The Error of KJV-Onlyism

I don't have a side. I'm not a KJV onlyist, but I do agree with many of their arguments; but with you everything is our side and your side. You can't have a productive conversation with people who have this attitude. This is why I don't engage KJV onlyists. I'm just responding to address your comment about the book, then I'm done.

Someone such as yourself has a stake in attacking this book because it questions your foundation; you'd attack anything that doesn't support your position. I found a copy online and have been reading it; so far it seems like a straightforward narrative of the facts. But I don't even want to discuss this book with you. I didn't ask turbosixx for the title so I could analyze it here; I just wanted to read it for myself and make up my own mind.

I don't have a side. I'm not a KJV onlyist, but I do agree with many of their arguments; but with you everything is our side and your side. You can't have a productive conversation with people who have this attitude. This is why I don't engage KJV onlyists. I'm just responding to address your comment about the book, then I'm done.

Someone such as yourself has a stake in attacking this book because it questions your foundation; you'd attack anything that doesn't support your position. I found a copy online and have been reading it; so far it seems like a straightforward narrative of the facts. But I don't even want to discuss this book with you. I didn't ask turbosixx for the title so I could analyze it here; I just wanted to read it for myself and make up my own mind.

I've picked up a book on this. I've never looked into this before. I've always used my common sense which tells me unless God inspired those in the 17th century (which I don't believe), then what makes them better translators then men of the 20th century that also translate word-for-word.

God's book is not flawed

The King James Version Debate: A plea for Realism

God's book is not flawed .

You don’t appear to understand what happened in Bible history, my friend.

The Modern Bibles are NOT based on the same underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as the King James Bible.
Westcott and Hort started the Modern Bible movement we have today.
They denied the substitiionary atonement, the blood atonement.
These men were heretics and they aligned themselves with heretics like George Vance Smith who was clearly a Unitarian.

The Westcott and Hort NT Greek text (now the Nestle and Aland) is based upon two manuscripts.
The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

Sinaiticus has questionable origins (because there are multiple stories behind its origin).
Granted, I am not going to dispute the age of the document. If they say it is 4th century, I will give them the benefit of the doubt.
Your side will claim that the Vaticanus is also a 4th century document. It comes from the VATICAN library. It’s why it is called VATICANus.

The Bible manuscripts leading up to the KJV are a different line of Greek NT manuscripts called the Textus Receptus (translated by Erasmus).

So if you know Bible history, reformers like William Tyndale who created a partial Bible translation into English was killed by the Catholic Church. This was in the line of Bibles (Textus Receptus Bibles) leading up to the KJV. John Rogers was also a Textus Receptus Bible translator. Rogers was killed by the Catholic Church, too.

So if we are to believe that your favored manuscripts that differ from our line of manuscripts you would be saying….

I believe the Catholic Church who killed faithful Christians had the more accurate words of God.
You would also have to say:
I believe Christians who were faithful in translating the Bible and who were killed by the Catholic Church had the corrupted words of God.

Side Note:

Yes, I am aware that Erasmus was a Catholic, but he did not hold to all Catholic practices, and he was not working on behalf of the Vatican. Erasmus was against the persecution of others by his church. The Catholic Church wanted to destroy Erasmus’ work because it was leading to the reformation. Catholic monks have said that he was the egg that Luther hatched. You go to the Catholic website today and they do not speak favorably of Erasmus.

It gets worse. If you were to look at the Hebrew text used for Modern Bibles which is based on the work of Rudolf Kittel, it should make you want to puke.

Rudolf Kittel. Yes, his name is Rudolf, but he is not the “famous fictional reindeer called Rudolph” created by copywriter Robert L. May back in 1939. This Rudolf is a German anti-Semitic scholar who created a Revised Hebrew text based on unorthodox Hebrew manuscripts (i.e., The Hebrew Ben Asher manuscripts). Rudolf’s work is called the Biblia Hebraica (BHK), a critical edition of the Hebrew, which was published in 1906, subsequently revised and renamed as the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (1977), and now the Biblia Hebraica Quinta (2004). Rudolf was not a Christian, but he was a German rationalist. Rudolf did not believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. He used the Ben Asher Text instead of the Ben Chayyim Text to create his Hebrew text. This Hebrew text is the basis of the Old Testament Modern English bible translations we have today (Note: Kittel’s work is updated, but it was not radically changed - See this article here). Compared to Rudolf’s work vs. the traditional received text that King James Bible uses, there are thousands of changes in the Old Testament. Now, Gerard Kittel (who is the younger brother of Rudolf Kittel) edited the 10-volume standard reference work used in the N.T. Greek word studies entitled "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.” Almost without exception, all translations, including the NIV translators, relied on and referred to Kittel for his judgment when selecting words in their translation.

