The King James Only Debate

[KJV1611]

Unfortunately, I sometimes refer to the [ modern ] holiday / celebration as 'Easter' ( for obvious reasons ) -- but, I know the real history -- and calling the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ 'Easter' is actually incorrect according to that history. And, the Lord is probably very disappointed that we use the name of a pagan 'festival' in association with his death, burial, and resurrection. But then, most Christians are completely unaware of the history...

A similar thing exists with 'Christmas' -- which is not actually the time of the birth of Christ.

GaryA per Wikipedia the association of Eostre worship with Easter died out in the 8th century and was replaced by the Christian Paschal month, a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus. So from the 8th century even up until now Easter means the resurrection of Jesus.

Words change over the years so we can't make a blanket statement that Easter is a bad word. Like I said earlier the entire world uses Easter a purely and strictly Christian meaning.


Ēostre or Ostara (Old English: Ēastre [æːɑstre], Northumbrian dialect Ēostre [eːostre]; Old High German: *Ôstara (reconstructed form)) is a Germanic goddess who, by way of the Germanic month bearing her name (Northumbrian: Ēosturmōnaþ; West Saxon: Ēastermōnaþ; Old High German: Ôstarmânoth ), is the namesake of the festival of Easter in some languages. Ēostre is attested solely by Bede in his 8th-century work The Reckoning of Time, where Bede states that during Ēosturmōnaþ (the equivalent of April), pagan Anglo-Saxonshad held feasts in Ēostre's honor, but that this tradition had died out by his time, replaced by the Christian Paschal month, a celebration of the resurrection of Jesus

 

[KJV1611]

"You are not understanding the inerrant word..."

The word 'Easter' was used in that verse of scripture because it was not talking about the passover; rather, it was referring to a pagan holiday / celebration / festival that was to take place [ soon ] after the passover. It had absolutely nothing to do with the passover.

What we call 'Easter' today is actually an incorrect name for it.

We know what it is; however, we are using the wrong name...

Are you telling me that the original word pascha in the "original writings" was wrong? The origianl Greek DID NOT say Easter. I don't trust the copies of the original manuscripts nearly as much as I do the KJV but I can almost guarantee you that pascha was the right original word. What say you? Original is right or wrong?

 

[KJV1611]

"You are not understanding the inerrant word..."

The word 'Easter' was used in that verse of scripture because it was not talking about the passover; rather, it was referring to a pagan holiday / celebration / festival that was to take place [ soon ] after the passover. It had absolutely nothing to do with the passover.

What we call 'Easter' today is actually an incorrect name for it.

We know what it is; however, we are using the wrong name...

According to the KJV we are using the God ordained word. Either the KJV is inerrant or it is no different or no better than any other translation.... It should be tossed out and not used because if it contains one error then it contains many errors because it was ot inspired by God.

 

[KJV1611]

for us, our peace and comfort and trust is in what Jesus=God=The Holy Spirit teaches us, and so,
we believe and fully trust whatever we are told by the presence of This Holiness, who represents each and
every Word of God that He wants us to learn in order to become whom He desires us to be...

we go where we are led - we read what He tells us to read - we believe what He says -
we obey what He tells us to do...
we don't question His ways or His means for accomplishing this in our lives...
we only Believe and Worship and accept as He desires to lead us, because we know
that His Super-Natural Love is the only thing in this wicked world that is real...

If the Holy Spirit taught us all then we would all believe the same thing and we wouldn't have over 33000 denominations. The Holy Spirit doesn't teach one group that women preachers are ok and then another that women preachers are not permitted... the same with all doctrine. Somebody somewhere THINKS the Holy Spirit is teaching them but it's actually not the Holy Spirit teaching them. The Holy Spirit and the written word is the only path to truth.

 

[willfollowsGod]

If the Holy Spirit taught us all then we would all believe the same thing and we wouldn't have over 33000 denominations. The Holy Spirit doesn't teach one group that women preachers are ok and then another that women preachers are not permitted... the same with all doctrine. Somebody somewhere THINKS the Holy Spirit is teaching them but it's actually not the Holy Spirit teaching them. The Holy Spirit and the written word is the only path to truth.

