The Error of KJV-Onlyism

[Bible_Highlighter]

There are many problems that revolve around the KJV. The false prosperity and "blab it and grab it" people were JKV people. One misinterpretation is the word "conversation". The KJV Bible says that he who ordereth his conversation aright, I will show the salvation of God. So the "name and claim" mob say that all you have to do is declare something and it is yours. The problem with this is that the word "conversation" has changed its meaning over the centuries since the KJV was produced. It means "way of life", not a chat with someone in your Bible Study group.

I looked at the top 10 popular prosperity preachers of today and none of them are KJV-only. A small few of them may use the KJV primarily, but this is probably due to the fact that they do not have to pay anything by quoting the KJV because there is no copyright on the King James Bible outside of the UK. So this probably has more to do with them not wanting to pay out money. After all, they are in it for the money, right? They would obviously not want to pay any money if they don’t have to.

The greatest problem with Christian doctrine is misinterpretation and selective emphasis on God's word. I've yet to hear a prosperity preacher remind people that

There are many King James Bible advocates who are against prosperity preachers. So this is not a good argument to make. I would say you have not done your homework on this topic if you are claiming this.

"Those who want to be rich, however, fall into temptation and become ensnared by many foolish and harmful desires that plunge them into ruin and destruction." 1 Timothy 6:9

Actually, the Command on not to have fellowship with prosperity preachers is removed in Modern Bibles.

The command to remove yourself from those who think that “gain is godliness” is missing in 1 Timothy 6. We should not hang out or fellowship with prosperity teachers or money-grabbing believers. Their influence can rub off on you to think the same way. Their bad influence can lead you to chase after riches instead of righteousness. The love of money is the root of all evil (1 Timothy 6:10). 1 Timothy 6:5 says we are to withdraw ourselves from those who think “gain” is “godliness.”

The first prosperity preacher I heard used the JKV. 45 years later, he's still going strong and still deceiving people. It sure works for him. I went down that rabbit hole and all I got was broke.

As Christians we are supposed to forgive and love our enemies (no matter who they are). I would say you got burned and you are looking for a scape goat. However, I would encourage you to seek out the truth on this matter. You will be surprised if you do. I mean, stop and think a moment. You cannot even quote the NIV entirely in a church without getting permission. The Modern Bible Movement is run by money. It’s a billion dollar industry. If you try to make an app with a Modern Translation, you would have to pay heavy money to those who own the copyright. This is not so with the KJV. The Word of God is not bound.

…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

KJV is a Good Translation, but not the only acceptable Bible by any means. Also, the KJV can be improved, by the 400+ years of scholarly research that has been done since the 1611 KJV was first published.

The only thing Modern scholarly research has shown is that they do not have a settled text and or they are confused as to accurately translate. They have crazy dumb rules in Textual Crticisim. The shorter reading is to be preferred. These are man-made rules and not biblical ones. They are not interested ever in a settled text. It will never stop. They will never have the precise words of God because they don’t want them.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

KJV is a Good Translation, but not the only acceptable Bible by any means. Also, the KJV can be improved, by the 400+ years of scholarly research that has been done since the 1611 KJV was first published.

Many scholars in the Modern Bible Movement are outright heretics and liberals. Some are even unbelievers, but this does not seem to bother people, though.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

No, but words that have changed meaning over centuries is. And false teachers use those now incorrect translations to promote false doctrine. That's just an example of why the KJV is not the be all and end all of Bible versions.

In any field of study, you have to learn terminology. The same is true with being a Christian. We cannot dumb down our Bible if it is true and teaches correctly. Yes, there are archaic words in the KJV, but when you compare it to the mess of the Modern Translations and the false doctrines they teach, I would stick with the KJV and simply learn those uncommon words. This is not to say one cannot use a Modern Bible, but the point here is don’t trust them because they water down the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the blood atonement, and more.

As a young Christian, the majority of preachers used the KJV. And they would spend a good deal of time explaining why the KJV interpretation was no longer valid. It seemed sensible to me to use a version that used words that mean what they say in this day and age. So I've done exactly that. My current preference is the Berean. Until I came across that, it was the NASB. I also use the Amplified. And I often refer to the literal just to be sure.

But they do not all say the same thing precisely and you cannot be your own authority. There can only be one Word of God and not many.

…..

 

[Nehemiah6]

I would stick with the KJV and simply learn those uncommon words.

