The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Oh ok, I was just wondering if I should look up a special bible in your language. Great we already have one!
📖🙂👍
The Preserved Bible
📖🙂👍
The Preserved Bible
-
1
- Show all
The only way one can say there are "errors" in any translation or manuscript is to locate an original to compare it with. The way KJVOs frame it is they say the Textus Receptus and the KJV are the gold standard and anything that deviates from that is in error. If that's the case, why not just use the Book of Mormon? LDSs say the way they know the BoM is true is because it gives them a "burning in the bosom" when they read it. Yeah, let's do that.
-
1
- Show all
I believe he was talking about the ESV and NASB. I went to about 4 examples given here and the ESV agrees with the KJV every time. You're so caught up in the gang mentality that you just throw out piles and piles of nonsense that isn't even true. That's why there's no real talking to you and why it's hard not to see you as in a cult.
I always wonder for KJVO why they don't accept bibles that use the same manuscript source?
My church is kjvo.. I am happy to use it without needing the other translations, but I don't agree with the KJV being IT. Being THE only rightly preserved translation.
So what about the other translations that use the same source?
My church is kjvo.. I am happy to use it without needing the other translations, but I don't agree with the KJV being IT. Being THE only rightly preserved translation.
So what about the other translations that use the same source?
-
2
- Show all
Well you could use the Geneva Bible. And if you comprehend German you could use Martin Luther's original translation. But the JKB superseded the Bishops Bible, and all the other English translations before that. As to any version after 1881, none of them use the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts. And we are not even addressing the corruptions in the OT which too place after the modern versions turned to Kittel's Biblia Hebraica.
I am passionate about this because I love God’s Word.
Psalms 119:140
”Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.”
I also want to see the brethren guided into the truth on this topic, as well (Because I generally care for them).
I am Core KJB and not KJV-only.
This means that the King James Bible is my core foundational text for all matters of faith and practice. I believe it is perfect and without error and it is my final word of authority. But I do believe it necessary for us to use older dictionaries and Modern Translations to help flesh out what the KJV says (because of the archaic wording in the KJV). There are many times that a confusing verse or chapter in the KJV is given light by looking to a Modern Translation. But I don’t trust Modern Bibles as my final word of authority because they teach false doctrines (like Jesus having faith, Jesus not having power during His earthly ministry, Jesus not being eternal, and the removal or watering down of fornication).
My KJV-only brethren only look to Modern Bibles so as to point out the differences only. Sometimes these are legitimate differences and other times they are not. They will not look to Modern Bibles for any clarification on what the KJV says. Many of them will also say that the archaic language is not that difficult.
I disagree with them on these two points.
Yes, the author is not perfect in his defense here. Not many KJV-onlyists seek to be critical of their own points and amend them to be stronger. I am not saying I am perfect by any means, but I do strive to improve on such matters. I would say that the removal of Acts 8:37 is problematic because one is not declaring Jesus is the Son of God (a belief alone in Jesus first before one is baptized). So the order generally is believe first (to be saved), and then be baptized. Peter says baptism saves us not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh (sin) but as having answer of a good (clean) conscience towards God (1 Peter 3:21). The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household before they were water baptized (Acts 10:34-45). The Holy Spirit is the earnest (down payment) of our inheritance (Ephesians 1;14).
Some Catholics will emphasize that they are to believe along with being baptized.
But in either case, it does not emphasize the importance of having a belief first. The eunuch said he believed Jesus was the Son of God emphasizing the importance of having a belief before being baptized. Mark 16:16 sounds like one can just do them together (i.e., to believe while being baptized), instead of believing first and then being baptized.
However, Catholics oddly do not believe baptism is a work. This is because they see baptism as the entrance gate to being saved (i.e., Initial Salvation).
Again, I think we have to ask ourselves, “How exactly does baptism save us?” I believe Peter gives the answer in 1 Peter 3:21.
Baptism is a picture of symbol of Christ’s death (See: Romans 6:4-5).
The ironic thing is that there are Textual Critics who will say that Mark 16:16 is not even in the originals because they do not believe it is in the oldest and best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Even the NIV has a footnote about this. They say verses 9-20 are not in the oldest manuscripts, etc. See here:
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/16.htm
This affects one’s belief of what is in the Bible or not.
Here is one Christian who says he will not preach on the longer ending of Mark.
https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/
But there are other changes. There is the verse in Corinthians where he says he beats his body (just like the Catholics), and we are not to marry (like the Catholic priests).
Yes, this is true even for the Bible’s own teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation (Psalms 12:6-7).
Psalms 119:140
”Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.”
I also want to see the brethren guided into the truth on this topic, as well (Because I generally care for them).
I am Core KJB and not KJV-only.
This means that the King James Bible is my core foundational text for all matters of faith and practice. I believe it is perfect and without error and it is my final word of authority. But I do believe it necessary for us to use older dictionaries and Modern Translations to help flesh out what the KJV says (because of the archaic wording in the KJV). There are many times that a confusing verse or chapter in the KJV is given light by looking to a Modern Translation. But I don’t trust Modern Bibles as my final word of authority because they teach false doctrines (like Jesus having faith, Jesus not having power during His earthly ministry, Jesus not being eternal, and the removal or watering down of fornication).
