The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[jamessb]

Here is my opinion, on further reflection, about King James Only people...

The King James translation was created over 400 years ago 1) from a limited set of sources and 2) a limited knowledge of the ancient source languages. Today we have many more ancient documents and 2) the art/science of translation is better than it has ever been. So, why do people still insist that the King James translation is the only one to use?

The main reason, in my opinion, is that early 17th Century Englyshe makes them feel "holy". Rather than accept the fact that Jesus, when He was on Earth, spoke Aramaic and was a rural man (not an urban Pharisee), they have to create a false image in their minds of what He really was like. He was not a Pharisee (in every sense of the word).

The Pharisees were a Jewish group that separated themselves from impurity, the common people, and adhered to the law of the Old Testament as they understood it. They scorned Jesus, a rural commoner (in their eyes). They were more interested in outward form than genuine faith, and they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law.

Those who insist in the King James translation are similar. After all, how could anyone question the work of a group of specifically-selected men who produced a version of the Bible ordered by a secular king to verify his status? Does anyone really think that God, who created and oversees all His creation, gave a specific group of men perfect insight into His word, and has never done so at any other time before or since? It is beyond comprehension for anyone to believe such nonsense.

They will give all kinds of reasons for their belief: the KJV translators had better sources, they had better knowledge of the ancient languages, God gave them perfect understanding; that was never the case before and has never been the case since, there is a conspiracy among modern translators to corrupt God's Word, modern source manuscripts are corrupt, the translators are inspired by Satan, Bible publishers are in it to make a fast buck, etc., etc., etc.

If there ever was a group that believed that they are "holier than thou", the King James group are it. They will come up with all kinds of (phony) rationale for their rigid belief, but there is no basis for it. They want to believe that they are superior to the rest of us who (in their eyes) are gullible at best and deceived at worst.

I really feel sorry for this group of latter-day Pharisees! They think that they alone have the truth and have perfect understanding of the Bible, but, because of their arrogance, they are as deceived as the Pharisees were centuries ago.

Finally, I have nothing against the King James translation per se. If someone wants to use it as their Bible, fine. But the choice of which Bible to use is up to the individual. Whichever Bible "speaks" to them is the one they should use. Almost without exception, today's Bibles are excellent.

Personally. I read the NET Bible, The NIV, and the NRSVue. I occasionally read the 1599 Geneva Bible -- the version the Pilgrims used -- and the King James Bible. There is no perfect translation!

 

[presidente]

q

Well I dont see that the views you posted in your open post as your own

A lot of people can recognize a dumb idea that is obviously false, and many of those people may have the same ideas about that dumb idea. I don't claim my ideas are unique on this topic.

I believe there views of narrow minded people who like to cause division.

We should experience the unity of the faith by united around Christ, not dumb man-made doctrines.

So what I'm saying if you want to be narrow minded, and not see the real truth, about the KJV then go right ahead.

Again, if you have nothing of substance to contribute, you can simply attack the person you disagree with by labeling him 'narrowminded.' Have you considered that approach might be a bit divisive?

The real truth is Jesus addresses people as ye in the king James version

The real truth is that there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus spoke in KJV English while he was hear on this earth. English had not even evolved into Late Modern English at this time, and it may not have existed. It probably hadn't broken off of ProtoGermanic, and from what I have read 'ye' was not the word in ProtoGermanic. If read it is /juz/ with the j being pronounced like a y. So kind of like people from New Jersey say it.

Because ye are loved.

All other translation doesn't use the word ye

If they translate it into New Jersey informal English they could say 'yous' and if into Southern, they could use "y'all."-- which is much more pleasant to the ears.

And I have never ever thought of the way your opening post has, where ever those ideas came from.

But I would say there from satan

Have you considered that that is divisive, that if someone doesn't agree with a really dumb man-made doctrine, that he must be getting his ideas from Satan?

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

q
A lot of people can recognize a dumb idea that is obviously false, and many of those people may have the same ideas about that dumb idea. I don't claim my ideas are unique on this topic.



We should experience the unity of the faith by united around Christ, not dumb man-made doctrines.



Again, if you have nothing of substance to contribute, you can simply attack the person you disagree with by labeling him 'narrowminded.' Have you considered that approach might be a bit divisive?



The real truth is that there is no evidence that the Lord Jesus spoke in KJV English while he was hear on this earth. English had not even evolved into Late Modern English at this time, and it may not have existed. It probably hadn't broken off of ProtoGermanic, and from what I have read 'ye' was not the word in ProtoGermanic. If read it is /juz/ with the j being pronounced like a y. So kind of like people from New Jersey say it.



