String's, Westcott and Hort, Thayer's...

[Dai3234]

They have no basis for the KJV superiority complex they have, so they do smear tactics. They try to defame ppl's character. If you can't assassinate their stance, assassinate their character.

Personally, I think the KJV needs pulled off the shelves of all stores and online sites. Its ran its course, and now its time to put it to pasture. Not that I think its a bad translation, but 1) its antiquated 17th century Elizabethan language that no one speaks in today's world, and 2) all the lunacy and goonacy the KJVOnlyists show forth in their anti-modern versions stance.

I think you should go back to the bench. New versions alter doctrine. They have been proved to do so, an they keep altering new versions of the same Bible.

Who wants an NIV Bible that keeps changing? Or a version that says Christ is a liar by removing, yet.

Not to mention all the shady people involved. Like Rupert Murdoch getting a knighthood from the Catholic church (zondervan). Etc.

Or Strong's, Thayer's, vines, Westcott and Hort and whoever else, working together on committee's.

Also, if the KJV is a grade 4/5 school level, and is meant to be read from beginning to end, and you've never read it before and jump to revelation, of course your not going to easily understand it.

But that's the reader, not bothering to learn it.

The problem today is, that people are impatient and want to understand it now, right now, like brats. Lazy teenager moaners.

Just read it. Do the work. If you don't understand a word, use the internal dictionary method +, and if you definitely need to know what a unicorn actually is, maybe your a little too picky for any Bible. Or just look it up.

Your choice. But don't expect everyone to just accept the "Amazingly easy New messed up, lazy" versions, because you don't like the KJV.

I'm not keen on the KJV, but it's the only Bible I can find that does NOT, have the issues of new versions (Westcott and Hort versions). Or confused versions (thee, thou, removed etc).

You can all read what you want. But don't say I can't have a KJV and want it removed from shelves, because of your personal preference.

Besides, people who used to have most versions and still do, because I don't feel right, burning even New versions, funilly enough, get upset and angry, every time I find a flaw or a doctrine change.

So I'll stick with time tested, UK, America dominating KJV, and not the seemingly dead and feminine (human) new versions. After all, what have they achieved in the world compared to the KJV?

You buy enough and make enough study bibles, so why not try KJV versions of it's too difficult? But they are also dangerous in my opinion, just because of denomination slants. So, yeah, whatever. God will do what God does, anyway. Whether we follow or not.

 

[John146]

I will say, that KJV contains no errors that affect doctrine, when properly read in context. But, because so many words are archaic, obscure or have changed meanings, it is simply not the best Bible version to use. Because all those "old" words result in a LOT of bad doctrine. But that is the fault of the person not understanding what the KJV says, in that 400 year old language.

It's funny you always bring up "archaic" when referring to the KJV language, and then brag about your extensive knowledge in the Greek. This makes me chuckle. You can't understand thee and thou but you can understand the Greek language?

 

[trofimus]

I think you should go back to the bench. New versions alter doctrine. They have been proved to do so, an they keep altering new versions of the same Bible.

Who wants an NIV Bible that keeps changing? Or a version that says Christ is a liar by removing, yet.

Not to mention all the shady people involved. Like Rupert Murdoch getting a knighthood from the Catholic church (zondervan). Etc.

Or Strong's, Thayer's, vines, Westcott and Hort and whoever else, working together on committee's.

Also, if the KJV is a grade 4/5 school level, and is meant to be read from beginning to end, and you've never read it before and jump to revelation, of course your not going to easily understand it.

But that's the reader, not bothering to learn it.

The problem today is, that people are impatient and want to understand it now, right now, like brats. Lazy teenager moaners.

Just read it. Do the work. If you don't understand a word, use the internal dictionary method +, and if you definitely need to know what a unicorn actually is, maybe your a little too picky for any Bible. Or just look it up.

Your choice. But don't expect everyone to just accept the "Amazingly easy New messed up, lazy" versions, because you don't like the KJV.

I'm not keen on the KJV, but it's the only Bible I can find that does NOT, have the issues of new versions (Westcott and Hort versions). Or confused versions (thee, thou, removed etc).

You can all read what you want. But don't say I can't have a KJV and want it removed from shelves, because of your personal preference.

Besides, people who used to have most versions and still do, because I don't feel right, burning even New versions, funilly enough, get upset and angry, every time I find a flaw or a doctrine change.

So I'll stick with time tested, UK, America dominating KJV, and not the seemingly dead and feminine (human) new versions. After all, what have they achieved in the world compared to the KJV?

