The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

continuing on...

You actually condemn every other translation! Even though the words are different, they contain the same message as your King James translation.

The KJV and Modern Bibles do not always teach the same doctrines.
Therefore, they do not teach the same message exactly.

You can check out my Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles list starting in my post #1,777.

Here is a list of Catholic ideas in the NIV (Which also appear in other respected Modern Bibles).

Catholic Ideas in the NIV - ChristianChat.

But you are too blind to see that.

I can say the same for you, but only one of us can be right here.
I have provided good evidence for my position, and you have not done so for your position.
You are only giving us the traditions or teachings of men (i.e., the scholars).
You have not answered all my critical questions, either.
This shows the weakness of your position.
I have the Bible, history, textual superiority, pure doctrine, etc., to support my position.

You "nit pick"; "You strain out a gnat yet swallow a camel!" (Matthew 23:24)

Sorry, I already beat you to the punch on this verse before.

Here is what I had written a while back:

At times, certain believers in Textual Criticism relentlessly criticize the
King James Bible by highlighting perceived minor flaws (i.e., straining at gnats).
Contrarily, they overlook significant doctrinal issues present in Modern Bibles. For
instance, they may highlight a supposed minor discrepancy in the KJB, like the rendering
of "Pascha" as "Easter" in Acts 12:4, which doesn't impact any significant doctrine. Yet, they
readily accept false doctrines from Modern Bibles, such as the wrong belief that Christ
gave up His divine privileges (Philippians 2:7 NLT), the assertion that Jesus had faith
(Hebrews 12:2 NRSV), the belief that 1 John 5:7 should not be used to defend the
Trinity, and the omission of essential words in Romans 8:1, which says, "who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit," when declaring no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus.
In doing so, they swallow a doctrinal "camel" while straining at gnats (See Matthew
23:24) (Side Note: I say this all in love and with no intention to wound any believer but to
lead them to the truth on this matter).

Why is it impossible for you to recognize the value of other Bibles???

Again, I am Core KJV and not KJV-only.
This means that the KJV is my core foundational text and that it is God's perfect and inerrant words.
However, that does not mean I will not use Modern Bibles to help flesh out the archaic wording in the KJV at times. I am not looking to correct the KJV or change its wording. The text is settled with the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900). In fact, it may surprise you, but I believe Christians must use modern Bibles and dictionaries to help understand the KJV. But they should be extra wildly crazy and careful not to replace the wording of what the KJV says.

 

[Nehemiah6]

The KJV and Modern Bibles do not always teach the same doctrines. Therefore, they do not teach the same message exactly.

Since James knows nothing about this matter, why do you continue to respond to him? His first post already showed everyone how much he really knows.

 

[Dino246]

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

You quote that the word of God is incorruptible, but claim that it has been corrupted.

This is the core of KJV-only hypocrisy.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Since James knows nothing about this matter, why do you continue to respond to him? His first post already showed everyone how much he really knows.

My reply goes beyond James. Our posts can later be read by others and can help lead a person to be persuaded either by the truth or by the traditions of men. Some folks join the conversation towards the end of the thread and so they are not reading all posts within that thread because there are simply too many.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You quote that the word of God is incorruptible, but claim that it has been corrupted.

This is the core of KJV-only hypocrisy.

I already explained this to you, my friend.

Either...

(a) You did not understand what I said,
(b) You ignored what I said,
(c) You missed what I said,
(d) You were too busy to see what I said because you were developing a time-machine to travel back in history to disprove one believing in the KJV as the perfect Word of God.

(e) Other option.

Anyway, there is no contradiction in my saying something can be incorruptible and yet it can also corrupted.

Back in post #2,166, I said:

For example: Let’s say an artist created two identical copies of his first masterpiece painting that sold for millions each. Meaning, there would be three identical paintings by the same artist that are genuine. However, one day, the first original was burned up in a fire. Yet, the two copies of his first paintings he made still exist. These two remaining masterpieces are identical in appearance to the naked eye. Yet, the second extant copy or work of the artist that looks identical to the first is stolen and replaced with subtle changes by another artist. So in this case, you have both an untouched first copy that is original from the artist, and you have a second copy (which is original from the artist) that has been corrupted. For this other artist took the second copy and made by the same original artist and he corrupted it. In this sense, you can have both the original copy untouched, and another copy of that original corrupted.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Well, they claim Westcott & Hort were reformers who tinkered with original texts

