The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not talking about modern Bibles or their "errors." I'm talking about one specific verse that conveys exactly the same message in both the KJV and the LSV. I'm sure there are many many more if a person wanted to spend some time looking. Just because one says "believes" instead of "believeth" that doesn't make it any less God's word. Would you care to address this?

The LSV follows the Masoretic and Textus Receptus.
Are you a Majority Text Proponent?
Do you see a problem with Westcott and Hort and their line of texts?
What is the influence of the LSV?
Do we see the hand of God upon it like we did in history with the KJB?
That’s also kind of the point here, as well.
The real Word of God would have passed the test of time and be used by the church.
If you look at the history of the KJB, you cannot ignore its unique history that was divine.
Well, you could if you simply do not want to see such a thing (of course).

 

[ResidentAlien]

The LSV follows the Masoretic and Textus Receptus.
Are you a Majority Text Proponent?
Do you see a problem with Westcott and Hort and their line of texts?
What is the influence of the LSV?
Do we see the hand of God upon it like we did in history with the KJB?
That’s also kind of the point here, as well.
The real Word of God would have passed the test of time and be used by the church.

I tried, go in peace.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I'm not talking about modern Bibles or their "errors." I'm talking about one specific verse that conveys exactly the same message in both the KJV and the LSV. I'm sure there are many many more if a person wanted to spend some time looking. Just because one says "believes" instead of "believeth" that doesn't make it any less God's word. Would you care to address this?

Also, regardless of whether you favor this one translation as being representative of God’s Word, to ignore that most Modern Bibles follow the Westcott and Hort line of texts is to ignore the big pink elephant in the room. There are primarily two positions here. A Bible believer or a Bible corrector. Which one will you be in this life?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I tried, go in peace.

Ask yourself: How can the warning in Revelation 22:18-19 apply in your viewpoint?
God warns not to add or take away WORDS. WORDS and not thoughts or ideas or major doctrines.
There are serious consequences to messing with God’s words. So this means there has to be a perfect set of His words like the Bible, or at least a perfect Book of Revelation in order for such a warning to have any weight or threat. But in your view, these words must be whitewashed or go ignored. That’s what I see your belief as not aligning with what the Bible actually says. We also don’t see Textual Criticism in the Bible, either. It is unbiblical. This is just one of the many reasons why I believe in a perfect Word.

 

[Dino246]

In the context of 1 Corinthians 1:27, the word "confound" means "confuse."

Source:
https://www.webster-dictionary.org/definition/Confound

Yes, I would say Textual Critic believers are confused in how God could have chosen to preserve His words in the Bible in 1600s English. Many on your side mock that idea and see it as unfathomable.

Changing Scripture now, are you?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Changing Scripture now, are you?

Not a chance. I am not creating an update of the King James Bible or any Bible whereby it would change any words. The word "confound" is the correct translation of the preserved words of God. I believe "confound" has the meaning of "confused" and that is my interpretation of such a word. It does not change the word. It is within the perimeters of the definition of that word.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Obviously that has hit a nerve. And God will indeed hold you accountable.

Here is what Paul said about handling the Word of God deceitfully: But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the Word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Cor 4:2)

Did Westcott & Hort handle the Word of God deceitfully? Absolutely. Here are Dean Burgon's comments. Themselves the dupes of an utterly mistaken Theory of Textual Criticism, their supreme solicitude has been to impose that same [118] Theory,—(which is Westcott and Hort's,)—with all its bitter consequences, on the unlearned and unsuspicious public.

We shall of course be indignantly called upon to explain what we mean by so injurious—so damning—an imputation? For all reply, we are content to refer to the sample of our meaning which will be found below, in pp. 137-8. The exposure of what has there been shown to be the method of the Revisionists in respect of S. Mark vi. 11, might be repeated hundreds of times. It would in fact fill a volume.

We shall therefore pass on, when we have asked the Revisionists in turn—How they have dared so effectually to blot out those many precious words from the Book of Life, that no mere English reader, depending on the Revised Version for his knowledge of the Gospels, can by possibility suspect their existence?... Supposing even that it was the calamitous result of their mistaken principles that they found themselves constrained on countless occasions, to omit from their Text precious sayings of our LORD and His Apostles,—what possible excuse will they offer for not having preserved a record of words so amply attested, at least in their margin?

