King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[John146]

Show me in NASB or Berean Literal Bible or Geneva Bible etc that it teaches homosexuality or adultery not being sin.

I am talking about such state of perfection that every English letter is perfect. This does not exist.

You missed what I said. The word of God is truth. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is always right, every word. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is holy and pure and without error. Do you have the word of God?

If we don't have the word of God, then we have no absolute truth on which to stand against the lost world. How can we claim homosexuality is wrong, if we don't even fully believe the Bible in which we get that truth? Is it just partial truth? Ninety-nine percent truth is still partial truth. I've had a guy I was witnessing to ask me, "Do you believe every word of your Bible? If not, then get away from me with your god."

 

[trofimus]

You missed what I said. The word of God is truth. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is always right, every word. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is holy and pure and without error. Do you have the word of God?

If we don't have the word of God, then we have no absolute truth on which to stand against the lost world. How can we claim homosexuality is wrong, if we don't even fully believe the Bible in which we get that truth? Is it just partial truth? Ninety-nine percent truth is still partial truth. I've had a guy I was witnessing to ask me, "Do you believe every word of your Bible? If not, then get away from me with your god."

You have only middle ages translation of the word of God.

I have Greek editions of the word of God, so I am much closer to the original.

But even I do not have 100% certainity about every word.

The uncertain things in Greek do not change any Christian doctrine, so there is no problem with the lost world regarding the Bible.

This is the situation.

 

[John146]

You have only middle ages translation of the word of God.

I have Greek editions of the word of God, so I am much closer to the original.

But even I do not have 100% certainity about every word.

The uncertain things in Greek do not change any Christian doctrine, so there is no problem with the lost world regarding the Bible.

This is the situation.

What about the doctrine of God's word being true? If God's word, all of it, is not true, then the doctrine is not true. Therefore, God's word cannot be trusted.

 

[trofimus]

What about the doctrine of God's word being true? If God's word, all of it, is not true, then the doctrine is not true. Therefore, God's word cannot be trusted.

Facts are over doctrines.

Just check the facts.

There are no 2 Greek manuscripts that agree 100%. So even in the most primitive level of manuscripts comparison you must create some kind of compilation. This is actually reason why any textual criticism in the NT exists - there are many different manuscripts.

Not to say that OT source (Hebrew text) is even much more corrupted than the NT manuscripts.

You must really come with some special doctrine of inspiration during the KJV translating, but you can not prove it and base it on any fact.

Also, you cannot prove that the use of any other English translation (that is at least trying to be literal) can lead us into sin or into inability to preach to the lost world.

In fact, the use of KJV is much more harder regarding the lost world, because they will see the inconsistencies between the OT and NT, non-used English language etc.

 

[KJV1611]

You missed what I said. The word of God is truth. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is always right, every word. Do you have the word of God? The word of God is holy and pure and without error. Do you have the word of God?

If we don't have the word of God, then we have no absolute truth on which to stand against the lost world. How can we claim homosexuality is wrong, if we don't even fully believe the Bible in which we get that truth? Is it just partial truth? Ninety-nine percent truth is still partial truth. I've had a guy I was witnessing to ask me, "Do you believe every word of your Bible? If not, then get away from me with your god."

We are on the same side and I agree with the other side... your arguments are weak. You keep saying the same things over and over - the kjv is inerrant because it's the kjv. What are your reasons for believing so?

 

[John146]

We are on the same side and I agree with the other side... your arguments are weak. You keep saying the same things over and over - the kjv is inerrant because it's the kjv. What are your reasons for believing so?

My defense is with those who do not believe we have a Bible that we can hold in our hands to read and study and live by that can be our final authority on all truth and we can trust every word.

We can go round after round on the Greek and Hebrew game and nobody will come out ahead because not one of us was there when the word of God was given.

Has God preserved His pure, holy and perfect words for us today and if so, where are they? The God who inspired the word knew full well He could preserve it once it was destroyed. And the preserved word would be as good as the original. Man puts too much emphasis on this "original" thing. Why? God doesn't.

