The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
And the Popular Modern Textual Critic’s would be a….

Westcott and Hort-centric folly.

Also, nothing in the KJB translation is placed in it to favor Anglicanism. But we do see Westcott and Hort favoring texts that align with their heretical beliefs. Therein lies the difference.
Perhaps you should read more carefully.

"Anglo-centric" does not mean "Anglican-centric". Not even a little.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Perhaps you should read more carefully.

"Anglo-centric" does not mean "Anglican-centric". Not even a little.
My bad, I thought you said Anglican.
Yes, "Anglo" typically refers to people of English-speaking or English-heritage origin. It can also be used more broadly to refer to things associated with England or the English language.

So what’s your problem if God chose England to preserve His words or if God used 1600s English for that same purpose? Did not God choose one language originally with the Greek New Testament Scriptures?
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Perhaps you should read more carefully.

"Anglo-centric" does not mean "Anglican-centric". Not even a little.
Do you realize that the many languages was a judgement from God at the Tower of Babel? Scripture prophecies that there will be one pure language in the Millennium. Granted, this will not be English, but the point here is God is focused on getting back to one language. English is also the world language and it would be best in alignment with God’s goals involving the great commission. So it would make a lot sense that God chose to preserve His perfect Word in the world language.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
So what’s your problem if God chose England to preserve His words or if God used 1600s English for that same purpose? Did not God choose one language originally with the Greek New Testament Scriptures?
He didn’t, He didn’t, and He didn’t.

He chose Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
He didn’t, He didn’t, and He didn’t.

He chose Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek.
So when Isaiah 34:16 says seek ye out the book of the LORD and read, how exactly can you do that? You realize this is talking about a book during the End Times, right? Nobody today can just casually read Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. In addition, most Textual Critics don’t believe there is an actual book of the LORD. They see God’s words sort of preserved in a sea manuscripts. They believe in shapeshifter critical texts and translations.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
Do you realize that the many languages was a judgement from God at the Tower of Babel?
Do you realize I'm not an ignorant noob when it comes to the content of Scripture?

Scripture prophecies that there will be one pure language in the Millennium. Granted, this will not be English, but the point here is God is focused on getting back to one language. English is also the world language and it would be best in alignment with God’s goals involving the great commission. So it would make a lot sense that God chose to preserve His perfect Word in the world language.
According to you, perhaps, but that's not a valid argument outside your head.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
So when Isaiah 34:16 says seek ye out the book of the LORD and read, how exactly can you do that? You realize this is talking about a book during the End Times, right?
I already explained to you your error in interpreting Isaiah 34. Repeating your error just makes you look more foolish.

In addition, most Textual Critics don’t believe there is an actual book of the LORD. They see God’s words sort of preserved in a sea manuscripts. They believe in shapeshifter critical texts and translations.
There you go with the unsupportable assertions again. You don't learn too good.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Do you realize I'm not an ignorant noob when it comes to the content of Scripture?
Yes, I know you are most likely aware of this story, but you need a refresher on the story to help you understand how God operates. Many on your side of the camp will complain how if there was a perfect Bible, it would also be available in many other languages, too.

You said:
According to you, perhaps, but that's not a valid argument outside your head.
As you know, the OT was primarily in Hebrew.
The NT was in Greek.
Zephaniah 3:9 tells us about how God will one day bring in a pure language.
This is a pattern we see. But for some odd reason, you are unable to see it.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
I already explained to you your error in interpreting Isaiah 34. Repeating your error just makes you look more foolish.
I don't recall. Post #, please.

You said:
There you go with the unsupportable assertions again. You don't learn too good.
It's not unsupported. Textual critics believe in reconstructing the texts and the texts they currently have are the Word of God (Albeit, not perfect). I mean, if it is unsupported, then why don't you tell us what they believe? Do you have a perfect book known as the Bible that you can hold in your hands?
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
I already explained to you your error in interpreting Isaiah 34. Repeating your error just makes you look more foolish.
It is a proven fact that Isaiah 34 has verses that line up with Revelation.
To deny this would be like a person who denies cross references.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Do you realize I'm not an ignorant noob when it comes to the content of Scripture?
Jesus said to the Jews: "But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?" (Matthew 12:3-4).

