The Error of KJV-Onlyism

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,216
4,272
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

but the ting is when you call it the word of God then if your truly hold it as such then when has his word ever come back in void? his word does not abide to our reality if his thoughts are not our thoughts then why would his word abide otherwise? translation? do we listen to the holy spirit or translation? the language of God or man? the kjbv people who follow that verson only give the power to the translation not the God they follw
Have you ever heard Alexander Scourby?
He's one of the most popular with the KJV.
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,216
4,272
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

but the ting is when you call it the word of God then if your truly hold it as such then when has his word ever come back in void? his word does not abide to our reality if his thoughts are not our thoughts then why would his word abide otherwise? translation? do we listen to the holy spirit or translation? the language of God or man? the kjbv people who follow that verson only give the power to the translation not the God they follw
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,275
13,691
113
This is totally backwards. Sexual Immorality is an obscurity of fornication,
"An obscurity of fornication" What in the Webster does that mean?

Also, if you lived during the 1700s here in America, the Bible was the King James Bible and there would not have been any Modern Bibles from Westcott and Hort that you are tripping over to defend. This discussion would not even exist if you lived back then.
Name even one modern translation that I am allegedly "tripping over to defend"? Which one have I claimed? Show where I have "defended" it? My aim here is not to "defend" any particular translation, but to put out to pasture the stupid, baseless, hypocritical, and just plain wrong arguments in favour of King James Version Onlyism.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,275
13,691
113
There is an etymological relating of porne into fornication. But it isn't a typical transliteration.
Agreed. "Fornication" is a weird one. Obviously, porneia is the direct root of 'pornography', but 'fornication' bears no direct link.
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,216
4,272
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
But your one time experience is not the whole scope of reality on the matter, my friend. If you used Catholics as an excuse to not believe in the Trinity because of their wackiness, that would not really mean you are correct. The Trinity is true despite the crazy things Catholics do. I have come up with 101 Reasons for the King James Bible, and 10-11 categories that defend it. The more I study on this topic, the more I discover and learn with God’s Word and history. The Modern Bibles are steeped in Catholicism, Unitarianism, liberalism, and doubt. Believers have even fell away from the faith when they went to Bible College learning of Textual Criticism.

I am also not the only one to come to these conclusions based on study. David Cloud at WayofLife.org states, I quote:

“Furthermore, having studied this topic diligently for 25 years, having spent many thousands of dollars to purchase related books, having developed one of the most extensive bibliographies on the subject, having gone to great expense to travel to serious research facilities such as the British Library, having corresponded with hundreds of men on all sides of this subject, and having written an extensive history of the defense of the Received Text and the King James Bible,…“

In other words, if you want a scholarly well researched approach to this, I would recommend David Cloud’s articles. David Cloud has disagreed with Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, and Steve Anderson, etcetera. Not all KJB believers are the same, anymore than all Christians who believe in the Trinity are the same.
Ruckmanism in Light of the Bible
 
Apr 27, 2023
538
39
28
Agreed. "Fornication" is a weird one. Obviously, porneia is the direct root of 'pornography', but 'fornication' bears no direct link.
If you think the Greek letter "pie" was actually pronounced "fee"; You can show how it itself-snuck through Latin.
 
Dec 18, 2023
6,402
406
83
I enjoy the kjv something about that language speaks to me infact I have wished for morgan freemon to be the voice of an audeo bible since reading is very hard for me.

but the ting is when you call it the word of God then if your truly hold it as such then when has his word ever come back in void? his word does not abide to our reality if his thoughts are not our thoughts then why would his word abide otherwise? translation? do we listen to the holy spirit or translation? the language of God or man? the kjbv people who follow that verson only give the power to the translation not the God they follw
The way people raise arguments over this is what's silly,

I've just read through a lot of posts and I know why it is I don't reply to theese threads normally

To many know it all's, and even when you show them errors in translations they just refuse to accept it.

honestly I'm not fussed and errors in translations means nothing as I know what I know, about God.

I Think the argument was raised from someone not believing in God saying this can't be right a long time ago.

For some reason it's still going.

I guess people idolise titles more than they idolise God.

Or people like to make you think you do.

They can idolise titles or make out someone else is

What ever answer you give them they think a title is worth attacking you.