You buy enough and make enough study bibles, so why not try KJV versions of it's too difficult? But they are also dangerous in my opinion, just because of denomination slants. So, yeah, whatever. God will do what God does, anyway. Whether we follow or not.

The KJV is not a canon of the "right text", so you cannot say that new version change doctrine based only on the difference against the KJV.

 

[Dai3234]

The KJV is not a canon of the "right text", so you cannot say that new version change doctrine based only on the difference against the KJV.

Your point is illogical. Your basically saying the text the Catholic church used, and the KJV used is wrong?
That calling Christ a liar is ok, because it's a new version?

So the church from nearly the beginning centuries until the king James, including the Catholic church and all other Bible's are of the wrong text? That's what your saying?

Do you see how poor your point is?

The new text are different in doctrine. KJV says saved, all others say being saved.

If the KJV supports saved, but any greek text "expression", says, saved in continuation (being continuously saved forever etc), the English translation of saved is more accurate.

English translation of saved is indefinite, being saved implies able to lose salvation. Then Christianity becomes a works salvation, like Catholicism, or new age Calvinism (not to be confused with old Calvinists spurgeon etc, predestination & full salvation etc) as far as my limited knowledge knows. Anyway, I'm just irritated the UK is still in the EU, hope we leave soon, I think the EU pulse fishing is a tactic for future control of sea life, destroying UK reserves, but hey maybe Soros paying the EU or at least mourners of it, is just conspiracy nut talk? Even though Farage mentioned it.

 

[Bogadile]

That's a line from the Jesuit playbook. You forgot to add that the KJB needs to be burned publicly in great heaps, and all those who use it put to death like William Tyndale.

The evidence that the power and blessings of God rest on the KJB is the irrational hatred for this outstanding Bible which parallels the irrational hatred for Christ Himself. Both are the Word of God, and both are hated with a cause. All the more reason to use it, since every other "Bible" is actually a PERVERSION of the true Bible and the truth.

You do know that SovereignGrace is a reformed protestant right? This makes you look very conspiratorial. Are you one of those people who believe James White is a wolf sent by the catholics or something?

I own a King James Bible and as you can see from my posts here it is the Bible I tend to quote. Yet I have never had anyone on this forum confront me about using the KJV or put me down for it. You know why they do not do that to me? Because I am not claiming every other bible is satanic. That is why.
For me it is pure preference, I do not talk down to those who use other translations on here.
And that is where the irrational hatred as you call it for the KJV stems from, it is not (I hope) the Bible itself but it is the mindset of people who have made the KJV into an idol that causes people to have a strong dislike.

The Church is facing enough problems as it is. No need to divide further over bible translations.

 

[trofimus]

Your point is illogical. Your basically saying the text the Catholic church used, and the KJV used is wrong?
That calling Christ a liar is ok, because it's a new version?

So the church from nearly the beginning centuries until the king James, including the Catholic church and all other Bible's are of the wrong text? That's what your saying?

Do you see how poor your point is?

The new text are different in doctrine. KJV says saved, all others say being saved.

If the KJV supports saved, but any greek text "expression", says, saved in continuation (being continuously saved forever etc), the English translation of saved is more accurate.

English translation of saved is indefinite, being saved implies able to lose salvation. Then Christianity becomes a works salvation, like Catholicism, or new age Calvinism (not to be confused with old Calvinists spurgeon etc, predestination & full salvation etc) as far as my limited knowledge knows. Anyway, I'm just irritated the UK is still in the EU, hope we leave soon, I think the EU pulse fishing is a tactic for future control of sea life, destroying UK reserves, but hey maybe Soros paying the EU or at least mourners of it, is just conspiracy nut talk? Even though Farage mentioned it.

I found not logical flow in your post so I have no idea how to react to this mess...

So I will try again - the KJV is not any canon of the "right text" or of the "right English translation".

So you cannot just take some other translation, compare it to the KJV and say "hey, this was changed, Christ is made liar" and similar proclamations based on nothing more than some KJV tradition.

 

[Bogadile]

So I'll stick with time tested, UK, America dominating KJV, and not the seemingly dead and feminine (human) new versions. After all, what have they achieved in the world compared to the KJV?

You think Bible versions "achieve" something in the world? My goodness.

The Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men, the bible version is irrelevant.
People were getting saved before the New Testament canon was even completed.

