The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Is Greek the language that God speaks? Latin? Hebrew?

In it's most purest form, not like the modern, watered down, slang English of today.

Let's just scuttle everything you said here:

Because apparently you didn't mean it.

Here's some music you can dance to while you twist away...

Any way you slice or dice it, the language KJB was written is not that of the original Scriptures.

Despite your aversion to acknowledging this salient fact.

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, first published in 1611, was written in a form of Early Modern English. It is not exactly Elizabethan English, which refers to the English language during the reign of Queen Elizabeth I (1558–1603), but it is a continuation of the linguistic style of that period. The KJV language reflects the language conventions of the early 17th century, and it has had a significant impact on the development of English literature and language.

At the very least it show how different the KJV is from the modern versions. Either the KJV is corrupt or the modern versions. They all cannot be the word of God.

Even the original scriptures did not contain all the "original" language. An easy example is Egyptian. Did the original word of God contain the language Egyptian? Why not? There are many instances in scripture were Egyptian was being spoken, but it was translated into another language perfectly, without error.

Maan, what chew talkin bout? Wee can still tawk good? Right!

This is not evidence for a translation into the English language becoming 'the one' instead of the Bible in the actual languages it was written in. SMH.

That's mainly just unconventional spelling right there, rather than slang.

Difference alone does not demonstrate "corruption". As you know, there are different ways to say the same thing without having corrupted the message.

As for your very tired, "They all cannot be the word of God", drop it. It's a flawed assertion... and according to the King James translators themselves, different translations not only "can" but "are" the word of God. Deal with it.

As I understand it, the primary goal of modern textual criticism is to determine what the original authors wrote. Period. What is the harm in that?

These footnotes rightly explain that there are uncertainties about the validity of these passages. If something had been added to Scripture, wouldn't you want to know?

For 1611, perhaps. Often incorrect for now.

I use the Pure Cambridge KJV Edition (circa. early 1900), which can be found at Biblehub.com online or by picking up the Cambridge Edition by Holman Publishers (See here at Amazon).

Brandon Peterson in the video may be using the Authorized Version (1769 Blayney Oxford KJB Edition) (Note: This would be the edition with the Apocrypha removed in 1885). But I am not sure which edition he is using in the screencap I provided from his video. There is no difference between these two KJB editions to my knowledge in the passages presented in the video. Brandon has taken the verses and highlighted them in color with some kind of computer program.

I don't see any differences. The verses of Revelation in the KJB in the video say the same thing as the KJV passage of Revelation you just posted unless you care to point out the differences. In the screen capture: One side is showing Isaiah 34 on the left, and the other side is showing Revelation on the right side.

*Sigh* The verses he shows do not openly declare the words, "Believe only in the KJV as the perfect Word of God."
You're missing the point.
It's more biblically systematic than that.
The main point here by the screencaps of the video that I wanted to show is that:

1. Multiple unspecified nations are being addressed in Isaiah 34.
2. Words within verses in Revelation are tied to words in Isaiah 34.

So this means that when Isaiah 34:16 says we are to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read it, this would be in context to addressing most likely everybody in the world during the End Times mentioned in Revelation. So this means there is going to be an actual Book of the Lord in the times mentioned in Revelation. Logic dictates that we would have that Book of the Lord today seeing we are drawing ever closer to the time in Revelation.

What do you think I am saying here that is so weird?
I did not write the Bible. I am letting speak for itself.
There is going to be a Book of the Lord during the end times in Revelation.
That is what the King James Bible plainly states.
Now, you may argue that the time of Revelation is far off like by 1 million years or something and so there is no proof of the existence of any actual Book of the Lord today. But I don't think you would argue that the End Times is that far off.

No. There are no original Greek texts of the Book of Revelation that we know of. While the Vaticanus (an Alexandrian text) has the entire Book of Revelation, the Vaticanus is a corruption of the Scriptures. In the pure line of manuscripts (the Antiochian line of texts), what we have are copies of copies of various fragments of it with most likely many of them being imperfect or not in agreement precisely (But the variation of difference is small). If there are fragments of copies of the Book of Revelation that reflect the originals perfectly then they would be entirely inspired. But we really cannot know that seeing sometimes they are merely in fragments or certain pages found in different places throughout time. The Vaticanus and Sinaitus are problematic because they disagree with each other in thousands of places, they have umlauts (double dots like in 1 John 5:7) showing there was an existing variation and pen knife cuts, and noted corrections. This is why Westcott and Hort were forced to create a new New Testament Greek text to combine these two together as if it was some kind of Frankenstein monster. Any truly pure uncorrupted copy of Scripture (with no errors) is truly and fully inspired.

