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.
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#41
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,784
113
#41
GaryA said:
Any actual errors in the KJV are extremely minor and not truth/concept/doctrine level things that the others are in great error about.
Click to expand...
And here we go with the downplaying/sidestepping/misleading.

An error is an error. Either the KJV is an error-free translation, or it is not. "Without error" has no middle ground.

The differences between the KJV and many newer translations are similarly "extremely minor" but KJV-only folks will make mountains out of them. The rank hypocrisy as a core part of the problem with the KJV-only crowd.
 
NightTwister

NightTwister

Well-known member
#43
Jul 5, 2023
2,098
790
113
65
Colorado, USA
#43
John146 said:
Yes or no, can a translation be the holy word of God without error?

God only promised to preserve his word. God commanded that we live by every word. How is that possible if we don't have every word? What will God hold against us since he did not preserve his word? What good is inspiration without preservation?
Click to expand...
Even if true, you have zero proof that any particular version is "the one."
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#44
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,784
113
#44
GaryA said:
Show me even one [English] translation since the KJV that:
...

~ was 'published' by the authors into the public domain (no one actually "owns" the text)
Click to expand...
I guess you have to exclude the KJV, as it was not published into the public domain. It just happens to be there now.
 
Magenta

Magenta

Senior Member
#45
Jul 3, 2015
60,142
29,453
113
#45
Nehemiah6 said:
That is just a specious argument. Nobody believes such nonsense.
Click to expand...
You really ought to learn not to make such ridiculous comments.

Your credibility/effectiveness as an apologist would greatly improve.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#46
Aug 10, 2019
9,827
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#46
Dino246 said:
Apparently many of them don't, given they can't accept that actual errors in the KJV are actual errors.
Click to expand...
Dino246 said:
And here we go with the downplaying/sidestepping/misleading.

An error is an error. Either the KJV is an error-free translation, or it is not. "Without error" has no middle ground.

The differences between the KJV and many newer translations are similarly "extremely minor" but KJV-only folks will make mountains out of them. The rank hypocrisy as a core part of the problem with the KJV-only crowd.
Click to expand...
You are severely disregarding the statement made in post #24 which makes all of this a bit moot.

Where truth, doctrine, and correct translation of the originals is concerned, I consider the KJV to be "without error" - because God said He would preserve His word.

Aside from that, I consider the KJV to be the best [English] version available because of its 'correctness' - which stands far above any other [English] version in existence.

It is that simple. It is far better than any other. (And, I am referring to bible versions since the KJV - Geneva, etc. are valid but excepted from this discussion - because I am comparing the KJV to all that came after it.)

I do not know of any newer translations that have "extremely minor" differences compared to the KJV. Even the NKJV has errors in it.

Here is post #24 again:

Nehemiah6 said:
The real issue is the huge number of errors and mistranslations in all the other English translations. Also these modern versions call the most corrupt manuscripts " the best", and alter the Bible accordingly. That is extremely serious. No other English translation since 1881 has adhered solely to the two traditional texts.
Click to expand...
Read it. Take it in deeply. Understand what it is saying. Understand the VAST difference in what it is saying and what you are saying. You can nitpick all the "little stuff" you want and the truth stated in post #24 concerning the VAST and HUGE error in the other translations still remains.

Nothing in this discussion can be more important or significant than the idea within this statement that Nehemiah6 made in post #24 concerning the validity of the KJV.
 
7

7thMoon

Banned
#47
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
#47
I used to believe the Textus Receptus was close to perfect. Then I learned it has typo errors.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#48
Aug 10, 2019
9,827
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#48
Dino246 said:
I guess you have to exclude the KJV, as it was not published into the public domain. It just happens to be there now.
Click to expand...
You are PETTY to the CORE!

In that post, I was referring to other bible versions since the KJV.

In that post, I was referring to what would be necessary for a modern bible to be comparable to the KJV in terms of the statement made by @presidente with regard to 'be just as good or better'.

You need to pay more attention to what is actually being said and stop your petty bickering nonsense.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#49
Aug 10, 2019
9,827
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#49
Dino246 said:
I guess you have to exclude the KJV, as it was not published into the public domain. It just happens to be there now.
Click to expand...
As I said before - I am comparing modern bible versions to the KJV - as it is now.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#51
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,784
113
#51
GaryA said:
You are severely disregarding the statement made in post #24 which makes all of this a bit moot.
Click to expand...

