The Error of KJV-Onlyism

From Cross examined:
It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.

Ok, thank you, seems to me there are differences between certainty and uncertainty but I choose to believe that "We have also a more sure word...".

2 Peter 1:19

King James Version



19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

AS God gave his word, inspiration was already there.

There are 16 omitted verses. 17 omitted verses if you count the NIV, NAS, GNT, RV (Westcott and Hort’s English version).*

From Cross examined:
1 John 5:71
The KJV reads, “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” The ESV reads, “For there are three that testify.” KJV Only proponents believe the absence of this clear Trinitarian reference in modern translations is a weakness. The problem is that the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” are most certainly not original to John.

When Erasmus made his Greek text in 1516, he left out this phrase which is now dubbed the “Johannine comma.” This omission upset many because the Latin Vulgate contained it. Again, people get upset when changes are made to their precious Bible translations. Erasmus left out the phrase because he couldn’t find it in a single Greek manuscript. Erasmus took heat for trying to be as accurate as possible. He even promised that if he found it in a single Greek manuscript, he would include it in a later edition.

It just so “happened” that a Greek manuscript was produced that contained the phrase. Hardly anyone disputes that this manuscript was created by one of Erasmus’ contemporaries. And being true to his word, Erasmus included the phrase in his third edition in 1522. That said, no manuscript before the sixteenth century contains this phrase. For this reason, modern translations leave it out.

The author or the translators were not inspired at all, the inspiration is to the words. No such claim that the author, writer, the pen men were inspired to write holy writs. AS God gave his word, inspiration was already there.

Why wouldn't that be the case for the Douay-Rheims or the Vulgate? Do you believe God's word was not preserved in 1610?

Really? Are you not aware that the LXX is a CORRUPT Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh? The King James translators said so in their Preface, and many others who came later have also pointed this out:

"Yea, Epiphanius above named doth attribute so much unto it [i.e. the LXX], that he holdeth the Authors thereof not only for Interpreters, but also for Prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor enjoining the Jews his subjects to use especially the Translation of the Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof, because they were as it were enlightened with prophetical grace. Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the Prophet to be men and not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [Isa 31:3]; so it is evident, (and Saint Jerome affirmeth as much) that the Seventy were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignorance, yea, sometimes they may be noted to add to the Original, and sometimes to take from it; which made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense thereof according to the truth of the word, as the spirit gave them utterance. This may suffice touching the Greek Translations of the Old Testament."

Adding and omitting from Scripture -- as done by the 70 -- is simply corrupting the Bible and God has forbidden it. And furthermore adding all the Apocryphal books to this translation in itself is MAJOR corruption. According to the Lord Jesus Christ there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Tanakh -- The Law of Moses (5 books), the Prophets (8 books), and the Psalms (11 books).

And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in [1] the law of Moses, and [2] in the Prophets, and [3] in the Psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the Scriptures (Luke 24:44,45) [Note: "The Psalms" is named for the first book in that grouping, which is also called "the Writings"]

So any claims about the "excellency" of the Septuagint are bogus.

Winner! Precious friend, thanks so Much - I've had trouble conveying This Truth,
Since, if only the originals were inspired, then my Copy is Not Profitable, eh?:

Thus, 'the Originals,' copies of NON-corrupt (and widely used/re-copied )
manuscripts, and all [ no matter which language ] translations from these,
are, In Fact, Preserved As:

Eh?

Amen.

If that indeed is true, I wonder why about 80% of NT quotes from the OT can be traced to the Greek translation of the OT.

Jude 3:4 says to earnestly 'contend for the faith once delivered to the saints.'

When the apostles passed on the teachings of Jesus and their own teachings as led by the Spirit, and when their teachings were written down in gospels and epistles, they did not write them in Late Modern English. They wrote in Greek.

There are some people who teach basically that the King James Bible is word-for-word inspired. That would require basically the canon of scripture to be open until 1611, turning translators into something like inspired scripture writers.

I've seen a variety of arguments for KJV onlyism. One is to point to flaws of other manuscript compilations that some other translation was translated from. But that doesn't prove the KJV is an inerrant inspired translation.

Another argument is that the Bible you have 'in your hand' needs to be inspired. But I could hold an NIV or NASB in my hand, too. That doesn't make it inspired.

Another argument is that there has to be a 'final authority.' It doesn't make any sense to use that to argue that the KJV is an inspired inerrant translation.

Some KJV-onlyist argue that it was the only translation 'authorized' by a king. But Henry VIII had the Great Bible translated, and that doesn't make it an inerrant translation.

Yet another argument is to take a verse about how pure or preserved the word of God is, quoting a verse about it. But those verses existed in the actual original languages scripture was written in, and they show up in the other translations as well. So how is that an argument for KJV onlyism?

The fatal flaw of KJV-onlyism is that it is an ignorant back-woods idea made up by preachers or others some time after the KJV was translated, and not part of 'the faith once delivered to the saints. The apostles did teach it. The Bible doesn't teach it. People got saved through believing the word of God before King James was born.

If that indeed is true, I wonder why about 80% of NT quotes from the OT can be traced to the Greek translation of the OT.

Very true. Plus, KJV was based on manuscripts from about the tenth century, and other manuscripts from the fourth and third centuries were discovered since the KJV was translated. The newer translations rely on those more-ancient manuscripts that are closer to the original version in Greek.

Would you quote Hebrew is a Greek document?

I think you missed the nuanced nature of my statement. The basis for determining the source of those OT quotes uses linguistic analysis to determine if the text is closer to a literal rendering of the Septuagint or the Hebrew text.

Why not say Tyndale is less errant?

It quotes the LXX, why would they translate Hebrew on the fly in the gospels? Why quote Hebrew in a Greek text, when there is a Greek equivalent? I think you just quote cognate words except YHWH and you get the same meaning.

My post was in response to someone who stated the LXX was corrupt, and I simply pointed out it was indeed used extensively in the NT, you seem to agree.

The LXX has been corrupted. There have been several editions.

When was it corrupted?