The Error of KJV-Onlyism

The serpent was the one who got Eve to doubt God’s Word. You may not be aware of this, but Bart Erhman and Rick Beckman attacked the KJV and they were in favor Textual Criticism. Today, they are both unbelievers. That’s what happens when you go down the road of doubting God’s Word. Many who went to Bible College have even lost their faith when they learned of the false Science of Textual Criticism.

It seems like you are doubting certain places in the Bible by saying it has errors in it when it teaches no such thing. Only you are saying the Bible has errors in it. How on Earth do you think Jesus is going to judge us? John 12:48 says if we do not receive His words, they will judge us on the last day. But that is not possible if His words are full of errors or holes. How could you trust His Word if it has errors in it. It would destroy the trustworthiness of the Bible. Man would be the real authority if He decided what God said and did not say. Your position is illogical and self defeating. Either everything God said in His Word is true, or it is false. I simply choose to believe God and His Word by faith.

Remember, Scripture says that Satan came and took away the Word out of a person’s heart.
In short, Satan takes away the Word.
This is exactly what we see in Modern Bibles.
1 John 5:7 is removed. This is the only direct reference of the Trinity in the whole Bible.

Again, I don’t think you understand the topic all too well. I think you just bought into the lies by Modern Scholars, and never bothered to check what they say is actually true or not. Then again if you are liberal and you don’t want the precise words of God and you like the idea of a Bible that keeps shape shifting every few years, then nothing I say here will really matter and you will just keep throwing around false slander.

Look, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you never did a deep search for the truth on this topic. Maybe you never did a deep comparison of the changed doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. Maybe you do not know how many rank heretics that are tied to the origins of the Modern Bible Movement. Perhaps you do not know about the employed deceptions by the Modern Bible movement. Maybe you are ignorant of KJV Bible history and how the hand of God was upon the KJV and its good fruit.

According to James White you would be KJV-onlyist (accordng to his book) even if you just prefer the KJV.

So the watering down of the blood atonement, the deity of Christ ia acceptable?
What about the ESV teaching Jesus had a beginning in Micah 5:2?

How do you know? Did you read all 900 plus Modern Bibles?
Did it not ever occur to you that they are being made primarily for money?

Which NIV? There are multiple NIV editions. The recent NIV says today that Jesus was angry when He healed the leper and yet the previous NIV of the past did not say this. Some new and exciting manuscript discovery changed it and yet they did not think things through theologically. It’s just dumb. Not even all the NKJV Bible editions say the same things. It’s just silly. Then again, you are probably not aware of a fraction of the information I know on this topic.

@Bible_Highlighter

None of your comments about Westcott and Hort or your concerns expressed about the modern Bible movement are in any way evidence for the idea that the King James version is a perfect inspired translation.

yep, wanted more experience opinions on this.

thanks all

... and it's unfortunate that double standards have become a default tactic for KJV-only proponents.

Hardly anyone will claim that even the best translation is "inspired". Divine inspiration pertains to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. But there is also the doctrine of divine PRESERVATION, which is generally ignored. The true Word of God has been preserved over the centuries, so when Christ spoke of "the Scriptures" it had already been about 1500 years from the time of Moses. And He did not hesitate to trust the Hebrew Tanakh.

The same principle applies to the Greek text. Even though there are thousands of manuscripts preserved over hundreds of years, the majority are in agreement with one text from the originals. And the Received Text fairly represents both the majority and the originals.

Dean John William Burgon was an outstanding conservative textual scholar of the 19th century. He devoted his life to proper textual criticism, and wrote many books on the subject. He has written The Revision Revised to expose the lies and fallacies of Westcott and Hort. And this is what he said about the traditional or Received Text:

