The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[jamessb]

I have never seen KJB believers fight over which King James Bible edition to use. Most of them believe that either the 1611 version, the 1769 (Authorized Version), or the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa. 1900) are all fine to use.



American Standard Version is the update of the Revised Version by Westcott and Hort and their committee.
Go to Archive.org and search for the Revised Version. Look at the half title page. It says it was the version set forth in 1611AD. This is a lie. But we all know today that all Modern Bibles are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are shorter manuscripts than the manuscripts that underly the King James Bible (Textus Receptus). Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. So the point here is that Westcott and Hort lied. Also, the Revised Version had a Unitarian on their committee. George Vance Smith. Westcott and Hort threatened to quit if he was removed from the team. Westcott and Hort held to heretical beliefs. If you were to look at them, you will see a denial of the Blood Atonement, a denial of the Substitutionary Atonement and more. Westcott was into the communion of the saints.

See this short video here:

This is a Paraphrase.
Do you want the paraphrased words of God or do you want the actual words of God?



Which Bible? How can you trust what the Bible says on such matters if it has errors in it?
In short, you or some scholar becomes the ultimate authority deciding what God said and did not say.
In the Garden, the serpent questioned Eve about the validity of God’s command.
This is what goes on in the world of Textual Criticism Or the Modern Bible movement. They question God’s words by saying that there are errors in His word today.

You wrote, "This is a lie. But we all know today that all Modern Bibles are based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are shorter manuscripts than the manuscripts that underly the King James Bible (Textus Receptus). " You are wrong! Read the previous post.

 

[NightTwister]

The KJV was edited a bit in1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1638, or 1769 . So, which version is perfect?

Some of them are more perfect than others...

 

[jamessb]

In my write-up I sent you, one of my reasons out of the 101 Reasons for the KJB says the following:

Early Witnesses of the 17 omitted verses in Modern Bibles or the Critical Text. Quotes from the socalled: “early church fathers” confirm the TR / KJB (Byzantine) line. Historical documentation of these men confirms the existence of these 17 omitted verses in history, which are wrongfully removed in Modern Bibles and the Critical Text. (See: https://www.scionofzion.com/olv.htm) (Note: These so-called “early church fathers” were actually into Catholic practices, but the fact that this is true only proves all the more that their words on this matter are not biased) (Note: Please keep in mind that I believe Catholicism is unbiblical) (See here to learn more about how the socalled “early church fathers” are a door to Rome).

Here is another reason I provided that may help, as well.

When comparing the KJB vs. Modern Bibles: The Critical Text of Westcott-Hort differs from the TR (Textus Receptus) mostly by deletions in 9,970 words out of 140,521, giving a total of 7% difference. In the 480-page edition of the Trinitarian Bible Society Textus Receptus, this would amount to almost 34 pages, the equivalent of the final two books of the New Testament, Jude, and Revelation” (Thomas Strouse, Review of “From the Mind of God to the Mind of Man,” November 2000). Jack Moorman made an extensive study of the differences between the modern critical text and the Received Text and published his conclusions in Early Manuscripts and the Authorized Version--A Closer Look. He found that there are 2,886 words omitted in the Nestle/Aland text. THIS IS EQUIVALENT TO OMITTING THE ENTIRE BOOKS OF 1 AND 2 PETER FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. In fact, if you are interested in seeing a sampling of the many changes between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles, you can check out 776 of them here by Dr. Ken Matto). Of course, many of these changes are for the worse and not for the better.

THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG!

 

[jamessb]

No translation, including the KJV, is perfect! It is impossible to create a "perfect" Bible, as the source languages, the available manuscripts, the differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, etc. CANNOT be unerringly translated into other languages. A person should read the various translations on an excellent resource site, such as biblegateway.com, and decide which one communicates most clearly to her/him.

"God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33 KJV)
or, more accurately, "For God is not a God of disorder but of peace" (NIV and others)

 

[John146]

A person should read the various translations on an excellent resource site, such as biblegateway.com, and decide which one communicates most clearly to her/him.

You do understand, this would make the person the final authority on what God has said. No thank you. I trust that God can and has preserved his words in the English language. God is able. Language is no barrier to God.