 

[willybob]

The KJV was taken from the proper text, and is a most excellent translation, except for 2 books, of the which are post 200AD apocrypha writings to my knowledge and should be omitted. The translators themselves said it was not a better translation, nor a perfect translation, (that was from the horse’s mouth)..

King James was seeking to set up a rival against the RCC. The church of England for all intents and purposes didn’t really need a new bible, because they already had the Bishops bible, of the which was almost an exact copied made by the KJB scholars…Sadly they continued and miss translated the words “ecclesia”, and “agape” in places, opting for the Roman Catholic terms (church and charity).



Tyndale’s translation was much better concerning this matter. He knew the pagan term church/kerki/circle was of the temples of the pagans, therefore he properly used the word church twice in his translation describing the temples where the pagans worshiped their false gods…Constantine wanted to bring these pagan churches into the religion, he did so, and called them Basilicas. And with it the idea of Sermons, which is also pagan, and from the Greek and Roman masters of rhetoric were brought in and thus the one man show began...

Tyndale translated the “ecclesia” as the congregation, rather than the pagan Roman Catholic term “church”, which describes it as a building. Because of this most all of what is called Christianly identifies the church as a building, rather than the believers themselves. Tyndale’s translation “congregation” is far more accurate. The Catholics hated him most for translating the word ecclesia describing the congreted assembly of believers, or as Jesus said; “when two or more are gather in my name”..



The word “Charity” is Roman Catholic as well, and for obvious reasons, of the which the scholars opted for by James’s declaration, as well as the term “church”…The KJV scholars were under the heavy influence of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the three biggest heretics the world has ever known.



Like I said in an earlier post, the KJV is an excellent translation taken from the correct inspired Greek manuscripts, and is the most readily available bible derived from such manuscripts. I use it all the time, its punctuation is superb, it magnifies the Deity of Christ to highest level over any book on earth. Praise God for that blessing! It also opted for the fewest syllabic words, for the simplest of renderings, along with it’s beautiful flowing poetry and prose, of which much came from Tyndale’s work, however improved upon, and its ability over all others for the purpose of instant recall…. God’s word proves itself, and the few errors found within the KJV are easily identified by the rest of the text (example: 2 Cor. 5-21), of the which was itaazied, none the less, the translators were heavily swayed by the teachings of Calvin..



It’s my perception that Tyndale’s translation was the least politically correct of all English translations. And again, as I stated in an earlier post, the post 1880 bibles, following the committee at Oxford, are all corrupted, and derived from apostate Greek manuscripts, having no chain of evidence, and ultimately pointing back to Rome..The Jesuits began taking control of Oxford around 1845. 25 years before the committee began, about the time of the 90 day wonder Tishendorf came on the scene, who was put into action by the Pope Pias and Cardinal Mi, during this time the Pope reinstated the Roman Catholic parishes in Britain . A year prior to the committee, the Vatican Council of 1869-70 declared the Pope's pronouncements on morals and doctrine infallible, or incapable of error, from this premise did the WestCott & Hort text was taken from the corrupted Catholic Greek texts, mainly Vatican’s codex 1209 believed to be created somewhere around 1475..It is certainly by no means the best, and the bigger lie is that it is the oldest. The needed Tishendorf’s newly found Sinaticus, for the purpose of lending credibly to the Vaticanus, of which was identified as being corrupted by Erasmus, some 360 years prior..all post 1880 copy-write bibles are under the final approval of the Vatican.

[HR][/HR]​

 

[willybob]

follow up: Tyndale's motives were not to build a church to rival the RCC, but rather to simply make God's word available to his English speaking country men.. I highly respect him for that...

 

[trofimus]

I want people to know the real Christ and to get the most out their faith. I want everybody to come to know the Jesus that is revealed when we believe every word of God is right!

Translators were just vehicles God used to pen his word in English.

