The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Cameron143]

Well, you just learned about Calvinism. I have had many discussions with Calvinists over the years since 2010/2011. I also have read many articles on the topic over the years, as well. I have debated the intricacies of John 6:44, and Romans 9 on several occasions. Some Calvinists do not mind the label and others do. In either case, their belief reflects what they believe. In other words, if there is a theological term that fits my belief, I am not afraid to admit that. But I think some Calvinists want to distance themselves from John Calvin because he was not a nice man.

I mean, Christian is a label. It means a follower of Christ.

I don't use the term and many others because they aren't used as descriptions and pejorative. But they also are mislabels because people don't fit neatly into groups.

As far as the term Christian goes, I find it appropriate even though it too began as a pejorative because we are told to follow Christ.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Do I take this as you don't believe we will be held accountable by God for using other versions of the Bible other than the KJV?

Given the massive amount of information exposing the corruption of the modern versions, anyone who has been shown the differences, and continues to use corrupted bibles, will be held accountable.

God is very particular about the integrity of His Word. Christ said that we are to live by EVERY WORD that proceeds out of the mouth of God. But if thousands of words have been omitted or added, it is NOT the Word of God.

Frank Logsdon was one of the primary translators of the NASB. But soon after he made this comment: "But I finally got to the place where I said, "Ann, I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; it's wrong; it's terribly wrong; and what am I going to do about it?" Well, I went through some real soul searching for about four months, and I sat down and wrote one of the most difficult of my life, I think. "

These words are found here, and you need to read the article in full (and so should everyone else) and also play the audio:
Frank Logsdon Repudiates the NASB
Frank Logsdon was asked two questions about the Bible version issue and used the occasion to explain why he finally rejected the Critical Text and repented of his involvement in the creation of the New American Standard Version in 1960. Here is an audio recording of the lecture.

Play the audio:
https://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/logsdon-repudiates-nasb.html

 

[Cameron143]

Right, because people choose to believe things despite what the Scriptures say.
They like a particular false view or belief about God because it fits their preference even if the Bible clearly says otherwise.
The question is… why? Well, I always seen Calvinism as a lack of responsibility.
People do not want to own up to being held accountable for anything.
If God is the One who chooses them, or does not choose them, they cannot be blamed if they choose to live a life contrary to God.
Or they may think they are extra special because they had a moment in their life whereby they were changed by God.
But the Scriptures says, “For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself.” (Galatians 6:3).

Side Note:

Are you Ecumenical? Do you believe you can fellowship with Mormons, and Catholics and other heretical Christian groups?

See, here's the problem with labels. People go beyond belief to opinion and are guilty of assumptions about others without ever gathering evidence.

I don't believe one can fellowship with unbelievers. What fellowship has light with darkness? But I welcome them to come and worship.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yes. Calvinists use the KJB as much as anyone else, although if they had a choice they would stick to the Geneva Bible.

But Calvinism is not the issue here. The issue is to show that there are good reasons to use the KJB exclusively in order to avoid errors. No one should claim that it is "inspired" (a "God-breathed" translation). But all should admit that it is the only faithful and trustworthy translation in the English language at present, because it fairly represents the majority of Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. And it also has many qualities that make it an excellent translation. Even the History web site supports this position:

Emerging at a high point in the English Renaissance, the King James Bible held its own among some of the most celebrated literary works in the English language (think William Shakespeare). Its majestic cadences would inspire generations of artists, poets, musicians and political leaders, while many of its specific phrases worked their way into the fabric of the language itself.

Even now, more than four centuries after its publication, the King James Bible (a.k.a. the King James Version, or simply the Authorized Version) remains the most famous Bible translation in history—and one of the most printed books ever.
https://www.history.com/news/king-james-bible-most-popular

So much for the detractors of the King James Bible.

Granted, I believe the Pure Cambridge 1900 is the seventh and final purification of the KJB editions and not the 1769 Oxford by Blayney (i.e., the Authorized Version). While all previous six KJB editions are true (despite small minor word differences), and corrections in printing errors, the Pure Cambridge Edition KJB is the true final settled Word. The difference between 1 John 5:8 between the Blayney Oxford vs. the Pure Cambridge by A.W. Pollard is considerable.

1 John 5:8 in the Authorized Version (Blayney Oxford) capitalizes the word Spirit.
1 John 5:8 in the Pure Cambridge (A.W. Pollard) places the word “spirit” in lowercase.

While the Oxford is correct, the Cambridge Edition KJB offers a more clearer truth.

1 John 5:7 is the witness (or record) of God in Heaven (with God being three persons and yet one God).
1 John 5:8 is the witness of man on the Earth with him being made up of water, blood, and spirit. Note: Blood and water came out of Jesus when His side was pierced, and Jesus yielded up His spirit when His body died.
1 John 5:9 says that the witness of God is greater.

So…

Verse 7 is talking about the witness of God.
Verse 8 is the witness of man.
Verse 9 says the witness of God is greater.

Granted, there are other subtle small updates that shows a clearer truth, as well.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

See, here's the problem with labels. People go beyond belief to opinion and are guilty of assumptions about others without ever gathering evidence.

I don't believe one can fellowship with unbelievers. What fellowship has light with darkness? But I welcome them to come and worship.

