King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[2Thewaters]

so now you know the truth about the KING JAMES ONLY version of the bible

proponents of that view are usually those who cant support their false doctrines any other way

the modern versions tell it like it is from the greek and that blows the false doctrines away.

but a better way
once you find the truth
by reading and comparing parallel Bibles

is go to the king james

and look up the truth in their own GREEK original by strongs and you will see that is exactly what happened
they embelished the Bible with other words that CAN be twisted instead of words that CANT be twisted.
and the twisting continues

you know you really get into the fanatical area
when they say
WE SHOULDNT LOOK UP THE GREEK!
that is NOT OUR JOB!

run from those guys and never look back
there is the enemy of souls
JEsus says to DIG DIG DIG as for hid treasure

WHY ARE WE TO DIG FOR HID TREASURE?

BECAUSE THEY HID THE TRIEASURE !!!

if treasure was hid
and it WAS HID

we are to SEARCH WHAT WAS HID

WHAT WAS COVERED UP!

AMEN praise the Lord!

 

[2Thewaters]

once you get a Bible program like
e-Sword | Home

look up any word
and clik on the numbered kjv and you see the meaning

it tells you how many times that word was translated this way and how many times that way

now get bible texts from the arguments on this web site

they always use the same 2-3 tired old twisted verses over and over and over

look up those vererses and click on each word

and you will see

hey!

it doesnt mean that at all!

try it

you like it.

 

[jag1977]

I enjoy straight KJV. I find it more interesting than picture bibles, study bibles, or newer bibles.

 

[Jason0047]

Anyways, a more popular supposed contradiction that Anti-KJV folks like to throw at those who believe in a perfect Word of God for our day is Matthew 26:17.

The problem is that they believe Matthew 26:17 is saying it is the first feast day on the night of the Lord's supper. Yet, John 18:28 says that the Jews were going to eat the passover and John 19 says it was the preparation for the Passover and Exodus says that the Feast of Unleavened Bread takes place on the 15th (Leviticus 23:6).

So is this a contradiction?

No. Matthew 26:17 says it was the first day of the "Feast of Unleavened Bread." The first day out of the entire Passover / Unleavened Bread Festival was the Day of Preparation. This was stated during the night they held the Lord's supper (i.e. Tuesday, the night of the 13th). At sunset, marked a new calendar day (i.e. the 14th). So the Lord's supper took place on the first day of the Passover / UB feast. And the Jews sacrificed their Lambs on the continued 14th during the following daylight hours when Jesus was crucified.

In other words, Matthew 26:17 is not saying this was an actual feast day. Alot of folks get confused on this one. It is saying it is the first day out of the entire Feast celebration. One day out of many; And the first day out of the entire Feast was the Day of Preparation that kicks off the whole event. For example: It would be like me saying, the first day of the "Filming Project of Exodus the movie" involved no actual shooting or filming but it merely involved storyboards and pre-production work. In other words, I want you to read Matthew 26:17 in the same way. For what it doesn't say it is the "first feast day." What it does say is the first day of ---------- (The Name of the Entire Feast Event)------------, which would be: "The Feast of Unleavened Bread."

Other translations think that this is an error and they either leave out the word "feast" or they replace it with the word "feast" with the word "festival", instead. But aas I already pointed out, there is no need to correct the Word of God.

 

[Jason0047]

but a better way
once you find the truth
by reading and comparing parallel Bibles

is go to the king james

and look up the truth in their own GREEK original by strongs and you will see that is exactly what happened
they embelished the Bible with other words that CAN be twisted instead of words that CANT be twisted.
and the twisting continues

I do use parallel versions and on rare occasion I will look up the Hebrew and Greek words. I just do not place my final word of authority in parallel versions and nor do I place my entire faith in the Strong's Concordance because James Strong and his many colleagues were not inspired by God in the work that they did. Yes, the Strong's can be a helpful tool, but is not the Word of God. Most folks who do not believe that a perfect Word of God exists today will treat the Strong's like it is the Word of God (When it is not).

