The Error of KJV-Onlyism

What if I could prove to folks that the Bible today is perfect?

Check out this video here to learn more.

You are not understanding what I am saying and that is ok. Blessings!

That is like a JW bible with the publisher not known. Your point is valid. I would use the term " liberal Modern Bible," which has an agenda to remove Christ from the word of God. That is my point: the KJV doesn't do that. Nor is it a liberal Version.

Are we to tag the KJV and the NIV pre-1984 as unreadable? Some have. I don't think you have done that. I have not seen that.

The modern Bible can be useful IF the person of Christ is kept in context. Liberal theology is nothing new; it has been around since the 1950s.

The issue today is lazy people who do not study the word of God and look to these YouTube-wannabe prophets and self-proclaimed pastors and Apostles. The Biblical illiterate is the problem.

Personally, I like the KJV and typically read from it, BUT, I'm also aware of it's few anomalies and translation issues, and also use other translations to double ck such as the interlinear.

This is a very reasonable position and I think one of the best one could have.

I honestly feel that this whole idea of a superior version of God's word is so very silly, but only in 2 main ways that I feel actually hurt.
The first is the split it causes in the body of believers. I think this is the WORST reason for believers to divide themselves and condemn each other for. I'm not saying at all to not have your own preference and to give reasons for and be able to debate the matter with your brothers. BTW this is what is taking place here, I think it's a good thing, but if you go to a KJV Only church that speaks out condemning the "others" that don't believe what they do as not even being brothers, I have a big problem with that kind of division.

This is a bigger problem in my opinion, but it's the presenting this one version as the only "miraculous, inerrant, unapproachable, WORD OF GOD that cannot be questioned or checked into" kind of divine status they over dramatize this version with. When it paints a picture and sets a standard that is #1 impossible to measure up to, but even more too easy to poke holes through, even if those holes are just a matter of perspective or opinion. It's set up for even the smallest perceived flaw to be grounds for complete dismissal in the lost/seekers eye. It's no different than what the Muslim does with the Quran.(argument wise, of course the KJV has the fact it IS the word of God on it's side).

I never saw the Bible as the word of God until His Spirit opened my eyes to it, it's not something we can convince others of in that way. While I of course know the KJV is the word of God and stand on His word like all who have been born again do, in truth, but convincing others of this is the job of only one, and one alone, and it's not you or me. So I truly believe the idea of coming at it like "This is the word of God, prefect in every way", is honestly coming at it with the wrong emphasis for anyone who doesn't already believe that. I just don't see a point in making it the biggest focus honestly.

All the respected Modern English Bibles (ESV, NIV, CSB, NET) have false doctrines within them. While they are formal equivalent Bibles, they are all liberal Bibles in the sense of how they were created, and the false doctrines they teach. The one link I gave you on the NIV's Catholic ideas (that you did not check) shows an agenda and a corruption. All the NIVs have these changes.

You seemed to be involved in another conversation that I never started. I never brought up any issue of the readability of both the KJV and, the NIV together. I believe the KJV is the perfect words of God for today, and the Modern Bibles like the NIV are corrupt (Although we can use them if it aligns with what is said in the KJV). The issue here is not readability but accuracy. Something can be easy to read, but it can be false or wrong, and therefore, it is not going to help anyone. I would rather go with the KJV even despite its difficult archaic wording because it is accurate, and not corrupted. The Modern Bibles are corrupted and teach false doctrines. So readability is not the issue here.

Uh, I don't think you understand the level of corruption that is in Modern Bibles. Again, I would go back and check the links to my posts within this thread to help you to see what I am talking about.

Before Modern Bibles became popular in the 60s and 70s, generally it was liberal churches who favored Modern Bibles here in America. But liberal theology was long before that time. Westcott and Hort were closet liberals and they were attempting to sneak in a different text in the disguise as a KJV update (i.e., the Revised Version of 1881). Poster “ResidentAlien” here on the forums admits to this deception, and he simply does not care or see it is a problem. Would you follow a Bible Movement that is based on deception and lies? I sure wouldn't. But he doesn’t have a problem with that. It makes me want to puke.

Right, and I would say that a person is being biblically illiterate if they do not see the changes between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles and see that these changes are for the worse, and not for the better.

Your position was a little fuzzy to me. So I replied in such a way to address both known KJV viewpoints on Acts 12:4 involving the word "Easter."


Do you hold to a viewpoint that is not on this list? If so, I would be curious to know what it is.

That's pretty funny to claim a translation take the place of the original

But you're interlinear/dictionary usually is an interpretation or translation of another person who is just as equally human and fallible and prone to make mistakes. Surely interlinear/dictionaries are not inspired by God and neither are they perfect. So then, you or some Modern Scholar becomes the authority and not the Bible itself. Look to the Bible itself and you can see the fruit of it. The King James Bible is the most printed book in the world and has caused great revivals (unlike the Modern Bibles and Modern Scholarship). In fact, Modern Scholarship or the Modern Bible Movement is all based on lies and deception with Westcott and Hort trying to pass off their Revised Version as a KJV update when in reality it was based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Even the poster named "Resident Alien" in this thread admits to this lie and deception and he simply doesn't care. I wouldn't follow a movement based on lies and deception, but some people do not have a problem with that. Also, Scripture itself teaches that God’s words are pure and they are preserved forever. So it is a matter of faith and not by sight. You may see error in the KJV, but that is your own human limited thinking. I am sure folks seen error in Jesus, but He was the perfect Son of God who died for the sins of the whole world so as to present mankind with the gift of eternal life.