If they translate it into New Jersey informal English they could say 'yous' and if into Southern, they could use "y'all."-- which is much more pleasant to the ears.


Have you considered that that is divisive, that if someone doesn't agree with a really dumb man-made doctrine, that he must be getting his ideas from Satan?

well I would like to hear from biblical scholars to whether Jesus said ye or you 😂

Would not ye my friend. 😊

 

[presidente]

Yes, I know. It is shocking. There are still people in existence today in this Laodicean age like me who simply believe the Bible in what it says today. The belief that the KJV is inspired actually can be traced back to the 1600s. It is the orthodox bible believing view after the KJV's existence.

Just out of historical interest, I would like to know who thought that in the 1600's.

But that's another problem with this doctrine-- it isn't taught in the Bible. The apostles didn't teach it. Someone came up with it after 1611.

If you don't have inerrant or inspired translation then you or the Modern scholar of your choice is the final word of authority and not the Bible.

non sequitur. Are you saying the Bible wasn't the 'final word of authority' when John wrote 'amen' in Revelation, or when Martin Luther hammered the 95 thesis on the church door in Whittenburg?

The Bible never says that the Bible is the 'final authority.' So your argument isn't even a Biblical one. Jesus said "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth."

You or the scholar get to sit in the seat of God and decide what God said and did not say.

That's what a lot of KJV onlyist do. Even though the Bible teaches something, KJV onlyists will say no it doesn't mean that, because that contradicts the KJV. So you can show them the original Greek, and they try to say oh that's the same as Esther, or that verse from Latin about the Godhead is genuine. Or they don't care that the same Greek word is used in two passages.

Or they build doctrine on the 1611 turn of phrase. A verse about being diligent to show 'yourself approved' does not specify academic study or reading in Greek.

There are no originals anymore and copies of the original languages we do have in the Greek conflict with each other. But we know Scripture says that God's Word does not return void. Where are your original language manuscripts that we can trace whereby we can see it had a huge impact on Bible believers over the hundreds of years?

That's a silly argument if you are going to jump from there to KJV onlyism. It just so happens that you and your church use the KJV, and that is a VERY important group of folks. We could say the Spanish speaking folks or Chinese speaking folks are important, but isn't the center of Christianity the local KJV onlyist church? That kind of reasoning doesn't hold water with me.

The Bible existed before the committee King James put together translated it.


The current Bible movement you follow is recent in history. It was started by Westcott and Hort in 1881. If you go to Archive.org and look at the half-title page of Westcott and Hort's Revised Version, it says it is the version set forth in 1611 AD. However, this is a lie or a deception because everyone today (even Modern Scholars) knows that the Revised Version is based on a different line of Greek NT texts and it is not based on the underlying Greek NT text of the KJV. The Revised Version is based on the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. The King James Bible is based on the Textus Receptus for the NT Greek. However, Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. Certainly, he was not a friend of the TR or the KJV. Therefore, based on the evidence, Westcott and Hort clearly employed deception. Furthermore, adding to the challenge for Textual Critics, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead by relocating the segment of 1 John 5:8, which reads, “For there are three that testify:” It's shifted to fill the gap in 1 John 5:7, creating the illusion that there's no crucial missing verse. This should immediately raise alarm bells. However, within the Textual Critic community, many might dismiss it with a casual "No cause for concern here, move along," which is worrying. If it were a trivial detail in the Bible that didn't impact doctrine, it might not be as critical, but this directly relates to a fundamental aspect of understanding God's nature.[/quote]

If you don't like Wescott and Hort's work, that is in no way an argument for the KJV being inspired. That doesn't even make sense as an argument.

In addition to that, I have a Catholic ideas Bible test. Meaning, I have a list of verses found in Modern Bibles that promotes Catholic ideas that are found in Modern Bibles but not in the KJV. When we look at the Revised Version, there is like 6-8 Catholic ideas, but as we see the popularity of the English Bibles grow in the 1960s (the NEB, and GNT), these Catholic ideas started to grow. When we get to the NIV, we see this list of Catholic ideas grows even more. Then you got the Vatican openly admitting they supervised the Nestle and Aland critical text in the 27th edition in 1993. A Catholic cardinal (who was in line to be the pope once) worked on editions 26-28. So yeah, I don't want a Bible that is influenced by the Vatican. I don't want a Bible that has Catholic ideas pushed in them.

