The Error of KJV-Onlyism

I believe God is in control of the casting of lots (See: Proverbs 16:33). So any supposed printing errors, or updates, etcetera in the seven major KJB editions are all correct. I see such subtle changes between the seven major KJB editions as advanced revelation. We know in Jeremiah that God can add to His own Word (See: Jeremiah 36:32). Whlle I believe Psalms 12:6 has a primary meaning, I believe it also speaks prophetically of the KJB's seven major editions with the Pure Cambridge Edition KJB (circa 1900) being the final or settled edition (7th purification). Even Jesus was perfected by His obedience (See: Hebrews 5:8-9). No doubt Jesus is already perfect. Jesus is without sin. But He was being perfected none the less. To learn more about the seven major KJB editions or seven purifications according to Psalms 12:6, see my post here in this thread.

You are being overly critical. I quoted many times from the KJB over the years on forums, in person, and elsewhere. I sometimes put the verse reference in there for two reasons. One it keeps the post from being too large. Second, if I am not emphasizing a verse that a person is seeing, I will put the reference and they can check it themselves. Verse references are great because I am encouraging them to just go to Biblehub, etc. or open or their own physical Bible at home and read the chapter in context of the verse I have given.

What is "the faith" being spoken about in Jude 1:4?
Is it talking about how God would forever use only Kione Greek for the New Testament Scriptures?
No. It's referring to the teachings on the faith given to us in the Bible on certain things we are to believe.
The faith would be all the instructions God gives us in the New Testament on what to believe and do.

In fact, Pentecost is proof that God is not preferring Koine Greek as some kind of chosen language forever.
We learn that certain Jewish believers at Pentecost were able to hear each other in their own tongue or language (See: Acts 2).
If Koine Greek was to be the chosen language until Christ returns, then God would have had them all speak Kione Greek, but that did not happen (if indeed it was a part of "the faith" once delivered unto the saints). In fact, Zephaniah talks about how there will be a pure language in the Millennium. Granted, while this will not be English, the point here is that God changes and moves with the times.

Zephaniah 3:9
"For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent."

While there are many reasons for the KJB being the Pure Word of God for today, Biblical Numerics confirms the KJB is divine in origin. But if you don't have a perfect and inerrant Bible, then you or the scholar ultimatley becomes the authority in that 5% of the Bible you believe has errors in it. God can hold all things together in the universe, and yet He was not powerful enough to preserve His words like He said He would? Yeah, I am not buying. Why would I trust the Bible if there were errors in it? How would I know what was true or false? We are to walk by faith and not by sight.

There is one spiritual body of the church who are of the Elect. The different churches mentioned in Revelation are in reference to local outward assemblies of believers. That does not mean all who are in the local body of churches are of the Elect.

Modern Bibles teach false doctrines (See my post starting here in this thread). The thees and ye's also help you to distinguish between singular person vs. two or more people. Also, Jesus spoke in parables, and He did not explain to His disciples before the cross what He meant when He spoke of His resurrection. So archaic and correct beats Modern and incorrect any day of the week.

Not true.

The Westcott and Hort 1881 New Testament Greek text is based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two of the oldest and most respected Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.

The Westcott and Hort 1881 New Testament Greek text is based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two of the oldest and most respected Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. This critical text, also known as the Westcott and Hort text, was produced by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, who were 19th-century theologians and Bible scholars. Their work has been considered impressively accurate, though not perfect, and has contributed to the science of textual criticism. While their specific methods are no longer held as ideal by modern Bible scholars, their text is still regarded as reliable. However, it is not the basis for any major modern translations of the Bible, as contemporary English translations typically source from the United Bible Societies and Nestle-Aland critical texts[1][2][3].

The Westcott and Hort text is based on the principle of "shorter is earlier" and favors the Alexandrian text-type, particularly the "Neutral text" exemplified by the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. Their work has been influential in the history of textual criticism, but it is not without its detractors, particularly among those who support the King James Only movement[2][4].

