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.
Ignorance is bliss.
Go ahead and take the blue pill then, and believe whatever you want to believe.
But that is where the Textual Critic (Anti-KJV belief) comes from. It comes from the Seminaries. The corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are favored by these schools (Whereby the Modern Bible Movement today was started by heretics Westcott and Hort). Actually, the Anti-KJV position or the belief that all Modern Bibles say the same thing or teach the same doctrine is false. Any person who has two cents to rub together can see they say different things and God is not the author of confusion (among the saints).
Not true. William Tyndale did indeed invent the English word "Passover" for the festival, aiming to preserve the Hebrew wordplay in English[1][5]. Tyndale's genius for language led him to coin several new English words, including "Passover," "atonement," and others, profoundly impacting the English language and biblical translations[4]. Despite some variations and combinations existing in Tyndale's time, his contributions to English vocabulary were significant, with many of his translations directly influencing the King James Version Bible[4]. Tyndale's work in translating the Bible into English played a crucial role in shaping modern English and making the word of God accessible to English speakers[5].
Sources
[1] William Tyndale and the Language of At-one-ment https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/william-tyndale-language-one-ment
[2] Why English-Speaking Jews Call It "Passover" Rather Than "Pesah" https://mosaicmagazine.com/observat...king-jews-call-it-passover-rather-than-pesah/
[3] Why we should not Passover Easter http://www.easterau.com
[4] Four Words That Changed the World | G3 Ministries https://g3min.org/four-words-that-changed-the-world/
[5] Words “Fitly Spoken”: Tyndale's English Translation of the Bible https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/words-fitly-spoken-tyndales-english-translation-bible
Try fact-checking stuff at Perplexity.ai.
Words can sometimes change with the passage of time. For example: The word "gay" did not commonly have the same meaning as it did in the past. I know this for a fact because of my family.
Go ahead and take the blue pill then, and believe whatever you want to believe.
But that is where the Textual Critic (Anti-KJV belief) comes from. It comes from the Seminaries. The corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are favored by these schools (Whereby the Modern Bible Movement today was started by heretics Westcott and Hort). Actually, the Anti-KJV position or the belief that all Modern Bibles say the same thing or teach the same doctrine is false. Any person who has two cents to rub together can see they say different things and God is not the author of confusion (among the saints).
Not true. William Tyndale did indeed invent the English word "Passover" for the festival, aiming to preserve the Hebrew wordplay in English[1][5]. Tyndale's genius for language led him to coin several new English words, including "Passover," "atonement," and others, profoundly impacting the English language and biblical translations[4]. Despite some variations and combinations existing in Tyndale's time, his contributions to English vocabulary were significant, with many of his translations directly influencing the King James Version Bible[4]. Tyndale's work in translating the Bible into English played a crucial role in shaping modern English and making the word of God accessible to English speakers[5].
Sources
[1] William Tyndale and the Language of At-one-ment https://rsc.byu.edu/king-james-bible-restoration/william-tyndale-language-one-ment
[2] Why English-Speaking Jews Call It "Passover" Rather Than "Pesah" https://mosaicmagazine.com/observat...king-jews-call-it-passover-rather-than-pesah/
[3] Why we should not Passover Easter http://www.easterau.com
[4] Four Words That Changed the World | G3 Ministries https://g3min.org/four-words-that-changed-the-world/
[5] Words “Fitly Spoken”: Tyndale's English Translation of the Bible https://rsc.byu.edu/prelude-restoration/words-fitly-spoken-tyndales-english-translation-bible
Try fact-checking stuff at Perplexity.ai.
Words can sometimes change with the passage of time. For example: The word "gay" did not commonly have the same meaning as it did in the past. I know this for a fact because of my family.
-
1
- Show all
Well, you are being overly sensitive. If the shoe fits, it's not wrong to correct a person. I am just saying that your position is one based on ignorance and not wanting to fact-check what he said and verify it. The writer did not invent what he said in the book out of thin air. He has sources to prove what he discovered. I also provided sources to you via Perplexity.ai. Again, it fell on deaf ears because you did not reply back to the points I made with sources. I say this not to wound you, but to lead you to see the truth that you are not dealing with. Then again, this is a common tactic we see even in this thread. Nobody is bothering to fact-check anything or deal with verses that refutes their false belief in Textual Criticism.
I think that by this time I have put the KJV-only people on "ignore" status, since I think that their arguments are baseless at best, irrational at worst.
For everyone else...
