The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Oooh... let's make yet another fallacious comparison.

I wonder if the average person, new to the Bible, has ever heard of the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level assessment. I would suspect not, and I would further suspect that they wouldn't care.

In other words, the above is irrelevant. If a person perceives the KJV to be difficult, then it is difficult (for them). Period. Technical assessments mean nothing. The same goes for any translation.

By the way, I wouldn't recommend the ESV to most people unless they were avid graduate-level readers. It's not a beginner's translation.

Correct, but that's not what the new versions state.

Correct, but that's not what the new versions state.

I believe the KJV was archaic on purpose by God because His words are holy and separate from our current-day Engkish.

Jeepers. Scripture was not given to us in English originally. You make ridiculous remarks to prop up your core.

Jeepers. Scripture was not given to us in English originally. You make ridiculous remarks to prop up your core.

Of course, you have misread what I said. I believe the Old Testament was originally in Hebrew and Aramaic, and copies were made of them. I believe the New Testament was originally written in Greek, and copies were made of them. Eventually, these copies were translated into Latin (Note: Latin was written on the sign on the cross), with the Latin Italic Bibles of the Waldenses that were destroyed by the Catholic Church. The King James Bible would be the next language God would choose to preserve his words (Which would be in Early Modern English or 1600s English). This was later updated yet again slightly by Paris, and Blayney and their KJB editions (With the font and grammar in their time in the last 1700s). I believe the final purified Word of God for today is the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa. early 1900) put out by A.W. Pollard This is the KJB at Biblehub.com, and or the Cambridge Edition you can pick up by Holman Publishers via Amazon or other bookstores. The Pure Cambridge is the seventh purification of the prophetic words in Psalms 12:6-7.

I hope this helps to clarify what I actually believe.

May the Lord Jesus Christ get all the glory.

So, basically tell them that the KJV is outdated? Even though millions continue to read it daily? How about an encouragement to study?

In regards to your claim that Erasmus said a similar thing to the serpent in questioning God's words:

Well, as you said to me here in another thread,


Please keep in mind that I was able to provide evidence when you made this quote, and yet now you are not providing any for me when I am asking for it.

When one confesses the Lord Jesus, one is agreeing with the testimony concerning the Lord Jesus. Compared to confessing that Jesus is Lord, one is confessing that Jesus is Lord of their life. Big difference.

This is why I am Core KJB. I actually do not agree with my fellow KJB-only brethren that the King James Bible is always easy to understand.

I believe the KJV was archaic on purpose by God because His words are holy and separate from our current-day English.

As the Scriptures say, God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

I warn against Modern Bibles in that we cannot trust them like the KJB because they teach many false doctrines.

But a person needs to have ONE Bible we can fully trust, and not many.

We need to have a final word of authority. If not, one will be tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine.

Correct, but that's not what the new versions state.

Why would I keep that in mind? You're asking for documentation for something Erasmus, in principle, thought. That's ridiculous.

It is obviously outdated. Nobody uses that style of English unless they are a thespian in a Shakespearean play or a classical literature professor.

Good!You are free to believe what you like, but that requires a belief that God reinspired the KJV translation, which I categorically reject.

In fact, I would say He has done the opposite (of making the KJV archaic), taking care to make His word accessible, even if it takes effort to understand its full meaning. One purpose of the translators was to make the word accessible to all English readers--from the prince to the plough boy--and making the wording intentionally obtuse is contrary to that purpose.

Back in your post #1461, you stated, I quote:


First, by your words above, you said nothing about how that is what Erasmus thought.
Second, how would you know what he thought by the statement you made in post #1461?
Do you have a Time Machine and a mind reader device?