 

[Jason0047]

once you get a Bible program like
e-Sword | Home

look up any word
and clik on the numbered kjv and you see the meaning

it tells you how many times that word was translated this way and how many times that way

now get bible texts from the arguments on this web site

they always use the same 2-3 tired old twisted verses over and over and over

look up those vererses and click on each word

and you will see

hey!

it doesnt mean that at all!

try it

you like it.

I have E-Sword for my Ipad and I don't have that problem at all.
Nobody really actually speaks or writes Greek like they did back in the day. We are only guessing. In fact, Greek scholars disagree with each other. Think. It's hard enough to get people to agree on what the Bible says in English, and you want them to understand it in a language that is not even used anymore?

 

[Jason0047]

I enjoy straight KJV. I find it more interesting than picture bibles, study bibles, or newer bibles.

That's because it is the pure Word of God; Nothing compares next to that, my friend.

And I just happen to personally like Picture Bibles, Study Bibles, and the updated language in certain passages in Newer Bibles.

But yes, nothing compares to the pure Word, though. These other Bibles pale in comparison.

 

[Jason0047]

Let's look at that again shall we?

Psalm 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

Silver is second to Gold and earth beneath heaven, so the words of the LORD, although pure, are not divinely inspired or properly interpreted as would have been in association to GOD.

rev...
I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.

Psalm 119:139-140
"My zeal hath consumed me, because mine enemies have forgotten thy words. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it."

MY MINE and ME are pronouns... My is genitive case and ME is Oblique case MINE is possessive case. THY is the corresponding genitive case to MY, THEE is corresponding oblique case to ME, and THINE is corresponding possessive case to MINE. MINE and THINE are only used before or after a vowel and THINE is used when showing possessions of THEE as well as MINE showing possession of ME which are oblique case (MINE,ME), however here MINE is used prior to a noun and after a conjunction which is improper and along side of THY "because mine enemies have forgotten thy words" it should read "MY enemies have forgotten thy words" but if it did read that way then there would be no point in the psalm now would there...oh an example would be just like the revelation verse I posted above...I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.


Proverbs 30:5
"Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him."

Hey look here reader if you know GOD you will know that his words are pure and when they are not you are to recognize that....hint hint hint not inspired by GOD

that's MINE two cents

Hey look. If we can't agree on the basic common plain straight forward meaning of what words actually say and mean at face value, then what is the purpose of even reading. I can say the dog jumped over the fence. You might want to read into it saying something else, but it just means a dog jumped over the fence. I mean, I get it. You don't want there to be a final word of authority because such a thing would be scary to you. For it is so much easier to change the Word of God to what we think it should say when we either don't like what God's Word says or when we don't understand it. I am here to tell you to just trust in God and His Word (And see where it takes you). What do you have to lose?

 

[jag1977]

Hey you have to get down to the pure word of God. GOD's word is pure....that is the final authority. I see that you replied with quote but did you see what I wrote...I agreed with that very thing, GOD's word is pure and that is the final authority we must see. The complexities of the word are slightly more advanced than " the dog jumped over the fence". Yeah I get it, Jesus is the God of the old testament, I have been there I know what you are going to say and it is all awesome, keep up the good work! I just do not understand why that starving dog fenced in my neighbor's back yard will not jump over the fence for that bone I threw him. What does he have to lose? His master is printing pictures of ribeyes and leaving them in his bowl and this dog is like channeling all his senses through his eyes so that he smells and taste what he sees with his eyes and now his ribs are showing. His ribs on the account of the eyes are showing! The bone I threw may be a gleaner's years of work in the master's field but at least it is real. Nope he gives me that " I want to see how this plays out" look and the "come join me" look. Nah, I already jumped my fence a long time ago, now I am smart enough not to jump back.

 

[jag1977]

Hey you have to get down to the pure word of God. GOD's word is pure....that is the final authority. I see that you replied with quote but did you see what I wrote...I agreed with that very thing, GOD's word is pure and that is the final authority we must see. The complexities of the word are slightly more advanced than " the dog jumped over the fence". Yeah I get it, Jesus is the God of the old testament, I have been there I know what you are going to say and it is all awesome, keep up the good work! I just do not understand why that starving dog fenced in my neighbor's back yard will not jump over the fence for that bone I threw him. What does he have to lose? His master is printing pictures of ribeyes and leaving them in his bowl and this dog is like channeling all his senses through his eyes so that he smells and taste what he sees with his eyes and now his ribs are showing. His ribs on the account of the eyes are showing! The bone I threw may be a gleaner's years of work in the master's field but at least it is real. Nope he gives me that " I want to see how this plays out" look and the "come join me" look. Nah, I already jumped my fence a long time ago, now I am smart enough not to jump back.

