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.

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Do you believe people have the free will to justify themselves or not?
God makes the first move of which we cannot take credit for. Then we have the free will to either have faith or not. Faith is what gives us access to God’s grace (Romans 5:1-2). We are justified by his grace (Romans 3:24), and we are justified by faith (Romans 3:28).
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
How do you feel about Received Text only-ism? Has God preserved His word in the koine Greek and Hebrew texts upon which all the first centuries of scripture translations into other languages were based?
I don't accept the idea that Erasmus was infallible.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,163
1,791
113
Show me in the Bible where God’s Word is like silly putty?
If you also want to imply texts having dual meanings is not possible, then you have another issue as a KJV-onlyist.

The KJV just goes with the Masoretic text and its vowel pointing on this verse from Amos, but the New Testament interprets the verse differently.

Amos 9:11-12
King James Version
11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.

Acts 15:17
King James Version
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
 
Dec 29, 2023
1,327
236
63
by saying that Eve's (the wife's) desire is contrary to her husband.
It is... women desire to have the authority that God gave Adam and desire that which belongs to the husband.

Unless of course it's a godly woman being led by the Holy Spirit who understands God's order that men are supposed to be the leaders.

This is something the devil has gained much ground in by having the women become rulers over men as well as the feminization of men.

That's what the devil does in inverts thing God created to be one way, the devil seeks to invert it to be the opposite of how God intended it to be.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,135
29,451
113
When does one receive eternal life and what is eternal life?

John 17:2-3~ You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent.:)
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
If you also want to imply texts having dual meanings is not possible, then you have another issue as a KJV-onlyist.

The KJV just goes with the Masoretic text and its vowel pointing on this verse from Amos, but the New Testament interprets the verse differently.

Amos 9:11-12
King James Version
11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:

12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.

Acts 15:17
King James Version
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
I am aware that there are alternate ways to say the same thing in Scripture. In this case your bring up, it’s not proof of the existence of variant readings whereby it means something else entirely different. One is merely making assumptions that this is so. You would need a series of verses or passages clearly referring to the art of Textual Criticism and it is just not there. Jesus was not asked about any textual variants. He simply quoted Scripture with authority. Neither did Jesus or the apostles believe that there were errors in the Scriptures and they had to piece them together in the hope that they would have maybe have them perfectly someday. Nowhere is it stated in Scripture that only the originals are inspired. We know that is false by the testimony of Scripture.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
It is... women desire to have the authority that God gave Adam and desire that which belongs to the husband.

Unless of course it's a godly woman being led by the Holy Spirit who understands God's order that men are supposed to be the leaders.
This just does not fit with reality, though. There are plenty of unbelieving wives I can point to in my own family and through history who were good and desire is for pleasing their husbands. That’s why the ESV is bogus.

You said:
This is something the devil has gained much ground in by having the women become rulers over men as well as the feminization of men.
No thanks to the ESV because it is encouraging them to think that it is a part of their nature to rebel against their husband.

You said:
That's what the devil does in inverts thing God created to be one way, the devil seeks to invert it to be the opposite of how God intended it to be.
And that’s why God said her desire would be to her husband and not contrary to her husband.
But you also have to ignore all the other false doctrines to make this kind of defense of the ESV better.
That’s why your defense here does not really work.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
Not sure if we are on the same page.

We can check the validity of modern translations easily.

Early church letters contain quotations from the apostles letters, think second century and even late first century.

We do not need to be concerned about western or eastern manuscripts in the second century.

We have an enormous amount of literature from the first four centuries. So many quotations from the scripture. It's easy to develop a Bible that is, beyond any question, an authentic translation.

Why babble on about later manuscript traditions?
because the alexandrian mansucripts are what the vulgate was translated from. Of course the KJV is not going to be like the latin bible translated into English. You do need to be concerned because they are very different.

Mixing them up is not going to help.
So far there has not been any Bible in english that people have said they are going to rely on or that has been authorised by churches/a monarch or stood the test of time like the KJ or AV was.

everything else after that is catholic churches attempts to counter the KJV with an another english version or KJV updated and revised spinoffs

The KJV has ALREADY done the legwork of the translations from the original hebrew and greek for english readers. There is no need to do it all over again. They already diligently compared everything. the septugint was copied a lot and the alexandrians manuscripts were quite error laden..the Alexandrian library actually was burned to the ground but thankfully the eastern church already had lots of clean copies

there is just too many discrepensies mostly ommissions for them to be valid, like read I just think people cant accept it and believe the Bible ought to conform to their own grammar and syntax, if so theres plenty of paraphrased versions that can slang up the Bible. Just because KJV is not in american english I think people just get upset when they actually dont have any reason to be and then try and say theres errors in it. I think the words used will change over time. For example. in KJV God is always referred to as Lord, but if you were americanising the Bible you would probably use the word Chief.
 

Lanolin

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2018
23,460
7,188
113
I guess if gets people reading and studying Scriputre its all good. I mean catholic churches you would not dare question what the priest said and whether it was correct, in a language you wouldnt understand at all.

Thats why they were so hardline about banning the KJV. But see, all the other versions coming out after that there was never an authorised by the Pope bible. I dont see people say they should only read Dhouey rheims.

anyway the Good News Bible was put out by the American Bible Society in a sort of simplified English so people ought to be happy with it, (it was requested by African believers) cant expect everyone to get their tongue around archaic english. Children have been reading paraphrase and beginner bibles for a long time though...but if you want meat, rather than milk, go for KJV.

