The Error of KJV-Onlyism

So far you have posted to me condescendingly and insulting. Now you imply that certain things are true that somehow I do not believe are true, and that your argument follows.
I'm not bothered by your posting style, but I don't want to be the cause of your actions, so I'll wish you a good evening. Grace and peace.

Unless you believe in a perfect Bible, then my criticism of your not having a perfect Bible is not meant to be personal or to do you harm. I am only accurately describing the flaw in your belief system to help you to want to change. Scripture is inspired because 2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God and this is said in context to Timothy having known the Scriptures since he was a child (i.e., copies of Scripture). So the copies had as a child were inspired because ALL Scripture is inspired. This is what we must conclude here by reading 2 Timothy 3:15-16. There is no room to say, “Only the originals are given by inspiration of God” in this text here, when it says, “ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Timothy 3:16).

May God’s good ways shine upon you this fine eventing (even if we disagree).

@Bible_Highlighter clearly 'Easter' in Passover are two different days. 'Easter' is a celebration of the resurrection of Christ which is celebrated on the first day of the week.
if you read the gospel that counts Jesus celebrated the Passover with his disciples before he was crucified.

Yhe information we have on the word 'Easter' is that it is likely named after a month, that was according to Bede named after a pagan goddess. It is an inaccurate translation on the part of the KJV translators.

They couldn't show that any existed. There was no kjv pastor available at all. there were very few canditates to begin with, and they wanted tkjv or nothing so we went months without a pastor, You can't cite anything from the bible to support one translation only, so you're just a pharisee trying to ram your personal view down everyone else. So if a pastor preaches anything he wants scriptural or not, it's okay as long as he uses king james? I don't think so, but that's what can happen when that's the only requirement, which was basically what these people wanted, fortunately god motivated them to leave and find a church of their own before it was really too late and we got an older guy who reads knows greek and hebrew and uses them directly for the most part.

Like the king james itself did when it was written? strawman argument and dumb.

the septugint (greek translation of the Hebrew OT) was quoted in the greek new testament

By the time of Jesus, the gentiles were speaking Greek, and the Hebrews in exile had picked up Greek as common language of the day in the countries they were exiled too. Also, Jesus notice on the cross was translated in Hebrew, Greek AND Latin.

Moses was born Hebrew but adopted into an Egyptian family. Jesus spoke aramaic. So there were a lot of langauges around the Middle East at that time.

The bibles were translated first into Latin, German and then English many hundreds of years later. Before the Church of England came into being (head of church was the monarch) England was under catholicsm and the Popes. Their Bible were in Latin that only priests or clergy could read...everyday people who spoke english could not read it Latin was not their tongue.

The western Church was latin and the eastern church was Greek

The furor over the english Bible was mostly by the catholics NOT liking a translation into common tongue and they didnt want the english to have their own church. It was not until Vatican 2 even up to the 1960s that english catholics could hear or even own a Bible in their own langauge. Services would be all in latin, a dead langauage!

Thats is why they absolutely hated the King James Bible especially.

It was a threat

so they commisioned OTHER bibles in english that would be more favourable to the catholic church and their manuscripts esp ones the latin translators used, which were not actually the same as the ones the eastern orthodox used...they had the majority.

Just do a bit of research.

The current I hate KJV or KJVonly is a bit of hysteria but look at the big picture the modern Bibles want to appeal to both catholic and protestant so thats why they seem a bit wishy washy. If you are for ecumenism, then you probably dont like the KJV, and KJVonlyists can be a bit shall we say precious if their argument insists that there are no other language translation Bibles that are inspired. Since theres about what hundreds of other langauges in the world.

Paraphrases are not translations yet they have to be based on a Bible the paraphrase read at some point! Which one was it? Follow the chain...like a photocopy of a photocopy or facismile of a replica if you a scholar you need to diligently compare the orginal tongues which, it was said the KJV did. Certainly it beat out the other Bibles in english at the time that are no longer in print.

Go and find the dead sea scrolls.

Rightly dividng the word of God can be a painstaking task untangling it all. pages missing, words missing, footnotes, commentaries, etc. But we are called to do it.

someone mentioned dead sea scrolls so, small differences between texts aren't new, some dead sea scrolls say goliath was only 4 cubits and a span and not the 6 cubits and a span that most bibles claim. Possibly due to regional differences in the size of a cubit, we don't know if they actually measured goliath or whether it was a visual estimate. It's effect on the story? Practically nothing, he'd still be at least as tall as a NBA pro basketball player intimidating a bunch of 5 foot 9 israelites, a giant for all practical purposes.

Ditto!:

Handling The Word Of Life!

Amen!

Amen, tell me about it = been working on it [ Right Division ] for over 3 decades,
and the enemy is still not making it any easier to be "Approved!"

