The Error of KJV-Onlyism

That would include the KJV! Many legitimate reasons have been given but KJ onlyists largely ignore them.

The King James Bible causes us to slow down so as to meditate on it and seek God’s help with it. Psalms 119:148 says, “My eyes anticipate the night watches, That I may meditate on Your word.” Psalms 119:169 Says, “O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word.” So while the KJB critics may say that the King James Bible is too hard and archaic to understand, they need to realize that God desires us to meditate on His Word and that we are to ask for help in understanding it. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God’s Word should be as easy to understand as if one was reading a children’s book. We should engage with the Word thoughtfully and prayerfully, allowing its wisdom and guidance to permeate our lives (See also Joshua 1:8, and Psalms 25:5).

there are two streams of manuscripts...alexandrian and Byzantian

there were two streams of churches ...western roman church (latin) and eastern orthodox (greek) The eastern orthodox already has the septugint and the new testament was written in Greek. It did not need further translation, unlike the roman church which needed latin translation (vulgate)

There was a great schism in the tenth century over idolatry and the nature of the trinity. The catholic church went one way, came under (emporers) popes and got corrupted the orthodox stayed the same.


The church in england at that point was under power of the popes and rome before the kings and queens took back their power and decided they wanted to be head of their own church. Hence King James Bible was comissioned which english people could read in their own tongue. It was mostly from byzantian manuscripts..the original tongues.

It sure shook thinks up. King James was king of scotland and england and ireland and even france (he was actually scottish)

Fast fwd history to the americas where they got rid of being under british rule but they took KJV with them. Catholics settled in the US too and got into the White house ...JFK was the first catholic president. Im not sure if he was behind removing the KJBible from public schools. If it was around 1960s that a lot of things changed. Other bibles in english were around and catholics conceded they had to use an english translation but specifically NOT the KJV. In fact it was banned because it wss not favourable to the catholic church. So they made their own up from the same manuscripts (alexandrian) that the vulgate came from. This is where the 'modern' translations' derive from. that is why there are quite a number of difference and bits missing if you read both side by side.

I hope this is making sense now.

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?

It is not just ease of reading. The KJV has errors.

He has any target, but being a Calvinist

he believes in many medieval catholic absurdities;

he is an also an easy target. His ego is so big that he mutes replies and comments to his videos after they are done. Most of all, he doesn't understand the deficiencies of the Critical Text.

Not sure what you mean by that.

Have you ever heard of Penal Substitutionary Atonement?

Yes, it is a Christian doctrine that is even a part of the gospel mentioned in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.
Modern Bibles have subtly watered down this doctrine in three places that I know of.
Westcott and Hort denied this doctrine, including the blood atonement.

I have not found an error in the KJB that I was not able to eventually find a resolution for.

[1Co 15:3 KJV] 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

Whose wrongs again? Paul is speaking personally here.

Who do you believe Paul received it from?

I don't base my doctrines from New Testament epistles. Whereas the gospels only seem to contradict the epistles, the epistles are history, not usually doctrines in most cases.

I have heard it all. That’s a new one. That’s far out their in left field. Not here to debate that with you, though.

The Father's holy spirit. But this is beside the point. He was being saved, not already saved per what he thought of himself. This has more to do with physical harm too.
15:2 δι᾽ οὗ καὶ σῴζεσθε τίνι λόγῳ εὐηγγελισάμην ὑμῖν εἰ κατέχετε ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴ εἰκῇ ἐπιστεύσατε
[1Co 15:2 KJV] 2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
Inflected: σῴζεσθε Root:σῴζω Strong's: G4982English :ye are saved (actually, ye are being saved), Code:V-PPI-2PLong:Verb - Present Passive Indicative - 2nd Person Plural

Notice it is present passive.

Do you believe people have the free will to justify themselves or not?

Was he born again?

This is a topic that is outside the scope of this thread.
But I believe we cannot have faith without the Bible, and God is the One who provided the Bible for us.
Faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Romans 10:17).
We also must be convicted by the Holy Spirit of our sin so as to believe in Jesus, too (John 16:8-9).
There is also the illumination of Scripture by God for a person.
I believe God also draws a person, too.
But once all these things come into play, a person has a free will choice to either accept or reject Jesus Christ as their Savior.
They are not forced against their will to only choose Jesus by some kind of regeneration as Calvinists claim.