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.

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,142
3,988
113
mywebsite.us
#62
With today's tools, I understand Koine Greek better than they ever did.
I SERIOUSLY doubt that... :geek: :p :rolleyes:

You obviously have no knowledge about or understanding of the qualifications of the men that translated the KJV.
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
56,298
26,339
113
#63
Do you seriously think that anyone believes that the apostles used Elizabethan
English to write the NT? That allegation is what I call "nonsense".
Do a little bit of research and you will see that the gospels and the Epistles of
Paul were actually written in Greek and not in King James English.
Maybe learn to read, too.
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
#64
I SERIOUSLY doubt that... :geek::p:rolleyes:

You obviously have no knowledge about or understanding of the qualifications of the men that translated the KJV.
You realize Hellenic is now a dead language, and only slightly resembles Modern Greek?
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
8,329
3,444
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
#65
With today's tools, I understand Koine Greek better than they ever did.
😂



I should ask my Greek speaking friend to come on here.
She'd love to speak with Erasmus!

Sure. You are smarter than all those translators no doubt.
We should be so honored to have such a scholar in our midst.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
#70
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?
fun fact:

the 1587 Geneva Bible was the translation of the reformation and the pilgrims who founded America, not the kjv
 

Huckleberry

Senior Member
Aug 25, 2013
1,698
96
48
#71
Most arguments in support of KJVO use circular reasoning.
Preface:
I'm a Young-Round-Earth We-landed-on-the-Moon KJV-Preferist Creationist.

I'll argue that the KJV is more accurate than almost every
other translation because it distinguishes the singular
and plural versions of the pronoun "you" with "thou" and "ye".

I'll further argue that it's more honest that almost every other translation
in that it, by the use of italics, alerts the reader to words and phrases that
have been added to the text in order to make it more intelligible in English.

Are those circular arguments?
 

Kroogz

Active member
Dec 5, 2023
596
209
43
#72
And so do you, yes? There is not one translation available that you trust. Yes?
I use the NASB. And from your posts on other threads we pretty much line up on doctrines. And the things that we don't line up on I can see where your coming from by reading the NASB. Like James being doctrine for the Jews during the tribulation. I can see that point clearly from reading the NASB, I'm just not locked into that particular interpretation.

SO......what doctrine will I miss out on by not using the KJV? How is my faith lacking from studying with the NASB rather than the KJV? Is it something major I am missing?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,694
3,547
113
#73
I use the NASB. And from your posts on other threads we pretty much line up on doctrines. And the things that we don't line up on I can see where your coming from by reading the NASB. Like James being doctrine for the Jews during the tribulation. I can see that point clearly from reading the NASB, I'm just not locked into that particular interpretation.

SO......what doctrine will I miss out on by not using the KJV? How is my faith lacking from studying with the NASB rather than the KJV? Is it something major I am missing?
Don't you want the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I believe the faith of Jesus Christ is a huge example of a doctrine missed in the new versions. We are justified by the faith of Christ. His faith, his complete obedience to the word of God made him the Just one. Christ's faith is the righteousness of God. That's what the sinner needs. The new versions have "in Christ" instead "of Christ" placing the justification upon the faith of the believer instead of the faith of Christ. Christ is the just and the justifier of them that believe. By whose faith are you justified? I'm depending on the faith of Jesus Christ. His faith never waivered. My faith waivers.

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.
17 But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid.
18 For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.
19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.
20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Romans 3:
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,609
13,018
113
#74
SO......what doctrine will I miss out on by not using the KJV?
Actually there are many doctrines that have been impacted by the modern versions, but primarily the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,783
13,414
113
#75
Actually there are many doctrines that have been impacted by the modern versions, but primarily the doctrine of the divine preservation of Scripture.
You continue to make this claim (bolded) but continue to fail to list these allegedly impacted doctrines. Step up.
 

ThyKingdomComeSoon

Well-known member
Apr 1, 2023
974
594
93
#76
I remember when I started to read the bible bout 35 years ago. To me the translation was important. I had full access to the school of religious study library at the university where I studied. I did spend about one week searching for the most accurate version of the bible in french and English. For English, all the books I read then pointed to the KJV as the most accurate and closest to the original texts, The only difficulty I had with is originally was the old English, but if a francophone like me can read it with no problems I have no doubt everybody here can also. I have used also on occasion other versions suggested by members here but in case of doubt i rely on the KJV. Also lets not forget that The Holy Spirit helps enormously in understanding of the texts!

Cheers
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,694
3,547
113
#77
You continue to make this claim (bolded) but continue to fail to list these allegedly impacted doctrines. Step up.
How about the most famous verse in scripture, John 3:16. Taking the word “begothen” out, makes the false. Jesus was not God’s only Son, but was his only begotten Son.

KJV
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

ESV
16 “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,694
3,547
113
#78
My question to the doubters is, since you do not profess to have a perfect bible, why do you refer to it as "God's word"? Would God's word have errors? Would God's word need correcting by you or any other theologian expert? We are never meant to question God's word, but just believe it.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.
 

10-22-27

Active member
Dec 17, 2023
454
141
43
#79
Corrupted, as in it was good, but then it rotted or was contaminated somehow? No; translations by human beings have strong points and weak points and the King James isn't perfect either. Do a little bit of research and you will see that the gospels and the Epistles of Paul were actually written in Greek and not in King James English.

And the KJV is actually a translation not what the prophets and apostles wrote down. Look it up and do a bit of reading. It's true. I'm not making it up
There are some 5500 known ancient manuscripts. Of that number 97% agree with the received text of the K.J.B. I like the odds 97% verses 3%. Even the 3% don't agree with each other.
When Titchendorf found the A. and B. scrolls, they had thousands of corrections previously made on them. For this reason alone, they should have been rejected, and burned. They may have been used as teaching tools for beginner scribes. Then men like Westcott and Hort, Nestles and Allen messed with these same manuscripts for 100 years.

The N.I.V. uses the 3%. They came out in with their first edition in 1973, and since then have had at least three new copywrites. Same with all the other that use the 3%. The Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation use the 3%, and since 1951 have had 4 new copywrites.

I own an 1802 Matthew Henry K.J.B. and commentary. I also own an 1823 and an 1827 K.J.B. Bibles, and you know what, they all read the same as my new K.K.J., no changes. To me, that speaks volumes.