XIII. The one great Fact, which especially troubles him and his joint Editor [Westcott and Hort],720—(as well it may)—is The Traditional Greek Text of the New Testament Scriptures. Call this Text Erasmian or Complutensian,—the Text of Stephens, or of Beza, or of the Elzevirs,—call it the “Received,” or the Traditional Greek Text, or whatever other name you please;—the fact remains, that a Text has come down to us which is attested by a general consensus of ancient Copies, ancient Fathers, ancient Versions. This, at all events, is a point on which, (happily,) there exists entire conformity of opinion between Dr. Hort and ourselves. Our Readers cannot have yet forgotten his virtual admission that,—Beyond all question the Textus Receptus is the dominant Græco-Syrian Text of a.d. 350 to a.d. 400.721

Obtained from a variety of sources, this Text proves to be essentially the same in all. That it requires Revision in respect of many of its lesser details, is undeniable: but it is at least as certain that it is an excellent Text as it stands, and that the use of it will never lead critical students of Scripture seriously astray... (page 269)

So when we come to the King James Bible, we see that they used the printed Hebrew and Greek traditional texts which represented the inspired manuscripts. Therefore for more than 300 years, this was regarded as the Word of God by English-speakers without any questions. And the Trinitarian Bible Society also went back to those printed texts to produce translations in other languages.

But when we come to the modern versions, we find that they are all based on primarily two very corrupt Greek texts. This is not a matter of opinion but of fact. The New Testament began to be corrupted by Gnostic heretics, and the end result was a perverted Greek text. But unbelieving critics deliberately rejected the Received Text and substituted the corrupt text instead. This has all been recorded and exposed for those who want the truth. And you can have the truth in The Revision Revised. So now that you have this, you have no excuse to misunderstand this subject.

Was Paul referring to the originals? Did young Timothy have the originals?

2 Timothy 3:
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

There was no need. The Tanakh being used by Timothy, Paul, and Christ was totally reliable. The same principle applies to the Received Text.

They were called the holy scriptures, inspired by God. I thought your claim was that only the "original manuscripts" were inspired by God.

Of course they were originally inspired by God, but then they were handed down from the time of Moses (c 1500 BC) to the time of Christ as copies of copies of copies.

The Hebrew scribes followed a very strict protocol for copying the OT Scriptures, so Christ also called them "the Scriptures", and so did Peter and Paul. The scribes, Pharisees, and lawyers of Christ's time had the same Tanakh. No one disputed that that was indeed the Word of God.

Thus the Leningrad Codex from about 900 AD is an exact replica of the original Scriptures. An Isaiah scroll found with the Dead Sea Scrolls (dating to about 200 BC) is an exact match to Isaiah in the Leningrad Codex (and in our Bibles).

All scripture is given by inspiration of God. That would include the copies of copies of copies Timothy had, not just the originals.

Btw, there are many instances throughout the Bible where a translation was inspired. See Jospeh’s words in Egypt.

Well you rely on your own authority when claiming this KJVO dogma as well. This cult-like belief system that you've adopted that makes an idol of a version of His word, and is backed up by nothing but your "authority", and honestly fails on the most basic levels when given any kind of deeper thought. There's no need to go back and forth on this issue having have been part of this debate a good while and seeing I'm not going to convince you and all you have to "prove" this belief is in a different league, is your authority. Which honestly should be a red flag to you in the first place. Not to mention that this claim suggest that no one had Gods word until 1611. Not even the manuscripts and versions they used to draw the KJV from either, I guess.??
To me this is just the most disconnected viewpoint of the whole belief. Honestly I find this insanely arrogant, and completely illogical on so many levels. Not to mention there's NO WAY you could come to this conclusion by any proof, it has to come from man's authority, and I don't trust in that, and is why you can't prove it either. It's a blind belief thing, and I don't do those.

My only point here really is, you are just a pot calling the kettle black with this comment.

I have given up all authority to God's word as preserved in the English language through the KJV. I don't correct it, change it, or doubt it. I simply believe it. Do you have something you believe as the word of God? Remember, the word of God is true, can be trusted without error 100%.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Btw, it's not a cult practice to magnify the word of God. If so, God is my cult leader. He has magnified his word above his name.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

The Bible is translated in to many languages.

I use the KJV but I will not say other translations are wrong.

I read through the KJV and it is the same theme throughout the Bible.

