The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Umm, I just only don't think those whom you refer to as 'actual linguists' do not agree with the 'old age' KJB. I think this is not a good argument when it comes to the Bible version issue. My proposal is that these newer versions so far as the text concerned Acts 9 did not satisfy what the word sorcery means. The age-old KJ is correct in this instance. Anyway, I would not be willing to insist on you, just giving facts.

It will never be outdated.

From https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/kvj.53372/#post-844326 :

What people don't understand about the KJV is that it will NEVER be "out-dated"...

In 5 years, you may need a new [modern bible version] - because the modern language will have changed enough to alter the meaning of the text.

In 10 years, you may need another still...

("Speaking strictly in terms of translation - not to mention 'error', etc.")

NOT SO with the KJV.

Unlike modern English - which is changing continually - the "middle English" of the KJV is "a snapshot in time" - fixed and un-changing.

No matter what changes in modern language, the language of the KJV will not have changed "one iota" -- in truth, it is actually "timeless"...

That is the "beauty" of it. God has "seen to it" that it does not change with the times...

You have to think of it like a second language -- once you learn that language - you are "good for life" - because it will not ever change -- this is how you have to look at it.

And then, you get the benefit of the "completeness" of the KJV.

I grew up with the KJV. I understand it better than any other version I have ever read from. I wouldn't trade it for any other version - under any circumstances.

It contains information that all the others have lost in their translation.

It is that good. It is that important. It is that "vital" to gaining the most accurate understanding of the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

"Has it ever occurred to you that Satan is trying to change the modern language as fast as he can so that people will 'throw out' the KJV?"

Believe it!

"I believe the KJV is STILL the BEST available English Bible translation BY FAR."

Amen brother! I’m tired of that argument that the KJV is archaic and outdated. It may be for the educated theologian, but many backwoods hillbillies understand it. Something cannot be considered outdated or archaic if millions upon millions of people read it daily.

This video shows that there are many academic King James Bible believers.


Note: Gail Riplinger is someone I would not consider to be on the list (even though he mentions her). David Cloud has pointed out some sloppy research in her main book New Age Bible versions.

I didn't say it is archaic, but there are many dated things about it like the usage of 'halt' and 'handfuls of purpose'.

Halt usage in the KJB is depedent in the context because the intransitive verb has 3 meanings. We just all need to pick.

I read David Cloud's, Gail Ripplinger, Peter Ruckman, Keith Piper, Jack Moorman and others in the Bible Version issue. I just need to pick those things I know it's right. God bless

Notice the archaic definition at the bottom.

Blessings to you in the Lord in your journey.

Noticed that, can you connect that to the Bible Version issue? Thanks

I do not and will not trust the Byzantine manuscripts. I've read too much about how badly copied they are. There are so many mistakes from generation to generation.

I do totally understand 2nd personal singular in French, German, Koine Greek, Hebrew & Ukrainian which I have studied. I agree it is useful.

I've never studied it in English. I don't know a thee from a thou, nor do I know the hundreds of verbs forms for 2nd person singular. At one time, people knew this, and KJV was much more useful. In fact, it would be more useful to have this verb form in English today. But we don't. No one really studies or understands it. That is what makes it obsolete.

As far as vocabulary, I was reading a paper by a Greek scholar about 50 false friends in the KJV. False friends are words that we know in modern English, but they mean something totally different in KJ English as opposed to modern English. There was an interesting discussion in a scholarly Bible language group I follow about the KJV. A few people actually supported it. But by and large, most of these scholars did not support it. I took first & second year Koine Greek from Bill Mounce, one of the top Translators in the world. He could talk extensively in the limitations of the KJV and why.

I've never used the West and Horcott versions. I read the SBL. It also has alternate readings at the bottom of each page.