In summary, the Westcott and Hort 1881 New Testament Greek text is based on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two ancient Greek manuscripts. While their specific methods are no longer considered ideal, their work has made a significant contribution to the science of textual criticism. However, it is not the basis for any major modern translations of the Bible[1][2][3].


By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Westcott-and-Hort-bvXU5xKgRii8Po55PL0WLg

The Nestle-Aland 28th edition of the Greek New Testament relies heavily on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus. These are two of the oldest and most important manuscripts of the Greek Bible, and they are considered significant witnesses to the text of the New Testament. The critical apparatus of the Nestle-Aland 28th edition presents the most important variants in the text, and it includes the readings of Tischendorf, Westcott & Hort, and Merk, among others[1][4]. The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus are both early and nearly complete manuscripts of the Bible, and they are highly regarded by biblical scholars for their role in textual criticism and the study of the New Testament[2][3][5].

The Nestle-Aland 28th edition of the Greek New Testament relies heavily on the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, two of the oldest and most important manuscripts of the Greek Bible[1][2][3]. These manuscripts are considered significant witnesses to the text of the New Testament and are highly regarded by biblical scholars for their role in textual criticism and the study of the New Testament[5].

By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Does-the-Nestle-rkl4.XUIRceWk13NgGqwow

No. It’s true. Most of all your Modern English Bibles today are based on the Nestle and Aland 28th edition (See here). While the “Nestle and Aland” uses other manuscripts, they rely heavily upon the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. This is fitting because the Bible alludes to these two corrupted manuscripts and the Catholic ideas promoted within them. Some scholars believe that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus come from Alexandria, Egypt. You can search Perplexity.ai for the sources. Paul sailed to Rome in an Alexandrian ship, and he sailed out of Rome. Rome is known today as being associated with the Catholic Church (i.e., the Vatican). The Catholic Church or the Vatican is also known as the whore of Babylon in Revelation 17-18. Anyway, it is too much of a coincidence. Two Alexandrian ships with one sailing to Rome and one sailing away from Rome, and these two manuscripts subtly teach Catholic doctrines.

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are also shorter in word count by comparison to the Textus Receptus. It would be the equivalent to a person eliminated 1st, and 2nd Peter in the Bible. That's a lot of words removed. Well, I know, you believe that these words are added. But that doesn't make any sense. The added words are good words. The changes words in the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are also for the worse and not for the better, as well.

Well, you would have to prove how the early church fathers are in error on quoting the 17 omitted verses. Just saying it is wrong doesn't prove anything.

With God, all things are possible. Also, the Bible talks about the purity and preservation of His own words, as well.

My response…

1. Citation?

Hebrew and Greek are individual languages, like French or Spanish. -> A language is NOT a manuscript <- If you read the preface to any modern translation, they cite their source manuscripts (plural).

1. Citation?WHAT is a lie? There aren’t more manuscripts now than previously? Seriously? A single example should suffice: the Dead Sea scrolls, discovered in 1948. And there are many more.

1. They say all Bibles say the same thing. This is a lie. They do not all say the same thing.

All Bibles say the same thing, for all intents and purposes. The wording may be different, but the content is changed (slightly) only when scholarship requires it. Why has the KJV been changed and amended so many times?

1. They say all Bibles teach the same doctrine. This is a lie. Not all Bibles teach the same doctrines.

Excluding such outliers such as the New World Bible and the Book of Mormon, all mainstream Christian Bibles teach the same doctrine.

1. NKJV deception (See this video here by Theo Hikmat).

No response…

1. Westcott and Hort were afraid to reveal their work too soon otherwise they would have been branded with suspicion. This is a deception. On 1861 Apr. 12th – Hort to Westcott: “Also – but this may be cowardice – I have a sort of craving that our text should be cast upon the world before we deal with matters likely to brand us with suspicion. I mean, a text, issued by men already known for what will undoubtedly be treated as dangerous heresy, will have great difficulties in finding its way to regions which it might otherwise hope to reach, and whence it would not be easily banished by subsequent alarms.” (Life, Vol.I, p.445).