 

[jamessb]

You do understand, this would make the person the final authority on what God has said. No thank you. I trust that God can and has preserved his words in the English language. God is able. Language is no barrier to God.

That makes no sense. Do you think that the KJV translators or any people that came after were infallible. Do you think it's actually possible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into English 100% accurately? Do you think that the existant manuscripts are exactly the same? If not, which ones are perfect?

People do their best to communicate God's message to their respective societies, but => it is a task that is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. <= The only perfect words are those God wrote Himself on the stone tablets but ... they don't exist!

God has given people understanding and wisdom but none of them will ever produce a perfect bible, especially one created as a translation.

 

[jamessb]

Regardless of which translation a person uses, when the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, the quotes differ? Why? Because the OT quotes are from Hebrew "bibles" (actually scrolls), while the same verses in the New Testament are from the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Hebrew scrolls). So, did the New Testament speakers/readers/writers (including Jesus(!) and Paul) misquote God? Which is the correct wording?

God is perfect, humans are not. Humans created all the scrolls, all the translations, all the revisions, none of which are perfect! God has given certain people the ability to translate His message for people throughout history, but because they differ (and always have!), NONE OF THEM ARE PERFECT! The goal of any translation should be to communicate God's message to people as clearly as possible in the language they understand.

Those who insist that their preferred translation is the words of God are wrong. Regarding the KJV, God and His Son never spoke or heard English, and it has been corrected and modified over the past 412 years. So which KJV version is a perfect translation?

 

[John146]

That makes no sense. Do you think that the KJV translators or any people that came after were infallible. Do you think it's actually possible to translate ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek into English 100% accurately? Do you think that the existant manuscripts are exactly the same? If not, which ones are perfect?

People do their best to communicate God's message to their respective societies, but => it is a task that is impossible to do with 100% accuracy. <= The only perfect words are those God wrote Himself on the stone tablets but ... they don't exist!

God has given people understanding and wisdom but none of them will ever produce a perfect bible, especially one created as a translation.

The translators of the KJV were not infallible, neither were the writers of the originals.

Yes, I think it is possible for God to have his words translated perfectly in the English language. Is anything to difficult for our Lord?

Do you understand that there are translations within the originals, and those translations are the words of God? Translations can be inspired.

 

[jamessb]

The translators of the KJV were not infallible, neither were the writers of the originals.

Yes, I think it is possible for God to have his words translated perfectly in the English language. Is anything to difficult for our Lord?

Do you understand that there are translations within the originals, and those translations are the words of God? Translations can be inspired.

Great post! Very true! Thanks!

 

[jamessb]

I was reading Revelation last night in a New Testament entitled "A New New Testament". It is a recently published New Testament based on a variety of sources, some of which have been recently discovered and translated. In addition to the standard NT "books", it includes "The Prayer of Thanksgiving", "The Gospel of Thomas", "The First Book of the Odes of Solomon", "The Thunder: Perfect Mind", and others.

This got me thinking about the King James Bible, and why some people consider it THE Word of God. To me, it is absurd to think that the people who created the KJV were perfect human beings, inspired perfectly by God, to create a perfect translation. There has never been any evidence for this; it is based solely on people's wishful (but false) thinking.

Why do those people think that the KJV is perfect and other translations, especially "modern" ones, are not? (It is impossible to justify those thoughts!) So, what is the answer?

My conclusion is that the KJV was THE Bible of the English-speaking world for many years, so therefore (in their minds) it MUST be perfect. All other translations are NOT the Bible, because they differ from the (so-called) "perfect" translation. That is nothing but rationalization, which cannot ever be proven as factual. They ignore several facts: a) there were English translations prior to the KJV, and many more afterwards, b) there are no perfect source documents! b) There are a variety of Bible source documents that differ from each other, including some that have been recently discovered. c) There has been a significant growth of the art/science of textual criticism (as there have been in many other academic fields) and translation techniques. d) The English language itself has changed over the centuries; early 17th Century Englyshe is a dead language.

