The Error of KJV-Onlyism

Right, because you should not just rebel against governments if they are not forcing you to disobey God’s commands.
Even Modern Bibles teach this. Only the Geneva Bible changes this and they were warped in their Theology because of Calvinism.
There is even blatant errors in the Geneva Bible. I already pointed out one already in this thread.

During King James I's reign, there were instances of religious persecution, but he had assured individuals like the Earl of Northumberland that he would not persecute those who were quiet and outwardly obedient [1]

See the following source:
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Could-a-person-SzGD4MHORCuFMWmldvaQlg

We are spoiled here in America by having freedom of speech. Monarchies are different. You could not just speak against the king or things that he held dear to his heart. It would show a lack of respect and authority to one’s king. Jesus is our King and we are to submit to Him. We cannot treat our following Jesus like we are a citizen of the United States. We do not have freedom to do our own thing and disobey our King Jesus Christ. It doesn’t work like that. But many Christians today think otherwise, though. Many today believe they can sin and still be saved.

Because they were outspoken about their beliefs that did not align with the King’s view of Christianity.
They were Calvinists and that is not even a biblical concept even.
But they could worship in privacy at home. The king did not want Calvinism to spread.
He seen them as a threat to his monarchy or in challenging his authority as king.

Folks can see whatever they like in history. At the end of the day, it comes down to first believing the Bible. We believe the Bible first when it talks about the promises of God in that His words are pure and that they would be preserved forever. THEN… we look at history to fit that belief. We believe the Bible first, and then we look at history. We do not let history define our faith first. The Bible defines our faith first. That’s how it works.

You can say the KJV is not the Word of God all you like, but the reality is that the fruit says otherwise.

No, it is just a translation, one of many. It is not the word of God.

That does not sound like anything calvinists would do.... work with someone that is not calvinist



It also referrs to those that follow the false doctrines of Martin Luther, not just those following the false doctrines of Jon Calvin.

King James, as the head of the Church of England, assumed that he had divine authority. That is the primary reason that he ordered a new translation to be made. People who didn't agree with him were persecuted.

Sentence 6 (above) explains everything perfectly. To James, Kings were ordained by God to rule over people. That was the primary reason for his ordering a new translation to be made. Previous translations, e.g., the Geneva Bible, had copious notes describing kings as tyrants.

Things are simply not always what we think they are.

Richard Thomson (Thompson) was an Arminian who was a translator of the King James Bible.

Source:
https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/Richard_Thomson/

The facts are that both Puritans (mostly Calvinists), and Anglicans worked on the translation of the KJV.

The Anglicans at the time of King James did not fully embrace Calvinism and the Puritan beliefs encapsulated in TULIP. While Calvinism emphasizes the sovereignty of God and the authority of the Bible, Anglicans, under King James, had theological differences with Calvinism. The Anglican Church maintained its distinct theological positions, which were not entirely aligned with Calvinist doctrines like TULIP. The Anglican Church, led by King James I, followed a different theological path that diverged from some key tenets of Calvinism, despite sharing common Protestant roots[1][2][5].

https://www.perplexity.ai/search/Did-the-Anglicans-GJjMtGUDQy6cHpQiUGggWA

Again, if the KJV was a Calvinist translation, then King James would have approved of the Calvinistic notes in the Geneva Bible and he would have seen no need to update the Bible but simply use the Geneva instead. But King James did not agree with their Calvinism. Puritans came here to America to worship as they pleased without any hindrance. Anglicanism was the primary belief at that time in England. It is what King James believed.

Right, I am no fan of Martin Luther, although his choice to leave the Catholic Church was admirable. The Protestant Reformation was going in a better direction, although I do not agree with their view on sin and salvation precisely. I believe Perpetual Belief Alone Salvationism is unbiblical. Believers cannot justify the idea that they can sin on some level, and still be saved.

