The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!

Did you take an entire year of Greek too Moon?

I highly doubt the Jews gave Timothy the originals. There were multiple synagogues. Do you think they all had the originals when they did their readings of Scripture? No, of course not. They had copies of Scripture. Paul says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. One either believes what Paul says on 2 Timothy 3:16 when he says, "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God” or they don’t believe those words. I believe those words by Paul. When he says ALL Scripture that would extend to the copies of Scripture of which Timothy had, and which the Ethiopian eunuch had. They did not have the originals. Jesus also had the same scroll of Isaiah that the Ethiopian eunuch had? Surely not.

Original Scriptures as In Old Testament. The Tanakh. He said so, and so did I.

Your lack of comprehension is cause for concern when you fail to understand plain English.

Not everyone has listened to counter-missionaries among the Jews. For the record, I don't agree with them on anything about the NT.

I am not sure how that relates...

Tenak for Old Testament has not fully made the rounds, if you ask me.

I have been self-teaching err myself. I have bought many editions of Mounce and other grammars.

It seems that many KJV only people do not realise that not all Christians speak English. When I was first saved, I was bailed up after church by a KJ wielding nut job telling me how the KJV was the only true version. I thought to myself, if reading the KJV does that to you, leave it alone. And every preacher would read from the KJV and say it said "this" but really meant "that". I skipped the learn Elizabethan English and how to deal with bowels and went for alternative versions. Now I read the Berean mostly. I also check out literal translations. I've somehow survived 50 years in the Lord without the KJV.

But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.

Thank you for your explanation. I'm glad you found errors in one of the common "go tos" for KJV users. Exhaustive word studies are very revealing.

A friend once started a Bible Greek class with me and part way through he got mad at me while I was reading the KJV out loud. He jumped on me and shouted the short verse was WRONG! IT DOESN'T SAY SUCH AND SUCH! IT REALLY SAYS.....____________________________......(on and on for a long paragraph.)
The friend was part way through the first year introductory Greek. He already (thought he) knew more than the 54 scholars on the KJV translation committee who spoke fluent Greek, Latin and many other languages. Lol. 😄

Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!

But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.

I never stated non-Christians, you did.

I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

Just like in the English language, the Bible has homonyms in it.

I do not use any one version to the exclusion of others while pretending the one I prefer has
no errors even as I have pointed them out as you have, while you continue to pretend it has
no mistakes. You have even used the very word, mistake, before, but now because of your
disgusting attitude in general, you refuse to own up to it. So typical of you, Nehemiah.
You really ought to do something about that problem of yours. Very serious problem!

And not imaginary at all. How many times have I corrected you over the years? You have
flat out denied things I said were Scripture until I showed you the verse. What do you do?
Admit you were wrong? Hardly. That is beneath you. Same with all your exaggerations
that cross the line of being honest. And all your false accusations. You are a piece of work.

And it is not agood work, either.

I may be wrong, but I believe James Earl Jones has an audio reading.

The KJB hand written master copy remained untouched. The printed editions were difficult to reflect what the master copy said because the printing process back then always led to have supposed printing errors in it. Granted, God is in control of the roll of the dice, so I believe God still was able to communicate truth in the MAJOR KJB Editions over the years despite these subtle differences that does not affect doctrine or major critical truths in the Bible. There were seven purifications and I believe the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa 1900) is the final purification.