Is KJV the only real bible version?

[kennethcadwell]

The KJV was the fulfillment of Mark 13:10. It was the gospel that had to be published before the end or rapture came. It was completed in 1611 n the great prince Michael (Dan 12:1) stood up in 1613. During the only era n history that is called the times of troubles (1598-1613) Reading n studying from it believing all that u read will cause u to hear God's voice. To this I am a living witness. My Lord taught us from the KJV. I will read no other. Peace n blessings

Well unfortunately there is still parts of the world to this day that the gospel has not reached yet, so the KJV being published back in 1611 has not fulfilled Mark 13:10 as it is still on going.......
No rapture has taken place, no great tribulation, no second coming, and no 1,000 year millennial reign of Christ. All still awaiting to be fulfilled.

 

[Reformedjason]

If you like the mss that the kjv is based on use the nkjv because it uses the same mss and has footnotes for the mt and the nu. Win win. If you want to only use the kjv, more power to ya. It is a solid translation. I dont care much for the old words.

 

[Dan_473]

To the question posed here.......i wonder if outside of the western world there is debate over what version of the bible to read?
i personally prefer kjv but was saved reading the niv so i don't get the whole this version only thing.

in the greek orthodox church, the lxx is usually the preferred version for the ot... I think they just use copies of the original greek for the nt...

 

[Dan_473]

The KJV was the fulfillment of Mark 13:10. It was the gospel that had to be published before the end or rapture came. It was completed in 1611 n the great prince Michael (Dan 12:1) stood up in 1613. During the only era n history that is called the times of troubles (1598-1613) Reading n studying from it believing all that u read will cause u to hear God's voice. To this I am a living witness. My Lord taught us from the KJV. I will read no other. Peace n blessings

it's fine if people want to choose to believe something... in this case that the kjv is in some way God's version... since it's a matter of belief, faith, there's no disputing it using reason... I've felt God most strongly speaking through the nasb... though I don't believe it's inspired in a special way...

n peace n blessings to you too!

 

[notuptome]

I hope you all consider that Islam only considers the Arabic Koran or Q'ran to be the true version. If you read it translated into English you are reading a perverted version. They are different from this discussion only in that you guys are not killing each other over the different versions. At least not yet.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[Jeff_56]

People will just say about anything to forbid people from the Kingdom of God - including, if you don't read the KJV your going to hell

like jesus says - directly to them who were/are in charge> you have the keys to heaven and won't enter in yourself, and if a little one tries to find heaven you do everything in your power to prevent them

To the question posed here.......i wonder if outside of the western world there is debate over what version of the bible to read?
i personally prefer kjv but was saved reading the niv so i don't get the whole this version only thing.

usually it's about 'what to believe' , and it's pertinent this, because even the ones in power who have the most accurate Torah (all Scripture) in writing, they are often vehemently opposed to christ jesus the messiah, they are directly enemies of yahweh, and they persecute all his children everywhere anywhere on earth that they have ability to do so.

I'm a French model. Bon jour.

Please point me to some posts of yours where you displayed your awesome knowledge of Greek and Hebrew.

While I'm waiting, I'll ask you a few questions:

What specifically is the most significant Hebrew manuscript ever discovered, and why?

How does that manuscript differ or agree with the KJV?

just winging it here >>> the most significant Hebrew manuscript ever discovered" i think is the ten words of yahweh , because yahweh wrote them himself, (i don't think he wrote anything else(besides the hand/finger that appeared and wrote on the wall) physically on anything physically solid that still remains (what yahshua wrote in the dirt is certainly long erased, although..... .... who knows?).....

course, don't know if you consider 'stone' to fit the criteria meant by 'manuscript' ...

more fully encompassing yahweh's torah / word/ scripture ........ it is necessary to understand yahshua's word >> the word's that i speak to you they are spirit and they are life......

once that is understood (by divine revelation/breath of yahweh ; no other way ever possible) all the rest of yahweh's word is opened up..... even the kjv with all the necessary errors from being in english as it is including the errors in meaning introduced by the heresy around and after 300 a.d. that cannot be understood apart from revelation from yahweh.

