The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Not at all, my friend.
We are saved by both Jesus and the words that He gives us (Which are in the form of Scripture or the Bible).
How would you know what the gospel was without the words of the Bible telling you what they are?
The gospel (Which saves) can be found in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

I got no quarrel, I personally cannot bear to read more'n a coupla paragraphs of NIV. I actually read Tynedale's NT which is even more archaic than the KJ.

What I object to is what they call "dynamic thought" it is the same argument Americans have with the bill of rights. Do we go by the letter of what is written or do we try to get into the minds of the fathers?

People these days care nothing for theology ... well I do, Armenians understand scripture radically different to those who believe in the Reformation doctrines of Sovereign grace .

Atheists point out errors in the Bible. Does that mean they are right? No. Do you have to always have an answer to trust God's Word? I would say, "no" again. In my case, I have asked God to help in revealing the truth in difficult places in His Word, and He has come through for me. Sometimes the answer is right away, and other times it is years later. So minor supposed errors in the KJV are in the eye of the beholder. They want to see error in the KJV because that is what they prefer to believe (Just as the atheist does the same with the Bible). Granted, I am not saying the Textual Critic believer side are atheists or anything. I am just saying that they are employing similar tactics in desiring to see an error because of one's current belief system.

In any event, may the Lord's good ways shine upon you today (Even if we disagree on this important Bible topic).

Confound
con·found
[kənˈfound]

verb
confound (verb) · confounds (third person present) · confounded (past tense) · confounded (past participle) · confounding (present participle)

1. cause surprise or confusion in (someone), especially by acting against their expectations:
   "the inflation figure confounded economic analysts"
   • prove (a theory, expectation, or prediction) wrong:
     "the rise in prices confounded expectations"
   • defeat (a plan, aim, or hope):
     "we will confound these tactics by the pressure groups"
   • archaic
     overthrow (an enemy):
     "God chose to use natural disorders to confound Pharaoh and the gods of Egypt"
2. (be confounded with)
   mix up (something) with something else so that the individual elements become difficult to distinguish:
   "'nuke' is now a cooking technique, as microwave radiation is confounded with nuclear radiation"

KJV English doesn't "confound" me, nor does it confound any other modern Christian (that I'm aware). The idea that God "chose" a now-archaic language to "confound" intelligent people 400 years later is just silly. It was fine for the time, and served adequately for several centuries, but is now not the language of the people. Your assertion squarely contradicts Scripture where it states, "God our Saviour;
Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth." (1 Timothy 2:3-4).

Would you want somebody to paraphrase a house contract or a will that you provide for your family?
I sure wouldn't want that to happen. A paraphrase gets away from the form of the precise words. It says words do not matter to God. They do because in Revelation 22:18-19, if you add or take away WORDS, there are serious consequences.

The gospel does not save; it tells us of the Lord Who saves. The gospel didn't suffer torture and die on the cross, the gospel wasn't buried in a cave, the gospel didn't rise again on the third day, and the gospel didn't rise into heaven to prepare a place for us.

Get your head straight!

Obviously that has hit a nerve. And God will indeed hold you accountable.

Here is what Paul said about handling the Word of God deceitfully: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2)

Did Westcott & Hort handle the Word of God deceitfully? Absolutely. Here are Dean Burgon's comments. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has been to impose that same [118] Theory,—(which is Westcott and Hort's,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp. 137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact fill a volume.

We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—How they have dared so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that it was the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, at least in their margin?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, 142 The Revision Revised and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. (The Revision Revised, pp. 141,142)

So by following the modern versions, you are in fact agreeing with the deceitful handling of the Word of God.

heh heh I LOVE the Living Bible ... a paraphrase is ok as long as they state that it is a paraphrase

In the context of 1 Corinthians 1:27, the word "confound" means "confuse."



Source:
https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Confound

Yes, I would say Textual Critic believers are confused in how God could have chosen to preserve His words in the Bible in 1600s English. Many on your side mock that idea and see it as unfathomable.

The Living Bible is a one-man butchered paraphrase of God's Word.

It was created by Kenneth Taylor.

Taylor was a radical ecumenist who aggressively promoted his translation to Roman Catholics, Mormons, you name it. In fact, the Living Bible is one of the glues of the ecumenical movement.

Following are some examples of the frightful way Kenneth Taylor handled the words of God, and each man and organization that has recommended the Living Bible is a partaker in this evil.

