The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

Westcott and Hort are the fathers of promoting the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (NT Greek manuscripts) which is the basis for many Modern Bibles used today (Note: Today, all Modern Bibles are based on the Nestle and Aland and it has been updated a bit since Westcott and Hort’s 1881 Greek NT). But all Modern English Bibles still rely on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts for the NT Greek. Many Modern scholars admit that Westcott and Hort’s influence upon Modern scholarship today. I have quotes for this.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If you're really serious about exploring God's Word in depth, I strongly recommend the NET Bible, Full Notes Edition. It is an excellent translation, created by the best scholars (with input from many others), and is accompanied by more than 60,000(!) explanatory notes about every aspect of the text. There are 2,434 pages(!), not counting the maps.

Amazon sells it (hardcover) for $41.65 (list $59.99)

2 Corinthians 2:17 (NET)
”For we are not like so many others, hucksters who peddle the word of God for profit, but we are speaking in Christ before God as persons of sincerity, as persons sent from God. "

2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJB)
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

 

[John146]

Of course, he doesn't want to discuss why the KJV added conditions to Romans 8:1. The NIV has this verse as "Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" but the King James has it as "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit", adding a condition to escape condemnation.

There is a truth in Paul's writings that believers can be condemned, judged, when walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The context demands that Romans 8:1 is speaking of a temporal judgment and not eternal.

Example can be found in Romans 14. This is not referring to an eternal damnation for eating something that is offensive, but a temporal judgment.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[jamessb]

There is a truth in Paul's writings that believers can be condemned, judged, when walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit. The context demands that Romans 8:1 is speaking of a temporal judgment and not eternal.

Example can be found in Romans 14. This is not referring to an eternal damnation for eating something that is offensive, but a temporal judgment.

16 Let not then your good be evil spoken of:
17 For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.
18 For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men.
19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.
20 For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence.
21 It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.
22 Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
23 And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

This has nothing to do with the fact that the KJV has the added words in Romans 8:1; the discussion is not about doctrine.
Here is the NET footnote (with my emphasis): The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

 

[jamessb]

Who contradicted? You see the Modern version of NET and the NIV found in John 6 says it's Jesus who distributed the food to the people and you are now grasping a bit.

Are you okay??? Here is John 6:11 from the King James translation: "And Jesus took the loaves; and when he had given thanks, he distributed to the disciples, and the disciples to them that were set down; and likewise of the fishes as much as they would."

You should do more research before you post something which doesn't make sense. => The disciples distributed the food <=

 

[John146]

This has nothing to do with the fact that the KJV has the added words in Romans 8:1; the discussion is not about doctrine.
Here is the NET footnote (with my emphasis): The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

Sorry, but the mention of the Alexandrian texts makes me laugh.

 

[jamessb]

Sorry, but the mention of the Alexandrian texts makes me laugh.

So what? I don't care if you laugh at the findings of great scholars or not. BTW, do you also laugh at the evidence of the earlier and best Western texts and others?

Why don't you read the rest of the post and comment on that?

What are your Bible translation qualifications?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This has nothing to do with the fact that the KJV has the added words in Romans 8:1; the discussion is not about doctrine.
Here is the NET footnote (with my emphasis): The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

There is zero evidence for Romans 8:1 adding the additional words. On the contrary: We have big hints and clues that Romans 8:1 would have been corrupted and such words would have actually been removed.

Why the Shorter Texts are Not Trustworthy:

