The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Have you ever heard Alexander Scourby?
He's one of the most popular with the KJV.

"An obscurity of fornication" What in the Webster does that mean?

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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).

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...

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...

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

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.

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.

Yes, I am not replying to all of what you said. I believe most of what you are saying is not logical.

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

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.

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.

Inspiration is given to the person who speaks/writes the words, not the words themselves.