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.
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,401
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,401
Bible Highlighter said:
Actually, the Modern Bible Movement that has taken over is liberalism or Modernism. Instead of Christians believing in a perfect and inerrant Bible like in the past, they now get to be like the Textual Critic and make that 5-7% of the Bible like silly putty. They follow corrupted texts and we know they are corrupted because if one simply looks at all the false doctrines, it makes one want to puke. Of course, folks in the Textual Critical camp are just not able to see it of course because they like the idea of an imperfect Word whereby they are also the authority on what God precisely said. Many today are like the Pentecostals whereby they are guided by their impressions or feelings that they think are from God. There is no real final authority, but themselves.
Click to expand...
jamessb said:
This says it all. Quite obviously you ignore facts and will not listen to reason. You are not looking for the truth.
Click to expand...
I am open to dialogue, whereas you are not. This should let the reader know that you are simply the one who does not want to see the truth here. Then again, this is nothing new from your side. James White has ignored Will Kinney's major question on this topic (Which would show the error in his thinking).

You said:
Instead you have swallowed a whole load of propaganda.
Click to expand...
Just saying so without any proof or without refuting my claims does not prove your right.

You said:
I cannot begin to understand why.
Click to expand...
I know. You actually believe the nonsense you are pushing so much that you cannot see the forest from the trees.
Your only way of escape is to seek the truth on the matter, but it doesn't seem like you are interested in doing that at this point in your life. Why? Again, I believe you like the idea of an imperfect Bible. So your holding to Textual Criticism over simply just believing the Bible really does not have anything to do with your acceptance of the truth here.

You said:
I am putting you on ignore, as I have read enough of your negativity and propaganda.
Click to expand...
Jesus spoke a lot of negative things that others did not like to hear.
As for the propaganda statement: Well, again, I think it is really easy to figure out that the Modern Bible Movement is full of propaganda. Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the Modern Bible Movement, and yet it did not gain in popularity here in the United States until the 1960s (Which was also conveniently the time they stopped teaching the Bible (the KJV) in public schools).
 
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,403
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,403
jamessb said:
What is a "perfect" Bible?

All English Bibles are translations of ancient scrolls, written in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. There are many differences between the languages of the source documents (many of which are incomplete) and any receptor language, including modern English. As a result, translators must make decisions, such as a) the meaning of the words, phrases, idioms, etc., b) how they were understood by the original hearers, c) what are the closest English equivalents, d) which manuscripts to accept when there are differences, e) etc.

Therefore, it is impossible to have "a perfect Bible".
Click to expand...
It is impossible to have a perfect Bible when only men are involved, and not God.
If GOD is involved in a translation, it would be perfect.
I believe God is faithful to preserve His words. Even Jesus said, "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matthew 24:35).
 
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,405
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,405
Bibe Highlighter said:
Why do you think the Bible speaks about a great falling away? It has already happened in these last days. Many are falling away from trusting what God’s Word says because they don’t believe God’s Word is perfect and entirely trustworthy anymore. Granted, I am not saying that this topic may always be a salvation issue. I believe some can be ignorant on this topic and preach in another ways and be saved. But those who look to tear down God’s true Word as if it is their life’s mission are not going to make it, unless they repent. Those who create false Bibles that add and take away from God’s words are not going to make it unless they repent.Why do you think the Bible speaks about a great falling away? It has already happened in these last days. Many are falling away from trusting what God’s Word says because they don’t believe God’s Word is perfect and entirely trustworthy anymore. Granted, I am not saying that this topic may always be a salvation issue. I believe some can be ignorant on this topic and preach in another ways and be saved. But those who look to tear down God’s true Word as if it is their life’s mission are not going to make it, unless they repent. Those who create false Bibles that add and take away from God’s words are not going to make it unless they repent.
Click to expand...
jamessb said:
Total and utter nonsense!
Click to expand...
Is it now? How about if you try reading Revelation 22:18-19 sometime.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,406
Jun 30, 2015
25,414
13,760
113
#2,406
J

jamessb

Active member
#2,409
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
#2,409
All: there is no such thing as the "modern Bible movement". It is absurd to think that modern Bible translators, publishers, etc. have banded together in some kind of "movement".
 