Even so, however, the whole amount of the mischief which has been effected by our Revisionists has not been stated. For the Greek Text which they have invented proves to be so hopelessly depraved throughout, that if it were to be thrust upon the Church's acceptance, we should be a thousand times worse off than we were with the Text which Erasmus and the Complutensian,—Stephens, 142 The Revision Revised and Beza, and the Elzevirs,—bequeathed to us upwards of three centuries ago. (The Revision Revised, pp. 141,142)

So by following the modern versions, you are in fact agreeing with the deceitful handling of the Word of God.

I see a difference between following Modern Translations as one’s authority vs. using them to help flesh out what the King James Bible says at times. I believe the KJB is perfect and without error. The KJB is my core foundational text. I obviously would not recommend a person to read Modern Bibles if they do not have a final Word of authority because they teach false doctrines. I believe Modern Bibles can only be used if one has a final Word of authority like the KJB. If somebody does not see this truth, I try to work with them where they are at. But yes. I agree that God will judge those who lead others into believing wrong bibles fully which could lead them to potentially believe false doctrines found within them. No doubt about it.

Technically, there can only be one Word of God and not many. The King James Bible is that Word for us today.

 

[Dino246]

So faithful Christians added to the Bible, and yet heretics were the ones who were being faithful to God's words?

Did I say anything about heretics? No. You can't even read my posts correctly... why would I think you can read Scripture correctly?

 

[Dino246]

Not a chance. I am not creating an update of the King James Bible or any Bible whereby it would change any words. The word "confound" is the correct translation of the preserved words of God.

Says you.

 

[Dino246]

So if nobody was ever saved by the words of the Bible, then how did you know about salvation without the Bible?
Did you receive a dream or vision to get saved?
Do you deny the gospel saves in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4?
How do we know of the gospel today if not by Scripture?
Peter said to Jesus, you have the words of eternal life (John 6:68).
Peter said we are born again by the incorruptible seed, which is the Word of God (See: 1 Peter 1:23).
This is the Communicated Word like Scripture because we learn in 1 Peter 2:2 that we are to desire the sincere milk of the Word that we may grow thereby.

Jesus also said His words are spirit, and they are life (John 6:63).
These words have been immortalized in Scripture for us today.

None of the words mean anything if Jesus did not die on the cross for our sin, and rise again from the grave.

 

[turbosixx]

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

I don't understand it either. I guess the rest of the none English speaking world is lost without being able to read the KJV.
It's my personal opinion people are afraid of new better word-for-word translations because they would have to admit they might be wrong. For example, I don't understand how they will stick to "rightly divide" when that Greek word has nothing to do with division.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I don't understand it either. I guess the rest of the none English speaking world is lost without being able to read the KJV.

Again you have presented a common misunderstanding.

1. Until the late 19th century, translations in all other languages were still based upon the TRADITIONAL Greek text. They go all the way back to the 2nd century AD.
2. After modern bible versions began to appear the Trinitarian Bible Society began making all its foreign language translations out the the traditional Receive Text, not the King James Bible.
3. Since all translations based upon the traditional Greek text will resemble each other, no one who does not know English will be compelled to use the KJV.

 

[Lanolin]

mm I think English has a lot of compound words that Hebrew doesnt have. It would be very hard to have a word for word translation into English because English is such a polyglot langauge. What its great is word pictures, but the Hebrew idioms can get lost in it.

By rightly divide I guess its meaning 'dont butcher' the words. I am not sure what the Greek would be but English can have many many meanings for one word.

The english speaking world was lost when they didnt have a Bible in their own language that was widely available. It mean they couldnt discover the word for themselves and really had to guess at what God was really saying, or only get snippets at church.

I think we still do that to a certain extent, unless all of us learn Greek and Hebrew, and even those who DO know Greek and Hebrew can squabble about specific words.

Its interesting when learning a langage how specific accents or wrong pronounciation can distort a word. And in english, its the wrong spelling that can throw people.

But notice when you speak in tongues, you are speaking without having ever learned it and it just flows off your tongue flawlessly.

It would be interesting to have a Bible that each book was in a different langauge, sort of like a Gideons has John 3:16 in about twenty different lanagauges. You would have the Biblical rosetta stone then. Really the focus needs to be on translations that are NOT in english, because however well meaning, a NIV will not reach everyone who doesnt know english. Teaching english is hard enough for those who grew up with a different mother tongue and now we are back to comic book Bibles that have words and pictures. Many people can only read pictures, being basically illiterate or grown up with TV as part of their lives.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I don't understand it either. I guess the rest of the none English speaking world is lost without being able to read the KJV.

