The Error of KJV-Onlyism

There are different ways of interpreting John 5:39. One is a command, i.e., "Study the Scriptures..." The other is declarative: "You study the Scriptures..." Reading the rest of the sentence, the second meaning makes more sense.

John 5:39-40 (NIV), "You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life." This is not a demand! It is a statement of a condition.

John 5:39-40 (KJV)...

39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

The first is a command: study the scriptures. The second is a request: ye will not come to me.

Putting "two-and-two" together: 1) search the scriptures, and 2) ye will not come to me. Clearly that is not what is intended.

The NIV's meaning is much clearer! 1) You study the Scriptures diligently and 2) yet you refuse to come to me to have life.

Obviously the NIV makes more sense.

So what? What did they hate and disdain the TR? Obviously they had good reason. Scholarship is an important factor in any field, including Bible translation. The King James Bible was created by humans, i.e., imperfect people. If the claim is made that they were inerrant, why aren't other translators also inerrant? Did God really stop giving people insight into His Word 413 years ago???

https://ia800708.us.archive.org/vie...0.1086%2F472264.zip&file=10.1086%2F476546.pdf

I think this was also been touched by Nehemiah and Biblehighliter

Yet God's word is perfect! God can still use imperfect people!

"The New International Version is a translation of the Bible into contemporary English. Published by Biblica, the complete NIV was released in 1978 with a minor revision in 1984 and a major revision in 2011. The NIV relies on recently-published critical editions of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Biblica claims that "the NIV delivers the very best combination of accuracy and readability." As of March 2013, over 450 million printed copies of the translation had been distributed."

I repeat...

The King James Bible was created by humans, i.e., imperfect people. If the claim is made that they were inerrant, why aren't other translators also inerrant? Did God really stop giving people insight into His Word 413 years ago???

In your opinion, which English version of God's Word is perfect? Please justify your answer.

BTW, I have provided the reference to why they hated the TR -calls them 'villainous' and 'vile'. Do you think that is a good valid reason? or there are other reasons? Can you offer me substantial input that I can consider? Thanks

I think it is very instructive to read post #1 of this thread (by presidente)...

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

I am not an expert on this subject, so I will write from another source: Textus Receptus is the Greek New Testament text used by Reformation translations, but based on few manuscripts and Latin sources.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say...

Textus Receptus (Latin: "received text") is the name subsequently given to the succession of printed Greek texts of the New Testament which constituted the translation base for the original German Luther Bible, for the translation of the New Testament into English by William Tyndale, the King James Version, and for most other Reformation-era New Testament translations throughout Western and Central Europe. The series flowed from both the Byzantine and Latin traditional texts, and the first printed Greek New Testament was the Complutensian Polyglot in 1514 which was not published until eight years later. The second Greek New Testament printed and published in 1516 called the Greek New Testament; a work undertaken in Basel by the Dutch scholar and Christian humanist Desiderius Erasmus. Erasmus did not "invent" the Textus Receptus, but merely printed a small collection of what was already the vast majority of New Testament Manuscripts.

Erasmus had devoted at least 15 years to the initial project, studying and collecting manuscripts from all over Europe. He had collated many Greek New Testament manuscripts and was surrounded by several language translations and also a multitude of verses from the commentaries and writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. Erasmus had access to Codex Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, but rejected most of the readings of Vaticanus as corrupt, as did the King James Translators. The text Erasmus chose had an outstanding history in the Greek, Syrian and Waldensian churches. Robert Estienne and Theodore Beza continued Erasmus' work and it became the standard Greek New Testament text.

Adherents of other religions and even political movements can make the same claim.

The accomplishments of the king aren’t the accomplishments of the translation.

Evidence?

“Prophetically chosen”? Don’t be ridiculous. This is an empty argument. If German were the lingua franca today, you’d be arguing for the Luther translation.

Irrelevant.

No, English speakers spread out and some took the KJV with them. Some took other versions.

Um, no. The KJB didn’t create anything.

Obviously it didn’t, given this debate.

Aside from high-minded (and misguided) preachers, I have never encountered anyone who speaks like the KJV. It’s an archaic dialect.

That’s an opinion, not a fact.

Great claims require great evidence. You have provided none whatsoever.

Your authority is the 54 scholars who penned the KJV. You just don’t want to admit it.

They must either believe that God re-inspired the KJV, or waffle about and dodge the question. I've seen both on this forum.

Umm, as far as my analysis is concerned KJB is not in error and you are in an opinion of two interpretation which Greek word can be said of either it is imperative as in the KJB and Declarative or indicative as the NIV does.

Using the imperative means of vital importance is crucial. It is an essential and urgent thing, grammatically, to express a command, request, or exhortation. By putting v. 39 and 40, you conclude that this is not intended because there is a command and the other is a request. Actually, KJB is much more coherent than the NIV as you have supposed.

Looking at your own explanation, I think this favors the KJB since v. 39 is a command and v. 40 is a request which is actually an imperative.

imperative, adj. & n.

Grammar. Designating a verbal mood, construction, or form expressing a command, request, warning, offer, or entreaty; of or relating to this mood.


https://www.oed.com/search/advanced/Meanings?textTermText0=imperative&textTermOpt0=WordPhrase


What are the reasons why he commanded the Jews to search the scriptures? The general reason is that the Jews do not believe in him.

