The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
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.
On an added note for 1 Corinthians 12:13:
The capitalized “S” for the word “Spirit” that appears twice in 1 Corinthians 12:13 also appears in the Geneva Translation.
Besides, Modern scholars are biased against the KJV and many of them do not live in Greece and they cannot speak, listen, and write Modern Greek to begin to tackle the ancient form of it. Even if this scholar is correct in that there is no caps here, God is able to translate the meaning in 1600s English for us today. God is not bound by keeping His NT words in Koine Greek. In fact, we know this because there is no singular Greek translation that had an impact on believers in a positive way in recent history. But the KJV had a huge impact on many in the last 400 years.
As I said before, the word Spirit fits the surrounding context of the chapter.
In addition, baptized into one spirit (lowercase) would not even make any sense, either. What would be this one “spirit” (lowercase) even be? We are obviously not baptized and made to drink of a some mortal spirit. Such a statement would not make any sense; Especially in light of the rest of Scripture.
The capitalized “S” for the word “Spirit” that appears twice in 1 Corinthians 12:13 also appears in the Geneva Translation.
Besides, Modern scholars are biased against the KJV and many of them do not live in Greece and they cannot speak, listen, and write Modern Greek to begin to tackle the ancient form of it. Even if this scholar is correct in that there is no caps here, God is able to translate the meaning in 1600s English for us today. God is not bound by keeping His NT words in Koine Greek. In fact, we know this because there is no singular Greek translation that had an impact on believers in a positive way in recent history. But the KJV had a huge impact on many in the last 400 years.
As I said before, the word Spirit fits the surrounding context of the chapter.
In addition, baptized into one spirit (lowercase) would not even make any sense, either. What would be this one “spirit” (lowercase) even be? We are obviously not baptized and made to drink of a some mortal spirit. Such a statement would not make any sense; Especially in light of the rest of Scripture.
-
1
- Show all
Precious friend, let me get this straight:
"For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; And have
been all made to drink into one spirit!"
this could be 'interpreted' as "water" baptism?
But, The Following Is Not "The Holy Spirit Translating the new believer
Into The Kingdom, The Spiritual Organism of The One Body Of Christ,
Seated In The Heavenlies (Colossians 1:12-14; Ephesians 2:6)
but it is "water"?:
I have never heard of "water baptism" being called "a spirit".
Just wondering what's up with that?
Are not we all "one In Christ" by our "mutual faith" In Him?
But, "membership" by "an OT ritual"?
Grace and Peace.
"For by one spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; And have
been all made to drink into one spirit!"
this could be 'interpreted' as "water" baptism?
But, The Following Is Not "The Holy Spirit Translating the new believer
Into The Kingdom, The Spiritual Organism of The One Body Of Christ,
Seated In The Heavenlies (Colossians 1:12-14; Ephesians 2:6)
but it is "water"?:
"For 'By' ONE Spirit are we all Baptized Into ONE Body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; And Have
Been All Made To Drink Into ONE Spirit!" (1 Corinthians 12:13 KJB)
I have never heard of "water baptism" being called "a spirit".
Just wondering what's up with that?
Are not we all "one In Christ" by our "mutual faith" In Him?
But, "membership" by "an OT ritual"?
Grace and Peace.
While I never had a problem understanding 1 Corinthians 12:13 because it reads plainly to me in the KJV, When it comes to Scripture: I always still like to ask the Father to give me the understanding by the Holy Spirit in the name of Jesus. When God is involved in our study, He will start to bring other verses to our attention that ties things in nicely. See also 1 John 2:27.
As for water baptism: While I believe it is necessary at some point to do so as a part of our faith, I do not believe water baptism is a salvation issue (1 Corinthians 1:17) (1 Peter 3:21). Clearly the thief on the cross was saved without having been water baptized. He was saved by God’s grace and mercy through faith.
I believe baptism of the Spirit takes place when we become born again spiritually and we receive a new heart with new desires after we properly accepted Jesus as our Savior. Some accept a false Jesus thinking He is some kind proxy to sin. In this case, I don’t believe such individuals are born again by God.
Anyway, I believe this Spirit baptism is a salvation issue. I believe 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of this baptism. Water baptism is not in view in this verse.
To see the different forms of baptisms God has shown me in Scripture, see here.
As for water baptism: While I believe it is necessary at some point to do so as a part of our faith, I do not believe water baptism is a salvation issue (1 Corinthians 1:17) (1 Peter 3:21). Clearly the thief on the cross was saved without having been water baptized. He was saved by God’s grace and mercy through faith.