Obviously, the Jews knew of this story but they were not able to connect the dots of its spiritual meaning.
This is what I meant. You were not able to connect the story of the spiritual meaning behind the Tower of Babel.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
Obviously, the Jews knew of this story but they were not able to connect the dots of its spiritual meaning.
This is what I meant. You were not able to connect the story of the spiritual meaning behind the Tower of Babel.
I have repeatedly addressed your penchant for making asinine assumptions, and you haven’t learned. What is wrong with you?
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
I have repeatedly addressed your penchant for making asinine assumptions, and you haven’t learned. What is wrong with you?
First, it is troubling that you continue to use such words. Yes, the word is related to a donkey, but you would not say this in a job interview, in a church service funeral, or other related setting. Paul says, "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6).

Second, you missed the point I made. The Jews were obviously aware of the story Jesus said, but He asked if they were aware of the story about a current event that just took place with His disciples. You are unable to do the same with how God operates today.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were folks like you who thought like you did when Jesus asked if they were aware of this OT story.
I say this not to wound you but to help you to see and walk in a better way (That will give you more peace).

May God bless you today.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Matthew 5:22
”But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

So words matter.
Can one say that their speech is full of grace when they continually use hurtful insulting words?
Even in a debate setting, using insulting words in the opposition would be considered an ad hominem.
We are to love even our enemies.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,111
3,687
113
Matthew 5:22
”But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire."

So words matter.
Can one say that their speech is full of grace when they continually use hurtful insulting words?
Even in a debate setting, using insulting words in the opposition would be considered an ad hominem.
We are to love even our enemies.
The new versions leave out, "without a cause" which puts Jesus in danger of judgment because he was angry at times.
 

Jimbone

Senior Member
Aug 22, 2014
2,971
972
113
44
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.
Nothing you wrote says anything about the KJV in scripture. Nothing. I accept Gods word, thanks to Him I love His word. I just don't agree with your cult that the KJV is the only one that qualifies, and NOTHING in scripture supports this divisive and completely blind faith point of view you hold to. There's just no reasoning with cultist.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
First, it is troubling that you continue to use such words. Yes, the word is related to a donkey, but you would not say this in a job interview, in a church service funeral, or other related setting.
In light of your repeated foolishness, your whining is pathetic.

Second, you missed the point I made
Another asinine assumption.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,412
13,756
113
The new versions leave out, "without a cause" which puts Jesus in danger of judgment because he was angry at times.
Do you honestly think that anything a human can do can puts Jesus in danger of judgment? Don’t be ridiculous.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,055
334
83
Do you honestly think that anything a human can do can puts Jesus in danger of judgment? Don’t be ridiculous.
There are several places where Modern Versions make Jesus appear to sin:

In Matthew 5:22 is just one example. Modern Translations remove the words “without a cause” in relation to being angry with your brother.

The King James correctly includes the words “without a cause,”

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.” (Matthew 5:22) (KJV).

Why is this important? Because Jesus got angry in Mark 3:5.

“And when he had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts, he saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.” (Mark 3:5) (KJV).

But if we are to believe the Modern Translations, then Jesus had sinned by getting angry with his fellow brethren or Jews based on Matthew 5:22. For Modern Translations appear to condemn Jesus for just being angry in general as a sin, when in reality, Jesus was specifically referring to being angry without a cause.

Titus 3:10 in Modern Bibles says that we are to reject a divisive man or have nothing to do with them anymore (NASB) (NIV) (ESV) (NKJV) (BSB). However, Jesus says, “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division:” (Luke 12:51).

The author of the Living Bible (TLB) says in Zechariah 13:6, “What are these wounds? Oh, these I got when I was in a brawl at my friend's house." This is blasphemous because it is a prophecy about Jesus Christ.

In John 7:8, the Modern Translations remove the word “yet,” making it appear like Jesus is lying. The King James correctly includes the word “yet,”

“Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come.”
(John 7:8) (KJV).

I remember a Christian once told me about how Jesus lied, and they pointed out this section of the Scriptures to me. I have heard other Christians say that Jesus sinned, as well. This is just crazy talk. Jesus had to be our spotless Lamb to pay the price for our sins. No doubt, they were most likely reading or favoring a Modern Translation that made them think this way.

The Bible teaches that Jesus is holy, undefined, and separate from sinners (Hebrews 7:26). It plainly tells us that Jesus is without sin (2 Corinthians 5:21, 1 Peter 2:22, 1 John 3:5, Hebrews 4:15).

Now, you cannot possibly be desperate enough to ignore all of these.
This is a pattern of evidence that we see in Modern Bibles that not good.
This also just the tip of the iceberg of major problems within them, as well.


Side Note:

Jesus sinning in Modern Bibles is just one reason out of my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible being the Pure Word of God for today.