The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Dino246]

Again, the heart of Textual Criticism is questioning or criticizing the text.
It is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting you to question certain words in your Bible.
Yet, back in the garden, the serpent questioned God's Word with Eve.
The serpent said, "Yea, hath God said....?" (Genesis 3:1).

You have rather thorough misunderstanding of the motive and purpose of textual criticism.

Firstly, no matter how much you want to deny it, Erasmus asked exactly the same question: "Did God really say...?" What you don't seem to grasp is the vast difference in motivation behind the question. When the serpent asked Eve that question, his purpose was to get her to doubt the validity of God's word. When Erasmus or any other textual critic asks the question, they are wanting to ensure the validity of the written word, asking, "Is that what God really said, or has the message been modified somehow since it was written?"

Erasmus asked the question, but you're okay with that. A modern textual critic asks the same question, and he's a son of the devil in your eyes. Your position is utterly hypocritical.

Textual Critic Christians really do not have an answer for this that is Scriptural.
They just blow this one off and or dismiss it.

Although I don't accept your accusatory appellation, I have given you an answer. Scripture doesn't address the matter, so there is no "scriptural" answer available to give.

 

[Lanolin]

lol Gomer wasnt a 'whole' she was a 'whore' sorry Angela you had a typo there.

A prostitute is the same as a harlot

A whore is just someone who has many lovers. It doesnt necessarily mean they are a prostitute (or sex worker, as its called these days) like what they do for a living and get paid for it. When the KJV says she 'plays the harlot' it means she acts like a prostitute.

There are other harlots in the Bible, two that came to mind who were prositutees. was Rahab, and Tamar actually pretended to be one so she could have a child with Judah. Well pretending and doing pretty much the same thing, she asked Judah for his staff and cloak as collateral.

when the Bible talkes about whoredoms it means that people (not just women) love other gods more than they love God. A whoremonger is the same as a pimp.

 

[Lanolin]

The point was Gomer wasnt being true to Hosea.

Poor Hosea. He had a rough time. But he tried to win her back. Its a picture of what Israel did to God, God was faithful to them even though Israel was faithless and went a 'whoring' after other gods.

 

[Lanolin]

In todays english you would have called Gomer a slut, for the way she behaved.

 

[Niki7]

Modern Bibles have corruption within them. They teach false doctrines. You can check out 25 of them starting in my previous post here. So they disqualify themselves as being entirely “inspired Scripture.” Paul said in his time that the Scriptures were being corrupted.

2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

The KJ has many errors and is no more or less inspired than Aesop's fables. Is it a good translation? Yes it is but so are other modern translations whether you think so or not. The One who makes the word alive to us is not you. That One, is the Holy Spirit.

You are just backpaddling and as usual, creating false accusatory posts about every Bible except for your personal choice. You are in the sight of God as are all of us. You are not the exception you appear to fancy yourself to be. You are just one more voice demanding attention in this world of gathering darkness and you are adding to it.

You cry 'havoc' over words that basically mean the same thing and claim only the KJ is correct and is an inspired TRANSLATION. Sane people know that no English translation from the originals is inspired. You give zero credit to the Holy Spirit to lead people and zero credit to God for being able to sustain and establish His word with no help from any human being.

You are in way over head and getting boring and a little desperate at this point.

 

[Dino246]

Modern Bibles are filled with many false doctrines. Here is…

A List of Doctrinal Changes in Modern Translations:


#1. Direct References of the Trinity are Removed.

1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly describes the Trinity and it is removed in Modern Bibles. Also, the word “Godhead” (Meaning Trinity) appears three times in the King James Bible and yet it is changed to say something else in Modern Translations. So all direct references of the Trinity are removed in Contemporary Translations. If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truths on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.

#2. Doctrine of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Removed and Altered.

The command on the details of the true way to test a "spirit of Antichrist" is changed in Modern Bibles (See: 1 John 4:2-3). For example: First, the word “acknowledge” (NIV) is used instead of “confess.” (KJB). We must “confess” that Jesus Christ has come into the flesh, and not just “acknowledge” by nodding our head or saying, “Amen,” etcetera. In addition, 1 John 4:3 eliminates the full version that the “King James Bible” has. So clearly, this is a watering down of testing the spirits to see one of the ways a spirit is from God or not. Note: We also see the words “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;” removed in Modern translations in Acts 2:30. So, Modern Bibles are failing the very test that Scripture gives us.

