The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Cameron143]

Luke 4:16-21
KJV(i) 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

We have in the above the Book of Isaiah as read by Christ himself. I believe this is a copy from the original language Hebrew but as Luke wrote them in Greek, will not this constitute a translation? If it is. then, translation can be very well inspired.

I agree with your premise. But you are talking about a translation recorded by the Holy Spirit Himself since Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Spirit. No such claim can be proven of those merely translating scripture. In other words, by virtue of the fact that the words of Luke are scripture, the Holy Spirit is the one translating the text. This could be true of the translators of the KJV, but cannot be proven.
What version previous to the KJV do you think was inspired? Do you believe God waited 1500 odd years to give His people an inspired version?

 

[Cameron143]

No. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that only the originals are given by inspiration of God. It says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. By the time of the New Testament, they would not have had the originals but copies.

Copies are considered scripture if they are copied correctly. If the copies were of a Dr. Seuss book, it would not be considered scripture.
So if the translation was copied correctly, it is indeed scripture because the original was scripture. Same is true of translations. If they are translated correctly, they are scripture because they accurately reflect the originals.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

For years I was in a critical study group composed of multiple members reading
various versions, and the Bible I was reading from was often the most accurate
compared against the others and to the Greek and Hebrew. It was a Catholic Bible.

I believe the Catholic Church is deceived. They are into extra biblical practices that do not align with the Bible like praying to Mary, and the saints, and bowing down to statues. Then there are all the weird pagan symbols everywhere. The sun worship symbol. The pagan fish hates that predates Catholicism. So I am not sure why you would think that they could put together an accurate Bible. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. God would not work through the whore of Babylon to make one of His true Bibles. Not gonna happen. Not on God’s watch. Only counterfeit Bibles come from Rome.

Either Jerusalem or New Jerusalem.

Most of all your Modern Bibles come from Rome or the Vatican.
Again, this is troublesome if you disagree with the Catholic Church.
If you don’t disagree with the Catholic Church, then I am preaching to the choir.

FYI I do not make a habit of reading PDFs.
They are often far too long-winded for me.

I am not asking you to read the whole PDF. I was merely asking you to check out pages 21-22 where the section begins on describing the 14 changes in the NIV that favors the Catholic Church.

Not looking it up means you are simply not interested.

Here is just one example:

#1. Acts 8:37 is omitted in the NIV.
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.“”(Acts 8:37). By removing this verse, this supports the Catholic belief in infant baptism. One does not need to believe in order to be baptized according to their omission here. But again, I would encourage you to just read that short small section. They even give manuscript support for the KJB having these verses.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I agree with your premise. But you are talking about a translation recorded by the Holy Spirit Himself since Luke was writing under the inspiration of the Spirit. No such claim can be proven of those merely translating scripture. In other words, by virtue of the fact that the words of Luke are scripture, the Holy Spirit is the one translating the text. This could be true of the translators of the KJV, but cannot be proven.
What version previous to the KJV do you think was inspired? Do you believe God waited 1500 odd years to give His people an inspired version?

Innovative book publishing was relatively a new invention with the Gutenberg printing press. Without a printing press mass producing books, it would be very difficult to do this by hand to spread the Scriptures on the same level.

Johannes Gutenberg is credited with inventing the printing press around 1440 in Mainz, Germany. The first book widely recognized as having been printed using movable metal type on a printing press is the Gutenberg Bible, also known as the 42-line Bible. It was completed around 1455. However, it's important to note that there were other forms of printing technology in use before Gutenberg's time, and Gutenberg's innovation was the use of movable type combined with an oil-based ink that allowed for more efficient and consistent printing.

This is where the KJB came into play in 1611, which came out 156 years later from the first printed Bible by Johannes Gutenberg in 1455. It was very expensive and hard to get the Bible into one book. We take advantage of book publishing today and are able to pick up Bibles really cheap (shipped to our home). Granted, if you wanted to even print your own Bible today that would still very difficult to do today unless you were rich or you were crowd funded. The only other alternative is to create a multi volume book set of the Bible because of it’s large size.

 

[Magenta]

I believe the Catholic Church is deceived.

I agree.

Most of all your Modern Bibles come from Rome or the Vatican.
Again, this is troublesome if you disagree with the Catholic Church.
If you don’t disagree with the Catholic Church, then I am preaching to the choir.

I think you must have meant, you are preaching to the choir if you disagree with the RCC.

As I said, I do. But I still found The Jerusalem Bible to be highly accurate. We did not read
the deuterocanonical stuff or Apocrypha or whatever. We just had many translations on hand,
and I was curious about that Bible, so chose it to read from it, just as others made their choices.

It was an interesting group.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I believe the Catholic Church is deceived. They are into extra biblical practices that do not align with the Bible like praying to Mary, and the saints, and bowing down to statues. Then there are all the weird pagan symbols everywhere. The sun worship symbol. The pagan fish hates that predates Catholicism. So I am not sure why you would think that they could put together an accurate Bible. A bad tree cannot produce good fruit. God would not work through the whore of Babylon to make one of His true Bibles. Not gonna happen. Not on God’s watch. Only counterfeit Bibles come from Rome.