Why do you think that people are so obsessed with one single translation? Why can't they accept these facts..?
a) The earliest sources of the Bible are not the originals. They are copies and, because they are hand-written, differ from each other. In other words, there is no perfect, inerrant source of the Bible.
b) The languages of the Bible "books" are ancient Hebrew (that has no vowels), Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew), and Koine Greek (the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world around the time of Christ and the apostles).
c) No translation from one language to another can be exact. There are too many differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to make "perfect" translation possible. A literal (exact, word-for-word) translation of ancient scrolls would be unreadable. (A glance at Young's Literal Translation will give you the idea)
d) Translation is both an art and a science. The goal of the best translation is to communicate to our minds the best understanding of what the authors intended to say. There can be absolutely no question that the translation should be in our native language, i.e., the one that we understand most clearly. Translators work extremely hard to understand what the ancient (sometimes conflicting) texts say and mean, and to communicate that to us as clearly as possible. THAT IS NO EASY TASK!!! Therefore, there will never be a perfect translation. THAT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!
I am grateful that we have a plethora of English translations so that, no matter what a person's reading and comprehension skills are, s/he ca find a translation that clearly communicates God's words to her/him, with understanding.
I would like your thoughts on this subject. If you are a KJV-only person, don't bother. I have read enough of your absurd reasoning! If you respond in that fashion, I will put you on ignore also.
For everyone else...
Why do you think that people are so obsessed with one single translation? Why can't they accept these facts..?
a) The earliest sources of the Bible are not the originals. They are copies and, because they are hand-written, differ from each other. In other words, there is no perfect, inerrant source of the Bible.
b) The languages of the Bible "books" are ancient Hebrew (that has no vowels), Aramaic (a dialect of Hebrew), and Koine Greek (the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world around the time of Christ and the apostles).
c) No translation from one language to another can be exact. There are too many differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to make "perfect" translation possible. A literal (exact, word-for-word) translation of ancient scrolls would be unreadable. (A glance at Young's Literal Translation will give you the idea)
d) Translation is both an art and a science. The goal of the best translation is to communicate to our minds the best understanding of what the authors intended to say. There can be absolutely no question that the translation should be in our native language, i.e., the one that we understand most clearly. Translators work extremely hard to understand what the ancient (sometimes conflicting) texts say and mean, and to communicate that to us as clearly as possible. THAT IS NO EASY TASK!!! Therefore, there will never be a perfect translation. THAT IS AN IMPOSSIBILITY!
I am grateful that we have a plethora of English translations so that, no matter what a person's reading and comprehension skills are, s/he ca find a translation that clearly communicates God's words to her/him, with understanding.
I would like your thoughts on this subject. If you are a KJV-only person, don't bother. I have read enough of your absurd reasoning! If you respond in that fashion, I will put you on ignore also.
-
1
- Show all
@Stan_the_Man
Please understand that while I may get frustrated by your rejecting what I believe is the truth, that does not mean I don't care for you and love you in Jesus Christ. I always like to take a step back and pray for those who do not see the truth on such a matter.
May God bless you and your family (even if may not agree).
Please understand that while I may get frustrated by your rejecting what I believe is the truth, that does not mean I don't care for you and love you in Jesus Christ. I always like to take a step back and pray for those who do not see the truth on such a matter.
May God bless you and your family (even if may not agree).
I can say the same thing for your side, but that does not prove anything unless I provide evidence.
Note: I have provided evidence to back up my claims. But as we can see your belief does not stand up to scrutiny because you just want to place us on ignore and not look at any of the facts or evidences we present.
Because we believe the Bible.
KJV believers do not believe there are any originals today (at least to our knowledge we do not have any originals today). So you would be misinformed.
And you say this according to your opinion and not based on what the Bible actually says about itself.
KJV believers accept that the Bible originated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So you are misinformed about what we believe.
Then you would have to state that the many translations in the Bible like the sign on the cross in different languages was in error.
You really would not have any certainty of the words of truth (Which would contradict Scripture - See: Proverbs 22:21).
True Bible translation is ultimately done by God so as to preserve His words and it is not by the will of man.
This is why you need to trust God's Word involving the teachings on the purity and preservation of His own Word. With God, nothing is impossible.
I am grateful that the Modern Bibles can help flesh out the archaic wording at times, but I am not grateful for Modern Bibles in the fact that they can lead people astray to believe false doctrines, and can influence people to create their own translation (Whereby they would be in trouble with the Lord according to Revelation 22:18-19).
