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.
All seven major KJV editions are seven purifications. While there is a main meaning to Psalms 12:6, there is also a prophetic one. I believe Psalms 12:6 speaks of the 7 major KJB editions.
While there are slight differences, they are all conveying the truth for their time periods. I see the differences as advanced revelation. We know from God that He can add to His own word according to Jeremiah. Biblical numerics by Brandon Peterson even shows how numerical patterns fell into place when they KJV became standardized with the Authorized Version. See his video here:
While there are slight differences, they are all conveying the truth for their time periods. I see the differences as advanced revelation. We know from God that He can add to His own word according to Jeremiah. Biblical numerics by Brandon Peterson even shows how numerical patterns fell into place when they KJV became standardized with the Authorized Version. See his video here:
-
1
- Show all
The number 1611 is the same as the year 1611, which marked a significant change in Bible history.
Luke 4:4 says,
"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God."
Matthew 4:4 says,
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
Deuteronomy 8:3 says,
"And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live."
All verses above refer to the Word of God, and when the verse numbers are added together, they equal the number 1611, which is the year the King James Bible was published. This is also not the only occurrence of the number "1611" in the KJB; check out the video in post #2522, as well.
Here's my take on this:
Peddle or corrupt the word of God
2 Corinthians 2:17
King James Version
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
New International Version
17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.
The Greek where it comes from is the word ‘kapēleuontes’, which to the many Modern English Bible translations literally means; to make a trade of. Further, it said that "it is that it would be to make a trade of the Gospel, the implication in that context would be to make the Gospel into a business."
While at the outset, peddle and other same words like merchandise, sell or commercialize seem appealing, this is not exactly what it meant by Apostle Paul.
Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as ‘corrupt’, all other Modern English versions say either "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize.”
Here’s the reason why KJV stands out amongst numerous newer English translations of the passage. I have also to point out that it in any way had something to do with trading the Gospel thereby making the gospel into a monetary gain. Now, the factual evidence that surrounds the text in question and perhaps the best reason to conclude the KJV is superior to the newer English versions. The context is seen as
1. Words that are preached (vs. 12)
2 The word of God (vs. 17)
3. Words that are WRITTEN (3:1)
4. Words found in epistles (3:2-3)
And so, nobody was selling anything. No one was “peddling” God’s words. They were corrupting them.” Paul said he has not even coveted man’s silver, or gold or apparel. Acts 20:23. Paul did not sell the word of God for monetary gain.
Historically, corruption in the first and second centuries abounds with Gnostics' beliefs and so the corruption. in which Paul is warning about the “mishandling of the scriptures”. 2 Cor. 4:2
It is even interesting to note that Bill Mounce’s definition is based on Strong’s definition which is Thayer. may perhaps an interesting that "peddling" is just a gloss meaning, in other words, it is just a marginal note or an explanation. It would seem to suggest but it is not ultimately the right words of the given text and often times it fall short of the true idea within the context so that it is not preferably used or being disregarded.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo
Dictionary:
καπηλεύω
Greek transliteration:
kapēleuō
Simplified transliteration:
kapeleuo
Principal Parts:
-, -, -, -, -
Numbers
Strong's number:
2585
GK Number:
2836
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 1
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: v-1a(6)
Gloss:
to act as a peddler, trade-in for profit
Definition:
pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17*
A Greek Lexicon by Henry Lidell and Robert Scott 1901 p.742 says it is corrupt when it is used biblically.
https://archive.org/stream/greekenglishlex00lidduoft...
English is Germanic which belongs to the Indo-European language and traces its roots further to the 4th CE. Germanic Language of the Goths. "Little Wolf" translated from the Greek to Gothic language has “maidjadans” which simply means to change, to corrupt.
Corinthians II 2:17 Gothic Bible 4Ce.
A unte ni sium swe sumai maidjandans waurd gudis, ak us hlutriþai, ak swaswe us guda in andwairþja gudis in Xristau rodjam.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=VBsJAAAAQAAJ...
Briefly, the English bible translation of Wycliffe 1382 was translated in the Latin Language to have it as to “adulterate”. This is important since the English word "adulterate" has the original meaning of "corrupt, debase especially by admixture". The OED says adultery also of the other meaning which is a sexual sin. The KJV is of course not yet in the scene and when it has been translated they consider the Latin Language of “adulterate”. it is implicit, however, that they have rightfully translated it as “corrupt” which does not convey the latter meaning of taking an adultery or a sexual sin.
