The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Do you believe the Holy Bible you read does not contain errors?

@turbosixx

1 John 5:7 is the only verse that tells us about the Trinity point blank.
This verse is confirmed by early Latin manuscripts and early church fathers.

1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

1 John 5:7 in Modern Bibles removes this beautiful truth on the Trinity.
Again, no surprise because they had a Unitarian on the translation committee on the Revised Version 1881.
They preferred two manuscripts that did not have this reading even when double dots showed a variant for 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus.

So again, which Bible is the Holy Bible?
The Modern Bibles and the KJB both cannot be the Holy Bible.
They say different things.
There can only be one Holy Bible.

@turbosixx

Okay. Seeing you asked to see the verses changed in Modern Bibles involving the Blood Atonement, and the Substitutionary Atonement, I will provide them from my write-up.



Now, here is my list of verses that show a watering down of the Substitutionary Atonement. Again, while Modern Bibles do contain the teaching on the Substitutionary Atonement, we do see a slight watering down of this teaching in three verses.

This write-up was not spell-checked or gone through a final revision check. I am still in the process of creating my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible.

@turbosixx

2 Timothy 3:15 says the Scriptures are holy. Do you want to learn about the true Holy Bible, and proof that it is holy?

See this video here:


I watched this video again and there is still stuff I learn every time I watch it.
If you are confused by any of what Brandon states in this video, I can explain it.
There is no way that the discoveries he shows are random chance. It would be impossible.
Multiple coincidences converging upon one another? Not possible.
I challenge anyone here to fact-check what he shows in the KJB.
If you do, there is no way you can claim that this is all just “random chance.”

The division doesn't mean 'break up' but 'set in order'.. read in context.

No verse stands alone unless there is enough context in the one verse to give its full meaning. That's rightly dividing.

Not cutting up or breaking up.

No. It means to separate in two or divide just as what divide means.

Looking at the Etymology of the word, we see this:

divide (v.)
early 14c., "separate into parts or pieces," from Latin dividere "to force apart, cleave, distribute," from assimilated form of dis- "apart" (see dis-) + -videre "to separate," which, according to de Vaan, is from PIE *(d)uid- "to separate, distinguish" (source also of Sanskrit avidhat "allotted," Old Avestan vida-"to devote oneself to"). He writes: "The original PIE verb ... (which became thematic in Latin) meant 'to divide in two, separate'.

Source:
https://www.etymonline.com/word/divide#:~:text=early 14c., "separate into," Old Avestan vida- "to

You can divide between the truth between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and divide between the Old Law, and the New Law. You can divide between the Millennium vs. the Eternal New Earth. You can divide between being saved by God's grace through faith in Ephesians 2:8-9, and God choosing us to salvation through the Sanctification of the Spirit in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. You can divide between the milk of the Word vs. the meat of the Word. Things like that.

In other words, you can divide or understand the differences between certain distinct truths in the Bible.

Notice also the word “cleave” in the above definition.

Cleave can be defined as this:


Source:
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cleave

We are cutting the difference in our understanding of the Bible of one particular truth vs. another.
For example: We don’t mix certain laws in the Old Covenant with the laws in the New Covenant. Meaning, that we do not have to keep the Saturday Sabbath, circumcision, dietary laws, animal sacrifices, holy days, etcetera. But under the Old Covenant, the OT believer had to keep these things.

This has already been addressed but you were probably not paying attention. Any translation in any language which is based upon the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text and the traditional Greek Received Text will be the equivalent of the KJB. So there is no need to keep bringing this up. Up until the late 19th century all translations were based upon those texts. And after 1881 the Trinitarian Bible Society translated exclusively out of those texts. If you read and write in English then you should have no problem with the KJB. If not, you can surely find a translation in your language which will match the KJB.

Except that in the Bible it does not have that meaning.

HEBREW
דָּבַק dāḇaq = KJV Translation Count — Total: 54x
The KJV translates Strong's H1692 in the following manner: cleave (32x), follow hard (5x), overtake (3x), stick (3x), keep fast (2x), ...together (2x), abide (1x), close (1x), joined (1x), pursued (1x), take (1x).

GREEK
προσκολλάω proskollaō =
KJV Translation Count — Total: 4x
The KJV translates Strong's G4347 in the following manner: cleave (2x), be joined (1x), join (one's) self (1x).

So in the KJV it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you are positing. Be careful my friend and go by what is actually in Scripture.

What is your first language sir?

