The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

You can believe it rude if you like,

When Jesus called the Jews, “You are of your father, the devil,“ and when He ran out the money changers with a whip, it would be rude if any other person did that today. I imagine the Jews were shocked and or angry at him by these things. Some of the Jews might have thought Jesus was rude by doing such things. It wouldn’t surprise me. But no other man spoke like He did, and no other man did the miracles like He did. Jesus was certainly special and deserving of attention.

but Jesus is God. He can exercise righteous anger. Perhaps when you become Sovereign, you would qualify to act in like manner. But until then, you are tasked to exercise love. I, for one, doubt you can do those things in love. Perhaps I'm mistaken.

Yes, I would agree with you here. I don’t believe we can do those those two things as mentioned above. Jesus is God, and we are not. There are things that Jesus did that we cannot do. Yes, we are to follow Jesus’ example, but there are limits to that. We obviously would not allow people to worship us like Jesus did. Jesus is God, and we are not God. However, some people do not have the spiritual discernment to figure this out yet. They think you can act violently and name call like Jesus did. Many have simply rejected even certain verses in Scripture in what they say plainly because it does not align with their own thoughts or naturalist thinking.

 

[Dino246]

Well, if you don't believe Scripture, I am going to call you out on it.

I believe Scripture, but I reject your ideas about what constitutes Scripture.

I am not going to compliment you for unbelief or anything.

Take Thumper's advice: "If you ain't got nothin' nice to say, don't say nothin' at all."

They may not believe God is capable of doing certain things as mentioned in Scripture. So they reject certain verses in the Bible without even realizing it.

I accept every verse of Scripture, but I don't necessarily accept your interpretation thereof.

 

[Magenta]

Scripture in what way? I don't think it is useful for anything other than history lessons.

Scripture in the way it has been called Scripture for centuries, pre-dating Christianity.

 

[Dino246]

Scripture in what way? I don't think it is useful for anything other than history lessons.

While you're certainly welcome to your opinion, it is generally recognized that the book of Esther tells of God's workings to preserve the Jews, and through them, the Messiah. Though He is not mentioned, God is clearly behind the scenes, orchestrating the events. Many view the events in Esther as the fulfilment of some significant prophecies as given by Jeremiah.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I believe Scripture, but I reject your ideas about what constitutes Scripture.

I understand. Just know we will all have to give an account to the Lord Jesus someday, even myself.
We all have our weaknesses that we have to address with the Lord. It is better to do so now in this life than later.
I just do not see the Bible teaching that only the teachings or doctrines are perfect and not the words.
Only scholars say only the teachings are perfect and even then this is not true when you look at Modern Bibles.

Take Thumper's advice: "If you ain't got nothin' nice to say, don't say nothin' at all."

Isaiah 30:10
"…Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, …"

I accept every verse of Scripture, but I don't necessarily accept your interpretation thereof.

This kind of excuse will not work with our Lord.
One must really realize some things do not sit right with us in our walk with the LORD.
I used to believe in Eternal Torment, and it did not sit right with me. Note: Yes, I believe in a literal hell, and it's not a nice place. However, the concept of an eternal punishment in hellfire gnawed at me, and I knew it was not right, so I shut my brain off and just believed it because that is what the majority of Bible believing churches believed. But there was the gnawing in the back of my mind still. But Scripture and prayer won in the end, and God revealed the truth to me on this topic. I think that is how we must approach this topic. We must ask God, and seek the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. I don't see Textual Criticism in Scripture. But I do see a belief in a perfect word that is preserved forever in Scripture.

 

[Stan_the_Man]

Are you saying Jesus was rude? Yes or no?

YES, but not to everyone.

He was only rude to those that deserved being rude to ya know.

So is Passover for passover.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

To all:

See, the problem we run into today is that people believe in a holey bible (i.e., a book full of holes and errors), and they don’t believe the cover of their own Bible when it says, “Holy Bible” in that it is a holy and divine book (Which would naturally be without error). Anything holy from God would naturally be perfect and error-free. So if your Bible says, “Holy Bible” and you believe it has errors on it, the cover of your Bible is lying to you. But just ignore that fact and bury your head in the sand to such things. Go ahead and support the scholars who have to change 10% of a new translation or new edition to obtain a copyright to make more money. Do you get it? They have to change 10% of the text to get a copyright. This is not a translation motivated by noble reasons like the KJV. Copyrights did not exist yet when the King James Bible was first created in 1611. One of the earliest known instances of copyright law was the Statute of Anne, enacted in England in 1710. Then you got those deceivers Westcott and Hort who started the Modern Bible Movement, too. Why on Earth are you gonna follow what they started when they clearly deceived many about their Revised Version and what they actually believed? Modern scholars admit that they are influenced greatly by Westcott and Hort. I got quotes if you need them.