1 Kings 18:27 KJV “Cry aloud: for He is a god: either he is talking, or he is pursuing.”
TLB “Perhaps he is talking to someone or else is out sitting on the toilet.”

Job 3:26 KJV “I was not in safety, neither had I rest, neither was I quiet: yet trouble came.”
TLB “I was not fat and lazy yet trouble struck me down.”

Psalm 34:20 KJV
“He keepeth all His bones: not one of them is broken.”
TLB “God even protects him from accidents.” Comment: This Messianic prophecy is destroyed through the Living Bible’s amazing perversion. The fact that not one of Christ’s bones were broken was a fulfillment both of direct prophecy (Ps. 34:20; Jn. 19:36) as well as of the typology of the Passover Lamb (Ex. 12:46).

Zechariah 13:6 KJV “And one shall say unto him, what are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.”
TLB “And if someone asks then, what are these scars on your chest and your back, you will say, I got into a brawl at the home of a friend.” Comment: In a footnote Taylor says: “That this is not a passage referring to Christ, is clear from the context. This is a false prophet who is lying about the reason for his scars.” This is simply amazing. Zechariah 13:6 is considered a Messianic prophecy by most conservative commentators, and the context DOES support this. Zechariah 12-14 is one extended Messianic prophecy. Taylor claimed to be an “evangelical” but the influence that modernistic Bible scholarship had upon him is apparent.

Source:
https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/Modern_Bible_Version_Hall_of_Shame.pdf

They are minor supposed errors that exist only in the minds of those who want to see such supposed errors.
Preaching and believing the King James Bible is not bearing false witness.
To claim otherwise is to claim that English-speaking Christians (who primarily used the KJB) before the liberal Westcott and Hort movement showed up were in error. You just condemned centuries worth of Christians in history.

This is just an opinion with no actual facts or reasons to back them up. You have not dealt with any of the points I have given that are significant. But you are free to believe and do as you wish. In my opinion, there is no real point in just hitting the disagree button without really backing up why you disagree.

So if nobody was ever saved by the words of the Bible, then how did you know about salvation without the Bible?
Did you receive a dream or vision to get saved?
Do you deny the gospel saves in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?
How do we know of the gospel today if not by Scripture?
Peter said to Jesus, you have the words of eternal life (John 6:68).
Peter said we are born again by the incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God (See: 1 Peter 1:23).
This is the Communicated Word like Scripture because we learn in 1 Peter 2:2 that we are to desire the sincere milk of the Word that we may grow thereby.

Jesus also said His words are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63).
These words have been immortalized in Scripture for us today.

So faithful Christians added to the Bible, and yet heretics were the ones who were being faithful to God's words?
Yeah, I am not buying it. Westcott and Hort cooked up the Lucian Rescension Theory without a shred of evidence. They were only supposed to do an update of the KJB and yet they snuck in a different line of texts instead (VATICANus and Sinaiticus). Westcott and Hort deny the deity of Christ, the blood atonement, and the substitutionary atonement. They had Unitarians on their Revised Version Translation, as well.

Also, if you were to just look at the changes, and think like the enemy, and how the doctrines actually work, you would be able to see that the KJB is superior. There are false doctrines in Modern Bibles that actually deny the eternal nature of Christ, and Him having power during His earthly ministry. You got direct references to the Trinity removed with certain words in 1 John 5:8 being moved to 1 John 5:7. This is deceptive. So if your side has to employ inappropriate deception that means they are not on the side of God.

I mean, think. The devil would want to remove fasting to cast out persistent demons because it would strengthen his kingdom. In other words, if the Modern Bibles are really a result of the devil ultimately, then there has to be something he would gain by it. I just do not see this being the case with the KJB. Your not thinking like a detective, and looking at motives.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."—KJV

"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life."—LSV

These two verses say exactly the same thing. But we're supposed to believe that only one is the word of God and the other isn't? C'mon, gimme a break.

The changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles.
There are also BLATANT errors in Modern bibles, as well.
There is also the history involved, as well.
Compare the history of the KJB with the history of Westcott and Hort and what they were doing.
It's like comparing day vs. night, or good vs. evil.
Westcott and Hort were heretics. This is well documented by unbiased sources of their own words.

From my 101 Reasons for the KJB:

I'm not talking about modern Bibles or their "errors." I'm talking about one specific verse that conveys exactly the same message in both the KJV and the LSV. I'm sure there are many many more if a person wanted to spend some time looking. Just because one says "believes" instead of "believeth" that doesn't make it any less God's word. Would you care to address this?