The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[John146]

Do you honestly think that anything a human can do can puts Jesus in danger of judgment? Don’t be ridiculous.

Well, the modern versions do.

NASB
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
ESV
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

 

[Dino246]

Well, the modern versions do.

NASB
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
ESV
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Fine… be ridiculous then; I really don’t care.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Fine… be ridiculous then; I really don’t care.

No. Following the Modern Bibles is ridiculous because you have the 1984 NIV saying that Jesus healed with compassion like the KJV, and then in the new NIV, it says Jesus healed the leper with indignation (anger). So which one is it? The 1984 or the new one? How do you choose? It's like a choose-your-own-adventure Bible. The Bible can be whatever you want it to be with Modern Translations or with an ever-shape-shifting Nestle and Aland critical Text. You get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said. You have to help God out in what He actually said precisely. Yet, some other Textual Critic will disagree with you pointing to some other manuscript fragment he just crossed the sea to get. But God's Word says you don't have to cross the sea to get it (See: Deuteronomy 30:13).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

In light of your repeated foolishness, your whining is pathetic.


Another asinine assumption.

May the Lord Jesus Christ and His goodness shine upon you in all things.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No. Following the Modern Bibles is ridiculous because you have the 1984 NIV saying that Jesus healed with compassion like the KJV, and then in the new NIV, it says Jesus healed the leper with indignation (anger). So which one is it? The 1984 or the new one? How do you choose? It's like a choose-your-own-adventure Bible. The Bible can be whatever you want it to be with Modern Translations or with an ever-shape-shifting Nestle and Aland critical Text. You get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said. You have to help God out in what He actually said precisely. Yet, some other Textual Critic will disagree with you pointing to some other manuscript fragment he just crossed the sea to get. But God's Word says you don't have to cross the sea to get it (See: Deuteronomy 30:13).

Note: This is Mark 1:41.

Jesus heals the leper filled with compassion (1984 NIV):

https://www.studylight.org/bible/eng/n84/mark/1.html

Jesus heals the leper immediately after He was indignant (angry) in the newer NIV:

https://biblehub.com/mark/1-41.htm

The KJB says Jesus was moved with compassion when He healed the leper.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 1:41&version=KJV

Clearly the newer change in the NIV is for the worse, and not for the better.
There is nothing in the context that would suggest Jesus would be angry.

 

[Dino246]

No. Following the Modern Bibles is ridiculous because you have the 1984 NIV saying that Jesus healed with compassion like the KJV, and then in the new NIV, it says Jesus healed the leper with indignation (anger). So which one is it? The 1984 or the new one? How do you choose? It's like a choose-your-own-adventure Bible. The Bible can be whatever you want it to be with Modern Translations or with an ever-shape-shifting Nestle and Aland critical Text. You get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said. You have to help God out in what He actually said precisely. Yet, some other Textual Critic will disagree with you pointing to some other manuscript fragment he just crossed the sea to get. But God's Word says you don't have to cross the sea to get it (See: Deuteronomy 30:13).

Indeed: which is it? Indignation at the hard hearts of the Pharisees, or compassion for the ailing?

Or both?

Your single example is weak, and does nothing to suggest that "following modern Bibles" is ridiculous.

 

[Dino246]

Well, the modern versions do.

NASB
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be answerable to the court; and whoever says to his brother, You good-for-nothing,’ shall be answerable to the supreme court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.
ESV
22 But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.

Well, if you can't think that through and come to the right conclusion, perhaps you should find a children's "Bible" that will give you an appropriate level of pablum.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Indeed: which is it? Indignation at the hard hearts of the Pharisees, or compassion for the ailing?

Or both?

Your single example is weak, and does nothing to suggest that "following modern Bibles" is ridiculous.

Only one rendering can be in the originals unless you are claiming you believe like me in that God can edit His own Word in the process of the purification of His Word.

Granted, I believe the seventh purification (7th major KJB edition) reflects what the originals said from one language to another within our respective cultures.

 

[John146]

Well, if you can't think that through and come to the right conclusion, perhaps you should find a children's "Bible" that will give you an appropriate level of pablum.

Agreed, even a child can understand the KJV.😉

 

[turbosixx]

Most King James Bible believers do not believe that a person has to believe the King James Bible to be saved.
Now, that said, I believe a Modern Bible can lead a person astray in believing false doctrines because that is what they teach.
Textual Critics who make their own Bible translation are in danger with the Lord because they are adding and taking away from God's true words. So if you are creating a Modern Bible, I would say you are in trouble with the Lord. In other words, there has to be a perfect Word in order for God to give us a warning to not add or take away words from the prophecy of this book (Revelation 22:18-19). Even if you wanted this warning to be solely about the book of Revelation, it does not help you because Modern Bible creators have altered the book of Revelation, as well.