That is incorrect. Please learn to fact-check your own statements. Believing in the King James Bible as the Word of God and or holding to the view that Westcott and Hort dethroned the pure text are not an exclusive beliefs to Calvinists. Actually, in my experience, I see more Calvinists who hold to Textual Criticism than KJV-Onlyism. James White who wrote the most popular book on trying to attack the KJV-only position is a Calvinist (Source) (Source). Matt Slick is a well Known Calvinist who started an Apologetics ministry and is strongly against the KJV-only position. You can see here Matt Slick’s website aggressively attack against believing in a perfect Bible (which is the KJV). Then there is the GospelCoalition who also are a group of Calvinists who also attack the KJV Bible believing position. You can see their article attacking KJV-Onlyism here. John MacArthur, and John Piper are both very popular Calvinists and they both are against the KJV-only belief and hold to Modern day Textual Criticism. Here is a long list of names of folks who are Calvinist. I am sure if you ask Perplexity.ai or do some Google searching you will discover that most of them are against KJV-Onlyism. This info. is easily discovered by searching the internet. But I also have had talked with many Calvinists on the forums over the years, and most of them in my experience are against believing the KJV-only belief.

so I thought maybe some modern day reformed people that wanted to start a band might call it Westcott & Hort

Right because most Calvinists in my view support Westcott and Hort and their choice of the corrupted Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. It’s actually really easy to figure out that they are corrupted and Westcott and Hort used stealth to try and deceive people into thinking their Revised Version (Modern English Bible) was a KJV update (When in reality it was not). So those who follow Westcott and Hort’s movement (the Modern Bible Movement) have no problem that their movement is based on a lie or they simply are ignorant of this fact.

One of their songs might say something like"we're elect and you're not so you can be saved!"

High Calvinists would believe this but not all Calvinists think that a person must believe in Calvinism to be saved. I already pointed out to you before that not all Calvinists have this perspective or belief on Soteriology. For example: Rich Christiano makes Christian movies that share the gospel message and he mentions nothing about Calviniism. I only discovered he was a Calvinist after talking with him on the phone. But he does not appear to openly advertise it in his films. So you appear to be speaking from a standpoint or position that is of your own imagination. Please learn to fact-check your statements.

May God bless you (even if we disagree).

 

[Dino246]

Anyway, there is no contradiction in my saying something can be incorruptible and yet it can also corrupted.

Those two statements are inherently contradictory.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Those two statements are inherently contradictory.

Not if we are talking about two different Bible streams or two different Bible lines.
One Bible line is pure (KJV, Waldenses Italic Bible), and the other one is corrupted (1881 Revised Version, NEB, GNT, NAS, NIV, etc.).
This is evident if you look at the origins of each "Bible line" properly and examine the doctrines.
Folks only don't want to see the truth of such things because they are being liberal with the Bible in what it says in that they don't believe the Bible's own teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation.

Imagine a river that splits into two streams. One stream can be unpolluted by man, and the other second stream from the same source can be polluted by man. Do you get it now?

 

[Dino246]

Not if we are talking about two different Bible streams or two different Bible lines.
One Bible line is pure (KJV, Waldenses Italic Bible), and the other one is corrupted (1881 Revised Version, NEB, GNT, NAS, NIV, etc.).
This is evident if you look at the origins of each "Bible line" properly and examine the doctrines.
Folks only don't want to see the truth of such things because they are being liberal with the Bible in what it says in that they don't believe the Bible's own teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation.

Imagine a river that splits into two streams. One stream can be unpolluted by man, and the other second stream from the same source can be polluted by man. Do you get it now?

Blah blah blah. Either Scripture is “incorruptible” or it is not.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

High Calvinists would believe this but not all Calvinists think that a person must believe in Calvinism to be saved.

Are "High Calvinists" the ones that think it's OK to smoke the weed?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Blah blah blah. Either Scripture is “incorruptible” or it is not.

It’s like the Trinity. God is one God, and yet He is three persons.
There are many things like this in the Bible.
I am sorry you do not understand my illustrations.

 

[Dino246]

It’s like the Trinity. God is one God, and yet He is three persons.
There are many things like this in the Bible.
I am sorry you do not understand my illustrations.

I am sorry you don’t understand the difference between agreement and comprehension.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I am sorry you don’t understand the difference between agreement and comprehension.

The thing is that you are not offering how your belief here is superior and or correct over what I said.
The illustrations I gave should have shown that your claim here has no weight.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Are "High Calvinists" the ones that think it's OK to smoke the weed? View attachment 261713

Please read 1 Corinthians 13 and then read Matthew 5:44 several times in prayer today.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

Please read 1 Corinthians 13 and then read Matthew 5:44 several times in prayer today.

No sense of humor today I see.

I've talked to calvinists who actually believe they can live in sin because they think they are elect and it's not possible for them to not go to Heaven even if they live like the devil. More believe and act like this than you know.

And we wonder why people out in the world don't want to get saved.

The reformers (calvin's follers and luther's followers) make Christianity look like a bunch of complete idiots!

 

[Dino246]

The thing is that you are not offering how your belief here is superior and or correct over what I said.

In order to prove your position incorrect, I need not necessarily prove an alternative.

The illustrations I gave should have shown that your claim here has no weight.

