The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Continuing on from the previous post...

So God, as referred to in verse 11, also stammers?

And what does "This is the rest wherewith ye may cause the weary to rest" mean in English?

Even though your quote is taken out of context, here is a far better rendition (from the NIV)...

Very well then, with foreign lips and strange tongues
God will speak to this people,
to whom he said,
“This is the resting place, let the weary rest”;
and, “This is the place of repose”—
but they would not listen.
So then, the word of the Lord to them will become:
Do this, do that,
a rule for this, a rule for that;
a little here, a little there—
so that as they go they will fall backward;
they will be injured and snared and captured.
Therefore hear the word of the Lord, you scoffers
who rule this people in Jerusalem.

That is much clearer! And here, "tongues" clearly means "languages"

Your precious NET says “foreign tongue”. Obviously you can read that with wooden literalism and mock that translation, too.

Perhaps you should rebuke Jesus for speaking in parables because they were not clear for all people.

However, your not God. You cannot speak for Him. Your thoughts are not God’s thoughts.

Also, the NIV says,

Isa 32:4 - “The fearful heart will know and understand, and the stammering tongue will be fluent and clear.”

If memory serves me correctly, you were praising this translation, too. If not you, others in this thread have.

So anything in the KJV is simply a target for you. That’s what it looks like to me.

May God have mercy on you.

Strange tongue, how can God speak which is not understandable. You are the one saying we should bible better understood but your Niv isn't clear for the God described is speaking that could not be understood. Your Niv really is strange one.

Strongs:
2045 [e] Ἐραυνᾶτε eraunate You diligently search V-PIA-2P

From Bible Hub Greek

Well Bible Hub says different also quoting Strong's.

2045 [e] Ἐραυνᾶτε eraunate You diligently search V-PIA-2P

So you are not convinced by Christianity and the Bible and you don't see these things as different than other religious and political movements? Surely if a Christian is martyred for their faith in the Bible that means something to us Christians. Besides, this is only one link in the chain. It is obviously not my sole reason. We look at all the reasons together to make an informed decision. The Bible does speak about dying for your faith. The Bible also speaks of an entity known as the devil. Obviously, the devil does not want people to have the Word of God. The killing of Christians and the burning of Bibles is nothing new for the Catholic Church and it merely shows a pattern here, as well. The Catholic Church suppresses the Bible and kills others who try to give it to others = bad. Christians who are trying to spread the Bible and are killed by the Catholics = Good. In other words, you are not looking at things from behind the scenes and how the devil operates. You are not thinking like he does. This is why when we discussed the serpent getting Eve to question God's word, you did not have the answer. No Textual Critic Proponent does. Yet, that lesson in the story stands as a testimony against your side. Just as the blood of the saints stands as a testimony. In Revelation, saints will die for the Word of God. Are you willing to die for a Bible that is full of the stink of men all over it like the ever-shapeshifting NIV? I wouldn't. But I would die for the real Word of God.

Ephesians 4:13 says, "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:"

King James and the text of the King James Bible helped the two Christian factions to set aside their differences to work on a translation together. They could be united together over one text in the faith. While they may not change their theologies, they would at least have one text to agree upon, and thus bring them closer to the unity of the faith.

So regardless if King James had bad motives or not, a good thing was happening despite that. Also, if King James did not act in good faith in creating the KJV, God could still use him and his translation despite his wrong motives. We see it both with Joseph's brothers and those who wanted to condemn Jesus to death.

Have you never heard of the gunpowder plot before?
It's basic KJV history.
I would recommend starting out with the documentary.





God does know the future. Surely it is not a coincidence that God chose a Bible in 1600s English that ended up being the most influential book for hundreds of years had later turned out to be in the world language (Modern English). Again, are you aware that English is made up of 60% Latin (due to borrowing)? Latin was written on a sign on the cross. Another coincidence?

Uh, not if God values meeting the goal of the Great Commission.

Actually, if you say that "England" spread over the world, it would be considered a metonymy. In this context, "England" is used to represent the people of England rather than the physical land or country itself. This figure of speech, where a word is substituted with another closely related term, helps convey meaning more vividly or expressively. Therefore, using "England" to symbolize the people of England spreading across the world falls under the category of metonymy in language and communication.