You don't think there was any RCC influence on the KJV, which relied on Roman Catholic Erasmus' Textual Criticism by which he developed the Textus Receptus?

 

[presidente]

well I would like to hear from biblical scholars to whether Jesus said ye or you 😂

Would not ye my friend. 😊

Ye is more than one person. There isn't much extra benefit from reading the KJV if you don't know the old singular/plural distinctions. That's one advantage reading the KJV and certain other translations has.

You can look up verses in Greek in an interlinear and see what pronounce were used, or read a bit about pronounce in Aramaic and Hebrew.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

Ye is more than one person. There isn't much extra benefit from reading the KJV if you don't know the old singular/plural distinctions. That's one advantage reading the KJV and certain other translations has.

You can look up verses in Greek in an interlinear and see what pronounce were used, or read a bit about pronounce in Aramaic and Hebrew.

well my friend the little things are very important, and i don't want ye to have heart ache, I want ye to recognise something.

The king James version recognises ye as the church,..where as you always comes across as something personal.

Do ye think Jesus likes to address the Whole church or single individuals out.

As all other translations single individuals out with you, rather than ye

But the king James version speaks to ye 😊

Would ye agree

Could you ye see why I may like the king James more 😂

 

[presidente]

well my friend the little things are very important, and i don't want ye to have heart ache, I want ye to recognise something.

The king James version recognises ye as the church,..where as you always comes across as something personal.

Do ye think Jesus likes to address the Whole church or single individuals out.

As all other translations single individuals out with you, rather than ye

But the king James version speaks to ye 😊

Would ye agree

Could you ye see why I may like the king James more 😂

You should say 'my friends' if you use ye.

If thou doest wish to speak with one person, thou shouldst use thou. If thou doest speak with many thou shouldst say ye.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

You should say 'my friends' if you use ye.

If thou doest wish to speak with one person, thou shouldst use thou. If thou doest speak with many thou shouldst say ye.

thou is being funny, but ye need joy. 😂

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Here is my opinion, on further reflection, about King James Only people...

Here is my Christian belief based on my study of the Bible, by looking to Bible history, and by much reflection about the Modern Bible Movement people….

The King James translation was created over 400 years ago

The Modern Bible movement started not too long ago in history with Westcott and Hort in 1881 and their deception of trying to pass off the Revised Version as a King James Bible update (of which you can see in the half-title page at Archive.org with it falsely saying it is the version set forth in 1611 AD) when everybody today knows that the RV is based on different underlying Greek NT texts than the KJV. So right out the starting gate, your movement is based on the scholarly work of two men who lie and deceive. So it begs the question what else are they lying about?

1) from a limited set of sources and

The Modern Bible movement is based on a limited set of manuscript evidence or sources. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the two mother ships of your movement and more non-TR manuscripts are added to back these two manuscripts. However, over 90% of the 5,800 Greek NT manuscripts are Byzantine and they agree more with the Textus Receptus that was filtered by Beza and used by the King James Bible translators.

2) a limited knowledge of the ancient source languages.

Modern Bible translators do not have the same ancient source languages as certain translators who worked on the King James Bible.
Some of them knew these languages since they were a child and some knew multiple languages. The resume of the KJV translators is impressive, to say the least, and no other group was ever assembled like them in history. Today, scholars do not have the same access to the manuscripts that they had that were burned up in the 1666 London fire.

Today we have many more ancient documents

Today, the King James Bible is still based on the majority of manuscript witnesses and any new Alexandrian manuscript discoveries are only showing a line of corrupted texts that were not in use through church history.

and 2) the art/science of translation is better than it has ever been.

The so-called art and science of Textual Criticism is still man centered and not God centered like it always has been since the French Catholic Priest named Richard Simon had most likely originated it. Simon’s goal was of course to move people away from trusting the Bible and trust more in mother church (Rome). This is evident by the fact that you can see Catholic ideas being promoted in Modern Bibles over the years and by the fact that it says in the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland (1993) that it was supervised by the Vatican.

So, why do people still insist that the King James translation is the only one to use?

So, why do people insist that the conflicting babbling Modern Bibles and faith destroying Textual Criticism is the true way?

The main reason, in my opinion, is that early 17th Century Englyshe makes them feel "holy".

