The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • 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.

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
121
43
Santa Fe NM
It isn't unbiblical or irrational; it is just that neither Christians nor Jews understand the messiahship. The Jews are hoping for their final messiah for 2000 years and smear them with the wrong fluid; while Christians think there is only one Messiah or Christ ever. Moses, David etc etc. and even Saul were messiah. And Saul was a very wicked one.
WHAT are you talking about??? Messiah is a Hebrew word that means anointed or Christ in the New Testament. It refers to the expected king and deliverer of the Hebrews, the Savior, and the Messianic hope of the Old Testament.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
This is completely false.
Basically, you say Aaron was not anointed.
[Exodus 28:41 NKJV] 41 "So you shall put them on Aaron your brother and on his sons with him. You shall anoint them, consecrate them, and sanctify them, that they may minister to Me as priests.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
WHAT are you talking about??? Messiah is a Hebrew word that means anointed or Christ in the New Testament. It refers to the expected king and deliverer of the Hebrews, the Savior, and the Messianic hope of the Old Testament.
It refers to kings and priests who were anointed with embalming fluid.
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
121
43
Santa Fe NM
Alright man, but can you deal with the facts, It should be pointed out that "filled with compassion is entirely different from being 'indignant' and previously it says 'Four' to 'three' are not only spelling changes. What happened to the accuracy of the NIV? Thanks

NIV 1973, 1978, 1984 - “FILLED WITH COMPASSION, Jesus reached out his hand and touched the man.”
NIV 2011 - “Jesus WAS INDIGNANT. He reached out his hand and touched the man.”

NIV - 1973, 1978 and 1984 editions - “Cornelius answered: “FOUR days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”
NIV 2011 edition - “Cornelius answered: “THREE days ago I was in my house praying at this hour, at three in the afternoon. Suddenly a man in shining clothes stood before me”
You clearly have a personal agenda that avoids dealing with reality. You are intent on proving that one or two words translated differently between NIV versions means something. It doesn't!

Consider these two obvious points...
a) Which source documents were used?
b) What are the Greek words and what do they mean in context?

When you have even a basic understanding of the art/science of translating ancient languages into modern English and are willing to drop your obvious bias, perhaps there will be something to discuss.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
15,128
5,438
113
62
It refers to kings and priests who were anointed with embalming fluid.
Oil is a picture of the Spirit. The true anointing is with the Spirit. Any OT anointing pointed to Christ who God Himself anointed at His baptism, and gave Him the Spirit without measure.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
3,999
927
113
You clearly have a personal agenda that avoids dealing with reality. You are intent on proving that one or two words translated differently between NIV versions means something. It doesn't!

Consider these two obvious points...
a) Which source documents were used?
b) What are the Greek words and what do they mean in context?

When you have even a basic understanding of the art/science of translating ancient languages into modern English and are willing to drop your obvious bias, perhaps there will be something to discuss.
Okay, I do understand you but it seems an online translators like Microsoft Bing and Pons do far better than the NIV of yours in this particular passage.

1709502288835.png


1709502325410.png
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
121
43
Santa Fe NM
Okay, I do understand you but it seems an online translators like Microsoft Bing and Pons do far better than the NIV of yours in this particular passage.

View attachment 261152


View attachment 261153
I repeat, you clearly have a personal agenda that avoids dealing with reality. You are intent on proving that one or two words translated differently between NIV versions means something. It doesn't!

Why are you trying to prove that the difference of a few words between the NIV versions means anything? => All Bible translations have been modified over time <= It is obvious that you are attacking the latest version of the NIV for a particular reason. => What is that reason <=
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,615
13,020
113
Basically, you say Aaron was not anointed.
Aaron was never regarded as a messiah, being only anointed with oil. So you are really confused and should stop posting nonsense.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
Aaron was never regarded as a messiah, being only anointed with oil. So you are really confused and should stop posting nonsense.
Anointed is the definition of a messiah in Judaism. The verb and noun are same root.

There is no confusion other than your cynicism.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
The bible, and there is also the fact where Jesus was embalmed in anointing "oil" after he died.
It may or may not been anointing "oil", but it was embalming "oil". It was flammable.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
But NOT applicable to Aaron or any other person you named. Strictly applicable to Jesus of Nazareth, who is rejected by Judaism.
Check post#5254867 above. It is not strictly applicable to Jesus, but the irony is that Saul was one, but Jesus supposedly isn't.

[1 Samuel 15:1, 17 NKJV] 1 Samuel also said to Saul, "The LORD sent me to anoint you king over His people, over Israel. Now therefore, heed the voice of the words of the LORD. ... 17 So Samuel said, "When you [were] little in your own eyes, [were] you not head of the tribes of Israel? And did not the LORD anoint you king over Israel?
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,715
300
83
I repeat, you clearly have a personal agenda that avoids dealing with reality.
Well, you have put me on ignore for no real good reason. I have attempted to show you false doctrines in Modern Bibles, but you did not appear to be willing to see such a list or verses that were changed for the worse in Modern Bibles. So who is the one who is avoiding reality?