Dai I got a question for you, are you a calvinist? I am betting on No. I ask because I find it funny how most of the KJVOnly folks are vehemently against calvinism, while the translators of the KJV were all calvinists. I just think it is ironic.

 

[Dai3234]

I found not logical flow in your post so I have no idea how to react to this mess...

So I will try again - the KJV is not any canon of the "right text" or of the "right English translation".

So you cannot just take some other translation, compare it to the KJV and say "hey, this was changed, Christ is made liar" and similar proclamations based on nothing more than some KJV tradition.

You can't be a Christian if you think it is ok to turn Christ into a liar. The ESV, and I think NIV did that, by just removing the word, yet.

Ok, the versions read ok. But it's to do with text line origin. The Catholic church and the KJV and previous Bibles, as far as I know, did NOT use sainaiticus and Vaticainus. The Catholic Bible did not use them, or the KJV.

So, your argument says, for about 1000+ years, no Bible anyone had was at all correct. Until someone found the dead sea Scrolls.

Hmm, yeah, the way must be more narrow than I thought. Because God hid his word? Until the new versions. That keep changing.

How will you ever know what Bible to follow. How could anyone edify you, rebuke you or other. When all you have to say is "IT'S NOT IN MY BIBLE".

NO church or congregation could understand or follow a message from one pastor. I see many versions in many churches. It creates a lack of congregation learning, cohesion, and removes some help from eachother because we don't know eachothers bibles, creating a congregational lack of confidence, assurance, support, trust and whatever else.

One Bible, solves quite a few of these issues. But, maybe I'm wrong on everything. Who knows but God.

 

[Dai3234]

You think Bible versions "achieve" something in the world? My goodness.

The Holy Spirit works in the hearts of men, the bible version is irrelevant.
People were getting saved before the New Testament canon was even completed.

Dai I got a question for you, are you a calvinist? I am betting on No. I ask because I find it funny how most of the KJVOnly folks are vehemently against calvinism, while the translators of the KJV were all calvinists. I just think it is ironic.

As far as I know so far, I'm an old-school Calvinist. I even heard either Piper, McArthur, Chan or a number say, keep yourself saved. I think they get confused sometimes, just like alot of people. As far as I know, a Calvinist does not believe in limited salvation, but limited atonement. Keeping yourself saved is limited salvation. Also old Calvinists like spurgeon, as far as I know believed in predestination, as is mentioned throughout the Bible, and new Calvinists mix this a little.

So what sort of Calvinist did you mean, new or old?

 

[trofimus]

You can't be a Christian if you think it is ok to turn Christ into a liar. The ESV, and I think NIV did that, by just removing the word, yet.

Ok, the versions read ok. But it's to do with text line origin. The Catholic church and the KJV and previous Bibles, as far as I know, did NOT use sainaiticus and Vaticainus. The Catholic Bible did not use them, or the KJV.

So, your argument says, for about 1000+ years, no Bible anyone had was at all correct. Until someone found the dead sea Scrolls.

Hmm, yeah, the way must be more narrow than I thought. Because God hid his word? Until the new versions. That keep changing.

How will you ever know what Bible to follow. How could anyone edify you, rebuke you or other. When all you have to say is "IT'S NOT IN MY BIBLE".

NO church or congregation could understand or follow a message from one pastor. I see many versions in many churches. It creates a lack of congregation learning, cohesion, and removes some help from eachother because we don't know eachothers bibles, creating a congregational lack of confidence, assurance, support, trust and whatever else.

One Bible, solves quite a few of these issues. But, maybe I'm wrong on everything. Who knows but God.

I think you should study the topic a little.

 

[preacher4truth]

Oh, I get the gist of Neh6 and other KJVO'ers: If you use another translation besides the errant KJV, you're of the devil, the translation you use is of the devil and you're mocking God and his Word. If you happen to believe the Scriptures that we are in fact elected and predestined to salvation, that God is Sovereign in this, then you're Reformed, Calvinist and lost.

 

[preacher4truth]

You can't be a Christian if you think it is ok to turn Christ into a liar. The ESV, and I think NIV did that, by just removing the word, yet.

So the ESV and NIV aren't "Christians" or are you saying those who use them aren't Christians?

 

[preacher4truth]

That calling Christ a liar is ok, because it's a new version?

Where is this alleged text that calls Christ a liar?

 

[Nehemiah6]

Oh, I get the gist of Neh6 and other KJVO'ers: If you use another translation besides the errant KJV, you're of the devil, the translation you use is of the devil and you're mocking God and his Word.