I believe baptism of the Spirit takes place when we become born again spiritually and we receive a new heart with new desires after we properly accepted Jesus as our Savior. Some accept a false Jesus thinking He is some kind proxy to sin. In this case, I don’t believe such individuals are born again by God.
Anyway, I believe this Spirit baptism is a salvation issue. I believe 1 Corinthians 12:13 speaks of this baptism. Water baptism is not in view in this verse.
To see the different forms of baptisms God has shown me in Scripture, see here.
Okay..in scripture.. the body of Christ..every time..is a local body.. local church.
All redeemed are in the Kingdom and Family..the body of Christ is a different entity to these..not the same thing.
The body of Christ isn't the Kingdom of God or the Family of God.
So ..the body 1 Corinthians 12..is a local body.
All redeemed are in the Kingdom and Family..the body of Christ is a different entity to these..not the same thing.
The body of Christ isn't the Kingdom of God or the Family of God.
So ..the body 1 Corinthians 12..is a local body.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
That means there would be multiple bodies for Christ, which is absurd. There was one "body" at Corinth, another "body" at Ephesus, another "body" at Colossae, etc. (At least in those epistles the Body of Christ is mentioned). So according to your theory (and there were many churches in Galatia) there could have been a dozen or a score or more "bodies" at that time!
But since Ephesians 4:4 says that "THERE IS ONE BODY" your theory falls flat right there. That one Body is the Body of Christ, and 1 Cor 12: 13 (and following verses) confirms this. So my friend you are in serious ERROR. That one Body of Christ includes all the saints since Pentecost until today. Every born again believer, no matter in which age or which region, is within that Body. Otherwise the Resurrection/Rapture would be meaningless.
But since Ephesians 4:4 says that "THERE IS ONE BODY" your theory falls flat right there. That one Body is the Body of Christ, and 1 Cor 12: 13 (and following verses) confirms this. So my friend you are in serious ERROR. That one Body of Christ includes all the saints since Pentecost until today. Every born again believer, no matter in which age or which region, is within that Body. Otherwise the Resurrection/Rapture would be meaningless.
-
1
- Show all
Also, there is a certain group of Baptist churches (called Landmark Baptist churches) which refuse to accept the totality of the Body of Christ. Here is what they believe: Landmark theology, or heritage theology, is the belief among some independent Baptist churches that only local, independent Baptist congregations can truly be called “churches” in the New Testament sense. They believe that all other groups, and even most other Baptists, are not true churches because they deviate from the essentials of landmarkism... Another corollary belief is that only faithful landmark Baptists will comprise the Bride of Christ.
https://www.gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html
https://www.gotquestions.org/landmarkism-Baptist-bride.html
You are welcome. But here is something else which is very strange and which is not commonly know:
John Darby was a Forerunner of the Modern Bible Versions MovementJohn Nelson Darby (November 18, 1800 – April 29, 1882) was the most influential leader of the original Plymouth Brethren movement. It might surprise you to learn that this man—regarded by biographers as the Father of Dispensationalism—was at the forefront of the modern bible versions movement.
In 1867 John Darby completed a new translation of the New Testament that is filled with texts and footnotes that contradict the Received Text: "Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes. This New Testament was first issued in parts, beginning with the Gospel according to Matthew in 1865. The New Testament was completed in 1867. The version is exceedingly literal, based upon modern critical editions of the Greek text, and abundantly supplied with text-critical and philological annotations. The annotations are by far the most comprehensive and detailed to be found in an English version." [Bold emphasis added.] (1)
The Darby Translation is based on modern critical editions of the Greek text: The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Book of Revelation: Commonly called the New Testament. A New Translation from a Revised Text of the Greek Original. London: G. Morrish, 1867. Second edition 1872. Third edition 1884. [bold emphasis added] (2)
John Darby's Bible was so liberal the modernists who translated the 1881 English Revised Version consulted it: "It was consulted by the translators of the English Revised Version of 1881 (see F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed., 1978, p. 132)." (3)
John Darby highly regarded modernists of his day: In my first edition my translation was formed on the concurrent voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only the very earliest MSS, so that sometimes he might have only one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS as a rule; [emphasis added] Revised Preface to second edition of the New Testament (1871) (4)
"Meanwhile, since my first edition, founded on the concurrent judgment of the four great modern editors, [he referenced Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf] following the received text unchanged where the true reading was a disputed point among them, the Sinaitic MS has been discovered; the Vatican published; Porphyry's of Acts and Paul's Epistles and most of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, and others, in the Monumenta Sacra Inedita of Tischendorf, as well as his seventh edition." Revised Preface to second edition of the New Testament 1871 [bold emphasis added] (5)
Darby gave honorable mention to modernists who "enlarged the field of criticism": "Mill, Bengel, Wetstein (who greatly enlarged the field of criticism), then Griesbach, Matthei (the last giving the Russian Codices, which are Constantinopolitan so called), Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and quite recently Tregelles. I name only those of critical celebrity." [emphasis added] (6)
John Darby's assertion that the Textus Receptus "had no real authority" corresponds with the fact that his alleged "recovered truths" are not found in the Authorized Version (KJV). He stated: "My plan was, where the chief editors agreed, to adopt their reading, not to attempt to make a text of my own. My object was a more correct translation: only there was no use in translating what all intelligent critics held to be a mistake in the copy. For, as is known, the Textus Receptus had no real authority, nor was indeed the English Version taken from it, -- it was an earlier work by some years." [emphasis added] (7)
In view of the fact that the bulk of John Darby's "recovered truths" are prophetic in nature, it is revealing that he rejected the manuscripts the King James translators used for Revelation: "I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS., which being accompanied by a commentary had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not." [bold emphasis added] (8)
https://www.libertytothecaptives.net/darby_version_corrupt.html
Note: Lachmann, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Wetstein (all Germans) were forerunners of Westcott & Hort, but followed the same principles, and rejected the Received Text.
