The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Your argument would be up against Historians and not me. These Historians are not even KJV Only.

You are free to believe as you wish.
Of course you know, I don’t agree.
Anyway, may God’s grace and love shine upon you today.

But this would be based on inferences of looking at various verses as a whole and not by any one verse that describes the Trinity like 1 John 5:7, though.

Right, so when is somebody here really going to address 25 changes in Modern Bibles I posted?
When is somebody going to truly address the statement made in the Nestle and Aland 27th edition that says it was supervised by the Vatican?
When is somebody here going to address the 14 changes in the NIV that proves that the Vatican did make changes? Just Google, Keith Piper NIV, and go to page 21-22. You will see 14 changes that favor the Catholic Church in the NIV (Which is based on the Nestle and Aland).
When is somebody here going to truly address the 10 Major Categories that defend the KJB that I posted?
When is somebody here going to explain why they keep ignoring great points for 1 John 5:7?
Did they look at the videos I posted on 1 John 5:7?
And when folks think they have an answer for these, I got even more reasons that them.
I have 101 Reasons for the King James Bible being the Pure Word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 (KJV 1900)
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Right, the Word of God is incorruptible (1 Peter 1:23). Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).
1 Peter 1:23 talks about the Communicated Word of God because this is how the gospel is preached to them (verse 25), and we are told to desire this sincere milk of the Word so that we may grow thereby (1 Peter 2:2).

Thanks. Even with the KJV one can throat punch the true meaning of verses.

And? 1 John 5:7 was superfluous.

Lets just have a thought experiment here, that the KJV didnt mean what it says and Hosea married Gomer who was just an idol worshipper not a whore or harlot. Like Ahab marrying Jezebel or Samson and Delilah. God didnt tell Ahab to marry Jezebel or Samson to marry Delilah and yet they did anyway. They were just silly men right and God wouldnt have expected them to do such a thing.

But God told his prophet Hosea to marry Gomer, who cheated on him three times. And he named her children to make it obvious that she did. Why didnt Hosea just pretend they were his children?

After all, Gomer just couldnt have been a practising prostitute could she, God would be incapable telling Hosea to do such a terrible thing, it would be like how God told Abraham to sacrifice his own son right? What kind of God would do that and present his people with an impossibilty and do something that to us violates his goodness and morality. ?! These were meant to be 'godly men' right.

why not ponder on that further...and ask God to show you why He would do that. He will probably just tell you to finish reading the chapter and not skip around the Bible and take verses out of context.

Nobodys arguing that the KJB isnt the word of God. Its a good translation of the word of God and is scripture so far as it goes. And it does more scripture than the abridged versions may have that came from other manuscripts.

Just all the other bits, like the headings, the preface, and any commentaries wouldnt be.

so, you dont have to belabour the point @Bible_Highlighter

Other people are just having the view that the word of God is Jesus himself and not only contained in the KJV, and that other translations can be just as good, or more readable, or more understandable.

I think the history of how the KJB came to be translated is worth checking out, but also, how other versions differ and why they differ, and also what some of the agendas of the other versions or translations may have. What would concern me would be missing scriptures and verses, rather than just issues with words meanings like harlot and prostitute. Because english language can have so many diverse meanings right.

Its more your interpretation may needs fine tuning, and even readers readng the same Bible and exact same version may differ on how they interpret that scriputre, especially if you just isolate verses from the narrative or context of the whole. Or read things out of order. But iron sharpens iron, thats why we are here on BDF. If we couldnt ever discuss these things we may not go as deep as we can go into scripture right?

For some people they always have this putting cart before horse kind of thinking, and jump to conclusions about God. But in reality you cant do that. God will reveal things when you ready and keep things mysterious so you need to seek them out so you can get closer to Him.

You complain I send you on wild goose chase, well some Bible scholars on here just love referencing chapter and verse until their keyboards run out of numbers. I help teach children and they need to get the message of Gods love from the stories in the Bible even if they cant remember chapter or verse and quote it word for word. They will get eventually no doubt as Gods word doesnt return back empty, but ramming the Bible down peoples throats in a topsy turvy order isnt a good way to digest it.

The other thing is the OT law was given as a schoolmaster to bring people to Christ. Which people, his chosen people. Did this include gentiles, well at the time, God wasnt concentrating all His attention on them. He wanted a holy people to uphold his holy name, so he made a covenant with the ones coming out of Egypt and it took many years of speaking through prophets for them to get it right! And they failed time and again. However He renewed this covenant with Jesus sacrifice on the cross to whosoever believes. So you didnt actually need to be born a Jew or be in dwelling in Israel or be circumcised and do all the 613 other commandements to please Him. This angered the pharisees of course who thought they would automatically enter the Kingdom cos they were holier than thou and knew all the scriptures.

