The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Hello
We can thank God that we don't have to rely on our own opinion to figure it out.
2 Tim 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...
That means that any confusion or disagreement can be resolved in time using God's word, as long as we make sure of correct transliteration.

Shalom

Hello, by what do you mean transliteration? Thanks

I have periodically read reasons for claiming that the King James translation is the only valid English Bible. Most of these claims are distortions of the truth, so I will be writing several posts about why these are simply wrong.

The first absurdity is that there is a "Modern Bible Movement". There have been English Bibles published since the late sixteenth century, each one being different than its predecessor. There are several reasons for this.

1) There is never a direct, word-for-word translation from one language to another. This is especially true when the source language is vastly different than the destination language. Grammar, syntax, verb tenses, idioms, etc. are different between languages, so a direct, one-to-one, literal translation is impossible.

2) Skilled translators must take into account how the languages are understood by the target audience. In the case of the Bible, the audience that heard the early texts -- literacy was very rare -- interpreted the message through their life experiences. People that lived in a primitive agricultural society thousand of years ago had a totally different life than we do today. They understood what was read through an entirely different cultural lens. Matters such as family life, production of food, clothing, transportation, social customs, etc. were extremely different than what we have today.

3) The primary skill of the translator is to convey to the target audience the meaning of what was written. The goal is for the reader to understand the text in the same way that it was understood by the people who originally heard it -- the intended audience. Because societies are constantly changing, it is a serious error to think that a translation developed for a society that existed centuries ago is a valid translation for us today. We do not live under a monarchy. We live in an industrial society. We have a communication system that wasn't even in people's imagination centuries ago. We have a system of government that was unknown four hundred years ago. We have a society that has a totally different social structure than existed four centuries ago.

4) There is, of course, more to discuss on this subject. The point here is that there is NEED for modern Bibles if we are to truly understand God's written word! There is no movement; there is no conspiracy, there is no intent to denigrate earlier translations. Modern translators are motivated by one goal: to bring God's message to us as clearly and accurately as possible. It cannot be meaningfully communicated and understood as God intended, in a dead language! His word must be clearly understood by our modern minds.

That is the goal of modern translations. There is no "movement", there is no conspiracy, there is no weakening of God's message. We are blessed to have a collection of modern translations, created by the best clergy and scholars, for us to fully understand God's message to us.

Kinney is simply wrong on this point. Since the translators didn't use the KJV as their primary source, they didn't "omit" or "substitute" anything from the KJV. I'm surprised that you repeat this tripe.

Anyone who has studied both sides of this issue fully and without any bias will come to the conclusion that the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for today. You are biased toward the Modern Bible Movement and ignore certain information that I have put forth to you. I provided links to various posts for you to see and read, and you simply did not address them.

First, I already addressed your misunderstanding on the word “Movement” in a previous post here.
Second, King James Bible believers who have studied this issue in-depth at great lengths know about David Cloud’s 509 page PDF titled, “For Love of the Bible” that talks about how there were Pre-Westcott and Hort texts in the early 1800s that KJB believers had to fight against at that time (See page 48 of the PD. Over the years, Textual Critics have falsely claimed that Benjamin Wilkerson who wrote the book, “Our Authorized Bible, Vindicated” was the originator of the KJV Only belief. But this is not true if one were to look at the facts in David Cloud’s article. In fact, the belief that the KJV is the perfect Word of God first was exhibited earlier than that. See the video below.


But God who knows all things and is all powerful can do the impossible. God can know how to perfectly convey what He desires from the originals into a translation done in another language. In other words:

“…With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.” (Matthew 19:26).

Beware of the Scribes (Luke 20:46), or Your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men (1 Corinthians 2:5). Psalms 118:8 says, “It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.” It is important for us believers to be on the pathway to… “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;” (2 Corinthians 10:5). I believe the scribe today is the scholar who changes God’s Words. It is no accident that Paul warned against those in the last times who were “…heady, highminded” (2 Timothy 3:4).

There is no real reverence of the words of God in the Modern Bible Movement. They add, delete, and change God’s words as they please despite their ignoring the warning in Revelation 22:18-19.

The fact that King James Bible was authorized by a Christian king is one of the many reasons why one would want to consider the King James Bible as the Word of God for today. The Scriptures say, “Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?” (Ecclesiastes 8:4). Meaning: Nobody would say unto their king, “What are you doing?” However, many Christians today fail to see they have “the king’s word” (2 Samuel 24:4).