I don't see denominations as a problem but diversity in the body of Christ, the church. The problem are the denominations that are not following God's word or exalt one version of the Bible over another. As for male and women preachers thing, the Bible is not clear about that, even though I can see why some believe one side and other, the other side. Though the explanation my adult Sunday school teacher gave explained the cultural significance most likely of what that was about as well as the veil thing, if looked at in context and not just by one verse. It is not a salvation issue. The Holy Spirit teaches what is biblical and not what the world or the flesh wants. Whether one believes women should or should not be preach is not usually a world or flesh issue, it is just trying to understand the passage as well as looking at other passages in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The triune God, Jesus the Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the word of God, the Bible, is the only path to truth but God uses ministers who preach God's word and tackle these with love and respect for those who agree and disagree with its contents. God bless.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't see denominations as a problem but diversity in the body of Christ, the church. The problem are the denominations that are not following God's word or exalt one version of the Bible over another. As for male and women preachers thing, the Bible is not clear about that, even though I can see why some believe one side and other, the other side. Though the explanation my adult Sunday school teacher gave explained the cultural significance most likely of what that was about as well as the veil thing, if looked at in context and not just by one verse. It is not a salvation issue. The Holy Spirit teaches what is biblical and not what the world or the flesh wants. Whether one believes women should or should not be preach is not usually a world or flesh issue, it is just trying to understand the passage as well as looking at other passages in the Old Testament and the New Testament. The triune God, Jesus the Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Spirit in conjunction with the word of God, the Bible, is the only path to truth but God uses ministers who preach God's word and tackle these with love and respect for those who agree and disagree with its contents. God bless.

Agreed, the body is diverse, we all are different body parts with different functions in the body and we all see through a glass dimly too. And you are right, there are denominations that are not following God's word and one of the reason they are not is because "you can't put God in a box, everything God says isn't in the bible". Now the door is wide open for heresey because there is no inerrant standard to keep us lined up with the Spirit of God... that's the point I was trying to make. God bless you too! You're such a pleasure to talk with.

 

[stonesoffire]

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Differences were in the very beginning.

So what is the unity that Paul spoke of?

 

[willfollowsGod]

1Co 1:10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Differences were in the very beginning.


So what is the unity that Paul spoke of?

Again, context, context, context, read the whole chapter as well as those before that and you will see what Paul is talking about and the unity he is preaching. Unity in Christ, unity in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, those that are salvation issues not the non-salvation issue ones, etc. As Christians, we must united in following Christ even if we are diverse in our theological, political, etc views. The danger is when our views are very different and not correct with what the Bible is saying, then we are in trouble, like the KJV-only movement. There is no verse in the Bible that says, thou shall read only the KJV and only the KJV, so help me God. Nowhere in there. God bless.

 

[KJV1611]

Again, context, context, context, read the whole chapter as well as those before that and you will see what Paul is talking about and the unity he is preaching. Unity in Christ, unity in the fundamentals of the Christian faith, those that are salvation issues not the non-salvation issue ones, etc. As Christians, we must united in following Christ even if we are diverse in our theological, political, etc views. The danger is when our views are very different and not correct with what the Bible is saying, then we are in trouble, like the KJV-only movement. There is no verse in the Bible that says, thou shall read only the KJV and only the KJV, so help me God. Nowhere in there. God bless.

The bible does actually say that there are 2 different bibles but it's in parable form.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV
For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. [32] For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: [33] Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Their rock is the antichrist and their vine is the corrupted word of God.

There is a Christ and an antichrist, there is a pure vine (pure word of God) and then there is the vine of Sodom which is the corrupted word of God.... That's why I get on here and preach KJV only, the others are the vine of Sodom.

 

[willfollowsGod]

The bible does actually say that there are 2 different bibles but it's in parable form.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV
For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. [32] For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: [33] Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Their rock is the antichrist and their vine is the corrupted word of God.

There is a Christ and an antichrist, there is a pure vine (pure word of God) and then there is the vine of Sodom which is the corrupted word of God.... That's why I get on here and preach KJV only, the others are the vine of Sodom.

The NIV and other Bibles that are not the KJV are not the vine of Sodom. This is why I can't stand the KJV-only supporters, they are so full of themselves and less filled with God. God bless.

 

[KJV1611]

The NIV and other Bibles that are not the KJV are not the vine of Sodom. This is why I can't stand the KJV-only supporters, they are so full of themselves and less filled with God. God bless.