You can talk about the original languages all you want. But if you don't actually read Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew, you don't begin to understand what is behind translating. I spent 2 solid years studying Seminary Greek, memorized down to 5 occurrences of a word in the NT. I can read it, I understand translation issues. The biggest translation issues with the KJV, besides the corrupted manuscripts, is that it is translated into a language we don't speak today! I don't read 16th century English and the KJV is impossible to read. I won't plough through unreadable 16th century grammar and archaic and obsolete words. I have read almost every modern version, including Greek & Hebrew. I don't understand 16th century English. And if I, with all my education and training in languages and linguistics don't understand it, how can anyone else? That's not vanity. That's just seeing all the theological errors that constantly come out of the KJV by people that don't know how to read it! People that think they are reading the inspired word of God and literally do not understand the language it is written in.

So much nonsense! Those things were added to the Byzantine text. They don't belong in the Bible. They were not written by scholars, but by scribes. They needed to be taken out as they conflate the tel, inspired text.

As for you sheer nonsense about the Trinity. I did a big unit in the a Trinity for my PhD. I used a modern Bible, as well as the original languages to prove conclusively the truth of the Trinity, in my 30 page paper. I never even considered consulting the KJV, it wasn't necessary. The Joannine comma was not needed, either. The Bible is full of references to the Trinity. Some of those other statements come right off a KJV Only website, they are plain nonsense.

All you have convinced me is that you are a deluded follower of an archaic Bible. And that you read books and websites to find information in this topic. When you have a few years Koine Greek at a Master's Degree level, come back and we can talk. We had a doctor in our second year Greek class. She started rambling about how bad West and Horcott are and how the KJV was the only true Bible. Our professor put her straight. I can't imagine why she was even studying Greek if she thought the KJV was perfect by itself. She never came back after that day - quit the course. Sad for her, she might have learned something!

Here is the link to 50 false friends:

There are reasons for this difference that are referenced in the bible's. There could be many different reasons for this difference, and we live in a time where we are able to research and find out the reasons for these things, and jumping to the conclusion about this the way you do because of a preconceived dogmatic view is not the proper way to handle it. One possible reason for this difference has to do with Hebrew and Greek, in the Hebrew these could represent the 70 countries as they're names, while the Greeks recognized 72 country names. When you look at all the information available this stops being a matter of Satan trying to corrupts God's word, and more a matter of gained knowledge in the field.

Look I have listened to the arguments for KJV only, I'm not ignorant to how insane it seems when presented as "Satan taking over God's word". I get it, there is defiantly some questions to ask. It's after researching the reasons for each of these different choice' of words for the other translations one by one, and reasons behind the KJV's choices as well, that I felt the case became weaker and weaker. Angela posted an example of what I mean right above us in an awesome video. The reasoning for the example you just gave about the 70 or 72, is not God demeaning or a evil plot, it's not hard to grasp when you look into it.

The thing is though, when you've already divided the body over this dogmatic belief, presupposing this and presenting the KJV in the same fashion the Muslim views the Quran, and it creates all kinds of completely unproductive side issues that honestly divide us from the jump for no good reason. Not to mention I still haven't seen the coming "perfect version of His word" demonstrated in His word yet.

hold on can go back to the seventy others (KJV) or is it seventy-two others (ESV) ?

Which one was it. Which one is right and which is in error. 70 or 72. Or was it a typo.

I might say ESV has a translation error or slip up there but it could be people believe its the KJV is wrong and the ESV has totally nailed the scripture.

Or maybe some people cant differentiate between 'too' and 'two' in english lol.

I have yet to see a thread where any other translation in english is defended as passionately as the KJV. There are some Message fans though, but whenever anyone quotes from the Message they all like to say 'this is how The Message puts it' and then proceed to do a hipster quote of the Bible that makes everyone laugh.

As for critical Bible studies some university level courses professors hate the Bible. They actually dont believe in it so they use it as textual criticism and analyse it to death. They dont go with authors intent and try and prove Gods word is wrong and copied full of mistakes...and we can never know which is the right one but surely proof is in pudding.

Well new testament is written only in Greek. There were no Hebrew new testament letters. By that time people in Israel were reading and writing in Greek, which is why many orthodox Jews resisted these new believers as they only had the Hebrew Torah to go by, or the septugint OT in Greek, which was the only translation of the Hebrew in Greek.