The problem we run into today is that everyone is their own authority, and there is no perfect Word of God or Bible that they have to fully submit to. The Bible is just kind of a self-help guide and it’s not the life-changing powerful Word of God. The Bible talks about how His Word is like a fire, and like a hammer. Is that not the experience God's Word took place in your life? Did not the Bible radically change you? Why would you not fully trust it? It makes no sense. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (See: Romans 10:17).

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

The Bible is not like a pick and choose your own Adventure type book. It's an all or nothing package deal. You either believe all of the Bible, or you don't believe it. Saying the Bible has errors in it, is saying that God is in error when He speaks to us to day.
It's madness.

The moment you correct the Bible, is the moment you correct God, and you become the ultimate authority.
But the Bible should correct us and we should not correct God.

The Bible is either all true, or it’s all false.
We ultimately believe the Bible by faith, and it is not by Science or History, or what we see.
I did not need evidence to believe in the resurrection.
I just believed Scripture. One must do the same when it comes to the Bible’s teaching on the doctrines of purity and preservation.
You must step out in faith first and BELIEVE in order for you to see with spiritual eyes on this topic.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Jesus said Heaven and Earth shall pass away but my words shall not pass away.
Do you believe that?

 

[Dino246]

I don't see Textual Criticism in Scripture.

Yet you hold to a translation that is the product of textual criticism.

 

[Dino246]

The Bible is not like a pick and choose your own Adventure type book. It's an all or nothing package deal. You either believe all of the Bible, or you don't believe it. Saying the Bible has errors in it, is saying that God is in error when He speaks to us to day.

You don't understand because you hold to a perfect translation.

The errors are in the translation, not in the word of God.

 

[Dino246]

The moment you correct the Bible, is the moment you correct God, and you become the ultimate authority.

Do you, or do you not, hold to a translation of the Bible that has been through several revisions, wherein there were corrections made to the Bible?

In case you haven't realized it, your arguments are destroying your position.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Yet you hold to a translation that is the product of textual criticism.

No. The English term "Textual Criticism" was born sometime around the time of German Rationalists and was tied to them. They were into the false Science of Textual Criticism that used man-made translation THEORIES. They rejected the Textus Receptus and used man-made theories to try to reconstruct the text thinking the text was lost. Those who believed in the TR, and the KJV rejected them. Granted, the father of Textual Criticism is Richard Simon who was a Catholic priest. So no. The KJV Translators did not employ this purely insane method. That would be deceptive or ignorance to suggest otherwise. Some of the KJV translators knew the languages. The KJV translators did not think the text was lost, and it needed to be reconstructed by man-made translation theories like the German Rationalists. They believed they were translating the Bible from the original tongues. You will not see the KJV translators or Erasmus list out any man-made translation theories with them thinking the text was hopelessly lost and we just have to take our best guess or shot in the dark. Try looking at some of the Bible translation theories today and it's a joke. Not even all Textual Critics agree on all the translation THEORIES that are out there. This means you don't have the Word of God. But I got it.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

You don't understand because you hold to a perfect translation.

The errors are in the translation, not in the word of God.

See, this is what is dumb. You got many in your camp wave a Bible above their head and say it is the Word of God, and yet, they backpeddle and say that same book has errors in it. So they are saying the Word of God has errors.

Many like Jonathan Burris will say that the teachings are perfect but the Bible is not “word-perfect.” But my Bible says the words are pure. It does not say only the teachings are perfect. You guys got no Bible verses backing up your unbiblical belief that rejects two key foundational teachings of the Bible itself (Which are the doctrines of Purity and Preservation of God's Word). It's a lack of faith on your part in not believing those verses in Scripture like a child. Sure, you believe in the resurrection. No problem. But God cannot preserve His words perfectly? That's just impossible for God?

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Do you, or do you not, hold to a translation of the Bible that has been through several revisions, wherein there were corrections made to the Bible?

