The King James Only Debate

[The_Bible]

(Gen 1:9-10)9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth;

That is a possible explanation, except if the act of creating is to bring into existence something that has never existed before in nature or substance, then if heaven and earth already existed before Genesis 1:1 wouldn't it have said heavens and earths.

Gen 1:9-10 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10 And God called the dry land Earth;

Yea I never said there was a heaven before Genesis 1:1. The first heaven was indeed created by God, as was the Earth.

 

[Tintin]

Yea I never said there was a heaven before Genesis 1:1. The first heaven was indeed created by God, as was the Earth.

There has only been one Heaven and one Earth.

 

[John146]

There has only been one Heaven and one Earth.

Scripture says differently. There are three heavens.

 

[Zmouth]

Yea I never said there was a heaven before Genesis 1:1. The first heaven was indeed created by God, as was the Earth.

Sorry bout that, it wasn't intentional, yet it appeared that to me that you were suggesting that there are three heavens presented in Genesis 1.

Heaven is singular in KJV it represents the heaven where God and the angels dwell. The other two came from the firmament in between the waters of the Earth. Other two being space where the stars are at, and the sky where the clouds be.[/QUOTE)

Again, I apologize that I misunderstood.

 

[The_Bible]

There has only been one Heaven and one Earth.

Revelation 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

 

[The_Bible]

Sorry bout that, it wasn't intentional, yet it appeared that to me that you were suggesting that there are three heavens presented in Genesis 1.

Heaven is singular in KJV it represents the heaven where God and the angels dwell. The other two came from the firmament in between the waters of the Earth. Other two being space where the stars are at, and the sky where the clouds be.[/QUOTE)

Again, I apologize that I misunderstood.

No need to apologize haha. Yea there are three heavens but I didn't claim the first one came before Genesis 1:1, rather it came right on Genesis.1:1, aka the beginning. The rest came before chapter 2.

 

[Tintin]

Revelation 21:1 - And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

2 Corinthians 12:2-4 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

Firstly, they're levels of the same Heaven. As for the New Heaven and the New Earth, they're still to come and I can't wait!

 

[The_Bible]

Firstly, they're levels of the same Heaven. As for the New Heaven and the New Earth, they're still to come and I can't wait!

Yea they're different levels but they're still three.

 

[Zmouth]

Scripture says differently. There are three heavens.

Isn't that what they call the multi-verse?

 

[The_Bible]

Isn't that what they call the multi-verse?

All these three heavens are in ONE universe that God created. I believe the heaven where God and his angel dwells is another realm tho. Something that we cannot enter if we were to try to fly upwards surpassing space with our physical bodies. I believe that realm is somehow within this ONE universe.

UNI-VERSE - A single spoken sentence from GOD

 

[xina]

Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate. For those who suggest the argument is a superficial one, based on the style it is written in compared to the style used in the NIV, New American Standard edition, or other - you have it totally wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the old English is beautiful, but this debate is centered on the family of manuscripts which has come down through the apostolic churches as the foundation for its scholarship - Versions such as the NIV and others are based on manuscripts of unknown authorship and origin that cannot be linked to any churches. The primary manuscripts that form their so called "Critical Text" are known as Sinanticus and Vacticanus. Now modern scholars like Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace reject church texts in favor of these manuscripts which calls into questions scripture passages which they state were not part of the original writings of the apostles such as the last 12 verses of Mark, The women in Adultery in Johns Gospel as well as others.

The awesome short videos provide witness testimony from the second century on the received texts of the apostolic churches against the gnostics who claim to be in possession of the true manuscripts. Let the debate begin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

'VERY CRITICAL ALERT!!!
Hello beloved saints,
I'm sure you know that New international
version(NIV) was published by Zondervan but
is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also
publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of
Gay Sex.
The NIV and English Standard Version (ESV)
has now removed 64,575 words from the Bible
including Jehovah, Calvary, Holy Ghost and
omnipotent to name but a few...
The NIV and ESV has also now removed 45
complete verses. Most of us have the Bible on
our devices and phones especially OLIVE TREE
BIBLE STUDY APP.
Try and find these scriptures in NIV and ESV
on your computer, phone or device right now if
you are in doubt:
Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,
9:46; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37
...you will not believe your eyes.'

this is just part of a long chain message I received. I have not checked all the verses but the ones I did check I found to really be altered or missing. I also listened to a certain sermon and a Couple of other verses where mentioned- I just can't find the link right now. Anyway there are also two chapters missing from one of the gospels and other book in one of the versions.

This being said, why take the risk? I decided to stick to what I know to still be original by now but anyway still your choice

God bless u all!!!

 

[posthuman]

'
I'm sure you know that New international
version(NIV) was published by Zondervan but
is now OWNED by Harper Collins, who also
publishes the Satanic Bible and The Joy of
Gay Sex.

suppose a man built wells and water purifiers for the poor, and then a generation later, another man who also owned a company that made rat poison bought the rights to his wells -- would that mean all the water is now poison?

