The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Except for the time the KJV translators falsely translated passover as easter the pagan holiday

Being a creole language, Modern English has many words which have changed meaning unlike more inflected languages. Thusly, the KJ bibles are not without archaisms, and "false friends".

None the less, the word should have been translated as passover not easter.

Cool. Thanks for sharing Chuck's message. I remember this one very well. Great info!

I love Chuck's teachings, but I did not agree with him on everything, such as being a pre-Tribber.

Regarding your statement, "He (Chuck Missler) said it is the only trustworthy translation." This is not exactly true. I watched this video all the way through, and what he said about the KJV beginning around 08:33 was that the translators of the 1611 KJV had as the primary thing they relied on "for the New Testament" (not for the Old Testament) was the Textus Receptus (TR), a Greek Translation of the NT. He states that the TR, even to this day is one of the noblest documents of English prose, which gives majesty and veneration to the KJV. You may want to go back and watch that. I don't remember Chuck ever talking about the differences between the Masoretic Text and the LXX. I only just learned about this in the last couple years from ABR (Associates for Biblical Research), a group of Christian archeologists, not sure how new this info is.

BTW, A friend of mine who knew people close to Chuck and his pastor, Chuck Smith, told him that Chuck changed his view from pre-Trib to pre-Wrath near the end of his life. Don't know for sure, but hope he did. As events unfold around the world, it is more evident to me that we are in the End Days. If Chuck were still here and he experienced what we have experienced in the last few years, he may have changed his view from pre-Trib to pre-Wrath. I personally believe that based on current events, especially since 2020 (Chuck died in 2018), we may be in the end time seals talked about in Rev 6 and within a year of the pre-Wrath rapture. What? I may be wrong, and I hope I am, but I'm keeping my eyes on Sept of this year where many events are planned that could bring on the rapture and then God's Wrath. Things planned up until Sept this year are 1) renewal agreement (or covenant) with the many (nations) through the UN, 2) the implementation of the One World Government through the WHO, UN, and WEF, and 3) sacrifice of a red heafer needed to begin the sacrifices in Jerusalem.

I could have driven just 80 miles North to meet Chuck and attend one of his studies. I so wish I had done that as I surely do miss him, but his videos are preserved online, so I'm grateful for that. Our Bible Study still watches them. His pastor, Chuck Smith, led my pastor, Mike MacIntosh to the Lord back in the 60s (I believe it was) and was an associate pastor under him.

Blessings to you!

Yes, I meant Shem! Thanks for the correction.

Correcction again. I meant Seth. Dah!

I believe God could have potentially communicated advanced revelation with the printing errors and updates in the 6 Major KJV editions. But the 7th edition KJV (Pure Cambridge) (circa. 1900) reflects perfectly what the 1600s English can convey of the originals. But I also hold to the possibility that they were errors in the 6 KJV editions and God’s Word was preserved with the hand written master copy. I am not dogmatic either way. We just don’t have enough information. What I do have is faith that God preserved a set of His words that are word perfect or with error somewhere. Before the KJV, this perfect Bible most likely would have been the Waldenses Latin Italic Bible (that was destroyed by the Catholics).

For future reference, you have a 5 minute edit window to correct mistakes .

Mark Ward is for the position that you to study the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. But this is almost nearly impossible to learn unless you trust the dictionaries from German rationalists or modern scholars who treat the Bible like silly putty and form man made translation theories. So you are actually in a worse position. You can generally look at the context and study archaic words. But yes. I believe you can use Modern Bibles sometimes. But I am not looking to change the KJV like many today. Folks act like they have the originals next to them and they correct the 47 translators who would run circles around them.

I would have to investigate further his position on the KJV. I was blessed by a few of his studies over the years. I do disagree with him on his acceptance of OSAS.

The Westcott and Hort deception is one of the many reasons why I reject in putting complete trust in the Modern Bibles. There is a lot of false doctrine in Modern Bibles, too.

Blessings to you, as well.

Meant to say without error.

Because man is not perfect, and it's too easy to make mistakes, I don't hold to any perfect translations, especially into English. But, I do believe that God has preserved every part of His Word that is essential for our salvation and spiritual growth.

It isn't that simple. Latin has been used to reconstruct the definitions of Hebrew and Greek words, as well as, syntax grammar. But using Latin-English syntax has warped Hebrew and Greek grammar studies. Thusly, there is much in a greek grammar book which is wrong with authority. The 2nd aorist is present tense, and not imperfect indicative; the article is not an indefinite one; passive verbs and active verbs don't require filler objects, etc.

