The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Thunderrr-mental]

Yeah, thou also needest to remember that the joy of the Lord is thy strength.



Thou also shouldst seek the joy of the Lord.



Thou also needest warmth in thine heart.

Thou is learning well 😊


Acts 2:37-39

New International Version



37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”
38 Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

And thine ears shall hear a word behind thee, saying this is the way,

Walk ye in it,

When ye turn to the right hand, and when ye turn to the last hand 😋

 

[Gideon300]

Personally, no offense, but I would say a person is not even a true born again Christian if they reject the Bible or they down play it.
The Bible is how we get our faith. It is a major lifeline in how God talks to us today. The Bible is how we are guided by God today in what to believe and to obey His will. To reject the Bible is to reject God because God is revealed to us in the pages of Holy Scripture. A born again believer will not want to add or take away from God's word because they have reverence for His words. They wouldn't want to endanger their soul according to Revelation 22:18-19. Granted, I do believe a Christian can be saved by a Modern Bible, but I do not believe they can attack the true Word of God (the KJB), and or create their own translation and or heavily endorse changes in the Bible and yet also be saved. To alter God's Word or to attack His Word are very serious offenses to God.

What makes you imagine that the KJB is the true word of God? Do you mean that no one had the true word of God until 1611? Did Paul preach from the KJB? You may wonder why people reject KJV or KJB onlyism. Read your own comments. You will easily see why.

 

[Gideon300]

"A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian.”

—Richard Dawkins, Atheist (source: theguardian.com)

A highly reliable source, of course. Not. Quite a few unbelievers appreciate the KJV, not for spiritual reasons but because "it is the language of Shakespeare". I am no fan of Shakespeare either.

 

[Gideon300]

No it implies no such thing. But this is a common straw man argument. Now for over 400 years Christians have had no issues with the King James Bible. In fact even scholars of English literature say that the KJB has molded the English language (and technically it is written in "Modern English" in spite of the archaic words).

Secondly English has become the language of the world, and people from all over the world are quite proficient in English. But for those who are not, the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes Bibles in all the major languages, but based upon the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, which also underlie the KJB.

There is nothing nonsensical about upholding the most faithful and reliable English translation bar none. Every modern version since 1881 is a corrupted bible. And I have done my research and due diligence, so I do not speak unwittingly.

Are you aware that the leading person on the translation committee of the NASB TOTALLY REPUDIATED that translation after he was convicted by the Holy Spirit?
Frank Logsdon Repudiates the NASB
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

So for 1500 years no one had a bible that could be relied upon? It's a wonder that anyone got saved. How did Martin Luther and Zwingli start the reformation? I've done a great deal of study over the years. If I'm not sure about something, I'll used Bible Hub and compare translations. My preferred version is the Berean. I often look at the literal translation as well.

I've managed to survive and grow as a Christian without the KJV. Jesus is my Deliverer and the Holy Spirit leads me into the truth. I don't have to look up definitions of 17th century English to find out what "bruit" means, for example.

 

[Nehemiah6]

So for 1500 years no one had a bible that could be relied upon?

That is definitely not what I said. All the early bibles were based on the traditional texts. All the Reformation bibles (including the KJB) were also based on the traditional texts. And had the Revision Committee in the late 19th century stayed within their mandate, we would all be using a revised King James Bible today. As to your whining about some archaic words, that has already been addressed in the King James 2000 Bible.

 

[Gideon300]

No it implies no such thing. But this is a common straw man argument. Now for over 400 years Christians have had no issues with the King James Bible. In fact even scholars of English literature say that the KJB has molded the English language (and technically it is written in "Modern English" in spite of the archaic words).

Secondly English has become the language of the world, and people from all over the world are quite proficient in English. But for those who are not, the Trinitarian Bible Society publishes Bibles in all the major languages, but based upon the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts, which also underlie the KJB.

There is nothing nonsensical about upholding the most faithful and reliable English translation bar none. Every modern version since 1881 is a corrupted bible. And I have done my research and due diligence, so I do not speak unwittingly.

Are you aware that the leading person on the translation committee of the NASB TOTALLY REPUDIATED that translation after he was convicted by the Holy Spirit?
Frank Logsdon Repudiates the NASB
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

Moulded modern English? In what way? Not in sentence construction anyway. Who says "think not" these days? Or, "I did see" instead of "i saw". How about "Thou changest not?"

I agree that Elizabethan English is more precise in some ways and I think it is a shame that English has changed so much. Thee and thou are useful words as they identify the singular as opposed to the plural. Elizabethan English is better for hymns because it is easier to create rhymes. "Thee" and "me" for example. But English has changed. That's the way it is.