Most of all your Modern Bibles come from Rome or the Vatican.
Again, this is troublesome if you disagree with the Catholic Church.
If you don’t disagree with the Catholic Church, then I am preaching to the choir.



I am not asking you to read the whole PDF. I was merely asking you to check out pages 21-22 where the section begins on describing the 14 changes in the NIV that favors the Catholic Church.

Not looking it up means you are simply not interested.

Here is just one example:

#1. Acts 8:37 is omitted in the NIV.
“And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.“”(Acts 8:37). By removing this verse, this supports the Catholic belief in infant baptism. One does not need to believe in order to be baptized according to their omission here. But again, I would encourage you to just read that short small section. They even give manuscript support for the KJB having these verses.

Meant to say pagan fish hats, and not…… fish hates.

 

[Magenta]

I do like the KJV over others at times. But more generally opt for the BSB.

(Ran out of edit time.) And about the deception of the RCC: their Mariology is especially disturbing.

I chose the KJV for this panel because I wanted the word behoove in it .

Although the King James only had one "o" in it.

Hebrews 2:17~ In all things it behooved Him to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Copies are considered scripture if they are copied correctly. If the copies were of a Dr. Seuss book, it would not be considered scripture.
So if the translation was copied correctly, it is indeed scripture because the original was scripture. Same is true of translations. If they are translated correctly, they are scripture because they accurately reflect the originals.

Your not getting it.

#1. The Bible teaches that the copies which are called Scripture.
#2. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15).
#3. Timothy did not have the originals but a copy or copies.
#4. The copy or copies that Timothy had were called Scripture.
#5. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

So if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16, then you must believe that the Scriptures that Timothy had are inspired Scripture because 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Which would include the copies). Example: Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah to write out another copy that King Jehoiakim had cut up into pieces and burned in the fire. So this means a copy can be inspired.

 

[Cameron143]

Innovative book publishing was relatively a new invention with the Gutenberg printing press. Without a printing press mass producing books, it would be very difficult to do this by hand to spread the Scriptures on the same level.

Johannes Gutenberg is credited with inventing the printing press around 1440 in Mainz, Germany. The first book widely recognized as having been printed using movable metal type on a printing press is the Gutenberg Bible, also known as the 42-line Bible. It was completed around 1455. However, it's important to note that there were other forms of printing technology in use before Gutenberg's time, and Gutenberg's innovation was the use of movable type combined with an oil-based ink that allowed for more efficient and consistent printing.

This is where the KJB came into play in 1611, which came out 156 years later from the first printed Bible by Johannes Gutenberg in 1455. It was very expensive and hard to get the Bible into one book. We take advantage of book publishing today and are able to pick up Bibles really cheap (shipped to our home). Granted, if you wanted to even print your own Bible today that would still very difficult to do today unless you were rich or you were crowd funded. The only other alternative is to create a multi volume book set of the Bible because of it’s large size.

I understand the history of the printing press. Not sure of the point you are making.

 

[Magenta]

Your not getting it.

#1. The Bible teaches that the copies which are called Scripture.
#2. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15).
#3. Timothy did not have the originals but a copy or copies.
#4. The copy or copies that Timothy had were called Scripture.
#5. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

So if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16, then you must believe that the Scriptures that Timothy had are inspired Scripture because 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Which would include the copies). Example: Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah to write out another copy that King Jehoiakim had cut up into pieces and burned in the fire. So this means a copy can be inspired.

Timothy was not using a KJB.

 

[Magenta]

Maybe I should start listing in my panels' document which translation I used for each panel...

I know there is more than that one that employs the KJB. One panel I did early on, a member
I have not seen for a long time did not like that it was not KJV, so I changed it for him.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I do like the KJV over others at times. But more generally opt for the BSB.

(Ran out of edit time.) And about the deception of the RCC: their Mariology is especially disturbing.

I chose the KJV for this panel because I wanted the word behoove in it .

Although the King James only had one "o" in it.

Hebrews 2:17~ In all things it behooved Him to be made like His brothers so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

Hebrews 2:17 (KJB)
"Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.”

Yes, beautiful verse. Behove (Pure Cambridge KJB) means Behoove. Behoove means “needful” or “necessary” in this context.

Sources:
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Dictionary/behove
https://kingjamesbibledictionary.com/Dictionary/behoove

it was necessary for Christ to be made in the flesh like His brethren so that Jesus can be our Heavenly high priest and make an atonement for the sins of the people. Jesus forever lives to make intercession for the saints (Hebrews 7:25).

 

[John146]

Timothy was not using a KJB.

Timothy was using a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. And it was called the holy scriptures.

 

[Magenta]

Timothy was using a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. And it was called the holy scriptures.

Not the KJB.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Timothy was not using a KJB.

