The Error of KJV-Onlyism

No Bible "teaches" false doctrine. People teach false doctrines. What you keep avoiding is that people have used the KJV to teach false doctrines no less than people have used other translations.

The Catholics were off in left field before the KJV existed and long before Westcott and Hort. There have been spiritists through the ages too. As for Unitarians, I wouldn't even count them as pseudo-Christian.

Great claims require great evidence. Don't bother with the accusations unless you provide references to supporting documentation.

So you are saying that the New World Translation, The Queen James Bible, and the LOL Cat Bible do not teach false doctrines?
Even among the so-called reputable Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, too. While I have a lot more, as a sampling, I have shown 25 changed doctrines in Modern Bibles back in my post #1,777 in this thread.

I don’t think any person can truly be aware of this fact except God. He truly knows the statistics of this throughout history. But what I do know is that the Modern Translations themselves have teachings within them that are false because the Modern scholars used corrupted manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus for the Koine Greek, and the Ben Asher Text for the Hebrew). We know they are corrupted for many reasons.

But you fail to understand that the Catholics once favored the Latin Vulgate and yet they switched to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts (Which teach Catholic ideas). So they did not make a switch to the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus solely because they are older and better manuscripts. They had an agenda that was against Sola Scriptura. A French Catholic priest was the one who originated the idea of Modern Textual Criticism and Originals Onlyism.

Yes, but we are looking at a pattern of evidence associated with the Modern Bible Movement started by Westcott and Hort. While Westcott and Hort did not originate Spiritism by any means, they did partake of that practice and we see the ugly head of Spiritism raise its ugly head again in the Modern Bible Movement with various Modern Bible Translators. The King James Bible line does not have this pattern of evidence or connection.

Right, and that’s good. So then it should greatly disturb you that George Vance Smith who was a Unitarian minister had worked with Westcott and Hort in the Revised Version. Smith gloated in one of his Unitarian books in the fact that he succeeded in changing 1 Timothy 3:16.
Catholic ideas are taught in Modern Bibles. (Serious Omissions in the NIV Bible PDF, page 21)

Catholics later just come out and admit that they supervised the Greek NT Text that is used by most Modern English Bibles today. Below is a screencap taken of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text 27th Edition (New Testament Greek text). Note: The Nestle and Aland Critical Text is in its 28th edition now and it is the basis for most of the Modern English Bibles printed today. But the 27th edition below says this…



Source:
The KJB Only versus the Latin Vulgate Only Argument by: Another King James Bible Believer

I am going to repeat the text and highlight the key points.

“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

So…

#1. The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies.
#2. Following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies
#3. It has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. (Note: What is the word “it” referring to in this sentence? This could be referring to the text and it is the basis (foundation) for new translations and revisions (Modern Bibles)).
#4. The text is the basis for new bible translations made under their supervision (the Vatican) which marks a significant step in regards to inter-confessional relationships. Why does it mark a significant step? Because Carlo Martini (A Catholic cardinal) is an editor on the Nestle and Aland Critical Text.

In fact, let's check out the Nestle and Aland Critical Text page at Wikipedia called:

“Novum Testamentum Graece”


Novum Testamentum Graece - Wikipedia

Scroll down the page, and you will see pictures of Nestle, and Aland.
Note: Nestle worked on the Critical Text years before Aland.
Kurt Aland is the one who worked on the Critical Text involving the Vatican. How so?

Notice the highlighted words in the pic below

Carlo Maria Martini.



If you were to zoom in and look at the picture below Kurt Aland:



Again, who is Carlo Maria Martini?

As I said before, he is a Catholic cardinal.



Source:
Carlo Maria Martini - Wikipedia

Important Note: JUST CLICK ON THE LINK FOR CARLO MARIA MARTINI MENTIONED IN THE ARTICLE).

But wait. There’s more. Let’s look at Kurt Aland again. I circled his picture below for you to see him. You can see his name next to his picture.



Now in this photo, you can see Kurt Aland with the pope:



Why?

Because of this:




“The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and United Bible Societies, it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to inter confessionals relationships.”

Source:
Nestle and Aland Critical Text - 27the Edition.

In fact, the Catholic Church did not want you to read the KJB.



This is from a Catholic dictionary found inside the New American Bible (NAB), which is a Catholic Bible, first published in 1970.
You can see this screencap in a video by Theo Hikmat below.

The quote about Westcott having an "extraordinary power of realizing this Communion" with the spirits of the dead and delighting "to be alone at night in the great Cathedral" to commune with them is from Westcott's son Arthur's biography titled "Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott".

As for Hort: I wanted to go back in and re-edit my post but I went outside my 5 minute window.

Hort wrote to Westcott, October 17, 1865: “I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’-worship have very much in common in their causes and their results” (Hort, Life of Hort, II:50).

In the same letter, Hort expressed admiration for John Henry Newman, an influential figure in the Oxford Movement who converted to Catholicism. Both Westcott and Hort were influenced by the Oxford Movement's "high church" principles, which sought to reintroduce certain Catholic traditions into the Anglican Church.

Source: https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Context-of-Hort-d8Eu4LWuRSegeW1dv8E41w

You may try to dispute Psalms 12:6-7 because of your Modern Translation bias on verse 7, but you cannot alter 1 Peter 1:23. It’s talking about the communicated Word of God because 1 Peter 2:2 tells us to desire the sincere milk of the Word. The words "milk of the word" appear even in the NAS Modern Bibles.

@Dino246

As for the source on Unitarian influence on Modern Bibles (like with George Vance Smith on the Revised Version), you can check the sources in this article here:

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/George_Vance_Smith

I mean, if you were to take this fact above and then look at all the verses that are watered down involving the deity of Jesus Christ in Modern Bibles, you will begin to connect the dots, my friend.