The OED defined the word ‘corrupt’ relative to language or text as
corrupt, adj.
Of language, texts, etc.: Destroyed in purity, debased; altered from the original or correct condition by ignorance, carelessness, additions, etc…
So peddling of the NIV or the NET does not convey what Paul meant. It is to corrupt the word of God.
Peddle or corrupt the word of God
2 Corinthians 2:17
King James Version
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
New International Version
17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, as those sent from God.
The Greek where it comes from is the word ‘kapēleuontes’, which to the many Modern English Bible translations literally means; to make a trade of. Further, it said that "it is that it would be to make a trade of the Gospel, the implication in that context would be to make the Gospel into a business."
While at the outset, peddle and other same words like merchandise, sell or commercialize seem appealing, this is not exactly what it meant by Apostle Paul.
Speaking of "corrupt" words of God, I think of a few if not the KJV alone renders in the English translation for 2 Cor. 2:17 translating the Greek καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes) as ‘corrupt’, all other Modern English versions say either "peddle, market, merchandise, sell, commercialize.”
Here’s the reason why KJV stands out amongst numerous newer English translations of the passage. I have also to point out that it in any way had something to do with trading the Gospel thereby making the gospel into a monetary gain. Now, the factual evidence that surrounds the text in question and perhaps the best reason to conclude the KJV is superior to the newer English versions. The context is seen as
1. Words that are preached (vs. 12)
2 The word of God (vs. 17)
3. Words that are WRITTEN (3:1)
4. Words found in epistles (3:2-3)
And so, nobody was selling anything. No one was “peddling” God’s words. They were corrupting them.” Paul said he has not even coveted man’s silver, or gold or apparel. Acts 20:23. Paul did not sell the word of God for monetary gain.
Historically, corruption in the first and second centuries abounds with Gnostics' beliefs and so the corruption. in which Paul is warning about the “mishandling of the scriptures”. 2 Cor. 4:2
It is even interesting to note that Bill Mounce’s definition is based on Strong’s definition which is Thayer. may perhaps an interesting that "peddling" is just a gloss meaning, in other words, it is just a marginal note or an explanation. It would seem to suggest but it is not ultimately the right words of the given text and often times it fall short of the true idea within the context so that it is not preferably used or being disregarded.
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/kapeleuo
Dictionary:
καπηλεύω
Greek transliteration:
kapēleuō
Simplified transliteration:
kapeleuo
Principal Parts:
-, -, -, -, -
Numbers
Strong's number:
2585
GK Number:
2836
Statistics
Frequency in New Testament: 1
Morphology of Biblical Greek Tag: v-1a(6)
Gloss:
to act as a peddler, trade-in for profit
Definition:
pr. to be κάπηλος, a retailer; to peddle with; to corrupt, adulterate, 2 Cor. 2:17*
A Greek Lexicon by Henry Lidell and Robert Scott 1901 p.742 says it is corrupt when it is used biblically.
https://archive.org/stream/greekenglishlex00lidduoft...
English is Germanic which belongs to the Indo-European language and traces its roots further to the 4th CE. Germanic Language of the Goths. "Little Wolf" translated from the Greek to Gothic language has “maidjadans” which simply means to change, to corrupt.
Corinthians II 2:17 Gothic Bible 4Ce.
A unte ni sium swe sumai maidjandans waurd gudis, ak us hlutriþai, ak swaswe us guda in andwairþja gudis in Xristau rodjam.
https://books.google.com.ph/books?id=VBsJAAAAQAAJ...
Briefly, the English bible translation of Wycliffe 1382 was translated in the Latin Language to have it as to “adulterate”. This is important since the English word "adulterate" has the original meaning of "corrupt, debase especially by admixture". The OED says adultery also of the other meaning which is a sexual sin. The KJV is of course not yet in the scene and when it has been translated they consider the Latin Language of “adulterate”. it is implicit, however, that they have rightfully translated it as “corrupt” which does not convey the latter meaning of taking an adultery or a sexual sin.
The OED defined the word ‘corrupt’ relative to language or text as
corrupt, adj.
Of language, texts, etc.: Destroyed in purity, debased; altered from the original or correct condition by ignorance, carelessness, additions, etc…
So peddling of the NIV or the NET does not convey what Paul meant. It is to corrupt the word of God.