If a Bible says one God, claim Jesus as God, and Lord and Savior, believe in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, be led of the Spirit to be Christlike, then everything should fall in place.

For they do not deny the main things so they would not be afraid to tell the whole story right, and they would be on the lookout for contradictions.

It seems like the only way a translation can be off is if they do it on purpose.

Some people may say that king James was a heathen so it could corrupt the KJV.

But king Nebuchadnezzar was a heathen king who believed in many gods, but he claimed the God of Israel as the greatest of the gods, and said if any one said anything amiss about Him they would be cut in pieces, and their house made a dunghill.

Because of that his kingdom flourished, and was referred to as gold.

God could use Babylon to spread His truth that He is the greatest.

God can use heathen leaders to spread His truth.

Israel was not a nation as a nation of the truth when they were scattered in to the nations which their house was made desolate until they acknowledge Jesus as Messiah.

America is the same claiming God but they have heathen ways about them.

Which they allow all religions to be practiced there including Satanism, the occult, and the new age movement which shall deceive the world.

And allow the love of money, and material things, and worldliness galore, and fleshy pleasures a plenty, being stumbling blocks to many, and becomes worse as time goes on.

But they allow the truth to be put out in the nation, and the world.

So God can use king James to get His truth out to the people.

If a king, or great leader, follows the God of Israel they will translate the Bible correctly for they are afraid not to do it, but their translation might be off.

Like the Catholic Church that interprets scriptures wrongly but they have the same Bible as the Protestants, but they have other books that are deceptive, but they leave the Bible alone.

Same with the Mormons but they have an extra book that is deceptive.

The new age movement will quote scriptures word for word but their translation is different.

If God needs His word to get out to the people He might use a heathen king, or great leader, for they influence many people.

But they might not interpret it exactly right but the word is out to the people.

No nation did it right except Israel when they were in the truth, and no nation will do it right except Israel when the kingdom is restored to Israel and all Gentile governments shall cease.

All other nations that claimed the God of Israel had heathen ways about them.

Well, if you have studied the Bibliology issue or topic for any length of time in-depth (without the Modern scholars talking in your ear), I cannot see how you can make such an uninformed statement. There are only two major streams or lines of Bibles we have today that are being used by most Christians. Only one stream can be pure or true, which means by default, the other is false and tainted (or corrupt) in some way. Granted, I am not saying you cannot be initially saved by certain modern Bibles, but I believe this is one of those topics that tests a person’s faith. Does a person care about what God said or do they seek to change God’s Word or make His Word out to be to their own liking to some degree? We are living in the last days and things are only getting worse spiritually and not better. It is no wonder that many cannot see the great falling away that has already begun to happen. Christians are falling away from the Word of God and they are making creeds and traditions of men and scholars their authority and not the Bible. Most everything we know about God today is from the Bible. You change the Bible and you change how you perceive God and how you obey Him. The changed doctrines that are for the worse is the real proof. So yes, my comments about Westcott and Hort are very significant to the truthfulness of the KJV because Westcott and Hort’s approach to the Bible and their false beliefs aligns with the false teachings in modern Translations (Which is by contrast to the opposite and true stream of Bibles through history).

The real test on this issue is your approach to Scripture. Do you believe God when He says in His Word that that His words are perfect, and they will endure forever? Many Christians today believe Jesus (who is God) rose from the dead, and yet they cannot fathom how God is capable of keeping His own Word (word perfect) in that it will be preserved today. It is illogical to trust in a God who not only does not keep His Word, but who speaks conflicting things and who speaks errors. It is illogical to have you or the scholar to declare what God said or did not say based on human reason (i.e., Rationalism). No scholar or modernist Christian today even agrees with each other on what the Word of God even says and so then that leads to confusion and chaos. It leads away from unity in God’s Word.

My encouragement to you is to look at the evidence from the other side. Things are not what you think they are.
Generally scholars just make things up false things about Erasmus, and or about evidence for the Comma, etcetera.
False slander or mislabeling is another tool in the modern Bible Movement, as well. They slander without really doing their homework. They sound like uneducated hot headed kids in high school.

….