As for readability: Jesus spoke in parables and His disciples did not even know of Christ’s resurrection when He spoke of it in their presence. Also, the King James Bible causes us to slow down to meditate on it and seek God’s help with it. Psalms 119:148 says, “My eyes anticipate the night watches, That I may meditate on Your word.” Psalms 119:169 Says, “O LORD: give me understanding according to thy word.” So while the KJB critics may say that the King James Bible is too hard and archaic to understand, they need to realize that God desires us to meditate on His Word and that we are to ask for help in understanding it. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God’s Word should be as easy to understand as if one was reading a children’s book. We should engage with the Word thoughtfully and prayerfully, allowing its wisdom and guidance to permeate our lives (See also Joshua 1:8, and Psalms 25:5).

“Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein.” (Jeremiah 6:16).

The old paths would be the simple way of just believing the Bible as the inerrant, and infallible words of God. This was what Christians believed in regard to the King James Bible for hundreds of years until the current Modern Bible Movement was started by Westcott and Hort.

I would actually agree that we need to have Modern Translations in our study of God’s Word. They can definitely help in our fleshing out what the King James Bible says in its archaic or difficult wording at times. But that does not mean we place our trust in Modern Bibles over the KJV because we know that the Modern Bibles teach false doctrines and the King James Bible has exhibited that is indeed of divine origin and the hand of God was upon it.

Not everyone who is involved in the Modern Bible Movement is in on the conspiracy obviously. Some are just unaware of what is going on. Westcott and Hort are the fathers of the current Modern Bible Movement and they were clearly said things that attempted to hide the truth (Which is a part of a conspiracy).

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).

Just look again at the Revised Version 1881 at Archive.org. Look at the half-title page. They falsely claim in that translation that it is the version set forth in 1611 AD when we clearly know today that is a lie. Modern Textual Critics will not say that the underlying Greek texts of Westcott and Hort, or the Nestle and Aland are the same as the Textus Receptus (Which is a part of the KJB).

I also need to point again that your side has moved the words in 1 John 5:8 to deliberately hide the missing verse in 1 John 5:7. This again is a deception.

Looking at all the changed doctrines for the worse and not for the better shows there was a corruption.
There are also Catholic ideas that slowly progressed in Modern Bibles over time, as well. This is what my write-up will show for those who have ears to hear and eyes to see.

May the Lord bless you and your family, and I hope one day you will discover the truth on this matter.

You are being overly literal here. Will Kinney is not saying that there are no underlying texts that are different between the KJV vs. the Modern Bibles. Will Kinney is aware that the KJV NT Greek is the Textus Receptus, and the Modern Bibles involving the NT Greek is primarily the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. But there are times that Modern Scholars will make changes that are not found in these two documents and or any other one and they make a choice on their own involving their translation. The point here is that the scholars do not have a perfect Bible and never will have one. Since 1881, you would think you would think these excellent scholars would have finally gotten it right and come out with a perfect Bible by now. But they will never do so because there is money to make and positions to uphold. It’s all about being liberal with what God said and pedding the Word of God. Nobody today wants to be under a final Word of authority. Folks like to have some wiggle room as to what God precisely said. It’s because we are living in the last day where people kick the Bible as if it was a football. There is no more reverence for the real Word of God like their used to be.

Your 're mixing up motivations, and you have them all wrong.

Your opinions are irrelevant.

Actually, in my view, it is irrelevant to disagree and offer no evidence, or good reasons, or proof to back up why you disagree as to what I said. We are not talking about flavors of ice cream here. Then again, I should expect this because I don’t believe your belief in the Modern Bible Movement has any kind of real foundation unlike the Bible.

You assume far too much under the delusion that such is truth.

I decided that I would read your post, but quickly stopped, since it is both error-filled and pompous.

For example, right away you say, "Anyone who has studied both sides of this issue fully and without any bias will come to the conclusion that the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God for today. You are biased toward the Modern Bible Movement and ignore certain information that I have put forth to you. I provided links to various posts for you to see and read, and you simply did not address them."

You think the King James Bible is the perfect and inerrant Word of God. It isn't!!! It is a man-made translation based on inferior sources and created solely for political purposes!

That's where I stopped, since I know in advance that the rest is the usual KJVO tripe.