#3. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed.

Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the Modern Translations and they have a "hate on” for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.

#4. The Command To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Removed and Altered.

2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

#5. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed.

Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a watered down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.

#6. The Doctrine of Having Faith in His Blood in Romans 3:25 is Removed and Altered.

Modern Translations are not clear that we are to directly have faith in Christ's blood according to Romans 3:25. In the past, I have argued with other professing believers on another Christian forum who reject the blood atonement and or they reject that Christ's blood literally cleansed us from sin. If they had a real sword (KJV) instead of a butter knife (Modern Translation), they would have a better chance at discovering the truth on the Blood Atonement. For Romans 3:25 is not altered unlike certain Modern Translations.

#7. In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) doctrinally changes the nature of the truth in the KJV by saying that Eve's (the wife's) desire is contrary to her husband.

[Continued in my next post to you]:

There are two fatal problems with your list:

You are attempting to make sweeping, general statements about doctrines (plural) in modern translations (plural) and thereby implying therefore that (all) modern translations teach aberrant doctrines. You've bitten off far more than you can chew.

No doctrine is formed on the basis of a single verse. If you can't construct a doctrine without one particular verse, it's probably not a "doctrine" worth your concern.

Until you learn how to remove both the sensationalism and generalization from your posts, they are best ignored.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You have rather thorough misunderstanding of the motive and purpose of textual criticism.

Firstly, no matter how much you want to deny it, Erasmus asked exactly the same question: "Did God really say...?"

Please provide an unbiased source quote of Erasmus saying these words concerning Scripture.
Now, keep in mind, it is not wrong to examine texts and determine which ones are the true words of God vs. the counterfeit imitations.
This is not questioning Scripture. This is the test that you are failing to pass on this topic. Superiority of Doctrine, and looking at each of the lines of texts and their origins should be big clues. Then there is what does the Bible say on this topic? I see the Bible defending the KJB believer viewpoint and not the Textual Critic viewpoint. It's why I was able to come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible.

But again, you are sidestepping or dismissing the biblical lesson in the Garden with the serpent (Which simply proves my point from before).

What you don't seem to grasp is the vast difference in motivation behind the question. When the serpent asked Eve that question, his purpose was to get her to doubt the validity of God's word. When Erasmus or any other textual critic asks the question, they are wanting to ensure the validity of the written word, asking, "Is that what God really said, or has the message been modified somehow since it was written?"

Textual Criticism redefines the terms of the doctrines of inspiration, purity of His words, preservation, inerrancy, etcetera. The Bible simply tells us about the true meaning of these things which Textual Critics do not believe. Preservation of God's Words does not mean a general sense of truth or the most important doctrines that man decides. Jesus said, "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." So Jesus cares about the smallest details of his Word being fulfilled.

Textual Criticism does not believe there is any perfect Bible and that any specific errors in the text are recognizable by them. Since the beginning of Westcott and Hort's movement in 1881, they have not been able to come out with a settled text that all Textual Critics can agree upon. There is always some new discovery around the corner and so those open holes in Scripture are up for change and evolution. The devil is seeking to question God's words that have already been established. Thus, the Textual Critic is doing the same thing when the Word of God has been established for hundreds of years.

Of course, your side claims that the Bible established for hundreds of years is a fraud or not entirely true. So they will say things like,

"1 John 5:7 does not belong in your Bible." "Yea, did God really say that?" ​

Erasmus asked the question, but you're okay with that. A modern textual critic asks the same question, and he's a son of the devil in your eyes. Your position is utterly hypocritical.

There are ways to tell if it is God's words, but Textual Critics do not see any true divine providence in God keeping His words precisely. God made mistakes in preserving His Words and so God left it up to fallible men to fill in the gaps. Psalms 12:6-7 is not believed because of either a personal preference or because they are starstruck by the impressive words of Modern scholars.

Although I don't accept your accusatory appellation, I have given you an answer. Scripture doesn't address the matter, so there is no "scriptural" answer available to give.

Scripture speaks repeatedly about those who doubt God's words. Seeing God's Word teaches the doctrines of purity and preservation in several places, it then becomes an issue of faith. But others will employ "Textual Criticism" and employ a tactic of the serpent. Did God really say that? Did God really say this? The process is endless in where there is no settled text ever. Nestle and Aland? They will come out with another one, and then another and another and another and another and another and another. Modern English Bibles? There is no one settled version that Textual Critics agree upon. It is confusion. Just like when the serpent tried to confuse Eve by questioning God's established words.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

There are two fatal problems with your list:

You are attempting to make sweeping, general statements about doctrines (plural) in modern translations (plural) and thereby implying therefore that (all) modern translations teach aberrant doctrines. You've bitten off far more than you can chew.

