The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Tyndale Bible influenced the 1611, nevertheless.

my point in even bothering to paste all that is to show that a 'translation' is a carrying over to another place what had been inspired more so than any 'inspiration' as if it were any 'new' thing. It was an example of carrying out the directive to "go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation,' with the reality that 'hearing comes by the word of God, and how can they hear if...' they don't understand the language unless you translate it into their language as to be a more immediate interpreter as opposed to forcing them to learn any certain language to in order to 'hear' the gospel. And, if any of languages should be of mandatory learning, I'd think it should be the original languages of the originally inspired writing, in that case.

It's obvious that even native speakers of english are constantly misunderstanding one another, and you'd sooner complicate the preaching to all the world by what, leave the Holy Spirit to use the gift tongues to convey the gospel message then offer it to them in their own language?

I imagine they used it, but it was not the largest influence as the article you quoted says. Again, the translators of the KJB followed the Bishop’s Bible primarily. Also, as I said before, the Tyndale Bible was not even a complete Bible, either.



But the problem is that nobody today actually knows Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek.
A person would be wasting their whole life trying to learn these languages when God already preserved His words for us with the King James Bible. There are many evidences pointing to how the KJB is the Pure Word of God that you can trust today. There is no need to waste your life and reinvent the wheel. God wants us to get busy with our faith and not to just hope to figure out what He said. One can never move or act on faith if that is the case.



I am not Charismatic or Pentecostal. I believe Cessation of the miraculous sign gifts in the early church is the most likely scenario for us today. Could I be wrong? Sure. But we also do not see believers today doing exactly what we see the early apostles did involving the miracles they had. In either case, the point is if you go for the original languages as the go to place to preach God’s Word, nobody is going to understand those languages. It will be like a person who speaks in foreign tongues without an interpreter. Folks today pretend like they know Hebrew and Greek because they can point to some dictionary. That’s not how it works. A person who knows a language has to immerse themselves in that language and culture deeply. They have to be able to speak, write, read, and listen to that language like it was their native tongue. This is really a difficult task seeing these cultures are no longer alive anymore. Impossible? No, we know what God said by looking to His preserved Words for us today with the Bible that is the most printed and influential book in the world (i.e., the King James Bible).

It's a hit piece against the ONLY. And rightly so, after what I have witnessed.

2 Peter 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

What you have witnessed would be private interpretation. the textus receptous is the received text and authorized version, the English speaking world used it for 300 odd years before translations came along, and mainly from the Vatican manuscripts who had banned the kjv didn't want the world to have a bible in the first place, that Bible version helped save most of the English speaking people in the world for the last 400 years, don't throw it away because of what some men say

Also it is the written word given to us to teach about the living word = Jesus, The Word of God that became flesh and dwelt among us

The kjv raises Jesus up as our creator God in the flesh, the almighty, i think you will find most translations try and attack that

John 5:39

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

I haven't followed you or her posts on this thread, so I'm not butting in now.
Just remember that this thread is a hit piece against God's Holy Word. I'm surprised that you would let someone convince you to bury God's Holy Word.
Do NOT let anyone undermine your faith in God's Word! They aren't worth it.

I'll tell you what I tell my friends, stay off the forums and get into a daily practice of reading your true KJV Bible.
Do it NOW!
It's the first day of a new year. You can easily get through it this year from cover to cover with 15-20 minutes / day. Hey, it's too easy to spend too much time on the forums. I regret doing that myself.
Let's let that time go to reading so our faith grows.
Ok?
📖🙂👍
There are all kinds of reading charts if you want to map it out and check it off.
Let me know if I can help get you started.

Psalm 119
140
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."
103
"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

How what of the non-native english speaking person of today fair in light of your position. Is he out of luck and going to hell unless he immerses himself into learning english?

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.

I haven't followed you or her posts on this thread, so I'm not butting in now.
Just remember that this thread is a hit piece against God's Holy Word. I'm surprised that you would let someone convince you to bury God's Holy Word.
Do NOT let anyone undermine your faith in God's Word! They aren't worth it.

I'll tell you what I tell my friends, stay off the forums and get into a daily practice of reading your true KJV Bible.
Do it NOW!
It's the first day of a new year. You can easily get through it this year from cover to cover with 15-20 minutes / day. Hey, it's too easy to spend too much time on the forums. I regret doing that myself.
Let's let that time go to reading so our faith grows.
Ok?
📖🙂👍
There are all kinds of reading charts if you want to map it out and check it off.
Let me know if I can help get you started.

Psalm 119
140
"Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."
103
"How sweet are thy words unto my taste! yea, sweeter than honey to my mouth!"

The gospel of salvation can be found in most Modern Translations. One can even learn to live godly to a certain level by a Modern Translation. The problem with Textual Criticism, which is attached to the Modern Bible movement is that it gets a person to doubt God’s Word rather than to trust it completely. One will waste their life seeking out languages they can never fully know. They can even fall into the danger of either losing their faith because of Modern Scholarship. For some who went to Bible College have already lost their faith as a result. They can also endanger their own soul by adding or taking words away from God’s Holy Book by making their own Bible translation, as well.