1. Jeremiah’s warning to false prophets to not steal his words followed by a story of a king who shortened the Scriptures by destroying them. God added even more words in a copy as a reaction to this.
2. Paul said the Scriptures were corrupted during his time (2 Cor. 2:17) Oddly, this verse is altered to hide this fact in Modern Bibles and it is replaced with not peddling the Word of God (Which is what Modern Bible Market does).
3. Ireneaus talks about how Marcion and his followers had shortened the Scriptures.
4. Westcott and Hort who were heretics had chosen the shorter Scriptures. These were the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts.
5. Hort called the TR villainous and vile. Hort said to Westcott his concern over whether their text may brand them with suspicion.
6. The Revised Version states in its half-title page that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD, and yet we know the RV is not primarily based on the texts underlying the KJV because many of the key passages and verses are changed like 1 John 5:7, etcetera. Dean Burgon shows the changes, as well.
7. In Scripture: There are two Alexandrian ships with one heading to Rome, and one heading out of Rome (is likened to the two Alexandrian manuscripts - Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that favor Catholic practices or ideas). Note: Some scholars have said these manuscripts originate from Alexandria, Egypt.
8. Hand of God is upon the KJB (See my next below).
9. Popular Modern Textual Critics do not generally claim that their work from the shorter manuscripts are inspired by God or it is the preserved words of God. Their work is the by-product of solely men and or worldly wisdom.
10. There are many changed doctrines that are for the worse in Modern Bibles and not for the better. These points simply end up being ignored.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This has nothing to do with the fact that the KJV has the added words in Romans 8:1; the discussion is not about doctrine.
Here is the NET footnote (with my emphasis): The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

Why the Hand of God is Upon the KJB:

1. Two Textus Receptus Translators Martyred. One was due to the translation itself.
2. King James united two Christian groups.
3. KJB & translators almost destroyed by a super bomb.
4. KJB was in a language that is the world language of today.
5. KJB is the most printed book in the world.
6. England spread out to the world and the Bible went along with it.
7. KJB created the Protestant English speaking world.
8. A unity over one text (i.e, His Word does not return void).
9. Everyone in English speaking countries speaks idioms that were made possible by the King James Bible.
10. 15 Biblical Reasons. KJB is the one and only best candidate for a perfect Word that is preserved today.

 

[jamessb]

Continuing on...

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Alexandrian text-type is one of the main text types. It is the text type favored by the majority of modern textual critics and it is the basis for most modern Bible translations. Over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts have been classified into four groups by text type. (Wikipedia)

So, John146, you can laugh all you want, but you're just exposing your personal bias.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

This has nothing to do with the fact that the KJV has the added words in Romans 8:1; the discussion is not about doctrine.
Here is the NET footnote (with my emphasis): The earliest and best witnesses of the Alexandrian and Western texts, as well as a few others (א* B D* F G 6 1506 1739 1881 co), have no additional words for v. 1. Later scribes (A D1 Ψ 81 365 629 vg) added the words μὴ κατὰ σάρκα περιπατοῦσιν (mē kata sarka peripatousin, “who do not walk according to the flesh”), while even later ones (א2 D2 33vid M) added ἀλλὰ κατὰ πνεῦμα (alla kata pneuma, “but [who do walk] according to the Spirit”). Both the external evidence and the internal evidence are compelling for the shortest reading. The scribes were evidently motivated to add such qualifications (interpolated from v. 4) to insulate Paul’s gospel from charges that it was characterized too much by grace. The KJV follows the longest reading found in M.

Furthermore, we can see umlauts (double dots) next to 1 John 5:7 in the Vaticanus manuscript. These umlauts appear next to other alterations. This lets us know that the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts would have predated the Vaticanus because it is recognizing a variant. So this tells us the Vaticanus is not the oldest that predates the TR for the KJV.

In addition, we see other similar verses in the same theme of teaching that are corrupted.

The part of Revelation 22:14 that says, "they that do his commandments" is altered.

Revelation 22:14 (KJB) says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."

Revelation 22:14 (ESV) "Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates."

Two verses in certain Modern Bibles tell us that Jesus calls sinners (with no mention of repentance) while only one verse just says that Jesus calls sinners to repentance. This could lead us believe that Modern Bibles are telling us that Jesus will sometimes just call sinners with no repentance and other times He will call sinners to repentance.

Matthew 19:9 in the NAS1977, NAS95, NET, and NTFE says that one can divorce their wife for immorality instead of fornication (KJV). Meaning, the word “immorality” is ambiguous as to what kind of sin is being referred to here. So if one wanted to divorce their wife for lying, they could do so if they trusted these translations instead of the King James Bible.

Imagine the scenario:

Carlos: Pastor, I want to divorce my wife because she is lying. This agrees with the NAS95 you highly endorse in our church. It simply says, “immorality” is grounds for divorce.

