The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
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.
Well I dont see that the views you posted in your open post as your own
I believe there views of narrow minded people who like to cause division.
So what I'm saying if you want to be narrow minded, and not see the real truth, about the KJV then go right ahead.
The real truth is Jesus addresses people as ye in the king James version
Because ye are loved.
All other translation doesn't use the word ye
So ye could say I don't want ye to be narrow minded, and hope that ye see the goodness in the KJV,.but only because.i dont want you to dislike a bible.
Is why I don't want you to be led by narrow minded people
I have a KJV
And I have never ever thought of the way your opening post has, where ever those ideas came from.
But I would say there from satan
So I wonder where your ideas come from.
As it makes no sense
I believe there views of narrow minded people who like to cause division.
So what I'm saying if you want to be narrow minded, and not see the real truth, about the KJV then go right ahead.
The real truth is Jesus addresses people as ye in the king James version
Because ye are loved.
All other translation doesn't use the word ye
So ye could say I don't want ye to be narrow minded, and hope that ye see the goodness in the KJV,.but only because.i dont want you to dislike a bible.
Is why I don't want you to be led by narrow minded people
I have a KJV
And I have never ever thought of the way your opening post has, where ever those ideas came from.
But I would say there from satan
So I wonder where your ideas come from.
As it makes no sense
Yes, I know. It is shocking. There are still people in existence today in this Laodicean age like me who simply believe the Bible in what it says today. The belief that the KJV is inspired actually can be traced back to the 1600s. It is the orthodox bible believing view after the KJV's existence.
If you don't have inerrant or inspired translation then you or the Modern scholar of your choice is the final word of authority and not the Bible. You or the scholar get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said and did not say. There are no originals anymore and copies of the original languages we do have in the Greek conflict with each other. But we know Scripture says that God's Word does not return void. Where are your original language manuscripts that we can trace whereby we can see it had a huge impact on Bible believers over the hundreds of years? The current Bible movement you follow is recent in history. It was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you go to Archive.org and look at the half-title page of Westcott and Hort's Revised Version, it says it is the version set forth in 1611 AD. However, this is a lie or a deception because everyone today (even Modern Scholars) knows that the Revised Version is based on a different line of Greek NT texts and it is not based on the underlying Greek NT text of the KJV. The Revised Version is based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The King James Bible is based on the Textus Receptus for the NT Greek. However, Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. Certainly, he was not a friend of the TR or the KJV. Therefore, based on the evidence, Westcott and Hort clearly employed deception. Furthermore, adding to the challenge for Textual Critics, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead by relocating the segment of 1 John 5:8, which reads, “For there are three that testify:” It's shifted to fill the gap in 1 John 5:7, creating the illusion that there's no crucial missing verse. This should immediately raise alarm bells. However, within the Textual Critic community, many might dismiss it with a casual "No cause for concern here, move along," which is worrying. If it were a trivial detail in the Bible that didn't impact doctrine, it might not be as critical, but this directly relates to a fundamental aspect of understanding God's nature.
In addition to that, I have a Catholic ideas Bible test. Meaning, I have a list of verses found in Modern Bibles that promotes Catholic ideas that are found in Modern Bibles but not in the KJV. When we look at the Revised Version, there is like 6-8 Catholic ideas, but as we see the popularity of the English Bibles grow in the 1960s (the NEB, and GNT), these Catholic ideas started to grow. When we get to the NIV, we see this list of Catholic ideas grows even more. Then you got the Vatican openly admitting they supervised the Nestle and Aland critical text in the 27th edition in 1993. A Catholic cardinal (who was in line to be the pope once) worked on editions 26-28. So yeah, I don't want a Bible that is influenced by the Vatican. I don't want a Bible that has Catholic ideas pushed in them.
If you don't have inerrant or inspired translation then you or the Modern scholar of your choice is the final word of authority and not the Bible. You or the scholar get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said and did not say. There are no originals anymore and copies of the original languages we do have in the Greek conflict with each other. But we know Scripture says that God's Word does not return void. Where are your original language manuscripts that we can trace whereby we can see it had a huge impact on Bible believers over the hundreds of years? The current Bible movement you follow is recent in history. It was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you go to Archive.org and look at the half-title page of Westcott and Hort's Revised Version, it says it is the version set forth in 1611 AD. However, this is a lie or a deception because everyone today (even Modern Scholars) knows that the Revised Version is based on a different line of Greek NT texts and it is not based on the underlying Greek NT text of the KJV. The Revised Version is based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The King James Bible is based on the Textus Receptus for the NT Greek. However, Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. Certainly, he was not a friend of the TR or the KJV. Therefore, based on the evidence, Westcott and Hort clearly employed deception. Furthermore, adding to the challenge for Textual Critics, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead by relocating the segment of 1 John 5:8, which reads, “For there are three that testify:” It's shifted to fill the gap in 1 John 5:7, creating the illusion that there's no crucial missing verse. This should immediately raise alarm bells. However, within the Textual Critic community, many might dismiss it with a casual "No cause for concern here, move along," which is worrying. If it were a trivial detail in the Bible that didn't impact doctrine, it might not be as critical, but this directly relates to a fundamental aspect of understanding God's nature.
