Old Testament? Come on... you don't seriously believe that, do you?

 

[John146]

So Paul obtained all the knowledge presented in his letters (and recorded in Acts) by reading the Old Testament? Come on... you don't seriously believe that, do you?

First of all, what are you considering God's word? Anytime God speaks, correct?

 

[Dino246]

First of all, what are you considering God's word? Anytime God speaks, correct?

No. In this context, the written word that is (relatively) widely available at any particular time. In Paul's time, this was the Old Testament books.

 

[John146]

No. In this context, the written word that is (relatively) widely available at any particular time. In Paul's time, this was the Old Testament books.

Who spoke to Pharaoh? Moses? God? Scripture? Yep!

Romans 9:17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

 

[John146]

So Paul obtained all the knowledge presented in his letters (and recorded in Acts) by reading the Old Testament? Come on... you don't seriously believe that, do you?

Of course I don't believe that. I'm a dispensationalist remember. God dispenses his truth to man throughout the course of human history leading to the finished work of the bible.

 

[Lanolin]

KJV is referring to OT in those instances of quoting scripture. Its not referring to itself (KJV) . The only time a KJV bible references itself would be in the preface or if its a cross-referenced KJV Bible with scripture refs in the margins, or it has added commentaries.

Having a complete KJV is good thing though and its important to read both Old and New Testaments. Some churches give out Bibles that are ONLY New Testaments. If thats the only Bible you receive, of course you miss out on reading the Old Testament and would not get all the references to scripture.

Some people read the NT first and then the OT but, actually the natural order is to start from Geneisis first and the first 5 books of Moses. Many christians seem to have this backwards and often read gospel of John first. But Gospel John is referencing Genesis.

OT or as Jewish believers call it, Torah, scripture, is to them the Word Of God written down. Of course it is important to have it, but its not referring to the KJV itself. We who are reading it today are blessed to have it translated into whatver langauge is understandable to us.

KJV is not the only translation, though it is a complete translation from both old and new. For some, complete means perfect.

There are believers in the world who do not have access to a full. Holy Bible. They may get verses here and there, or pages ripped out of other Bibles and have to piece it together. Or maybe only ONE person has access to a copy in their village or whatever. It was very expensive and hard to read the Bible. So I believe something so precious should be widely available and more accessible...and it now is with mass printing and distribution and online and audio access, and many many translations.

People will always be biased toward the Bible that has the word that saves them. Scholars can argue over which version or which one but I dont believe the Bible teaches doctrine necessarily, Teachers use the Bible to teach certain doctrines, but Jesus said you dont need anyone to teach you, the Holy Spirit can teach you.

For the Holy Spirit to teach you, you need a Holy Bible. So in that sense we need to make sure we have one avialable. If its KJV all well and good. But if the only Bible we can find is a Zondervan Childrens Beginner Bible I am sure God can use that at least as a springboard to the full Holy Bible and give whoever is reading it a hunger for His word and to know Him better.

 

[Dino246]

Of course I don't believe that. I'm a dispensationalist remember. God dispenses his truth to man throughout the course of human history leading to the finished work of the bible.

So did the Holy Spirit lead Paul into all truth without a complete written Bible? Yes, or no?

 

[fredoheaven]

You should do your homework before making accusations.

Here's the "modernist" Greek text from BibleHub:

Οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας ἀλλ’ ὡς ἐκ Θεοῦ κατέναντι Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν

And the TR text from Blue Letter Bible:

οὐ γάρ ἐσμεν ὡς οἱ πολλοὶ καπηλεύοντες τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐξ εἰλικρινείας ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἐκ θεοῦ κατενώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ λαλοῦμεν

There are minor changes later in the verse, but the key word is the seventh, kapeleuontes, which is the same in both versions, and is surrounded by the same words. The difference is one of translation/interpretation.

According to Strongs, kapeleuontes means "to retail, i.e. (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively):—corrupt. "

It appears that the KJV translators simply used the figurative sense where modern translators have used the literal sense. Neither is "incorrect", and both work within the context of the verse.

Let's not be attributing "corruption" where there is none.

Here’s Thayer though he knew, it has other meaning of peddling, however, his comment is well considered. So accordingly, on the account of the context, this favors the KJB citing 2 Cor. 4:2


https://biblehub.com/greek/2585.htm

Bill Mounce on the definition of καπηλεύοντες

Definition:

pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17

https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo

According to Liddell- Scott, Greek –English Lexicon, in cooperation of many scholars accordingly shown to be a metaphor, a figure of speech not literally true as used in the scripture in 2 Cor. 2:17 though it has the literal meaning of a retail dealer or peddler, however, the other option again says “corrupting it” at the last part of their definition.



We have covered lexicons, however, the Final Authority will always be the word of God giving sense of the context as Thayer’s believe in here and other interpreters of whom he did not mentioned specifically. Tracing back the history for the establishment of Corinth Church in Acts 18 during Paul’s Missionary journey, we will be able to conclude that Paul is not trading the word of God and that as “many” are referred to those Jews of seeking him to the questioning of words and laws. Well, Paul like Priscilla and Aquila are of the same trade, nevertheless, the unbelieving Jews were always against Paul in his preaching of the gospel or teaching the word of God for 1/1/2 years. Gallio knew that it is a question of words. Including their Law. So, we see it here it speaks about the scripture being traded? No! It is about the questioning of words nothing about the business of tent making.

 

[Dino246]

Here’s Thayer though he knew, it has other meaning of peddling, however, his comment is well considered. So accordingly, on the account of the context, this favors the KJB citing 2 Cor. 4:2

View attachment 259662
https://biblehub.com/greek/2585.htm

Bill Mounce on the definition of καπηλεύοντες

Definition:

pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17

https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo

According to Liddell- Scott, Greek –English Lexicon, in cooperation of many scholars accordingly shown to be a metaphor, a figure of speech not literally true as used in the scripture in 2 Cor. 2:17 though it has the literal meaning of a retail dealer or peddler, however, the other option again says “corrupting it” at the last part of their definition.

View attachment 259663

We have covered lexicons, however, the Final Authority will always be the word of God giving sense of the context as Thayer’s believe in here and other interpreters of whom he did not mentioned specifically. Tracing back the history for the establishment of Corinth Church in Acts 18 during Paul’s Missionary journey, we will be able to conclude that Paul is not trading the word of God and that as “many” are referred to those Jews of seeking him to the questioning of words and laws. Well, Paul like Priscilla and Aquila are of the same trade, nevertheless, the unbelieving Jews were always against Paul in his preaching of the gospel or teaching the word of God for 1/1/2 years. Gallio knew that it is a question of words. Including their Law. So, we see it here it speaks about the scripture being traded? No! It is about the questioning of words nothing about the business of tent making.

You seem to be doing whatever you can to defend the KJV rendering as 'superior' when it is simply 'different'. Frankly, the word "peddle" makes better sense to me, but that's my opinion and I'm certain you would disagree.

Just let it go. This is not a case where the KJV is correct while the modern translations aren't.