In Textual Criticism, they have hybrid Bibles with true words of God and with false words mixed in.

You don’t know what grammar points I discovered. I did not list them.

There is no actual Book of the Lord that a person can read in the original languages. Such an animal does not exist that is influential in any way today. Besides, even if there is an original language text, they cannot read it. They would need a translation that updates that so they can understand. It says seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read. So this means you can have an understanding of reading it.
Plus, there is no one Greek text, either. Which Greek text? There are many. What do you go with? So you have to swim in a sea of confusion. Good luck in finding the Book of the Lord that way. Plus, when you say it is the Book of the Lord, one cannot claim it has errors in it. Most Textual Critics today believe that the manuscript copies we have of the original languages are full of errors of some kind (even if some of them may be small variations or subtle changes). Funny, they never seen the originals and yet they act like they have them so as to compare them to the copies. They are only making educated guesses on the text on what is true or false.

I would say that KJB is a translation of the scripture and yet, Translation can still be a scripture.

Translation is to bring across or carry across from one language to another and scripture simply means writings thus, KJB is an English scripture which obviously, Timothy doesn’t have access to. However, it says ALL scripture i.e. written or translated words would still make scripture and “…is given by inspiration of God…”. This is well demonstrated in the Bible that translation is scripture and is inspired.

Another is that the scripture speaks of inspiration in this way:

Job 32:8

King James Bible
But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.

Inspiration gives understanding, so without translation, interpretation is not possible to learn what it means in a language we can understand. So, translations make the scripture known and scripture is given by inspiration. Hence, KJB is inspired. The problem of the non-KJB is that they hold no perfect, complete, pure words of God in English. They cannot point one but I believe the difference is somewhat of faith. We either believe we have it and that God had promised he will or we do not have it and we are the ‘one” of authority. We’ll just need to make a choice. You may pick one!

I don't care. My quote came from them. If you have a problem with it, take it up with them.

While they may say so, the fruits of their labors paint a different picture.
No actual settled Bible has ever emerged from the Westcott and Hort movement.
They just keep changing the text as if it is in some kind of constant state of flux like Evolution.
There is no agreed-upon text and folks are encouraged to decide for themselves what God said and did not say if they felt it was not a part of the original manuscripts. But this is all guesswork. They don't have the originals to compare any recent copies to.
Even if they did have the originals, they wouldn't be able to even read them.

With the KJB it has been settled already with the Pure Cambridge KJB Edition (circa. early 1900) (by A.W. Pollard).
Any corrections in MAJOR KJB editions (generally minor and did not affect major doctrine) were due to the fixing of printing errors or differences by previous updates. Their goal was to get back to the original handwritten master copy. The printing process was horrible back in the day. There were many complaints by book authors to the publishers because it was a messy process that was hard to perfect then. Yet, I believe God is in control of the casting of lots (Proverbs 16:33). So I believe all previous 6 KJB editions in the Old and New Testaments are still the perfect words of God. It is just that the Pure Cambridge is the seventh purification and finalized (Which reflects more accurately what the originals said). The words of the Lord are purified seven times (Psalms 12:6-7) and Jesus was perfected by His obedience (Hebrews 5:8-9). Most KJB believers today use either the Authorized Version (1769 Oxford by Blayney) (with the Apocrypha removed), or they use the Pure Cambridge Edition by A.W. Pollard (The KJV at Biblehub.com).

What this shows to me is that the men behind the line of manuscripts are trying to get you to doubt God's word in certain places like the serpent had gotten Eve to question God's word in the garden. Again, this particular lesson of this story is really non-existent in the world of Textual Criticism. Questioning God's Word? One must ignore that if they are in a part of the Textual Critical movement questioning the Bible in the footnotes, and questioning whether the Bible is trustworthy now because they may come out with another manuscript discovery that may change things again.