And this is how some christians still act today without even realising it.

Well, the word of God does not contain errors. The word of God is pure and holy, every word. Wouldn't you agree? Would God speak a lie? Would God speak with errors or untruths? If one does not believe that the KJV or any other version is the pure, holy, preserved words of God for that language, then one should not refer to it as the word of God or scripture.

what would they call it then if it contained errors?
The UnHoly Bible?
Someones paraphrase? A children's Bible. The readers digest version?

I think people more have an issue with understanding the meaning of scripture rather than the language its in. The eunuch was reading Isaiah and needed Phillip to explain scripture to him. They were probabaly both reading the Greek version as that was what was available at the time.

I dont think they were reading it to point out errors.
A proofreader does this, which happens with ALL manuscripts for publication. In fact many proofreaders do this, looking for typos, spelling mistakes, missing punctuation etc. If there are any errors and this is picked up before publication it can be corrected in the galleys.

I think you need to trust whatever version you read, has the full scripture, and hasnt been chopped and changed. If someone is just being nitpicky about words doesnt understand scripture, then thats a different thing. This is what dictionaries are for tricky words or what usually happens you read further on and the meaning is explained.

Sometimes its necessary to go line by line and every jot and tittle. I think people do get caught up in tiny minute details because thats the type of person they are and they just see mistakes in every thing. The whole drama about Easter being used instead of the word Passover is one thing, and thats just a translation thing, but the other where whole verses are missed out or words seemingly deleted, or entire books being added (Judith, Maccabees, Tobit) that dont seem to be inspired is something else.

The seventy too and seventy two difference between ESV and KJV was also kinda interesting obviously seems like some translators were transcribing things orally or missed it.

Otherwise people just seem to have issues with everything so maybe they ought to have a go translating it themselves from whatever source manuscripts they can find (dead sea scrolls? ) and see how far they get

Maybe while they are at it they can find the original stone tablets Moses took down from Mt Sinai and kept in the ark of the covenant.

A false bible? A false rendering of the word of God? Whatever the case, I would not call it the word of God. To me, that's an insult to the Lord.

Just about everything is an insult to God.

Wasn‘t there a case of someone preaching about Jesus in the Bible and one of the Apostles reporting back to Jesus that he had problems with that?

49And John answered and said, Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us. 50And Jesus said unto him, Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.

As many of us have stated before, the people who use other versions are not against God, nor are they evil or wicked. I know some KJV believer's who go about things completely wrong. Ever heard of Westboro Church?

I'll address this one:


Yawn.

This point goes hand in hand with the other one in that we can see proof of changes by looking at the 14 changes in the NIV (Which is based on the Nestle and Aland supervised by the Vatican).

See pages 21-22 of this PDF here for the changes:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

Note: There was no supervision of the Vatican and or direct work by them with Erasmus’ TR editions.
The Catholics wanted to eventually later destroy his works. There is also no proof of any changed doctrines in Erasmus’ work showing favoritism towards Catholicism, either (Unlike with the Nestle and Aland).

I and other KJB believers disagree with Peter Ruckman because of his fowl mouth and other bad fruits in his life.
Gail Riplinger took offense to David Clouds’ friendly corrections on her book and she started to falsely slander him. David Cloud is also a KJB advocate or believer. Gail Riplinger’s major book (New Age Bible Versions) has some misquotes to fit what she wants to be true sometimes. But not all KJB believers are like Ruckman, Riplinger, or the Westboro Baptist Church.

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/newagebibleversions.html
https://www.wayoflife.org/database/gail_riplingers_slanders.html

You are under the false impression that all translations basically say the same thing when nothing could be further from the truth. As I have done before with others, I will redirect you to a list of changed doctrines found in Modern Translations.

If you go back to my post here, you will see 25 changes in Modern Bibles by way of comparison to the King James Bible.
These changes are for the worse and not for the better. These are glaring problems that change doctrine and is big thing to swallow (i.e., which would be like swallowing a camel). We are not talking about what may look like a minor supposed errors in the KJV (straining at gnats), or a word being archaic in the King James Bible. There are serious problems in the Modern Bibles and thus it disqualifies them as being the true Word of God. God does not make mistakes. His promise in preserving His words perfectly is true (Psalms 12:6-7).