As for other countries that don’t speak English:

How many had the Scriptures in other countries when only the Jews possessed the Scriptures?
Was that fair of God to do that?

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 ina bookas a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly wipe out the memory of Amalek fromunder 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

True, but the KJV only zeal to me is baseless and pointless at the same time. What incredibly life changing doctrines does the KJV support that the NASB/Amplified/Berean/literal do not? There are two NT verses that the KJV gets right that the others misinterpret. Galatians 2:20 is one, Mark 11:22 the other. The literal translations have it right, so I don't know why translators mess with those verses.

If someone is so keen on correct interpretation, they should study Greek. Personally, I'm happy that some of the most intelligent and studious people in Christendom have done it for me. And I have access to most translations courtesy of Bible Hub. I even have the Holy Spirit to lead me into the truth. That suffices for me.

True, but the KJV only zeal to me is baseless and pointless at the same time. What incredibly life changing doctrines does the KJV support that the NASB/Amplified/Berean/literal do not? There are two NT verses that the KJV gets right that the others misinterpret. Galatians 2:20 is one, Mark 11:22 the other. The literal translations have it right, so I don't know why translators mess with those verses.

If someone is so keen on correct interpretation, they should study Greek. Personally, I'm happy that some of the most intelligent and studious people in Christendom have done it for me. And I have access to most translations courtesy of Bible Hub. I even have the Holy Spirit to lead me into the truth. That suffices for me.

True, but the KJV only zeal to me is baseless and pointless at the same time. What incredibly life changing doctrines does the KJV support that the NASB/Amplified/Berean/literal do not? There are two NT verses that the KJV gets right that the others misinterpret. Galatians 2:20 is one, Mark 11:22 the other. The literal translations have it right, so I don't know why translators mess with those verses.

If someone is so keen on correct interpretation, they should study Greek. Personally, I'm happy that some of the most intelligent and studious people in Christendom have done it for me. And I have access to most translations courtesy of Bible Hub. I even have the Holy Spirit to lead me into the truth. That suffices for me.

So-called higher criticism began towards the end of the 18th century, well before the modern translations were around.

The handwritten master copy of the KJB from the translators had never changed once it was finalized to be sent to the printer. If you knew anything about the printing process back in the old days before they perfected it, you would understand that printing errors was a common thing in many books (Especially larger ones like the Bible). It was a messy and difficult process that they could not master; Especially for larger works until one day the technology was perfected. Also, there were updates in spellings, and font changes, as well. But those are not changes to what the words say.

When Psalms 12:6 refers to the words of the Lord being purified seven times, I believe it is also prophetic.

My Proposed List of the Seven Purifications of the KJB:

1. The 1629 Cambridge
2. The 1638 Cambridge (authored by the King).
3. The Paris 1762 Cambridge
4. The Blayney 1769 Oxford (Authorized Version) (Today this is the 1893 or 1894 Oxford printed editions)
5. Apocrypha Removed in KJB officially in 1885
6. The Updated Public Based Pure Cambridge (used between the 1920s and 1985)
7. The Pure Cambridge (A.W. Pollard) (circa 1914-1918) (WW2) (The KJV Cambridge used today).

I believe that God is in control even over the roll of the dice.
So any small differences between the MAJOR six editions (due to printing errors) could also potentially be true.
(Note: One purification was the removal of the Apocrypha in 1885 by the Church of England ).
We learn in Jeremiah that God can edit His own Word. When the King cut up and burned the scroll in the fire, God told Jeremiah to make another scroll and add many like words to it.
There are approximately 12 subtle or small differences between the 6 major KJB editions to my knowledge.
Granted, there are things that needed to be filtered out of the first KJB 1611 edition like the Apocrypha, the marginal notes, the Greek pagan pictures, and stuff. But the hand written master copy was the reflection of the true Word all along. I believe it was not until the Pure Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) when the printing process and standardization of spelling and grammar whereby we had a Word that was finally purified the seventh time.

Others like Matthew Verschuur at BibleProtector.com, and John M Asquith at PureCambridgeText.com have different lists.

Bible Protector’s List of the Seven Purifications in Psalms 12:6.

View attachment 259278
PureCambridgeText.com website offers a different list of the seven purified KJBs, and he offers some great reasons why, although I do not agree entirely with his list.

1. The 1629 Cambridge
2. The 1638 Cambridge (authored by the King).
3. The Paris 1762 Cambridge
4. The Blayney 1769 Oxford
5. The Scrivener 1873 Cambridge Paragraph
6. The Pure Cambridge (A.W. Pollard) (circa 1914-1918)
7. The Updated Public Based Pure Cambridge (used between the 1920s and 1985).

The changes to actual words and their meaning are very minute. But again, this was the fixing of printing errors when see that the words were different.

All editions are true in what they say. But each purification gets more precise and perfect

So then you admit that it wasn't a perfect translation then right?

If it was perfect, there would have been no need of "purification"

All of them were perfect. But one was more Perfect in the sense of being matured or having come to full fruition.

I see so the definition of perfect means some correction is still needed to get some of the errors out so it can be "more perfector ish"

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