Martin Luther held to the Arminian view of Prevenient Grace and not Calvinism. Luther held to the view that there was no free will involved when it comes to being saved by God's grace. I disagree with him. My understanding on Scripture is that God makes the first move towards us (of which we cannot come to God without God doing this). God provides the opportunity for us to read the Bible. God provides the right time in our lives whereby the Lord illuminates our understanding of His plan of salvation by His Word (the Bible). When this happens, we have free will to either accept God's grace (by Jesus Christ), or reject it. So I believe we have free will choice in accepting the Lord. Yet, I know without God, I could not come to Him. We read in Scripture about how Lydia's heart was opened. Then she heard the gospel. Why was it necessary for her heart to be opened? Anyway, somehow Luther was confused on this point but he did believe a person could reject God's grace (which only further complicates his statement that we are not saved by our free will cooperation to God's plan of salvation). God does not force anyone to be saved.

You keep repeating this point as if that is the only reason you need to refute God not being capable of using the King James Bible as His preserved Word. But God has used the Jews and the Romans to crucify Jesus. This was all a part of God’s plan of salvation for mankind. So this is not a good argument against the KJV. God can use any person He desires to accomplish His purposes and plans.

Again, people could worship as they pleased in private. It was only those who spoke against the king on such matters whereby there would be a problem. It was common back in those days involving monarchies. I mean, did you ever read about the man who collected sticks on the Sabbath? What did our king do in that instance with that man?

You reject Gods word by saying it's being corrupted when He says the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And the way you lift up one version is the Bible as high as they are here making a tradition found NOWHERE in scripture, that's the false idol I speak of. Both completely rational interpretations of His word. So keep calling me foolish while doing exactly what His word says not to do.

Grace, peace, and love be unto you in the name of Jesus Christ.
I hope you are well.

Okay, to get down to business:

How can God’s word be both incorruptible and yet also be corrupted?

As you will note from Scripture:

God’s Word says about itself that it is: “incorruptible...the word of God...” (1 Peter 1:23).
Yet, Paul says, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God” (2 Corinthians 2:17).

Let me give you an example:

Let’s say an artist created two identical copies of his first masterpiece painting that sold for millions each. Meaning, there would be three identical paintings by the same artist that are genuine. However, one day, the first original was burned up in a fire. Yet, the two copies of his first paintings He made still exist. These two remaining masterpieces are identical in appearance to the naked eye. Yet, the second extant copy or work of the artist that looks identical to the first is stolen and replaced with subtle changes by another artist. So in this case, you have both an untouched first copy that is original from the artist, and you have a second copy (which is original from the artist) that has been corrupted. For this other artist took the second copy made by the same original artist and he corrupted it. In this sense, you can have both the original copy untouched, and another copy of that original corrupted.

This is illogical, my friend.

The Bible says God magnifies His Word above His name.

“…for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psalms 138:2).

Keep in mind that Modern Bibles alter this truth, which conveniently fits the perspective of those who do not have the same level of reverence for God’s Word as we do.

We believe God’s Word is literally pure as Scripture says. You do not believe that.

Psalms says,

”Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.” (Psalms 119:140).

If I said this with no verse citation, and a person on your side was not aware of this verse, they could possibly think I was into idolatry by this statement. But the Psalmist says he loves God’s word because His word is very pure.

Think. What if Moses thought that God’s words were perfect when he carried the stone tablets that had the perfect words of God written with the very finger of God? Would he be idolatrous for thinking that way? Surely not.

Not sure why you guys say it is idolatry to have reverence for a perfect Bible.

Now, if we bow down to the Bible and think it is the very essence of God and we do not believe He is a spirit being, then you could say we are into idolatry. But your claim is simply a false claim and is slander against God’s people. It’s not right, my friend.

Well, I would not do that because I am aware of those words by our Lord Jesus Christ and they are words that are living on the inside of me. But if we speak against any part of God’s words, those words are not going to live in us. We can do this either knowingly or in ignorance. I hope our friend merely said so in ignorance. I am sure he ultimately desires the best for you in Jesus Christ. But this can only be if we have God’s correct words. As I have mentioned to you before, there are false doctrines in Modern Bibles. You did not address those points. My question is, “Why?”