One of the major reasons is because it makes men feel like they are like God and they are in control of what God said or did not say.
Nobody can understand the Bible unless they come to you or the scribes (the scholars) to get the true understanding on what God said.
But what is ironic is that James White disagrees with Dan Wallace on what the Bible is and or what the true words of God are. So there is no real standard in the Modern Bible movement. Everyone is their own standard and they do what is right in their own eyes seeing there is no king attached to their work. How could a rationally minded king sign off on the mess of the Modern Bible movement? He wouldn’t. But a king once did authorize a faithful translation to give to the common man and which was used by the common man for many hundreds of years. It is now only the scribe or scholar who takes away the words of God away from the simple common man who just believes God’s Word simply and plainly like a child.

Rather than accept the fact that Jesus, when He was on Earth, spoke Aramaic and was a rural man (not an urban Pharisee), they have to create a false image in their minds of what He really was like. He was not a Pharisee (in every sense of the word). The Pharisees were a Jewish group that separated themselves from impurity, the common people, and adhered to the law of the Old Testament as they understood it. They scorned Jesus, a rural commoner (in their eyes). They were more interested in outward form than genuine faith, and they taught that the way to God was by obeying the law.

The Pharisees did not accept the truth that Jesus is God and the Messiah. They did not expect their King and Savior to be a simple carpenter. He was not a Pharisee (according to the man-made teachings of the Pharisees). The Pharisees were a Jewish group that separated themselves by the false illusion of impurity with man-made traditions. By looking at various Scripture verses, we can get the impression that many of the Pharisees most like viewed the common people as being lesser in their eyes. Jesus taught a new way to obey God at the sermon on the Mount. Jesus condemned the Pharisees in the fact that they did not keep the weightier matters of the law of the Old Testament like love, faith, justice, and mercy (Matthew 23:23) (Luke 11:42). However, the Pharisees scorned Jesus because He claimed to be God and He said true things about them that they did not like. They were more interested in outward form of appearance than genuine faith, and they taught that the way to God was by obeying the false man-made Pharisee religion (under the false pretense that they were to obey the Law but in reality, they actually broke God's commands of which Jesus condemned).

Those who insist in the King James translation are similar.

Those who insist that we must trust the conflicting Modern babbling Bibles and the faith destroying Science of Textual Criticism are similar.

After all, how could anyone question the work of a group of specifically-selected men who produced a version of the Bible ordered by a secular king to verify his status?

After all, how could anyone question the work of Modern day scholars who claim to have made advancements in translating God's word and who claim that their new manuscript discoveries are superior to the ones underlying the KJV? Who would dare question the impressive credentials of today's scholars? Who would dare stand up against the ridiculous lies that King James was a sodomite or that was a secular king? Most today reject a perfect Bible and so just fit in with everyone else and don't make waves. You will lose your friends if you do that. Most of Christianity today uplift the scholars who transcribe the Scriptures just like the Pharisees were uplifted.

Does anyone really think that God, who created and oversees all His creation, gave a specific group of men perfect insight into His word, and has never done so at any other time before or since?

Does anyone really think that God, who created and oversees all of His creation, gave two men who were deceivers and liars the true Scriptures and the real way to the path to understand the truth of God's Word? Folks today do not even believe in an actual existing inspired Bible and yet they act like there is one sometimes and mislead people by such statements. Many church websites will say that we believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God and they double back and say... Only in the originals. So they don't really believe present tense the Bible IS the infallible words of God because it is non-existent and they never seen such an animal. They have faith in something that they cannot see or verify. They make attempts to maybe one day have the Bible perfectly but we know that is a mirage or an illusion.

It is beyond comprehension for anyone to believe such nonsense.

It is beyond comprehension for anyone to believe such nonsense.

They will give all kinds of reasons for their belief:

They will not give us any good reasons for their belief. We are to simply just trust them or their chosen scholars.

the KJV translators had better sources, they had better knowledge of the ancient languages, God gave them perfect understanding; that was never the case before and has never been the case since,

In contrast to the empty hollow claims of the Modern Bible Movement, the KJV translators had better sources, they had better knowledge of the ancient languages, God gave them perfect understanding at the right key moments that would eventually end up in the 1611 KJV. Before the KJV, the Bible was preserved perfectly with the Latin Italic Bible by the Waldenses. However, the Catholic Church had destroyed many of the Scriptures that they had.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There is a conspiracy among modern translators to corrupt God's Word,

There is a conspiracy that began with Westcott and Hort to dethrone the King James Bible and the TR.
Hort called the TR villainous and vile. Catholics have joined in on the conspiracy by adding Catholic ideas in Modern Bibles over the years. While there does not appear to be any current conspiracy at present because the Modern Bible Movement has risen in popularity, that does not mean Satan does not have a conspiracy or agenda to get people to question God's Word like he did back in the garden with Eve. That is at the heart of the Science of Textual Criticism. You question the text to try to maybe one day piece together a Bible, but this method is never seen anywhere by Jesus and His apostles and it is only employed by the serpent.

modern source manuscripts are corrupt,

Modern source manuscripts are corrupt.

