The Error of KJV-Onlyism

The reason that most passages are excluded from any translation is because the manuscript evidence for them is insufficient.

KJVonly people just use KJV as their only source, thats the thing.

When they reference, they reference ONLY the KJV. They dont need to reference any other Bible or book. They just get all their scripture from KJV.

No need to get into a huff about it.

In some ways, it makes it easier instead of referencing 20 other versions.
Academics like to study other books, and read widely, and produced pages of bibliography and cross referencing, but this is the thing academics fail to underrstand. Some people dont have time to study 20 different versions, They dont want to do comparative literature studies.

They just want to trust ONE Bible to tell them Gods Word. To know one deeply than a hundred others skimming the surface. If happens to be KJV then thats fine...its all good...its the Bible. I would only be concerned if someone told me they get all their scripture from the Book of Mormon and that was the only book they ever read.

Worth pondering though. Whatever Jesus wrote, you can be sure it was significant.

I always wondered what he wrote.

It makes sense though because at school they tell you to do the same thing, if someone is being naughty you write their name on the board.

Luke 14:11
"For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

John 3:10
"Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?"

1 John 2:27
"But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

I am sorry to hear.

When I rededicated my life back to Christ back in 2010-2011 I did listen to a few of Mounce's teachings on the New Testament.
I stopped listening to him when he said that God told Hosea to marry a prostitute.
Of course this is the rendering in Modern Bibles but not in the King James Bible.
One does not understand the good nature of God if they believe God would tell somebody to do something evil.

If Mounce is telling the truth, he may be referring to his own Mounce New Testament Translation or other committees that do not involve other Bible translations; or he may be referring to other smaller unknown Bible translations that are not in popular use. But please take note that Mounce's Bible New Testament Translation does not have any great influence or following unlike say the ESV, NAS95, etcetera.

Anyway, we don't live in the 1980s anymore. The internet has evolved to a point where we can actually research the truth without relying on the words of others. In other words, there are articles you can read that are non-KJB-only articles that state the truth about how Modern Biblical Scholars do not all know Modern Greek and some believe this is a concern.

Erasmus did not hold to all Catholic teachings and he was said by Catholics to be the egg that Luther hatched. If you were to go to the Catholic website, they speak unfavorably of him. In fact, they sought to destroy his TR manuscripts. Erasmus died among Protestant friends. The Vatican did not commission Erasmus to work on a translation. He was working without their approval.

The Nestle and Aland were supervised by the Vatican. Erasmus' work was not supervised by the Vatican.
There is no evidence that Erasmus favored manuscripts or made changes to the text that would favor the Roman Catholic Church.
However, we do have evidence in the NIV (Which is a result of the Nestle and Aland) of 14 changes that favor the RCC.
As I said, all you have to do is go to Google and search for the keywords, "Keith Piper NIV" and then go to pages 21-22 of his PDF and you can see the changes. In addition, there is a Catholic dictionary in one of the Catholic Bibles that forbids the Catholic layperson from reading the King James Version of the Bible. Granted, this has changed a few years ago seeing the Catholics put out a Catholic Version of the KJV with their apocryphal books in it back in 2020. But before this recent change, the Catholics as a whole did not want anyone reading the King James Version. A Catholic named Guy Fawkes even tried to destroy King James and his translation (the KJV) with a super bomb. This was known as the Gunpowder Plot. Skip back further in time, and we know that Catholics killed others for even having the Scriptures or translating Bibles that were not Catholic ones. So I see the Vatican's involvement in the Nestle and Aland text as the RCC changing tactics to get you to trust the scholar or the priest over what the Bible says.

You don't read any scholarly work by KJB believers who are academic. That's my point.
Also, the TR line of manuscripts, or the majority of manuscripts in support of the KJV is not an exact replica of the KJV.
There are bound to be variations. But the majority of NT Greek manuscript witnesses (5,800) manuscripts align with the KJV and not the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This is important to understand because Christians would have made copies of the true Scriptures and they would not have touched corrupt manuscripts like the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.

I believe the Word of God was perfectly preserved with the Waldenses before the 1611 KJV.
However, the Catholics had destroyed many of their Bibles when they massacred many of them.

You don't need to do that. Isaiah 34:16 says to seek ye out the Book of the Lord and read.
It's not, "We don't have a perfect Bible and so we have to reconstruct the text again based on some new discovery."
This is just silly and it is unbelief in the promise of God in Psalms 12:6-7.

Anyway, I don't have the time to address everything else you wrote.
It may be a while before I get back to you if I decide it is worth replying to.

May God bless you.

And since the Lord decided to not tell us in His Word what He wrote... we have no way of knowing.

Yea I agree you have a great opinion in the thread that I didn't understand. Thanks

Umm, btw, where do you think is the complete, pure scripture in 2024? Thanks

The NA27 in p45 in the Introduction says this is true. I tried to checked them from my available PDF format that you previously presented and it was there. God bless.

Yes, it’s only in the 27th edition of the Nestle and Aland Critical Text that it says that it is supervised by the Vatican. It doesn’t say that this was the case for the 28th edition. Carlo Martini who was a Catholic cardinal worked on it. Kurt Aland (Which the text was partly named can be seen in pictures online with the pope during his time if you were to do a Google image search).