They didn’t, because they are irrelevant.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No sense of humor today I see.

I am all for humor if it is biblically appropriate. We are living in the last days where the love of many waxes cold.
One of the verses I gave you talks about Jesus' teaching in how we are supposed to love our enemies (Matthew 5:44).
Do you believe this? Are you loving your enemies if you crack jokes about them?

I've talked to calvinists who actually believe they can live in sin because they think they are elect and it's not possible for them to not go to Heaven even if they live like the devil. More believe and act like this than you know.

Yes, I have talked to them, as well. I have rebuked Calvinists here about their sin and still be saved belief in this thread on another forum. I have been at it since 2010/2011. However, its not just Calvinists, either. Most Christians today believe that you do not have to forsake sin or put it out of your life as a part of repentance. However, Jesus warned us that we are to repent or we will perish (Luke 13:3).

I think you would like Kerrigan Skelly who runs a ministry called Pinpoint Evangelism.
He is a street preacher and he has some really great videos against Calvinism on YouTube.

And we wonder why people out in the world don't want to get saved.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35).

The reformers (calvin's follers and luther's followers) make Christianity look like a bunch of complete idiots!

Anyone who reads the Bible can see that Calvinism is unbiblical. They have to distort many verses to make Calvinism work.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

talks about Jesus' teaching in how we are supposed to love our enemies

I didn't know you were my enemy!

Should I now consider you to be an enemy?

I think you would like Kerrigan Skelly who runs a ministry called Pinpoint Evangelism.
He is a street preacher and he has some really great videos against Calvinism on YouTube.

I have been aware of him for a few years now

A few years back when I was researching calvinism is when I saw some of his videos on the topic

Dan Corner is another one that exposes the false doctrines of calvinism.

By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." (John 13:35).

Yes, and when they see calvinist being hypocrites saying one thing and doing another they are turned off and I can't blame them. Some people will never come to the Lord due to the hypocrisy they've seen from "christians"

John 13:35 does not included wolves as they aren't actually Christians, they are tares and others should be warned about them including people out in the world.

Sure we should be willing to minister to them as the Lord can and does deliver people from cults, but some are reprobate and are happy to be in opposition to the Lord.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I didn't know you were my enemy!

While I believe Calvinism is false, you do treat them as if they are enemies.
In other words, while they may be enemies of the cross, we are commanded to love them nevertheless.
Not sure how you concluded that I am your enemy based on my referring to Calvinists.

Should I now consider you to be an enemy?

Scripture teaches we are to follow peace with all men. Enemies can be those who are against the truth of Scripture (enemies of the cross), or those who seek to do you harm. I believe in New Testament Non-Violence. So I am not looking to harm anyone. Do we hold to the same view on the topics of sin and salvation? I don't know that answer. I also examine the fruits of a person, as well. If one constantly attacks and is unloving, I would question whether they truly were saved or not.

I have been aware of him for a few years now
A few years back when I was researching calvinism is when I saw some of his videos on the topic

Ah, that's good.

Dan Corner is another one that exposes the false doctrines of calvinism.

I believe Dan Corner's teaching on Conditional Salvation to degree, but I think he needs to be more loving in rebuking those in the OSAS camp. His viscous attack on KJV-only is sad and makes me worry about his right standing with God, though.

Yes, and when they see calvinist being hypocrites saying one thing and doing another they are turned off and I can't blame them. Some people will never come to the Lord due to the hypocrisy they've seen from "christians"

John 13:35 does not included wolves as they aren't actually Christians, they are tares and others should be warned about them including people out in the world.

While that is true, I believe we should focus on that which is good and godly. We should set our affections on things above.
Love is what should be our focus in destroying the darkness.

Sure we should be willing to minister to them as the Lord can and does deliver people from cults, but some are reprobate and are happy to be in opposition to the Lord.

The point is not to let it get us down, and to react negatively to such things. We should try and pray for them and do good towards them. Yes, we should rebuke them but it should be done also in love and respect. We should actually care for their souls, and hold out hope that they could repent at the last moment. Who would ever thought that Saul (the persecutor of Christians) would turn out to be Paul who was one of the greatest Christians of all? Imagine if you encountered Saul before he was a Christian? What would your goal or attitude be towards him?

 

[Tims]

and the omission of essential words in Romans 8:1, which says, "who walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit,"

This is really interesting detail. Textus Receptus Wiki has some information about it:

...So it is missing in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. In the footnotes of the United Bible Societies fourth revised edition, the names of Marcion and Origen appear as those who are the ones responsible for removing the above part of this verse. It is interesting to note that a fifth century (maybe earlier in date) manuscript entitled Alexandrinus (A) contains the removed portion, yet the modern scholars of today have chosen to leave it omitted since it does not appear in the two "crowning manuscripts" of modern scholarship.

(emphasis added)