Tischendorf discovered the corrupt Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) but it was only fit for kindling at that time: "He claimed that one night while visiting the Eastern Orthodox monastery of St. Catherine’s, he spied an ancient-looking manuscript in a basket of fire kindling."
John Darby was a Forerunner of the Modern Bible Versions Movement
In 1867 John Darby completed a new translation of the New Testament that is filled with texts and footnotes that contradict the Received Text: "Darby did not feel such a need for a new translation in English, because he considered the King James Version to be adequate for most purposes, and he encouraged his followers to continue to use it. But, he decided to produce a highly literal English version of the New Testament for study purposes. This New Testament was first issued in parts, beginning with the Gospel according to Matthew in 1865. The New Testament was completed in 1867. The version is exceedingly literal, based upon modern critical editions of the Greek text, and abundantly supplied with text-critical and philological annotations. The annotations are by far the most comprehensive and detailed to be found in an English version." [Bold emphasis added.] (1)
The Darby Translation is based on modern critical editions of the Greek text: The Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Book of Revelation: Commonly called the New Testament. A New Translation from a Revised Text of the Greek Original. London: G. Morrish, 1867. Second edition 1872. Third edition 1884. [bold emphasis added] (2)
John Darby's Bible was so liberal the modernists who translated the 1881 English Revised Version consulted it: "It was consulted by the translators of the English Revised Version of 1881 (see F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English, 3rd ed., 1978, p. 132)." (3)
John Darby highly regarded modernists of his day: In my first edition my translation was formed on the concurrent voice of Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf: the first of soberer judgment and critical acumen and discernment; the next with a narrower system of taking only the very earliest MSS, so that sometimes he might have only one or two; the third excessively carelessly printed, but taking the mass of Constantinopolitan MSS as a rule; [emphasis added] Revised Preface to second edition of the New Testament (1871) (4)
"Meanwhile, since my first edition, founded on the concurrent judgment of the four great modern editors, [he referenced Griesbach, Lachmann, Scholz, and Tischendorf] following the received text unchanged where the true reading was a disputed point among them, the Sinaitic MS has been discovered; the Vatican published; Porphyry's of Acts and Paul's Epistles and most of the Catholic Epistles and the Apocalypse, and others, in the Monumenta Sacra Inedita of Tischendorf, as well as his seventh edition." Revised Preface to second edition of the New Testament 1871 [bold emphasis added] (5)
Darby gave honorable mention to modernists who "enlarged the field of criticism": "Mill, Bengel, Wetstein (who greatly enlarged the field of criticism), then Griesbach, Matthei (the last giving the Russian Codices, which are Constantinopolitan so called), Lachmann, Scholz, Tischendorf, and quite recently Tregelles. I name only those of critical celebrity." [emphasis added] (6)
John Darby's assertion that the Textus Receptus "had no real authority" corresponds with the fact that his alleged "recovered truths" are not found in the Authorized Version (KJV). He stated: "My plan was, where the chief editors agreed, to adopt their reading, not to attempt to make a text of my own. My object was a more correct translation: only there was no use in translating what all intelligent critics held to be a mistake in the copy. For, as is known, the Textus Receptus had no real authority, nor was indeed the English Version taken from it, -- it was an earlier work by some years." [emphasis added] (7)
In view of the fact that the bulk of John Darby's "recovered truths" are prophetic in nature, it is revealing that he rejected the manuscripts the King James translators used for Revelation: "I have always stated the Textus Receptus in the margin where it is departed from, except in the Revelation, Erasmus having translated that from one poor and imperfect MS., which being accompanied by a commentary had to be separated by a transcriber; and even so Erasmus corrected what he had from the Vulgate, or guessed what he had not." [bold emphasis added] (8)
https://www.libertytothecaptives.net/darby_version_corrupt.html
Note: Lachmann, Griesbach, Scholz, Tischendorf, and Wetstein (all Germans) were forerunners of Westcott & Hort, but followed the same principles, and rejected the Received Text.