You are certainly welcome to your views.

For myself, I consider the view that the "perfect" word of God exists only in English to be completely ludicrous.

Before I address you post here, I would like to correct you on a previous statement in regards to Chuck Missler and the KJV: Chuck did in fact recommend the KJV as the most trustworthy translation in his book, “How we got our Bible.” Just look at the reviews on Amazon, and it show you a reviewer disagreeing with Chuck’s favor of the KJV. So yes. Chuck believes the KJV is the most trustworthy translation. Buy the book and read it if you don't believe me. I have his Kindle Book of "Learn the Bible in 24 hours." In that book, he defends the longer ending in Mark (Which generally goes against the popular Modern scholar view or the Modern Bible Movement). Chuck speaks negatively of the Alexandrian texts (like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus - which is the two foundational NT Greek texts used for most of your Modern Bibles today). If you noticed the video I sent to you before, Chuck attacks Westcott and Hort who were the defenders of these two manuscripts (i.e., the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the current Modern Bible Movement. What makes matters worse is that Westcott and Hort used deception when putting forth their English translaton called the Revised Version. It says in the half title page that it was the version set forth in 1611AD. But this is a lie. The changes are evident between the KJV vs. Revised Version because many of the same key verses that are corrupted by current Modern Bibles the same holds true for the Revised Version. Even Modern scholars today know that the Revised Version is based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. One poster here who is in defense of Modern Bibles admits to Westcott and Hort's deception involving the Revised Version and he does not care. To make it even more insane, Westcott and Hort had a Unitarian on their translation committee, as well.

Modern Bibles say that certain verses are missing because they are not in the oldest and best manuscripts. They are referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and yet they generally do not tell you this (as if they have something to hide). What do they have to hide? Well, the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the best manuscripts. They have corrections on them. For example, we read this about Codex Vaticanus (B) — “The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.” More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th and 15th centuries. Those who study manuscripts say, All this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript “the oldest and the best.” On the next page you will see an example of the problems that come into play when there are multiple corrections within a manuscript. The page is from 4th century Codex Vaticanus. Here we see Hebrews 1 of Codex Vaticanus. Though hard to see in this size, notice the marginal note between the first and second column. A corrector of the text had erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in its place. A second corrector came along, erased the correction, reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin to castigate the first corrector. The note reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” What about Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, which was a Greek Orthodox Monastery, by Constantin Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them, but did not get the remainder of the manuscript until 1859. Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting off four different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems! The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen’s corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So much for the oldest!! “On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.” He goes on to say, “…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words, even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” (Source)

It is that simple. Your side wants me to study languages that are long dead to get the real meaning of God and I have to bend the knee and kiss the ring of the scholar in the hopes that he will give me the understanding on what the Bible truly says. But in the Bible believing view, all I have to do is just read and believe the Bible simply and like a child. Everyone knows 1600s English is easier to know than dead languages like Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek. You speak these languages to people in English speaking countries, and most will not understand it. That's the point here that you are side-stepping. You are ignoring reality, dear sir.

On a side note: By any chance, are you in support of the Biden administration?

Also, you must surely know that if God did decide to preserve His words perfectly in the Waldenses Latin Italic Bible before He preserved His words in the KJV, then this argument is a moot point. I believe the Bible in that God preserved His words perfectly. There are verses that talk about the doctrines of purity and preservation of His Word in several places. The Bible says we are to all speak the same thing. This is not possible in the Modern Bible Movement. However, creators of Modern Bibles have to change 10% of the text to obtain a copyright. That is not a good motivation. But 10% must be changed. So its focus is not on what the wording truly says alone. All Modern Bibles must make that 10% change. Generally, this is done for greedy purposes. For example: If you create an app, and you want to use a Modern Bible, you have to pay them fees which can range from hundreds to thousands of dollars. This is not the case with the KJV.

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.

To the outside natural man: It's no more ludicrous than believing that the faithful saints will fly through the air in the "Caught up" event to meet the LORD in the air. It's also no more ludicous than Jesus coming to life three days later after His death by crucifixion.

But God's Word says that His words are pure words, and that they will be preserved forever.
Jesus said heaven and earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
There are missing words of Jesus in Modern Bibles.
Modern Bibles even make Jesus appear to sin sometimes. It's horrible.
But people bend over backwards trying to see otherwise of course.

The problem with this line of thinking is that there is no Bible verse or passage to support this claim.