Source:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/What-is-it-isd20CI6SHiXBCR47wnyFQ

Again, it is Metonymy.

At one point in time, there was more of a unity over the King James Bible.
But that unity was fractured by the Modern Bible Movement.
Granted, there are KJV believers today who are still united over one text (Regardless of those who disagree).

You're funny.
Actually, I was referring to the 200-plus idioms or phrases that were popularized by the King James Bible.

1. The apple of his eye (Deuteronomy 32:10): The person whom someone loves the most and is very proud of. Example: “Through daring escapades and heartfelt confessions, he realized that the spirited and fearless woman by his side was the true apple of his eye, and their shared adventures became the foundation of a love story that would withstand the test of time.” [22]
2. The ends of the earth (Deuteronomy 33:17) To do everything possible to achieve something. It can also refer to a faraway place. Example: “In their pursuit of biblical truth, Anthony and Olivia undertook a journey to the ends of the Earth, where ancient ruins and archaeological marvels awaited, providing insights into the historical narratives of the Bible.” [23]
3. The skin of my teeth (Job 19:20) Just barely, very narrowly. Example: “Doug passed the exam by the skin of his teeth.” [33]

Again, we make opinions that are reasonable all the time without knowing all the facts involved.
For example, as I said before, I don't know the Earth is round by firsthand experience, but based on the evidence, it is the most logical conclusion to make. The same is true with the KJB being the perfect Word of God for today. I look at the evidence in the Bible, history, biblical numerics, and how it has changed people's lives, etcetera.

When folks call our side idolatrous for believing in a perfect Word, it is a logical deduction that they find the idea of a perfect Bible to be bad for some odd reason. If the KJV is the perfect Word for today (and I believe it is), and one rejects it as the perfect Word, then it would be true that they are rejecting God's authority because His Word is an authority over our lives. Just reading Scripture, we are to have faith in it and live by it (According to a basic reading of the Bible).

The translators did not create the KJV out of thin air. They are just translating from what manuscripts they used. They are passing along what previously existed. They took many good ones and made one principal good one.

I hope this helps, and may the Lord bless you and your family (even if we disagree strongly on this topic).

Bible Hub has made the critical text and the NASB its standard, which is a shame. Regardless, every English Bible (other than YLT) based on the Textus Receptus says "search".

And contextually, that is the proper meaning. The people being addressed and being told the search the Scriptures were not the Bereans but the enemies of Christ. Had they searched the Scriptures honestly and diligently they would have acknowledged Christ as God who said "Before Abraham was I AM" (see Exodus 3). Instead we read: Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (John 5:18)

Actually they had all the printed Greek texts before them, but they chose the Textus Receptus of Stephanus (1550), which was at that time regarded as the Received Text. [They also had the printed Hebrew Bible (Mikraot Gedolot = Great Scriptures) edited by Jacob ben Chayyim, who was a Masoretic scholar who became a Christian. Daniel Bomberg published it.]

But Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers used the manuscripts, with more and more available after 100 years of the first Greek text of Erasmus (who also had access to the Complutensian Polyglott, another printed Greek text by his rivals in Spain) as well as Codex Vaticanus (which he rejected).

Nonetheless, all these editions were fundamentally identical, with a few changes here and there. And Dean John William Burgon -- one of the outstanding conservative textual scholars of the 19th century who was opposing Westcott & Hort -- was more than satisfied that the Received Text produced in the 16th and 17th century in printed form was totally representative of the original autographs. He firmly believed in both the divine inspiration and the divine preservation of Scripture. "Forever, O LORD, thy Word is settled in Heaven" (Psalm 119:89)

Already answered this. You may read this link so not to rehash:
Post-2652

https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/the-error-of-kjv-onlyism.213525/page-133

JamesSsb,

Changes in the NIV make Jesus indignant! This is what you are saying about NIV being clear. The NIV is drifting down towards apostasy.

NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 - “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man.”
NIV 2011 - “Jesus WAS INDIGNANT. He reached out his hand and touched the man.”