Still, you cannot prove that KJV is any better than NASB or BLB.

Your defense you use for the KJV can be used for any other translation.

 

[tanakh]

The argument about which translation is inspired /accurate is pointless because of the history behind the Bibles compilation.
At the time of Jesus the Septuagint was the version mainly used and included what is called by Protestants the Apocrypha and additional chapters in Daniel and Esther Other books were also used Enoch being one notable example.
The first complete Bible including the NT was compiled by St Athanasius of North Africa in 367AD it was adopted by the Catholic Church around 400AD Prior to that various regions had there own lists of books that were considered inspired.
Arguments as to which books were inspired went on for centuries.

Martin Luther decided to follow the OT listing compiled by Rabbis in the second Century which excluded
seven of the books and the additional chapters found in the Septuagint . He also excluded Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation. These were put back by Protestants after his death. The compilation of the Bible is more the result of
the scholarship and personal opinion of those who took part in the compilations we have today.

 

[KJV1611]

The KJV was taken from the proper text, and is a most excellent translation, except for 2 books, of the which are post 200AD apocrypha writings to my knowledge and should be omitted. The translators themselves said it was not a better translation, nor a perfect translation, (that was from the horse’s mouth)..

King James was seeking to set up a rival against the RCC. The church of England for all intents and purposes didn’t really need a new bible, because they already had the Bishops bible, of the which was almost an exact copied made by the KJB scholars…Sadly they continued and miss translated the words “ecclesia”, and “agape” in places, opting for the Roman Catholic terms (church and charity).



Tyndale’s translation was much better concerning this matter. He knew the pagan term church/kerki/circle was of the temples of the pagans, therefore he properly used the word church twice in his translation describing the temples where the pagans worshiped their false gods…Constantine wanted to bring these pagan churches into the religion, he did so, and called them Basilicas. And with it the idea of Sermons, which is also pagan, and from the Greek and Roman masters of rhetoric were brought in and thus the one man show began...

Tyndale translated the “ecclesia” as the congregation, rather than the pagan Roman Catholic term “church”, which describes it as a building. Because of this most all of what is called Christianly identifies the church as a building, rather than the believers themselves. Tyndale’s translation “congregation” is far more accurate. The Catholics hated him most for translating the word ecclesia describing the congreted assembly of believers, or as Jesus said; “when two or more are gather in my name”..



The word “Charity” is Roman Catholic as well, and for obvious reasons, of the which the scholars opted for by James’s declaration, as well as the term “church”…The KJV scholars were under the heavy influence of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the three biggest heretics the world has ever known.



Like I said in an earlier post, the KJV is an excellent translation taken from the correct inspired Greek manuscripts, and is the most readily available bible derived from such manuscripts. I use it all the time, its punctuation is superb, it magnifies the Deity of Christ to highest level over any book on earth. Praise God for that blessing! It also opted for the fewest syllabic words, for the simplest of renderings, along with it’s beautiful flowing poetry and prose, of which much came from Tyndale’s work, however improved upon, and its ability over all others for the purpose of instant recall…. God’s word proves itself, and the few errors found within the KJV are easily identified by the rest of the text (example: 2 Cor. 5-21), of the which was itaazied, none the less, the translators were heavily swayed by the teachings of Calvin..



It’s my perception that Tyndale’s translation was the least politically correct of all English translations. And again, as I stated in an earlier post, the post 1880 bibles, following the committee at Oxford, are all corrupted, and derived from apostate Greek manuscripts, having no chain of evidence, and ultimately pointing back to Rome..The Jesuits began taking control of Oxford around 1845. 25 years before the committee began, about the time of the 90 day wonder Tishendorf came on the scene, who was put into action by the Pope Pias and Cardinal Mi, during this time the Pope reinstated the Roman Catholic parishes in Britain . A year prior to the committee, the Vatican Council of 1869-70 declared the Pope's pronouncements on morals and doctrine infallible, or incapable of error, from this premise did the WestCott & Hort text was taken from the corrupted Catholic Greek texts, mainly Vatican’s codex 1209 believed to be created somewhere around 1475..It is certainly by no means the best, and the bigger lie is that it is the oldest. The needed Tishendorf’s newly found Sinaticus, for the purpose of lending credibly to the Vaticanus, of which was identified as being corrupted by Erasmus, some 360 years prior..all post 1880 copy-write bibles are under the final approval of the Vatican.