 

[Nehemiah6]

King James Bible
There is no healing of thy bruise; thy wound is grievous: all that hear the bruit of thee shall clap the hands over thee: for upon whom hath not thy wickedness passed continually?

King James 2000 Bible
There is no healing of your bruise; your wound is grievous: all that hear the report of you shall clap their hands over you: for upon whom has not your wickedness passed continually?

 

[Gideon300]

Why do you think KJB is incorrect in the particular verse? Thanks

Only that it excludes the word "you". Presumably the JKV translators assumed that "you" was implied. I've heard a preacher take that verse word for word and declare that it is a command. It is not, of course, but it could be taken that way.

 

[fredoheaven]

Only that it excludes the word "you". Presumably the JKV translators assumed that "you" was implied. I've heard a preacher take that verse word for word and declare that it is a command. It is not, of course, but it could be taken that way.

Why? Adding 'you' means another Greek word. Is there any Greek word for 'you' in the given text? Please enlighten me more

 

[Nehemiah6]

Jesus had this to say: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life." See, I even quoted the KJV. However, it is not entirely correct. It should read "You" search the scriptures.

Actually the KJB is correct.

CRITICAL TEXT
ἐραυνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν· καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ·
RECEIVED TEXT
ἐρευνᾶτε τὰς γραφάς ὅτι ὑμεῖς δοκεῖτε ἐν αὐταῖς ζωὴν αἰώνιον ἔχειν· καὶ ἐκεῖναί εἰσιν αἱ μαρτυροῦσαι περὶ ἐμοῦ·

As you can see, both texts are identical. So what does ἐραυνᾶτε mean? It simply means "search". There is no "you" or "ye" (ὑμεῖς hymeis) attached to it. But it could be implied.

Strong's Concordance
ereunaó: search.
Original Word: ἐρευνάω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: ereunaó
Phonetic Spelling: (er-yoo-nah'-o)
Definition: search
Usage: I search diligently, examine

 

[Nehemiah6]

There is a whole series of English bible translations before the King James Bible. They all correspond to the KJB in John 5:39:

Tyndale: Searche the scriptures for in them ye thinke ye have eternall lyfe: and they are they which testify of me.
Coverdale: Searche the scripture, for ye thinke ye haue euerlastinge life therin: and the same is it that testifyeth of me,
Matthew's: Searche the sciptures, for in them ye thinke ye haue eternall lyfe: and they are they which testifye of me.
Geneva: Searche the Scriptures: for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me.
Bishops: Searche the scriptures, for in them ye thynke ye haue eternall lyfe: and they are they which testifie of me.
King James (1611):Search the Scriptures, for in them ye thinke ye haue eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me.

So now we need to ask ourselves why none of them added "You". These translations were not slavishly copying each other. And the King James 2000 Bible could have made that change but did not do so.
King James 2000 Bible
Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible matches the KJB:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

A highly reliable source, of course. Not. Quite a few unbelievers appreciate the KJV, not for spiritual reasons but because "it is the language of Shakespeare". I am no fan of Shakespeare either.

While atheism is obviously wrong, that does not mean that they are wrong about everything else in the universe. I am sure there are many atheists who are good doctors, or good car mechanics, or house builders, etcetera. Meaning, they have correct knowledge on certain things but obviously not on the things of God or the Bible. The point here is that if an atheist is defending the KJV, it should tell you that this book is special or beyond the ordinary. But the main problem here is that you are celebrating in stupidity or non-education or being like a mindless barbarian. While I am not a fan of Shakespeare because of its content and not the English of it, the point being missed is that if God did preserve His perfect Word with the King James Bible (and I believe He did), and you ignore the good points that defend why that is so, then you are only going to spiral downward. Celebrating in not knowing certain words is not smart. Many find beauty in the reading of the language of the King James Bible and they are not even saved. But they recognize the genius of it. The mind behind it, which I believe was God all the way. Some people like the idea of believing in the existence of God, and they like to read the Bible and get certain truths from it. However, they are not willing to go any farther than that. They are not willing to ask God for help even in order to pick up their cross and deny themselves and follow Jesus. Some may even claim to be a Christian. They can even go to church. They may think they are saved because they did a one time prayer, but their life now is no different than their old life. They can say they are born again, but does their life reflect that changed life? We all have a struggle to fight the good fight of faith. I get that, but to attack the Bible (the KJB) means that there is something not right at home on the inside of that person. They have set themselves up as the authority above what God has said in His Word. Again, Revelation 22:18-19 has to be twisted or ignored. Even it was just talking about Revelation alone (which I don’t believe is the case), it wouldn’t help you because Modern Bibles alter the book of Revelation, too. The King James Bible came first. The KJV had the great revivals. Your side has not seen that. No great good fruit has come out of the Modern Bible Movement. It has only led to confusion and people abandoning the faith, and or more believers justifying sin. You are not looking at the bigger picture when comparing the two Bible lines. Your only focused on limited hollow reasons.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What makes you imagine that the KJB is the true word of God?