In any event, may the Lord Jesus bless you and your family.

Sincerely,

A mere Bible Highlighter.

Bible Gateway, a resource I regularly use, lists 63(!) different English Bible translations. Common sense tells you that a) they are all versions of the Word of God and b) there is no single English translation that is the Word of God.

Anyone who claims that their preferred version is the Word of God and that others are not is misguided. S/he needs to understand the principles of translation to understand a) why there are so many English translations and b) why none of them can be called the perfect translation.

Each translation was created for a specific purpose, and it is essential to understand how and why a particular translation was created. This can best be understood by reading the introduction/preface of the particular version.

Again, NO SINGLE TRANSLATION IS THE WORD OF GOD. Anyone who claims that their preferred translation is entirely accurate doesn't know what s/he is talking about. That especially applies to the KJV-only folks, who are the subject of of the title this thread.

By the way, thank you for sharing Matthew 16:13-20. It truly is a treasure of a passage.

Blessings be unto you in the name of Jesus.

There are not multiple versions of the Word of God. There can only be one Word of God, just as there can only be one Jesus.

Umm, how about, it is the pure words of God.

He ordered because there was a proposal which caught King James and this suggestion led to the new translation of New English Bible. John Reynolds was the main speaker on behalf of the Puritans.

Yes, I believe it was also sort of last last-minute desperate attempt by Reynolds. Going into that meeting: I don’t think Reynolds planned to create a new translation. Reynolds and the other Calvinistic Puritans would have simply preferred approval for the Geneva Bible. It was a battle of the translations, and the idea of a new one was born that day, instead.

The King James Bible.

So it was not planned by any man.
God knew about the KJV because He knows the future.
So God definitely planned it indeed.

Praise be unto Him for His Word.

Carry on with your false and foolish allegations. Truth is truth, and your foolishness in this regard is evident to all.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure calvinists these days think anybody that is not calvinist is going to hell.




And of course that's false doctrine as it ends up being the same thing.... OSAS

It isn't! LOL The KJV is a man-made TRANSLATION created 413 years ago.

Modern Bibles are excellent translations of the earliest and best source manuscripts. They have been created by modern scholars for two purposes...

1) to determine what is the best source of a verse/book to use. Sometimes the ancient sources differ and a decision must be made by the translators which is the best (oldest, most authentic) to use.

2) to determine how the source verse/book is best translated into English. The ancient languages of the source documents are very different from the destination language. It is an important skill of the translators to communicate in English the meaning of the source language into the comparable meaning of the destination language. All translators must decide whether to 1) translate the actual words or 2) the meaning of the words in context. => There is no such thing as a literal, word-for-word translation <= Why? Because it would be meaningless to the reader.

I know this may come as a shock to some people, but none of us live in the societies that existed when the source Bible documents were written; we live thousands of years later in a culture than is unimaginable to the people of the Bible cultures.

Now about the King James translation... none of us live in the society that existed when the King James Bible was translated; we live hundreds of years later in a culture than is unimaginable to those people. So, why does anyone use that archaic version? Because they think that it is the perfect Word of God. They think that the translations that preceded the KJV were not the perfect Word of God and they think that the translations that came after the KJV are not the perfect Word of God. There is no rational reason to think that! It is ludicrous to think that God dictated His Word perfectly to the KJV translators and did not do the same for the translators before or since. Did God really rest from His work in 1611, never to aid and inspire other translators since that time???

I encourage everyone not to pay attention to the KJV-only people! There is no basis for their belief!

My strong suggestion is to read selections from the various Bible translations on a web site such as Bible Gateway and let God "speak to you" through His Word, giving you as clear an understanding as possible. The truth is that THERE IS NO PERFECT TRANSLATION and there never will be.

Don't accept what I say or what anyone else says! Let God communicate to you as clearly and meaningfully as possible!