Are you a mind reader??? BTW, Hort and Wescott wasn’t even published until 1881!

1. Westcott and Hort came up with the Lucian Recension Theory in that the KJB or TR conflated the text by adding things to it. There is zero evidence for this.

This is irrelevant..Neither the KJV or TR are originals, so words were added to the ancient languages to make them into coherent English.

8. They refer to the NIV (or another translation) as if there is only one edition of the NIV. This is a lie or deception. There are multiple NIV editions over the years. Perhaps this is why the NASB1995 came out, and has been popular among evangelicals. But again, they are not claiming this is the perfect Word of God.

There have been multiple editions of the KJV since 1611. The earliest King James Bible is unreadable by modern readers! There have been five major editions of the King James Bible (and almost 1000 different editions with minor changes): 1611, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. The last is what is called “The King James Bible” today

9. Pastors or spiritual leaders will sometimes lift up the Bible and say of their Modern Translation that it is the Word of God (When they really do not believe that).

How do you know what people believe??? How many KJV leaders and believers (including yourself) claim that the King James Bible is the Word of God? (BTW, it isn’t! It is a translation!)

10. They redefine the original doctrines of inerrancy, etcetera.

Example? How is inerrancy redefined?

Are you claiming that the King James translation is inerrant? If so, why has it been changed so many times? Which of the 5 major KJV revisions is inerrant?

11. They say the word of God is inspired as if to suggest there is such a thing in existence today.

What??? Are you saying that the Bible isn’t inspired by God??? The message of the Bible hasn’t been changed in millenia! For your information, the earliest texts are in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek, so any and every translation (including the KJV) cannot exactly duplicate the source languages. -> The CONTENT of the Bible is inspired! It is THE WORD OF GOD! <-



12. They act like they know Hebrew and Greek by pointing to a Modern Scholarly dictionary.

Seriously??? Are you seriously claiming that the academics and clergy don’t know the source languages? “They do NOT point to a “Modern Scholarly dictionary”; they write those dictionaries!!! Many have devoted their lives and careers to studying the ancient languages!!!

13. Some say the Westcott and Hort text is completely different than the Nestle and Aland. However, here is a quote from Textual Critic Eldon Jay Epp:

“The thing to see is that the text of 100 years ago (i.e., in 1980, the text of 1881, Hort’s compilation) is barely different from the text being published as the 28th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece. To offer up-to-date evidence of this point, I have made a fresh comparison of the 1881 compilation and the current edition of the Nestle-Aland compilation….” ~ Quote by: Eldon Jay Epp.

So what? Eldon Jay Epp makes a statement of opinion and you accept it as infallible! Why is that???

You can find out Eldon Jay Epp’s compilation study or findings here.

14. Some Originals Onlyists will say that KJB believers worship the Bible, which is a false accusation and is a lie.

It is an expression!!! It means that people like yourself believe that the KJV is the only true translation. Of course there are many who disagree!

15. The cover of their Modern Bible (???) that says, Holy Bible is a deception and or lie. They don’t believe it is really holy but a holey Bible, a book full of errors and not divine.

Can you demonstrate that? I sincerely doubt you can prove that outlandish statement! Are you actually saying that modern translators don’t believe that they have produced as accurate a translation as possible?

Do you claim that the KJV is perfect? If so, which revision???

—--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Frankly, I find your treatise to be FILLED with misstatements and errors. You have not offered proofs and would be ridiculed by serious scholars. The entire post seems to be nothing but propaganda!


A professor in graduate school once told me:: try to prove yourself wrong, because others will surely do so.

I will edit the above post as the number and alignment caused problems. You get the idea though...

You are either new to these kinds of discussions or you are simply not desiring to see that such things happen all the time on Christian forums. I lost count of how many times somebody refers to THE Greek, and THE Hebrew as if there is only one.

Whoever said otherwise? When Modern Bible defenders say THE Hebrew, and THE Greek, they are referring to the original language manuscripts that underly Modern Bibles (Which I believe are based primarily on the Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus).

