The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

How about this gem? "Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels."
or "My beloved put in his hand by the hole [of the door], and my bowels were moved for him." How romantic. Or a cure for constipation.

If I have time, I may try and bring this point up in the debate because my opponent, Jeffrey Dollar criticized it already in one of his videos.

There is actually a significant spiritual point being made here that goes over most people's heads (because of a lack of faith).


....

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I just realized that I will probably be on my job at work during the scheduled time of the debate.

Somehow, I was thinking it was later in the day - until I checked it a few minutes ago. Sorry!

Well, its not God's will then. However, I would like to see you comment on Nick Sayer's future videos (if its possible). I think you would have a lot of fun. Again,, what is exciting is that Nick will talk about your comment live as he is speaking when defending the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible. Nick's series involving Mark Ward has been very entertaining and informative, and they are some of my favorites. Now, Nick's videos are long. They do go 4 hours or more. But do not let that discourage you. Many times, I watch Nick's videos over several days or weeks in parts. If it is live, and I am busy, I just comment for a few minutes. It is really a fun and informative channel to watch if you love the TR / KJV .

Anyway, seeing you are not able to make it , I will create a new thread for discussion here at ChristianChat after the debate is finished so that you can share your thoughts.


...

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Really? I honestly did not know that - guess I haven't paid enough attention to it and just assumed...

Thanks - that is good to know!

In my KJV debate, I am not using my real name.
I am going by my internet name, "Bible Highlighter" or "BH."


...

 

[Jimbone]

That may be the case (e.g. Mormonism), but modern bibles PROMOTE false doctrines. And therein lies the difference. The examples below are just the tip of the iceberg, but I do not expect you to thoroughly investigate the impact of there alterations on believers and non-believers.

1, For example Matthew 17:21 -- an important teaching of Christ about dealing with demons -- is missing from the NIV, NLT, ESV, NET Bible, God's Word Translation.

2. Matthew 18:11 is an extremely important verse: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (KJB). So why is it missing from the same culprits, along with the ERV and Weymouth? And you don't think this will affect the Christian who will start doubting the veracity of Scripture and this truth?

3. Matthew 23:14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. This is whole verse missing from the NIV, NLT, ESV, ERV, NET Bible, God's Word Translation, and Darby's Translation. Is it an important verse to confirm eternal damnation and also expose the condemnation of these men by Christ? IS EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE THERE BECAUSE GOD GAVE IT? Does anyone have the right to expunge Scripture?

4. Matthew 27:35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. [omitted]
Do you know how many modern corruptions have omitted this important truth? NIV,NLT. ESV. Berean, NASB, Holman, ISV, NET Bible, Aramaic Bible, God's Word translation, ASV, ERV, Darby's, Weymouth, World English Bible. That is SIXTEEN modern corruptions which have rejected this truth, which was prophesied over 1,000 years ago: They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Ps 22:18) God foreknew and foresaw exactly what would happen at Calvary.

And here is what Bible commentator Charles John Ellicott had to say: "They parted my garments among them.—St. John (John 19:24) emphatically records a yet more literal fulfilment of the words than that noted by St. Matthew. The thoughts of both disciples, we may believe, were turned to Psalm 22:18 by our Lord’s utterance of its opening words (Matthew 27:46), and thus led to dwell on the manifold coincidences of its language with the facts of the Passion.

John 9: 24They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Commentator Matthew Henry said this: It was for diversion; to pass away the time while they waited for his death, they would play a game at dice for the clothes; but, whatever they designed, the word of God is herein accomplished. In that famous psalm, the first words of which Christ made use of upon the cross, it was said, They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture, Ps. 22:18. This was never true of David, but looks primarily at Christ, of whom David, in spirit, spoke. Then is the offence of this part of the cross ceased; for it appears to have been by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Christ stripped himself of his glories, to divide them among us.

In view of this MINIMAL SAMPLE, you and others cannot in good conscience use and promote modern versions. And if you do you will be held accountable for supporting false doctrines and misleading others.