And this is a common tactic from your side. Ignore what evidence we present. This has been a continual theme in this thread by many who hold to your view. No reason to fact-check anything. Just invent your own reality. Follow men that invent Bibles based on their own man-made limited thinking. But God's Word is holy and not a holey Bible full of errors and holes. That is what you fail to understand, dear sir.
Side Note:
Granted, a few on your side will occasionally will try to deal with what we say but they misrepresent those facts.
Note: I have provided evidence to back up my claims. But as we can see your belief does not stand up to scrutiny because you just want to place us on ignore and not look at any of the facts or evidences we present.
Because we believe the Bible.
KJV believers do not believe there are any originals today (at least to our knowledge we do not have any originals today). So you would be misinformed.
And you say this according to your opinion and not based on what the Bible actually says about itself.
KJV believers accept that the Bible originated in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. So you are misinformed about what we believe.
Then you would have to state that the many translations in the Bible like the sign on the cross in different languages was in error.
You really would not have any certainty of the words of truth (Which would contradict Scripture - See: Proverbs 22:21).
True Bible translation is ultimately done by God so as to preserve His words and it is not by the will of man.
This is why you need to trust God's Word involving the teachings on the purity and preservation of His own Word. With God, nothing is impossible.
I am grateful that the Modern Bibles can help flesh out the archaic wording at times, but I am not grateful for Modern Bibles in the fact that they can lead people astray to believe false doctrines, and can influence people to create their own translation (Whereby they would be in trouble with the Lord according to Revelation 22:18-19).
And this is a common tactic from your side. Ignore what evidence we present. This has been a continual theme in this thread by many who hold to your view. No reason to fact-check anything. Just invent your own reality. Follow men that invent Bibles based on their own man-made limited thinking. But God's Word is holy and not a holey Bible full of errors and holes. That is what you fail to understand, dear sir.
Side Note:
Granted, a few on your side will occasionally will try to deal with what we say but they misrepresent those facts.
King James onlyism started as a reaction to changes made by textual critics based on different manuscripts than those used for the KJV. It all started with the Revised Version which was published in the late 19th century. It claimed to be a simple revision of the KJV; but it was later discovered that it used readings based on Textus Sinaiticus and Textus Vaticanus. This upset a lot of people, understandably so since it was all done by stealth. As time went on, and more translations were made based primarily on those two manuscripts, hysteria began to set in. Instead of thinking and talking about it logically, conspiracy theories began to proliferate and eventually people started claiming that the only really true word of God was the KJV.
Simply put, they can't accept facts because their beliefs aren't based on facts but on conspiracy theories and emotions.
Simply put, they can't accept facts because their beliefs aren't based on facts but on conspiracy theories and emotions.
-
1
- Show all
No, I have learned over the years that all the false doctrine comes thru seminaries and bible colleges and it's where people go to be indoctrinated to follow the crowd, to follow the traditions of men by accepting reformed theology which is chocked full of error and is not biblical.
So when someone claims they have a degree in pastoral studies, theology, or whatever - that's a sign that they have been indoctrinated into following the traditions of men rather than following what God's Word says
Feel free to follow these pointy headed people that are educated beyond their intellect in the wisdom of men if you so desire, but I'll pass.
I learned this the hard way after having attended churches as a young man that taught false doctrine that led to living in defeat which is NOT what God's Word teaches for those who have been been bought and purchased by the Blood of the Lamb
I appreciate that - we'll see how long that lasts!
Correct.
Partially correct. Replace "Textus" with "Codex". Yes, the stealth and fraudulence were definitely upsetting, but because those two manuscripts were the most corrupt, it led to thousands of changes in the Greek text (and therefore in the translation).
"Hysteria" is definitely not the proper term to use. "Very serious concerns" would be more accurate (and rightly so). There were no "conspiracy theories" either. The conspiracy of Westcott & Hort was a HISTORICAL FACT. And there was nothing "logical" in the fantasies of W&H. They cooked up a fake scenario to promote their corrupt critical text, and too many people failed to see through their deception. For those who want an in-depth understanding, please read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, an outstanding textual scholar in his own right.
Partially correct. Replace "Textus" with "Codex". Yes, the stealth and fraudulence were definitely upsetting, but because those two manuscripts were the most corrupt, it led to thousands of changes in the Greek text (and therefore in the translation).