Well, you just proved my case. You provided dictionaries for a particular word that gives multiple meanings or definitions. So the word “cleave” can have several meanings or definitions just like other words and not just one. Just because the Bible uses the word “cleave” in a particular way does not mean it does not have other meanings. The origin of the word “divide“ means separate into parts or pieces (14th century). The King James Bible came out in the 17th century (1600s). The word “divide” in the intransitive sense of "become separated into parts" is from the 1520s. This is not too far off from 1611.

If we were to look at the time the KJV was translated, it has a meaning to divide like in the execution of a rapid melodic passage, originally conceived as the dividing of each of a succession of long notes into several short ones.

https://www.oed.com/dictionary/divide_v?tab=meaning_and_use#6309369

But again, the idea here is dividing (Separating two things).

We read in the story of Solomon about how he was to DIVIDE a baby to resolve the TRUTH of the matter (1 Kings 3:16-28).
The word of God is like a two-edged sword that DIVIDES soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).
The Old and New Testaments are divided in our Bible.
We must rightly divide between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
We must rightly divide between God’s grace and Sanctification.
We must rightly divide between the milk of the Word vs. the meat of the Word.

God wants us to divide.

Jesus (GOD) said,


God divided the light from the darkness even at the beginning (Genesis 1:4).
So you cannot say that "dividing" in 2 Timothy 2:15 does not mean divide as we understand that word.
The Bible certainly does use it to mean to cut, separate, or distinguish between two things.
Solomon said, divide the living child in two (1 Kings 3:25).
This was to cut him in two pieces. Granted, he did not intend to hurt the little one, but it was to reveal the true mother.
But the point here is divide can mean "cut in two" according to the Bible.
When I look at the whole counsel of God’s Word on dividing (cutting or separating) between various truths in the Bible, that makes a whole lot of sense with 2 Timothy 2:15.

So I am using examples in the Bible, and I am not just pointing to a dictionary alone, my friend.

I am not point to a dictionary either. I am showing you the actual biblical usage. You are the one pointing to a dictionary. And actually Merriam-Webster has both meanings. So that is what you should have said in the first place.

I believe I explained the word “divide” in a far superior way with the Bible. The word “divide” can mean to cut in two according to 1 Kings 3:25. 1 Kings 3:16-28 was about the revealing of truth. Can you not see it? That is what we do when we rightly divide (cut or separate) the word of truth. This is a major cross reference. Don’t miss it.

Solomon was threatening to cut (Divide) the baby in two. The actual word “Divide” is used in 1 Kings 3:25. This dividing is related to revealing of the truth. The truth in this case was the revealing of the real mother. We are to divide the word of truth. This is a major cross reference. Examples? We should know how to divide certain truths in the Bible like dividing between the milk of the word and the meat of the Word. We have to divide properly between the Old Covenant and New Covenant. This is rightly dividing the Word of truth.

This truth is obscured in Modern Bibles.
Even Modern Scholar dictionaries can sometimes deceive.

James Strong was on the ASV committee.
Granted, I am not saying that such tools cannot sometimes be helpful, but they should never be a replacement for allowing the Bible be our interpreter for us. Divide means to divide. While there are many archaic words in the KJV. Divide is not one of them.

Isaiah 63:12
”That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?”

It means divide. God used Moses as a vessel so that He could divide or part the Red Sea.

I personally have not looked for errors. I've heard people make the claims there are errors but I choose to believe God over man. It's my belief that God preserves His word. He has revealed Himself to us in His creation and in His word for a reason. Do I believe it has zero errors, I would like to think so but it is translated by men. It's my opinion that any errors that might exist will have zero effect on the truth. Are all bibles preserved, no. I believe God gives man free will to make his own mistakes. It's up to us, individually, to seek out the truth. When we stand before Him on the day of judgement, we cannot shift the blame to anyone else.

First and only for now is English.

Thanks for your zeal in making this known. I can see you're very passionate about it and that is great! I've never looking into this before because I feel the KJV is probably the best translation but hard to read because of the old English. That's why I read newer word-for-word versions and the KJV. You've got me interested in looking into this further. Thanks.

I've been chewing on the first one. That is a great verse and I want it to be in the bible. I can see how it might help to denounce infant baptism but it's not the only one.
Mark 16:16 is a great one for that.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
Babies cannot believe.

A catholic has to ignore a lot of that verse
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Sadly Christendom today does the same thing.
Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

With those omissions and the missing letters I'm sure we still have enough to understand the truth. I will looking into this but it's gonna take me some time.

Sadly, we could have every bit of God's word without one single error and people will still believe what they want to believe.
It make me think about the rich man and Lazarus.
He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’”