I just figured it out....he cannot hear me or hear himself. He is hearing what he sees with his eyes. I say GOD and the words fly through the air D""""O""""G and that is what he sees so that is what he hears d first then o then g

 

[jag1977]

I just figured it out....he cannot hear me or hear himself. He is hearing what he sees with his eyes. I say GOD and the words fly through the air D""""O""""G and that is what he sees so that is what he hears d first then o then g

There are no rules for his language so he just barks stories out as a sounding brass or tinkling symbol, but hey at least he is happy.

 

[JackH]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

Believing the KJV is divinely inspired and is perfect

Was the KJV "perfect" when it contained the Apocrypha?

 

[cybertech]

By saying this you are saying that the Lord is wrong. Almost all of scripture is written in Hebrew by persons whose language is Hebrew. Hebrew is a language of a people with a different mindset. It will not transfer into other languages without losing some of its meaning. According to the earliest historians, even the gospels were originally in Hebrew. By insisting that the translations we have are perfect, you are denying God's message to us. Even Paul was Hebrew!

No I'm not. The oldest manuscripts we have today and the ones used to write the English Bible, are not the original manuscripts. They were copies of copies, some of which may not have been written down until being orally shared for years. I'm not saying that God didn't inspire them, but the scribes who were copying down the message of those who were inspired are just as fallible as those writing an English Bible. The Hebrew words in the two verses containing Ahaziah are two different words, one is 22 the other 42. I have studied both passages and done a parallel to see if it could be talking about 2 different reigns of Ahaziah, but it wasn't. There is no possible way the two stories aren't about the same events. But the word (either 22 or 42) in one of the books is just a copyist error. It ins't a case of a Hebrew word not having a proper english meaning. It was a number. And I'm not saying our translation is perfect. I'm saying the opposite. It has errors. And if you believe the holy spirit will help guide you to the true meaning, thats okay, the errors won't hurt you. But if you are telling people that the KJV is the only acceptable version because it is free of errors and divinely inspired, you start to have a problem.

 

[cybertech]

I am not going to dispute that you are right or wrong because that is not the true issue here. The issue is faith. A person must start in faith and REALLY BELIEVE before your brain(heart, spirit) will achieve a higher level of enlightenment to understand this contradiction (God will reveal this truth by grace). That is not a lie. There are two sides to every human and to achieve your full potential both sides must be developed. A doctor or scholar can go to school for years and become successful and work 20-30 years and heal hundreds of people and retire a millionaire happy with a family but what if on top of that he understands and develops his spiritual awareness also....then what can be achieved? Cure millions, develop things to alter the direction of humanity...

what is truly known beyond self achievement without a proper spiritual awakening?

I've believed for a really long time, but I still think it's an error. Am I supposed to have faith that Ahaziah was 22 and also 42 when he became King? Sorry, I don't. I think he was one or the other and there is a copy error in the Bible. I don't need to believe that it wasn't and tell myself it'll go away if I just pray for it too. It's okay that it's there.

 

[cybertech]

If the KJV is completely pure word of God, why did the original have the little italics in the margins to indicate that some manuscripts say a different word or phrase? If they were divinely inspired, wouldn't they know which one was correct and not need to add in the note?

 

[Jason0047]

I've believed for a really long time, but I still think it's an error. Am I supposed to have faith that Ahaziah was 22 and also 42 when he became King? Sorry, I don't. I think he was one or the other and there is a copy error in the Bible. I don't need to believe that it wasn't and tell myself it'll go away if I just pray for it too. It's okay that it's there.

It's not an error. This has already been resolved by Bible commentators who believe God's Word is inspired.

Here is a good article so to help give you on understanding on this.