Once again, you have shown me that putting you "ignore" is the right thing to do. When you want to drop your self-righteous conceit that you know all things then perhaps I will pay attention to what you say. Anyone can recognize propaganda!

You are 100% right about "Bible Highlighter". He assumes that he is entirely correct about Scripture. So did the Pharisees!

I would say that this is not towards KJB since it was not a word-for-word translation. KJB is a Formal translation, whereby the words, the sense, the style, and the emphasis are not only accurately translated but are set in a proper form.

I think it was Eugene Nida who mastered this cultural background translation. The disadvantage of this kind of Bible translation is that it simply contradicts your #3 which should be “understood by the people who originally heard it. Employing cultural background in translation may loss of the meaning of the original language. Translation is rendering the word in another language, in a sensible manner and it is indeed a serious error to say that we need to change the word of God and needs adjustment based on our culture when in fact we are the ones that should be changed by the word of God and it is us that we need to adjust.

Well, vehicles of communication, a system of government, or a society changes but the word of God never changes.

Let me ask you a few questions: Would you even want there to be a perfect Word of God if there was one?
If so, then don’t you owe it to yourself to truly look at all the really good points that defend the KJB and hear their case entirely?
Has it never occurred to you that your side could be lying to you and their motivates are not always godly or pure?
Then again, I don't think this is going to matter to you. You already said that if I found 1,000 reasons for the KJB, I would still be wrong. This is scary, to say the least, because if somebody has 1,000 reasons for something, it is usually worth a person's time to investigate such a thing instead of living in a bubble world.

Right, not looking at what my posts or links I provided merely shows that you prefer to live in your own fantasy world rather than be challenged by opposing information or truth that could destroy your incorrect belief. You still prefer to espouse the information from Textual Critics because it helps you to ease your conscience to sleep at night in backing those who slice and dice up God's Word like it is a piece of raw meat at a butcher store.

No. I don't think so. I know the KJB is the perfect inerrant Word of God and I can prove it to you. But you don't seem to care because even if I had 1,000 reasons for the KJB, you still would say I am wrong. So again, new information for you does not matter. Only your bubble worldview does because that is what you prefer to see.

So you just don't believe the Bible when it talks about when its own words are pure?
That would be a lack of faith on your part in what God has said in His Word if that is the case.
God’s Word says Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35); It is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).
Again, these are verses you don't believe. You believe Scripture is broken, and it is corruptible because there is no incorruptible Word of God for you today.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But what if I could prove to you otherwise? Again, I don't think you are open to reason because of what you said before.

Have you ever heard of this saying before?

"Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."

For you, there is no investigation. You looked at a few reasons and just thought it was ridiculous and made your conclusion way too early. You are not giving any benefit of the doubt that we could be right and that you could ever be wrong. You would make a poor investigator. To be a good investigator, you have to be willing to put aside your bias and assumptions; Especially even with an initial investigation. Sometimes things are not always what you think they are. Ever watched "The Fugitive" starring Harrison Ford? In my view, you sound like the US Marshal who said, "I don't care" when Harrison Ford's character said he was innocent.

There is that bubble world again.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I never said I know all things. Only God does. But I do know the King James Bible is the perfect Word of God for many reasons.
Again, you said I would be wrong even if I had 1,000 reasons. Sounds again like the US Marshal who says, "I don't care" when Harrison Ford's character said he was innocent.

That's not what the Bible says.
You are not supposed to place conditions upon listening to others in regard to the teachings of God's Word.



Right, and it comes from the Modern Bible Movement. Just look at an online Christian bookstore. Look at the way they try to peddle the Word of God.

How would you know? You didn’t even look at anything I wrote in defense of my position. Oh wait, I forget. You are the one who said if I had 1,000 reasons for the KJB, I would still be wrong.

Actually, that wouldn’t be true. I posted a thread on another forum showing how I have changed my view on 21 theological things over the years. So this means I am willing to let Scripture correct me (Even by others whom I disagree with). You can check that out here.

I actually have 15 Biblical Reasons for the KJB. Ever read 2 Timothy 3:16 lately?
Do you know why the Bereans were more noble?

The first absurdity is that you are unable to separate fact from fiction. You have made many fictitious attacks against the KJB, but you can't see that you yourself are a part of the Modern Bible Movement.