The purpose of any translation is to convey God's message to humanity, as clearly and accurately as possible, regardless of the receptor language. It is a fallacy to think that somehow early 17th Century Englyshe conveys God's message to humanity more clearly than a person's native language! (Has anyone noticed that those who post in this forum NEVER write in 17th Century Englyshe? (Don't they want to be clearly understood?) If someone reads/writes/thinks in a specific language, then that should be the medium used to convey God's Word. God wants people to understand His message (and live by it) as clearly as possible in their native language, the one that they use every day, rather than a beautiful-sounding but dead language.

That is why, for the last 51 years, I have chosen to read the best modern translations. They communicate God's words more clearly than the KJV. IMHO that should be the sole purpose of reading the Bible.

 

[fredoheaven]

I just observed new post here parroting the same argument, its just a rehash but with a new name.

 

[fredoheaven]

The word "study" in the KJV does not mean the same thing as the word "study" in modern English. It means "be diligent", "make every effort", "do your best", etc. It is necessary to translate the KJV into modern language if it is to be accurately understood.

How will you prove it that study is not a study in a modern meaning? What is the modern meaning of study by the way? Thanks

 

[Johann]

THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG!

Prove @Bible_Highlighter wrong-I know him and he is sound and rock solidly grounded in Scriptures.
J.

 

[Johann]

God’s Word teaches us that God translates languages. At Pentecost, in Acts chapter 2: Certain Jewish men each spoke in their own tongue, and yet God translated their language so that they could understand each other with no problems (See: Acts 2:5-13). This is a pure translation done by God. Can a translation of God’s Word (Scripture) be divinely inspired and or perfect? Well, we learn in the Old Testament: Joseph had spoken Egyptian, and yet these words that record this very fact are written in Hebrew (Genesis 42:23). In the New Testament, we learn: that Paul had spoken to the Jews in Hebrew and yet these words were recorded in the Greek within the Scriptures (See: Acts 21:40, and Acts 22:1-2). Again, this is a perfect translation unless you doubt God’s Word. In addition, at the cross: The words on a sign said, “JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.” These words were written in different languages (Hebrew, Greek, and Latin) that were translated for us (John 19:19-20). In addition, Jesus said, “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?” that is to say, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” (Matthew 27:46). In other words, if God indeed divinely granted us the translation of the King James Bible (as I believe He has), it would align perfectly with the consistency of other translations of God we read about in Scripture.



Sure it is.
You just don’t have all the facts from a faith based biblical perspective, and Bible history.



There are 101 Reasons.



There is a lot of misinformation to shoot down the King James Bible by Modern Scholarship because they have jobs to keep and money to make. You should ask yourself why would your side deceptively move some of the words from 1 John 5:8 to fill in the missing gap in 1 John 5:7? You can say that 1 John 5:7 should not be in the Bible, but for your side to employ such a deception does not make them look innocent here.



Here is the history:

NRSVue (2021) (An update of the New Revised Standard Version).
NRSV (1989)
RSV (1952)
ASV (1901)
RV (1881) (Westcott and Hort) (George Vance Smith who was a Unitarian on the committee). Westcott and Hort fought to have him on their team and even threatened to quit if he was not included.

Aug. – Hort to Lightfoot: “It is, I think, difficult to measure the weight of acceptance won beforehand for the Revision by the single fact of our welcoming an Unitarian, if only the Company perseveres in its present serious and faithful spirit.” (Life, Vol.II, p.140).

Oct. 15th – Hort: “…the spiritual truth of which the popular doctrine of substitution is an immoral and material counterfeit…Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.” (Life, Vol.I, p.430).

1890 Mar. 4th – Westcott: “No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history – I could never understand how any one reading them with open eyes could think they did – yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”

“In matters of textual criticism the Bible is to be treated like any other ancient book. No special considerations are to be made concerning its claims of inspiration and preservation” (Westcott and Hort , The New Testament in the Original Greek, Introduction and Appendix, 1881).

