The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Some believe KJB Onlyism or Core KJB (Such as my belief) is divisive. I know. One Christian forum shut down the topic of discussing this topic because of my loving and passionate defense of it. The forum staff said it was a divisive topic. But we didn’t start this fight or division. Modern Textual Critics did with Westcott and Hort. Westcott and Hort were supposed to just do an update of the KJB, and yet they secretly snuck in different manuscripts that do not align with the KJB. Westcott and Hort started the Modern Bible movement we have today. They were the ones who started this division. Yes, there were debates over the KJB vs. texts that predate Westcott and Hort and their manuscripts. But before the 1800s, there was no other Bibles that were major contenders to the KJB. Most believed the King James Bible was the Word of God in the 1700s. The KJV vs. Modern English Bibles debate was not really a thing until the 1960s (When the KJB was also coincidentally taken out of public schools).

I like the Berean Bible...

The Berean Standard Bible is a completely new translation based on the best available
manuscripts and sources. Each word is connected back to the Greek or Hebrew text,
resulting in a transparent and honest text that can be studied for its root meanings.

When you look up a verse, it is also given in context, with parallel verses supplied, and a lexicon.

Folks can say these kinds of things even when evidence keeps pointing to how a murder suspect did the crime. Generally when there is a pattern of evidence that is so overwhelming, they are not fallacies as you claim. But you are free to have your own opinion and ignore the obvious of course. I know that when I see a change in seeing the Trinity attacked, that’s enough for me. Only one who has no actual reverence for the truth of God’s Words will not be able to see it. I love the Trinity, and so I would want to be able to defend the Trinity with the Bible with others. It makes sense because God does not want us to deny that He is a Trinity. That would be false worship.

If you cannot defend the Trinity with your Bible properly, that means there is something wrong with it.

Yet, you have presented NO evidence. If I was on the jury, I would acquit.

This translation is based on the Nestle and Aland text that was supervised by the Vatican.
All recent Contemporary Translations today are based on the Nestle and Aland.
But unless your Catholic, I want nothing to do with a text that was directly supervised by the Vatican.
You can see photos of Kurt Aland (creator behind the later edition of the Nestle and Aland) with the pope.
You can actually see 14 changes in Scripture that favor the Catholic Church in Modern English Bibles based on the Nestle and Aland.

See pages 21-22 of this PDF here.

THIS is the biggest point of all. It seems their most important tradition has NO scriptural support at all. Should be a HUGE red flag in my estimation.

Why do we believe what we believe? A VERY important question to ponder, and the KJV only-ist has not presented bad reasons and arguments, only blind assertion and nothing else. I don't know how to point this out any better, at a loss of where else to take the conversation at this point.

There are things people do not see in life for their own reasons.
Have you ever wondered why some people in life cannot see certain things in the Bible that you believe are obvious?
I can lead a horse to water but I cannot force it to drink. The only cure is if you pray about it of course and seek out the truth with an open mind.

It's logic. If the translation is of something that was previously spoken and recorded later, the writer of that scripture is being inspired by the Holy Spirit to record the words. Thus, the Holy Spirit is doing the translation from one language to the other.

As far as whether a particular translation being inspired, the scripture never makes a claim that any translation is inspired. Only that the authors of the original text were inspired. I do believe God could have people translate under the influence of the Spirit, but no claim is made for this scripturally. And because there are discrepancies and changes in and with the KJV, I think the translation was very carefully undertaken, but not inspired.

Isaiah 34:16 says you are to seek ye out the book of the Lord and read.
This chapter is in context to the end times mentioned in the book of Revelation (Meaning it parallels verses in Revelation).
The chapter is also speaking to Gentile nations.
So this means that we will have the Book of the Lord during the End Times.
Seeing we are drawing closer to the 7 year tribulation, it makes sense we would have the Book of the Lord today.
You cannot call an error ridden Bible written by men who do it for filthy lucre as being the Book of the Lord.
Those in the Textual Critical Camp do not believe any Bible is perfect or the Book of the Lord. You have a phantom Bible that only exists in your own mind that you and or the scholar believes is correct but could change in a few years with a new and exciting discovery in some cave somewhere. You don’t have the words of God. But I do.

The Bible also says that God’s words are pure words and that His words will not pass away.
These truths in Scripture are yet another thing you don’t believe.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 says we received the words not as the words of men, but as the very words of God.
Again, you don’t believe this verse. You don’t believe the very words in your Bible are all the words of God.

It only proves that even a translation can be inspired

No errors found, and it has no copywrite, they were not doing it for money or prestige.

Timothy was said to have known the Scriptures since he was a child. Did he have the originals? No. He had a copy or copies. In the very next verse, it says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So yes, even copies that are called Scripture can be inspired because ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Well, that is if you believe the Bible.

Yes, clearly.
No, people are often blinded by their worldview and have difficulty objectively evaluating without falling into common fallacies.
You have to lead the horse to a place that actually has water.
Yes, but many don't, as I see the case here with you.

No, it does not prove that.

Common citations or a direct quote from the O.T. Hebrew to the New Testament were of course translated into Greek. Translation then can be inspired. This is a biblical pattern that translation can be inspired.

Copies are scripture if they are copied correctly, and not by virtue of inspiration. The inspiration was given to the original author.
And nice dig in your closing statement.

The best team of translators. Their credentials were unlike any other team of Bible translators before them or after.
The KJB was not originally created with a copyright but in later years it did receive one. But it‘s creation was not motivated by a copyright unlike Modern Bibles today. The intent back then was more pure and honorable. They wanted the common man to have the Scriptures. Today, we are spoiled and have tons of Bibles at our access for free by the touch of a smart phone, tablet, or by telling Amazon Echo to read the Bible for us. Most do not appreciate where the Bible came from and they are ignorant of Bible history. The KJB has influenced our language and culture with over 200 idioms or phrases spoken even by unbelievers. Personal pronouns (Thou, vs. Ye) helps us distinguish between a singular person being spoken to, vs. two or more people. A Bible that I can defend the Trinity with. A Bible I can use to rebuke those in fornication because it actually has that word in my Bible. The list goes on and on. But many will still refuse to see. All we can do is encourage them to pray and seek out the truth with an open mind themselves.

No. 2 Timothy 3:16 does not say that only the originals are given by inspiration of God. It says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. By the time of the New Testament, they would not have had the originals but copies.

Luke 4:16-21
KJV(i) 16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read. 17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, 18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, 19 To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. 20 And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. 21 And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.

We have in the above the Book of Isaiah as read by Christ himself. I believe this is a copy from the original language Hebrew but as Luke wrote them in Greek, will not this constitute a translation? If it is. then, translation can be very well inspired.