Yes, I agree. I was simply using their own Bible against them. Ironically, this rendering is placed in 2 Corinthians 2:17 and it is the very thing that they do in the Modern Bible Movement. They peddle the Word of God and get monetary kickbacks (Which is the result of the copyrights) and tons of money spent on advertising.
-
1
- Show all
It is also worth pointing out to him the academic credentials of the KJV translators, too. They were light years ahead of any scholar today. I heard Vance’s book on the KJV translators is pretty good.
https://www.amazon.com/King-James-His-Bible-Translators/dp/0976344815
https://www.amazon.com/King-James-His-Bible-Translators/dp/0976344815
-
1
- Show all
The KJV translators were chosen for one purpose: to create a new Bible that gave credence and stature to the new King of England, who also was the head of the Church of England. In other words, the king defined what Christianity was and what the text should read. There were excellent Bibles before the KJV, e.g., The Geneva Bible, the Tyndale Bible, and others. Why was a new Bible needed? Because King James wanted his personal theology, which just happened to glorify himself, to be the "law of the land".
One result was persecution of dissenters, which caused the Pilgrims to flee to this hemisphere (or lose their lives). Sadly, there are still people who consider the KJV to be THE BIBLE, and come up with all kinds of excuses to justify their opinion.
Some, in fact, even scoff at modern scholarship, which has given us the great translations that we have today. The NIV is the largest-selling Bible these days, for a good reason. It is a superb piece of scholarship, and is continually updated and improved.
It saddens me that some people will find all kinds of excuses and rationale to stay with an outdated, flawed, politically-motivated Bible. They make on-the-fly decisions about what God's Word actually says, with no basis and no training.
Anyone reading this will do themselves a great favor and rid themselves of KJV-onlyism. Buy a new Bible, read it in your own language, and be thankful to God.
One result was persecution of dissenters, which caused the Pilgrims to flee to this hemisphere (or lose their lives). Sadly, there are still people who consider the KJV to be THE BIBLE, and come up with all kinds of excuses to justify their opinion.
Some, in fact, even scoff at modern scholarship, which has given us the great translations that we have today. The NIV is the largest-selling Bible these days, for a good reason. It is a superb piece of scholarship, and is continually updated and improved.
It saddens me that some people will find all kinds of excuses and rationale to stay with an outdated, flawed, politically-motivated Bible. They make on-the-fly decisions about what God's Word actually says, with no basis and no training.
Anyone reading this will do themselves a great favor and rid themselves of KJV-onlyism. Buy a new Bible, read it in your own language, and be thankful to God.
Mark Ward says that those KJV believers who say that the King James Bible is inspired (either by preservation or by double inspiration) are following Ruckmanism. Ward has a video called, ”10 Ways to Avoid Ruckmanism.” However, Nick Sayers (while he is a TR advocate) has a 4 hour video in response to this in defense of the KJB believer (of which you can see here). I watched the first two and a half hours of Nick’s response. While Nick Sayers repeats one particular point way too much, his video is still insightful or helpful nonetheless. What Nick did not say (from what I have seen) is that the belief that King James Bible is inspired predates Peter Ruckman by hundreds of years. Also, for Mark Ward to say that KJB believers who hold to the inspiration of the KJV is Ruckmanism is false slander. Ruckman was a racist and he was very fowl mouthed and overly hateful. Ruckman was divorced several times, as well. To say that most KJB believers are into Ruckmanism is to also imply that we approve of the other bad things Ruckman did (Which is simply not the case).
Anyway, we know there are Christians of the past who used to believe the KJV was inspired (Who predated Peter Ruckman):
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed."
In 1678. It says,
They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say,
The year 1678 is 67 years after 1611.
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
1857:
1882:
"I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED..." (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said,
1897:
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that:
https://www.brandplucked.com/confesskjb.htm
So Mark Ward is misinformed and he is falsely slandering us KJB believers.
Also, has Mark Ward considered the verses on why we believe certain verses in the Bible teach that copies can be referred to as inspired Scripture? Does he know that the copies Timothy had are called “Holy”? Something holy from God would not be impure. So Mark is simply not aware of the Bible on this matter and he is not believing the orthodox Bible believing viewpoint that existed for hundreds of years.
