The Error of KJV-Onlyism

I trust you are aware that no modern version is completely reliable (including this one).

Holman CSB
And most certainly, the mystery of godliness is great: He was manifested in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory. (1 Tim 3:16)
Westcott and Hort / [NA27 variants]
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Ὃς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί, ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι, ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις, ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν, ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ, ἀνελήμφθη ἐν δόξῃ.

KJB
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Stephanus Textus Receptus 1550
καὶ ὁμολογουμένως μέγα ἐστὶν τὸ τῆς εὐσεβείας μυστήριον· Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί ἐδικαιώθη ἐν πνεύματι ὤφθη ἀγγέλοις ἐκηρύχθη ἐν ἔθνεσιν ἐπιστεύθη ἐν κόσμῳ ἀνελήφθη ἐν δόξῃ

That word in the Received Text and corresponding texts is THEOS. This is important since "he" can mean anyone including Christ. The naysayers love to show that Jesus is not God. That the reason "he" (which is actually "who" in Greek) is there is because the abbreviation for God in the Greek very closely resembles "who". However, every manuscripts has "THEOS" other than the ones supporting Westcott and Hort.

No examples necessary; it's common knowledge. Anyone who knows how to use Google can look it up and find it easily. You have no good explanation so you're just trying to deflect.

According to KJVO, God has preserved His word without one jot or tittle being changed. So, my question is: Which KJV edition is the perfectly preserved word? You may have your own answer to this question; however, my point is simply that the KJVO argument that modern translations don't agree with each other is weak and hypocritical because neither do the KJV editions.

#1. The Benjamin Blayney KJV edition (1769) Oxford (Which today is really the 1893 or 1894 Oxford editions with the Apocrypha removed).#2. The Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) (most likely by A.W. Pollard).

And essentially they are the same in content. Most differences involve only spelling, punctuation, and italics, and few variations materially affect the meaning of the text. The Apocrypha was never integrated into the OT but it helped to remove it.

The "Johannine Comma" is a short clause found in 1 John 5:7–8.

Erasmus omitted the text of the Johannine Comma from his first and second editions of the Greek-Latin New Testament (the Novum Instrumentum omne) because it was not in his Greek manuscripts. He added the text to his Novum Testamentum omne in 1522 after being accused of reviving Arianism and after he was informed of a Greek manuscript that contained the verse,[5] although he expressed doubt as to its authenticity in his Annotations.[6][7]

Many subsequent early printed editions of the Bible include it, such as the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1610), and the King James Bible (1611). Later editions based on the Textus Receptus, such as Robert Young's Literal Translation (1862) and the New King James Version (1979), include the verse. In the 1500s it was not always included in Latin New Testament editions, though it was in the Sixto-Clementine Vulgate (1592).

Wikipedia

Second, it is not hypocritical for KJV Believers to say that Modern Bibles disagree with each other because Modern Bibles make substantive intentional changes and not updates in printing errors, and standardization in spelling, and grammar, etcetera. Theology is different between the Modern Bibles themselves. But overall, the Modern Bibles stand in stark contrast in doctrine when you compare the KJV vs. Modern Bibles.

The (alleged) excellence of a translation has nothing to do with the shortcomings of other translations. This is a fallacy I see repeated often by KJV-only advocates.

Are there bad translations out there? Undoubtedly. Does their existence make the KJV a better translation? Absolutely not.

My point here is that there are many GOOD evidences to believe in a perfect Word of God for today

Even a single erroneously translated word makes the KJV NOT "perfect"... and there are many. You are free to reject "modern Bibles" based on the criteria you select as critical, and I am free to reject the KJV on the criteria I select as critical.

How do you explain this? Is God really going to operate with rank heretics who deceive?
It makes no sense.

You’re right… it doesn’t make sense that you ignore the largest pseudo-Christian cults that all started with the KJV.

Not at all. There are confessions of faith that support the KJB as the inspired words of God through history long before Ruckman and Riplinger. There were also the 1611 KJV loyalists who burned down the warehouses that were putting forth KJV updates (fixing printing errors, and updating the spelling, grammar, etc.), as well.

Here is just a small sampling:

1678: The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." Note: Logically, the Bible in England at this time involving Baptists would have been the King James Bible. (Source).

1762: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Cambridge Warehouse down in protest the update of the KJV by Paris, destroying all but several copies. (Source)

1769: The KJV update by Blayney: A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Oxford Warehouse down in protest, destroying all but several copies. (Source)

1817: The Tennessee Association of Baptists established the Authorized King James Version of the Holy Bible as its standard in their 1817 meeting.

"We believe that any person, either in a public or private capacity who would adhere to, or propagate any alteration of the New Testament contrary to that already translated by order of King James the 1st, that is now in common use, ought not be encouraged but agreeable to the Apostles words to mark such and have no fellowship with them; and for the authority of our belief we refer to the following scriptures, viz: Deuteronomy 4th Chapter and 2 verse, Chapter 12 and 32 Chapter 28 and verse 14, Joshua 1 and 7, Proverbs 30 and 6, Rev. 22 and 18, 19, 2 John 10 verse."

1830: Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

1857: "The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).

1868: The General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, "we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James's version."

1882: Author William W. Simkins wrote, "I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)

1884: Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopedia - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.

"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."

"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."

1890: The Supreme Court said, "the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects." (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).

1896: The Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say "We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice."

1897: "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers hands for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, and they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called the best translation in the world, and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...(Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.).

1905: Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that "the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost."

1935: The Christian Unity Baptist Association said, "We believe in using only the King James version of the Bible."

You’re still carefully ignoring the cults.

You’re still carefully ignoring the cults.

I have a qestion. Is the KJV bible More reliable than the NWT Bible?

I have a qestion. Is the KJV bible More reliable than the NWT Bible?

Sometimes a smear campaign is used to discredit believing in a perfect Word as the Bible teaches. You do not accept the plain verses in Scripture that talk about a perfect or pure Word being preserved today (Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, 1 Peter 1:23 cf. 1 Peter 2:2). There are even other verses that indirectly imply this idea, as well. For example: 1 Corinthians 1:10 says we are all to speak the same thing. But in the Modern Bible Movement, this is simply not possible. You cannot speak the same thing if Modern Bibles all say things differently between each other and Modern scholars do not even agree on what manuscripts are the right ones. Yes, there is a primacy of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and the Ben Asher text (for the Hebrew), but other manuscripts can alter future readings of the Bible. Meaning, you don't have a settled text, and that sits well with liberals or those looking to change God's Word.