[HR][/HR]​

If it weren't for the word "church" in Acts 7:38 how would we know that the the church of Jesus Christ existed in the assembly of Israel in the wilderness?

Acts 7:38 KJV
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

[KJV1611]

Still, you cannot prove that KJV is any better than NASB or BLB.

Your defense you use for the KJV can be used for any other translation.

I think that's true in a sense. I don't think it can be proven to anyone who has religious bias and is so dogmatic that they can't see things objectively.

 

[trofimus]

I think that's true in a sense. I don't think it can be proven to anyone who has religious bias and is so dogmatic that they can't see things objectively.

Or... can we say it in the opposite direction that you need a religious bias and be dogmatic to believe that the KJV is perfect?

 

[Enow]

I watched a video recently that changed my mind on the type of Bible I should keep as the over-riding bible authority. I have an NIV, ESV, Gideon's new testament, NKJV, KJV and am picking up a n Amplified Holy Bible tomorrow. I will probably use one of the most accurate to the King James, for quick reading, but highlight thereof area's and swap back to KJV. But will try to stick with the old English in the KJV until I get confused.

I watched Pastor Steven L Anderson's, New World Order movie. Just under 2 hours long, very interesting. Puts potentially the NIV, ESV, NKJV and more to shame, depending on version's and errors of course.

So, (1) Have you watched the video? If not,
watch it first, please.

(1b) Did the video change your mind?

(2) What Bible do you support?

(3) Why do you support it?

At the bottom of your post, please put final Bible choice in caps, alone, so it can be seen as a tally. Thanks.

KJV

1 a No. Where is the link to the video?

1 b No. I rely only on my Good Shepherd with His wisdom in reading & discerning with the KJV anyway.

2 KJV

3 KJV is the only Bible keeping the meat of His words to discern good and evil by it in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

One prime example is exposing that the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for His own personal prayer language.

ALL modern Bibles including the KJV has John 16:13 testifying that the Holy Spirit cannot speak for Himself or on His own authority or on His own initiative; He can only speak what He hears. That is the truth in all BIBLES.

The KJV is the ONLY ONE that maintains that truth in Romans 8:26-27 whereas ALL modern Bibles do NOT as all modern Bibles implies or directly testifies that the Holy Spirit can utter His own intercessions without Anyone Else's help.

The KJV maintains the truth of John 16:13 whereas the Holy Spirit has intercessions for us but they are unspeakable, and therefore the groaning cannot be uttered; hence no sound at all in Romans 8:26.

Romans 8:27 is testifying to how the unspeakable intercessions of the Spirit are made known to God and that is by the One that searches our hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit as Jesus is the only One that can mediate for us & the Spirit to the Father in according to the will of God; John 14:6 as Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by.

John 14:13-14 explains why this is so because when Jesus gives our intercessions, the Spirit's unspeakable intercessions, and His own intercessions, whenever the Father says yes to any of those intercessions, the Son answers the prayer so that the Father may be glorified in the Son for answered prayers.

The Holy Spirit has a role in answered prayers BUT the Holy Spirit gives the credit and glory to Jesus for answered prayers as stated by the scripture with no turning right nor left in John 16:14-15 .

This is why the Father is glorified in the Son for answered prayers for the Father is to be given thanks in Jesus's name fo answered prayers.

