The Error of KJV-Onlyism

The phrase 'All scripture is given by inspiration of God' in 2 Timothy 3:16 is translated from three Greek words which mean "all writings divinely inspired" - where 'writings' is referring to 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

So, therefore, we know that - because God does not make mistakes - but manuscripts and translations may be corrupt - it necessarily follows that this can only apply to the original writing of 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

If you say that 'writing' may apply [directly] to the translation of scripture, then it must [equally] apply to all translation of scripture.

What you are left with is the determination of what may be defined to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures' - which, I suggest, is a simple matter of answering the 'manuscript' question:

"Is the [actual] manuscript (from which the scripture in question comes from) a valid copy of the 'autograph'?"

('valid copy' = 'exact copy' of the original 'writing' by the original author)

This is the question that must be answered. And, any manuscript that is not a valid copy of the 'autograph' cannot be considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

If one or more people write their own manuscript, it cannot be considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures' - because, it is not a valid copy of the 'autograph'.

Which takes us back to what I said earlier:

good manuscripts + good translation = good bible version

corrupt manuscripts + (does not matter) = corrupt bible version

You cannot get a good bible version from corrupt manuscripts!

~

It all comes back to the manuscripts.

A bad/corrupt translation may certainly be made from good manuscripts - and, would be considered to be a bad/corrupt bible version derived from 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

However, an invalid manuscript is automatically disqualified from being considered to be 'Holy Writ' / 'Holy Scriptures'.

It is all about the manuscripts - are they valid or are they not - this is the question - and the answer.

I don't see "in the flesh" anywhere in that NASB verse.

'begotten' = "in the flesh"

no 'begotten' - no "in the flesh"

Problem. Nobody knows Hebrew or Greek.
Granted, I am not saying we cannot benefit to a degree, but it should not say something different than the English word in the KJB.
Also, the dictionaries that we have today are from corrupted recent Modern Scholars.
Take for example James Strong, who made the Strong’s Concordance (that you brought up).

Strong’s liberal views got him a Committee seat on the corrupt Revised Version (RV) of 1881 with Westcott, Hort, and Vaughan, as well as a seat on the American Standard Version (ASV) committee with Schaff and Unitarian J. Henry Thayer (finally published in 1901). Westcott and Hort sought American Bible critics to join them in their work on the Revised Version. In 1870 the British Committee voted “to invite the cooperation of some American divines” (Matthew Brown Riddle, The Story of the Revised New Testament American Standard Edition, Philadelphia: The Sunday School Times, 1908, p. 11).

Not sure if you caught it. UNITARIANS were on the team!
These folks deny the Trinity and you wonder why they prefer a Bible that eliminates 1 John 5:7?
There were other kinds of problems with those worked on the RV and ASV teams, as well.

William Tyndale actually invented the English word “Passover.” Before that time, the word “Easter” was used. We see various Textus Receptus Bibles use Easter and Passover interchangeably in other places of the Bible. A great book that documents this fact is the book called,

“Don’t Passover Easter” by Bryan C. Ross.

It’s short read and affordable to read via Amazon Kindle.
But people see error in the KJB because that is what they desire to see.

Passover and Easter are merely synonyms that both refer to the Jewish Passover.
In various languages, we can see that Easter is taken from the word Pascha.


Glad to hear. I believe the KJB is the pure Word of God for 101 Reasons. I also came up with 10-11 major categories, as well. I am still in the process of doing my write-up, though. I have the reasons, I am just working on the sub articles. Then I need to add in all the end notes and source links.

Vulgate only.

Those modern translations such as the KJV came along nearly 1200 years later. Not worth the paper they are printed on.

Use a translation that uses manuscripts that may have only been copied once or twice.

The Vulgate is not a Catholic translation. The Catholic Church was merely the Roman Church in the late fourth century.

The Vulgate was the only real Bible for over a thousand years.

The Vulgate had significant cultural influence on literature for centuries, and thus the development of the English language, especially in matters of religion.[65] Many Latin words were taken from the Vulgate into English nearly unchanged in meaning or spelling: creatio (e.g. Genesis 1:1, Heb 9:11), salvatio (e.g. Is 37:32, Eph 2:5), justificatio (e.g. Rom 4:25, Heb 9:1), testamentum (e.g. Mt 26:28), sanctificatio (1 Ptr 1:2, 1 Cor 1:30), regeneratio (Mt 19:28), and raptura (from a noun form of the verb rapere in 1 Thes 4:17). The word "publican" comes from the Latin publicanus (e.g., Mt 10:3), and the phrase "far be it" is a translation of the Latin expression absit. (e.g., Mt 16:22 in the King James Bible).[73] Other examples include apostolus, ecclesia, evangelium, Pascha, and angelus. (wiki)

Do those modern translations use the vocabulary of the Vulgate?

Of course they do.

My usual. The KJV is written in Early Modern English. It is vastly different than 21st century English. Here are some technical reasons it is wrong to use the KJV:
1. Uses 2nd person singular, which has not been used for hundreds of years in English speaking countries, with the exception of perhaps Quakers. We have not been taught how the words are written nor their morphology. It is a major stumbling block.
2. So many archaic and obsolete words. True, you can look them up, but those words are simply not in use. Or worse, they are in use, and the meaning has changed.

A further thing concerns the manuscripts involved in translating to English. KJV uses very late Greek manuscripts that were full of errors, esp added verses that are not found in earlier versions. KJV advocates are always stating that many verses have been left out of modern versions. But if you compare earlier texts from severe different places, such as the Syriac, Vulgate etc, you will find less verses in all of them.