It's called the holy bible friend that's the main title
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,212
2,547
113
Have you ever heard Alexander Scourby?
He's one of the most popular with the KJV.
no I haven't I have heard of people talking about the kjv cult as it is often spoken of and i love to le learn so can you explain or direct me to an actual source?
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,216
4,272
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
no I haven't I have heard of people talking about the kjv cult as it is often spoken of and i love to le learn so can you explain or direct me to an actual source?
What they refer to as a "cult" is the way all churches except for the Catholics used for hundreds of years. They hate the traditional Bible so they call us a cult for believing it.
It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons calling Baptists cult members. Anyhow, Alexander Scourby was an English actor known famously for his reading of the Bible. I think you said something about wanting to listen to the reading of it, so I posted an audio in my previous post for you. I had other readings but like his best by far.
Let me know what you think.
 

Kroogz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2023
735
267
63
Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!
Here's another. Darn, the NASB and KJV both got this one wrong......2 times in one verse. I guess the NASB isn't inspired after all.:(

KJV
Exo 17:14~~14And the LORD said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven.

NASB~~14Then the Lord said to Moses, 'Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly wipe out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.'

It Is," The Book." And "Under the heavens."

בַּ סֵּ פֶ ר b·sphr~~ in·the·scroll. Ironic the KJV missed this one, right?

הַ שָּׁ מָ יִ ם e·shmim~~~ the·heavens
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,965
331
83
FYI Anderson isn't in the Peter Ruckman or Gail Riplinger camp. He's been the biggest critic of them I've heard from Baptists.
David Cloud of WayofLife.org is a KJB believer who is one of the best and fair researchers out there - IMHO.

Here is his assessment of all three of them.

Steve Anderson:
https://www.wayoflife.org/free_ebooks/downloads/What_About_Steven_Anderson__p.php

Gail Riplinger:
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html

Peter Ruckman:
(Note: I disagree with David Cloud’s understanding on inspiration involving the Scriptures as mentioned in this article):
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/ruckman.html

Note: I believe ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, including any true copy of Scripture. The KJB is true Scripture and so it is inspired because ALL Scripture is inspired. Cloud brings up 2 Peter 1:20-21 on inspiration. I see this as the origins of how Scripture was first formed under inspiration. 2 Peter 1:20-21 is tied to 2 Timothy 3:16 with it’s origins, but 2 Timothy 3:15-16 would extend to how copies would be inspired because Timothy did not have the originals but he had copies of Scripture. Scripture gives us a clue of the definition of ”inspiration” in Job 32:8. The way I understand this is that the words in the true copies of Scripture are inspired or given by continued revelation (preservation) of God. The copies are not new revelation. They reflect the originals. They are the words of the living God. They are like a hammer, and like fire. Only in-Spirited words can do that.

Note: That said, I do believe the different word variations in the KJB editions are possibly new revelation. But previous KJB editions are not my authority. The Pure Cambridge KJB (circa 1900) edition is my final authority because it is the seventh purification (Psalms 12:6).
 

GaryA

Truth, Honesty, Love, Courage
Aug 10, 2019
9,782
4,285
113
mywebsite.us
Many of you seem to be [effectually] saying/suggesting over-and-over-and-over that - the KJV has a bottle cap full of error - while the modern bible versions have a swimming pool full of error - and that you prefer the swimming pool full of error - because you cannot swim in a bottle cap???

You want to shout from the highest mountain that there are 'errors' in the KJV - yet - you want to totally ignore the vast number of errors in the modern bible versions.

Something is seriously wrong somewhere... o_O :eek:

However, I put forth a question to you:

What is an 'error'?

What if we pause from all of the mud-slinging for a bit to clarify just exactly what an 'error' is in the context of bible translations.

There are five verses in the KJV that contain 'Noe' instead of 'Noah'. In bible translation terms, is this to be considered an 'error'? No, it is not. Why? Because, it does not change the essence of the meaning of the Word of God.

This is why @Nehemiah6 says it "has flaws" but not 'errors' - because, the simple 'typo' kind of copyist or printing "error" does not produce 'error' in the Word of God.

The blatent deliberate egregious errors of the modern versions change the very meaning of scripture.

And - you would rather have that in the swimming pool size than to believe and trust the KJV as the true inerrant Word of God and spend the effort to properly study the places where you do not fully understand its meaning???