This began in the 19th century when naturalistic and rationalistic "critics" began to attack the traditional Greek text. There is a whole string of critics which preceded Westcott & Hort -- Wetstein, Semmler, Scholz, Hug, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles. They all wanted to (a) reject the traditional text and (b) replace it with the corrupt minority text. In the end Westcott & Hort elevated extremely corrupt Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) to the level of "infallible" manuscripts, and totally rejected the Received Text. This is the "Modern Bible Movement" which did not end with W&H. Nestle, Aland, and the United Bible Societies have continued reproducing the text of W&H along with "eclectic" readings and conjectural emendations.

There are important doctrinal differences between the "critical" texts and the Received Text.
Important Differences Between the Textus Receptus and the Nestle Aland/United Bible Society Text
https://textusreceptusbibles.com/Differences_Between_Textus_Receptus_and_NaUbs

Why should any Christian care? Because the pure Word of God should not be replaced by the corrupted bible versions (which have become a cash cow for the publishers).

This seriously misinformed statement just shows that you are listening to scholars who have an axe to grind against the Bible (the KJB).

First, King James did not even come up with the idea for a new translation. There was a petition for a new translation.

The idea for a new translation of the Bible, which resulted in the King James Version (KJV), was not originally proposed by King James himself. In January 1604, King James responded to numerous petitions from Puritans and other religious leaders for a new English translation of the Bible by convening a conference at Hampton Court. As a result, 47 Church of England scholars were given the task of researching and devising the text[1]. The KJV was a revision of previous Bibles, with the Bishops' Bible as the core text, and it was created in response to the need for a new, unified translation that would address the issues with existing versions[2]. Therefore, while King James I authorized the translation, the idea for a new translation was brought to him by religious leaders and scholars.


By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Did-King-James-2SSbSdRFSG6A51n6EUBlyg

Second, King James I was known for his literary interests and was a well-respected author in his time, writing collections of poetry, criticism, and political treatises. He was also a scholar-king who favored clear language, even if it led to multiple interpretations[1]. In January 1604, King James responded to petitions from Puritans and other religious leaders for a new English translation of the Bible by convening a conference at Hampton Court, where he willingly conceded to the request for a new translation[2].


By Perplexity at https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Did-King-James-2SSbSdRFSG6A51n6EUBlyg

Theological debate and interest in scholarly decisions: King James I often participated in theological debate and took an interest in the scholarly decisions of the translators of the King James Bible. [5]

Source:
[5] Croft, p 156; Willson, p. 201.

From the preface to the King James Bible:

"Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread sovereign which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when he first sent your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us."

The preface also praises King James for

"maintaining the truth of Christ, and propagating it far and near is that which hath so bound and firmly knit the hearts of all your majesty's loyal and religious people unto you, that your very name is precious among them. Their eye doth behold you with comfort, and they bless you in their hearts, as that sanctified Person, who, under God is the immediate author of their true happiness."

King James (the king who specially commanded the translation of the Authorized (King James) Version of 1611 of the Bible) said this:


So King James gave glory to God. So his motivations were not solely political as your Modern scholars falsely say. There is a lot of misinformation about King James and many people did not like him because he was Christian. But I am sure this information will not matter to you because it does not fit your narrative of how you want things to be.

A formal translation has nothing to do with the "proper form" A formal translation is a literal translation, or a word-for-word translation. The other type of translation is a functional translation, meaning that the meaning of the text is the most important aspect. I prefer the latter.

Jesus, when He was on Earth, was a the son of a rural carpenter. He spoke Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect of the common people, although He could read Hebrew from the scrolls.
A formal translation has nothing to do with the "proper form" A formal translation is a literal translation, or a word-for-word translation. The other type of translation is a functional translation, meaning that the meaning of the text is the most important aspect. I prefer the latter.



Jesus, when He was on Earth, was the son of a rural carpenter. He spoke Aramaic, a Hebrew dialect of the common people, although He could read Hebrew from the scrolls. It is absurd to think that when He spoke, it was in some lofty language that wasn’t clearly understood by his uneducated audience.



Let’s look at two examples…



Look 8:10-11, “He said, “The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that,

“‘though seeing, they may not see;
though hearing, they may not understand.’

“This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.”

Luke 18:31-34, “Jesus took the Twelve aside and told them, “We are going up to Jerusalem, and everything that is written by the prophets about the Son of Man will be fulfilled. He will be delivered over to the Gentiles. They will mock him, insult him and spit on him; they will flog him and kill him. On the third day he will rise again.”