When the Byzantine Empire was flourishing, a lot of time and money was given lto copying the Greek New Testament. But these scribes weren't perfect.

3. They could print a letter wrong, which changed the word meaning.
4. They could hear a dictated word and write a homonym to the text, or just hear it wrong & spell it wrong.
5. They would make comments in the margins, which the next generation would copy into the text, meaning a non-biblical sentence was masquerading as Scripture.


The end result is manuscripts that were not correctly copied with added words. And every error I mentioned can be found in Byzantine manuscripts. Plus, Byzantine manuscripts just popped out of thin air in the 8th century Byzantine Empire days. They have no lineage or pedigree back to the earliest manuscripts.

Further, there are several epistles translated by a Catholic priest - Erasmus. In order to get church approval and be left verses that could not be found in any manuscripts, ever the later ones. The Johannine Comma was one of these. Erasmus was in a hurry. He needed his book/Bible printed immediately, or he would lose a lot of money. So rather than translate. Galatians, from Greek, he translated it from Latin, using Jerome's 4th century very poor Greek to Latin translation. That never changed.

The KJV committee used the Erasmus Greek version as the basis for the KJV. It's a Catholic Bible and was badly translated. So even if you understand Jacobean English, that Bible is filled with errors and issues.

7. Increasingly, I am often seeing bad doctrine coming from. KJV Onlyists. When I challenge people on a theological issue, they always quote the KJV. A lot of people use the KFV who do understand the deficits that limit the usefulness of that Bible.

There is another big translation problem with the KJV. People may have understood the language 100-200 years ago, but there are a lot of sentences that are not correctly translated. The KJC tended to follow Greek word order. It makes for awkward reading. But worse, Greek is an inflected language. It has cases for nouns & adjectives, which tell you what part of the sentence a word is. In English, word order is generally
"Subject predicate". Which becomes:
"Subject- verb indirect object- direct!" Greek words have different endings, depending upon whether they are a subject, possessed by a noun, a direct or indirect object. You can take a subject -the nominative case- and put it to start the sentence, or end the sentence as a predicate nominative. This is perfectly normal to do in Greek. In German and Ukrainian, too! I read a Martin Luther German Bible and it is fo easy to understand, because the word order in German is similar to English.

Faulty word order contributes a lot to people seeing something that isn't there, and strange doctrines coming out if it.

I have read the Bible through cover to cover over 58 times. That includes many different English translations, French, German, Koine Greek and Biblical Hebrew. They are all saying the same thing! Look for commonalities and a Bible you can understand because it was written in your mother tongue - 21st century English.

I don't do discussion by bibliography. Make you case yourself.

It shouldn't be disturbing. Perhaps I should change it to OLD.

Washington became a deist when he became skeptical of the virgin birth and the trinity doctrine.

James White is steeped in unbelief and rationalism? I don't think so.

That's what the Jewish rabis did.
Eventually they considered the rabid dumb commentaries more authoritative than their perfect Bible.

The critical text crowd here will correct me if I'm wrong, but the NKJV was never endorsed by King James. It sure road on the coattails of his fame though.

It turned out to be the gateway drug of Bible versions IMHO. A couple of pastors I used to know went through the same experience as David Daniels below.

I think you would get more mileage out of how Von Soden's pathetic Greek New Testament is used to determine the "Byzantine" and "Majority" texts.

And you would be buying into false recent history started by one guy whereby others just latched on to what he said. Before that guys write up, Washington was clearly referred to as Christian, and we can see many good evidences that he was. This has been refuted multiple times over on other discussion boards. Besides, this is not even the topic of the thread and it is not something I have interest in debating at this time in my life. Do your own homework and look at the other side. If not, buy into the agenda of those trying to erase Christianity from our nation. The liberal agenda has already succeeded in many other ways with this current presidency.

There are different ways to translate a text, and if you want to draw out a particular truth or application, you may translate it in a way to draw out that alternative meaning. Is Paul's 'gave gives to men' translation of Ephesians 4 the same as the LXX?

James White is not somebody who has any love for the KJB. He may use the praise and blast syndrome with the KJB that other Textual Critics employ, but one of his main missions is to destroy KJV Onlyism. He has done no write up on the KJB translators and their expertise. He was actually sought after to write his book “KJV Controversy“ because of KJB Only believers. He is the opposition to KJB Only. Have you watched any of his debates against those who KJV Onlyism?

I watched a KJV Only debate on the John Ankerberg show. (of which you can see here if you have not seen it) The one guy (Farstad) who was the chief guy who helped to spear head the KJB denies that there are critical text readings in his NKJV translation. He wanted to maintain the illusion that his NKJV translation was soley based on the Textus Receptus. This is a lie or a deception on his part (Which is a common tactic I noticed on their side). The NKJV has critical text readings that line up with other Alexandrian bibles. Theo Hikmat’s video exposing the NKJV is still my favorite video on exposing the NKJV.

The full version of his NKJV video seems to be hard to find nowadays, though. I posted the half version of it. It could have been the NKJV folks coming down on him.

Ah, I get it now. You are trusting him as a source? If so, that’s funny. His debates I have seen against KJB Only does not really address his opponents really good points that refute his position. He basically side steps their points and jumps into declaring his belief. You also do not have the Word of God if you hold to his position, either (i.e., that the Word of God exists amongst the thousands of manuscripts despite their differences).

God is not the author of confusion.

Show me in the Bible where God’s Word is like silly putty?