A believer shouldnt need to copy and paste twenty different versions of the Bible together to make one up for themselves. but, if Frankenstein type faith is what you want or 'Cafeteria Christian' then go to any Bible bookstore theres so many to choose from.

In the end we stick with what works right. I was in a book club where I chose the book to read, it was Jules Verne 20000 Leagues under the sea. I thought great, but it turned out in my book club everyone had a different version and they were not all the same, so it was very hard to be on the same page! I wanted to discuss the story, but bit hard when some had abridged edtions that missed out things, and translations were all different. Which one was right? Maybe it made it more fun...or just more hard work. And what was the original anyway, the original was written in French, which we couldnt read.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,774
113
I don't base my doctrines from New Testament epistles. Whereas the gospels only seem to contradict the epistles, the epistles are history, not usually doctrines in most cases.
Since BOTH the epistles and the Gospels are in fact the Word of God, you are seriously mistaken. "Seem to contradict" is not the same as actually contradict. One fundamental truth about God is that He never contradicts Himself. That does not mean that He cannot further develop what is in the Gospels.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
Since BOTH the epistles and the Gospels are in fact the Word of God, you are seriously mistaken. "Seem to contradict" is not the same as actually contradict. One fundamental truth about God is that He never contradicts Himself. That does not mean that He cannot further develop what is in the Gospels.
The contradictions have much to with mistranslation, and the desire to believe what is not so. For faith unique rather faith alone is what Paul talks about all of the time. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Someone who doesn't have trust/faith humbles not himself.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
The contradictions have much to do with mistranslation, and the desire to believe what is not so. For faith unique rather than faith alone is what Paul talks about all of the time. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. A someone who doesn't have trust/faith humbles not himself.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Nothing I wrote means I am uncertain about what the word of God says; only what it doesn't say.
The verse you chose to share is set in wider context. The comparison is not between scripture and scripture, but scripture and fables. And Peter is establishing the veracity of what he says based on his personal experience and the fact that the things written in the scripture have come to pass. And then he gives the reason why this is so. It is so because men spoke what the words the Holy Spirit put in their mouths. This is what makes scripture to be scripture.
Someone translating scripture, in my opinion, is not speaking forth the word of God by the Holy Spirit unless they are actually speaking forth the word of God. NT writers, in quoting OT passages, were giving explanations of the passages, and in doing so were speaking forth words from the Holy Spirit. We know this is so because their writing is part of the canon. Therefore, the translation is done by the Holy Spirit. They are His choice of words.
This is very different than someone coming to a passage of scripture in a particular language and applying one's knowledge of language to make a translation.

Just as an aside, your understanding would have to conclude that the version you believe would have exactly 0 errors. It has already been demonstrably shown in this thread that the KJV doesn't rise to this standard. You would also be forced to admit that God hadn't preserved His word for the majority of the NT era.
Umm, so far, I haven't seen posted here a legit error in KJB. Not one is presented here has been done so far.

Presidente's offer of "logos" for the "word" does not satisfy or justify his objection. We all know one Greek word can be translated in many ways. Say for example for the Greek word “eis”. It could be translated so far as “for”, “into”,“unto”, “to”, “on”, “toward”, “against”,“among” and many others. So, insisting “logos” could only mean “word” is incorrect. Logos is the same as preaching as per Whiner in his Greek rule especially when it is in genitive. Thayers, Strong, and many others correctly agreed to this. I think, this is basic, and saying a Greek word means only one meaning is not true at all.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
Winner! Precious friend, thanks so Much - I've had trouble conveying This Truth,
Since, if only the originals were inspired, then my Copy is Not Profitable, eh?:

Thus, 'the Originals,' copies of NON-corrupt (and widely used/re-copied )
manuscripts, and all [ no matter which language ] translations from these,
are, In Fact, Preserved As:

"All Scripture Is Given By Inspiration Of God, And Is Profitable..."​
Eh?

Amen.
Yes, precious friend, originals are not meant here, it refers to the copies of originals and even translations.
 

Cameron143

Well-known member
Mar 1, 2022
19,184
6,604
113
62
Umm, so far, I haven't seen posted here a legit error in KJB. Not one is presented here has been done so far.

Presidente's offer of "logos" for the "word" does not satisfy or justify his objection. We all know one Greek word can be translated in many ways. Say for example for the Greek word “eis”. It could be translated so far as “for”, “into”,“unto”, “to”, “on”, “toward”, “against”,“among” and many others. So, insisting “logos” could only mean “word” is incorrect. Logos is the same as preaching as per Whiner in his Greek rule especially when it is in genitive. Thayers, Strong, and many others correctly agreed to this. I think, this is basic, and saying a Greek word means only one meaning is not true at all.
So if someone could show you an error in translation, you would accept that the KJV is not an inspired translation?
 
Dec 29, 2023
1,327
236
63
Christian history here in America is a secondary issue.
When studying this, don't forget to include all the occult activity that the founding fathers were involved with, primary thru the masonic connection.

Lots of those guys claim to be Christian buy their order actually believes satan is the creator and God is jealous and goes around telling everyone that He is the Creator. (Albert Pyke - Morals and Dogma tells all about the masonic occult stuff they believe)