"Hysteria" is definitely not the proper term to use. "Very serious concerns" would be more accurate (and rightly so). There were no "conspiracy theories" either. The conspiracy of Westcott & Hort was a HISTORICAL FACT. And there was nothing "logical" in the fantasies of W&H. They cooked up a fake scenario to promote their corrupt critical text, and too many people failed to see through their deception. For those who want an in-depth understanding, please read The Revision Revised by John William Burgon, an outstanding textual scholar in his own right.
Wow, it's amazing. You actually admit that the Modern Bible Movement (by Westcott and Hort) is based on lies and deception.
That does not sound like something God would fully bless.
You are misinformed about the origins of those who believed the KJV to be the perfect Word of God.
We see this belief as early as the 1600s.
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed."
In 1678. It says,
They then list the books of the Old and New Testaments and then say,
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
1857:
1882:
1890: The Supreme Court said,
1897:
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that:
You can see more quotes like this in Will Kinsey’s article here:
https://www.brandplucked.com/confesskjb.htm
That does not sound like something God would fully bless.
You are misinformed about the origins of those who believed the KJV to be the perfect Word of God.
We see this belief as early as the 1600s.
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 Testaments 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 is 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
You need to definitely do your own homework, my friend. It's pretty common knowledge that most seminaries are not KJV-only, but they are for Textual Criticism, and the Westcott and Hort Vaticanus and Sinaiticus Texts that corrupt the Textus Receptus NT Greek texts (Which we see in Modern Bibles).
I agree that believers have to live righteously by God's grace (Titus 2:11-12) and not in defeat as many today teach.
Many today believe you can sin and still be saved (Which is false).
I've been doing it since I renewed my faith in following the Lord Jesus since 2010/2011.
I believe if I don't pray and love my enemies or those in whom I disagree with strongly, I could condemn myself.
That does not mean I cannot get passionate in defending the truth or get frustrated at those who reject certain truths in the Bible.
This does not mean I don’t care and love them and strive to pray for them to see. This does not mean I don’t always strive to love them in return at other times.
I agree that believers have to live righteously by God's grace (Titus 2:11-12) and not in defeat as many today teach.
Many today believe you can sin and still be saved (Which is false).
I've been doing it since I renewed my faith in following the Lord Jesus since 2010/2011.
I believe if I don't pray and love my enemies or those in whom I disagree with strongly, I could condemn myself.
That does not mean I cannot get passionate in defending the truth or get frustrated at those who reject certain truths in the Bible.
This does not mean I don’t care and love them and strive to pray for them to see. This does not mean I don’t always strive to love them in return at other times.
Moving the goalposts (or shifting the goalposts) is a metaphor, derived from goal-based sports such as football and hockey, that means to change the rule or criterion (goal) of a process or competition while it is still in progress, in such a way that the new goal offers one side an advantage or disadvantage. (source: Wikipedia)
And here it is...
You are redefining what constitutes "error" so that you can deny that the KJV has any errors. That is exactly the behaviour to which "moving the goalposts" refers.
As for this...
No, we just demand that you use THE SAME STANDARDS for the KJV that you use for every other translation. You will refuse because the KJV cannot stand the degree of scrutiny you apply to anything else.
And here it is...
You are redefining what constitutes "error" so that you can deny that the KJV has any errors. That is exactly the behaviour to which "moving the goalposts" refers.
As for this...
No, we just demand that you use THE SAME STANDARDS for the KJV that you use for every other translation. You will refuse because the KJV cannot stand the degree of scrutiny you apply to anything else.
-
1
- Show all
Yeah as in denying things God said in His Word as they follow reformed theology which is the wisdom of man that they teach as though it is the wisdom of God. False doctrine! (calvinism, luthernism, and catholicism)
OK, so if someone does not enthusiastically agree with you, they are your enemy - I see how you are
OK, so if someone does not enthusiastically agree with you, they are your enemy - I see how you are
all i'm seeing are transliterations of Pascha
Eos is German for East - and Eoster as a word comes from German translations about the same period of a great antisemitism in the area.
using this imaginary word in a translation of the Bible into a pagan language (like English, zb) is a remnant of trying to remove all things Jewish from Christianity.
Christ died on Pascha. it's a feast day. He rose on Firstfruits. also a feast day. He did that on purpose.
Eos is German for East - and Eoster as a word comes from German translations about the same period of a great antisemitism in the area.
using this imaginary word in a translation of the Bible into a pagan language (like English, zb) is a remnant of trying to remove all things Jewish from Christianity.
Christ died on Pascha. it's a feast day. He rose on Firstfruits. also a feast day. He did that on purpose.
-
1
-
1
- Show all