The Error of KJV-Onlyism

I never heard of C3PO. That's hilarious!

I just made up the joke about Darth Vader/ JE Jones, but I think someone beat me to that . 😄

Here's the whole gospel of John I just found.

Your motive is to try to convince yourself that somehow your arguments aren't logical fallacies. It works for you, but no one else except those also deceived.

Erasmus was committed to the idea of ad fontes, or going back to the original sources, to understand and study the Scriptures. His work involved comparing various manuscripts of the New Testament and using his linguistic skills to create a more reliable and authentic text. While he was critical of certain aspects of the existing Latin Vulgate translation, he did not oppose the preservation of the Scriptures but rather sought to improve the accuracy of the biblical text.

The difference between the Modern Textual Critic and those men who were trying to translate texts from previous manuscripts of the past is that the Modern Textual Critic does not believe in the Preservation of Scripture and they see the text as in a constant state of evolution. The sea of 900 Modern Bibles proves that the Modern Textual Critic's goal is money or having a job and or notoriety. You would think by now they would have a one-settled text that they can all agree upon. Many of them do use the Nestle and Aland, but even that changes every few years. No end in sight in what the text says and all Bibles have errors in them. This is the state of Modern Textual Criticism and it will never end. No Bible will ever truly exist that they can call the "Book of the Lord."

To be fair, I believe you need to correct English for those who are not KJB Only here.
I am sure they would appreciate it.

I probably can show you all the evidence for the KJB with charts, pictures, slideshows, and use hand puppets, etcetera. If I sat you down and explain it in the most dumbed-down way I possibly could, I still believe you would never get it because you are determined not to see it. Folks see what they want to see for their own reasons. I choose to trust the Bible and not the men of scholarship.

Nestle chocolate hasn't rehashed their version as many times as Nestle, Aland.
One day they will probably find another fragment it something that will change their revision again. If it says something strange, that's one of the rules they have for authentication.

How so? Does the single word have multiple origins? I suspect not. Rather, it is simply a word used for several things within a single category.

Yes, I should have changed "they have" to "has," to maintain grammatical agreement between the singular noun "homonym" and its singular verb "has."

So I should have said, "A homonym is a word that looks and sounds the same but has different meanings."

50 pages is my limit for suffering trolls. Have a great day.

That’s still incorrect. If you say “a word… looks and sounds the same” then you need to add a referent. ” You can say instead, “Homonyms are words that look…” or, “A homonym is each of two or more words that look…”.

It took longer than expected for the ad hominem attacks to begin. It's unbecoming on a Christian site.

The difference between the Modern Textual Critic and those men who were trying to translate texts from previous manuscripts of the past is that the Modern Textual Critic does not believe in the Preservation of Scripture and they see the text as in a constant state of evolution.

Please. You must correct the non-KJV Only people in this thread in such a manner. It is only fair. Thank you.

Prove it. Demonstrate the veracity of your claim with evidence. Hearsay and biased criticism are not acceptable.

The issue isn't that the KJV needs to be dumbed down for those who are nearly illiterate. I think it reasonable if they simply try to learn how to read and expand their vocabulary.

I will correct whom I choose to correct. If you want ‘fair’, pay for your own sins.

In high school, many people are forced to read Shakespeare and don’t even understand the language, let alone the poetry. Such people rarely read a word of poetry later in life. Why, with something as important as their eternal destiny on the line, would you risk the possibility they won’t understand the book you give them?

For such people, the KJV doesn’t need to be “dumbed down”; it needs to be set aside.

Well, obviously you don’t know what a troll is if you are calling me one.

A troll on chat forums refers to someone who engages in disruptive, provocative, or offensive behavior with the intention of eliciting emotional responses or creating chaos within the online community. Trolls often post inflammatory or misleading comments, initiate arguments, and generally seek to upset or annoy other users. Their primary goal is usually to provoke reactions and disrupt normal conversations, rather than contributing constructively to the discussion.

Trolling can take various forms, including name-calling, spreading false information, or deliberately derailing conversations. Trolls may target individuals or groups based on personal characteristics, beliefs, or affiliations. It's important to note that trolling is typically not driven by genuine opinions or beliefs but rather by a desire to incite reactions and create a disruptive online environment.

1. I am not looking to create chaos in this community or any other.
My goal is to preach the Word of God to others what I believe is the truth.
2. I am not looking to insult others, use bad language, and or get a person to get upset. I am not happy when a person is upset. My goal is only to inform what the Bible says even if I strongly disagree with my opponent’s beliefs on the topic.
3. I am also not intentionally putting forth any misleading information or comments as a part of any agenda, either. I must face God one day and if I do not honestly love others (even my enemies) I will be in trouble with the Lord.
4. I also do not set out to initiate arguments. Generally somebody has to attack me first and or make a personal insulting comment towards me to reply back in lighter manner in defense (sometimes).
5. I am also not seeking to disrupt the thread topic because the topic interests me greatly, and I do try to be respectful (although in the past I have accidentally gone off on tangent discussions before). It is never my intention to derail a thread.
6. I am targeting anyone. I have no ill will towards anyone. My goal is to love all, although that can be challenging when others are not loving towards me to begin with. I may put forth strong words against Textual Criticism at times because it is a belief I disagree with strongly, but I do try to not be too overzealous on the matter so as to keep the peace if I can. I do strive to be diplomatic.
7. I can get caught up in the heart of an argument, but I do strive to take a step back and type in a way to show love and respect, even if I may strongly disagree. I am not perfect, and I have been overzealous at times. But I do strive to love. I also let it go, and forgive.

So no, I am not a troll. I believe that is false slander on your part.
But know that I love you in Christ despite that.
We may not agree on this topic, but we should agree to love one another more (Including myself).

Peace be unto you in the Lord.