Don't forget that the KJV 2000 Bible has already addressed this issue.

And there are only a handful of words which need to be studied to determine what they mean. Any competent preacher would explain them anyhow, and all the Bible study tools are there also. So this idea of "The KJB is hard to understand" is a mere excuse.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

Don't forget that the KJV 2000 Bible has already addressed this issue.

And there are only a handful of words which need to be studied to determine what they mean. Any competent preacher would explain them anyhow, and all the Bible study tools are there also. So this idea of "The KJB is hard to understand" is a mere excuse.

I bought the KJV2000 when it came out and it is not accurate.

Here are just a few of the issues that I can recall.

It says “jackal‘s well” in Nehemiah 2:13 instead of “dragon’s well.”
It says “son of the gods” in Daniel 3:25 instead of “Son of God.”
It says “Satan’s throne” instead of “Satan’s seat” in Revelation 2:13.

In fact, most of your modernized KJVs are not accurate and have some kind of problems.
I found this to be the case for the KJVER, as well (Although I thought this was better than the KJV2000).
Nick Sayers did a KJV update for the New Testament (KJV 2023). But I do not agree with his reference of changing the words “head corner stone“ at times. Granted, I emailed him about this and hopefully he will make the changes at some point.
The best one is the Defined King James Bible by D.A. Waite. It defines the words at the bottom without changing the text.

…

 

[NightTwister]

The circular reasoning parade continues.

 

[fredoheaven]

I bought the KJV2000 when it came out and it is not accurate.

Here are just a few of the issues that I can recall.

It says “jackal‘s well” in Nehemiah 2:13 instead of “dragon’s well.”
It says “son of the gods” in Daniel 3:25 instead of “Son of God.”
It says “Satan’s throne” instead of “Satan’s seat” in Revelation 2:13.

In fact, most of your modernized KJVs are not accurate and have some kind of problems.
I found this to be the case for the KJVER, as well (Although I thought this was better than the KJV2000).
Nick Sayers did a KJV update for the New Testament (KJV 2023). But I do not agree with his reference of changing the words “head corner stone“ at times. Granted, I emailed him about this and hopefully he will make the changes at some point.
The best one is the Defined King James Bible by D.A. Waite. It defines the words at the bottom without changing the text.

…

According to the KJV Store's review of Defined KJV by Waites has no changes in the text, only with clarifying footnotes, however, footnotes have a serious problem in defining some terms that the new version has put in their text, hence, this will cast doubt.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I bought the KJV2000 when it came out and it is not accurate.

I only check Bible Hub to compare it with the KJB. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That's a shame. However I use this website and it has a lot of good information: King James Version (kingjamesbibleonline.org)

 

[Nehemiah6]

however, footnotes have a serious problem in defining some terms that the new version has put in their text, hence, this will cast doubt.

Give us an example.

 

[Gideon300]

In any field of study, you have to learn terminology. The same is true with being a Christian. We cannot dumb down our Bible if it is true and teaches correctly. Yes, there are archaic words in the KJV, but when you compare it to the mess of the Modern Translations and the false doctrines they teach, I would stick with the KJV and simply learn those uncommon words. This is not to say one cannot use a Modern Bible, but the point here is don’t trust them because they water down the deity of Christ, the Trinity, the blood atonement, and more.



But they do not all say the same thing precisely and you cannot be your own authority. There can only be one Word of God and not many.

…..

I agree. What I don't accept is that the KJV is the sole acceptable translation. Jesus did not speak English, in case you did not know. So His words and that of the apostles must be translated. That's where differences can occur. You'll have to learn Greek and Hebrew if you want to avoid translations. I've somehow managed to survive as a believer for the last 50 years without the KJV or learning Greek and Hebrew.

Some versions are more interpretations. I avoid them. Presently I use the Berean. It's accurate and readable.

"They"? Every version but the KJV waters down the deity of Christ and such? I don't agree and I have access to most of the versions via Bible Hub. I taught the Bible for two years in our Bible School. I managed just fine without the KV.

By all means stick with the KJV. That's your choice. But don't pretend that it is the inspired word of God. The original languages are inspired. Translators are human. They do a great job, but they can differ ever so slightly in a few minor details. I compare a number of translations or check the literal translation at times. Works for me, anyway.

 

[John146]

You'll have to learn Greek and Hebrew if you want to avoid translations.