Matthew 7:18
"A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

First, these Bibles would not exist if it were not for the Westcott and Hort movement.
Second, the Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus line of texts that underly these Modern Bibles is also the cause of these false doctrines in certain instances. So it's not just always the English translation that is to blame. Even respected English translations have their false doctrines, as well. So it forces a person to learn the original languages that are dead?
Third, there is the false Scientific approach to man's wisdom involving the piecing together of God's words.
Fourth, many on the Textual Critic side (including scholars) have said there is no change in doctrines and yet we can see that is a lie.

No doctrine is formed on the basis of a single verse. If you can't construct a doctrine without one particular verse, it's probably not a "doctrine" worth your concern.

I have multiple verses defending my viewpoint. That's why I came up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible. A good portion of these are based on Scripture.

Until you learn how to remove both the sensationalism and generalization from your posts, they are best ignored.

Scholars generally do not like to talk Scripture as a means of helping to discuss this issue. They are all about it being "Science" and very rarely will they bring up verses (Although some have over the years). The point is that our position is more heavily laden with Scripture and yours is not. We do not see Textual Criticism or anything like it clearly being shown by Jesus and His followers. But we do see it with the serpent questioning God's words. That should tell you something. But of course I am sure you will not see the obvious in what the Bible says. See, we build our faith first in the Bible. That is what we do. But Textual Critics have it backwards. According to them: Science must come first.

It’s also not just false doctrine’s only, either.
There are other clues that a person should be able to see.
The Bible in what it says.
Looking at the history and the men associated with each line of texts.
There is more of course. But this is just the beginning.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The KJ has many errors and is no more or less inspired than Aesop's fables. Is it a good translation? Yes it is but so are other modern translations whether you think so or not. The One who makes the word alive to us is not you. That One, is the Holy Spirit.

You are just backpaddling and as usual, creating false accusatory posts about every Bible except for your personal choice. You are in the sight of God as are all of us. You are not the exception you appear to fancy yourself to be. You are just one more voice demanding attention in this world of gathering darkness and you are adding to it.

You cry 'havoc' over words that basically mean the same thing and claim only the KJ is correct and is an inspired TRANSLATION. Sane people know that no English translation from the originals is inspired. You give zero credit to the Holy Spirit to lead people and zero credit to God for being able to sustain and establish His word with no help from any human being.

You are in way over head and getting boring and a little desperate at this point.

Did you even look at the list I provided?

 

[Dino246]

Please provide an unbiased source quote of Erasmus saying these words concerning Scripture.

Don't be ridiculous.

Now, keep in mind, it is not wrong to examine texts and determine which ones are the true words of God vs. the counterfeit imitations.

Your statement displays an underlying false dichotomy. A word is not simply either "a true word of God" or "a counterfeit imitation"; especially when it comes to translations rather than original languages.

Superiority of Doctrine, and looking at each of the lines of texts and their origins should be big clues. Then there is what does the Bible say on this topic? I see the Bible defending the KJB believer viewpoint and not the Textual Critic viewpoint.

Hmm... circular reasoning perhaps?

But again, you are sidestepping or dismissing the biblical lesson in the Garden with the serpent (Which simply proves my point from before).

I am doing neither. I squarely addressed it in my previous post.

Textual Criticism redefines the terms of the doctrines of inspiration, purity of His words, preservation, inerrancy, etcetera.

Nope. Not even a little.

Of course, your side claims

I don't speak for any "side"; I speak for myself.

Psalms 12:6-7 is not believed because of either a personal preference or because they are starstruck by the impressive words of Modern scholars.

Your delusional misinterpretation of Psalm 12:6-7 is not believed because it's wrong.

Scripture speaks repeatedly about those who doubt God's words. Seeing God's Word teaches the doctrines of purity and preservation in several places, it then becomes an issue of faith. But others will employ "Textual Criticism" and employ a tactic of the serpent. Did God really say that? Did God really say this? The process is endless in where there is no settled text ever. Nestle and Aland? They will come out with another one, and then another and another and another and another and another and another. Modern English Bibles? There is no one settled version that Textual Critics agree upon. It is confusion. Just like when the serpent tried to confuse Eve by questioning God's established words.