Don't be ridiculous. Nobody is recommending such intentional corruptions of Scripture as worthwhile.

I was only taking your words at face value. You said, I quote,

This is simply not a true statement. In your view, this would be no reputable Bible teaches false doctrine.
But I have already demonstrated that even your so-called reputable Modern Bibles do teach false doctrines back in post #1,777 of this thread. The ball is in your court to answer them. There is even more that I could add to that list, too. It will be in my 150 Reasons for the KJB being the Pure Word of God for Today.

The alleged "removal" of doctrines is not "false teaching". Noting that a verse does not appear in a particular translation is not anywhere close to proving that the doctrine has been "removed". First, you need to establish that the verse in question belongs, and it is a fallacy to use the KJV as a basis for comparison in this regard. Secondly, you need to establish that your interpretation of the verse(s) in question is correct, and again, you can't simply state that the KJV text provides the doctrine.

So, the ball is back in your court, because you thought you served an ace, but you flubbed your shot.

@turbosixx

If you are interested, I just finished creating my PDF write-up explaining more the position of Core KJB.

Why I am Core KJB

I hope this helps, and may God bless you greatly.

Stop right here. This is why I know you did not even bother to look at my list carefully. There is not only a watering down of certain doctrines like the Trinity, the deity of Christ, etcetera, but there are actual doctrines that are taught in Modern Bibles that are false and heretical. Your Modern Bibles teach Jesus had a beginning in Micah 5:2 (ESV) (CSB) (LSB) (NET) when most Bible-believing Christians all know Jesus is eternal. Some Modern Bibles even say Jesus is the begotten God (John 1:18) (AMP) (BLB) (NASB) (LSV). Different Modern Translations say that He “emptied himself” (ESV), and the NLT says that “he gave up his divine privileges;” (Philippians 2:7). This is false, and it is a denial of the deity of Christ. God cannot cease to become God. God cannot cut out an aspect of who He is at His core in having divine power and yet still be God. That would be a contradiction. The Modern Translations teach a gnostic heresy in denying that Jesus has power as God. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21). Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19). The command to remove yourself from those who think that “gain is godliness” is missing in 1 Timothy 6. We should not hang out or fellowship with prosperity teachers or money-grabbing believers. Their influence can rub off on you to think the same way. Their bad influence can lead you to chase after riches instead of righteousness. The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). 1 Timothy 6:5 says we are to withdraw ourselves from those who think “gain” is “godliness.” Modern Bibles make you believe that Jesus will at one time call sinners to repentance and yet at another point in time He will simply call sinners without repentance. The KJV tells us to search the Scriptures (John 5:39), but modern Bibles sound like they are discussing how the Jews searched the Scriptures in the past tense. This is a problem because I have encountered many Christians who criticize us believers for taking the Word of God too seriously, and they use this tense in the Modern versions as proof of this. In addition, it is highly suspicious that the very teachings of the Bible concerning the Word of God are changed in Modern English Translations to favor the beliefs of Modern Textual Criticism, particularly in verses like Psalms 12:6-7, Psalms 138:2, Romans 10:17, 1 Peter 2:2, and 2 Corinthians 2:17. It is hard to ascribe these alterations in Modern Bibles as mere random chance, especially given the fact that they align with the tenets of Eclecticism in Bible Translation or Rationalism.

Toyota. Do you know Toyotas have a reputation for lasting longer generally than other vehicles?
So when I compare a Toyota 4 Runner to say a Jeep Grand Cherokee, there really is no comparison if you know your vehicles or have done the research. The same is true with the Bible. If you test drive the real deal (the KJV) and compare that to the second-rate imposter Modern Bibles, there is no real comparison. The choice is obvious. Granted, people still buy cars that are horrible even though they look bright and shiny.

Anyway, my point is that you have to look at history and see which Bible had the most influence and impact (i.e., good fruit).

There are many ways we can tell that the KJV is the preserved Word of God today, and Modern Bibles are corrupt. Manuscript witnesses and history favor the KJB. The King James Bible does have superior doctrine by a simple side by side comparison with Modern Bibles. The KJB is the most printed book in the world, and many within English-speaking countries believed it was the Word of God for hundreds of years. The KJB withstood the test of time under great opposition. Unique superior qualities of the KJB. (a) Thous, and Thees help you to distinguish between a singular person being spoken to vs. two or more people. Many Modern bibles do not have this distinction or quality. (b) The KJB was not originally created with a copyright and so its creation was not motivated by one, unlike Modern Translations. (c) The KJB has italicized words, which shows the honesty of the translators. (d) KJB is easier to memorize (e) KJB was designed to be spoken and heard by the ear.

Not at all. You are simply dreaming that this happened. The KJV stands clearly as the Word of God based on many evidences or reasons.

This Google Drive link asks for logging in and it requires a granted permission to be able to download that file. Is it on purpose this way? (I requested permission to view that file)

@Tims @turbosixx

My apologies. I was actually doing some last-minute major corrections on it, and I uploaded a new file to Google Drive (that is accessible).

Here is my new updated PDF write-up on Core KJB.

Why I am Core KJB

I hope you guys like it.

Blessings to you both in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Side Note:

All words in blue that are underlined are links.

If you aren't aware of the King James Bible Research Council, here's the latest video I was sent as a subscriber.
I thought you might be interested where they stand on a few issues.
More is at their website and YouTube channel.

What is the proof that I John 5:7 should be in the Bible?

Should I John 5:7 be in the Bible?
Sound not required...

Have you even bothered to investigate?

Bible_Highlighter,
My Compliments on your "Core King James " PDF!!
Also, A Thank You and The Richest of of The Christs
Blessings on You and Yours !!
In Jesus Name Amen!