Again, the two lies in the Garden by the Serpent should give you a clue as to what is wrong with most of Christianity today.
Most Christians do not believe in a perfect Bible and they believe that it is okay to question the text like Textual Critics do in certain places of the Bible to hopefully one day figure out perfectly what God said. This is like the words of the serpent when he said, "Yea, hath God said...?" (Genesis 3:1). The other lie by the Serpent that he was pushing was that, "ye shall not die" (Genesis 3:4). Meaning, it was the lie that one could break God's command and not die. Adam and Eve did not die physically the day they disobeyed God, but they died spiritually. Obviously living like the devil on some level, and being unfruitful sounds appealing to many in this Laodicean age. Just read the last chapter of the Bible (Revelation 22). While we are initially saved by a belief alone by believing the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4, that is not the only requirement as a part of our faith (See: 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, Galatians 6:8-9, Romans 8:13, 1 Timothy 5:8, 1 Timothy 6:3-4, James 4:6). In Revelation 22:14-15, it doesn't sound like a "Perpetual Belief Alone Salvationism" to me. But if that helps you to sleep at night believing the easy and wide gate path put forth by the teachings of men, go ahead and believe whatever you wish. This is not really the argument involving the KJB position. Neither do I argue for the secondary aspect of salvation in my 101 Reasons for the KJB, either. It's not necessary. There is enough evidence already to refute the false belief of Modern Textual Criticism and to trust in a perfect Word of God.

In any event, I see your post here as an attempt to drive a wedge between me and my fellow KJB Bible believers. We may disagree on certain things (like sin and salvation), but we both believe that the King James Bible is the Word of God, and it is our final authority for all matters of faith and practice. Note: There is another KJB Only believer who believes Eternal Security is false (Safeguardyoursoul.com). Anyway, most today do not have a final word of authority. That's the problem. The Bible says we are all to speak the same thing, that is simply not possible in the world of Textual Criticism.


Side Note:

I also do not technically believe in works salvationism as if that was the only form of salvation I believe in (Which is implied by what you said).

I believe in two aspects of salvation.

Aspect #1. We are initially saved by a belief alone in Jesus as our Savior and the gospel message in that Christ died for our sins, He was buried, and risen the third day for our salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) (Titus 3:5). Also, if a believer unintentionally sins again on rare occasion, they do not go out and do a good work to absolve themselves of that sin before God, but they boldly come before the throne of grace and seek forgiveness with the Lord Jesus (See: 1 John 1:9, and 1 John 2:1). We also continue to believe the gospel message in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. So we are initially and foundationally saved by God's grace.

Aspect #2. God has chosen us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit and a belief of the truth (2 Thessalonians 2:13).
Sanctification is to live a holy life. 2 Corinthians 7:1 says, let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh and spirit, perfecting holiness in the fear of God. But many believers today do not believe this verse. They do not think the word "fear" means "fear" as we would understand that word because they don't like what this verse plainly says. It has no advantage for them in their current belief that they can sin and still be saved on some level. But without holiness, no man shall see the Lord (Hebrews 12:14). Holy living will require one to be fruitful. Remember, in the parable of the Talents, the unprofitable servant was cast into outer darkness (Matthew 25:30).

Most folks fail to see what happened in Acts 15 in regards to the false belief of Circumcision Salvationism. They do not understand that is what Paul was fighting against in many of his letters.

Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion involving my view of sin and salvation, it would best to do so in another thread.

May God bless you and your family (even I disagree with your beliefs strongly).

Sincerely,

Bible Highlighter.

But I must follow my conviction of what the Word of God says plainly. Even some of my fellow KJV-only brethren believe 1 Peter 1:20-21 is referring to the sole act of inspiration alone when the text does not say it is the sole act of inspiration. Yes, it is indeed one important part of the giving of the original text... but nothing is said here in 1 Peter 1 about how it was the only source of inspiration.

Job 32:8 says inspiration of the Almighty gives man's spirit understanding. 1 John 2:27 says, "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." So this is the inspiration of the Almighty that gives men's spirits the understanding of the things of God.

So when an accurate copy is made of the original texts of the Bible by the guidance of God's hand, the inspiration of the Almighty is involved to make sure that is what He wanted it to say in the preservation of His words.

This would be any true copy or translation of the Scriptures and not the Bibles that are corrupted.

You're wrong about my purpose. I don't want to put a wedge between any Christians. I was responding to a comment you made. Your contention was that a poor translation was easier to misinterpret than a more accurate one. This is true. But it is hardly the main reason for poor doctrine. The more obvious and rampant reason is the lack of spiritual discernment. One can have a perfect translation, but be useless without spiritual discernment. One can have a poor translation and still not go astray if one possesses the Holy Spirit. God is still able to lead in all truth.
This information was the content of my intention.