This thread is not about other translations, period, end of (that part of the) conversation.

GaryA said:
Where truth, doctrine, and correct translation of the originals is concerned, I consider the KJV to be "without error"
Click to expand...
Because you carefully limit the definition of "without error" to suit your position, instead of accepting the plain definition, your conclusion is moot.

GaryA said:
- because God said He would preserve His word.
Click to expand...

God has preserved His word, but that says nothing whatsoever about the KJV.

GaryA said:
Nothing in this discussion can be more important or significant than the idea within this statement that Nehemiah6 made in post #24 concerning the validity of the KJV.
Click to expand...
Yawn. You didn't start the thread, and therefore you don't get to define what is most important or significant.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#53
Jun 30, 2015
25,472
13,784
113
#53
GaryA said:
You are PETTY to the CORE!

In that post, I was referring to other bible versions since the KJV.

In that post, I was referring to what would be necessary for a modern bible to be comparable to the KJV in terms of the statement made by @presidente with regard to 'be just as good or better'.

You need to pay more attention to what is actually being said and stop your petty bickering nonsense.
Click to expand...
Get rid of your sick hypocrisy.
 
GaryA

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
#54
Aug 10, 2019
9,827
4,314
113
mywebsite.us
#54
Dino246 said:
This thread is not about other translations, period, end of (that part of the) conversation.
Click to expand...
Beside the point. The thread topic by necessity includes the consideration of other translations. The suggestion/supposition in the OP is made that other versions should be considered "just as good" as the KJV (by saying, in effect, that the KJV should not be considered to be anything special as compared to other bible versions). Even if the 'focus' of the thread is the KJV (or, the "issue" the OP has with it), nonetheless, other translations are referred to in the OP as a reference against which to discuss the 'focus'.

If the whole topic for discussion is 'Just slam the KJV; truth about other bible versions is not allowed', then the OP should just say so. Otherwise, without the inclusion of other bible versions in the discussion, the arguments of the OP have nothing to stand on...

Dino246 said:
Because you carefully limit the definition of "without error" to suit your position, instead of accepting the plain definition, your conclusion is moot.
Click to expand...
Oh, but now we have to define 'error'. Is 'spirit' instead of 'Spirit' an error in this context?

Dino246 said:
God has preserved His word, but that says nothing whatsoever about the KJV.
Click to expand...
How did He preserve His word - in a way that made it more readily available and readable my the most people in the past 400 years or so?

Dino246 said:
Yawn. You didn't start the thread, and therefore you don't get to define what is most important or significant.
Click to expand...
Just remember that you said this when you are in my threads... :D ;)
 
7

7thMoon

Banned
#57
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
#57
GaryA said:
There is no hypocrisy. There is only your intensifying pride - which you need to 'swallow'. And, right now would be a good time...
Click to expand...
I think being KJV-centered is naive at best. There are so many false friend words in the KJV that you could be bound to trip somewhere. I like Green's Literal version as a TR to English bible.
 
Nehemiah6

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
#58
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,774
113
#58
Magenta said:
You really ought to learn not to make such ridiculous comments.
Click to expand...
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that the apostles used Elizabethan English to write the NT? That allegation is what I call "nonsense". What is being said by some is that the KJB is practically "inspired" as a translation. Which is incorrect.

At the same time, there is no question that God's hand was over this translation, and that its diction cannot be surpassed. There are many other reasons why all Christians should continue to use this Bible exclusively (along with any legitimate Bible study tools for clarification).
 
7

7thMoon

Banned
#59
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
#59
Nehemiah6 said:
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that the apostles used Elizabethan English to write the NT? That allegation is what I call "nonsense". What is being said by some is that the KJB is practically "inspired" as a translation. Which is incorrect.

At the same time, there is no question that God's hand was over this translation, and that its diction cannot be surpassed. There are many other reasons why all Christians should continue to use this Bible exclusively (along with any legitimate Bible study tools for clarification).
Click to expand...
I think if I did Green's Literal by adding 2nd person singular English, I could surpass its syntax, grammar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.