The Vaticanus & Sinaiticus are Neither Oldest Nor Best as the scholars falsely claim. For example, we read this about Codex Vaticanus (B) — “The entire manuscript has had the text mutilated, every letter has been run over with a pen, making exact identification of many of the characters impossible.” More specifically, the manuscript is faded in places; scholars think it was overwritten letter by letter in the 10th or 11th century, with accents and breathing marks added along with corrections from the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries. Those who study manuscripts say that all this activity makes precise paleographic analysis impossible. Missing portions were supplied in the 15th century by copying other Greek manuscripts. How can you call this manuscript “the oldest and the best.” On the next page, you will see an example of the problems that come into play when there are multiple corrections within a manuscript. The page is from 4th century Codex Vaticanus. Here we see Hebrews 1 of Codex Vaticanus. Though hard to see in this size, notice the marginal note between the first and second columns. A corrector of the text had erased a word in verse 3 and substituted another word in its place. A second corrector came along, erased the correction, reinserted the original word, and wrote a note in the margin to castigate the first corrector. The note reads, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading, don’t change it!” What aboutt Codex Sinaiticus (ALEPH)? This is a Greek manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, found on Mount Sinai, in St. Catherine’s Monastery, which was a Greek Orthodox Monastery, by Constantin Tischendorf. He was visiting there in 1844, under the patronage of Frederick Augustus, King of Saxony, when he discovered 34 leaves in a rubbish basket. He was permitted to take them but did not get the remainder of the manuscript until 1859. Constantin Von Tischendorf identified the handwriting of four different scribes in the writing of that text. But that is not the end of the scribal problems! The early corrections of the manuscript are made from Origen’s corrupt source. As many as ten scribes tampered with the codex. Tischendorf said he “counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus.” Alterations, and more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to have been made in the 6th and 7th centuries. So much for the oldest!! “On nearly every page of the manuscript, there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people.” He goes on to say, “…the New Testament…is extremely unreliable…on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped…letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” (Source).

the translators are inspired by Satan,

The translators are in trouble with the Lord for altering God's word and they need to repent.

Bible publishers are in it to make a fast buck, etc., etc., etc.

Creators of Modern Bibles are in it to make money from kickbacks by the copyrights. We even see in this thread that the NET Bible translation is being promoted by poster: "jamessb." He is telling us to buy this translation several times (Which goes against the Modern Bible's own warning in 2 Corinthians 2:17).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If there ever was a group that believed that they are "holier than thou", the King James group are it. They will come up with all kinds of (phony) rationale for their rigid belief, but there is no basis for it. They want to believe that they are superior to the rest of us who (in their eyes) are gullible at best and deceived at worst.

If there ever was a group that believed that they are "God's mouth-piece" based on no actual perfect Bible, but based on their own fallible opinions and translation theories, the Modern Bible group are it. They want to believe they are superior to the common man who simply just reads and believes his/her Bible simply by faith who (in their eyes) are gullible at best and deceived at worst.

I really feel sorry for this group of latter-day Pharisees!

My heart truly does go out for even those Modern-day scribes who add or subtract from God's word whereby they endanger their own souls (See: Revelation 22:18-19).

They think that they alone have the truth and have perfect understanding of the Bible, but, because of their arrogance, they are as deceived as the Pharisees were centuries ago.

Each respective scholar or new student of Textual Criticism believes that they alone have the truth and they have a perfect understanding of their imaginary phantom Bible that exists only in their own minds, but, because of their arrogance, they are deceived as the scribes were centuries ago. The scribes are those who TRAN-scribe the law or the Scriptures. The scholar today is the scribe in Jesus' day. Jesus said we are to beware of the Scribe. But there is hope. Anyone can repent and simply just believe the Bible simply and plainly like a child, including the Modern-day scribe. It's never too late to simply take God at His Word. Granted, I am not saying that all believers who use Modern Bibles are not saved or anything. What I am saying is that if a Christian attacks the real Bible and or they make their own translation or endorse heavily those who do, I believe they are in trouble with the Lord and they need to repent.

Finally, I have nothing against the King James translation per se.