If you go back to my post here, you will see 25 changes in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the King James Bible.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and are big things to swallow (i.e., which would be like swallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed error in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There are serious problems in the Modern Bibles and thus it disqualifies them as being the true Word of God. God does not make mistakes. His promise to preserve His words perfectly is true (Psalms 12:6-7).

I have come up with 101 Reasons for the KJB in being the Pure Word of God. I also come up with 10 Main Categories that support the King James Bible is the Word for today (See here).



Most Modern Greek Theological Scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek. So why would I trust your Greek?

Here is the difference of why the KJB is superior. A top Greek grammarian Professsor Georgios Babiniotis says there is a solecism in "the Greek grammar" if 1 John 5:7 is removed, as well. This professor lives in Greece, and he speaks the native language and is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece. See this video below to learn more.

I've picked up a book on this. I've never looked into this before. I've always used my common sense which tells me unless God inspired those in the 17th century (which I don't believe), then what makes them better translators then men of the 20th century that also translate word-for-word.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I've picked up a book on this. I've never looked into this before. I've always used my common sense which tells me unless God inspired those in the 17th century (which I don't believe), then what makes them better translators then men of the 20th century that also translate word-for-word.

Out of curiosity, what book is it? If you don't mind. I'm always interested in good books on the KJV debate.

 

[turbosixx]

Out of curiosity, what book is it? If you don't mind. I'm always interested in good books on the KJV debate.

The King James Version Debate: A plea for Realism
I asked our preacher for his opinion, and he gave me the book to read.

 

[ResidentAlien]

The King James Version Debate: A plea for Realism
I asked our preacher for his opinion, and he gave me the book to read.

Sounds good, I'll check it out.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The King James Version Debate: A plea for Realism
I asked our preacher for his opinion, and he gave me the book to read.

I strive to look at the negative reviews before reading a book.
You should also look at the opposition side to be fair.

Anyway, here is one book review of this Anti-KJV book who is not KJV-only who gave it one star.

“I am really surprised that he is such a well known name in the field. This was a required book for a M.Div class I was taking. I loved the tone of the class which had as a side point to challenge to KJV but I hated the book. His biases are so strong and condescending that it is hard to even read. I'm not a KJV fan boy. Although I use it at church a lot, I have gotten away from using it as my exclusive go to translation. With that said I still reacted really poorly to his absurd ivory tower stance. The premise of the book is "if you were as smart as me then you wouldn't read the KJV since it is for people who have no idea what is going on". Since I had a huge stack of books I was reading that semester I didn't even see who the author was before I was a couple dozen pages in and I had to put it down a couple times. I thought 'man this is as bad as exegetical fallacies'. Then I noticed the author was the same. Pretty standard for a D. A. Carson book apparently.”​

Here is a review of a believer who does not think the KJV is inspired who gave it one star.

“Mr. Carson presents a horribly skewed view of the Bible version debate. While being one of the few authors to actually addresses the issue of the underlying texts of the different versions, he completely fails to see(as a fairly conservative Christian himself)the liberalism, modernism, and infidelity of those who hold to modern textual criticism and have butchered the underlying Greek text that was afterwood used by modern translations. He even admits some of the Textus Recptus readings are found in the ante-Nicene period and quoted by the ante-Nicene church fathers.​

​

The King James itself is not inspired but is an excellent, accurate translation as is the New American Standard(opposed to- say that abomination, the NIV). The New American Standard was done as well as the King James but the crucial difference was the manuscripts each version was translated from. The New American Standard would have been just as good as the King James but it used the same manuscripts ALL the modern versions used- the evil manuscripts corrupted the those two satanic, blasphemous, anti-Christ, UNBELIEVERS- Wescott and Hort- two of the filthiest, UNSAVED, archfiends that EVER lived.”​

​

Source:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0801024277/

 

[turbosixx]

I strive to look at the negative reviews before reading a book.
You should also look at the opposition side to be fair.

Anyway, here is one book review of this Anti-KJV book who is not KJV-only who gave it one star.

“I am really surprised that he is such a well known name in the field. This was a required book for a M.Div class I was taking. I loved the tone of the class which had as a side point to challenge to KJV but I hated the book. His biases are so strong and condescending that it is hard to even read. I'm not a KJV fan boy. Although I use it at church a lot, I have gotten away from using it as my exclusive go to translation. With that said I still reacted really poorly to his absurd ivory tower stance. The premise of the book is "if you were as smart as me then you wouldn't read the KJV since it is for people who have no idea what is going on". Since I had a huge stack of books I was reading that semester I didn't even see who the author was before I was a couple dozen pages in and I had to put it down a couple times. I thought 'man this is as bad as exegetical fallacies'. Then I noticed the author was the same. Pretty standard for a D. A. Carson book apparently.”​

Here is a review of a believer who does not think the KJV is inspired who gave it one star.