The Scriptures he had would have said the same thing as the KJB, though (Within the confines of translating of one language to another, which God has done before). Anyway, we know that God was not concerned with the originals in Jeremiah when king Jehoiakim destroyed the originals in a fire. God simply made Jeremiah to make another copy.

God is not the God of the dead (i.e., Meaning, God does not hang around only with the original manuscripts and its dead languages that are no longer around anymore), but He is the God of the living. Meaning, God moves with the times. God is able to preserve His words in English. I believe this is exactly what He did with the King James Bible. Isaiah 34:16 has parallel verses in Revelation. It also addresses Gentile nations. So this means that there is going to be a “Book of the Lord“ during the 7 year tribulation period. It tells us Gentile nations to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read. Meaning, one book and not many. The Book of the Lord would also not have errors within it. How could we trust what God said if that was the case? Thats what dumb about Modern Scholarship. Why would I trust a Bible that has errors in it? I wouldn’t. But then you got folks crying how if we have a perfect Bible it is an idol. Really? What Bible verse says that?

 

[Cameron143]

Your not getting it.

#1. The Bible teaches that the copies which are called Scripture.
#2. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15).
#3. Timothy did not have the originals but a copy or copies.
#4. The copy or copies that Timothy had were called Scripture.
#5. ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

So if you believe 2 Timothy 3:16, then you must believe that the Scriptures that Timothy had are inspired Scripture because 2 Timothy 3:16 says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God (Which would include the copies). Example: Jeremiah. God told Jeremiah to write out another copy that King Jehoiakim had cut up into pieces and burned in the fire. So this means a copy can be inspired.

That's poor reasoning, as is assuming someone doesn't understand what you are saying simply because they disagree.
If copies are inspired, it isn't because the Holy Spirit inspired the copy, but because the copy reflects the original inspiration. If it doesn't, it's not scripture. That's the nature of a copy. It's the same as the original.
The same is true of translations. When a translation is done accurately, it is a copy of scripture but in another language. It accurately reflects the original inspiration. It is scripture.

 

[Magenta]

The Scriptures he had would have said the same thing as the KJB, though

That's an assumption.

Here is another KJV panel:

1 Corinthians 2:12 + 14

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Scriptures he had would have said the same thing as the KJB, though (Within the confines of translating of one language to another, which God has done before). Anyway, we know that God was not concerned with the originals in Jeremiah when king Jehoiakim destroyed the originals in a fire. God simply made Jeremiah to make another copy.

God is not the God of the dead (i.e., Meaning, God does not hang around only with the original manuscripts and its dead languages that are no longer around anymore), but He is the God of the living. Meaning, God moves with the times. God is able to preserve His words in English. I believe this is exactly what He did with the King James Bible. Isaiah 34:16 has parallel verses in Revelation. It also addresses Gentile nations. So this means that there is going to be a “Book of the Lord“ during the 7 year tribulation period. It tells us Gentile nations to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read. Meaning, one book and not many. The Book of the Lord would also not have errors within it. How could we trust what God said if that was the case? Thats what dumb about Modern Scholarship. Why would I trust a Bible that has errors in it? I wouldn’t. But then you got folks crying how if we have a perfect Bible it is an idol. Really? What Bible verse says that?

Meant to say that Isaiah chapter 34 has parallel verses in Revelation and that it is addressed to Gentile nations.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's poor reasoning, as is assuming someone doesn't understand what you are saying simply because they disagree.
If copies are inspired, it isn't because the Holy Spirit inspired the copy, but because the copy reflects the original inspiration. If it doesn't, it's not scripture. That's the nature of a copy. It's the same as the original.
The same is true of translations. When a translation is done accurately, it is a copy of scripture but in another language. It accurately reflects the original inspiration. It is scripture.

Okay. Your still not getting it. Language is not a problem for God. Just read the story at Pentecost. If God wants a perfect translation from one language to another, He can do that. This is a part of the promises of God. 1 Peter 1 says that the words of the Lord will endure forever. (1 Peter 1:25). This does not mean they must endure in the original languages. God can take His words from the original languages and move them to another language. Nothing is impossible for God. The many evidences of the KJB being the Word of God is rather numerous. That’s how we know it accurately reflects what the originals said. But in your belief system, you don’t really have a perfect Bible and God failed to keep His promise in accurately preserving His words. You sort of have His words but not really. Therein lies the problem.

But again, following the line of logic in 2 Timothy 3:15 to 2 Timothy 3:16 will lead you to conclude that the copies of Scripture that Timothy had were inspired Scripture. That is the most logical way to read those two verses unless you simply are not wanting to see it. It does not say “Only the Originals are given by inspiration of God.“ You would like it to say that. But it says, ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So your not making any sense.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's an assumption.
1 Corinthians 2:12 + 1

It’s a logical deduction based on believing the Bible in what it says. The Bible talks about how His words are pure and they will be preserved forever. So we have to choose the best candidate that fits with what the Word of God says. If you know Bible history, this is not difficult to figure out. Also, what is the alternative? Trusting a bunch of error ridden Modern Bibles that ultimately originate from two heretics known as Westcott and Hort? No thanks.