Most of the new testament was copied many many times as it was letters to churches. It is still treated as scripture by Christians, but of course orthodox Jews wouldnt have read them, to them only OT Torah is actually original scripture. Written or rather, inscribed on scrolls and any mistakes would have been destroyed and not seen the light of day. Because thats how they treated Gods Word.

Later rabbinic scholars added commentaries upon commentaries which is why you get the Mishnah that supplements the OT with variant readings of it.

Some down to earth good sense. It was getting very close to," Believeth on the KJV and thou shalt be saveth" around here. Bring your paddle back any time!

Uh, no. You either did not look at all of the false doctrines I listed or you simply do not care about them (Which would be even more of a deeper concern).

Now I know you did not look at all of the reasons I gave. Some of the points I mentioned were false doctrines added by the Modern English Bibles based upon the forced union of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (despite their thousands of differences between each other) (This union of these two manuscripts was originally the Westcott and Hort 1881 NT Greek text and it is now the Nestle and Aland). But the Nestle and Aland Critical Text is barely any different than the Westcott and Hort text.

Here is a quote from Modern Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:


You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here.

To make matters worse the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland says it is supervised by the Vatican.
You can see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church simply by Googling "Keith Piper NIV" and then going to pages 21-22 of the PDF.

You are only saying this because you are merely repeating what the scholars have said to you.
You did not come to this conclusion based on comparing the two lines of texts, and praying about it first, seeking the truth.
So of course you are going to come to the wrong conclusion based on what men say vs. your own unbiased investigation.
Any person who has done the honest comparison without any bias is going to see the KJB is superior doctrinally.
This is not really open to debate because we can actually see a pattern of evidences of changes for the worse in doctrines and not for the better. I mean, you got Modern Bibles teaching Jesus was a demi-god for crying out loud, and then folks want to strain at gnats with small little supposed errors in the KJB. It's nonsense. Do your research on the other side of the debate. I would start with David Cloud at WayofLife.org. This man has spent thousands of dollars researching books on both sides of the issue and was not even KJB Only to begin with. He thought they were crazy.

This is said by the scholars because of Westcott and Hort's Lucian Rescension Theory. There is not one shred of evidence that backs this claim. They say it like it is fact with no proof. If you read the writings of the life of Westcott and Hort by their own sons, you will say that they are heretics. You can even read their own commentaries and they deny the blood atonement, the substitutionary atonement, etcetera. They had Unitarians on their Revised Version Translation team. This is documented and not made up. So if Unitarians were on their team, and they favored texts that water down the Trinity, then that is called motive. They had the motive to choose texts that aligned with their false beliefs. But you're not thinking like a detective and doing any investigation of your own. You just believe blindly what the scholars say because they have some fancy degrees displayed on a certificate on their wall somewhere.

Look. I do not care if you did a thousand-page paper. If you try to witness to a person about the Trinity without direct references, your witnessing is greatly hindered if you do not have those verses in the Bible. The reality is that there are NO DIRECT REFERENCES of the Trinity in Modern Bibles. 1 John 5:7, and the word "Godhead" (Meaning Trinity) is altered to say "divinity." The word "Godhead" appears three times. Christians of the 1800s did not have this problem when witnessing the Trinity because these words were in their Bibles back in the day. If you lived back in the 1700s in America, you wouldn't even know about Modern Scholarship and all you would have known was the King James Bible. So your movement is recent and new like other false religious movements that are started. Just because the movement is disguised in the veil of education and scholarship does not mean it is correct by any means.

In addition, the Critical text side has employed deception involving 1 John 5:7.
For example: They move the words "For there are three that testify:" in 1 John 5:8 to the missing place of 1 John 5:7 to make it look like there are no missing words there. This is clearly a deception for the new reader to not discover that a major doctrine (the Trinity is being attacked). You have a top Greek Grammarian who lives in Greece, and his native tongue is Greek and who is not KJV-Only who says that there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is not there. On top of that, we have early church fathers testifying to the Comma, as well. Fulgentius is a person that the scholars do not want you to research because it destroys their narrative.
Also, double dots (umlauts) next to 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus show it has a variant reading.
Meaning, the Vaticanus does not predate the reading of 1 John 5:7.

