The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Let's start with the meaning of the word. What does "begotten" mean, that it is critical to this verse?

What "doctrine" is changed by the addition or subtraction of "begotten"?

Does the ESV as a whole represent Jesus as something other than God's only-begotten Son? Single verses don't make doctrines... despite what many KJV-only proponents would have you think.

You assume the KJV is the best, then use it to prove it. That's circular reasoning.

The KJV has errors. Why do you refer to it as "God's word"? Would God's word have errors?

Don't bother with "The KJV has no errors"; that's been solidly debunked. Just because you don't accept the reality of the errors present doesn't mean they aren't there for everyone (who isn't completely brainwashed) to see.

You have been told several times that your interpretation of this verse is faulty, but you continue to use this argument. That says much for you with regard to humility and integrity... none of it good.

Seems to me, the argument here is that God can or can not protect the validity of His Written Word. I guess God must not
be as all powerful as we have been taught, huh? That being said, if we did not hear the word
of God from Jesus Himself, we have received corrupted teachings?

(mountain, molehill; one can turn into the other)

Your point might be valid if this were a democratic issue, but it isn't. There are good reasons why the count of manuscripts in each type is what it is, and good reasons why the statistics are essentially irrelevant.

Thanks for you opinion as always. You do not accept the reconciliation of these so called errors. That's on you.

"I have been told several times" does not make it true. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Alexandria vs Antioch...you decide

Well that's a ground covering smokescreen.

Since no one since the history of forever EVER lived by every word, save Jesus, that is a nonsense contribution to a well worn really bad game of let's give KJ homage even though he doth rot in the grave...although prob done rotting by now...just the bones jostling about

How are you or anyone saved? Is it not by the blood of Christ shed on the cross? I don't think you might be aware of just how close you are to a works salvation religion with your adamant posturing on the KJ. Apparently you lack faith to believe that God keeps those who are His whether or not they keep a family sized red letter edition of the KJ in prominent display in their living room

You seem to be keeping faith with an olde translation of the Bible from the original languages. It won't save you. You cannot come to God through a Bible.

That privilege is only invoked through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Since no one I ever met in person or in this forum has ever acknowledged that fact, but rather ignored it and just continued to blab about how human beings have perfected a book that is rife with error(s) while blaming that on God, it would be so refreshing to actually see one of you cheerleaders for KJ root for Jesus instead of a book. Yes I know how dare I call the Bible a book

When you accept as valid the reconciliation of equivalent issues you find in other translations, we can discuss what I think of the reconciliation of issues in the KJV.

You first.

Great. You do state that you are unsure of your spiritual status though.

But as long as you understand or are open to understanding that Jesus alone saves. Arguing over the translations is not standing for the truth.

Jesus said that HE is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the Father God except by accepting Him. Not just lip service.

Genetic fallacy. Invalid argument.

Oh God is most certainly true but the Bible states that ALL men are liars and I don't see a retraction of that in the New Testament

Wasn't King James considered the proverbial "pope" of the protestants at the time? So, it makes sense that many still hold his version the same as Catholics' hold to theirs.

You assume that which you must prove, that God must "exactly preserve" His Word at a single point in time, a millennia-and-a-half later, and in only one particular language.

I believe that and get that from NASB. What else?

He is faithful,when we are faithless.

"Assume"? Been studying this for decades.
This is an an exercise in futility.
We don't even agree on what a circular argument is.
I'm out.

Still waiting for proof.
Yes, it is.
You don't agree because it defeats your argument.
Standard response.

If you come back in,and go back out, you will be doing the hokey pokey argument/fallacy.