Most King James Bible believers do not believe that a person has to believe the King James Bible to be saved.
Now, that said, I believe a Modern Bible can lead a person astray in believing false doctrines because that is what they teach.
Textual Critics who make their own Bible translation are in danger with the Lord because they are adding and taking away from God's true words. So if you are creating a Modern Bible, I would say you are in trouble with the Lord. In other words, there has to be a perfect Word in order for God to give us a warning to not add or take away words from the prophecy of this book (Revelation 22:18-19). Even if you wanted this warning to be solely about the book of Revelation, it does not help you because Modern Bible creators have altered the book of Revelation, as well.

It's my personal opinion people are afraid of new better word-for-word translations because they would have to admit they might be wrong.

If you go back to my post here, you will see 25 changes in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the King James Bible.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and are big things to swallow (i.e., which would be like swallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed error in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There are serious problems in the Modern Bibles and thus it disqualifies them as being the true Word of God. God does not make mistakes. His promise to preserve His words perfectly is true (Psalms 12:6-7).

I have come up with 101 Reasons for the KJB in being the Pure Word of God. I also come up with 10 Main Categories that support the King James Bible is the Word for today (See here).

For example, I don't understand how they will stick to "rightly divide" when that Greek word has nothing to do with division.

Most Modern Greek Theological Scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek. So why would I trust your Greek?

Here is the difference of why the KJB is superior. A top Greek grammarian Professsor Georgios Babiniotis says there is a solecism in "the Greek grammar" if 1 John 5:7 is removed, as well. This professor lives in Greece, and he speaks the native language and is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece. See this video below to learn more.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

mm I think English has a lot of compound words that Hebrew doesnt have. It would be very hard to have a word for word translation into English because English is such a polyglot langauge. What its great is word pictures, but the Hebrew idioms can get lost in it.

By rightly divide I guess its meaning 'dont butcher' the words. I am not sure what the Greek would be but English can have many many meanings for one word.

The english speaking world was lost when they didnt have a Bible in their own language that was widely available. It mean they couldnt discover the word for themselves and really had to guess at what God was really saying, or only get snippets at church.

I think we still do that to a certain extent, unless all of us learn Greek and Hebrew, and even those who DO know Greek and Hebrew can squabble about specific words.

Its interesting when learning a langage how specific accents or wrong pronounciation can distort a word. And in english, its the wrong spelling that can throw people.

But notice when you speak in tongues, you are speaking without having ever learned it and it just flows off your tongue flawlessly.

It would be interesting to have a Bible that each book was in a different langauge, sort of like a Gideons has John 3:16 in about twenty different lanagauges. You would have the Biblical rosetta stone then. Really the focus needs to be on translations that are NOT in english, because however well meaning, a NIV will not reach everyone who doesnt know english. Teaching english is hard enough for those who grew up with a different mother tongue and now we are back to comic book Bibles that have words and pictures. Many people can only read pictures, being basically illiterate or grown up with TV as part of their lives.

The King James Bible has been translated into other languages.
Why not just make a translation of the KJB into a language that needs it instead?
The NIV and or other Modern Bibles teach false doctrines so bad it is sick.
Also, a multi language book would cause confusion. That would be 66 languages for each different book of the Bible.
But they need to hear the gospel. The gospel is best discovered in the gospel of John, 1 Corinthians 15, and the book of Acts.
Without the gospel, a random book of the Bible is not really going to help them.

 

[Dino246]

The NIV and or other Modern Bibles teach false doctrines so bad it is sick.

Um, no, they don't. KJV-only types like to claim that modern translations "teach false doctrines" but in fact the translations don't do anything of the sort. I have never seen such a claim substantiated with a thorough examination of any modern translations; it's usually, "this verse is different therefore this translation removes this doctrine" which is strawman hogwash.

Also, a multi language book would cause confusion.

Interlinear Bibles are quite common, and typically help the reader to understand rather than causing confusion.

That would be 66 languages for each different book of the Bible.

Where did you get that silly idea?