“Mr. Carson presents a horribly skewed view of the Bible version debate. While being one of the few authors to actually addresses the issue of the underlying texts of the different versions, he completely fails to see(as a fairly conservative Christian himself)the liberalism, modernism, and infidelity of those who hold to modern textual criticism and have butchered the underlying Greek text that was afterwood used by modern translations. He even admits some of the Textus Recptus readings are found in the ante-Nicene period and quoted by the ante-Nicene church fathers.​

​

The King James itself is not inspired but is an excellent, accurate translation as is the New American Standard(opposed to- say that abomination, the NIV). The New American Standard was done as well as the King James but the crucial difference was the manuscripts each version was translated from. The New American Standard would have been just as good as the King James but it used the same manuscripts ALL the modern versions used- the evil manuscripts corrupted the those two satanic, blasphemous, anti-Christ, UNBELIEVERS- Wescott and Hort- two of the filthiest, UNSAVED, archfiends that EVER lived.”​

​

Source:
https://www.amazon.com/product-reviews/0801024277/

That's a problem I have. You can pick any subject and the "experts" will not agree. Which expert is right. That's why I rarely read books written by men because they are fallible. I really could careless how "they" see things. God's book is not flawed and yet many "experts" have very different beliefs. Paul tells us when we read, we can understand his insight.

Unless the translators of the KJV were inspired, they are no better than those who translated it word-for-word years later. I do take issue with translations that are not word-for-word.

You said the modern translations contain false doctrines. I mostly read the ESV, NASB and KJV. Could you please tell me a false doctrine found in one of those.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Sounds good, I'll check it out.

Even believers who are not KJV-only do not like the book. It appears to be old book on the subject, as well (1979).

There have been a lot of discussions and information that have been revealed on this topic since that time.
Again, it comes down to your side basically suggesting: “I don’t want a perfect Bible and so I am going to choose the side of heretics and liberals who have the more accurate Bible” Your side is basically suggesting: “It does not matter if the doctrines are superior in the KJB, I don’t want a perfect Bible or I find that idea of following the KJB ridiculous.” Your side is basically suggesting: “I am going to ignore Bible history because I like the idea of making the Bible say what I want it to say in the 2-5% that is uncertain.” Your side is basically suggesting: “I like to sit in the seat of God and call the shots in what He said and did not say.”

For example: I have seen your side praise Bruce Metzger and yet this guy did not believe certain stories of the Bible are real narratives.
This is proven by actual quotes he said.

George Vance Smith was on the British translation committee that produced the English Revised Version.

He was a Unitarian minister of St. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York, who denied the deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the divine inspiration of Scripture. This was made plain in his book The Bible and Popular Theology, which appeared in 1871.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a problem I have. You can pick any subject and the "experts" will not agree. Which expert is right. That's why I rarely read books written by men because they are fallible. I really could careless how "they" see things. God's book is not flawed and yet many "experts" have very different beliefs. Paul tells us when we read, we can understand his insight.

Unless the translators of the KJV were inspired, they are no better than those who translated it word-for-word years later. I do take issue with translations that are not word-for-word.

You said the modern translations contain false doctrines. I mostly read the ESV, NASB and KJV. Could you please tell me a false doctrine found in one of those.

You don’t appear to understand what happened in Bible history, my friend.

The Modern Bibles are NOT based on the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James Bible.
Westcott and Hort started the Modern Bible movement we have today.
They denied the substitiionary atonement, the blood atonement.
These men were heretics and they aligned themselves with heretics like George Vance Smith who was clearly a Unitarian.

The Westcott and Hort NT Greek text (now the Nestle and Aland) is based upon two manuscripts.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Sinaiticus has questionable origins (because there are multiple stories behind its origin).
Granted, I am not going to dispute the age of the document. If they say it is 4th century, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Your side will claim that the Vaticanus is also a 4th century document. It comes from the VATICAN library. It’s why it is called VATICANus.

The Bible manuscripts leading up to the KJV are a different line of Greek NT manuscripts called the Textus Receptus (translated by Erasmus).

So if you know Bible history, reformers like William Tyndale who created a partial Bible translation into English was killed by the Catholic Church. This was in the line of Bibles (Textus Receptus Bibles) leading up to the KJV. John Rogers was also a Textus Receptus Bible translator. Rogers was killed by the Catholic Church, too.

So if we are to believe that your favored manuscripts that differ from our line of manuscripts you would be saying….

