The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Again, the heart of Textual Criticism is questioning or criticizing the text.
It is why there are footnotes in Modern Bibles getting you to question certain words in your Bible.
Yet, back in the garden, the serpent questioned God's Word with Eve.
The serpent said, "Yea, hath God said....?" (Genesis 3:1).

Textual Critic Christians really do not have an answer for this that is Scriptural.
They just blow this one off and or dismiss it.

Modern Bibles have corruption within them. They teach false doctrines. You can check out 25 of them starting in my previous post here. So they disqualify themselves as being entirely “inspired Scripture.” Paul said in his time that the Scriptures were being corrupted.

2 Corinthians 2:17
"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."

Modern Bibles are filled with many false doctrines. Here is…

A List of Doctrinal Changes in Modern Translations:


#1. Direct References of the Trinity are Removed.

1 John 5:7 is the one and only verse that clearly describes the Trinity and it is removed in Modern Bibles. Also, the word “Godhead” (Meaning Trinity) appears three times in the King James Bible and yet it is changed to say something else in Modern Translations. So all direct references of the Trinity are removed in Contemporary Translations. If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truths on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.

#2. Doctrine of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Removed and Altered.

The command on the details of the true way to test a "spirit of Antichrist" is changed in Modern Bibles (See: 1 John 4:2-3). For example: First, the word “acknowledge” (NIV) is used instead of “confess.” (KJB). We must “confess” that Jesus Christ has come into the flesh, and not just “acknowledge” by nodding our head or saying, “Amen,” etcetera. In addition, 1 John 4:3 eliminates the full version that the “King James Bible” has. So clearly, this is a watering down of testing the spirits to see one of the ways a spirit is from God or not. Note: We also see the words “according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;” removed in Modern translations in Acts 2:30. So, Modern Bibles are failing the very test that Scripture gives us.

#3. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed.

Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the Modern Translations and they have a "hate on” for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.

#4. The Command To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Removed and Altered.

2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

#5. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed.

Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a watered down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.

#6. The Doctrine of Having Faith in His Blood in Romans 3:25 is Removed and Altered.

Modern Translations are not clear that we are to directly have faith in Christ's blood according to Romans 3:25. In the past, I have argued with other professing believers on another Christian forum who reject the blood atonement and or they reject that Christ's blood literally cleansed us from sin. If they had a real sword (KJV) instead of a butter knife (Modern Translation), they would have a better chance at discovering the truth on the Blood Atonement. For Romans 3:25 is not altered unlike certain Modern Translations.

#7. In Genesis 3:16, the ESV (Which is one of the most popular Modern Translations) doctrinally changes the nature of the truth in the KJV by saying that Eve's (the wife's) desire is contrary to her husband.

[Continued in my next post to you]:

You have rather thorough misunderstanding of the motive and purpose of textual criticism.

Firstly, no matter how much you want to deny it, Erasmus asked exactly the same question: "Did God really say...?"

What you don't seem to grasp is the vast difference in motivation behind the question. When the serpent asked Eve that question, his purpose was to get her to doubt the validity of God's word. When Erasmus or any other textual critic asks the question, they are wanting to ensure the validity of the written word, asking, "Is that what God really said, or has the message been modified somehow since it was written?"

Erasmus asked the question, but you're okay with that. A modern textual critic asks the same question, and he's a son of the devil in your eyes. Your position is utterly hypocritical.

Although I don't accept your accusatory appellation, I have given you an answer. Scripture doesn't address the matter, so there is no "scriptural" answer available to give.

There are two fatal problems with your list:

You are attempting to make sweeping, general statements about doctrines (plural) in modern translations (plural) and thereby implying therefore that (all) modern translations teach aberrant doctrines. You've bitten off far more than you can chew.

No doctrine is formed on the basis of a single verse. If you can't construct a doctrine without one particular verse, it's probably not a "doctrine" worth your concern.

Until you learn how to remove both the sensationalism and generalization from your posts, they are best ignored.