 

[turbosixx]

Most King James Bible believers do not believe that a person has to believe the King James Bible to be saved.
Now, that said, I believe a Modern Bible can lead a person astray in believing false doctrines because that is what they teach.
Textual Critics who make their own Bible translation are in danger with the Lord because they are adding and taking away from God's true words. So if you are creating a Modern Bible, I would say you are in trouble with the Lord. In other words, there has to be a perfect Word in order for God to give us a warning to not add or take away words from the prophecy of this book (Revelation 22:18-19). Even if you wanted this warning to be solely about the book of Revelation, it does not help you because Modern Bible creators have altered the book of Revelation, as well.

I agree that there should be no adding or taking away and that warning applies to all scripture. I agree a lot of the really modern translations can and do lead to believing false doctrines and I do not recommend them. I don't trust post KJV translations that are not word-for-word. One can read the KJV only and believe a false doctrine as well. It's been happing since 1611.

If you go back to my post here, you will see 25 changes in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the King James Bible.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and are big things to swallow (i.e., which would be like swallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed error in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There are serious problems in the Modern Bibles and thus it disqualifies them as being the true Word of God. God does not make mistakes. His promise to preserve His words perfectly is true (Psalms 12:6-7).

I have come up with 101 Reasons for the KJB in being the Pure Word of God. I also come up with 10 Main Categories that support the King James Bible is the Word for today (See here).

As time permits I will check this out.

Most Modern Greek Theological Scholars do not even know how to order a pizza in Greek. So why would I trust your Greek?

Here is the difference of why the KJB is superior. A top Greek grammarian Professsor Georgios Babiniotis says there is a solecism in "the Greek grammar" if 1 John 5:7 is removed, as well. This professor lives in Greece, and he speaks the native language and is the former Minister of Education and Religious Affairs of Greece. See this video below to learn more.

I really like the KJV but my problem with it is we do not speak the kings English and it can be hard to understand. Like the example I used, "rightly divide" is not a phrase we use or understand. It's not about dividing but there are some who want to believe that and have created a false doctrine using that as one of their "pillar" verses.
That phrase is about accuracy and that is what the newer translations use.

You're right, I don't trust my Greek either and I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't make a habit of squabbling over words but if necessary I go to BibleHub to get a better understanding.
orthotomeó: to cut straight
Original Word: ὀρθοτομέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: orthotomeó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-thot-om-eh'-o)
Definition: to cut straight
Usage: I cut straight; met: I handle correctly, teach rightly.

Who do we trust? You pick about any topic and the "experts" cannot agree. We are missing more that a verse here or there. We are missing whole letters. The two I know are to Laodicea and one to the Corinthians. I fully trust God has given us enough of His word to understand the truth. It's my experience people usually find what they're looking for, no matter the translation.

 

[Nehemiah6]

One can read the KJV only and believe a false doctrine as well. It's been happing since 1611.

That is hardly the issue. The Jehovah's Witnesses (at one time) and the Mormons use the KJV and are cults. But using a CORRUPT modern translation is all about rejecting the pure Word of God and replacing it with something false.

I have already mentioned that Frank Logsdon -- who was on the translation committee of the NASB -- suddenly realized that he was IN BIG TROUBLE with God (shortly after the NASB was published). So he published a REFUTATION of the NASB and gave excellent reasons for his decision.

 

[turbosixx]

That is hardly the issue. The Jehovah's Witnesses (at one time) and the Mormons use the KJV and are cults. But using a CORRUPT modern translation is all about rejecting the pure Word of God and replacing it with something false.

I have already mentioned that Frank Logsdon -- who was on the translation committee of the NASB -- suddenly realized that he was IN BIG TROUBLE with God (shortly after the NASB was published). So he published a REFUTATION of the NASB and gave excellent reasons for his decision.

Thanks. I'll have to look into Frank.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I agree that there should be no adding or taking away and that warning applies to all scripture. I agree a lot of the really modern translations can and do lead to believing false doctrines and I do not recommend them. I don't trust post KJV translations that are not word-for-word. One can read the KJV only and believe a false doctrine as well.

It’s not a matter if Modern Bibles lead to false doctrines (Which implies it may be a problem with the reader and not Modern Bibles themselves), but it has to do with the fact that Modern Bibles contain false doctrines within them. That’s the real issue or problem here. The King James Bible can be misunderstood because of its archaic wording, but that is why a person is to study to shew themselves approved unto God as 2 Timothy 2:15 says. 2 Timothy 2:15 is altered in Modern Bibles. No longer are they aware that they must STUDY God’s Word to be approved unto God. This truth in 2 Timothy 2:15 is removed in Modern Bibles. For God’s people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Yes, a person who reads the KJV can hold to false doctrines, but it is not the fault of the King James Bible but the individual. The King James Bible does not teach false doctrines like Modern Bibles do.