Gerhard Kittel joined the Nazi party in 1933 and, the same year, began working on his 10-volume Greek Word Theological Dictionary until completed in 1944. At this time, he was taking a leadership role in the Nazi organization and became a key contributor to their propaganda journal. He wrote six of the eight volumes before publication was cut short by the end of the war. He was Hitler's hired man. He recommended in his writings that all German Jews be dismissed from their jobs, stripped of their German citizenship, and their property confiscated. Kittel was tried, convicted, and imprisoned for his key part in the extermination of two-thirds of Europe's Jewish population. It is amazing that this was hidden from those who were seeking Greek definitions from a 10-volume set of books penned during the time of a Jewish-hating Nazi. Unfortunately, this 10-volume set appears in the majority of the pastors’ libraries today.

View attachment 259974

Textual Criticism does not believe any book is the infallible perfect and inspired words of God.
They believe all manuscripts and translations in existence today have errors and corruptions.

I don't deny there are bad translations out there. I reject many of them myself. The ones I hold to are the ESV, NASB and the KJV.

Why do you believe in the resurrection? Did you need evidence to believe in it?
The same is true for the Bible’s own teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation of God’s Word.
Jesus said, Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Modern Bibles do not have all of the words of Jesus.
Modern Bibles make Jesus appear to sin.
Modern Bibles subtly attack the deity of Christ.
Textual Criticism is not based on the Bible but on Science and in trying to reconstruct the text someday because they don’t perfectly have the words of God. So in Textual Criticism: God is negligent in keeping His own Word and fallible unbelieving men strive to reconstruct it (Which has not happened since Westcott and Hort’s time).
So it shouldn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that the KJB is the best trustworthy source to follow, and the Modern Bibles are corrupt and they cannot be trusted. I gave you a list of corrupt doctrines in Modern Bibles. You either ignored that list or you simply were not able to understand those points spiritually.

The ESV is basically the Westcott and Hort’s English Revised Version updated.
Again, they were heretics, and Hort called the evangelical as being perverted.
They were into Catholic practices although they were not Rome Loyalists.
The NASB is a Catholic Bible. Actually all Modern Bibles today are supervised by the Vatican. It says so in the 27th Nestle and Aland Critical Text NT Greek edition that came out in 1993.

View attachment 259979

Granted, Catholic changes were made long before this, though.

There are 14 changes in some of your Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church, including the ESV, and NIV. There are fewer changes in the NASB, but they are still present.

If you check out page 21-22 of this PDF here by Pastor Kieth Piper, you will see 14 changes in the NIV that favor the Catholic Church. All these changes are found in the ESV, as well. Some of these changes also appear in the NASB. In fact, to make matters worse, the Westcott and Hort Revised English Version (RV 1881) has less of these Catholic changes and so when Textual Critics created the Nestle and Aland editions later on in history, they made more changes that favor the Catholic Church because we can see them in later Modern Bibles like the NIV, and the ESV, etcetera. All you have to do is get your ESV out and check out the 14 changes.

If the list you're referring to is the posts you referenced, no I haven't read them yet. I was going to read the book I was given then look at your list so I would have both sides. I was hoping you would give me one so I could get an idea of what you're about. If denial of the substitutionary atonement, the blood atonement is the primary one, I haven't read in the ESV and NASB were that is denied.

To which book would you be referring?

“Textual Criticism” has no beliefs because it is not a person. Only persons have beliefs.

The Holy Bible

It only takes a minute or two to look at the PDF I showed you. I am not telling you to read the whole PDF. That would take forever. Just go to page 21-22 where they list the Catholic changes in the NIV. You can read the 14 changes made in NIV hat favor the Catholic Church. These changes are also found in your ESV, and NAS1995 (11 of these changes are found in the ESV, and NAS1995).

Also, you are demanding evidence and that is a different thing. The Modern Bibles slightly water down the blood atonement. There are 5 verses that attack the blood atonement. There are three verses that subtly water down the substitutionary atonement. So not a huge point on that matter but it does add up when you look at all my other points or reasons (101 reasons). I can provide the verses for you, but it may not be the smoking gun you may be looking for. In short, I would not use that as my sole argument. I have 101 Reasons for the King James Bible and some reasons are stronger than others. But if you want the verses, I can give them to you from my write up. I would first encourage you to read ONLY the section on the Catholic changes in the PDF I mentioned that shows you corruptions in the NIV (Which are also found in the ESV and NAS1995). I am not asking you to read the whole PDF by any means. Just the section on the Catholic changes in the NIV. It is on page 21-22 of that PDF.

Here is the PDF again:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

It will take maybe 2-5 minutes out of your life to check em out.

I already have a problem with Keith Piper. A pastor is an elder, not an evangelist. If he doesn't get that right, why should I trust anything else he says.

I already have a problem with Keith Piper. A pastor is an elder, not an evangelist. If he doesn't get that right, why should I trust anything else he says.

The Holy Bible