The Error of KJV-Onlyism

If a translation is from man (like with Modern Bibles)

if the translation was from God, then it would be the work of the LORD under the preservation of GOD, and the content of such an inspired translation

God after all magnifies His word above His own name (See: Psalms 138:2 KJV).

That's a gross assumption that has no evidentiary basis, so your comments based on it are also baseless.


That's a gross misuse of "inspired". The only "inspired" translations are the ones in the record of Scripture. No "modern" translation (post 70AD) is "inspired". God didn't "breathe" the KJV wording... period.


Quoting the KJV version of that verse is never going to convince me that the KJV rendering is correct, nor that the "doctrine" based on it is sound.

I worship God.

God's Word, which is what God says, has become flesh.

His Name is Jesus Christ so do you worship Him?

God's Word, which is what God says, has become flesh.

His Name is Jesus Christ so do you worship Him?

Anyone who says that the King James translation is the pure Word of God is totally wrong! There is absolutely no evidence to prove that preposterous claim.

It is just one of many translations and has been modified several times over the 413 years of its existence.

Unlike some, I do not worship a book!

In case people need to be reminded, neither God nor Jesus spoke English.

They seemed to have clearly overlooked this fact: the word "faith" appears in the King James Bible 336 times, while in the NIV it appears 458 times (36% more often!) That should tell them something!

You would think that people would know better, but exactly like the Pharisees of the New Testament, they claim to have knowledge that others do not.

I have 101 Reasons, and so I beg to differ.



Sorry. Your mistaken. Printing errors that were later corrected don’t count; And KJB believers regard either the 1769 Oxford KJV edition or the 1900 Pure Cambridge KJV edition as the settled KJV edition for today. Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks. Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well.



Right, and this would be false slander because most KJV believers have not claimed to worship a book.

Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well.

This caught my eye, do you happen to have some examples at hand? Which (modern) Bible versions would be affected?

I decided to read this post, even though I will continue to have you on "ignore" status.

a) Your information about KJV revisions is incorrect.

Now you are qualifying which versions are correct, thereby implying that the others are not correct. If, as you claim, the KJV is the perfect word of God, how can differing versions be correct?

b) Your statements that "Modern Bibles have tons of intentional changes to them. They do it to maintain the copyrights and get monetary kickbacks" and "Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, as well" are both nonsense.

And you wonder why I have you on "ignore"! I will continue to keep you on that status until you begin to make any sense at all.

This caught my eye, do you happen to have some examples at hand? Which (modern) Bible versions would be affected?

Your statement that.... "Modern Bibles also teach false doctrines, .... are... nonsense.

Uh, no. I've looked into this before, and it is not as you claim. You need to prove that the major KJV editions used by the people at large went through intentional and gross changes by those who updated them. Until you come back with proof or evidence, your claim is simply an empty one. You are only saying this mindlessly because you don’t like the idea of a perfect Word to be under authority-to because you are your own authority. You have no Bible that you can hold in your hands and declare it to be the perfect, inerrant, words of God. You prefer the translation theories of men that comes from German Rationalism instead of simply believing God's Word by faith in that His words are pure and that they are preserved as Scripture teaches.



While Psalms 12:6 has a primary meaning, it also has a prophetic one.

Psalms 12:6 (KJV)
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

So just as there are seven purifications mentioned here, there are seven MAJOR KJB editions that the church used.
It was finally settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) which happened to be the 1st major KJV edition used today that used offset printing technology and not movable type printing. Movable type printing always led to printing errors. But of course God is sovereign and He is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33).


The NIV website says you cannot quote more than 500 verses in any form (including audio, which is speaking). First, this just sounds greedy and controlling. What motivation do they have to be so restrictive? Surely after a company creates a copyright on a book, they can also acquire a Creative Commons license that permits others to quote from their work entirely without charge, while still safeguarding it against alteration and prohibiting individuals from profiting from it for personal gain.