My KJV-only brethren only look to Modern Bibles so as to point out the differences only. Sometimes these are legitimate differences and other times they are not. They will not look to Modern Bibles for any clarification on what the KJV says. Many of them will also say that the archaic language is not that difficult.
I disagree with them on these two points.
Yes, the author is not perfect in his defense here. Not many KJV-onlyists seek to be critical of their own points and amend them to be stronger. I am not saying I am perfect by any means, but I do strive to improve on such matters. I would say that the removal of Acts 8:37 is problematic because one is not declaring Jesus is the Son of God (a belief alone in Jesus first before one is baptized). So the order generally is believe first (to be saved), and then be baptized. Peter says baptism saves us not for the putting away of the filth of the flesh (sin) but as having answer of a good (clean) conscience towards God (1 Peter 3:21). The Holy Spirit came upon Cornelius and his household before they were water baptized (Acts 10:34-45). The Holy Spirit is the earnest (down payment) of our inheritance (Ephesians 1;14).
Some Catholics will emphasize that they are to believe along with being baptized.
But in either case, it does not emphasize the importance of having a belief first. The eunuch said he believed Jesus was the Son of God emphasizing the importance of having a belief before being baptized. Mark 16:16 sounds like one can just do them together (i.e., to believe while being baptized), instead of believing first and then being baptized.
However, Catholics oddly do not believe baptism is a work. This is because they see baptism as the entrance gate to being saved (i.e., Initial Salvation).
Again, I think we have to ask ourselves, “How exactly does baptism save us?” I believe Peter gives the answer in 1 Peter 3:21.
Baptism is a picture of symbol of Christ’s death (See: Romans 6:4-5).
The ironic thing is that there are Textual Critics who will say that Mark 16:16 is not even in the originals because they do not believe it is in the oldest and best manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus). Even the NIV has a footnote about this. They say verses 9-20 are not in the oldest manuscripts, etc. See here:
https://biblehub.com/niv/mark/16.htm
This affects one’s belief of what is in the Bible or not.
Here is one Christian who says he will not preach on the longer ending of Mark.
https://g3min.org/longer-ending-mark/
But there are other changes. There is the verse in Corinthians where he says he beats his body (just like the Catholics), and we are not to marry (like the Catholic priests).
Yes, this is true even for the Bible’s own teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation (Psalms 12:6-7).
This is a part of one of my 101 Reasons for the King James Bible.
The King James Bible positively influenced the world like no other book. The KJB has withstood the test of time (2 Sam 22:31) [9], & brought forth good fruit into men’s lives (2 Cor 9:10) (Heb 6:5).
The King James Bible positively influenced the world like no other book. The KJB has withstood the test of time (2 Sam 22:31) [9], & brought forth good fruit into men’s lives (2 Cor 9:10) (Heb 6:5).
- Counting overall printing: The King James Bible is the most printed and sold book in the world, with billions of copies sold throughout its history.
- After 1611, Protestant Christians carried out world evangelization with the King James Bible to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). For hundreds of years: All revivals, reformation, soul-winning, and interest in bible study followed the KJB.
- The KJB formed the emerging Protestant Christianity of the Anglo-American world, and that claim is stunning in its own right. But the text had an impact even beyond that, shaping the whole culture of the English-speaking world, as even its bitterest detractors concede.[7] In fact, among those in the English-speaking world, the KJB had a major influence on the United States’ formation and history.
- Christians in other countries recognize the special and unique nature of the King James Bible as being the perfect and inspired Word of God (See this video here).
- The KJB has been translated into various languages. In fact, the KJB's foreign influence was early. It was translated into Indian and Chinese dialects long before 1890.
- While men have always been sinful, when the King James Bible reigned supreme for hundreds of years before the Modern Bibles showed up, the moral state of those countries who promoted the KJB as a whole was far better than it is today.
- Historians praise the profound influence of the King James Bible.
- English speaking people still speak words or idioms from the King James Bible (Over 200 plus idioms have been accounted for).
-
1
- Show all
Right, and if you were careful to read what I wrote, I said that I did a comparative study of the ESV, and the NAS95 that he mentioned with the 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church in the NIV. Meaning, I took that NIV vs. KJV list and compared it to the ESV, and NAS95 and I found 11 out of 14 changes. Meaning, the ESV, and NAS95 also make changes that favor the Catholic Church. If you were to compare it to the RV (English Revised Version) that came out in 1881, they only make 5 changes that favor the Catholic Church. The RV was the first English translation based off the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts being merged together by Westcott and Hort (Which now is the Modern Bible movement that most people follow today).
Well, I seen 11 out of 14 changes in the ESV. But don’t you worry. I will create a chart or list showing them in the future to put in my write up.
I was not going to initially do this, but because you are claiming things that does not line up with my own study, I will do it now. (So the facts do not get misrepresented).
Anyway, if what you claim is correct, you can bring up those verses and we can discuss them.
But did you bother to keep looking at all of them?
Look at all 14 of them.
Did you do that?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”
Well, I seen 11 out of 14 changes in the ESV. But don’t you worry. I will create a chart or list showing them in the future to put in my write up.
I was not going to initially do this, but because you are claiming things that does not line up with my own study, I will do it now. (So the facts do not get misrepresented).
Anyway, if what you claim is correct, you can bring up those verses and we can discuss them.
But did you bother to keep looking at all of them?
Look at all 14 of them.
Did you do that?
“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”