I believe the Catholic Church who killed faithful Christians had the more accurate words of God.
You would also have to say:
I believe Christians who were faithful in translating the Bible and who were killed by the Catholic Church had the corrupted words of God.

Side Note:

Yes, I am aware that Erasmus was a Catholic, but he did not hold to all Catholic practices, and he was not working on behalf of the Vatican. Erasmus was against the persecution of others by his church. The Catholic Church wanted to destroy Erasmus’ work because it was leading to the reformation. Catholic monks have said that he was the egg that Luther hatched. You go to the Catholic website today and they do not speak favorably of Erasmus.

 

[Dino246]

I strive to look at the negative reviews before reading a book.
You should also look at the opposition side to be fair.

That’s a silly way to do research. Read the book and make your own conclusions. Otherwise you are creating an echo chamber for yourself.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Even believers who are not KJV-only do not like the book. It appears to be old book on the subject, as well (1979).

There have been a lot of discussions and information that have been revealed on this topic since that time.
Again, it comes down to your side basically suggesting: “I don’t want a perfect Bible and so I am going to choose the side of heretics and liberals who have the more accurate Bible” Your side is basically suggesting: “It does not matter if the doctrines are superior in the KJB, I don’t want a perfect Bible or I find that idea of following the KJB ridiculous.” Your side is basically suggesting: “I am going to ignore Bible history because I like the idea of making the Bible say what I want it to say in the 2-5% that is uncertain.” Your side is basically suggesting: “I like to sit in the seat of God and call the shots in what He said and did not say.”

For example: I have seen your side praise Bruce Metzger and yet this guy did not believe certain stories of the Bible are real narratives.
This is proven by actual quotes he said.

George Vance Smith was on the British translation committee that produced the English Revised Version.

He was a Unitarian minister of St. Saviour’s Gate Chapel, York, who denied the deity and atonement of Jesus Christ, the personality of the Holy Spirit, and the divine inspiration of Scripture. This was made plain in his book The Bible and Popular Theology, which appeared in 1871.

I don't have a side. I'm not a KJV onlyist, but I do agree with many of their arguments; but with you everything is our side and your side. You can't have a productive conversation with people who have this attitude. This is why I don't engage KJV onlyists. I'm just responding to address your comment about the book, then I'm done.

Someone such as yourself has a stake in attacking this book because it questions your foundation; you'd attack anything that doesn't support your position. I found a copy online and have been reading it; so far it seems like a straightforward narrative of the facts. But I don't even want to discuss this book with you. I didn't ask turbosixx for the title so I could analyze it here; I just wanted to read it for myself and make up my own mind.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a problem I have. You can pick any subject and the "experts" will not agree. Which expert is right. That's why I rarely read books written by men because they are fallible. I really could careless how "they" see things. God's book is not flawed and yet many "experts" have very different beliefs. Paul tells us when we read, we can understand his insight.

Unless the translators of the KJV were inspired, they are no better than those who translated it word-for-word years later. I do take issue with translations that are not word-for-word.

You said the modern translations contain false doctrines. I mostly read the ESV, NASB and KJV. Could you please tell me a false doctrine found in one of those.

It gets worse. If you were to look at the Hebrew text used for Modern Bibles which is based on the work of Rudolf Kittel, it should make you want to puke.

Rudolf Kittel. Yes, his name is Rudolf, but he is not the “famous fictional reindeer called Rudolph” created by copywriter Robert L. May back in 1939. This Rudolf is a German anti-Semitic scholar who created a Revised Hebrew text based on unorthodox Hebrew manuscripts (i.e., The Hebrew Ben Asher manuscripts). Rudolf’s work is called the Biblia Hebraica (BHK), a critical edition of the Hebrew, which was published in 1906, subsequently revised and renamed as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), and now the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (2004). Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. He used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his Hebrew text. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament. Now, Gerard Kittel (who is the younger brother of Rudolf Kittel) edited the 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” Almost without exception, all translations, including the NIV translators, relied on and referred to Kittel for his judgment when selecting words in their translation.

Gerhard Kittel joined the Nazi party in 1933 and, the same year, began working on his 10-volume Greek Word Theological Dictionary until completed in 1944. At this time, he was taking a leadership role in the Nazi organization and became a key contributor to their propaganda journal. He wrote six of the eight volumes before publication was cut short by the end of the war. He was Hitler's hired man. He recommended in his writings that all German Jews be dismissed from their jobs, stripped of their German citizenship, and their property confiscated. Kittel was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his key part in the extermination of two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. It is amazing that this was hidden from those who were seeking Greek definitions from a 10-volume set of books penned during the time of a Jewish-hating Nazi. Unfortunately, this 10-volume set appears in the majority of the pastors’ libraries today.