Tiresome, fearmongering blather.

 

[Dino246]

Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

Which Bible version was used by the people who started the Jehovah's Witnesses? The Mormons? The Seventh-Day Adventists? The Christian Scientists? The Christadelphians? How about the Unitarian Universalist 'Church'? Suddenly the way you're applying that verse doesn't make sense.

First, these Bibles would not exist if it were not for the Westcott and Hort movement.
Second, the Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus line of texts that underly these Modern Bibles is also the cause of these false doctrines in certain instances. So it's not just always the English translation that is to blame. Even respected English translations have their false doctrines, as well. So it forces a person to learn the original languages that are dead?
Third, there is the false Scientific approach to man's wisdom involving the piecing together of God's words.
Fourth, many on the Textual Critic side (including scholars) have said there is no change in doctrines and yet we can see that is a lie.

You can name many alleged false doctrines "caused" by modern translations, but you haven't yet identified a single group that actually believes such doctrines and traces their origin to a modern translation. Without anyone who believes it, a false doctrine is nothing more than a bad idea on a shelf.

 

[Dino246]

I have multiple verses defending my viewpoint.

Perhaps, but in no case have you actually demonstrated that a particular doctrine cannot be constructed from a given translation. Until you do that, you're only bleating.

Scholars generally do not like to talk Scripture as a means of helping to discuss this issue.

Really? And exactly how many scholars have you polled on the subject? You're talking out the bottom end of your digestive tract.

They are all about it being "Science" and very rarely will they bring up verses (Although some have over the years). The point is that our position is more heavily laden with Scripture and yours is not.

You're full of yourself.

We do not see Textual Criticism or anything like it clearly being shown by Jesus and His followers. But we do see it with the serpent questioning God's words. That should tell you something.

Indeed: it tells me that your capacity to construct a sound, rational argument is sadly lacking.

 

[John146]

Perhaps, but in no case have you actually demonstrated that a particular doctrine cannot be constructed from a given translation. Until you do that, you're only bleating.

The faith of Jesus Christ which is the righteousness of God. All modern versions have God's righteousness as man's faith. That's a huge doctrinal divide.

 

[John146]

The faith of Jesus Christ which is the righteousness of God. All modern versions have God's righteousness as man's faith. That's a huge doctrinal divide.

Another one in Romans 10.:9, when confessing the Lord Jesus, you are confessing his testimony. On the other hand, confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord will get you nowhere. One day, every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not bring about salvation.

KJV
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

ESV
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

 

[Dino246]

The faith of Jesus Christ which is the righteousness of God. All modern versions have God's righteousness as man's faith. That's a huge doctrinal divide.

A "huge doctrinal divide"? No, a very minor difference in wording that is completely inconsequential in reality.

 

[Mem]

What is wrong with Vonlyists? The love to quarrel over words, which 2Timothy 2:14 specifically holds of no value, except to ruin those who listen to them.
And...
Cue the Vonlyists arguing that "subverting" listeners is what they have been called to do...

 

[Dino246]

Another one in Romans 10.:9, when confessing the Lord Jesus, you are confessing his testimony. On the other hand, confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord will get you nowhere. One day, every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not bring about salvation.

KJV
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

ESV
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Baseless fearmongering. The two versions say the same thing, and it's not what you think they say.

 

[John146]

A "huge doctrinal divide"? No, a very minor difference in wording that is completely inconsequential in reality.

Justification comes by the faith of Jesus Christ. Man's faith cannot justify. Period. God's righteousness which is the faith of Christ is the only faith that can justify. Christ's faith never waivered. Christ's faith was always in accord with the Father. The new versions places this righteous faith on man. Man's faith waivers. Man's faith couldn't justify a fly.

KJV
Galatians 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

ESV
Galatians 2:16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

 

[John146]

Baseless fearmongering. The two versions say the same thing, and it's not what you think they say.

Well, your opinion does not always reign true. You do know that, right? The two versions say very, very different things. Surely you can see this.

 

[Niki7]

Did you even look at the list I provided?

Well sure. You stated every Bible except the KJ is full of error (s). You constantly provide the same thing no matter what anyone else states.

Really sounding like troll like behavior at this point. KJ onlyism exhibits cult like behavior. You underscore that fact.