Many are CHOOSING to be ill-informed, or plain ignorant, about this matter. That's the easy way out.

We must be born again by water to enter the Kingdom of God according to Jesus. I believe this is being born again by the Holy Scriptures (See: John 3:5, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Peter 2:2). In short, when you accepted Christ as your Savior, you also would have been awakened to His Word (the Bible). It would no longer be a dead book to you like when you were an unbeliever but a living an active book. It would no longer be a book of doubt but a book that you trust by faith. Now, do not misunderstand me here. I believe a Christian can be initially saved by a modern Bible. But I believe that if a believer starts to doubt the Word of God, they are slowly going down the road of doubt, which can potentially lead to apostasy or rebellion in following their own path or way and not God’s way of faith. Note: Ever hear of Bart Erhman or Rick Beckman? They used to believe in God but now they are apostates. This is because of Textual Criticism (Which gets a person to doubt God’s Word and not to trust it).

President Woodrow Wilson said,

Woodrow also said of the Bible,


He said these things just days away from the 300th Anniversary of the KJV in May of 1911. Obviously Woodrow Wilson was referring to the King James Bible by these statements because it was regarded as THE Bible by many in English speaking countries.

You may not know this or not, but King James Bible was almost destroyed by a super bomb (i.e., the gunpowder plot), and it was the Bible that caused three of the great revivals in human history. The King James BIble was the Bible in public schools for hundreds of years in English speaking countries. The King James Bible brought Christians together over the unity of one text (Even if they may have had different interpretations on it). They did not generally bicker over what the Word of God was. The KJV is the most printed book in the world and has guided many families on a good path that does not lead to confusion. The Modern Bible Movement cannot lay claim to any of these things.

Oh, and cults have leaders. So if anything, the Modern Bible Movement is cult-like because you have to either go to James White, or Dan Wallace or the Nestle and Aland 28th edition to get the more precise words of God. The problem is that James White does not always agree with Dan Wallace. There is no consensus or agreement or unity in the Modern Bible Movement. It’s chaos and there is no agreement on what God precisely said in every instance. You get to sit in the seat of God and determine what God said and did not say in Modern Textual Criticism. You do not even have all of the words of God because the Modern Bible movement is still looking for them in some cave somewhere. I have all the words of God that I can hold in my hands. You can scream and shout it is an idol to have the very words of God, but then you would have to make the same dumb false claim with Moses. Moses carried the tablets of God down from the mountain. Do you not think he believed he was carrying the perfect words of God written by His hand? Was Moses into idolatry for believing He held the perfect words of God? No. So then your false claim is just empty hollow and attack upon Christians who simply believe the Bible like a child.

Before the 1611 KJV, there was the Vetas Latina Scriptures with the Waldenses. They lived in the French Alps and were persecuted and killed by Catholics throughout history. The Waldenses gave the reformers a pure Bible. The Waldenses can be traced back to the apostles. So there is an unbroken chain of custody of the Scriptures. But the Modern Bible Movement is claiming is that the Bible has been lost since the 4th century. You are still looking for it. This is just stupidity. God preserved His Word. You just have to believe what God said in His own Word. It’s a faith issue. Once you believe by faith, then you will be able to see. This is true of any doctrine or teaching in the Bible.

What is illogical is not having the precise words of God and claiming the Bible has errors in it. If that is the case, then you or the scholar becomes God determining what He said and did not say. Look. Would you fly in a plane that was made by a bunch of engineers who were not sure about what they were doing? Would you fly in a plane that was made off of conflicting schematics or models? No, of course not. So why do the same thing with a book that is dealing with our spiritual state that is far more important? You don’t have the words of God. We do. You call us cult-like for us simply believing we do have a Bible that we can hold in our hands and trust in it completely. That’s insane. Your belief would have been heretical before the liberal Westcott and Hort Movement began in 1881.

….

This response is not simply about Bible Highlighter. We have three fallacies stated right here which apply to all who use the KJB as their only Bible.

1. The accusation of a "cult-like belief" falls flat when the entire English-speaking world had only this Bible exclusively for over 300 years. So you cannot call those millions of Christians a cult. Those who continue to use the KJB remain with that host of Christians prior to 1881.