J

jamessb

Active member
#2,410
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
#2,410
Regarding modern Bibles...

Here is the introduction to the latest edition of the NIV...

The Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) has completed their work to update the New International Version of the Bible. The CBT was formed in 1965 to create a modern English Bible translation from the oldest and best-available biblical manuscripts. The NIV rapidly became the world’s most read modern English Bible with more than 400 million copies in print. Since the most recent NIV update in 1984, the CBT has continued to meet every year in accordance with the NIV charter, twhich demands constant monitoring of developments in Biblical scholarship and English usage and the reflection of these developments in periodic updates to the text. The committee represents the very best in evangelical biblical scholarship with its members drawn from various denominations and from some of the finest academic institutions in the world.

(my emphases)

Nothing more needs to be said about modern Bible translation.
 
J

jamessb

Active member
#2,414
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
#2,414
John146 said:
Not going to happen. I prefer the preserved words of God in the English language.
Click to expand...
So do I, which is why I use several modern translations. Are you seriously saying that God's words are preserved only in the KJV? If so, you are seriously mistaken. If it's the translation that you prefer reading, that's fine; why don't you write that way?
 
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,415
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,415
jamessb said:
All: there is no such thing as the "modern Bible movement". It is absurd to think that modern Bible translators, publishers, etc. have banded together in some kind of "movement".
Click to expand...
Ah, I thought I was on ignore.

Anyway, to help you get back to reality again, Perplexity states:

A movement is not always organized, as it can encompass various individuals and groups with different goals and levels of organization. Social movement organizations (SMOs) are organized components of social movements, but a specific social movement is usually composed of many SMOs, which can have different or even conflicting goals. For example, the civil rights movement was composed of specific SMOs such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[1]. Therefore, a movement can involve both organized and less-organized entities with a range of goals and structures.

The basic organization of movement in the context of the human nervous system refers to the mechanisms and processes involved in motor control and coordination. This includes aspects such as reciprocal innervation and the role of the central nervous system in coordinating movements[3].

In summary, a movement can involve organized components such as social movement organizations, but it is not always entirely organized, as it may encompass a variety of individuals and groups with different levels of organization and distinct goals.

Sources​
[1] Social movement organization - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement_organization​
[4] Social Movement Organization (SMO) - McCarthy - Wiley Online Library https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm195.pub2​
[5] How To Create A Movement Within Your Organization - Digital Tonto https://digitaltonto.com/2014/how-to-create-a-movement-within-your-organization/​

By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/When-you-say-tsQvMkWSThaHVipr6KG4GQ
 
J

jamessb

Active member
#2,416
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
#2,416
Bible_Highlighter said:
Ah, I thought I was on ignore.

Anyway, to help you get back to reality again, Perplexity states:

A movement is not always organized, as it can encompass various individuals and groups with different goals and levels of organization. Social movement organizations (SMOs) are organized components of social movements, but a specific social movement is usually composed of many SMOs, which can have different or even conflicting goals. For example, the civil rights movement was composed of specific SMOs such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)[1]. Therefore, a movement can involve both organized and less-organized entities with a range of goals and structures.

The basic organization of movement in the context of the human nervous system refers to the mechanisms and processes involved in motor control and coordination. This includes aspects such as reciprocal innervation and the role of the central nervous system in coordinating movements[3].

In summary, a movement can involve organized components such as social movement organizations, but it is not always entirely organized, as it may encompass a variety of individuals and groups with different levels of organization and distinct goals.

