The Error of KJV-Onlyism

A standard? In what sense?

When I was a kid we memorized scripture in the KJ so when we had our bible quizzes we all studied the exact same thing. When someone says things like when the blind lead the blind we know where they got it and what it means.

It unifies the Christian faith(english language Christian faith) by everyone being 'on the same page.' What a pun, lol.

Yes, and everyone listened to the Top 40 on KOMA, but the world fractured during the LBJ fiasco following the end of Camelot.
I hope God is working through MAGA to restore the good old days for the next generation.

While common familiarity with Scripture is a good thing, it also leads to problems when someone has memorized a different version. It will lead to division between believers. Uniformity is false unity.

If the ones memorizing Scripture comes across that verse thats says to “study,” maybe they will take it to heart. I remember a few decades back when I ran across a passage in Matthew where Jesus was repeating a few of the 10 commandments and He used the word ”murder” instead of kill. That set me on a trajectory of study that has yet to end. However, if that knowledge is not properly digested by ones heart, it simply makes ones head weigh a little more.

I know of 17 verses one can memorize in 2 seconds in the new versions.

I read the geneva mostly. but i still say the kj should be the standard to avoid confusion.

I'll grant that... for the nineteenth century. Because the language of the KJV is sufficiently unfamiliar to modern English speakers, it is unreasonable to believe the KJV should be the standard today. The gospel is challenging enough without throwing a language barrier in the way.

Yes, I agree. I know we can look up unknown words to find their meaning, but we first need to recognise that they are unknown. What I mean is this: Some words used in the KJV are still in use todays, but with a completely different meaning to what they have in the KJV. Just a few examples@

Prevent in KJV meant "go before." Now it means to stop something from happening.

Suffer in KJV meant "allow." Now it means to experience pain or discomfort.

Carriages in KJV meant "equipment, luggage." Now it means "a vehicle with four wheels that is usually pulled by horses and was used mainly in the past," or a section of a train.

I am actually not a paid subscriber. So, thank you.



….

While I don't agree with every belief by Baptists, and neither do I agree with crazy KJV-only believers through time like Ruckman, Riplinger, and Anderson, I have looked into this issue even more deeply over the past 2-3 years and I came up with 150 good reasons for the KJV being the Pure Word of God for today. The difference between us is faith. I believe what the Bible says.

However, today, many simply do not like the idea of a perfect Word of God and the idea of "ever-shape-shifting-Bibles' idea simply sounds better to them despite the promises of God in Psalms 12:6-7, etcetera. Again, it really comes down to faith on this topic. What do you see in the Bible? Do you see Jesus and His followers talk about textual variants and conflicting versions of the Word of God as if that is normal? Or do you see the Bible speak about how there is only one Communicated Word of God (Scripture) and that it is entirely trustworthy? I am also not even KJV-only, but I am Core KJV. I believe the KJV is my core foundational text that is without error for English-speaking people, but I am not against using other texts, bibles, or dictionaries to understand the KJV.

Anyway, my faith journey has shown that the Modern Bible Movement originated with men who are heretics in the sense that they are liberal (did not believe many stories in the Bible literally happened), and they shacked up in fellowship with Unitarians, etcetera. Later Catholics joined in on aiding the transformation of this text and Catholic ideas have only grown in Modern Bibles over the years. I have discovered that the Modern Bible Movement has employed deceptions like the ERV stating it was the version set forth in 1611 AD (when it isn't), the moving of verses to hide the missing Comma in 1 John 5:7, and the NKJV appearing like it is a faithful update of the KJV when in reality it is not. However, what crosses the line even more is that the Modern Bibles teach various false doctrines that are heretical (like watering down the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and outright denying the eternal nature of the Living Word, you can divorce for immorality (like lying) instead of fornication, and that you are to marry your rapist). This is where many on the Critical Text side have to do backflip twists through hoops of fire while holding rabid biting poodles. It's just absolutely ridiculous. But people see what they want to see no matter how much evidence is presented to them. It's like with Radical Left Democrats today. No matter how much evidence you try to show them, they still have Trump and Elon derangement syndrome. Yes, they are not perfect men by any means. But the Democrat spin or perception truly is scary. This is how I also see the Modern Bible Movement. They push a false narrative on the facts just like radical Left Democrats do.


…..

Not sure how you can overlook deception involving the NKJV. All of the NKJV creators were for the Critical Text. They put critical text Bible readings in it and never told anybody about that. Many people are still deceived it is a harmless KJV update. But that's the fruit of this movement.

As for Westcott and Hort: They started the Modern Bible Movement that exists today. They took Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and smashed them together, creating an artificial never-before-seen Greek text. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each other in 3,000 places in the gospels alone and there are silly readings in these two manuscripts that are not published in Modern English Bibles. On top of that, Westcott and Hort were to simply do a KJV update with the ERV, but they snuck in their artificial new Greek text (Despite it saying it was the version set forth in 1611 AD). The Westcott and Hort text is still barely any different than the Nestle and Aland 28th edition according to even a Critical Text advocate. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are still the primary manuscripts looked to or favored in the Nestle and Aland editions. Rarely do variants or new manuscript discoveries affect Modern English Bibles. Modern scholarship has been wrong about Archaic Mark, and some of the Dead Sea scrolls being legitimate.

Anyway, not only do you have deceptions in the Modern Bible Movement, but you have liberals, Unitarians, and Catholics (whereby we can actually see the added Catholic ideas growing in Modern Bibles over the years) and we can see many false doctrines taught in Modern Translations (such as Jesus sinned, the devil shares the same names as Jesus, our Lord did not have active use of His power during His earthly ministry, you can divorce for sexual immorality in general instead of fornication (which is unfaithfulness before the marriage is consummated). I have had Christians tell me Jesus sinned and they pointed to a Modern Bible. So yes. Correct doctrines taught in the Bible do matter.


....

Oh, maybe because English is a global language. Just drop the Google guy in places all over the world, and you will see English on signs in countries where their native tongue is not English. International airports all speak English. English is taught as a secondary language in many countries. When evangelism spread globally, it was the KJV that hit the major continents (which is a fact taught by even the Museum of the Bible). The United States is a world leader in many ways. Even its music can be found on radio stations in other non-English speaking countries.

…..