If one learned Greek and Hebrew, then they would have to translate the words themselves into English. Yes? That is not avoiding translations, but making yourself the translator.

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

According to the KJV Store's review of Defined KJV by Waites has no changes in the text, only with clarifying footnotes, however, footnotes have a serious problem in defining some terms that the new version has put in their text, hence, this will cast doubt.

The footnotes in the Defined King James Bible is not like the footnotes in Modern Bibles. The footnotes in Contemporary Translations do cast doubt because they will say the oldest manuscripts do not have such a reading, etcetera. This is not the case with the Defined King James Bible. It merely gives proposed definitions of uncommon or archaic words. The author is not claiming he could not be wrong on his definitions, either. He also speaks against the Modern Bibles in his Defined King James Bible, as well.

KJVER Translation made an attempt at this but they also slightly altered a few words (When they did not need to), and they also promoted definitions that were favored by the Critical Text Side (or as those found in Modern Bibles). So the KJVER is a problem.

…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I agree. What I don't accept is that the KJV is the sole acceptable translation. Jesus did not speak English, in case you did not know.

I was not born again yesterday. Of course Jesus did not speak English during His earthly ministry because it was a language that was not around during His time (Obviously). But, after Christ’s ascension to the Father, I believe Jesus’ Omniscience (i.e., to have all knowledge) was no longer suppressed like it was during His earthly ministry. Meaning, Jesus would have known about the future language of English and He would have known how to easily speak it after His mission was complete in saving mankind.

As for your not accepting the KJV as the sole trustworthy translation for today:

Well, there are a lot of good reasons why we believe the KJV is the pure Word of God today and why Modern Translations are deeply problematic.

So His words and that of the apostles must be translated.

This was already done by the top scholars who have ever lived (i.e., the KJV translators).

That's where differences can occur. You'll have to learn Greek and Hebrew if you want to avoid translations.

Which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? There are many. Does God require that we learn these languages and look in caves for manuscripts to find His precise words? No. Actually, the Bible does give us bread crumbs or clues that we are not supposed to do that. Granted, I don’t have a problem in your learning Hebrew and Greek. The problem I have is that most Christians today try to undo the words in the English in the KJV translated from the original languages. It means they want to become the authority and not the Bible.

I've somehow managed to survive as a believer for the last 50 years without the KJV or learning Greek and Hebrew.

Not everyone is as fortunate. Many have lost their faith because of the Modern Bible Movement.
You need to understand that the Modern Bibles come from a different underlying text than the underlying text of the King James Bible.
There are changed doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better in the Modern Bibles.

Some versions are more interpretations. I avoid them. Presently I use the Berean. It's accurate and readable.

Well, if you are using the Berean Literal Bible, John 1:18 says that Jesus is the begotten God (Which is falsely teaching that Jesus had a beginning when in reality Jesus is eternally God).

Both the Berean Standard Bible, and the Berean Literal Bible teach that Jesus emptied Himself (i.e., emptied Himself of His divine powers) during His earthly ministry in Philippians 2:7. This sets up a contradiction in multiple verses in Scripture that teach did have power of His own during His earthly ministry. There are over 50 plus doctrines that are serious that are changed in Modern Translations.

"They"? Every version but the KJV waters down the deity of Christ and such? I don't agree and I have access to most of the versions via Bible Hub. I taught the Bible for two years in our Bible School.

I have discovered 21 places where the deity of Christ is watered down in Modern Translations. This should be no surprise because George Vance Smith (who is a Unitarian) worked on the Revised Version (Which was the first Modern English Bible) that is a part of the Modern Bible Movement we have today. George Vance Smith wrote a book called “Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament” celebrating the changed doctrines that favor Unitarianism in this book. You can read it for free online. Westcott and Hort even threatened to quit if Vance was not on their team. Sinaiticus gets visits from Unitarians because they seen that text as a win for their Unitarian cause. Then there are the Catholic ideas sprinkled in Modern Translations, as well (with a Catholic cardinal actually working on the underlying Greek). Bible Societies were infested with Unitarianism all the way back in the 1830s. Trinitarian believers were being mocked so bad that they started their own society called the Trinitarian Bible Society (Which is a group that defends the Textus Receptus and the KJV).

I managed just fine without the KV.

I am sure many think this way, but truth is truth.