Pastor: Well, I am not sure about that. I don’t think it would be wise to do so for that reason.

Carlos: But Pastor, do you not follow that Bible in what it says?​

I remember one Christian on an online forum who really thought this was the best translation. The NAS95 has actually been proudly praised over the years by Modern scholars.

In short, it is a pattern of evidence.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Continuing on...

In textual criticism of the New Testament, the Alexandrian text-type is one of the main text types. It is the text type favored by the majority of modern textual critics and it is the basis for most modern Bible translations. Over 5,800 New Testament manuscripts have been classified into four groups by text type. (Wikipedia)

So, John146, you can laugh all you want, but you're just exposing your personal bias.

Actually, that’s not true. The 5,800 manuscripts is over 90% Byzantine, which favors the King James Bible. Only a small percentage of the 5,800 are not Byzantine. You can do a search at Perplexity to learn more.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I think this belongs here.

Psalm 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

 

[jamessb]

I noticed that Highlighter has posted several times. I am so glad that I'm ignoring him, at least until he starts posting relevant and/or interesting information. He will post all kinds of arguments in support of a single translation that was ordered by a power-mad king more than four hundred years ago, none of which prove anything. He considers the King James version to be the only true Bible, which makes me very sad.

Why are people like Highlighter so confused as to think that God has given English-speaking people only one valid translation? When I read his stuff I feel sorry for him!

 

[jamessb]

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

It is NOT a 413-year-old Englyshe document, based on inferior sources and written in an archaic language that few clearly understand. I am so glad that the Pilgrims fled King James' persecution to maintain their religious freedom! And I am very happy to have the work of skilled, knowledgeable modern translators who have given us a choice of excellent Bibles that are the true Word of God!

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I noticed that Highlighter has posted several times. I am so glad that I'm ignoring him, at least until he starts posting relevant and/or interesting information. He will post all kinds of arguments in support of a single translation that was ordered by a power-mad king more than four hundred years ago, none of which prove anything. He considers the King James version to be the only true Bible, which makes me very sad.

Why are people like Highlighter so confused as to think that God has given English-speaking people only one valid translation? When I read his stuff I feel sorry for him!

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But we all know that’s not how you play ball.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

It is NOT a 413-year-old Englyshe document, based on inferior sources and written in an archaic language that few clearly understand. I am so glad that the Pilgrims fled King James' persecution to maintain their religious freedom! And I am very happy to have the work of skilled, knowledgeable modern translators who have given us a choice of excellent Bibles that are the true Word of God!

You mean a text that is ever shape shifting. You have no standard but yourself, and men’s translation theories. What base text you have for the NT is doctrinally inferior and teaches false doctrine. I have already demonstrated that in this thread already several times.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

It is NOT a 413-year-old Englyshe document, based on inferior sources and written in an archaic language that few clearly understand. I am so glad that the Pilgrims fled King James' persecution to maintain their religious freedom! And I am very happy to have the work of skilled, knowledgeable modern translators who have given us a choice of excellent Bibles that are the true Word of God!

You said you have bibles (plural). How can multiple bibles that teach contradictory things even between each other be excellent? Do you even know that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree with each in over 3,000 places? How do you choose? Throw a dart? Look to translation theories by men? A settled singular text is more logical. A text that is not settled and shape shifts every few years is not logical and neither can it be the Word. God does not speak conflicting things.

You wouldn’t fly in a plane that was built upon conflicting blue prints. Why would you do so with a book that is far more important?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Hebrews 4:12, "For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart."

It is NOT a 413-year-old Englyshe document, based on inferior sources and written in an archaic language that few clearly understand. I am so glad that the Pilgrims fled King James' persecution to maintain their religious freedom! And I am very happy to have the work of skilled, knowledgeable modern translators who have given us a choice of excellent Bibles that are the true Word of God!

Also, the Word of God cannot have errors within them, either. God doesn’t make mistakes.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Not all scholars agree with each other and not all translations agree. Your Nestle and Aland text keeps changing every few years. What you believe now will change because they will come out with another edition of your Modern English Bible. It’s silly. You have no actual Bible like this.