I believe the perfect Word of God was settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV in circa. 1900.
It was the seventh purification. The major issue prior with the different KJV editions was the fixing of printing errors because of the metal type set printing method. The Pure Cambridge edition (circa. 1900) was the first MAJOR KJV edition to use offset printing that would eliminate this problem. There was no wild and bonkers German Rationalistic man-made translation THEORIES employed in the updates of the 7 Major KJV editions to fix printing errors or typos. For many years, they had the handwritten master copy to work off. I believe it is still possible they have this hand-written master copy. Seeing the precious value of this document, it is obviously kept secret. I believe the Pure Cambridge is what reflects what is in the master copy and what is reflected in the original languages. I cannot prove that. It is faith. But the KJV is unlike any other book on the planet. It's positive influence was great upon history and still is.

Also, I hold to the view that although the other previous KJV editions may not be perfect like the Pure Cambridge, they were nonethe less correct in what they said and God could have communicated advanced revelation via the printing errors in the 6 MAJOR KJV editions that were used by God's people. I say this because God's word says His words are pure words and they would be preserved. If this is not the case, then His words would be preserved with the handwritten master copy that they kept locked away in secrecy.

But again, it is a faith issue. I believe the Bible first, and then history comes next. if there is no evidence, I still believe God's Word in what it says in that His words are pure, and that they would be preserved forever. Jesus says Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Textual Critics act like we have to keep at trying to find God's words. But I got them. They don't.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Modern Bibles make intentional changes. Among even their own editions, they have to change 10% of the text in order to get that copyright to make money. That is their goal. They are not setting out later to create a Creative Commons License whereby a person can quote their translation fully without charge. But again, a major problem is the 10% change. They are forced and locked into making sure that they must change the text by 10%. I don't want to change anything in the Word of God. But at the Bible butcher shop, slicing and dicing God's Word is no problem to them, and they are gonna make as much money as they can in the process, as well. They follow made-up wild translation theories that comes from the minds of men. This is not the case with the KJV or its MAJOR different editions that were used by the people over the years. Most KJV Christians today use either the Authorized Version (1769 Blayney with the Apocrypha removed), or the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV by A.W. Pollard. The Pure Cambridge Edition is the KJV at Biblehub.com.

 

[Dino246]

To all:

There is a five-minute window to go back and edit posts. This is not long enough time to fix writing errors or typos.
Readers in the know will notice my post aftwards that corrected the error here.
I meant to say, "without error."

Proofread before posting. Check again right after you post.

 

[Dino246]

I believe the perfect Word of God was settled with the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV in circa. 1900.
It was the seventh purification. The major issue prior with the different KJV editions was the fixing of printing errors because of the metal type set printing method. The Pure Cambridge edition (circa. 1900) was the first MAJOR KJV edition to use offset printing that would eliminate this problem. There was no wild and bonkers German Rationalistic man-made translation THEORIES employed in the updates of the 7 Major KJV editions to fix printing errors or typos. For many years, they had the handwritten master copy to work off. I believe it is still possible they have this hand-written master copy. Seeing the precious value of this document, it is obviously kept secret. I believe the Pure Cambridge is what reflects what is in the master copy and what is reflected in the original languages. I cannot prove that. It is faith. But the KJV is unlike any other book on the planet. It's positive influence was great upon history and still is.

Also, I hold to the view that although the other previous KJV editions may not be perfect like the Pure Cambridge, they were nonethe less correct in what they said and God could have communicated advanced revelation via the printing errors in the 6 MAJOR KJV editions that were used by God's people. I say this because God's word says His words are pure words and they would be preserved. If this is not the case, then His words would be preserved with the handwritten master copy that they kept locked away in secrecy.

But again, it is a faith issue. I believe the Bible first, and then history comes next. if there is no evidence, I still believe God's Word in what it says in that His words are pure, and that they would be preserved forever. Jesus says Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away. Textual Critics act like we have to keep at trying to find God's words. But I got them. They don't.

Sidestepping.

 

[Dino246]

No. The English term "Textual Criticism" was born sometime around the time of German Rationalists and was tied to them.

The fact is that both Erasmus and the KJV translators engaged in the same practice; comparing available texts in the effort to determine what the text said. That the term came later is completely irrelevant.

The colour orange existed long before there was a word in English for it.

 

[Dino246]

See, this is what is dumb. You got many in your camp wave a Bible above their head and say it is the Word of God, and yet, they backpeddle and say that same book has errors in it. So they are saying the Word of God has errors.

This isn't about me, or what I claim. You claim that the 1900 Cambridge edition is "the perfect word of God", so your supporting arguments must meet a much higher standard.