By all means stick with the KJV. That's your choice. But don't pretend that it is the inspired word of God.

There is no pretending. All the evidence points to the fact that the KJV is preserved and inspired words of God for today.

The original languages are inspired.

You mean the manuscript copies? Which ones? The Nestle and Aland is in its 28th edition and I am sure they are still going to discover more manuscripts in a cave somewhere. Most Modern Bibles keep updating, as well. There is no settled text. So again. Which original language texts do you think are inspired? What evidence in history indicates that these texts were used by the church and had good fruit and God used them in some way?

Translators are human.

This is a Rationalist statement. This would be the case for regular translations but if God is involved in giving us His Word, then we dive into the realm of the supernatural.

They do a great job, but they can differ ever so slightly in a few minor details. I compare a number of translations or check the literal translation at times. Works for me, anyway.

But all Modern Translations say different things. How do you know which one is correct?
Remember, God is not the author of confusion. He does not speak things that are conflicting. So your approach towards God’s Word is flawed. God either preserved His Word perfectly (Whereby we can trust it 100%) or He did not do so. I choose to simply believe God’s Word the Bible in that He preserved His Words perfectly forever.

…..

 

[Bible_Highlighter]

I only check Bible Hub to compare it with the KJB. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. That's a shame. However I use this website and it has a lot of good information: King James Version (kingjamesbibleonline.org)

You are most welcome.

May the Lord Jesus bless you.

 

[Gideon300]

If one learned Greek and Hebrew, then they would have to translate the words themselves into English. Yes? That is not avoiding translations, but making yourself the translator.

Of course. So what do you propose? Make one ancient and iffy translation your only authority? The KJV was not translated by God but by people. Learn Greek and cut out the middle man. What you will find is that scholars generally get it right.

 

[Gideon300]

I was not born again yesterday. Of course Jesus did not speak English during His earthly ministry because it was a language that was not around during His time (Obviously). But, after Christ’s ascension to the Father, I believe Jesus’ Omniscience (i.e., to have all knowledge) was no longer suppressed like it was during His earthly ministry. Meaning, Jesus would have known about the future language of English and He would have known how to easily speak it after His mission was complete in saving mankind.

As for your not accepting the KJV as the sole trustworthy translation for today:

Well, there are a lot of good reasons why we believe the KJV is the pure Word of God today and why Modern Translations are deeply problematic.



This was already done by the top scholars who have ever lived (i.e., the KJV translators).



Which Greek and Hebrew manuscripts? There are many. Does God require that we learn these languages and look in caves for manuscripts to find His precise words? No. Actually, the Bible does give us bread crumbs or clues that we are not supposed to do that. Granted, I don’t have a problem in your learning Hebrew and Greek. The problem I have is that most Christians today try to undo the words in the English in the KJV translated from the original languages. It means they want to become the authority and not the Bible.



Not everyone is as fortunate. Many have lost their faith because of the Modern Bible Movement.
You need to understand that the Modern Bibles come from a different underlying text than the underlying text of the King James Bible.
There are changed doctrines that are for the worse and not for the better in the Modern Bibles.



Well, if you are using the Berean Literal Bible, John 1:18 says that Jesus is the begotten God (Which is falsely teaching that Jesus had a beginning when in reality Jesus is eternally God).

Both the Berean Standard Bible, and the Berean Literal Bible teach that Jesus emptied Himself (i.e., emptied Himself of His divine powers) during His earthly ministry in Philippians 2:7. This sets up a contradiction in multiple verses in Scripture that teach did have power of His own during His earthly ministry. There are over 50 plus doctrines that are serious that are changed in Modern Translations.



I have discovered 21 places where the deity of Christ is watered down in Modern Translations. This should be no surprise because George Vance Smith (who is a Unitarian) worked on the Revised Version (Which was the first Modern English Bible) that is a part of the Modern Bible Movement we have today. George Vance Smith wrote a book called “Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament” celebrating the changed doctrines that favor Unitarianism in this book. You can read it for free online. Westcott and Hort even threatened to quit if Vance was not on their team. Sinaiticus gets visits from Unitarians because they seen that text as a win for their Unitarian cause. Then there are the Catholic ideas sprinkled in Modern Translations, as well (with a Catholic cardinal actually working on the underlying Greek). Bible Societies were infested with Unitarianism all the way back in the 1830s. Trinitarian believers were being mocked so bad that they started their own society called the Trinitarian Bible Society (Which is a group that defends the Textus Receptus and the KJV).



