The Error of KJV-Onlyism

At best this is reason not to use recent editions of the NIV. It is not justification for KJV-onlyism.

I think, reserve your best preaching to others who have not yet been saved. There is a time and place for everything. The discussion is more about KJB which you have grown up with and how the thread attacked pure God's word in 2024. I believe you have had others aside from KJB which you didn't name because if you saying those newer modern English Bible versions, then we differ. This is actually accepted by many professing of Non "KJB only' who used to say 'all have its error bible' and they don't have the pure words of God. They are standing in scholarships only. As Christians, we are not bound to a bibliolatry. The Bible of course is the very words of God, it is one of the agents of salvation aside from the Holy Spirit. We cannot separate the two.

Well, you have grown up with KJ but the thing about the Bible version issue, I guessed you are still yet new. Anyway, you can always preach to the lost sinners and that's great!

This thread was never about "attacking" the KJV. It was about addressing the error of KJV-onlyism.

Your misrepresentation is noted, and your motivation for it is called into question.

I've read many of them. Thanks

No I'm not.
I did not say all translations say basically the same things. There are lots of differences because of the two strands of manuscripts (Alexandrian and Byzantian) from which translators could obtain. So those so called doctrines may have been there from the beginning, there were even gnostic gospels floating around. Its just a case of, which chain of copying do you follow?

With doctrine however, its men can and do change the scripture to suit their doctrine, or make it out of order, or add commentaries which a lot of Bibles have, and they update and revise and make new or even give it a new cover and put pictures in it or paraphrase them. It's the jazzed up novelised version endorsed by a church pastor (or royalty) that has been going on forever...and its kind of like when chemical companies give us a new drug saying its new and improved when it works for a while and then you find out it has bad side effects....

You want the original or you want the counterfeit. So I don't disagree with you..its people on here who've been responding who've made those arguments not me, and sometimes it's because, they can't actually be bothered reading the KJV. Right? It's too hard for them or they think it's unnecessary. I get that. I get people going oh it's too old. It's not Good News for Modern Man with pictures of people on the cover from the 1970s and bad fashions and tips on reading it in the sidebars.

You don't tinker with a classic, but you keep it in print and tell people and pass it on till it's written on peoples hearts. Those letters have been copied and copied and copied and mass broadcast and distributed everywhere. If people want to make a buck from the Bible and corrupt it I guess they could - I'd just be very careful that people are aware. God can tell you which translation is true to His word.

I don't care what you think. I really don't. I would not normally say that to another Christian because I actually do care about what the members of Christ's body reference to each other. But in this case, you are obviously just digging for something to castigate me or anyone else here who does not line up with your myopic rendering of what you think is important. More important, it would just about seem, than actual salvation.

What is it you think I am new at exactly? You have not answered whether or not you think salvation is more important than holding the KJ translation in esteem over a relationship with Christ; as your Savior and the author and finisher of your faith.

It seems your avoidance and slightly sarcastic and condescending little post above is your answer.

This thread did not attack the Bible in any translation including the KJ. In fact, the attacks are coming from the KJ onlyists who are insistent Christendom is less if a person does not hold that particular translation in esteem.

You are clueless as to my history in both this forum and with regards to my salvation. Clueless.

What is salvation to you? Do you believe a person cannot be saved outside of having a KJ Bible?

What is the Bible about? Where does it state in the Bible that anyone can stand in between a person and their Savior as you are abhorrently doing?

Your constant deflection is so obvious, a 3rd grader would take note of it.

Although I have not participated in all of the conversation, that does not mean I have not read it. You have had all of the above questions you supposedly not have answered, actually answered MULTIPLE times by different responders.

And you know it but cannot dare admit it, so you continue to blow and bellow and pretend no one has answered you and proven you wrong.

You are more than a little disingenuous.

The only real error I can see in KJV onlyism is the "only" part. In my opinion it's wrong to set up a cult around one Bible version; just as it's wrong to set up a cult around one man or woman.

And now lets' take a closer look at your response to a question I posed to another

in response to that post addressed to another, Kroogz said:

You wrote the following in response to my post which was not addressed to you:

Now let me address the real reason you wrote that post.

You are threatened by anyone that makes sense beyond your interpretations and who can stand on their faith, without a particular translation in tow. I have not even bothered with your posts for the most part, because of your difficulty in genuine response without deflection or actual interest in a conversation apart from drilling people on your particular persuasions.

You have no idea how much you reveal about yourself by jumping on that post and trying to somehow make a connection to a supposed false doctrine. I said nothing about modern Bibles or who teaches what. YOU tried to make that connection because in a moment of honesty, you saw the truth in what I wrote.

Do you believe in Jesus? Have you accepted Him as the One who took your sins upon Himself so that you could be in right relationship with God? THAT is the actual important point and not what Bible you or anyone else holds in esteem. And lest you corrupt what I am saying (again) I do not think that someone only needs to say some words to be saved. The Bible..all decent translations...does not say that, but rather indicates following Christ and living for Him...a changed heart...being filled with the Holy Spirit....and so on.

Now that might be a challenge to you, but it certainly is not to me. Your insipid deflections are not going to create a defense on my part as you are doing with some others. I don't play those games and your response to that post concerning salvation is actually disgraceful and a cheap shot. Even for you.

As for your silly post wherein you think you are rebuffing what I have said, I believe this post is succinct and I do not need to defend salvation.

That is not found in scripture in any version whatsoever.

God blesses. He does not shine on people. God is not some blithe spirit that obeys us.

Oh get over it.

Translators make errors. Scribes make errors when copying...as has been found many times.

People make errors in doctrine and God knows comprehension is a big problem for many.

smh

Niki
Yep, I am not trying to question your salvation Niki. I posted in this thread that even the worst Bible version we can find salvation. A simple bible tract would do. I think you have assumed too much.

yes I know you are stuck on me at the moment, but you quoted Lanolin.

Get them peepers checked or clean your glasses.

Only a very small minority of Christians go overboard about the KJV. Those who use it exclusively are definitely not in a cult, since it was used exclusively for over 400 years by Christians worldwide. Had the Bible not been corrupted in the late 19th century, we would all be using a further updated KJV today.

Instead, the RV (1881) was followed by a whole raft of modern bible versions, all claiming to be "standard" and all of them being altered over and over again (and all differing from each other).

In fact the revision committee charged with "revising" it in the late 19th century (within the Church of England) was told very specifically to limit their updates to only that which was absolutely necessary. No one expected to have a brand new critical text thrust upon them, and -- as a result -- a totally corrupted Revised Version (RV) published. But that is exactly what happened. F.H.A. Scrivener (the leading textual scholar of the time) was the sole voice on the committee opposing this. No one listened to him.

Alrighty, that's too bad on my part.

It's too late Freddy ole boy. I have quoted what you actually did in my post and it shows you were quoting Lanolin. So you deleting it just shows a desire to be right rather than honest.

Tell you what, just moisten an index finger and hold it up to see which way the wind is blowing. Run after it. I really have nothing more to say to you.

Okay. Just using my cellphone and that could be an honest mistake and you got me there. Now you can now move on to the topic at hand..

FYI, Historians are not authoritative. What one says must line up with the word of God.

Not going to happen, and what I stated is the truth.