According to Arthur Westcott, Bishop Westcott also had such experiences with spirits. His son writes, "The Communion of Saints seems particularly associated with Peterborough. He had an extraordinary power of realizing this Communion. It was his delight to be alone at night in the great Cathedral, for there he could meditate and pray in full sympathy with all that was good and great in the past. . . There he always had abundant company." Westcott’s daughter met him returning from one of his customary meditations in the solitary darkness of the chapel at Auckland castle. She said to him, " I expect you do not feel alone?" "Oh, no," he said, "It is full."

Matthew 1:25
KJB: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.

RSV: but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
NAB (Catholic Bible): He had no relations with her at any time before she bore a son whom he named Jesus.

Romans 8:1
KJB: There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

RSV: There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
NWT: Therefore those in union with Christ Jesus have no condemnation
NAB: There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.

Colossians 1:14
KJB: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:

RSV: in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
NWT: by means of whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
NAB: Through him we have redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.



Matthew 19:9
KJB: And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

NET: Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 in the NAS1977, NAS95, NET, and NTFE says that one can divorce their wife for immorality instead of fornication (KJV). Meaning, the word “immorality” is ambiguous as to what kind of sin is being referred to here. So if one wanted to divorce their wife for lying, they could do so if they trusted these translations instead of the King James Bible.

The latter half of Romans 14:10 and all of Romans 14:12. This is again another example of an assault on the divine nature of Jesus Christ in the Bible. For comparison, you can see Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12 between the KJV and other translations as stated below:

Romans 14:10b, and Romans 14:12:

KJV-
10 “...for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
12 “So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God.”

NET -
10 “...For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God.”
12 “Therefore, each of us will give an account of himself to God.”

NWT-
10 “...For we shall all stand before the judgment seat of God;
12 So, then, each of us will render an account for himself to God.”



Check out Keith Piper’s PDF here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf



God has chosen the foolish things of this world to confound the wise (1 Corinthians 1:27).

What is your review on the AMP?
J.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

a) I was in graduate school many years ago. Apparently you don't understand past tense.

Seeing you did not quote what I said, I have no frame of reference of what you are talking about here. To help you out, here is a brief video tutorial on how to easily multi-quote here on the forums,. It is a video on another Christian forum. The user interface is not all that much different.

b) Judging by your post, I know more than you know.

This is not a game of egos here. We are not in high school trying to compete like certain jocks who party ever weekend.
Unless you are God, you also do not actually know what I know on this topic.
There are many things that I know that even KJB believers do not know on this topic. I am sure they also have knowledge on this topic on certain points that I am unaware of, as well. I am sure you do know things that I don't know in the Science of Textual Criticism, or what scholars have taught to you; But I see Modern Bible Movement as a false movement that is recent in history. I mean no offense. This is just my belief according to the Bible and my study of Bible history. Its not personal. I love you in Jesus Christ and we can agree to disagree on this topic respectfully if we do not see eye to eye on this topic.

If you want to find a thousand reasons why the KJV is the best bible you would still be wrong.

I think if somebody told me they had 101 Reasons or 1,000 reasons to why something was true, I would at least give them some courtesy as to check out their reasons why.

It is an outdated translation created to justify a secular king's version of Christianity to glorify himself.

Is that the fruits of what we see in history? Or does history paint another picture of what happened with this translation?
See there are things that others may tell you, but we have to get a more systematic look at how things are rather than trusting what one group says because they have jobs to keep and money to make.

In any event, may God bless you and your family.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Prove @Bible_Highlighter wrong-I know him and he is sound and rock solidly grounded in Scriptures.
J.

Greetings to you Johann. I remember you from the other Christian forum. Welcome to ChristianChat. I hope the Lord and His grace has kept you to grow stronger and stronger in His love the last we talked.

 

[Johann]

Greetings to you Johann. I remember you from the other Christian forum. Welcome to ChristianChat. I hope the Lord and His grace has kept you to grow stronger and stronger in His love the last we talked.

Grace and peace to you brother. Still learning and growing in Christ Jesus.
Johann.

 

[jamessb]

The first English Bible was created in 1535; the most recent translation was created in 2022. It is absolutely ridiculous that think that in the span of 487 years, God gave the gift of perfect understanding and translation to a single group of men and to no one else.

I have read all kinds of arguments about how the KJV is the only true Bible but not one of them can give any kind of convincing reason that those translators had perfect understanding of the available sources and created the perfect translation (which has been modified over the centuries), while other translators were/are somehow deficient.