The Holy Spirit cannot answer prayers nor use tongues as a personal means of giving His intercessions, thus exposing the supernatural tongue as not of Him when it does not come with interpretation nor understood by any foreigner but is just vain & profane babbling. This in turn leads to discerning the origin of that tongue and it is gained by when believers experienced something coming over them later on in life separate from salvation in bringing this tongue that never comes with interpretation. That is the falling away from the faith that Paul had spoken about in 2 Thessalonians 2nd & 3rd chapters. More at this link to that thread in this forum.

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...g-holy-spirit-separate-salvation-tongues.html

That is why the apostle John warned believers not to believe every spirit but test them ( 1 John 4:1-7 ) and the examination of our faith is that Jesus Christ is in us ( 1 John 4:2 & 2 Corinthians 13:5 ); and the spirit of the antichrist is what is outside of us so that if any saved believer feel the spirit coming over them bringing tongues without interpretation when the real indwelling Holy Spirit was already in them as promised by faith in Jesus Christ, then that is not the Holy Spirit coming over them separate from salvation. That is why that supernatural tongue can be found in the world in other religions, cults in christianity, and in the occult as those with the spirit of error speak as the world speaks in that tongue.

Another reason why the Holy Spirit will not use tongues without interpretation as a prayer language for how can God call sinners away from their practice, their spirits, and that kind of vain & profane babbling if sinners can do the same kind of tongue in christianity? It would be hard to prove all things and abstain from al appearances of evil if God's gift of tongues which is of other men's lips to speak unto the people to be also used as a prayer language of the Holy Spirit.

1 Thessalonians 5:[SUP]21 [/SUP]Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.[SUP]22 [/SUP]Abstain from all appearance of evil.[SUP]23 [/SUP]And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.[SUP]24 [/SUP]Faithful is he that calleth you, who also will do it.

Those that have gone astray cannot see the iniquity for what it is when all modern Bibles supports that kind of tongue as a personal prayer language of the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26-27, even though John 16:13 in all modern Bibles says the Holy Spirit cannot use tongues for speaking His own intercessions by Himself to God. Only the KJV has kept the truths lining up with each other of John 16:13 with Romans 8:26-27 but even then, believers that are used to reading modern Bibles version of Romans 8:26-27, will only see that lie in the Romans 8:26-27 of the KJV as well. They need His help to see that the KJV is not saying the same thing as all modern Bibles are saying for it to line up with the truth in John 16:13.

It is because of the falling away from the faith in droves in these latter days where faith is heard to find is why I rely on my Good Shepherd for the wisdom to use the KJV in discerning good and evil by it in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

KJV

 

[Dino246]

My defense is with those who do not believe we have a Bible that we can hold in our hands to read and study and live by that can be our final authority on all truth and we can trust every word.

We can go round after round on the Greek and Hebrew game and nobody will come out ahead because not one of us was there when the word of God was given.

Has God preserved His pure, holy and perfect words for us today and if so, where are they? The God who inspired the word knew full well He could preserve it once it was destroyed. And the preserved word would be as good as the original. Man puts too much emphasis on this "original" thing. Why? God doesn't.

You're right on one thing... we can go round and round on this... until you realize that asking rhetorical questions does not validate your position. You believe that God has preserved His word such that you can hold it in your hand, yet you have not proven this assertion. You haven't proven that God's word is preserved in English. All you have been able to muster are unsupported assertions. Try defending your position with evidence. Try following one line of reasoning to its conclusion, and then adopt that conclusion into your future argumentation, rather than tossing one-line defenses and then avoiding the topic until it falls off the active page. Repeating already-refuted statements simply makes you seem foolish, unintelligent, or stubborn.

 

[Dino246]

The KJV was taken from the proper text, ... Like I said in an earlier post, the KJV is an excellent translation taken from the correct inspired Greek manuscripts.

What constitutes this alleged "proper text"? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? The primary sources for the NT of the KJV were seven printed Greek editions: five from Erasmus, and one each from Stephanus and Beza. These were not manuscripts, and they certainly weren't inspired.