Anyway, we know there are Christians of the past who used to believe the KJV was inspired (Who predated Peter Ruckman):
The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed."
In 1678. It says,
"And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches ofChrist to this day."
They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say,
"All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.
The year 1678 is 67 years after 1611.
Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830
“We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.“
1857:
"The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted...” (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).
1882:
"I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED..." (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).
1890: The Supreme Court said,
"the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects." (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).
1897:
“IN A CERTAIN SENSE, THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IS MORE INSPIRED THAN THE ORIGINAL...” (Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1897.)
Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that:
"the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost."
You can see more quotes like this in Will Kinsey’s article here:https://www.brandplucked.com/confesskjb.htm
So Mark Ward is misinformed and he is falsely slandering us KJB believers.
Also, has Mark Ward considered the verses on why we believe certain verses in the Bible teach that copies can be referred to as inspired Scripture? Does he know that the copies Timothy had are called “Holy”? Something holy from God would not be impure. So Mark is simply not aware of the Bible on this matter and he is not believing the orthodox Bible believing viewpoint that existed for hundreds of years.
-
1
- Show all
This is why I am not a huge fan of the KJV Research Council. They may have some helpful info on occasion, but they don’t believe the KJV is inspired. This is not only an unorthodox view of the King James Bible, but it is also contrary to what the Bible teaches about itself on this matter, as well. The KJV teaches that copies of Scripture are inspired (See Acts 8, and 2 Timothy 3). Job defines what inspiration is. In order for the KJV translators to choose the right things to put into the KJV, they must have been guided by the inspiration of the Almighty as spoken about in Job.
Correction: Meant to say that Ward believes a few KJB believers are into Ruckmanism, and NOT most KJB believers.
Ward believes KJV-only mainstream is not in favor of Ruckmanism (of which Mark falsely believes is the origin of Double Inspiration). Note: Yes, the term “Double Inspiration” may have came about by Ruckman, but that does not mean that the belief had originated by him. We can see in many statements of faith by churches starting in the 1600s of confessions of faith that the KJV was inspired.
Ward has a particular strong distaste for a Christian believing that a Bible that we can hold in our hands is inspired.
Mark is the type of person who thinks 10 moves ahead. So you have to see that he is trying to do things that would lead believers away from trusting that the KJV is the one and only trustworthy Bible.
Ward believes KJV-only mainstream is not in favor of Ruckmanism (of which Mark falsely believes is the origin of Double Inspiration). Note: Yes, the term “Double Inspiration” may have came about by Ruckman, but that does not mean that the belief had originated by him. We can see in many statements of faith by churches starting in the 1600s of confessions of faith that the KJV was inspired.
Ward has a particular strong distaste for a Christian believing that a Bible that we can hold in our hands is inspired.
Mark is the type of person who thinks 10 moves ahead. So you have to see that he is trying to do things that would lead believers away from trusting that the KJV is the one and only trustworthy Bible.
As I said before, this is false. King James contributed very little the KJV translation. He provided certain rules for the KJV, but he did not define what the text should read. The KJV is not radically different in doctrine from previous TR bibles. There is no proof that King James had added anything to the Bible that would uplift his kingdom. Your repeating yourself is simply a false advertising campaign. You are not providing any sources that can back up your claims here.
Sources please. You have none. Where is your proof? Clearly it exists only in your mind or in the minds of those who don’t want a perfect Bible to be under authority to. Again, as I pointed out before, there is a major error in the Geneva Bible. It’s troublesome notes also was a problem, as well.
There are reports of King James doing so, but you have to understand that there is a lot of false information about King James out there because he represents the Bible. For example: We clearly know that the claim that King James was a sodomite is false. I did watch a BBC documentary on the KJB where Puritans were able to worship in secret. So it’s not like they could not worship. I think those who went against the king openly had the problem. If the popular story is true, this would simply tell us that, no human king (born of two parents) is perfect. King David had murdered and committed adultery. Yet, he was a man after God’s own heart. But if God did not approve of King James’ work or translation because he was an evil and horrible king as you suggest, then why did God bless his efforts? Surely there is more to the story than what others are telling us here. The King James Bible was the dominant Bible in the English speaking world for hundreds of years and many trusted that book unwaveringly. Today, you got people attacking the Bible, and kicking it like a football.