Furthermore, New Modern Bibles are derivative works. A derivative work must contain a sufficient amount of original and creative content that distinguishes it from the original work. Also, why does there have to be so many NIVs that are different? The KJV was trying to get back to the original and fix printing errors. The NIV has no such excuse. The new changes they make are horrific. Mark 4:1 is one example. Another is the 2011 NIV, which has gotten a lot of flack even by Textual Critics.

Also, the claim is made that Modern Translations are created by non profit organizations as if to suggest that a non profit organization cannot make profit. This is an illusion or deception. The average annual Biblica Inc Salary for President & Chief Executive Officer is estimated to be approximately $737225 per year. Obviously, Joel Olsteen files his church as a non profit, and yet he is a millionaire as a result of his mega church. Just go to a Christian book store, and look up how many NIV study bibles there are and ask yourself, “Is this really just for non-profit reasons, or does it look like they are doing this for personal financial gain here?”

As for false doctrines in Modern Bibles:

Obviously you like the Modern Bibles because they remove direct references of the Trinity, and they water down the deity of Jesus Christ.
Many liberals like Modern Bibles because it fits their liberal theology.
Westcott and Hort were liberals. I think one of them (possibly both) rejected the Genesis account as being literal.



I believe the truth upsets you, and that is why you have me on ignore. But we can agree to disagree of course.

May God's good ways be upon you (even if we do not agree on what the Bible says).

The majority of Modern Bibles teach false doctrines. After all, most of your Modern Bibles come from a different line or stream of manuscripts than the KJV.

For anyone who wants the truth, here is part of the introduction to the NRSVue Bible (with my emphases in bold):

Motivated by love and respect for Scripture, the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA (NCC) hopes that you will find this New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (NRSVue) suitable to inspire, inform, and guide daily living. The goal of the NRSVue is to offer a readable and accurate version of the Holy Bible to the global English-speaking community for public worship and personal study, for scholarship and study in classrooms, and for informing faith and action in response to God." [read that sentence again!!!]

Together with religious leaders from diverse communities of faith, we join in the conviction that the Scriptures offer good news of God’s love—wisdom to guide, hope to sustain, truth to empower, forgiveness to change, and peace to bless all of creation.

The NRSVue extends the New Revised Standard Version’s (NRSV) purpose to deliver an accurate, readable, up-to-date, and inclusive version of the Bible. It also continues the work of offering a version as free as possible from the gender bias inherent in the English language, which can obscure earlier oral and written renditions. The NRSVue, like the NRSV, follows “in the tradition of the King James Bible, [introducing] such changes as are warranted on the basis of accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English usage, . . . as literal as possible, as free as necessary” As also stated in the NRSV preface, the Bible’s message “must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning; it must be presented in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.” (NRSV’s preface “To the Reader”).

The NRSV has been called the most accurate of English-language translations, based on the available manuscript evidence, textual analysis, and philological understanding. In the more than thirty years since its first publication, hundreds of ancient manuscripts have been studied in exacting detail. The NRSVue is informed by the results of this research. Laboring through this material has deepened scholarly insight into Jewish and Christian sacred texts and advanced understanding of ancient languages. With new textual evidence, historical insights, and philological understandings (which include exploring the meanings of ancient texts in light of the cultures that produced them), the NRSVue brings greater precision in interpreting Scripture today. The goal of these practices has been to translate the ancient texts as accurately as possible while reflecting the cultural differences across time and conditions. Such a translation approach permitted the Editorial Committee to present the text as literally as possible and as freely as necessary.

First published in 1611, the King James Version slowly but steadily attained a well-deserved stature as the English language’s “Authorized Version” of the Scriptures. At the same time, the scholarly foundation that produced the King James Version shifted as new manuscripts came to light and philological understandings improved. As a result of these scholarly advances, the Revised Standard Version was authorized to improve the translation, based on more evidence of the original texts and early translations of the Bible, the meanings of its original languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, as well as ancient translations into Arabic, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Georgian Greek, Syriac, and Latin), and changes to the English language itself.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare that to the misleading tripe that Bible Highlighter writes about modern Bibles!!!