…The KJV scholars were under the heavy influence of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the three biggest heretics the world has ever known.

Evidence for this assertion?

[The KJV] magnifies the Deity of Christ to highest level over any book on earth.

Exactly what do you mean by this? Other translations magnify the deity of Christ no less than the KJV. There are many examples in the KJV of "expansion of piety" where certain terms were added to the text. These same terms, being absent in newer versions, are the cause of KJV-onlyists asserting that newer versions take away from the deity of Christ, when in fact they are just doing a more careful job of translating the available manuscripts.

 

[willybob]

If it weren't for the word "church" in Acts 7:38 how would we know that the the church of Jesus Christ existed in the assembly of Israel in the wilderness?

Acts 7:38 KJV
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

it simply the congregated remnant of believers through a steadfast faith proven by deeds from heart purity, spiritual Israel, "all Israel" God's purified people, by faith and not by flesh, Zech. 13-9.......

 

[willybob]

What constitutes this alleged "proper text"? What is the reasoning behind this assertion? The primary sources for the NT of the KJV were seven printed Greek editions: five from Erasmus, and one each from Stephanus and Beza. These were not manuscripts, and they certainly weren't inspired.

…The KJV scholars were under the heavy influence of Augustine, Luther, and Calvin, the three biggest heretics the world has ever known.

Evidence for this assertion?

[The KJV] magnifies the Deity of Christ to highest level over any book on earth.

Exactly what do you mean by this? Other translations magnify the deity of Christ no less than the KJV. There are many examples in the KJV of "expansion of piety" where certain terms were added to the text. These same terms, being absent in newer versions, are the cause of KJV-onlyists asserting that newer versions take away from the deity of Christ, when in fact they are just doing a more careful job of translating the available manuscripts.

What constitutes the proper text is a valid chain of evidence and consistent harmonization of over 5400 manuscripts, rather than a single mystery text that basically pops up over-night, the way of the RCC, they make it up as they go along..

The major purpose of the post 1880 text was to diminish the Deity of Christ.. i will post the comparisons so you can see for yourself, ......You must remember the founders of these new bibles, Westcott & Hort believed that Mary warship was equal to worshiping Jesus...I dont think you've really done any digging into the subject, its more than obvious after one puts in about 50 hours examining the evidence..and then another 50 hours digesting it that the whole thing was a Catholic fraud under the supervision of the Jesuits....

 

[Dino246]

... What constitutes the proper text is a valid chain of evidence and consistent harmonization of over 5400 manuscripts, rather than a single mystery text that basically pops up over-night, the way of the RCC, they make it up as they go along..

The major purpose of the post 1880 text was to diminish the Deity of Christ.. i will post the comparisons so you can see for yourself, ......You must remember the founders of these new bibles, Westcott & Hort believed that Mary warship was equal to worshiping Jesus...I dont think you've really done any digging into the subject, its more than obvious after one puts in about 50 hours examining the evidence..and then another 50 hours digesting it that the whole thing was a Catholic fraud under the supervision of the Jesuits....

Please don't waste your time presenting comparisons of later versions with the KJV; that is faulty reasoning. The KJV is not the standard. If you want your comparison to be valid, you must compare to a source outside of both the KJV and the newer versions. In other words, you must go to the available Greek manuscripts. Printed editions, including the Textus Receptus, don't count.

 

[KJV1611]

My defense is with those who do not believe we have a Bible that we can hold in our hands to read and study and live by that can be our final authority on all truth and we can trust every word.

We can go round after round on the Greek and Hebrew game and nobody will come out ahead because not one of us was there when the word of God was given.

Has God preserved His pure, holy and perfect words for us today and if so, where are they? The God who inspired the word knew full well He could preserve it once it was destroyed. And the preserved word would be as good as the original. Man puts too much emphasis on this "original" thing. Why? God doesn't.

I agree with all of the above but like others have been saying to you, "why is it the KJV"? How do you know the KJV is the inspired inerrant word of God?