Ahaziah's Age

 

[Jason0047]

If the KJV is completely pure word of God, why did the original have the little italics in the margins to indicate that some manuscripts say a different word or phrase? If they were divinely inspired, wouldn't they know which one was correct and not need to add in the note?

Here is part of an article that explains the marginal notes.

"...Where in Matthew, Mark, Luke or even Jude does the writer profess to be "inerrant" before or after what they wrote? John said the "Things" were true (John 21:24), but never professed inerrancy in his own words one time. When did the original author of Esther, the Proverbs, Jonah, I Peter, Joshua, or 2 Samuel ever profess to be inspired, infallible or inerrant?​

c. The KJV originally included marginal notes containing alternate renderings – making it clear that the wording of the KJV is not above correction or improvement. They admitted that there were Hebrew words that appeared only once in the whole Old Testament whose precise meaning was a matter of conjecture or debate.
​

d. They also included variant readings – an extremely important point that contradicts the KJV-Only doctrine that the slightest variation from the KJV text results in an unreliable or false Bible. In at least one instance they placed half a verse in italics because they were unsure whether it was original (1 John 2:23b).​

Answer: This questions creates the unfounded assumption or impression that the marginal notes of the KJB translators was intended to be part of the text, or that they advocated Alexandrian readings found in modern versions. This simply is not the case. The marginal readings were intended to explain the Hebrew and Greek words (based on the Textus Receptus not the minority Greek and non-traditional Hebrew texts) as specified by King James ("No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text."). This was a textual commentary of sorts consisting primarily of synonyms for words in the text. The marginal notes were never intended to be considered as part of the text, hence why they were separated from the text in the first place.

With regard to italics, see Matt. 4:4 cf. Deut. 8:3, in Greek one will find the word Rhema, which is translated word. In regards to I John 2:23b, it has manuscript attestation even though it is in italics, and modern versions actually accord it full status. It also was in the predecessors of the KJB.

Also, while it is claimed that the KJB translators had an inadequate knowledge of "textual variants" the marginal notes invalidate this. Many who advance this point then illogically criticize them for displaying this very knowledge in the marginal notes. Contrary to popular belief the readings of Vaticanus were known to Erasmus who rejected them.​

Source:
BIBLIOLATRY: BOWMAN, BIBLIOLATRY AND
(While I may strongly disagree with this site's false teaching on OSAS (Once Saved Always Saved), that does not change the truth in this portion of the article I quoted; For example: there are people who correctly believe in the Trinity and yet they have other false doctrines, though.).

 

[Jason0047]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

Was the KJV "perfect" when it contained the Apocrypha?

The 1611 was perfect for it's time. Many knew that the Apocrypha was not a part of the Word of God just as they knew the marginal notes were not a part of the Word of God. Also, during this time there was no standardization of spelling yet and the printing system had not been perfected either. So naturally seeing the printing system was flawed, you were going to naturally have printing errors. This is not an error on the part of God's Word but it was an error on the part of the printing process that existed during that TIME. So for it's TIME, the 1611 was perfect within the confines of the type of world that they lived in.

I believe the 1769 is what the 1611 was intended to be in a world where printing errors were less likely to exist, and when the standardization of spelling finally settled in comfortably. Before the 1769 (1611) KJV, I believe that a translation that existed in the Latin language was perfect up until that point. For Latin was still a world language even during the time of the 1600's/1700's. English only reccently became a world language. Just as at one time Greek was the world language. Why? Because God wanted a perfect Word for the entire world to have.

 

[KJV1611]

It's not an error. This has already been resolved by Bible commentators who believe God's Word is inspired.

Here is a good article so to help give you on understanding on this.

Ahaziah's Age

The explanation in the website is pretty lame.
Answer the questions below and you will see why two different ages were given.

2Ki 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.


Who is Ahaziah's father in verse 24?
Who is Ahaziah's father in verse 25?
Can 2 different fathers father the same child?
How many Ahaziah's were there in Kings and Chronicles?

 

[JackH]

I'm also still waiting for some one to show one single error in the KJV. I've been defending the KJV for about five years and not one person has ever been able to prove a single error in the KJV. Any of you know of one?

I heard a gay dude say the exact same thing about the Queen James Bible.