The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,312
3,618
113
So you don’t think it is possible for the Lord to have his words translated pure and holy into the English language.
Trick question. Yeah, it's possible; but your belief that the KJV is such a translation is just your opinion. An opinion, I might add, that rests on a pretty shaky foundation.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Well, that's not true. There actually is proof that the KJV is the "pure and holy" word of God.

#1. The 1611th mention of LORD (super-caps) is found in Deuteronomy 16:11. What is significant about this is that this verse says that we (the reader) are to rejoice in the place where God places His name. While this is referring to the Jewish temple, it is also noteworthy to point out that there is a symbiotic relationship between the Living Word (JESUS), and the Communicated Word (like Scripture) (See here). Jesus' body is referred to as a temple (John 2:21). So if Jesus is associated with the temple, then the Word of God (words of God, or the Communicated Word) would also be like a temple (See: Proverbs 18:10). In fact, the King James Bible is the first English Bible to distinguish between LORD (Jehovah - sacred name of God) vs. Lord (Adonai - master). All previous Textus Receptus Bibles never made this distinction before (properly reflecting the underlying original words) (See this video here by Brandon Peterson).

#2. If you were to add up the verse numbers down in a straight column for Luke 4:4, Matthew 4:4, and Deuteronomy 8:3 (See this example here), you would see that it adds up to a total of 16:11. This is significant because it is the only three verses that express the truth that man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word of God.

#3. In Acts 16:11, Paul is headed to a certain destination by boat. If you were to take a straight line and draw it passed his destination and keep going in a straight line from that same direction, it would end up in England where the King James Bible was made. In addition to that, the island that Paul stopped at along the way had a mountain on it. This mountain is named "Fengari" (which you can see in this article here). What is significant about this mountain is that it is 1611 meters high.

#4. Psalms 119 is close to the heart of the Bible. (Side Note: Psalms 103:1-2 are the two middle verses of the Bible (i.e. the center or heart of the Bible). Anyway, Psalms 119 talks about the Word of God (i.e., the Communicated Word of God, like Scripture). Psalms 119 has 176 verses. This is the mathematic equation 16 x 11 (i.e., 1611).

#5. Psalm 138:2 states, "For You have magnified Your word above all Your name." This verse is altered in Modern Bibles to destroy this truth (Which conveniently fits the theology of those who reject the idea of the importance and perfection of God's Word as KJV believers). (Side Note: KJV believers have been falsely slandered in that we worship the KJV when they are not able to fully grasp the importance of the teaching in Word in Psalms 138:2, and Psalms 119:140). Anyway, Psalms 138 (the chapter) has 1611 words.



This is from one of my pages in my 101 Reasons for the KJB:

View attachment 261343



This is something you are failing to do because you put several of us on ignore for no good reason, and you failed to address my significant points for the KJB (like the list of false doctrines taught in Modern Bibles that I provided to you in this thread).



This is true. However, what you are failing to understand is that many KJV believers (not all) will say that a person can be saved using a Modern Translation because the gospel message is still the same in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4. The problem arises in using a Modern Bible can potentially lead a person into believing false doctrine or they can get tripped up into the world of Textual Criticism, whereby they could alter God's Word themselves (by making a translation), or endorse those who do make translations (Whereby it ignores the warning in Revelation 22:18-19).



Please show us in the Bible a good set of verses whereby God was not concerned about the details of His actual words (because they can be corrupted) but He was more concerned about the general message.



Sorry, Westcott and Hort's revision of the King James Bible does not count. The Revised Version is a lie. That was their first English translation based on the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. It does not faithfully follow the Textus Receptus. So they lied. Yet, Textual Critics today follow them in some way (Trusting their two preferred manuscripts and their translation theories).



Pure Cambridge KJV edition (by A.W. Pollard) (circa. 1900) found at Biblehub.com or you can get at Amazon.
The words of the LORD have been purified seven times (Psalms 12:6), which would have been with the seven MAJOR KJB editions.



There was no revision. At least, not in God's eyes. The seven MAJOR KJB editions are updates to fix printing errors, and update the English, etcetera. There are no major revisions of the KJV.

Are the other six KJV editions the pure Word of God? Yes, they are. I believe God communicated advanced or additional meaning in the subtle differences between the 7 MAJOR KJB editions (Which was due to printing error, etc.).