Not of the devil, but DECEIVED by the Devil. Big difference.

If you happen to believe the Scriptures that we are in fact elected and predestined to salvation, that God is Sovereign in this, then you're Reformed, Calvinist and lost.

Not "lost" but DELUDED. Big difference. I have never stated that those who hold to Reformed Doctrine are lost. But I have suggested that they are deluded by the doctrines of men.

Peter, for example, was an outstanding apostle. But he was DELUDED by other Jewish believers into thinking that he must not eat with Gentiles. And Paul had to rebuke him for this delusion.

For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (Gal 2:12).

 

[Nehemiah6]

So you cannot just take some other translation, compare it to the KJV and say "hey, this was changed, Christ is made liar" and similar proclamations based on nothing more than some KJV tradition.

If the issue was merely "KJV tradition" we would not have a leg to stand on. However when the issue is that the MAJORITY of existing manuscripts (including the lectionaries and the writings of the Early Church Fathers) support the readings of the TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts (texts which have been in force since the Bible began to be written) then clearly it is a very different issue.

If a mere handful of corrupted manuscripts differ vastly from the majority, their age means absolutely nothing. Their connection to Gnostic heretics is the real issue. And that is what the modern versions are based upon -- corrupted manuscripts which have been deceptively presented as "THE OLDEST therefore THE BEST". And that is the lie of the Devil.

 

[Nehemiah6]

"The King James Only Controversy" by James R. White
Answering those who claim that only the King James Version is the Word of God, this book examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers away from the true Christian faith. Endorsed by Norman Geisler, D.A. Carson, Hank Hanegraaff, J. I. Packer, John MacArthur, and Bruce Metzger,

Just because all these well-know men have been DECEIVED AND DELUDED does not mean that they have a handle on the Bible version issue. After Westcott & Hort presented their total fantasy about the Greek text, almost all the leading theologians and scholars fell for their deception. Thus began the Great Bible Version Hoax, and quoting Bruce Metzger is really quoting Westcott & Hort. No difference.

If you want the truth -- Christian -- study The Revision Revised by Dean John W. Burgon. He has thoroughly unmasked W&H and their delusions. Then go on to what Scrivener had to say about this matter, since Scrivener was the leading 19th century textual scholar. How come he is not quoted by the likes of James White and D. A. Carson?

D. A. Waite is equally competent, and he has exposed these deluded people. Check out his website. The Bible For Today HomePage

 

[trofimus]

If the issue was merely "KJV tradition" we would not have a leg to stand on. However when the issue is that the MAJORITY of existing manuscripts (including the lectionaries and the writings of the Early Church Fathers) support the readings of the TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts (texts which have been in force since the Bible began to be written) then clearly it is a very different issue.

If a mere handful of corrupted manuscripts differ vastly from the majority, their age means absolutely nothing. Their connection to Gnostic heretics is the real issue. And that is what the modern versions are based upon -- corrupted manuscripts which have been deceptively presented as "THE OLDEST therefore THE BEST". And that is the lie of the Devil.

These old arguments are very inconistent.

1. Majority argument is not right or wrong by itself. Sometimes majority is right, sometimes majority is wrong. It says nothing.

2. This supposed majority does not work for the KJV well:
a) For example the majority OT was Greek Septuagint or Vulgate and the KJV used Jewish texts not used by the majority in church at all.
b) Majority text is constantly changing in time. First centuries majority was what was minority in medieaval age and now this minority text become again majority in print and the medieval majority became minority today.

3. Even though the KJV is more similar to majority than to minority text, it is not a representative of the real majority. The real majority text is so called "byzantine text", not the textus receptus.

 

[Snoozy]

KING JAMES BIIIBLE. THE BEST ENGLISH BIBLE IN THE WORLD. deal with it.

 

[Johnny_B]

KJV Only believe act like the 1611 KJV has never been altered, the only thing left is someone saying, "if KJV was good enough for the apostle Pau it is good enough for me"

For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life. 1611 KJV

 

[Dai3234]

So the ESV and NIV aren't "Christians" or are you saying those who use them aren't Christians?

What are you talking about????????

If you think it is ok to make Jesus Christ a liar by accepting it as ok in the new versions, your opinion suggests you can't be Christian, is what I was getting at. I don't think I'm going to continue this, as your obviously not getting any of my points or are just being awkward intentionally. It's pointless explaining to someone who doesn't understand. And please stop calling me KJV only. I'm TR Masoretic, as long as it's accurately translated.