Here's more James about the NIV, changes, and why changes, please explain. Thank you

NIV - 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - “Cornelius answered: “FOUR days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”
NIV 2011 edition - “Cornelius answered: “THREE days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”

Yes, I am aware they used printed Greek texts. That’s not news for me. My point was not exhaustive by any means. Surely you must know that Greek printed texts were not created solely from the mind of the one writing it. The printed Greek texts are based on copying from previous Greek editions which in turn was originally from actual MSS (manuscripts). Beza consulted the Polyglot Bible. But did the KJV translators use actual manuscripts directly?

Well, seeing how special this event was to God, I believe it is a high probability the KJV translators would have consulted actual ancient MSS. Scholars believe the KJV translators most likely have used the Syriac Peshitta manuscript, and old ancient Latin manuscripts. KJV translators also consulted the different printed English Textus Receptus Bibles, too. I believe they consulted many sources. In other words, I was not being overly exhaustive with my point. I am sure you are not denying that they used the Textus Receptus Bibles because you did not mention it.

As for Stephanus:

The translators of the King James Bible most likely primarily relied on Beza's 1588–89 and 1598 editions of the Greek New Testament. These editions provided the basis for the KJV New Testament, with Beza's text being virtually the same as earlier editions by Stephanus and Erasmus. Beza consulted various sources like the Peshita and ancient manuscripts like Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus, but he did not always include variant readings in his text, confining them to annotations[1][2].

While the KJV translators used Beza's editions extensively, they also departed from his renderings in about 200 places, opting for earlier editions of the Textus Receptus. They also referenced earlier English translations like the Bishop's Bible (Seeing it was a part of one of the rules by King James; Note: Although I believe they modified this rule because the translators later said that they took many good ones and made one principal good one). The KJV relied on manuscripts from the Majority Text (Byzantine).

Sources
[1] The Text of the New Testament - BYU Religious Studies Center https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/text-new-testament
[2] The Greek New Testament Text of the King James Version https://rsc.byu.edu/new-testament-h...y/greek-new-testament-text-king-james-version

By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-there-proof-mhPDnqIKSWS2zyPlPy00lQ

Dr. David Sorenson at the KJV Research Council believes it was the 5th edition of Beza that the KJV translators used.
Granted, I don’t believe everything he says mind you.

I am aware that the KJV comes from the Masoretic text by Ben Chayyim. It’s not news for me.

Some believe Burgon was TRO (like D.A. Waite), but again I have not investigated those claims to see whether that was true or not. The most important thing is that Burgon exposed Westcott and Hort’s Revised Version. I do want to read his work sometime. It is on my long list of books to read.

The gift of tongues is not understandable by most people, which is why an interpreter is required (in public). Speaking in tongues privately is understood by God.

Do you really think that this kind of trivia deserves an answer?

As you may be aware, Erasmus’ Parallel Greek and Latin printed editions (Which was later filtered by Stephanus and Beza’s printed editions) were based on actual MSS. For the Greek MSS: Erasmus used manuscripts like 1, 1rK, 2e, 2ap, 4ap, 7, and 817[1][2]. Erasmus had a vast manuscript collection and was familiar with every reading known at that time, rejecting those matching the Catholic Vulgate[2]

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Did-Erasmus-use-JRCJRrBuRg6dsa0Y30rYjw

Continuing on...

A quick survey of the various translations show that some have three days and some have four. Obviously, the source documents are not consistent, so the NIV translators chose "three" for the most recent edition.

What is your point?

But the enemies of the Textus Receptus and the KJB don' t want Christians to know these facts. Instead they mock Erasmus and his "handful of manuscripts". But his scholarship was far, far superior to any of these critics. Erasmus was essentially a part of the Reformation, and his contributions to the Bible are outstanding. God used Erasmus at the right time, and in the right place. He also mocked the Catholic Church in his book In Praise of Folly (which I own).

@Dino246

I wanted to clarify my last post to you. I meant to say that the Catholic Church had in the past once killed Christians who had the reformation Bibles. They are not currently killing Christians who are spreading the Bible today. I went outside my time window to edit the post while proofreading it.