This is not possible in all Bibles because select respected Modern Bibles teach is a created demi-god, when in reality Jesus is eternal, and uncreated.
In last sentence meant to say that Modern Bibles teach JESUS is a created demi-god. See John 1:18, and Micah 5:2.
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
Never heard that one before, 🤦. I magnify the word of God and I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Can one truly worship the Lord without magnifying his word? God himself magnifies his word above his own name.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Never heard that one before, 🤦. I magnify the word of God and I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. Can one truly worship the Lord without magnifying his word? God himself magnifies his word above his own name.

Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
Psalm 138:2, "I will bow down toward your holy temple,
and give thanks to your name,
because of your loyal love and faithfulness,
for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky.[c] "

Footnote [c], NET Bible: The MT [Masoretic text] reads, “for you have made great over all your name your word.” If retained, this must mean that God’s mighty intervention, in fulfillment of his word of promise, surpassed anything he had done prior to this. However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, “for you have exalted over everything your name and your word,” while others suggest, “for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word.” The translation assumes an emendation of “your name” to “your heavens” (a construction that appears in Psalms 8:3 and 144:5 ). The point is that God has been faithful to his promise and the reliability of that promise is apparent to all.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Trick question. Yeah, it's possible; but your belief that the KJV is such a translation is just your opinion. An opinion, I might add, that rests on a pretty shaky foundation.
And we believe your belief is just an opinion that has no ground or foundation whatsoever. You do not even get your belief on this topic from the actual Bible itself. There is no mention of the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus being the preferred texts to follow. Actually, I have Scripture that alludes to these two manuscripts being false. Some Modern scholars (in your camp) say that these two manuscripts originate from Alexandria, Egypt. I have already mentioned before in this thread that Catholic ideas have increased in Modern Bibles since the creation of the Revised Version by Westcott and Hort. The Catholic Church is associated with Rome. Is it a coincidence that Paul traveled on two Alexandrian ships (symbolically Vaticanus and Sinaiticus)? Is it a coincidence that one of these ships was headed to Rome, and the other one was headed out from that destination? These two Alexandrian manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) teach Catholic doctrines subtly (Which is reflected in the Modern English Bibles it is based upon for the NT Greek).

Then there is your belief in Modern Textual Criticism (Which uses new translation theories by men). These translation theories align with their false view that God did not perfectly preserve His words. Yet, this belief cannot be found in Scripture clearly. But we can demonstrate our belief by Scripture clearly. This is the big difference between us. We believe the Bible on this topic, and you don't. Your position is one based on the science of scholars and what men think and it is not based on the Bible.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Psalm 138:2, "I will bow down toward your holy temple,
and give thanks to your name,
because of your loyal love and faithfulness,
for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky.[c] "

