The Error of KJV-Onlyism

I already made my point and it flew over your head. It should be obvious for those who have eyes to see or ears to hear. But you can believe as you wish, of course.

It's not "high and mighty fancy talk". That's the correct name for your fallacy. Deal with it.

More asinine comments. If you can't discuss without insulting others, then Scripture is not a subject you should discuss.

That’s rich. You just insulted me in your reply back and you have been doing so many times in this thread. I strive not to do so and I have many times held back and replied in love. Therein lies the difference between us.

May God bless you.

Calling your comments "asinine" is not insulting you. It should tell you that you need to reconsider your attitude towards me.

Self-righteousness doesn't become a Christian either.

There is no such thing as self righteousness for a true Christian. However, God does call us unto holiness (Which involves living righteous by what His Word says). God’s grace teaches us to deny ungodliness and that we should live righteously and godly in this present world. But if you rely solely on the Modern Bibles alone , righteous living is slightly skewed.

Take for example: The command to remove yourself from those who think that “gain is godliness” is missing in 1 Timothy 6 in Modern Bibles. We should not hang out or fellowship with prosperity teachers or money-grabbing believers. Their influence can rub off on you to think the same way. Their bad influence can lead you to chase after riches instead of righteousness. The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). 1 Timothy 6:5 says we are to withdraw ourselves from those who think “gain” is “godliness.”

This is illogical. Insulting what I say or do with inappropriate speech is an attack upon me. The world can say the word you mentioned as a reference to donkeys alone all they like, but the word is still tied also to the swear word that does not send a pleasant image. Not to mention that even calling somebody a donkey is a reference to how they are an idiot (which is not nice). Jesus even refers to calling your brother an idiot.

Someone can call another person an idiot, but this is usually attached to their behavior. It’s not isolated from their behavior.

My using an idiom that says you did not understand a particular thing I said in one instance is not saying you are an idiot or being overly insulting or hurtful unless I kept saying it as if my goal was to only attack you and not to help you to draw closer to God and His Word.

Perhaps it is time to do a survey in your area and get a second opinion.

It's not inappropriate speech, and it's impossible to insult what you do or say. Here's the solution: stop making asinine comments and I'll stop calling them asinine.

No, it is not. Your dirty mind is not my problem.

If I wanted to call you either a donkey or an idiot, I would do so. Keep acting like either, and I may anyways.

Specific language is not subject to popular opinion. The problem here is your ignorance. Instead of whining, pick up a dictionary and start learning.

Perhaps it is time to get a second opinion and do a survey in your area with your local Bible believing churches.

I have a better idea: grow a thicker skin. You know... like the ones donkeys have.

@Dino246

There is a lot you have to ignore in not seeing the bad Catholic connection involving Modern Bibles.

#1 A Catholic manuscript (Vaticanus),
#2. Westcott and Hort were into Catholic practices.
#3. Catholic Church endorsed Modern Bibles when they first started to become popular (like with the NEB, GNT, NIV, etc.).
#4. Carlo Martini (Catholic cardinal) is involved in Nestle and Aland editions 26, 27, and 28.
#5. Vatican officially declares their involvement in 27th edition.
#6. While this is not the case now, not too long ago, the Catholic Church stated in one of their dictionaries in the New American Catholic Bible that it was forbidden for the Catholic layperson to read the King James Bible. No other version was condemned.
#7. There are changes made in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church. Originally I discovered that there were 14 Catholic changes, but I found another source that shows a few more.

Shall I yawn now, or do you have more blather to add?

The words of God (verbal) which were already written just as we are reading right now are called scripture. Although I cannot completely defend the ‘Translators to the Reader’ of the KJB, I assumed you have read them very well. However, I haven’t had any idea that the text of the KJB was still imperfect in the sense it is not complete. Your argument about Approcrypha is a fundamental view relative to the Bible Version issue. Apocrypha were not part of the canon of the scripture and they were placed in between the Old and New Testament in the KJB. For your information, previous English Bibles have their apocrypha as well intertwined but not inserted in the Old Testament just like the Rheims-Douay Bible. If you look at the original 1611 replica at the end of the book of Malachi it states “The end of the Prophets” and if ever you look at the original title page of the KJB, you will not find the Apocrypha as an integral part of the KJB (do I need to paste the original Title page?). Approcropycal books as called means spurious hence, they were omitted in the year 1666 if I am not mistaken.

Btw, here is what the Preface says about the making of the KJB “…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to be excepted against;”



So here is what the Psalmist says about the purification of the word of God to make into ‘one principal good one’. The translators treated earlier English Protestant Bibles were good ones yet a need for purifications



As to the ‘original autographs’, it is generally agreed by both critical and conservative scholars that the original autogrphs are no longer with us. They were not preserved for ever. The words in it are those that have been preserved to us today in English as translated in the KJB. This might be a hard way to understand but it takes a logic of faith that God will preserve his words and he will. The objection has been raised whether Psalms 12:6-7 is either poor people vs. the words of God. I believe it is the words of God for the following reasons:

• The nearest antecedent of ‘them’ is the words of God rather than the poor people.
• If we let the poor people be the ‘them’ will contradict the godly man being cease and the faithful fail. The being that the poor have been oppressed and the sighing of the needy connotes negatively and it does not speak of the preservation for ever
• The context is all about the words of ‘the children of men’ vs the pure words of God. It is to be noted the purification of the words of God is 7x and the words of men were described as 7x too thus signifying them in contrast.

1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.

2They speak vanity (1) every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips (2) and with a double heart do they speak.(3)

3The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips,(4) and the tongue that speaketh proud things: (5)

4Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail;(6) our lips are our own: who is lord over us? (7)

5For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

8The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

And right there, you made your entire post a circular argument.

Thank you Dino and yes, it was not King David or the Psalmist that said “…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one but Dr. Miles Smith, however, it shows in reality, that the KJB underwent the process of purifying other earlier English Versions.

I also think it is only fair to turn the tables here. Why do you believe in the error of Originals Onlylism?
Please list your reasons. Why do you think your reasons are better than our reasons?
Do we see Originals Onlyism in the Bible? Do we see the good fruit in history as a result of Originals Onlyism?
What kind of compelling evidence do you have? How does it make sense in Originals Onlyism to lift up a Bible and declare it to be the Word of God, when it is full of errors and problems? Will you die for a book that has the stink of men’s errors upon it? Why do you believe God has failed to keep his Word perfectly today? You must have compelling evidence. What standard do you follow? There is not even one of you who agrees with each other because they all have differences of opinion on what the original languages say. Not even all NIVs are the same. Not all ESVs are the same. Not all Lexicons are the same. Not all Greek manuscripts are the same. How do you choose the right one? Do you know how to speak, read, write, and listen in these original dead languages? If not, you're toying with a dead language you do not know. You just randomly choose some Lexicon/Concordance of your choice by faith. What not another Lexicon? How do you know you don’t got the wrong one? How do you decide? Where is the Word of God? Can you point to it? How can all bibles be the Word of God when they all say different things?

This is a good point I hadn't thought of.