I have 101 Reasons. It will be available as a free PDF. I am still working on it. There is going to be a lot of sub articles in the write-up.
Changed Doctrine is my top favorite thing to mention. Biblical numerics would be the next one. What the Bible says about itself would be the third thing I would say. However, consider my list below.

Why the Hand of God is Upon the KJB:

1. Textus Receptus Translators Martyred.
2. King James united two Christian groups.
3. KJB & translators almost destroyed by a super bomb.
4. KJB was prophetically chosen in a language that is the world language of today (Note: Granted, while 1600s English is the not world language of today, it is still English and a part of Modern English we have today).
5. KJB is the most printed book in the world.
6. England spread out to the world and the Bible came with it.
7. KJB created the Protestant English speaking world.
8. A unity over one text (i.e, His Word does not return void).
9. Everyone in English speaking countries speaks like the King James Bible.
10. 15 Biblical Reasons. KJB is the one and only best candidate for a perfect Word that is preserved today.

Do you mean that no one had the true word of God until 1611?

No. I believe that the perfect Word of God previously existed as a Latin Italic edition once held in the possession of the Waldenses whereby it was was either destroyed by the Catholics, or it has been hidden in the mountains somewhere around the area where they lived.

Did Paul preach from the KJB?

No, of course not. You are not talking to a backwoods Christian who never studied the Bible deeply before.

You may wonder why people reject KJV or KJB onlyism.

Actually, I don’t wonder about that. It does not puzzle me at all. Granted, I am not even KJV-only technically. I am Core KJV. This means that I believe the KJV is my core foundational text. The KJV is the perfect and error free words of God (Pure Cambridge KJV Edition circa 1900) and they should not be changed or altered, but that does not mean I cannot use Modern Translations to help flesh out the difficult archaic wording in the KJV at times. However, I don’t make Modern Bibles my final word of authority because they teach false doctrines and their origins are shrouded in deception or lies. Even certain Textual Critics have moved to the Majority Text (Byzantine) and away from the Critical Text because they discovered such lies for themselves. Granted, they should reject Textual Criticism altogether, and repent of that, but once a person starts to slice and dice God’s Word, it becomes like a bad drug that they cannot stop taking.

People today reject believing a perfect Bible because they don‘t want to be under God’s authority entirely.

Read your own comments. You will easily see why.

I am not new to these kinds of discussions The more I studied this topic, the more God showed me that the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God. What the critics tried to point out as errors in the KJV, God has later showed me the truth on those supposed errors. Some today are intimated by the difficult language in the KJV. But it all comes down to authority. Where is your authority? Is it in yourself or the scholars? That is what you will have to conclude if you reject the idea of a perfect Bible.

 

[jamessb]

Why? Adding 'you' means another Greek word. Is there any Greek word for 'you' in the given text? Please enlighten me more

The translation from one language to another, e.g., Koine Greek to modern English, is never a one-to-one correspondence. Words are added, subtracted, changed to retain the meaning.

 

[jamessb]

There is a whole series of English bible translations before the King James Bible. They all correspond to the KJB in John 5:39:

Tyndale: Searche the scriptures for in them ye thinke ye have eternall lyfe: and they are they which testify of me.
Coverdale: Searche the scripture, for ye thinke ye haue euerlastinge life therin: and the same is it that testifyeth of me,
Matthew's: Searche the sciptures, for in them ye thinke ye haue eternall lyfe: and they are they which testifye of me.
Geneva: Searche the Scriptures: for in them ye thinke to haue eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me.
Bishops: Searche the scriptures, for in them ye thynke ye haue eternall lyfe: and they are they which testifie of me.
King James (1611):Search the Scriptures, for in them ye thinke ye haue eternall life, and they are they which testifie of me.

So now we need to ask ourselves why none of them added "You". These translations were not slavishly copying each other. And the King James 2000 Bible could have made that change but did not do so.
King James 2000 Bible
Search the scriptures; for in them you think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

Even the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible matches the KJB:
Douay-Rheims Bible
Search the scriptures, for you think in them to have life everlasting; and the same are they that give testimony of me.