I really like the KJV but my problem with it is we do not speak the kings English and it can be hard to understand.

1. Jesus spoke in parables, and not everyone received the real meaning (before the cross).
2. Jesus spoke of His resurrection before the cross with His disciples and they did not understand what He meant.
3. Jesus spoke words on the cross that his listeners did not understand.
4. Peter says Paul’s writings are hard to understand. This gives rise to others twisting his words as they do other Scriptures to their own destruction.

You employ Greek which is far more impossible to know fully because nobody is alive today from Bible times to teach you Biblical Hebrew, or Aramaic. and Greek. You would only be guessing at best based on recent dictionaries created by the Bible corrupters or the Westcott and Hort movement started in 1881.

I would say it is far easier to understand 1600s English than dead languages like Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
You don’t have Moses to correct your Hebrew, or an apostle Paul to correct your Greek.
But we do have older dictionaries and things like a Defined King James Bible to help with understanding the KJV.
Yes, I even use Modern Bibles to help flesh out what the King James Bible says at times, but I do not need to do that for every word if one has to go to the original languages to get the real meaning of all the English words in a Bible.

I don’t have a problem with doing the occasional Hebrew, and Greek word study if God leads me to do so (Which is rare).
But the problem is when we believe we must correct the Bible in English by original languages we do not really know.

The problem in seeing errors in the Bible is that one is falling under the warning as mentioned in Revelation 22:18-19.
The moment we start to see errors in the Bible (When there may not be any), is to chop and butcher God’s Word.

This is a huge problem. Because if there is one word that is an error in the Bible, there might as well be 10,000 of them, or 783,137.
For if one does not have a perfect Bible, then how does one truly know which words are true or false?
The Bible speaks of itself in that its words are perfect, and that they would be preserved.
The Scriptures are actually called holy (2 Timothy 2:15). This means that the Bible is of divine origin.
Meaning, God did not make a mistake when He preserved His word for us today.
Can I prove the Bible is Holy (divine) and not holey (a book full of holes or errors) as many believe today?
Yes, I can. I would check out videos on the mathematical miracles contained within the KJB.
See this video here to start.

Like the example I used, "rightly divide" is not a phrase we use or understand. It's not about dividing but there are some who want to believe that and have created a false doctrine using that as one of their "pillar" verses.
That phrase is about accuracy and that is what the newer translations use.

You're right, I don't trust my Greek either and I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer. I don't make a habit of squabbling over words but if necessary I go to BibleHub to get a better understanding.
orthotomeó: to cut straight
Original Word: ὀρθοτομέω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: orthotomeó
Phonetic Spelling: (or-thot-om-eh'-o)
Definition: to cut straight
Usage: I cut straight; met: I handle correctly, teach rightly.

We read in the story of Solomon about how he was to DIVIDE a baby to resolve the TRUTH of the matter (1 Kings 3:16-28).
The word of God is like a two-edged sword that DIVIDES soul and spirit (Hebrews 4:12).
The Old and New Testament is divided in our Bible.
We must rightly divide between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant.
We must rightly divide between God’s grace and Sanctification.
We must rightly divide between the milk of the Word vs. the meat of the Word.

God wants us to divide.

Jesus (GOD) said,

”Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” (Luke 12:51-53).​

God divides the light from the darkness even at the beginning (Genesis 1:4).

Who do we trust? You pick about any topic and the "experts" cannot agree. We are missing more than a verse here or there. We are missing whole letters. The two I know are Laodicea and to the Corinthians. I fully trust God has given us enough of His word to understand the truth. It's my experience people usually find what they're looking for, no matter the translation.

Not all NIVs say the same thing.
One earlier NIV says that Jesus healed the leper with kindness.
The current NIV says that Jesus healed the leper with indignation (anger) (Mark 1:41).
This is a change for the worse and not for the better all because they look at the faith by Science (sight).
Not all Modern Bibles say the same thing.
This breeds confusion.
If you were to buy a house, and they gave you ten different conflicting contracts, would you want to buy it?
If somebody wanted you to fly in a plane that was built on conflicting blue prints, would you want to fly in it?
So then why would you want to use multiple conflicting books from God to trust your soul with?
Your soul is far more valuable to the Lord indeed.