Tischendorf discovered the corrupt Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) but it was only fit for kindling at that time: "He claimed that one night while visiting the Eastern Orthodox monastery of St. Catherine’s, he spied an ancient-looking manuscript in a basket of fire kindling."
All it comes down to is what kind of body is being described in each instance. That is all.
The Ephesians..'there is one body...' is about the Ephesians church. As an example of unity in a church to other churches as the letter was distributed around.
It's not saying there is 'only one' body.
Again..1 co 12 is describing a local body. All redeemed do not meet..are not connected.. one member does not feel the hurt of another when one is in Africa and another in Australia.
An arm..is akin to an individual member of the body...not an entire supposed denominational wing like 'the church of America '
I could go on...
As for Landmarkism.. any church that holds to the distinctives of NT churches is one of God's churches. They may not have Baptist in the name .
But it has been mainly Baptist churches that have long tenaciously held to these distinctives.
My Church by J M Moody shows this better..and The Battle for Baptist history by I.K.Cross among others
The Ephesians..'there is one body...' is about the Ephesians church. As an example of unity in a church to other churches as the letter was distributed around.
It's not saying there is 'only one' body.
Again..1 co 12 is describing a local body. All redeemed do not meet..are not connected.. one member does not feel the hurt of another when one is in Africa and another in Australia.
An arm..is akin to an individual member of the body...not an entire supposed denominational wing like 'the church of America '
I could go on...
As for Landmarkism.. any church that holds to the distinctives of NT churches is one of God's churches. They may not have Baptist in the name .
But it has been mainly Baptist churches that have long tenaciously held to these distinctives.
My Church by J M Moody shows this better..and The Battle for Baptist history by I.K.Cross among others
-
1
- Show all
Yes, it is sad that Darby did not believe the King James Bible was the one and only trustworthy translation.
As for Darby being the father of Dispensationalism:
I don’t agree.
Check out this article here:
http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1882
As for Darby being the father of Dispensationalism:
I don’t agree.
Check out this article here:
http://midwestapologetics.org/blog/?p=1882
You would need context to prove 1 Corinthians 12:13 is talking about a local body and not the body of Christ in general. I see no such distinction being made here in this chapter or anywhere else in the New Testament for that matter.
Paul would need to say something like, “I am referring to you Corinthians as one local body of Christ and not the entire family of God.”
Paul would need to say something like, “I am referring to you Corinthians as one local body of Christ and not the entire family of God.”
Listen carefully to the words in 1 Corinthians 12:13.
”For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13).
This cannot be a reference to the local Corinthian church alone but the universal church body of all believers alive at that time because Paul speaks about how we are made to be baptized into one Spirit and drink of one Spirit regardless if we are Jews or Gentiles, or bond or free. Meaning, the Corinthian church is a Gentile church. Paul says that fornication should not be named among the Gentiles when a particular Corinthian believer committed fornication (See: 1 Corinthians 5:1). In fact, Paul actually states to the Corinthian church “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.” (1 Corinthians 12:2). Yet, Paul refers to whether they be Jews or Gentiles they all were baptized into one body. This would be the universal body of believers because the Corinthians were not made up of Jewish believers.
”For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1 Corinthians 12:13).
This cannot be a reference to the local Corinthian church alone but the universal church body of all believers alive at that time because Paul speaks about how we are made to be baptized into one Spirit and drink of one Spirit regardless if we are Jews or Gentiles, or bond or free. Meaning, the Corinthian church is a Gentile church. Paul says that fornication should not be named among the Gentiles when a particular Corinthian believer committed fornication (See: 1 Corinthians 5:1). In fact, Paul actually states to the Corinthian church “Ye know that ye were Gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as ye were led.” (1 Corinthians 12:2). Yet, Paul refers to whether they be Jews or Gentiles they all were baptized into one body. This would be the universal body of believers because the Corinthians were not made up of Jewish believers.