 

[John146]

suppose a man built wells and water purifiers for the poor, and then a generation later, another man who also owned a company that made rat poison bought the rights to his wells -- would that mean all the water is now poison?

What do the NIV, the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex have in common? Neither one of them claim to be the word of God. And they would be correct.

 

[xina]

Like i said this is part of a long chain message I received. I don't even know about what he did in his life or who he is...don'treally care to know anyway.
The reason i posted this was so u could check out the verses and realise that there actually is a crusade to change Gods word and to realiz that tthere isa difference between the many versions.
Personally I don't always stick to the King James but before reading others i do check whether that was the intended message in the original just to be on the safe side.

 

[Dino246]

What do the NIV, the Satanic Bible and the Joy of Gay Sex have in common? Neither one of them claim to be the word of God. And they would be correct.

Seriously? If you are going to make such a claim about the NIV, you must use exactly the same standard for the KJV. Or, don't, and be known for your lack of integrity.

 

[Dino246]

Like i said this is part of a long chain message I received. I don't even know about what he did in his life or who he is...don'treally care to know anyway.
The reason i posted this was so u could check out the verses and realise that there actually is a crusade to change Gods word and to realiz that tthere isa difference between the many versions.
Personally I don't always stick to the King James but before reading others i do check whether that was the intended message in the original just to be on the safe side.

Hello xina and welcome to CC.

The quotation you posted is clearly biased, unprofessional and narrow-minded. It does not consider many of the issues which are relevant to this discussion. You are certainly welcome to prefer the KJV; it's a good translation, but it is one good translation among many good translations. It is in no way the "original"... the originals were in Hebrew and Greek (primarily).

The King James translation of the Bible is not the standard against which all others should be measured. The original autographs are the standard, and as much as scholars have been able to determine what they said, that is the standard against which all translations must be compared. As for the "missing" verses, there are good reasons why some newer versions exclude them.

I would recommend that you read James White's book The King James Only Controversy. It gives a broad picture of the relevant issues and is well-documented. Some KJV-only people will try to dissuade you from doing so; but "study and shew thyself approved" by doing your homework, learning the issues from several perspectives, and refraining from swallowing conspiracy theories whole.

 

[dcontroversal]

My answer would be...

Whichever one is handy at the time.... depending on whether I want to try to decipher Shakespearean English.

Both are the words of God.

I knoweth, sometimeth it is hardeth to understandeth all of the theeths and thougheths HAH And GOD SAIDETH......Thou SHALTEST NOTEST STEALETH ............

 

[Zmouth]

suppose a man built wells and water purifiers for the poor, and then a generation later, another man who also owned a company that made rat poison bought the rights to his wells -- would that mean all the water is now poison?

No but it would indicate that the man who built wells and water purifiers for the poor must have be producing a significant profit from the poor for someone to be actually purchase the rights to water wells.

So to answer your question whether or not that would mean that the water is now poison I can only respond that the answer may be found in the water purifiers, seeing that there is very little difference between the consumption of contaminated well water and rat poison since both can cause death relative to the amount consumed, so my answer would be a definitive I dunno.

But when you add that substance which wasn't in the well water originally, like adding that eternal heaven above the expanse of space called heaven which forms all of the known and observed universe that we dwell within, then it would appear that being on top of the world would be like entering that eternal domain? And what could go wrong there?

[video=youtube;77NjMveVUw8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77NjMveVUw8[/video]

But when one is in the hand of the Holy Ghost, it's all good.

 

[KJV1611]

I knoweth, sometimeth it is hardeth to understandeth all of the theeths and thougheths HAH And GOD SAIDETH......Thou SHALTEST NOTEST STEALETH ............

This beeth a goodeth reason to learneth KJV Englisheth.

[h=1]Zechariah 4:7New International Version (NIV)[/h][FONT=&quot]7 “What are you, mighty mountain? Before Zerubbabel you will become level ground. Then he will bring out the capstone to shouts of ‘God bless it! God bless it!’”

[/FONT]
[h=1]Zechariah 4:7King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]7 Who art thou, O great mountain? before Zerubbabel thou shalt become a plain: and he shall bring forth the headstone thereof with shoutings, crying, Grace, grace unto it.[/FONT]

 

[xina]

Hey Dino. Thanks for the welcome.
Yeah I will surely read it.
wasn't trying to be biased. It doesn't have to be KJV necessarily but at least try to test it using any of those original texts was the point I tried to make.

I don't agree to therebeing reasons for any missing text. There is a reason it was written in the first place and it's not upto us to change it according to what we feel should or shouldn't be included. After all its God's word.
Take a look at this verse that has been removed. Mat23:14 Woe unto you scribes and pharisees hypocrites! For ye devour widows' so houses and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation. Now just give me one reasonfor rremoving it. Instead it should have been emphasized.