Have you studied it to see? Those newer translations are significantly different than the KJV. The newer translations almost always emphasize the works of a believer. Some one brought up the "sudy to shew thyself approved" example the other day... the NIV turns that verse into a believer doing all he can do to maintain favor with God... that's the vine of Sodom, do works to please God. Do you have to do "good things" to be approved by God?

 

[Dan_473]

The bible does actually say that there are 2 different bibles but it's in parable form.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV
For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. [32] For their vine is of the vine of Sodom, and of the fields of Gomorrah: their grapes are grapes of gall, their clusters are bitter: [33] Their wine is the poison of dragons, and the cruel venom of asps.

Their rock is the antichrist and their vine is the corrupted word of God.

There is a Christ and an antichrist, there is a pure vine (pure word of God) and then there is the vine of Sodom which is the corrupted word of God.... That's why I get on here and preach KJV only, the others are the vine of Sodom.

I'm confused, my man... I can't see how this post from earlier goes with what you wrote above.

I believe the KJV is inerrant and I am KJV only FOR ME.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm confused, my man... I can't see how this post from earlier goes with what you wrote above.

No need to be confused, there is some truth in all translations, it's just mixed with error in the newer translations.

 

[Dan_473]

No need to be confused, there is some truth in all translations, it's just mixed with error in the newer translations.

no, I'm confused about whether you are kjv only for yourself, or if you believe every other bible is from satan and should be avoided by everyone.




because


' That's why I get on here and preach KJV only, the others are the vine of Sodom.'

' I am KJV only FOR ME.'

 

[Agricola]

The bible does actually say that there are 2 different bibles but it's in parable form.

Deuteronomy 32:31-33 KJV

That is on par with the Psalm 12:6. Anyone can cherry pick a verse and give whatever meaning to it. Deuteronomy 32:31-33 has nothing to do with Bible versions or texts.

 

[KJV1611]

no, I'm confused about whether you are kjv only for yourself, or if you believe every other bible is from satan and should be avoided by everyone.




because


' That's why I get on here and preach KJV only, the others are the vine of Sodom.'

' I am KJV only FOR ME.'

Let me make this as clear as I can. I am KJV only for myself, meaning I want read other versions. Also I would never recommend anyone to read the newer translations.

 

[KJV1611]

That is on par with the Psalm 12:6. Anyone can cherry pick a verse and give whatever meaning to it. Deuteronomy 32:31-33 has nothing to do with Bible versions or texts.

Yeah, that would be the case for all parables. If you don't understand the symbols then you wont understand the parables. Who do you think the Rock is in Deuteronomy 32? The rock? The vine?

Edit: If you don't read the KJV then you never understand the symbols because the symbology is not maintained in the newer versions.

 

[Dan_473]

Let me make this as clear as I can. I am KJV only for myself, meaning I want read other versions. Also I would never recommend anyone to read the newer translations.

I'm still confused...

do you mean you fully trust only the kjv, but still read other versions to gain insight?


and you would never recommend anyone to read the newer translations because they are Antichrist?

' There is a Christ and an antichrist, there is a pure vine (pure word of God) and then there is the vine of Sodom which is the corrupted word of God.'

 

[KJV1611]

I'm still confused...

do you mean you fully trust only the kjv, but still read other versions to gain insight?


and you would never recommend anyone to read the newer translations because they are Antichrist?

' There is a Christ and an antichrist, there is a pure vine (pure word of God) and then there is the vine of Sodom which is the corrupted word of God.'

Yes I fully trust the KJV and No I wouldn't touch an NIV with a 10 foot pole lol. I had one at one time and I threw it in the trash can. The only resources I use for bible study is the KJV and some times a dictionary.

I would never recommend any of the newer translations because they are antichrist bibles... geez man read them and compare them to the KJV, it's obvious they're antichrist bibles.

 

[Dan_473]

Yes I fully trust the KJV and No I wouldn't touch an NIV with a 10 foot pole lol. I had one at one time and I threw it in the trash can. The only resources I use for bible study is the KJV and some times a dictionary.

I would never recommend any of the newer translations because they are antichrist bibles... geez man read them and compare them to the KJV, it's obvious they're antichrist bibles.

OK so... could we say you believe

every English Bible after the kjv is an Antichrist bible

and every Bible before it wasn't fully mature...

leaving the kjv only.