The Error of KJV-Onlyism

All good, but please provide the source, lest you be accused of plagiarism.

I cannot read most of it so it's useless, any ways...

Not to mention where it says (the first one is legible):

We know the Bible is inerrant because the RCC says so.

^ Paraphrase.

He's funny because despite what Scriture says, he will argue against what it says when the topic is alcohol.

So much for going by what is written.

And he believes man is inherently immortal.

Scripture does not teach that, either.

What's funny is ya'll thinking all translations are the word of God even though they contain different words and different truths. I guess God is fluid.

Thanks. The Douay-Rheims is a Catholic translation. Are you a Catholic?

Your comments are silly and you can't substantiate your position with Scripture.

The KJV contains different words from the originals, also.

Ain't nothing "funny" about that. It is simply a fact, being in a different language and all.

Obviously, but we're talking about different translations within the same language.

You have never been able to substantiate your claim, "Different words contain different truths".

begotten vs one and only...not the same
the faith of Christ vs faith in Christ...not the same
seventy vs seventy-two...not the same
brother of Goliath vs Goliath...not the same
heaven vs heavens...not the same, one is singular, the other plural

That’s only the first part: different words. You haven’t demonstrated that those different words amount to anything.

Truth…they amount to truth…regardless of how important that truth may seem…thy word is truth.

The differences are inconsequential. In terms of practical application in the life of a Christian, they are meaningless.

interesting catholic viewpoint

I didnt know they called it the 'deformation' instead of the 'reformation'. Maccabees and books of Wisdom, Judith, Tobit and Sirach are not in KJV. Catholics have them because they believe in purgatory and it talks about that, even though other scripture apparently contradicts it.

Jewish have their oral tradition too in the Mishnah. Every church has some kind of institutional tradition even if its only written about in their annual report. You dont know until you join about all the rules. Catholics dont believe the Bible is infallible...they believe the Pope is. They only hold to the vulgate, which English readers dont understand, because its in latin.

Again follow the chain of copying....
catholics would dismiss the KJV precisely because it caused a big division in the catholic church in england, basically church of england broke away from RCC and instead of a pope, (who used to be emperor) they had their monarch as their nominal head of the church. It was all with the belief in Divine Right of Kings etc. The pope is anathema to KJV onlyists because the RCC tried to stop this particular english translation.


So I find it interesting that many Americans, who dont recognise any King of their own nation, and kicked the British monarchy out, would love the KJV. I would think they would prefer a corporate version, or the Google version of the Bible...DIY online. Funny that the catholics regard KJV as a 'pick and choose bible' but then they not that interested in anything the Pope doesnt tell them to do.