The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Some articles I posted in this thread talk about how students fall away from the faith when they attend Bible college. They are not KJV-only articles, either. So yes. It happens. No surprise because they learn of Textual Criticism that makes them doubt God's Word and not trust it. When I first confronted Textual Criticism early on in my faith back in 1992, and its attacks on the Bible, it made me doubt for a fraction of a second that God's Word could not be trusted. Years later, the supposed error this Textual Critic pointed out was resolved by looking at other verses in Scripture. So don't be deceived by the Science of Textual Criticism. Bart Ehrman and Rick Beckman both fell away from the faith due to the false science of textual criticism.
Naturally, if you learn about a "teaching" that makes you question the words of God (like the serpent did with Eve in the garden), apostasy is a logical next step for many. If you cannot trust God's words in some places then why trust them in other parts?
It would mean God's word is not trustworthy if it has errors in it. We walk by faith in what His Word says.
How do you truly know what His Word says if you have a Bible that is corrupted?
It could be entirely corrupt for all you know. But if you believe the promises of Psalms 12:6-7, this is not a problem.
You simply then walk by faith and trust God's Word no matter what.
It would mean God's word is not trustworthy if it has errors in it. We walk by faith in what His Word says.
How do you truly know what His Word says if you have a Bible that is corrupted?
It could be entirely corrupt for all you know. But if you believe the promises of Psalms 12:6-7, this is not a problem.
You simply then walk by faith and trust God's Word no matter what.
Why do you believe in the resurrection?
Is it because you learned that there are tons of great manuscript evidence for it?
Is it because you learned of scientific evidence of the resurrection?
Generally, we just believe the gospel by faith in what God’s Word says.
So it is with the Bible’s own teachings on the doctrines of purity and preservation.
One either accepts these verses like they would the verses that talk about resurrection.
However, I believe many do not like the idea of a perfect Bible they have to be in authority under because it does not sit well with them. They like the idea of treating the 5% parts of God’s Word as if it was silly putty. They get to sit in the seat of God and determine what God said and did not say. The scholar of course will get a rush from others falling his so-called expertise. You can bend the knee and kiss his ring to his great knowledge. But Christians are to learn by the Anointing of the Spirit instead (1 John 2:27). We just simply believe the Bible and we are not looking to complicate our faith in His Word.
Is it because you learned that there are tons of great manuscript evidence for it?
Is it because you learned of scientific evidence of the resurrection?
Generally, we just believe the gospel by faith in what God’s Word says.
So it is with the Bible’s own teachings on the doctrines of purity and preservation.
One either accepts these verses like they would the verses that talk about resurrection.
However, I believe many do not like the idea of a perfect Bible they have to be in authority under because it does not sit well with them. They like the idea of treating the 5% parts of God’s Word as if it was silly putty. They get to sit in the seat of God and determine what God said and did not say. The scholar of course will get a rush from others falling his so-called expertise. You can bend the knee and kiss his ring to his great knowledge. But Christians are to learn by the Anointing of the Spirit instead (1 John 2:27). We just simply believe the Bible and we are not looking to complicate our faith in His Word.
lol,hmm this will bring a little friction but never the less... If you notice there has always been debate between Paul and the law of Moses even in the 1st century(Acts 15 ,24 ect.)... There were other groups that believed in Christ but with different ideas of his person/deity. For instance the Ebionites who also wrote or interpreted their own writings(Gospels) believed Jesus was the Messiah but they did not believe he was born of virgin birth(to them they saw Joseph as Jesus father). There was also the "Nazarene sect" with different views from the 12 Apostles,Paul ect.... In Luke he begins with saying that there were "many" who had "drew up a narration" but then in verse 3-4 is saying that he was writing to so that he/they would know with "certainty"(they were seeing Gospels that ere different from the Apostles) https://biblehub.com/interlinear/luke/1.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ebionites
So look real close at Jerome, Pamphilus ect. along with the Q,,M source ect. because if you do you will notice that in Jerome's commentaries he says that there was a Gospel wrote by the apostle and it was interpreted but they didn't no who interpreted it. He(Jerome that translated the LV) says his own self that the Gospel he obtained was "Gospel of the Hebrews" that the Nazarene sect. was using in Caesarea(they called it the Gospel of Matthew). Anyway it's a touchy subject because even when Jerome interpreted it he didn't know if there were two different men who wrote a Gospel( the Apostle Matthew and an Ebionite also named Matthew) or if the to had become combined during interpretations by ad400(meaning the original by the Apostle was lost because of it)... Look at this your own self because everyone is going to see it different they have since ad400 when Jerome translated it and it was put in the LV...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Gospel_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazarene_(sect)
What you can do is obtain two books by Harold Lindsell; (1) The Battle for the Bible and (2) The Bible in the Balance (and I own both).