How do you know it is nonsense? Just because it is KJB-Only info?
Granted, I am not saying that all research done by KJB believers is true.
Some can get their facts wrong at times like Gail Riplinger. I will not read her written works because of that.
David Cloud (a KJB Advocate) has criticized her book for faulty info. in her New Age Bible Versions book.
I actually tried to read it once a while back and it was assuming too much, as well.
But not all KJB believers are not crazy like that.

I can say the same for you. But that does not prove anything. As I said David Cloud read tons of books on both the KJB side and the Modern Scholarship side spending thousands of dollars researching deeply and he came out in the end believing the King James Bible is superior. It is also the most faith based position and not based on the opinions of men who are simply trying to keep their jobs.

Most of your Theological Scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek and you want me to believe they are experts in dead languages that don't exist anymore? Kione Greek is gone. You would at least have to know Modern Greek before even tackling the archaic form of Greek. Biblical Hebrew is also not precisely the same as Hebrew used today. Again, you would need to know these languages intimately. I mean, you would have to read, write, speak, and hear these languages like it was in your own native tongue. If not, your playing games and only pretending. You don't go to Ethiopia and get some textbooks on Chinese in order to truly know Chinese. You go to China and you live there for a good part of your life and you let that language become like your native tongue. If not, you are only toying with a language and not fully grasping what it says.

I would like to talk to your professor and put him straight. Granted, I am sure he will simply not want to debate me or hear any evidence I presented. This is not cooked up KJB propoganda. It's called reading their own writings (commentaries), and hearing their own quotes that come from books written by their own sons who were not KJV-Only to my knowledge.

It may surprise you to know that not all KJB believers are alike. Some KJB believers shun in looking at the original languages.
Others like David Cloud at WayofLife.org do not do that.

Many have abandoned the faith when they learned of Textual Criticism at Bible college. So I believe God was helping her to make the right choice. Rick Beckman and Bart Erhman were into Textual Criticism big time and they criticized the KJB. Yet, look at them today. They are no longer believers in God's Word anymore. Why? Because that is what Textual Criticism does. It makes you to question and criticize the text. Footnotes that get you the reader to decide if the ending of Mark or the story of the woman caught in the act of adultery was in your Bible. Oh by the way, I can prove that the story is true. There is an Old Testament reference that ties into the story that tells us what Jesus was writing on the ground. But you would not know that because Modern scholarship will not allow you to see it or believe it.

I have tried to watch his videos at times to occasionally see some of the nonsense he is pushing but it is really difficult to listen to his voice. I usually have to put the subtitles on. But he is not teaching anything I have not heart before. His approach is different than others in that he is focused on how the words of the KJB are outdated. But you guys tell us that the real way to understand the Bible is to look to dead languages like Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek (Which no culture exists and speaks and writes anymore). So it is hypocritical to attack archaic language of the KJB if one is saying to go to the original languages as the real way to understand the Bible (Which is far more difficult). If he only pointed only to the Modern English bibles to read and not the orignal languages, then I could see, but he is not doing that. His position or approach is contradictory.

As for the difficutly of archaic wording of the KJB:

I am not like other KJV Only believers. Well, I am not even KJV Only. I am Core KJB.
This means that I believe the Bible is the perfect and error free words of God for today (i.e., the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition) (circa. early 1900). The KJB is my core foundational text for all matters of faith and practice, but I do believe we must use Modern English Bibles along with older dictionaries in order to help flesh out what the KJB says. Note: This would not be changing what the KJB says. But my fellow KJV Only brethren do not believe in doing this because they believe Modern Bibles can corrupt them spiritually or something. I do not agree with their belief on this point. So this is not a problem for me.

Besides, God wants us to meditate on His Word and it is never said that His Word was to be read like a children's book.
I know that this guy in the video has tried to use certain verses to justify that God's Word must never be veiled at times, but that is not always the reality of what we read in Scripture. Parables, Jesus speaking of His resurrection (pre-cross) and yet not explaining it clearly enough to His disciples whereby they would get it, etcetera.