 

[john832]

So, in regard to the thread title, I guess no one ever read the Bible prior to 1611?

 

[MarcR]

I believe that the various translations are far more notable for their agreement than their disagreement.

God, in His wisdom, has chosen to use imperfect men to convey His perfect Word.

I believe that the Holy Spirit superintends the translation process to the extent that while he allows human error to come into the text; He does not allow human error to compromise any essential teaching or doctrine.

The only possible exception to this may be a translation made by a sect or cult who puts their own literature on a par with or above Scripture in its authority.

I believe that any translation read prayerfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth.

 

[90sjesusfreak]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnie3m1_hX8

 

[SaintJoeNow]

You picked two of the most liberal versions to compare it to, lol.
Try an ESV, NASB, AMP, HCSB, etc.
NASB is the strongest in terms of word-for-word literal translation, but often uses the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint. Seeing as Jesus and the Apostles always quote from the Septuagint rendering, I like translations that use it as the OT source text.

KJV is a solid translation, but is easily misunderstood by modern English readers,
and easily twisted by modern heretics (the flowery language gives them an air of spiritual authority, and gives the audience a dose of confusion that is easily exploitable).

How do you know what a solid translation is if the orignals have been changed by error in copying or in translation? By your line of thinking, there is no such thing as a solid translation because they all have holes.

All you are doing is claiming to be in the club of intellects who collectively take the best guess at what the originals said.

 

[SaintJoeNow]

So, in regard to the thread title, I guess no one ever read the Bible prior to 1611?

I guess you think you know

 

[SaintJoeNow]

I believe that the various translations are far more notable for their agreement than their disagreement.

God, in His wisdom, has chosen to use imperfect men to convey His perfect Word.

I believe that the Holy Spirit superintends the translation process to the extent that while he allows human error to come into the text; He does not allow human error to compromise any essential teaching or doctrine.

The only possible exception to this may be a translation made by a sect or cult who puts their own literature on a par with or above Scripture in its authority.

I believe that any translation read prayerfully under the guidance of the Holy Spirit will lead you to the truth.

If you are really being guided by the Holy Spirit in examinging varying translations, you will throw the ones the are wrong in the trash. They can't all be right, and they all say things that disagree with the King James Bible. God was not wishy-washy in scripture, and it is not open to varying translations.

Check out some of these sites to see the doctrine of preservation and the documented heresies taught in the modern versions which were made by ungodly people.

Principles of Bible Preservation
Why Do We Support only The King James Bible For the English people?


The second link gives reference to an extremely well researched evaluation of all modern versions showing the doctrinal changes and the inherent evils in those translations.

Modern versions belong in a bonfire, and if you study these things out from the pro-King James side of the issue, I believe you will come into full agreement with me on this subject because you have always been reasonable and kind with me even when not in full agrreement....but you seem like a person who allows themselves to be corrected by keeping an open mind to the possibility of being misinformed by deceitful sources....

Please check out the sites listed


Also, Dr Riplinger's best selling book...

• In New Age Bible Versions, G.A. Riplinger objectively and methodically documents the hidden alliance between new Bible versions and the New Age Movement's One World Religion.
  New Age Bible Versions takes the reader behind the scenes to expose the corrupted Greek manuscripts, critical editions, lexicons and dictionaries behind new versions such as the NIV, NASV, NKJV, NRSV, NAB, REB, RSV, CEV, TEV, GNB, LIVING, PHILLIPS, NEW JERUSALEM, & NEW CENTURY. New Age Bible Versions goes on to reveal their occult origins and contents.
  Each page of New Age Bible Versions opens a door exposing new version editors — men in agreement with Luciferians, occultists, and New Age philosophy —find these men in mental institutions, séance parlors, prison cells, and court rooms for heresy trials— and most shocking of all — denying that salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ. Five new version editors have lost their ability to speak.
  Dr. Gail Riplinger also exposes yet unreleased material — a blueprint for the Antichrist's One World Religion and government.

 

[RickyZ]

So, in regard to the thread title, I guess no one ever read the Bible prior to 1611?

Nah, they had to read those unreliable original manuscripts.