Yes it's easy to pick a list of things like this and make up your own condemning viewpoint on it, but what you are not doing is going into the reasons that these things are not in it. It's not some crazy conspiracy of "Satan is diluting His word", It can be because we've found several more copies of this text much older than what we had before and can see clearly now that the closer we get back to the original reading, these certain things are not found, because they were added later.
For example maybe Jesus over time in text was changed to "Lord Jesus", then "Our Lord Jesus Christ", so as we push it back we see the original just said Jesus, was it really Satan that made them take out "Lord", or did the translators just now know and see so much more than the translators from before?

That's what wrong with SO much of KJVOism, it based on misunderstanding and misused information. God's word and power are SO much bigger than a single version. It's silly to try to hold God in such a tiny box.

 

[Dino246]

If I have time, I may try and bring this point up in the debate because my opponent, Jeffrey Dollar criticized it already in one of his videos.

There is actually a significant spiritual point being made here that goes over most people's heads (because of a lack of faith).

That's a perfect example of KJV-only arrogance. The point is perfectly clear in the NIV, and perfectly obscured in the KJV. The problem is archaic language, not a lack of faith. It is IMPOSSIBLE to exercise faith on a matter that one doesn't understand where the lack of understanding is entirely due to the unfamiliarity of the the language.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

That's a perfect example of KJV-only arrogance. The point is perfectly clear in the NIV, and perfectly obscured in the KJV. The problem is archaic language, not a lack of faith. It is IMPOSSIBLE to exercise faith on a matter that one doesn't understand where the lack of understanding is entirely due to the unfamiliarity of the the language.

If you were to examine the two lines of Bibles in history objectively, you would see that the Modern Bibles are corrupt, and the KJV is not. As for the uncommon words in the KJV: God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.


...

 

[John146]

Simply not true, because translation is not an exact science. While certain words may, phrases and sentences in one language don’t necessarily have exact one-to-one correspondence in other languages.

Don‘t need to be, we just need the exact English words God would use and we have it. Are you limiting God to a certain language?

 

[Dino246]

If you were to examine the two lines of Bibles in history objectively, you would see that the Modern Bibles are corrupt, and the KJV is not. As for the uncommon words in the KJV: God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise.

As there are not only two "lines of Bibles", you have no point.

 

[Dino246]

Don‘t need to be, we just need the exact English words God would use and we have it.

Which you claim to have, without any sound basis, and against demonstrated evidence.

Are you limiting God to a certain language?

No, that's your thing.

 

[John146]

As there are not only two "lines of Bibles", you have no point.

Is there a third? Fourth?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

As there are not only two "lines of Bibles", you have no point.

Sorry, I should have clarified better. There are two major lines of Bibles in existence today, which one can see from history.
Just ask ChatGPT, or Perplexity. They will confirm this truth for you.

Note: Now, was the Latin at one time a major Bible line with the Latin Vulgate? Yes. But it is no longer dominant anymore. Only the pope, and his special elite class (bishops, cardinals, etc.) use it. Generally, not even the people who live in Vatican city do not use the Latin Vulgate. They use a Critical Text Catholic Bible today instead.

You can thank Westcott and Hort (who fellowed with Unitarian George Vance Smith) for that if you like.


....

 

[Dino246]

Is there a third? Fourth?

If you had done your homework, you would not need to ask.

There are at least three (Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Western), and if you include languages other than Greek and Hebrew but which are technically "lines of manuscripts", there are several others (Coptic, for example).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

If you had done your homework, you would not need to ask.

There are at least three (Alexandrian, Antiochene, and Western), and if you include languages other than Greek and Hebrew but which are technically "lines of manuscripts", there are several others (Coptic, for example).

I forgot to add in the word "major" to what I said. There are two "major" lines of Bibles in existence today.
Meaning, there are only two lines of Bibles today that have a major influence.

One either is for the KJV (TR Based Text) or they are for a Critical Text Bible of some kind.

....

 

[Dino246]

I forgot to add in the word "major" to what I said. There are two "major" lines of Bibles in existence or major influence for today.

One either is for the KJV (TR Based Text) or they are for a Critical Text Bible of some kind.