Footnote [c], NET Bible: The MT [Masoretic text] reads, “for you have made great over all your name your word.” If retained, this must mean that God’s mighty intervention, in fulfillment of his word of promise, surpassed anything he had done prior to this. However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, “for you have exalted over everything your name and your word,” while others suggest, “for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word.” The translation assumes an emendation of “your name” to “your heavens” (a construction that appears in Psalms 8:3 and 144:5 ). The point is that God has been faithful to his promise and the reliability of that promise is apparent to all.
This is from Dan Wallace who does not believe we can be certain about the words of Jesus.
But if we do not receive the words of Jesus, those words will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).
Plus, the Bible itself says we can have the knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth (See: Proverbs 22:21).
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,312
3,618
113
Trick question. Yeah, it's possible; but your belief that the KJV is such a translation is just your opinion. An opinion, I might add, that rests on a pretty shaky foundation.
KJV onlyists are actually hurting their own cause. If they would simply make the case that the KJV is a superior translation to a lot of the modern versions they might get some traction. But taking it to the next level and trying to make the case that the KJV is the only valid translation and the only one approved by God just makes them look pretty silly.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
You have to bury your head in the sand to the statistical impossibilites of the KJV teaching that the number 1611 is repeatedly shown in Scripture as being tied to God's Word (See my five points for 1611 in this post here).
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
KJV onlyists are actually hurting their own cause. If they would simply make the case that the KJV is a superior translation to a lot of the modern versions they might get some traction. But taking it to the next level and trying to make the case that the KJV is the only valid translation and the only one approved by God just makes them look pretty silly.
Not at all. Ignorance of the doctrinal problems in Modern Bibles by way of comparison is the only way the Modern Bible Movement can survive. Knowledge will increase. It will only be a matter of time (either in this life or at the Judgment), that you guys will look back and see how silly your position is. But like many today (even in the Leftist movement in politics), they cannot see many things (because they don't want to see them). You guys don’t want a perfect Bible, and so you do backflip twists through hoops of fire to avoid seeing such a truth.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
KJV onlyists are actually hurting their own cause. If they would simply make the case that the KJV is a superior translation to a lot of the modern versions they might get some traction. But taking it to the next level and trying to make the case that the KJV is the only valid translation and the only one approved by God just makes them look pretty silly.
From someone replying to self? There are threads upon threads where many have given sound evidence of the superiority of the KJV over the modern versions.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,312
3,618
113
From someone replying to self? There are threads upon threads where many have given sound evidence of the superiority of the KJV over the modern versions.
I was just adding to what I said since you can't go back and edit your posts. You're right, there are tons of such threads. If they would just leave it there they'd have a more convincing case. It's when they take it to the next level and say the KJV and only the KJV is God's preserved word in English that they begin to look ridiculous. But you know what I'm saying; you don't have a good answer so you're just throwing personal digs and trying to confuse the issue. All very predictable.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
I was just adding to what I said since you can't go back and edit your posts. You're right, there are tons of such threads. If they would just leave it there they'd have a more convincing case. It's when they take it to the next level and say the KJV and only the KJV is God's preserved word in English that they begin to look ridiculous. But you know what I'm saying; you don't have a good answer so you're just throwing personal digs and trying to confuse the issue. All very predictable.
Again, how can multiple versions be the word of God when they all contain different words and different truths? No matter how insignificant one thinks a particular truth may be.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
I was just adding to what I said since you can't go back and edit your posts. You're right, there are tons of such threads. If they would just leave it there they'd have a more convincing case. It's when they take it to the next level and say the KJV and only the KJV is God's preserved word in English that they begin to look ridiculous. But you know what I'm saying; you don't have a good answer so you're just throwing personal digs and trying to confuse the issue. All very predictable.
What are the statistical odds of 1611 being repeatedly attached to the Word of God in the KJB? Five distinct times. The point on Deuteronomy 16:11 is simply a miracle. What are the odds that the 1611th mention of LORD is in Deuteronomy 16:11 (1611)?
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
Then you are saying God’s Word is not true in numerous places.

Consider the following truths in Scripture that your belief has to reject.

1. God’s Word says His words are in a book (singular or singular complete works or scrolls) (See: Deuteronomy 17:18, Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 34:16, Jeremiah 30:2, Job 19:23-24, Luke 4:20, Hebrews 10:7). The Bible prophecies about the completed Bible in Isaiah 34:16. See this video here to learn more).

2. God’s Word says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); It is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).

3. God’s Word tells us in 1 Thessalonians 2:13: We received the Word not as the words of men, but as the very words of God.

4. God’s Word says the Scriptures are holy (1 Timothy 3:15).

5. The word of the LORD is right (Psalms 33:4).

6. God’s Word tells us that Christians are to speak the same thing (1 Corinthians 1:10). This can only be if there is one Word of God that we can all agree upon.

7. God’s Word says that His Words are “pure words” (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140).

8. God’s Word says His words will be preserved forever (Psalms 12:6-7) (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:23-25) (Also compare John 17:17 with Psalms 100:5 and Psalms 117:2).

9. 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). By the way, they did not speak Hebrew, and Greek.

10. God’s Word teaches that copies were preserved and not the original manuscripts (Exodus 341) (Deuteronomy 17:18). In the book of Jeremiah: We could see that after King Jehoiakim had burned the scroll of God, the Lord told Jeremiah to take another scroll and “write out” what was formerly in the previous scroll that was burned. On top of that, many “like words” were added. Meaning: Additional words were added to the former words that were in the original scroll (See: Jeremiah 36:27-28, Jeremiah 36:32).