Most Christians today who attack KJV-only believers will employ the praise and blast syndrome involving the KJV. They will praise it at times and or say they do not have a problem with it. Yet, at other times, they act like they have a split personality and they attack it by bringing up false slander against King James or they will say that the scholarship of the KJV translators is not as good as the scholarship of the Modern-day translators even though the Modern day scribes have never come out with a settled text since 1881. You would think that they would have gotten it right by now. This is unlike KJB believers. Most KJB believers today hold to either the Authorized Version (Blayney) or the Pure Cambridge Edition (Pollard). But there is little difference between them, and both are correct in what they say (even though I believe the Pure Cambridge more accurately reflects the original Greek NT).

If someone wants to use it as their Bible, fine. But the choice of which Bible to use is up to the individual. Whichever Bible "speaks" to them is the one they should use. Almost without exception, today's Bibles are excellent.

What is common in the Modern Bible movement is their saying that you should use whichever Bible speaks to you. So go ahead and use the New World Translation, the Living Bible, the Message Bible, and the Voice Translation. If it speaks to you, go for it. This sounds like the Charismatic movement. Go ahead and go with that voice you hear or that feeling you have. Let's shut our brains off to what the Bible says about itself and let's ignore Bible history.

Personally. I read the NET Bible, The NIV, and the NRSVue. I occasionally read the 1599 Geneva Bible -- the version the Pilgrims used -- and the King James Bible. There is no perfect translation!

They make utterly ridiculous statements that there is no perfect translation and yet claim they have the Word of God as they wave their Bible above their head. Nonsense. They will speak in one sentence like they have the inspired words of God in the present and then they contradict that statement by sometimes saying it is only in the originals. Ultimately, they have no real Bible. Their real authority is in themselves or the scholar(s) of their choice. Don't like what the Bible says there? Yeah, just go ahead and look to another translation or scholar or look to some Lexicon.

 

[Thunderrr-mental]

If there ever was a group that believed that they are "God's mouth-piece" based on no actual perfect Bible, but based on their own fallible opinions and translation theories, the Modern Bible group are it. They want to believe they are superior to the common man who simply just reads and believes his/her Bible simply by faith who (in their eyes) are gullible at best and deceived at worst.



My heart truly does go out for even those Modern-day scribes who add or subtract from God's word whereby they endanger their own souls (See: Revelation 22:18-19).



Each respective scholar or new student of Textual Criticism believes that they alone have the truth and they have a perfect understanding of their imaginary phantom Bible that exists only in their own minds, but, because of their arrogance, they are deceived as the scribes were centuries ago. The scribes are those who TRAN-scribe the law or the Scriptures. The scholar today is the scribe in Jesus' day. Jesus said we are to beware of the Scribe. But there is hope. Anyone can repent and simply just believe the Bible simply and plainly like a child, including the Modern-day scribe. It's never too late to simply take God at His Word. Granted, I am not saying that all believers who use Modern Bibles are not saved or anything. What I am saying is that if a Christian attacks the real Bible and or they make their own translation or endorse heavily those who do, I believe they are in trouble with the Lord and they need to repent.



Most Christians today who attack KJV-only believers will employ the praise and blast syndrome involving the KJV. They will praise it at times and or say they do not have a problem with it. Yet, at other times, they act like they have a split personality and they attack it by bringing up false slander against King James or they will say that the scholarship of the KJV translators is not as good as the scholarship of the Modern-day translators even though the Modern day scribes have never come out with a settled text since 1881. You would think that they would have gotten it right by now. This is unlike KJB believers. Most KJB believers today hold to either the Authorized Version (Blayney) or the Pure Cambridge Edition (Pollard). But there is little difference between them, and both are correct in what they say (even though I believe the Pure Cambridge more accurately reflects the original Greek NT).



What is common in the Modern Bible movement is their saying that you should use whichever Bible speaks to you. So go ahead and use the New World Translation, the Living Bible, the Message Bible, and the Voice Translation. If it speaks to you, go for it. This sounds like the Charismatic movement. Go ahead and go with that voice you hear or that feeling you have. Let's shut our brains off to what the Bible says about itself and let's ignore Bible history.



They make utterly ridiculous statements that there is no perfect translation and yet claim they have the Word of God as they wave their Bible above their head. Nonsense. They will speak in one sentence like they have the inspired words of God in the present and then they contradict that statement by sometimes saying it is only in the originals. Ultimately, they have no real Bible. Their real authority is in themselves or the scholar(s) of their choice. Don't like what the Bible says there? Yeah, just go ahead and look to another translation or scholar or look to some Lexicon.