Again - something is seriously wrong somewhere...

It is within human nature to want to swim in the pool - that is - to have a large [fleshly] "comfort zone" margin to buffer against the "strictness" of the plain simple truth - and, especially, the Word of God.

You want the swimming pool because you cannot swim in the bottle cap.

The bottle cap does not offer enough [fleshly] "comfort zone" for you.

The modern bible versions give you that "comfort zone" margin.

If you cannot believe and trust that you have the complete Word of God - to read and study with the attitude that it is correct - and that you must carefully-and-prayerfully discern what God is trying to tell you through scripture - instead of deciding for yourself what it is-or-should-be saying - you are in a bad place to be with regard to the significance and importance of properly understanding scripture.

In any case, I suggest that all of you stop wasting hundreds of posts arguing over the wrong thing until you get your definitions straight... :geek:

Instead of mud-slinging, how about trying to see what you can agree upon. ;)
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,769
113
Timothy did not have the originals when he was a child. But he would have had a copy.
I already addressed this. Of course Paul also had copies. But so what? The copies were FAITHFUL reproductions of the originals. In any event you are way off base with your beliefs.
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,965
331
83
Original Scriptures as In Old Testament. The Tanakh. He said so, and so did I.

Your lack of comprehension is cause for concern when you fail to understand plain English.
I am not denying Paul was referring to the OT Scriptures. But these were copies Timothy had and not the originals. Even if you do not believe Timothy had any copy of Scripture, you cannot make that case with the Ethiopian eunuch. Jesus had read from Isaiah. Yet, the Ethiopian eunuch also read from Isaiah. They cannot both be the same manuscript which would be the original. They were copies. At least the eunuch would have only had a copy of Isaiah and not the original. Now, if you read the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, it says that what he had was called, “Scripture.“ Now, skip over to 2 Timothy 3:16. It says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So the copy is given by inspiration of God; Not just the originals only.
 

Kroogz

Well-known member
Dec 5, 2023
735
267
63
Have you not looked into this important issue for yourself?

Not to mention the umpteen times some have been pointed out to you before, already, again and again ad nauseum.

But like your KJ onlyist peers, you turn a blind eye. So predictable, alarming, and, oh, what's the word I am looking for?

Dishonest? Mendacious. KJ may have used that word himself!
You're probably sick of me! Here's another. How did they miss this one? Pretty important, right?

KJV
Exo 22~~28Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

NASB
28You shall not curse God, nor curse a ruler of your people.

א4ֱהִ ים (22:27) 22:28 aleim Elohim
 

Bible_Highlighter

Well-known member
Nov 28, 2023
1,965
331
83
I already addressed this. Of course Paul also had copies. But so what? The copies were FAITHFUL reproductions of the originals. In any event you are way off base with your beliefs.
Jesus read from Isaiah, and this was referred to as Scripture.
The Ethiopian eunuch also read from Isaiah.
Now, unless you believe the Ethiopian eunuch stole the original manuscript that had Isaiah from the one Jesus read, you would have to conclude that the eunuch had a copy of Isaiah and not the original. Keep in mind that in Acts 8, it says that what the Ethiopian eunuch had was Scripture. Yet, he no doubt had a copy. So this was a copy of Scripture. So if it was Scripture…. We must then run over to 2 Timothy 3:16 and read and believe what it says there about Scripture. It says ALL (not some). It says ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God. So this means that even the copies of Scripture are inspired. Just connect the dots.
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,212
2,547
113
What they refer to as a "cult" is the way all churches except for the Catholics used for hundreds of years. They hate the traditional Bible so they call us a cult for believing it.
It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons calling Baptists cult members. Anyhow, Alexander Scourby was an English actor known famously for his reading of the Bible. I think you said something about wanting to listen to the reading of it, so I posted an audio in my previous post for you. I had other readings but like his best by far.
if I missed it that is my bad I dont remember seeing you giving me this
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
26,074
13,769
113
So this means that even the copies of Scripture are inspired.
Do you see how BIZARRE your ideas are? Copies are copies of the original inspired autographs. Therefore they themselves cannot be "inspired". You do not know what inspiration means in 2 Tim 3:16. It is the Greek word theopneustos, which means God-breathed. And God did not breathe into the translations.