Sources​
[1] Social movement organization - Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_movement_organization​
[4] Social Movement Organization (SMO) - McCarthy - Wiley Online Library https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9780470674871.wbespm195.pub2​
[5] How To Create A Movement Within Your Organization - Digital Tonto https://digitaltonto.com/2014/how-to-create-a-movement-within-your-organization/​

By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/When-you-say-tsQvMkWSThaHVipr6KG4GQ
Click to expand...
You are ignored. When I want to, I remove the "ignore" to read your incorrect opinions. Regardless, you are still close-minded and wrong.

The above is a perfect example.

On "ignore" again.
 
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,417
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,417
Dino246 said:
White did not ignore Kinney's question. He answered it. Kinney (and you, apparently) just don't like the answer. Kinney's approach is logically identical (and similarly flawed) to the common question from Moslems, "Where in the Bible did Jesus claim to be God?" Just because there is no simple, direct answer doesn't mean there is no answer.
Click to expand...
What do you think White said in reply to his question?

The first two paragraphs below are what Will Kinney said took place in the radio program.

"The first question I asked Mr. White was “Do you believe the Bible IS the inerrant words of God?”. Mr. White then clearly said that he does believe the Bible is the inerrant words of God. But when I asked Mr. White where I can get a copy of this inerrant Bible he says he believes in, that is when he starts his usual tap dance routine.​
​
Instead of giving me the name of this inerrant Bible he says he believes in, he starts telling us about all he has written in his book - The KJV Only Controversy - and refers to “what God gave us when He gave us the Bible.” Please notice the past tense verbs Mr. White uses here. So where exactly IS this Bible that James Whites says IS the inerrant words of God?​
​
Well, according to Mr. White’s point of view God’s “inerrant” words are scattered all over 5000 plus remaining Greek Manuscripts that contain thousands of variant readings and it is up to us to try to figure out which ones are the right ones.​
​
In spite of the fact that modern versions like the NASB, RSV, NIV, ESV omit some 3000 words from the New Testament text of the King James Bible, and either substitute or add another 1000 words, James tells us on page 48 of his book: "their text is NEARLY IDENTICAL to even the most Byzantine manuscript...ONE of those variant readings is indeed the original. We are called to invest our energies in discovering which one it is."​

In other words, if James White is saying that the Infallible words of God exist somewhere amongst a sea of different manuscripts that conflict with each other and one says this in the present tense, then he is misleading others about something that nobody can actually find. It would be sending folks on some wild goose chase.

At another point in time: James White states,

“Codex Sinaiticus is not nearly as bad as its enemies would say…It is not infallible, nor is it demonic. It is instead a great treasure…for all time a tremendously valuable asset to our knowledge of the New Testament text. Those who say it is “corrupt” normally mean it is different in places than the traditional text that underlies the KJV. Others accuse it of being so full of errors as to be almost useless. There are indeed many corrections in the text of Aleph, but…A handwritten text that is used for 1,500 years is going to collect a few corrections along the way!”​

Again, Will Kinney states:

"So when Mr. White tells us that he believes “The Bible IS the inerrant words of God” he is not referring to any specific Book in print at all. In fact, he can’t tell you where to find this hypothetical inerrant Bible he says he believes in.​

If words have any real meaning at all, then James White is lying when he says he believes the Bible IS the inerrant words of God. He has no such Bible in print to give to anyone and can’t tell you where to find it.​

So basically White is saying that all his chosen little needles amongst thousands of haystacks is what makes up the infallible Words of God. If this was the case, then why doesn't James print his own Bible, and name it, "the James White Version" and claim it is the infallible and inerrant words of God? This is what is silly about his position, and every other Textual Critic in the universe.
 
Bible_Highlighter

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
#2,418
Nov 28, 2023
2,060
334
83
#2,418
fredoheaven

fredoheaven

Senior Member
#2,419
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
#2,419
jamessb said:
It may have once meant that, but today "perfect" means being entirely without fault or defect. It does not mean "complete" in 2024.
Click to expand...
I have checked online dictionaries , Merriam Webster, Cambridge. Dictionary.com and the word complete is still a modern meaning fo 'perfect'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.