The deceptions do not end with Westcott and Hort.

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 (i.e., the Trinity).

Not only is 1 John 5:7 removed, but the word “Godhead” (Which means Trinity) is changed to say something else. So all direct references of the Trinity are removed in Modern Bibles. Your Modern Bible is neutered like a cat and you cannot properly defend the Trinity with direct references like the real Bible (the KJV).

Anyway, the main point here is that the Modern Bible Movement is filled with lies and deception. We see a pattern already in just these two points I brought up. But there is more of course. Does anyone care?

My guess is that most don’t care.
This is why we are living in the last days.

I don't know of one single Bible that removes Christ from the word of God, i.e., the Bible. Cany you give an example?

The "modern Bible", whatever that means, is as useful as an earlier translation. There are many "modern" Bibles, and all say essentially the same thing (not including, of course, translations created for a specific cult, e.g., the New World Translation). Modern Bibles (whatever that term means) contain God's word in its entirety; that has nothing to do with "Liberal theology".

I cannot help but wonder what the true agenda is of the latter-day Pharisees who hold the King James translation to be the only valid translation. It is madness.

Every reason I have ever read for their belief is nuts. For example, there is a "modern Bible movement", as though today's translators and publishers secretly got together to plot how they could distort "the true word of God". Have you ever heard of anything so insane?

The truth is that modern scholars from all denominations have gotten together to produce translations in our native language, using the best sources, scholarship, and resources. We are blessed to have the modern translations that we have! There is a translation for everyone, regardless of their level of literacy, understanding of God, the Trinity, God's purpose for His creation, God's love for all people, etc.

I feel very sorry for people who are trapped by the lie that the King James translation is the only valid one. It is one of many translations, and has been modified over time (therefore was never perfect.) The same thing can be claimed for the NIV, the NRSVue, the NET, and others, which have been modified since their initial publication. There is a continuing effort by the translators to modify and improve their translations as new sources are discovered, the understanding of the ancient language increases, and how modern readers interpret the language of the Bible. For example, prior to the publication of the latest NIV, extensive research was done to analyze modern English usage. The translators wanted to be sure that, as much as possible, the Bible text would be accurately understood by modern readers.

By contrast, compare that to the King James translation. It was created over four centuries ago in the common language of that time, which of course is not the common language of today. It was never a perfect translation! That is a myth created by KJV-only people; it cannot be shown to be true. (As a matter of interest, which revision of the King James Bible is the perfect one???) There is no question that, because more than 400 years have passed since its creation, the King James Bible is more difficult to understand than a modern translation. THAT IS A FACT! The language of the King James Bible is a DEAD LANGUAGE, i.e., it is not used anywhere in the world as the current language.

I am constantly amazed by KJV-only people who post on this forum (and others) whose command of the English language is obviously lacking. Yet they claim to understand the King James Englyshe perfectly. Amazing!

In summary, KJV-only people are deluded. They are blinded and cannot accept the truth. They cling to one single translation ordered by a king for political reasons, and reject modern versions because of their complete lack of understanding (willful or not) of how those translations were created.

We have the best translations today than have ever been available. I encourage everyone to read the translation that "speaks" to them most clearly, in their normal language. God wants to communicate clearly to you through His printed word. Mark 12:33, "To love him with all your heart, with all your understanding and with all your strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.”

Ephesians 1:7-9, "In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ"

yes, contextually the only reason an influx of people to Jerusalem makes sense is Passover. unleavened bread is mentioned. Christians are being persecuted. they do not understand Christ's resurrection as something 'different' than firstfruits, but the revelation of the true meaning of the feast, and likewise Pesach to be fully revealed in the offering of the Lamb of God. there is no such thing as 'Jewish Passover vs Christian Passover' — only God's Passover, and some know it is fulfilled and others deny it.

so the people who filled Jerusalem at the time are not there for a new holiday by another name, but for Passover - whether they are believers or not.

but as we know i do not agree that easter is a synonym for Passover. there is a better argument that it is for firstfruits - and that too, would be clearly a mistranslation, because the word in the language God choose to record scripture in, is Pascha.

Would somebody please post this for Jamessb to see? He has ignored my posts. He does not appear to believe the word “Christ” is removed in the Bible (KJV).

Here it is a snapshot from my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible being the Pure Word of God:

i would argue this **might** make sense in 1 Corinthians for example, but not in Acts 12.

i would further argue it doesn't make sense in either case, it's still the Levitical feasts being fulfilled, not something new being created, and Resurrection took place on firstfruits, not Passover.

no translation "causes“ a revival.
neither does any preacher or tent.
not even prayer.

only God

apparently the 1611 one, tho no one uses it,
"because arbitrary numerology"

lol


it's a joke, relax.