The disciples did not understand any of this. Its meaning was hidden from them, and they did not know what he was talking about.”

In the first example, the meaning of the parables was hidden from some people, although they clearly understood the words that He spoke.

In the second, the disciples obviously understood the words that Jesus spoke, but the meaning was hidden from them.

There is no point in creating a Bible translation which is not clearly understood by the readers! The language of the King James Bible was the common language of early 17th Century England, but it is NOT clearly understood today! It sounds poetic and lofty to modern hearers, but the meaning is obfuscated.

By comparison, modern translations are written in conventional language, because they are mean to be clearly understood. That is why it is a serious mistake for anyone who isn’t a scholar who clearly understands early 17th Century Englyshe to read the King James translation.

You sound like "Bible Highlighter", whom I have put on ignore, and I will do the same with you.

There is no "Modern Bible Movement"! That is clearly a manufactured term designed to denigrate the work of many gifted scholars and clergy who have labored to give us the most accurate and clearly understood Bibles. They are not, by any stretch of the (normal) imagination, corrupt.

Before you you make any further false claims about the great modern translations, try reading the introductions of those Bibles. They clearly explain the sources and methodology used to create them. It is nothing like you say!

I don't know if you are actually "Bible Highlighter" writing under a different name or you are as confused and deluded as he is. Regardless, I am putting you on "ignore" also (meaning I will read your error-filled posts whenever I choose to, which I can assure you will be rarely.) If you ever decide to pay attention to the truth about Bible translation and publication, let me know.

I continue to read nonsense from people who clearly think that the King James (political) translation is the only valid English translation. They give all kinds of (fabricated) reasons that modern translations are not accurate. There is no justification for this, other than thinking that the King James translation was inspired (dictated?) by God and others were/are not. For others whose thinking is not shackled to mythology, here an excellent description of the New English Translation, a.k.a., the NET Bible. This version and others that are similar, should put to rest the falsehoods and nonsense spewed by those who can't accept the truth...

The New English Translation, like the New International Version, is a completely new translation of the Bible, not an update or revision of an older one (such as the New Revised Standard Version of 1989, which is a revision of the Revised Standard Version of 1946/71, itself a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, all of which are from the Critical Text).

The translation and extensive notes were undertaken by more than twenty biblical scholars who worked directly from the best currently available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The NET Bible was initially conceived at an annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in November 1995 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The translation project originally started as an attempt to provide a digital version of a modern English translation over the Internet and on CD-ROM without cost for the user: “The NET Bible project was commissioned to create a faithful Bible translation that could be placed on the Internet, downloaded for free, and used around the world for ministry.” Many of those involved in the project’s initial discussions eventually became part of the translation team. The translation itself claims to be non-sectarian, “inter-denominational” and evangelical.

The translation is most notable for an immense number of lengthy footnotes (which often explain its textual translation decision), its open translation process, its availability on the Internet (both during its beta process and in its final form), and its open copyright permitting free downloads.

... with my emphases..

This is just one example of the origins and purpose of a modern translation. DO NOT PAY ATTENTION TO THOSE PEOPLE WHO, FOR REASONS UNKNOWN, CONTINUE TO SPREAD FALSE INFORMATION ABOUT MODERN BIBLES. There is no "movement", no conspiracy, no ulterior motives, no rejection of God's purposes, no denigration of Jesus Christ, and whatever myths those enemies of the truth cook up.

If you are looking for a good Bible, based on the best sources, developed by the best scholars, and designed to communicate God's message to people as clearly as possible, read a modern translation. I personally recommend the NIV, the NRSVue, and the NET, but I encourage everyone to examine Bibles on a site such as BibleGateway.com and decide which translation is best suited to your understanding.

The senior New Testament editor of the NET Bible is Dan Wallace.

Dan Wallace said,


Source:
(Dr. Daniel Wallace, "Fifteen Myths About Bible Translation")

However, Jesus said,


Jesus also said,


Jesus also said,

In addition, Jesus said we will be held accountable concerning whether or not we receive His words (See: John 12:48).

Who am I going to believe? Jesus or Dan Wallace?

I choose Jesus.

To learn more about Dan Wallace and his insane ramblings contrary to Scripture, see this article here:

https://www.brandplucked.com/danwallacenut.htm