First, even respected Modern Bibles like the NAS95, and ESV translate this as “Passover,” which aligns with the KJB (Easter meaning Passover). Second, Passover (a.k.a. Easter) fits the context. Acts 12 mentions the feast of unleavened bread (Acts 12:3). According to Luke 22, we know that the unleavened bread is tied to the Passover (See: Luke 22:1, and Luke 22:7). If you were to read the context in Acts 12 even more, we know that when Herod had killed James, and when he noticed that it pleased the Jews (Acts 12:2-3), he captured Peter and intended to bring him out after a particular event before the people. What people? The Jews because they are the ones in whom he saw that it pleased them back in verse 3. So seeing it is the Jews who are in focus here, the focus would be the Passover and not some pagan holiday. Nothing in the context even supports that idea. Neither would be in reference to a Christian holiday seeing Herod could care less about a Christian holiday seeing he was killing Christians. Three, if you were to pick up Kindle version of the book, “Don’t Passover” by Bryan C. Ross (which is really cheap), he actually provides further proof that Passover was invented by Tyndale, and it was used interchangeably in other verses within other Textus Receptus Bibles. Generally Modern scholars say the KJV is wrong for saying it is Easter because they believe the rendering should be Passover. But Easter is just another word for Passover. That is what the word meant before Tyndale invented the word ”Passover.”

Christ, the Passover Lamb, is the fulfillment of the Passover, thus the word Easter to designate what it is now after the resurrection. The Jews would have been celebrating Passover, but ignorant that it was actually Easter because they stumbled at the stumblingstone.

If you see a person holding a knife in their hands and blood is all over them and the victim is on the ground, the chances that they are the murderer is very high. If one starts to gather further evidence and it keeps pointing back to this guy in doing the crime, chances are highly probable he is the guy who did it. You can call that an assumption, too. I am sure in some super rare cases that such incidents could be a perfect frame job where he may have been innocent. But we are looking at the most likely probability based on what is revealed to us.

But the point here is that we….

(a) Believe the Bible first on the doctrines of Purity and Preservation.
(b) Believe the Bible first that we are to seek out the Book of the Lord and read (Which is written for the people during the End Times).
(c) Believe the Bible first on it’s teaching that God preserves copies and not the originals.
(d) Believe the Bible first in that God has translated languages many times throughout Scripture.
(e) Believe the Bible first in that God’s word cannot be broken, and it is incorruptible the Word of God.
(f) Believe the Bible first in that we are to speak the same thing (Which is not possible with Modern Bibles).
(g) Believe the Bible first in that God’s word is near unto you and you don’t have to go to Heaven to get it.
(h) Discover that the King James Bible is the most influential and sold book in human history.
(i) Discover that the 54 (later 47) KJB translators were the best team of translators who have ever existed.
(j) Discover that unique qualities of the KJB that other Bibles do not have, which are beneficial (Like personal pronoun distinctions (like: Thou, and Ye), italics, not influenced by trying to obtain a copyright, authorized by a king (of which Scripture talks about), evaded a Catholic plot of it almost being destroyed (i.e., the gunpowder plot), has influenced the life of culture of many in the English speaking world with over 200 plus idioms or phrases, is more suitable for memorization, and Jehovah (YHVH) (LORD) vs. Adonai (Lord) is distinguished for the first time in history in the 1611 King James Bible (See this video explanation here).

I could keep going of course. They are from my long winded PDF.

There is a big difference between what was written in the original manuscripts and any translation that came after that. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians have consistently claimed inspiration only for the originals. The fact that there are many words in italics in the KJV indicates that it was necessary for the translators to clarify many verses since there is a big difference between Hebrew and English and Greek and English.

This in no way diminishes the excellency of the KJV. It can rightly be called "the Word of God" in English, since it does not deviate from the originals as transmitted through the Masoretic and Received texts, and finally printed after the invention of printing. Christians have trusted this Bible for over 400 years. Even the Geneva Bible did not gain this status.

We would have to be able to track he calendars back in time to truly know that. Not sure if that would be accurate. But what you say could be a possibility.

The meaning is still the same despite the italic words. Some words are gained or lost in translation between languages but they still convey the same idea or meaning. While humans may not be able to translate perfectly, I know that God can. Nothing is impossible for God. Jesus cared about the jots and tittles (the small details). I believe everything in my Bible is 100% perfect and pure. Why? Faith. God’s Word tells me it is perfect and pure. Faith is our starting point. But sometimes folks look to science first. This is why they believe there is no such thing as a perfect Bible.

Christ is never called our Easter Lamb, is He?

The Easter lamb and the Easter ham are usually on the table .

I am into entertaining possibilities sometimes if it does not contradict Scripture and it appears to make sense biblically. But what I do know is that Easter was the word used before William Tyndale invented the word ”Passover.” That is why we see Passover and Easter used interchangeably in various other verses not the KJB in other Textus Receptus Bibles. Check out the book, ”Don’t Passover Easter” by Bryan C. Ross. It is a super short read, and the Kindle version is cheap. So the argument by others who say that the KJB mistranslated by using the word “Easter” in Acts 12:4, do not have all the facts on the subject. But lets turn the tables here. Your belief is truly an assumption. There is no good pattern of evidence to prove your case. Your belief that the Westcott and Hort texts (Vaticanus & Sinaiticus) that is used for the Nestle and Aland is better because they are older is an assumption. It is a wrong assumption because they not only were heretics but these two manuscripts disagreed with each other in thousands places and there were corrections all over them. In other words, they were trash manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were going to be chemically date tested, but then the test was stopped. Very fishy. In fact, Sinaiticus was found in a trash bin whereby it was to be burned.

I am sure there are a lot of words that have died out with use that you would find unfamiliar and odd. It does not undo the truth of those words meaning what they did back in their day.