IMHO, God has overseen the translation of His words so that today we have a plethora of Bibles that clearly and accurately convey His message to many people, regardless of their level of literacy, education, etc. God is more than capable of transmitting His message to people with clarity, giving them true understanding of Him (the Godhead) and His interaction with His creation.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

What is your review on the AMP?
J.

I am Core KJB. So I would not have a problem using Modern Bibles (like the AMP), although they are not my final word of authority (Which is the King James Bible). Core KJB is the belief that the King James Bible is the perfect inerrant words of God, but one is not against the use of Modern Bibles as long as it aligns with what the KJB says. In Core KJB: If there is a clear difference between the Modern Bible vs. the King James Bible. In Core KJB: A believer will always side with the King James Bible in what it says over any other Modern Bible. It is their final Word of authority. But that does not mean Modern Bibles cannot help flesh out what the KJB says in its archaic wording.

KJV-onlyists (The KJV-Only belief) would not use the AMP to learn and study along with the KJV. They believe that one can be corrupted spiritually by doing so,. I respectfully disagree with my KJV-only brethren on this point.

The AMP Translation while based of the shorter Westcott and Hort (Nestle and Aland) New Testament Greek texts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) does offer some helpful insights into what the KJB says at times involving its archaic wording. Ironically, I have found the NLT (Which is a paraphrase) to be helpful a lot in certain archaic readings in the OT, and the book of Acts. But I always make sure to reread the chapter(s) or passage(s) again in the KJB to make sure they are saying the same thing. So while the AMP has been helpful at times, there are false doctrines taught in all Modern Bibles. So we do have to be careful. I use Biblehub, and Biblegateway and do look at other translations, but we have to be ever diligent to stay faithful to believe the pure Word of God (the KJB) in what it says (Even when we may want to believe otherwise). Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).

As I mentioned before in the other Christian forum, I have 101 Reasons for the KJB being the Pure of God for today.
I have the reasons, but it is a PDF I am still working on currently.

 

[jamessb]

Seeing you did not quote what I said, I have no frame of reference of what you are talking about here. To help you out, here is a brief video tutorial on how to easily multi-quote here on the forums,. It is a video on another Christian forum. The user interface is not all that much different.

This is not a game of egos here. We are not in high school trying to compete like certain jocks who party ever weekend.
Unless you are God, you also do not actually know what I know on this topic.
There are many things that I know that even KJB believers do not know on this topic. I am sure they also have knowledge on this topic on certain points that I am unaware of, as well. I am sure you do know things that I don't know in the Science of Textual Criticism, or what scholars have taught to you; But I see Modern Bible Movement as a false movement that is recent in history. I mean no offense. This is just my belief according to the Bible and my study of Bible history. Its not personal. I love you in Jesus Christ and we can agree to disagree on this topic respectfully if we do not see eye to eye on this topic.



I think if somebody told me they had 101 Reasons or 1,000 reasons to why something was true, I would at least give them some courtesy as to check out their reasons why.



Is that the fruits of what we see in history? Or does history paint another picture of what happened with this translation?
See there are things that others may tell you, but we have to get a more systematic look at how things are rather than trusting what one group says because they have jobs to keep and money to make.

In any event, may God bless you and your family.

Thank you. May God bless you and your family also.

One point: You wrote "Unless you are God, you also do not actually know what I know on this topic." I read what you post. Unless you have multiple personalities, I have a good idea what you know on this topic.

Another point: You wrote, "I see Modern Bible Movement as a false movement that is recent in history". Aside from the fact that "modern" means "recent in history", what do you mean by "Modern Bible Movement" and why is it "false"? Do you seriously think that there is some "movement" that is going on to distort God's word??? Why is it a false "movement"?

Another point: do you think that the publishers of the King James translation don't have jobs to keep and money to make? Seriously?
Do you think that Holman, Cambridge, Nelson, Hendrickson, and other KJV publishers aren't in business to make a profit from selling Bibles? Looking over just one source (Amazon), I don't see a single Bible that doesn't have a price tag.