Both books expose -- in meticulous detail -- how many evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries departed from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy -- that there are no errors of any kind in the Bible. That because it is the Word of God, there can be no errors in it.
The divine inspiration of Scripture demands belief in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. But many "scholars" have rejected this doctrine. This is a result of Higher and Lower Criticism being taught in seminaries. As a result many seminary graduates do not have a firm belief in biblical inerrancy, nor the divine preservation of Scripture.
Shockingly, most of the fundamentalist seminaries accepted the bogus theory of Westcott & Hort, and ignored everything that exposed their lies. Thus they rejected the King James Bible, and now almost all evangelical and even fundamentalist churches use modern bible versions. All of which are corrupt.
Both books expose -- in meticulous detail -- how many evangelical Bible colleges and seminaries departed from the doctrine of biblical inerrancy -- that there are no errors of any kind in the Bible. That because it is the Word of God, there can be no errors in it.
The divine inspiration of Scripture demands belief in biblical inerrancy and infallibility. But many "scholars" have rejected this doctrine. This is a result of Higher and Lower Criticism being taught in seminaries. As a result many seminary graduates do not have a firm belief in biblical inerrancy, nor the divine preservation of Scripture.
Shockingly, most of the fundamentalist seminaries accepted the bogus theory of Westcott & Hort, and ignored everything that exposed their lies. Thus they rejected the King James Bible, and now almost all evangelical and even fundamentalist churches use modern bible versions. All of which are corrupt.
-
2
- Show all
No issues here. The more one digs, the more rabbit trails come into view. Biblical history is not nearly as clean-cut as we would like. I am confident that what we have is darn close. I do enjoy studying and have a friend with a huge library that spent several years in seminary to learn Greek and Hebrew. Just got off the phone with him after discussing early translations. I do a lot of research in my job, and I study a good deal, but I am by no means an expert at anything, except maybe fishing.
-
2
-
1
-
1
- Show all
To all:
Understand that two different kinds of faiths can be seen today. One can either follow the Modern Translations or follow the Bible that Christians had for hundreds of years. I was just looking at an article on how the Word is good. The author proceeded to mention verses in Psalms 119. However, the problem was that he was referring to words that my Bible does not say. We have two different faiths. They are similar, but not exactly the same because the words are not precisely the same. So one must choose which side you want to be on. Do you go with heretics to translate your Bible like Westcott and Hort? Or do you go with a Bible that was translated by 47 well-learned men who worked in six different committees and who really knew the languages and were almost destroyed by the Catholic Church? Do you follow the Modern Bibles that have corrupt doctrines? Or do you follow the established Bible that is pure in doctrine? Ultimately common sense tells us to follow that which is good.
I hope this helps the person who has ears to hear on this very important matter.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.
Understand that two different kinds of faiths can be seen today. One can either follow the Modern Translations or follow the Bible that Christians had for hundreds of years. I was just looking at an article on how the Word is good. The author proceeded to mention verses in Psalms 119. However, the problem was that he was referring to words that my Bible does not say. We have two different faiths. They are similar, but not exactly the same because the words are not precisely the same. So one must choose which side you want to be on. Do you go with heretics to translate your Bible like Westcott and Hort? Or do you go with a Bible that was translated by 47 well-learned men who worked in six different committees and who really knew the languages and were almost destroyed by the Catholic Church? Do you follow the Modern Bibles that have corrupt doctrines? Or do you follow the established Bible that is pure in doctrine? Ultimately common sense tells us to follow that which is good.
I hope this helps the person who has ears to hear on this very important matter.
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.
-
1
- Show all