You said:
You are intent on proving that one or two words translated differently between NIV versions means something. It doesn't!
It does actually. Just because you say it does not mean anything without you giving us a good reason as to why you are right.
The point of the different NIV editions making changes for the worse is a pattern we see in other Modern Bibles. Also, the Rationalistic translation philosophy and corrupt manuscripts show that the problems in Modern Bibles today are simply a result of a partly bad tree, to begin with. Corrupt doctrines are simply a result of the tree (or origin of the Modern Bible Movement) as being partially corrupt.

You said:
Why are you trying to prove that the difference of a few words between the NIV versions means anything?
Because God is not the author of confusion.

You said:
=> All Bible translations have been modified over time <= It is obvious that you are attacking the latest version of the NIV for a particular reason. => What is that reason <=
Your failing to take under consideration that any differences between the KJV editions is a result of printing errors, etcetera. Back in the day before they perfected the printing technology, there was going to be errors in larger printed books. It was just a reality of the times. Printing errors was common when they used movable type set for printing. It was not until the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) that they were to use a more perfect printing process.

Today, Modern Bibles do not have such an excuse. They make intentional changes to the text as they see fit.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,715
300
83
The title of this thread is "The Error of KJV-Onlyism".

I have thought about this issue extensively and haven't been able to come up with a satisfactory answer -- until now.

KJV-Onlyism is idolatry! Rather than understanding that the KJV is just one of many English translations, the KJV-only people have elevated it to an irrational level.

Throughout the Bible, in both the Old and New Testaments, God's people are warned over and over against Idolatry. Instead of turning to God Himself, people (including God's own people) turned to physical objects made of inanimate materials, to “speak” to them for guidance, wisdom, and other matters. Idols can be made of almost any material: wood, metal, leather, paper, etc.

Rather than communicating with their true Father – the living God – for guidance and answers, people seek inanimate objects instead. They believed that those objects, rather than God, would give them answers.

Jesus specifically warned about this in John 14:6, saying “I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father except through me.” Not through an inanimate book which cannot “speak”!

Does an idol “speak” normally? Of course not! Because it is not actually a person, it speaks ABNORMALLY, and only certain people can understand what their idol is actually “saying”. (Others, of course, cannot.)
Again, these types of false claims have been refuted. Nowhere does the Bible teach that if you believe that His Word is preserved and perfect it equals idolatry. The Bible itself teaches that the words of the Lord are pure words, and they shall last forever (Psalms 12:6-7) (1 Peter 1:23). Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away (Matthew 24:35). As I said before in this thread, Moses carried the two stone tablets that had the very words of God on them. These were perfect words because they were written directly by God Himself. Do you think Moses was into idolatry because he believed these words were perfect? Surely not. Also, we can reverence God's Words according to the Bible. Psalms 119:140 says, "Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it." Do you love God's words because they are very pure? I don't think so. You hold to the unbiblical view that God's word has errors in them.

You said:
This is the same kind of distorted thinking that KJV-only people have. They think that only their translation can accurately communicate God's words. They come up with all kinds of rationalizations and twisted facts to justify their rigid opinion, but there is no actual basis for their claims.
And you say this without a shred of evidence. You say we (KJV believers) have come up with twisted facts to justify our opinion, but you have not really discounted such facts. Your just keep giving us your opinion rather than solid good reasons. As I said before, you would not even look at my list of reasons that shows changed doctrines in Modern Bibles.

You said:
They have turned the King James Bible, a single translation, into an idol. It is a translation through which God communicates to people, but it is not God. It is idolatry!

To me, that is tragic!
And you have turned the Bible we have today into a work of man and not as the preserved words of God. So you have to become the authority ultimately in deciding what God said and did not say. Most King James Bible believers hold to the view that the Bible (KJV) are the expressed thoughts or mind of God. They believe that God who is a spirit being is to be worshiped. But they also know that Scripture says that His words are very pure and therefore we love those words (Psalms 119:140). We do not think the Bible is God, but we do believe that the Bible reflects His mind and His desires for our lives. God wants us to live by every word of God. But you don't appear to believe that because you think that God's words have been corrupted. You are in the camp of Bible correctors. We are simply just Bible believers. That is the major difference between us here.
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
121
43
Santa Fe NM
Does anyone care to discuss the subject OP: The Error of KJV-Onlyism? I don't see how anointing has anything to do with this.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,715
300
83
Does anyone care to discuss the subject OP: The Error of KJV-Onlyism? I don't see how anointing has anything to do with this.
1 John 2:27
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

What may surprise folks is that the Fundamentalist's foundation to fight liberalism in England and Germany was based on rocky ground, to begin with back in 1878 (See this article here). The Fundamental's goal to fight Liberalism declared a false belief that only the originals are inspired. Fundamentals believe double inspiration is heresy. Today, many Fundamentals are against simple common men who just simply believe the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God. The Fundamentalist today attacks the pure Word of God and those who believe in it. These Fundamentalists do not currently have the Anointing of the Holy Spirit to spiritually see that “Double Inspiration” took place when God told Jeremiah to write out another roll (Scroll) to replace the one that was destroyed (with him being told to add many like words to that copy). Job 38:2 says that the inspiration of the Almighty gives man understanding. This is how Scripture is given by inspiration of God. This is how we can declare that the words are inspired.