And for good reason. You have people like Bart Erhman and Rick Beckman who were both once Christians and now they no longer believe. I believe this is what the Science of Textual Criticism does to a person’s mind. This science gets you to doubt the Bible. The Textual Critics almost destroyed my faith after I first got saved. Others have lost their faith when they learned of Textual Criticism in Bible college. They no doubt just believed the Bible was true before they went to college and then lost it by all their faith doubting teachers.
But they are not good translations because the Catholic Church has put Catholic ideas into Modern Bibles. The Modern Bibles are all supervised by the Vatican. This is simply a fact if you look at the 27th Edition of the Nestle and Aland.
The NIV is actually considered trash by even folks in your camp over the years. Folks in your camp told KJV-only believers to stop bringing up the NIV all the time because they know it is bad. So popularity of the NIV does not mean anything. I am sure there are a lot of popular things out there that are bad for you.
Right. *Rolls eyes* Like the so-called improvement in Mark 4:1 where it makes Jesus out to be angry when he heals the leper.
Yeah, that’s just crazy talk - IMHO.
You mean the training of the false Science of Textual Criticism and not the training in just reading and believing the Bible simply like a child.
And in the process take the risk in destroying their faith. Good job.
Those who believe in the pure Word of God are willing to die for it.
Are you willing to die for man’s words mingled in with words you deem are spoken by God but not inspired?
Not sure why you are trying to sell bibles when folks can just look them up for free online. Granted, I personally like the feel of a real Bible at times, but to buy a Modern Bible should only be bought to expose them. This is possible if one uses the KJV. The KJV is like a magnifying glass that exposes the errors in the Modern Bibles.
Sources please. You have none. Where is your proof? Clearly it exists only in your mind or in the minds of those who don’t want a perfect Bible to be under authority to. Again, as I pointed out before, there is a major error in the Geneva Bible. It’s troublesome notes also was a problem, as well.
There are reports of King James doing so, but you have to understand that there is a lot of false information about King James out there because he represents the Bible. For example: We clearly know that the claim that King James was a sodomite is false. I did watch a BBC documentary on the KJB where Puritans were able to worship in secret. So it’s not like they could not worship. I think those who went against the king openly had the problem. If the popular story is true, this would simply tell us that, no human king (born of two parents) is perfect. King David had murdered and committed adultery. Yet, he was a man after God’s own heart. But if God did not approve of King James’ work or translation because he was an evil and horrible king as you suggest, then why did God bless his efforts? Surely there is more to the story than what others are telling us here. The King James Bible was the dominant Bible in the English speaking world for hundreds of years and many trusted that book unwaveringly. Today, you got people attacking the Bible, and kicking it like a football.
And for good reason. You have people like Bart Erhman and Rick Beckman who were both once Christians and now they no longer believe. I believe this is what the Science of Textual Criticism does to a person’s mind. This science gets you to doubt the Bible. The Textual Critics almost destroyed my faith after I first got saved. Others have lost their faith when they learned of Textual Criticism in Bible college. They no doubt just believed the Bible was true before they went to college and then lost it by all their faith doubting teachers.
But they are not good translations because the Catholic Church has put Catholic ideas into Modern Bibles. The Modern Bibles are all supervised by the Vatican. This is simply a fact if you look at the 27th Edition of the Nestle and Aland.
The NIV is actually considered trash by even folks in your camp over the years. Folks in your camp told KJV-only believers to stop bringing up the NIV all the time because they know it is bad. So popularity of the NIV does not mean anything. I am sure there are a lot of popular things out there that are bad for you.
Right. *Rolls eyes* Like the so-called improvement in Mark 4:1 where it makes Jesus out to be angry when he heals the leper.
Yeah, that’s just crazy talk - IMHO.
You mean the training of the false Science of Textual Criticism and not the training in just reading and believing the Bible simply like a child.
And in the process take the risk in destroying their faith. Good job.
Those who believe in the pure Word of God are willing to die for it.
Are you willing to die for man’s words mingled in with words you deem are spoken by God but not inspired?
Not sure why you are trying to sell bibles when folks can just look them up for free online. Granted, I personally like the feel of a real Bible at times, but to buy a Modern Bible should only be bought to expose them. This is possible if one uses the KJV. The KJV is like a magnifying glass that exposes the errors in the Modern Bibles.
-
1
- Show all