I am sure many think this way, but truth is truth.



There is no pretending. All the evidence points to the fact that the KJV is preserved and inspired words of God for today.



You mean the manuscript copies? Which ones? The Nestle and Aland is in its 28th edition and I am sure they are still going to discover more manuscripts in a cave somewhere. Most Modern Bibles keep updating, as well. There is no settled text. So again. Which original language texts do you think are inspired? What evidence in history indicates that these texts were used by the church and had good fruit and God used them in some way?



This is a Rationalist statement. This would be the case for regular translations but if God is involved in giving us His Word, then we dive into the realm of the supernatural.



But all Modern Translations say different things. How do you know which one is correct?
Remember, God is not the author of confusion. He does not speak things that are conflicting. So your approach towards God’s Word is flawed. God either preserved His Word perfectly (Whereby we can trust it 100%) or He did not do so. I choose to simply believe God’s Word the Bible in that He preserved His Words perfectly forever.

…..

The differences are so minor as to be irrelevant in most cases. For example, I prefer the word "wilderness" to desert. NIV uses "desert". Whether or not Jesus was tempted in a desert or a wilderness makes not a bit of difference to the gospel.

God preserved His word perfectly in the original languages. He gave us His Holy Spirit to lead us into the truth. We need both the written word and the Holy Spirit. It's as easy to come up with false doctrine studying the KJV as it is any other version. If we heed the Holy Spirit we will avoid deception.

By the way, you will not find the word "supernatural" anywhere in the Bible. "Supernatural" is the realm of the occult, not of the Spirit of God. Many, if not most Christians use the word supernatural incorrectly.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's as easy to come up with false doctrine studying the KJV as it is any other version.

That may be the case (e.g. Mormonism), but modern bibles PROMOTE false doctrines. And therein lies the difference. The examples below are just the tip of the iceberg, but I do not expect you to thoroughly investigate the impact of there alterations on believers and non-believers.

1, For example Matthew 17:21 -- an important teaching of Christ about dealing with demons -- is missing from the NIV, NLT, ESV, NET Bible, God's Word Translation.

2. Matthew 18:11 is an extremely important verse: For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost. (KJB). So why is it missing from the same culprits, along with the ERV and Weymouth? And you don't think this will affect the Christian who will start doubting the veracity of Scripture and this truth?

3. Matthew 23:14: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. This is whole verse missing from the NIV, NLT, ESV, ERV, NET Bible, God's Word Translation, and Darby's Translation. Is it an important verse to confirm eternal damnation and also expose the condemnation of these men by Christ? IS EVERY WORD OF SCRIPTURE THERE BECAUSE GOD GAVE IT? Does anyone have the right to expunge Scripture?

4. Matthew 27:35: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. [omitted]
Do you know how many modern corruptions have omitted this important truth? NIV,NLT. ESV. Berean, NASB, Holman, ISV, NET Bible, Aramaic Bible, God's Word translation, ASV, ERV, Darby's, Weymouth, World English Bible. That is SIXTEEN modern corruptions which have rejected this truth, which was prophesied over 1,000 years ago: They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture. (Ps 22:18) God foreknew and foresaw exactly what would happen at Calvary.

And here is what Bible commentator Charles John Ellicott had to say: "They parted my garments among them.—St. John (John 19:24) emphatically records a yet more literal fulfilment of the words than that noted by St. Matthew. The thoughts of both disciples, we may believe, were turned to Psalm 22:18 by our Lord’s utterance of its opening words (Matthew 27:46), and thus led to dwell on the manifold coincidences of its language with the facts of the Passion.

John 9: 24They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.

Commentator Matthew Henry said this: It was for diversion; to pass away the time while they waited for his death, they would play a game at dice for the clothes; but, whatever they designed, the word of God is herein accomplished. In that famous psalm, the first words of which Christ made use of upon the cross, it was said, They parted my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture, Ps. 22:18. This was never true of David, but looks primarily at Christ, of whom David, in spirit, spoke. Then is the offence of this part of the cross ceased; for it appears to have been by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God. Christ stripped himself of his glories, to divide them among us.

In view of this MINIMAL SAMPLE, you and others cannot in good conscience use and promote modern versions. And if you do you will be held accountable for supporting false doctrines and misleading others.