• The Jews do not believe him even though Jesus made a miracle healing of the impotent man vv. 10-16
• The Jews do not want to hear him equating himself with his Father vv.17-18
• The Jews do not believe his given authority v.27
• The Jews reject affirmation of being sent by the Father v43

The word in Greek may demand such vital, crucial investigation, a search of the scripture since Jesus knew that these Jews who hated him and tried to kill him did not believe either in what he said or what he did. The Jews being more knowledgeable of the Old Testament scripture or Moses v.46-47 must rather be searched to know the way of eternal life. This is not about suggesting or giving hints to study the scripture whether they will do it or not but rather this is an urgent appeal to search the scripture.


Even Online Translators: The Systran, Bing, and Pons are saying the same thing as the KJB, it does not require an indicative using ‘you’

.

Because they contain different words with different meanings and even contain different truth. How could multiple versions be the word of God when they contain different truths? Every truth in God’s word is significant no matter how minor one thinks it is.

If a person doesn't speak English, do they have to learn English so they can read "God's word," the KJV?

Please tell James about this quote below. It comes from the King James Bible Research Council. Note: Please send it to him as if it comes from you. James does not appear to want to check any information that comes from me (for some odd reason).

(Source).

If a person didn't speak Hebrew or Greek, did they have to learn Hebrew and Greek to read the "originals"?

Which is the true word of God then, the originals or the KJV translation?

To get His pure Word? Yes.

Alterations of the Bible have been done and are being done to control the people.

Black slaves used to receive an altered Bible from their masters to keep them in control (Source).
Jehovah's Witness leaders give their own people an altered Bible (based on the same corrupted text you use - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) to keep the people enslaved to their false theology.
China has recently embarked on a project to rewrite the Bible as part of an initiative to "sinicize" religion, aiming to align faith more closely with the Chinese Communist Party's ideals. This 10-year project involves altering religious texts, including the Bible, to reflect socialist characteristics and promote party loyalty over religious devotion. (Source).

In the current Modern Bible Movement here in America (not counting the NWT):
A person can be saved by a Modern Bible and even learn certain truths.
Modern Bibles are a mixture of some true words of God and false words by men.
Spiritual darkness grabs hold of a person when a person starts to viscously attack the true Word of God (the KJB) and or those who trust it (Which I have seen before), and or when they create their own Modern Bible translation.

However, what folks do not realize is that the Reformers had received a pure Bible from the Waldenses.




The Waldenses and their text (Latin Italic) can be traced back to the 2nd century. 1 John 5:7 is in the Waldenses' Latin Italic Bible (Source). So the reformation text of Erasmus, filtered by Stephanus, and Beza (Which the KJV translators drew from) would have used the Latin Italic. The so-called oldest and best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) are 4th century. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are also filled with tons of corrections, as well (See my post #2,655).

Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the Modern Bible Movement. They deceived folks into believing that their Revised Version was a King James Bible when in reality it wasn't one. Sure, they may have used some verses from it, but their version was not the version set forth in 1611 AD as it falsely states in the half-title page. For the New Testament: Their work was primarily based on the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus and is evident in the fact that key verses from the KJV are not present in their Revised Version. They had a Unitarian on their Revised Version team and they even threatened to quit the committee if he was not involved. Westcott had admitted his commentary that a partícular passage in Scripture could bear the Arian meaning. Bruce Metzger did not even believe certain stories in the Bible actually happened. Heresy abounds in the Modern Bible Movement and Modern Bibles. I have already demonstrated several times in this thread the false doctrines found in Modern Bibles (See my posts starting in post #1,777). The evidence is overwhelming for the King James Bible being the pure Word of God for today.

So Westcott and Hort were looking to control the minds of KJB believers by slipping in the wrong words via by wrong texts secretly (See the Revised Version half title page at Archive.org). They falsely claim in the RV that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD. It's a lie. The tactic has not stopped. Somebody along the way in the Modern Bible Movement tried to hide the fact that 1 John 5:7 was removed. They reworded and moved some words from 1 John 5:8 and placed them in the missing spot for 1 John 5:7. This is a deception. They obviously did not want new readers or folks to figure out there is a missing verse teaching the Trinity. They also tried to do it with the New King James Version, as well. You can learn how they did that in this video below.


This is why some Textual Critics have moved to favoring the classic Byzantine Majority Text. Granted, they should repent of Textual Criticism, to begin with, but once a person slices up God's Word like slicing meat at a butcher shop, one cannot help themselves to stop. They will get a rush off altering God's Word like the rush a drug addict gets from his drugs.

Side Note:

It has actually been documented many times throughout history in various books of others claiming that their translation was going to replace the King James Bible in the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s. But their Bible translation actually lasted a few years and went out of print, and nobody even knows about them anymore (See this video here).

The "true" word of God? Do you not believe that a translation can be the true word of God?

There are people even today who are deceived by the fact that the Revised Version is simply an update of the KJV.
This is because the Revised Version says in the half title page that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD (When in reality it is not based primarily on the KJV).