2. "Backed up by nothing but your own authority" is also false. The authority of genuine conservative textual scholars (who have done minute research) stands behind the Received Text, and consequently behind the KJB. The Received Text is in fact the text of the New Testament. Even W&H could not dispute its existence.

3. The accusation making the KJB an "idol" is pure baloney. If you do not have any respect or regard for the written Word of God, it is you who has a problem. The time- tested and time-honored Authorized Version should have always been held in high regard by ALL Christians. Had Westcott and Hort not come along to undermine the Received Text and the KJB, it would have remained the Bible of all Christians.

It is high time that the opponents of the King James Bible stopped making irresponsible statements (as above). If you love your corruptions, hang on to them. But do not say things which have no basis in reality. Study the works of Burgon, Scrivener, Hill, and many others who know exactly what it is all about.

Yet, not all Bibles say precisely the same thing. Many of your modern Bibles have heretical teachings and truths within them. This would include your NIV, NASB, ESV, etcetera.

You can see a small sampling of the changed doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better starting back in my post #1,777.
I currently have 50 plus changed doctrines in Modern Bibles that are very serious. But in this thread I just list 25 of them (to give you a taste of the corruption involved).

They are wrong not only because of the many false doctrines and truths contained within them but because there is no settled text in the Modern Bible Movement and because there are heretics who have influenced the texts by their false beliefs.

For example: George Vance Smith worked on the first Modern English Translation with Westcott and Hort. He was a Unitarian and he wrote a book called “Texts and Margines of the Revised New Testament.” In this book, he wrote of his celebration of changes in the RV that favor Unitarianism. In fact, Sinaiticus is still visited today by Unitarians because they see that manuscript as a huge success for their movement. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the NT Greek manuscripts that are used for most of your modern Translations in the Modern Bible Movement. In fact, folks in the modern Bible Movement are following a never before seen sham-wow artificial text because they smashed these two manuscripts together that disagree with each other in thousands of places in the gospels alone.

What Bible are you comparing the KJV to?
The KJV is the Bible we have today because there are no perfect sets of copies of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.

But the problem is that Modern Translations water down the deity of Jesus Christ and the Trinity.
Micah 5:2 in the ESV says that Jesus has a beginning. Meaning, it is claiming He is not eternally God.
The NLT claims that Jesus did not have divine powers of His own during His earthly ministry in Philippians 2:7.

When the Revised Version came out, it took the last sentence in 1 John 5:6 to fill in the place of the Comma in 1 John 5:7. However, eventually, modern Translations took certain words (slightly reworded) in 1 John 5:8 to replace the Comma in 1 John 5:7. This was obvious done intentionally and deceptively. This was no accident. The modernists did not want folks to let the new reader be aware that there was a missing verse on the Trinity with a big plank spot for 1 John 5:7.

Only Modernists make attacks against King James in order to try and falsely discredit the KJV.

The Catholics primarily used Jerome’s Latin Vulgate since the mid 4th century until the 16th/17th centuries. The Douay-Rheims Bible (1582 NT) (1610 OT) was the go-to English translation for hundreds of years. It wasn’t until the Westcott and Hort text of 1881 came out that the Catholic Church started to shift more towards ecumenical translations.

I did a study, and the Revised Version teaches Catholic ideas and these ideas only grow in number with later Modern Bibles. The KJV does not have this problem. In fact, Carlo Maria Martini worked on the critical text used for Modern Bibles in the 1970s. In fact, in the 70s, there was a Catholic Bible that had a dictionary in it that forbid the Catholic lay person in reading the KJV. You can check that out here:


Granted, this has changed today. The Catholic Church now has a Catholic version of the KJV with its apocryphal books inserted within it. But the point here is that they tried to ban their own people in reading the KJV because they seen it as a threat.


…..

Mike Holner (who is author several Christian books) did this video. I talk sometimes with Mike on occasion. Great guy.
Mike’s defense of the Comma (with Fernando) is really excellent.