Antiochene and Alexandrian, not TR and Critical Text.

 

[LeeLoving]

As harsh as it might sound reading anything but the standard KJV for the aliteral designed purpose of salvation is a-literal foolishness. The KJV is the preserved Holy Bible.

 

[Dino246]

As harsh as it might sound reading anything but the standard KJV for the aliteral designed purpose of salvation is a-literal foolishness. The KJV is the preserved Holy Bible.

With respect to you, your idea is both factually flawed and practically stupid. Nobody speaks Elizabethan English today; why hide God's word behind incomprehensible language? The average college student in North America (or any English-speaking country) would have difficulty understanding it. As for "preserved", that is, frankly, nothing better than KJV-only propaganda.

 

[LeeLoving]

With respect to you, your idea is both factually flawed and practically stupid. Nobody speaks Elizabethan English today; why hide God's word behind incomprehensible language? The average college student in North America (or any English-speaking country) would have difficulty understanding it. As for "preserved", that is, frankly, nothing better than KJV-only propaganda.

The KJV is the original translation and readable (I don't have any issues with it). I don't understand the criticism. The later translations run the risk of man-made translations that are not correct, while the KJV is trustable.

 

[Gideon300]

If I have time, I may try and bring this point up in the debate because my opponent, Jeffrey Dollar criticized it already in one of his videos.

There is actually a significant spiritual point being made here that goes over most people's heads (because of a lack of faith).


....

The KJV is the original translation and readable (I don't have any issues with it). I don't understand the criticism. The later translations run the risk of man-made translations that are not correct, while the KJV is trustable.

Just not true. The Wycliffe Bible precedes the KJV, as does the Tyndale. There is the "Great Bible" of 1539, suppressed by Mary 1 because she was Catholic. By the way, some scholars claim that 90% of the KJV is unaltered Tyndale.

Language changes, meanings of words change. The KJV is a relic of the past with no more spiritual value than any other decent translation. You may have no issues. Countless others do. Why push something on people that is unintelligible to most?

You are being loose with the truth. If the KJV is that good, why do you need to try and justify it? It should stand on its own.

 

[Gideon300]

Yea another odd verse (2 Corinthians 6:12), stuff only found in the she bible.

There are 37 verses that use "bowels" in the KJV. 37 reasons to get a modern translation.

 

[Gideon300]

KJV ONLY People:

I have a lot of good friends that are KJV ONLY people, and most of them are very fine Christians.
They have a high view of scripture, they are very devout, and they're filled with both courage and zeal.
Many of them know the Bible very well, and are excellent at teaching core doctrine and core principles.
I respect them and love them very much.

However, I find the entire KJV ONLY position (and thus debate on the matter) to be irrational, and a disruption to our time.

Why?


2 Categories of Claims.
The KJV ONLY position has 2 types of claims, and carefully distinguishing these 2 types of claims will quickly sort the entire issue:

1. Rational Claims:
They make some claims that are rational, and thus at least plausible, and should therefore be open for debate and discussion.
(Example: They feel certain manuscripts and texts are more reliable than others. Perfectly rational to discuss this.)
2. Irrational Claims:
They make some claims that are not rational, and which are therefore simply not possible.
So these claims have to be discarded by default.
If we discard the irrational claims (which we must), then all that remains is a very modest, and very different position altogether.
(Example: Most of them believe God's word is somehow "perfectly" preserved in the English language even better than in the original languages. This is simply irrational, and there's no logical way to defend this. They also use certain verses to support their views, and almost every verse they use for this is pulled completely out of historical context.)


Conclusion:
A.) I love the KJV ONLY brethren, and most of them are fine and devout Christians who deeply love God, and deeply love his word. I find no fault in this. They are fine Christians, and fine friends.
B.) I usually don't debate people on the KJV ONLY position, because they've let this strange issue become far too conflated with their core beliefs of the gospel... I always fear, deeply fear, debate with them will injure their faith.


God Bless.
Have a great week everyone.
.

Some of them are religious nutters. People to avoid.