So the Bible is wrong in that we are called Christians?
We are also called the sons of God. That is also a label.
So if labels were wrong, then God could not give us any labels.
Without labels, we would not be able to recognize a job position or other things in life.
So you’re just going off your own thoughts that runs contrary to the Bible and real life.
Christian organizations could not label themselves so as to help distinguish their beliefs from others according to you.
So everybody is wrong except you on this point it seems.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

See, here's the problem with labels. People go beyond belief to opinion and are guilty of assumptions about others without ever gathering evidence.

I don't believe one can fellowship with unbelievers. What fellowship has light with darkness? But I welcome them to come and worship.

Calling others unbelievers is a label.
So this refutes your false belief that you cannot use labels.
You are not even holding to your own standard, my friend.

 

[Cameron143]

So the Bible is wrong in that we are called Christians?
We are also called the sons of God. That is also a label.
So if labels were wrong, then God could not give us any labels.
Without labels, we would not be able to recognize a job position or other things in life.
So you’re just going off your own thoughts that runs contrary to the Bible and real life.
Christian organizations could not label themselves so as to help distinguish their beliefs from others according to you.
So everybody is wrong except you on this point it seems.

Nope, the Bible is never wrong. You didn't read what I wrote. But the Bible doesn't say we are to be called Christians; only that the term was first used in Antioch.
Also, sons of God is a name God gave. No reason not to use it.
Also, I never said labels were inherently bad, but that men tended to misuse them.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

See, here's the problem with labels. People go beyond belief to opinion and are guilty of assumptions about others without ever gathering evidence.

I don't believe one can fellowship with unbelievers. What fellowship has light with darkness? But I welcome them to come and worship.

Do you believe the Earth is millions of years old?
Do you believe in a local flood or a global flood?
Do you consider some stories in the Bible as folklore and or myth like the story of Job and Jonah?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Nope, the Bible is never wrong. You didn't read what I wrote. But the Bible doesn't say we are to be called Christians; only that the term was first used in Antioch.
Also, sons of God is a name God gave. No reason not to use it.
Also, I never said labels were inherently bad, but that men tended to misuse them.

It sounds like you are changing your tune on labels. That's good because your statements before that appears to be against label making is unbiblical.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Nope, the Bible is never wrong. You didn't read what I wrote. But the Bible doesn't say we are to be called Christians; only that the term was first used in Antioch.
Also, sons of God is a name God gave. No reason not to use it.
Also, I never said labels were inherently bad, but that men tended to misuse them.

As for us being called Christian:

Peter says,
"Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf." (1 Peter 4:16).

So this was not a bad label. Peter positively uses this label as a part of an important message to us.
If it was a derogatory or insulting label that was enforced upon believers that the apostles did not like, then Peter would not use such a word in this manner.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Nope, the Bible is never wrong. You didn't read what I wrote. But the Bible doesn't say we are to be called Christians; only that the term was first used in Antioch.
Also, sons of God is a name God gave. No reason not to use it.
Also, I never said labels were inherently bad, but that men tended to misuse them.

So if the Bible is never wrong, then that must mean that you believe there is a perfect translation that exists today.
So which one is the real Bible that is never wrong?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The simple fact of the matter is that one is either a Bible believer or they are a Bible agnostic.

See this article here:

http://textus-receptus.com/wiki/Art...th_Bible_Agnostic_Doug_Kutilek_by_Will_Kinney

 

[Cameron143]

Calling others unbelievers is a label.
So this refutes your false belief that you cannot use labels.
You are not even holding to your own standard, my friend.

You aren't paying attention. Labels themselves aren't the problem. And I've already discussed biblical labels and their use. I didn't say I don't use labels. I said I don't use certain labels that are extra biblical because the are often used pejoratively.
What I'm not holding to is your misunderstanding of what I'm actually saying.

 

[Cameron143]

So if the Bible is never wrong, then that must mean that you believe there is a perfect translation that exists today.
So which one is the real Bible that is never wrong?

I'll rephrase since you are bent this evening on trying your hardest to confuse what I am actually meaning. God's word is inerrant and infallible. I have never read any Bible version that was inerrant and infallible.

 

[John146]

Does that mean you think the Holy Spirit cannot guide us unless we already have the truth? Be careful how you answer.

My entire point is, if you have the word of truth, the Spirit can guide you unto all truth.

 

[John146]

Whatever. When you're capable of putting forth a rational argument, you're welcome to do so. Your opinion doesn't account for much.

You are very good at arguing against everything...Is there anything you argue for?

 

[John146]

Really? Where is that in Scripture?

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...thy word is truth...the word of the Lord is true...

 

[Dino246]

My entire point is, if you have the word of truth, the Spirit can guide you unto all truth.

And my question to you is, do you think that the Holy Spirit cannot guide us into all truth if we don't have the complete, perfect word of God?

 

[Dino246]

All scripture is given by inspiration of God...thy word is truth...the word of the Lord is true...

That doesn't answer my question.

You said this: "But those translations cannot be considered the holy, pure words of God without error. "

I asked, "Where is that in Scripture?"

Please answer the question.

 

[Dino246]

You are very good at arguing against everything...Is there anything you argue for?

Thanks for the compliment.