Erasmus in fact mocked the Catholic Church in his book "In Praise of Folly" (Moriae Encomium).

The NIV and other translations cast doubt upon the authenticity of this story with a footnote. You can see the footnote here in the NIV.

Yes, this is true, I have checked it also in my NA28 PDF. I think it's more of list of their sources. Thanks

God gave mankind ONLY ONE Bible. And for all intents and purposes, in the English language, that is the King James Bible (1611). How do we know this is true?

1. Since the time of Moses, the Hebrew scribes (Tannaim, Amoraim, and Masoretes) faithfully copied the Tanakh until it was found in the Leningrad Codex. The book of Isaiah in this codex from about 900 AD is found in the Dead Sea Scrolls from about 200 B.C. as a match. The Torah began to be reproduced from about 1500 BC. So when Christ identified "the Scriptures" as (1) the Law of Moses, (2) the Prophets, and (3) the Psalms, He was confident in about 30 AD that He had the Scriptures in His hands.

2. Similarly, the New Testament was faithfully copies by monks over the centuries, and the majority of manuscripts are all in agreement (barring minor variations), So when Erasmus produced the first printed Greek New Testament in 1516, the manuscripts he used (though relatively few) fairly represented the traditional text of the New Testament. Following Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers, continued to "improve" the text of Erasmus, but by and large it remained the same. So the Elzevirs could say with confidence that the Greek text in their hands was the true Greek text without any corruption. Thus they called it the Textus Receptus (Received Text).

3. At the same time the Greek Orthodox Church (from the 1st century onwards) had its own Greek text, and this is practically identical to the Textus Receptus as found in the 1550 edition of Stephanus.

4. The Greek Orthodox Church also included Lectionaries (lesson books) in its worship services, and the text found there matches the Received Text.

5. Quotations from the Early Church Fathers (called Patristic Quotations) also match the Received Text.

6. So when the King James translators had the Greek text of Stephanus as their primary Greek text, they could also be confident that it was the true Greek text of the NT. For the OT they used the printed Greek text edited by Jacob ben Chayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg (1517 -26) called Mikraot Gedolot (Rabbinic Bible). This is regarded as a representation of the Masoretic Text. In other words the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts are the foundation of the KJV , which says on its frontispiece "Newly translated out of the ORIGINAL tongues...".

7. For over 400 years the King James Bible was the leading English translation (used worldwide and upon which all conservative commentators relied). Then along came Westcott & Hort (who hated the Textus Receptus and called it "villianous" and "vile") and corrupted the Bible.

Traditional or faithful Textual Critics believe the footnotes and believe the Vaticanus (VATICAN) and Sinaiticus New Testament Greek manuscripts represent the two oldest and best manuscripts. This is why Westcott and Hort merged these two manuscripts into their own NT 1881 Westcott and Hort Greek text. This laid the foundation for the Nestle and Aland NT Greek text used today (Which is the basis for all Modern English Bibles).

But the Textual Critic Christian believes these footnotes because of the manuscripts they favor. Thus, to the KJB believer, they are removing these texts even though are present (with a footnote) in Modern Bibles.

Praise God that He preserved His Word.

I am glad we can hold the Word of God in our hands and it is not some phantom Bible that exists in our minds that we are trying to maybe get one day with yet another manuscript discovery around the corner.

The Catholic Church did not exist in the 4th Century.

Paul wrote letters that were inspired and Paul wrote in Koine Greek.

The translation of a Koine Greek letter written by Paul. Does not need to be an inspired translation, a translation of one language into another is an academic procedure.

Let's get this straight, the original letter was inspired and the quality of any translation of that letter. Is an academic matter.

The Erasmian editions, and the subsequent 16th century revisions thereof, fed into the Geneva Bible (1560), the King James Version (1611)[4] and Textus Receptus which was the basis for the majority of modern translations of the New Testament in the 16th–19th centuries. (Wiki.Novum_Instrumentum_omne)

Erasmus had been working for years making philological notes on scriptural and patristic texts. In 1512, he began his work on the Latin New Testament. He collected all the Vulgate manuscripts that he could find to create a critical edition. In the earlier phases of the project, he never mentioned a Greek text: "My mind is so excited at the thought of emending Jerome’s text, with notes, that I seem to myself inspired by some god. I have already almost finished emending him by collating a large number of ancient manuscripts, and this I am doing at enormous personal expense."[2]
(wiki.Textus_Receptus)

Typographical errors, attributed to the rush to complete the work, abounded in the published text. Erasmus also lacked a complete copy of the Book of Revelation and translated the last six verses back into Greek from the Latin Vulgate to finish his edition. Erasmus adjusted the text in many places[citation needed] to correspond with readings found in the Vulgate or as quoted in the Church Fathers; consequently, although the Textus Receptus is classified by scholars as a late Byzantine text, it differs in nearly 2,000 readings from the standard form of that text-type, as represented by the "Majority Text" of Hodges and Farstad (Wallace, 1989).
(wiki.Textus Recptus)