11. God’s Word teaches that copies of His Word are “inspired Scripture.” If you were to compare the existence of the Isaiah scroll in the New Testament with Luke 4:17, along with the existence of what appears to be another Isaiah scroll in Acts 8:28, Acts 8:32-33, at least one of these scrolls would have to be a copy and not the original. Each of these manuscripts of Isaiah is called Scripture. Timothy had known the Scriptures since he was a child (2 Timothy 3:15). Again, these Scriptures he had would have been copies. 2 Timothy 3:16 says, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. ALL Scripture is inspired, and not just some. Meaning, copies that are called Scripture are given by inspiration of God and not just the originals.

12. God’s Word says His Word is Nigh (Near) unto Thee (You). Deuteronomy 30:14 says, “But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it.” (cf. Romans 10:8-10). The word is very nigh unto thee. Meaning His words would not be hidden or far away from you. God’s Word (the Bible) would be near enough to be available for us to access it. The Word is not in some faraway place (See: Deuteronomy 30:13). In other words, you don’t have to send somebody over the sea and dig in a cave to find another manuscript to figure out what God said.

13. God’s Word warns us not to add or take away from His words (Revelation 22:18-19).

14. God’s Word refers to jots and tittles. Meaning, that God cares about the details in His Word. Jesus said, “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18). Jots and tittles are marks or formations that make up the letters in Hebrew.

15. God’s Word teaches that we can have knowledge of the certainty of the words of truth.

Proverbs 22:20-21 says,
“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?”​

Do you truly know whether or not you have the certainty (or assurance) of the words of truth or not?

Not all Bibles say the same thing. In fact, many Modern Bibles have errors in them and teach false doctrines. What do you make of the false doctrines in Modern Bibles that do not appear in the KJV?

You can check it out starting in my post #1,777.
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
From someone replying to self? There are threads upon threads where many have given sound evidence of the superiority of the KJV over the modern versions.
Many have made statements about the supposed superiority of the KJV. That is not evidence; it is simply their opinions. Some of us have also made statements about the superiority of modern translations. Those statements are just as sound as those of the KJV folks.

I have never seen valid proof that the KJV is superior to other translations, and doubt that I ever will. It just comes down to a matter of opinion, nothing more.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
Many have made statements about the supposed superiority of the KJV. That is not evidence; it is simply their opinions. Some of us have also made statements about the superiority of modern translations. Those statements are just as sound as those of the KJV folks.

I have never seen valid proof that the KJV is superior to other translations, and doubt that I ever will. It just comes down to a matter of opinion, nothing more.
True, so we are left with the conclusion that wither only one is the preserved, holy word of God in English, or none of them is the preserved word of God in English. So which version do you believe is the preserved word of God in English? The NET? Or none of them qualify and we do not have the preserved word of God today in English?
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
Again, how can multiple versions be the word of God when they all contain different words and different truths? No matter how insignificant one thinks a particular truth may be.
Are you writing about the source documents? There are multiple versions and they are different from each other (and some are incomplete). The original source documents have never been found.

Also, every English Bible is a translation, and no translation will ever match the source documents 100%. Because of the differences between the source language and the destination language, there cannot be a perfect translation, i.e., one that matches the source documents perfectly.

If, as some KJV people claim, God oversaw the translation work, why doesn't that hold true for modern translations also?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
Also, every English Bible is a translation, and no translation will ever match the source documents 100%. Because of the differences between the source language and the destination language, there cannot be a perfect translation, i.e., one that matches the source documents perfectly.
Are you claiming that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God? Be careful how you answer.;)
 

jamessb

Active member
Feb 10, 2024
738
122
43
Santa Fe NM
True, so we are left with the conclusion that wither only one is the preserved, holy word of God in English, or none of them is the preserved word of God in English. So which version do you believe is the preserved word of God in English? The NET? Or none of them qualify and we do not have the preserved word of God today in English?
I don't believe that any translation is the perfect word of God in English.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
2,070
335
83
The problem is how is your belief consistent? For example: If somebody rejects the resurrection, how do you correct them? Is not by the Bible? This is what I am doing for the Bible corrector’s rejection of the Scripture's teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation. The Bible is not sometimes true and sometimes false. That is an illogical stance to hold to that has led many in the Textual Critic camp to a reject the faith altogether.