The KJ has many errors and is no more or less inspired than Aesop's fables. Is it a good translation? Yes it is but so are other modern translations whether you think so or not. The One who makes the word alive to us is not you. That One, is the Holy Spirit.

You are just backpaddling and as usual, creating false accusatory posts about every Bible except for your personal choice. You are in the sight of God as are all of us. You are not the exception you appear to fancy yourself to be. You are just one more voice demanding attention in this world of gathering darkness and you are adding to it.

You cry 'havoc' over words that basically mean the same thing and claim only the KJ is correct and is an inspired TRANSLATION. Sane people know that no English translation from the originals is inspired. You give zero credit to the Holy Spirit to lead people and zero credit to God for being able to sustain and establish His word with no help from any human being.

You are in way over head and getting boring and a little desperate at this point.

Please provide an unbiased source quote of Erasmus saying these words concerning Scripture.

Now, keep in mind, it is not wrong to examine texts and determine which ones are the true words of God vs. the counterfeit imitations.

Superiority of Doctrine, and looking at each of the lines of texts and their origins should be big clues. Then there is what does the Bible say on this topic? I see the Bible defending the KJB believer viewpoint and not the Textual Critic viewpoint.

But again, you are sidestepping or dismissing the biblical lesson in the Garden with the serpent (Which simply proves my point from before).

Textual Criticism redefines the terms of the doctrines of inspiration, purity of His words, preservation, inerrancy, etcetera.

Of course, your side claims

Psalms 12:6-7 is not believed because of either a personal preference or because they are starstruck by the impressive words of Modern scholars.

Scripture speaks repeatedly about those who doubt God's words. Seeing God's Word teaches the doctrines of purity and preservation in several places, it then becomes an issue of faith. But others will employ "Textual Criticism" and employ a tactic of the serpent. Did God really say that? Did God really say this? The process is endless in where there is no settled text ever. Nestle and Aland? They will come out with another one, and then another and another and another and another and another and another. Modern English Bibles? There is no one settled version that Textual Critics agree upon. It is confusion. Just like when the serpent tried to confuse Eve by questioning God's established words.

Matthew 7:18 "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit."

First, these Bibles would not exist if it were not for the Westcott and Hort movement.
Second, the Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus line of texts that underly these Modern Bibles is also the cause of these false doctrines in certain instances. So it's not just always the English translation that is to blame. Even respected English translations have their false doctrines, as well. So it forces a person to learn the original languages that are dead?
Third, there is the false Scientific approach to man's wisdom involving the piecing together of God's words.
Fourth, many on the Textual Critic side (including scholars) have said there is no change in doctrines and yet we can see that is a lie.

I have multiple verses defending my viewpoint.

Scholars generally do not like to talk Scripture as a means of helping to discuss this issue.

They are all about it being "Science" and very rarely will they bring up verses (Although some have over the years). The point is that our position is more heavily laden with Scripture and yours is not.

We do not see Textual Criticism or anything like it clearly being shown by Jesus and His followers. But we do see it with the serpent questioning God's words. That should tell you something.

Perhaps, but in no case have you actually demonstrated that a particular doctrine cannot be constructed from a given translation. Until you do that, you're only bleating.

The faith of Jesus Christ which is the righteousness of God. All modern versions have God's righteousness as man's faith. That's a huge doctrinal divide.

The faith of Jesus Christ which is the righteousness of God. All modern versions have God's righteousness as man's faith. That's a huge doctrinal divide.

Another one in Romans 10.:9, when confessing the Lord Jesus, you are confessing his testimony. On the other hand, confessing with your mouth that Jesus is Lord will get you nowhere. One day, every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. That does not bring about salvation.

KJV
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

ESV
9 because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

A "huge doctrinal divide"? No, a very minor difference in wording that is completely inconsequential in reality.

Baseless fearmongering. The two versions say the same thing, and it's not what you think they say.

Did you even look at the list I provided?