Just a helpful suggestion but it be better if ye said, thou said 😂

That's why I like the king James 😋

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Just out of historical interest, I would like to know who thought that in the 1600's.

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed."

In 1678. It says,

"And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day."​

They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say,

"All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life."​

​

What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.

The year 1678 is 67 years after 1611.
Also, keep in mind that Richard Simon is often regarded as the "father of modern biblical criticism". He was a 17th-century French Catholic priest, and he did not influence anyone in England at that time.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is-Richard-Simon-IS8c5QcARzC.Lm7VciC9Qg

1762 – Cambridge University, guided by Dr. F.S. Paris does an update with spelling changes to reflect the new modern English word spelling uniformity mandated by the widely accepted 1755 Johnson’s English Dictionary. A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Cambridge Warehouse down in protest, destroying all but several copies.

1769 – Oxford University, guided by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, takes a surviving copy of Cambridge’s 1762 revised and modernized KJV text, and adds some more updates,. A group of “1611 Loyalists” burns the Oxford Warehouse down in protest, destroying all but several copies.

Source: A particular edition of Samuel John’s Dictionary.

Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

“We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.“​

1857:

"The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted...” (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).​

1882:

"I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED..." (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).​

1890: The Supreme Court said,

"the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects." (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).​

1897:

“IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...” (Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)​

Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that:

"the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost."​

You can see more quotes like this in Will Kinsey’s article here:

https://www.brandplucked.com/confesskjb.htm

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes, I know. It is shocking. There are still people in existence today in this Laodicean age like me who simply believe the Bible in what it says today. The belief that the KJV is inspired actually can be traced back to the 1600s. It is the orthodox bible believing view after the KJV's existence.

But that's another problem with this doctrine-- it isn't taught in the Bible. The apostles didn't teach it. Someone came up with it after 1611.

That's not true.

God’s Word teaches that copies of His Word are “inspired Scripture.” If you were to compare the existence of the Isaiah scroll in the New Testament with Luke 4:17, along with the existence of what appears to be another Isaiah scroll in Acts 8:28, Acts 8:32-33, at least one of these scrolls would have to be a copy and not the original. Each of these manuscripts of Isaiah is called Scripture. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15). Again, these Scriptures he had would have been copies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. ALL Scripture is inspired, and not just some. Meaning, copies that are called Scripture are given by inspiration of God and not just the originals (See video here by Gene Kim to learn more).

Note: Please understand that I do not endorse everything that Dr. Gene Kim teaches. I do not agree with Mid Acts Dispenationalism.
I also do not agree with his attitude at times. I do not agree with OSAS, either. Nevertheless, his video is helpful for those who simply want to read and believe the Bible simply, like a child (involving this topic).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Bible never says that the Bible is the 'final authority.' So your argument isn't even a Biblical one. Jesus said "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth."

While the Bible does use those exact words, it does imply it. The Bible implies that the Scriptures are the final Word of authority in matters of faith and practice. This concept is rooted in the sufficiency of Scripture, as revealed in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which states,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Bible never says that the Bible is the 'final authority.' So your argument isn't even a Biblical one. Jesus said "All authority is given unto Me in heaven and in earth."

To combat Catholics and liberals, I have come up with a systematic Scriptural defense of Sola Scriptura (which I prefer to call, “the Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It”). You can check that out here:

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...alone-the-anointing-to-understand-it.8091626/

Then again, this was Richard Simon's goal. He is the father of Modern Textual Criticism and his goal was to lead folks back to mother Rome and away from trusting the Bible solely.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

While the Bible does use those exact words, it does imply it. The Bible implies that the Scriptures are the final Word of authority in matters of faith and practice. This concept is rooted in the sufficiency of Scripture, as revealed in 2 Timothy 3:16–17, which states,

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

Meant to say, "While the Bible does not use those exact words, it does imply it.

 

[Gideon300]

As I said before, this is false. King James contributed very little the KJV translation. He provided certain rules for the KJV, but he did not define what the text should read. The KJV is not radically different in doctrine from previous TR bibles. There is no proof that King James had added anything to the Bible that would uplift his kingdom. Your repeating yourself is simply a false advertising campaign. You are not providing any sources that can back up your claims here.



Sources please. You have none. Where is your proof? Clearly it exists only in your mind or in the minds of those who don’t want a perfect Bible to be under authority to. Again, as I pointed out before, there is a major error in the Geneva Bible. It’s troublesome notes also was a problem, as well.