In addition to that, I have a Catholic ideas Bible test. Meaning, I have a list of verses found in Modern Bibles that promotes Catholic ideas that are found in Modern Bibles but not in the KJV. When we look at the Revised Version, there is like 6-8 Catholic ideas, but as we see the popularity of the English Bibles grow in the 1960s (the NEB, and GNT), these Catholic ideas started to grow. When we get to the NIV, we see this list of Catholic ideas grows even more. Then you got the Vatican openly admitting they supervised the Nestle and Aland critical text in the 27th edition in 1993. A Catholic cardinal (who was in line to be the pope once) worked on editions 26-28. So yeah, I don't want a Bible that is influenced by the Vatican. I don't want a Bible that has Catholic ideas pushed in them.
Not at all. I believe that what I have today is the preserved words of God in English that perfectly reflect what is in the originals.
Why would I say that? Because God's Word itself teaches that His words are pure and that they will be preserved forever. So it's a matter of faith in what God says about believing His own Word. God did not care about the originals when the stone tablets were destroyed (Which had the Ten Commandments written on them). God just told Moses to create another set of stone tablets and God would write on them again. God was preserving His Word. The copy was just as equally authoritative as the original.
Oh, and yes. A translation in another language of a document can be considered a copy. Just look it up at Perplexity.ai, or see the link below.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Can-a-translation-WstIE9N0Sge5DCMUvuQUgw
Why would I say that? Because God's Word itself teaches that His words are pure and that they will be preserved forever. So it's a matter of faith in what God says about believing His own Word. God did not care about the originals when the stone tablets were destroyed (Which had the Ten Commandments written on them). God just told Moses to create another set of stone tablets and God would write on them again. God was preserving His Word. The copy was just as equally authoritative as the original.
Oh, and yes. A translation in another language of a document can be considered a copy. Just look it up at Perplexity.ai, or see the link below.
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Can-a-translation-WstIE9N0Sge5DCMUvuQUgw
-
1
- Show all
God did not have any problems in translating the languages at Pentecost. They heard their own language spoken by the other person when they did not know how to speak such a language. God was translating and it was a perfect translation. With man it would be impossible to have a perfect translation, but with God all things are possible. God can perfectly convey what He desires to say in the originals in English if He so desires. I believe this is what happened based on Bible history and based on the very words of the Bible itself.
This is simply not the case because we can actually see false Catholic ideas promoted subtly in Modern Bibles progressively increase over the years as Modern English Bibles grew in popularity. This is not counting all the other false doctrines found in Modern Bibles. The Revised Version has fewer Catholic ideas promoted than the NEB and GNT. The NEB was popular in the 1960s. The GNT eventually dominated over the NEB in the late 60s and the 70s. The NIV has even more Catholic ideas than the NEB and the GNT. The NIV began to become hugely popular in the 1980s. Changed Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles is not surprising by any means because the Vatican later openly admits to supervising the NT Greek critical text in the Nestle and Aland 27 edition in 1993.
-
1
- Show all
I am also assuming you believe the gospel message that saves as mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Is this not a doctrine, teaching, or dogma?
Is it not something you have to believe in from the holy Bible?
So when you say, you can have your dogma of the Holy Bible, I don’t think you fully realize what you are truly saying if you truly believe the gospel message and you are claiming you have been changed by the power of Jesus Christ.
Either English is not your native tongue, or there is something else going on that is amiss involving the writing of your posts.
I say this not to wound you, but to get you to reflect on the actual words that you posted and be honest with yourself.
There is going to be a Judgment and God’s people are not exempt from being judged by the Lord Jesus Christ.
Is this not a doctrine, teaching, or dogma?
Is it not something you have to believe in from the holy Bible?
So when you say, you can have your dogma of the Holy Bible, I don’t think you fully realize what you are truly saying if you truly believe the gospel message and you are claiming you have been changed by the power of Jesus Christ.
Either English is not your native tongue, or there is something else going on that is amiss involving the writing of your posts.
I say this not to wound you, but to get you to reflect on the actual words that you posted and be honest with yourself.
There is going to be a Judgment and God’s people are not exempt from being judged by the Lord Jesus Christ.
The proper way to say this is, "I could not stand the dogma any longer." To say that you could not stick to the dogma any longer would imply that you once believed the KJV-only teaching while discussing such a thing in this thread, and you now no longer believe in such a thing. But clearly, this is not what you are saying. You are saying that you cannot stand (or continue) to listen to any more teachings or discussions on the KJV Bible believing position anymore.
Of course, this is your choice. You are to believe as you wish, but personally, I would prefer to believe what the Bible says. In doing so, I am walking by faith and seeking to please God and not myself.
Of course, this is your choice. You are to believe as you wish, but personally, I would prefer to believe what the Bible says. In doing so, I am walking by faith and seeking to please God and not myself.