There is no difference in meaning between "ye" and "you".

NIV: "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." John 5:39-40

This is one powerful verse, regardless of which translation one uses!

 

[Nehemiah6]

There is no difference in meaning between "ye" and "you".

Did I say there was? The KJB uses "ye" and presently we say "you".

 

[fredoheaven]

The translation from one language to another, e.g., Koine Greek to modern English, is never a one-to-one correspondence. Words are added, subtracted, changed to retain the meaning.

Is there still a need to add 'You" in our given text of John 5:39 so that KJB is in error? Please provide justifications why KJB is wrong, otherwise those presumptions were just flat-out wrong. Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

The translation from one language to another, e.g., Koine Greek to modern English, is never a one-to-one correspondence. Words are added, subtracted, changed to retain the meaning.

I would have to agree with you that sometimes words were added in English and retained their sense but usually in the KJB, words were put into italics as a sort of honesty wherein they cannot be found in Greek. The so-called modernized didn't yet the issue is why KJB seems wrong not putting the "you' as the so-called modernist English Bibles do? One thing is said that there was not a Greek 'you' in either the TR or critical text as Nehemiah provided? What can you say? Do you have substantial input? Thanks

 

[jamessb]

Re KJV-Onlyism (the topic of the thread)...

The King James Bible is one of many English translations. It wasn't the first and won't be the last. There are some people believe that it alone is the Word of God, not taking into account that the King James translation has been modified over time.

For example, The Revised Version or English Revised Version of the Bible is a late-19th-century British revision of the King James Version. It was the first officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Version. Why was this work undertaken if the 1611 King James translation is perfect?

I would like to know from a KJV-only person which version of the King James translation is the true Word of God?

Additionally, why to KJV people denigrate the work of modern Biblical translators? Did God really stop giving people perfect insight into the (available) source documents, and denied that gift to later translators??? It is absurd to think that is the case!

Modern translations were created to give us as clear an understanding of possible of God's inerrant message to humanity. There are few people that have a clear understanding of early 17th Century Englyshe!!! I can't count how many times I have heard speakers read from the KJV, then translate it on the fly into modern English. "Now what this means..." is an all-to-common phrase from the pulpit!

People should read God's Word in their native language. Have you ever noticed that the KJV people who post on this forum (and others) don't expresse themselfs in the language of the early 17th Century? If the KJV is God's perfect message to humanity, why don't mortals express themselves in the same perfect language?

I encourage everyone who wants a clear understanding of God's Word -- God's inerrant message to them (personally) -- to buy and read a Bible written in their native language, the one in which they communicate every single day of their lives.

Don't believe the people who claim that the King James translation is THE Word of God. IT ISN'T!

 

[fredoheaven]

Re KJV-Onlyism (the topic of the thread)...

The King James Bible is one of many English translations. It wasn't the first and won't be the last. There are some people believe that it alone is the Word of God, not taking into account that the King James translation has been modified over time.

For example, The Revised Version or English Revised Version of the Bible is a late-19th-century British revision of the King James Version. It was the first officially authorized and recognized revision of the King James Version. Why was this work undertaken if the 1611 King James translation is perfect?

I would like to know from a KJV-only person which version of the King James translation is the true Word of God?

Additionally, why to KJV people denigrate the work of modern Biblical translators? Did God really stop giving people perfect insight into the (available) source documents, and denied that gift to later translators??? It is absurd to think that is the case!

Modern translations were created to give us as clear an understanding of possible of God's inerrant message to humanity. There are few people that have a clear understanding of early 17th Century Englyshe!!! I can't count how many times I have heard speakers read from the KJV, then translate it on the fly into modern English. "Now what this means..." is an all-to-common phrase from the pulpit!

People should read God's Word in their native language. Have you ever noticed that the KJV people who post on this forum (and others) don't expresse themselfs in the language of the early 17th Century? If the KJV is God's perfect message to humanity, why don't mortals express themselves in the same perfect language?

I encourage everyone who wants a clear understanding of God's Word -- God's inerrant message to them (personally) -- to buy and read a Bible written in their native language, the one in which they communicate every single day of their lives.

Don't believe the people who claim that the King James translation is THE Word of God. IT ISN'T!

Umm, I think we need to know why the Revisers of 1881 wanted KJB and its Greek text to be revised. i sense we need to go over that. Giving an opinion is great but what is great if you know the other side of it. I have stated previously in one of my posts that the revisers of 1881 hated and disdained the TR.