More discoveries do not mean they are always in line with the correct line of Bible manuscripts. Nor does it mean we do not have a perfect Bible already, either. Well, if you simply believe the Bible in its teaching of purity and preservation, there would be no need to go looking for a manuscript in some cave. The lie is that they are acting like there is only one set of Hebrew manuscripts or there is only one set of Greek manuscripts when that is not the case. So there is no such thing as… THE Hebrew, and THE Greek. There are many Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. Now, if they said the true Hebrew, and Greek (i.e., Hebrew and Greek manuscripts) then that would be another matter.

Again, I have already shown that this is not the case.
See here.

It was actually not the entire video that I wished to share. It would be this one actually.


Uh, I was quoting what they said. They are obviously referring to the text that they snuck into their Revised Version. If you look at the half-title page of the Revised Version at Archive.org, you can see that they lied. They call the Revised Version the version set forth in 1611 A.D. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Westcott and Hort began work in 1853 on their NT Greek text.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Wh...Mu5u3fkg#ecea7146-4333-4200-8950-c9bb2081dd29

Perplexity confirms that they were in fear that their NT Greek text may not be accepted because of their unorthodox views.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Wh...Mu5u3fkg#3ce10bcb-beb5-4e1c-9a40-ee755c66210d

And like Westcott and Hort, you say that without any shred of evidence.

You obviously are not aware that one of the major reasons why they did updates to the KJB was because the printing process back then was very messy and impossible to get correct (Especially with larger works). Also, the English language was going through standardization, as well. So that is why certain letters are changed and why folks today would find it a bit of a challenge to read the 1611 version. But there are 1611 KJV Only adherents. So obviously they don't have a problem because they would naturally study those differences and become familiar with them. Nobody starts out being an expert plane mechanic on day one knowing how to instantly grasp everything. Anyways, Modern Bibles have no such excuse. Modern Bibles are not trying to correct any printing errors. They are not trying to fit in with doing a major update of a change in English. Modern Bibles are not trying to get back to what the original handwritten master copy said. They are making changes to cash in on marketing tactics to peddle the Word of God.

I have lived on planet Earth long enough to witness such things.

Inerrancy means that the Bible is without error. What is dumb is that your side will steal this word and act like they have a perfect Bible when they really don't have one. When push comes to shove, they backtrack and say only the originals are perfect, inerrant, and inspired, etcetera.

As for your second question: There are seven major KJB editions and they are all inerrant or without any errors. In Jeremiah 36:32, we see God told Jeremiah to add many like words. That does not mean that the previous manuscript that the king destroyed was somehow incorrect in what it said. God can edit His own Word.

Jesus refers to jots and tittles. Jesus says Heaven and Earth shall pass away but MY WORDS shall not pass away. So obviously words and not just the general teachings or general truth are in view of what Jesus said involving the preservation of His words.

Yeah, they cannot order a pizza in Modern Greek. Why should I trust their study or the ancient form of it? That would be like trusting somebody who does not know Modern English and they act like they are an expert in 1600s English. By the way, a Greek Grammarian who lives in Greece, and whose native tongue is Greek says that there is a grammar error in the text if 1 John 5:7 is removed. You can check out a discussion of that here:

He is not the only one. You can ask Perplexity.ai and get other sources to confirm this.

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Is...PFR3rZww#a76f6ce2-fdce-47a3-97ef-83c5477ad9c3

You are the first one to say that. I have been in many discussions before where they told me this. I have heard it said to others, as well. No backtracking on such statements was ever mentioned.

The fact that they have to keep revising the same Modern Bible translation with more editions proves it. The fact that your side has not been able to produce a text that you can all agree upon is another reason. You yourself said all Bibles have errors in them. So when your Modern Bible says it is Holy, it is simply a false statement on the cover. It should say, "Holey" a book full of holes and errors.

