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.
There are many problems that revolve around the KJV. The false prosperity and "blab it and grab it" people were JKV people. One misinterpretation is the word "conversation". The KJV Bible says that he who ordereth his conversation aright, I will show the salvation of God. So the "name and claim" mob say that all you have to do is declare something and it is yours. The problem with this is that the word "conversation" has changed its meaning over the centuries since the KJV was produced. It means "way of life", not a chat with someone in your Bible Study group.
The greatest problem with Christian doctrine is misinterpretation and selective emphasis on God's word. I've yet to hear a prosperity preacher remind people that
"Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9
The first prosperity preacher I heard used the JKV. 45 years later, he's still going strong and still deceiving people. It sure works for him. I went down that rabbit hole and all I got was broke.
Praise Be Unto God For His Preserved, Inspired, and Inerrant Word Of Truth.
May we all be very Prayerful and Careful about what we say about. and how
we handle, It. Amen:
Handling The Word Of Life!
And Amen.
May we all be very Prayerful and Careful about what we say about. and how
we handle, It. Amen:
Handling The Word Of Life!
And Amen.
You should research the scholarship of the KJV translators. They blow away any so called scholars of today.
False preachers who use the KJV is not a valid argument against the KJV.
Then you cannot use the same argument against preachers of falsehood who happen to use other translations.
That won’t stop you, because you hold to double standards.
What you are accusing, I have never done. If a whacko is using a version of the bible, it doesn't mean the bible he is using is false, although it may be false, but that isn't good evidence. In other words, I don't claim a specific version of the bible is false based upon the preacher using it.
I think the real question is whether we should embrace or reject critical text influenced versions.
Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were used extensively in producing Wescott & Hort’s RV.
They are often touted as being the “oldest and best” but examination of what they say casts doubt on that claim.
Additionally there is a lot of controversy over the authenticity and early dating of Sinaiticus.
Codex Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were used extensively in producing Wescott & Hort’s RV.
They are often touted as being the “oldest and best” but examination of what they say casts doubt on that claim.
Additionally there is a lot of controversy over the authenticity and early dating of Sinaiticus.
No, but words that have changed meaning over centuries is. And false teachers use those now incorrect translations to promote false doctrine. That's just an example of why the KJV is not the be all and end all of Bible versions.
As a young Christian, the majority of preachers used the KJV. And they would spend a good deal of time explaining why the KJV interpretation was no longer valid. It seemed sensible to me to use a version that used words that mean what they say in this day and age. So I've done exactly that. My current preference is the Berean. Until I came across that, it was the NASB. I also use the Amplified. And I often refer to the literal just to be sure.
That is why we are commanded to study, to shew ourselves approved unto God.
As the English language spirals away to a modern view, that doesn’t mean the Bible should follow suit. Culture should never dictate the Bible, but the Bible should dictate the culture.
I believe what we have in the KJV are the correct English words for English speakers. There are many words that the translators used in the KJV that were already faded out of the language of that day. They chose to use them because they wanted to be precise not modern. Examples would be thou, thee, ye, and you.
Except that “study” from 1611 does not mean “study” in 2021. The word has changed meaning. The KJV may have “correct” English for 1611 but the language has changed. While I agree the Bible should not conform to culture, it must conform to language, or be incomprehensible to its readers… as the KJV is to many English speakers today.
Check out my 4 page PDF here on a Defense of the Comma.
Note: Simply click on the image below to view.
Oh, and please keep in mind that it is not meant to be exhaustive defense of the Comma but I do provide a few really good points. I included videos and an academic research PDF on the Comma as must see sources. Some links I am planning to add later to the PDF. It is still a work in progress of my overall KJB write-up (Which is 150 Reasons for the King James Bible). In short, it is a preview of a larger work. Some reasons I discovered for the KJB are doctrinal, some are biblical, some are textual, and much much more.
The words, “rightly dividing the word of truth” (KJV) is the context of the verse. Modern Bibles like the ESV says, “rightly handling the word of truth.” This involves some element of ”study” and not being diligent in the sense of just doing your best in regards to good works in being approved unto God. Just read the context.
William D. Mounce is a Critical Text Greek scholar, emphasizes that the word means to be zealous or eager, with an application to the diligent study and handling of God's word.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible: Barnes explains that the word implies making an earnest effort, which in this context can be understood as studying the Scriptures to show oneself approved by God.
Matthew Henry's Commentary: Henry also supports the idea of diligence in learning and understanding the word of God, which includes study.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon: Similar to BDAG, it emphasizes the ideas of diligence and effort but acknowledges that in specific contexts, this can include studying.
Thank you. May all glory be unto the Lord Jesus Christ for any good He does through me. I am glad you are blessed by it.
May all manner of good things be unto you in Jesus’ name, my friend.
You continue to refuse to acknowledge the excellence of the KJV, since you have fallen into a trap like quite a few others.
Study" is totally appropriate in that verse as noted by Bible Highlighter above and others. The emphasis is on diligent study, and had you diligently compared the corrupt modern versions against the KJB and the Received Text, you would have rejected all the bogus bibles. Even the NKJV has been corrupted.
Did you know that the chief proponent of the NASB thoroughly REPUDIATED this corruption after he was convicted by the Holy Spirit? I forget the name of the person, so perhaps someone else can fill you in. He wrote an extensive article to show why he repudiated what he himself (along with others) had created.
The myth that the NASB is "the most accurate English translation" is just that. It is like all the other modern versions, using corrupted Hebrew and Greek texts instead of the Received Text.
I am aware of the King James Bible Research Council.
Phil Stringer is probably my sole favorite on the KJV Research Council.
I did not see all of his videos yet. My favorite videos I seen by him are:
This one…
And this one:
You said:
Nick Sayers has some good videos on false attacks by Textual Critics. He goes into the videos by Mark Ward, and others. They are baseless. Nick Sayers is currently reviewing James White‘s book “King James Only Controversy.” Nick explains in his book how James White miscategorizes KJV-Onlyists. Nick Sayers channel is probably my favorite channel so far on the Bibliology topic (Which defends the TR and KJV).
My view on inspiration is more like “illumination“ according to Job 32:8 in the KJV.
Many Modern Translations remove the word “inspiration” in Job 32:8 and therefore remove the connection to 2 Timothy 3:16.
In short, I believe that the KJV Translators were given select moments of illumination (inspiration) at certain key points in time while translating. God’s providence in his preserving His Word ensured that He would have intervened to give them the understanding (inspiration) for the final words that would end up in the final draft of the KJV. “Double inspiration“ (Peter Ruckman) claims it not only preservation of the original writings but it also communicates new revelation. I don’t exactly agree that this is the case for the 7th purification or final edition of the KJV (Which I believe is the Pure Cambridge KJV edition by A.W. Pollard). I am in disagreement with many of the things Ruckman believes (like his racist claims, his bad mouth, and his odd claims about aliens, and his multiple divorces, etc.).