The Error of KJV-Onlyism

And here we go with the downplaying/sidestepping/misleading.

An error is an error. Either the KJV is an error-free translation, or it is not. "Without error" has no middle ground.

The differences between the KJV and many newer translations are similarly "extremely minor" but KJV-only folks will make mountains out of them. The rank hypocrisy as a core part of the problem with the KJV-only crowd.

That's your concern, not mine.

Even if true, you have zero proof that any particular version is "the one."

I guess you have to exclude the KJV, as it was not published into the public domain. It just happens to be there now.

You really ought to learn not to make such ridiculous comments.

Your credibility/effectiveness as an apologist would greatly improve.

You are severely disregarding the statement made in post #24 which makes all of this a bit moot.

Where truth, doctrine, and correct translation of the originals is concerned, I consider the KJV to be "without error" - because God said He would preserve His word.

Aside from that, I consider the KJV to be the best [English] version available because of its 'correctness' - which stands far above any other [English] version in existence.

It is that simple. It is far better than any other. (And, I am referring to bible versions since the KJV - Geneva, etc. are valid but excepted from this discussion - because I am comparing the KJV to all that came after it.)

I do not know of any newer translations that have "extremely minor" differences compared to the KJV. Even the NKJV has errors in it.

Here is post #24 again:

Read it. Take it in deeply. Understand what it is saying. Understand the VAST difference in what it is saying and what you are saying. You can nitpick all the "little stuff" you want and the truth stated in post #24 concerning the VAST and HUGE error in the other translations still remains.

Nothing in this discussion can be more important or significant than the idea within this statement that Nehemiah6 made in post #24 concerning the validity of the KJV.

I used to believe the Textus Receptus was close to perfect. Then I learned it has typo errors.

You are PETTY to the CORE!

In that post, I was referring to other bible versions since the KJV.

In that post, I was referring to what would be necessary for a modern bible to be comparable to the KJV in terms of the statement made by @presidente with regard to 'be just as good or better'.

You need to pay more attention to what is actually being said and stop your petty bickering nonsense.

As I said before - I am comparing modern bible versions to the KJV - as it is now.

Is my opinion too controversial?

This thread is not about other translations, period, end of (that part of the) conversation.

Because you carefully limit the definition of "without error" to suit your position, instead of accepting the plain definition, your conclusion is moot.


God has preserved His word, but that says nothing whatsoever about the KJV.

Yawn. You didn't start the thread, and therefore you don't get to define what is most important or significant.

Ah... moving the goalposts.

Get some integrity.

Get rid of your sick hypocrisy.

Beside the point. The thread topic by necessity includes the consideration of other translations. The suggestion/supposition in the OP is made that other versions should be considered "just as good" as the KJV (by saying, in effect, that the KJV should not be considered to be anything special as compared to other bible versions). Even if the 'focus' of the thread is the KJV (or, the "issue" the OP has with it), nonetheless, other translations are referred to in the OP as a reference against which to discuss the 'focus'.

If the whole topic for discussion is 'Just slam the KJV; truth about other bible versions is not allowed', then the OP should just say so. Otherwise, without the inclusion of other bible versions in the discussion, the arguments of the OP have nothing to stand on...

Oh, but now we have to define 'error'. Is 'spirit' instead of 'Spirit' an error in this context?

How did He preserve His word - in a way that made it more readily available and readable my the most people in the past 400 years or so?

Just remember that you said this when you are in my threads...

I am not moving anything - you are not correctly-and-properly interpreting what you are reading.

Go back and read it all again.

There is no hypocrisy. There is only your intensifying pride - which you need to 'swallow'. And, right now would be a good time...

I think being KJV-centered is naive at best. There are so many false friend words in the KJV that you could be bound to trip somewhere. I like Green's Literal version as a TR to English bible.

Do you seriously think that anyone believes that the apostles used Elizabethan English to write the NT? That allegation is what I call "nonsense". What is being said by some is that the KJB is practically "inspired" as a translation. Which is incorrect.

At the same time, there is no question that God's hand was over this translation, and that its diction cannot be surpassed. There are many other reasons why all Christians should continue to use this Bible exclusively (along with any legitimate Bible study tools for clarification).

I think if I did Green's Literal by adding 2nd person singular English, I could surpass its syntax, grammar.

Sure. You are smarter than all those translators no doubt.