All seven major KJB editions are correct, but one is more precise or closer to what the originals say. I believe this is the Pure Cambridge Edition KJV (circa. 1900).

This is because this is a spiritual topic. Of course, many will see this as Science (i.e., the Science of Textual Criticism). I believe this is a Bible based topic that is spiritual.

Adding to the challenge for Textual Critics, there was a deliberate attempt to mislead by relocating the segment of 1 John 5:8, which reads, “For there are three that testify:” It's shifted to fill the gap in 1 John 5:7, creating the illusion that there's no crucial missing verse. This should immediately raise alarm bells. However, within the Textual Critic community, many might dismiss it with a casual "No cause for concern here, move along," which is worrying. If it were a trivial detail in the Bible that didn't impact doctrine, it might not be as critical, but this directly relates to a fundamental aspect of understanding God's nature.

Quote the Bible and not men.

My new PC is causing problems so it will be difficult to post the formatted reply that I want to post. Rather then doing that, I will express my thoughts aboutn those who exalt the King James translation and give all kinds of fallacious reasoning, much of it false, to justify their bias.

The King James translation is centuries old. For many years it was considered to be THE Bible, even though it is just one of many translations. Centuries ago, King James ordered that there be one translation (for the church of England) and it (alone) would be the accepted Scriptures, and people still blindly believe that edict. To them, the KJV is the Bible and, despite centuries of research and scholarship by qualified people from many denominations, they still believe that. I find that to be tragic! It reminds me of the Pharisees, who (wrongly) insisted that the Scriptures they had to be the truth of God AND IGNORED JESUS WHEN HE SAID "I AM THE TRUTH".

I have read many bizarre arguments in defense of the King James translation, many of which are so absurd and biased as to be not taken seriously. I have struggled to find the reason for this closed-minded attitude but have never come to a satisfactory explanation.

The best answer that I have come up with is that, since King James declared his personally-ordered, biased translation to be => THE BIBLE <= some people still cling to that edict. Even though there is a mountain of evidence developed by scholars to demonstrate that the KJV is flawed, they refuse to accept it! Even the KJV has been modified many times and the original translators didn't consider their work to be infallible, some people still claim that it is! They will give all kinds of reasons for their opinion, but none of them hold up under close examination.

It is absolutely astounding to me that people will discard centuries of scholarship by people of many denominations who are considered to be the best in their fields, utilizing the best sources, including ancient texts that have been recently discovered, and who have given us highly-researched, supremely accurate Bibles in favor of a version declared to be THE ONE TRUE BIBLE centuries ago by a megalomaniac.

There is absolutely no doubt that we have the best Bibles ever developed available to us today. I am in awe of the many scholars (and others) from many denominations who have worked for so long to make these superb translations available to us. There are minor differences between the versions, because there are variations among the ancient sources and there is no direct translation from the ancient languages to English, but most good modern Bibles include footnotes and other references to explain possible differences. (the full version of the excellent NET Bible has more than 60,000 footnotes!)

I strongly believe that people should choose a translation through which God can communicate to them most clearly and not pay attention to those who claim that there is only ONE valid English Bible. That simply is not the case!!!

I recommend, if you are looking for a translation that communicates most clearly to you, you visit BibleGateway.com and read what the different Bibles "speak" to you. Put aside biases and what others tell you and do the research yourself. => God wants to communicate to you clearly via His written Word <=

May God bless you richly as you open you heart and mind to Him!!!

I have not read this post, nor will I. You have made far too many statements that I consider to be biased and wrong. I have read those arguments before; they are nothing new. What I detect is a bias that cannot be reasoned with. Your "facts" are, in many cases, erroneous, and you clearly make your forgone conclusion determine what "facts" are relevant. If you enjoy reading the King James version, go for it. As long as it produces the intolerance of other versions (and other Christians) that you demonstrate, I won't come near it.

Is that why you post links to "explanatory" (biased) videos???

"Most of all your Modern English Bibles today are based on the Nestle and Aland 28th edition" is nonsense.

Not true.

LOL! Not true!!!