There are reports of King James doing so, but you have to understand that there is a lot of false information about King James out there because he represents the Bible. For example: We clearly know that the claim that King James was a sodomite is false. I did watch a BBC documentary on the KJB where Puritans were able to worship in secret. So it’s not like they could not worship. I think those who went against the king openly had the problem. If the popular story is true, this would simply tell us that, no human king (born of two parents) is perfect. King David had murdered and committed adultery. Yet, he was a man after God’s own heart. But if God did not approve of King James’ work or translation because he was an evil and horrible king as you suggest, then why did God bless his efforts? Surely there is more to the story than what others are telling us here. The King James Bible was the dominant Bible in the English speaking world for hundreds of years and many trusted that book unwaveringly. Today, you got people attacking the Bible, and kicking it like a football.



And for good reason. You have people like Bart Erhman and Rick Beckman who were both once Christians and now they no longer believe. I believe this is what the Science of Textual Criticism does to a person’s mind. This science gets you to doubt the Bible. The Textual Critics almost destroyed my faith after I first got saved. Others have lost their faith when they learned of Textual Criticism in Bible college. They no doubt just believed the Bible was true before they went to college and then lost it by all their faith doubting teachers.



But they are not good translations because the Catholic Church has put Catholic ideas into Modern Bibles. The Modern Bibles are all supervised by the Vatican. This is simply a fact if you look at the 27th Edition of the Nestle and Aland.



The NIV is actually considered trash by even folks in your camp over the years. Folks in your camp told KJV-only believers to stop bringing up the NIV all the time because they know it is bad. So popularity of the NIV does not mean anything. I am sure there are a lot of popular things out there that are bad for you.



Right. *Rolls eyes* Like the so-called improvement in Mark 4:1 where it makes Jesus out to be angry when he heals the leper.
Yeah, that’s just crazy talk - IMHO.



You mean the training of the false Science of Textual Criticism and not the training in just reading and believing the Bible simply like a child.



And in the process take the risk in destroying their faith. Good job.
Those who believe in the pure Word of God are willing to die for it.
Are you willing to die for man’s words mingled in with words you deem are spoken by God but not inspired?



Not sure why you are trying to sell bibles when folks can just look them up for free online. Granted, I personally like the feel of a real Bible at times, but to buy a Modern Bible should only be bought to expose them. This is possible if one uses the KJV. The KJV is like a magnifying glass that exposes the errors in the Modern Bibles.

I was born again over 50 years ago. The KJV made no sense to me. Most of the preachers used it and spent much time explaining what the language meant. I was not a contemporary of Shakespeare. I decided to use anything but the KJV. I don't have to wonder what it means to be moved in the bowels. Sound like a laxative. What would unbelievers think?

My faith is just fine. It is the faith of the Son of God, and He has no problem. And that is about the only argument I have with modern translations. They say "faith in...." However, the literal translations, such as the Berean, get it right. I often look at the literal translation as well as how it is expressed in the main version.

This KJV only nonsense implies that every Christian is a native English speaker. Plainly that is untrue.

 

[Gideon300]

This is just another narrow minded argument that leads nowhere, where have you picked all this up from 🤔


If there's errors in texts, it is mainly down to How the scribes have wrote down words. And how old ancient texts are that fade.

But for most part we understand the KJV.

Your argument is deeply flawed because your passing the buck to the KJV onlyism for this.

What is a KJV onlyism in your mind, or anyone elses mind.

Is it someone who only has a KJV bible there life, passed on from there father or mother.


Is it someone who prefers the kjv, because the word ye is in there more.

Do people love that Jesus addressed people as ye. And not you.

Do people out there start to hate the KJV because you can see Jesus talking his language, or they struggle to interpret some verses, as some verses are hard to interpret than say the NIV


But if I was to put my money on why people hate The KJV, it is because evil hates Jesus.

In the KJV you hear Jesus speaking the word Ye a lot, and ye feal as if he is talking to ye.

Because ye sounds so much better than you.


So ye sure should concentrate more on what's in the KJV, and less than what narrow minded people think

Of course evil people love all the other versions of the Bible. And the Chinese/Korean/Thai/Indian and non English speaking Christians are evil because they don't use the KJV. Do you not see how ridiculous your stance is? I guesseth noteth.

 

[Gideon300]

Meant to say, "While the Bible does not use those exact words, it does imply it.

I've met people who can quote chapters of the KJV verbatim. And some were spiritually dead.

Jesus had this to say: "Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life."

See, I even quoted the KJV. However, it is not entirely correct. It should read "You" search the scriptures.