King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

Utter foolishness. Only one can be called Scripture? IOW he's saying only the KJV. But which one? Oxford? Cambridge? There are many variant KJV's, but they've got answers for this as well in their sectarian indoctrination.

But here it is - all those Bibles in other languages, Chinese languages, Japanese, African tongues et al. None of them are Scripture (acording to the absurdities of the KJVO'ers).

All these tribes must learn English then read the KJV because they cannot be saved until they read the KJV, so, they are really all lost, almost saved, but not quite. (This is what has been stated in this thread, there is no salvation by a modern version.)

I can hear it now; "But if someone goes there and preaches to them in the KJV and someone interprets that preaching to their language, *voila!!* the magic happens!!!!"

The above is the illogical belief system of KJVO cultism. If anyone is hoodwinked to believe one cannot be saved but through the KJV they have denied the faith. Salvation is through Christ alone, not through a specific translation of Scripture. Yes, KJVO in that form is heresy.

What's the differences between Oxford and Cambridge?

 

[KJV1611]

I told myself I wasn't going to get into this again, but your pig-headedness about "the pure words of God" and "I have to have a version I can believe every word of" just grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard....

the different versions cannot all be called scripture.... what a load of manure.

I would hate to think I've hung my whole existence on trying to prove that one TRANSLATION of scripture is somehow endorsed by God, and all others are "not scripture"....

There is ZERO proof that God "ordained" the KJV version, any more than any other good translation, such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.... and your attempt at claiming it is just shows everyone where you have placed your faith.... in a BOOK, not in our Savior.

The KJV is a good translation, if you enjoy reading old English prose, but it is not perfect. If God intended for us to have a "perfect" word for word Bible, He would have seen to it that the original manuscripts would have been preserved, so we could read (or have read to us) the actual words that Moses, and all the apostles wrote with their own hand.

Please explain to me why there are 4 gospel accounts written? If God wanted us to have "pure words", why didn't he only inspire ONE person to write the account of Jesus' ministry, and then preserve that document down through the centuries? Shouldn't ONE version be enough? Or, perhaps seeing/reading different versions of the same story, we get different perspectives on what happened.

Just as, reading a paraphrased version of scripture might give us a different perspective on a particular thought, or teaching. Perhaps reading different translations gives us nuances that we might have missed, had we insisted on one version of "the pure words of God"

Then how do we know what is "true" ? The Spirit gives us understanding....

But, you will probably never understand that, because you are too busy worshiping at that altar of the KJV... a 400 year old translation....

You said the KJV is not perfect, can you point out the errors?

 

[KJV1611]

As I wrote in my post, the English Revised Version is an officially authorized revision of the Authorized Version of 1611. Furthermore, as I also wrote in my post, “Westcott and Hort had nothing to do with the translation of the Old Testament in the English Revised Version.” Moreover, there is no Bible that can be called, with any degree of accuracy, a “Westcott and Hort bible.” What is more, no KJOist has ever shown that the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort is inferior to the corrupt Greek text of the New Testament upon which the New Testament in the King James version is based. Rather than even attempt to show such a thing, they falsely, maliciously, and slanderously claim that Westcott and Hort were heretics who messed up the word of God on behalf of the Vatican. Has anything further from the truth ever been claimed by anyone?

The English Revised version IS NOT the KJV.

Taken fom here:

[FONT=&quot]The New Testament revision company was commissioned in 1870 by the convocation of Canterbury.[SUP][2][/SUP] Their stated aim was "to adapt King James' version to the present state of the English language without changing the idiom and vocabulary," and "to adapt it to the present standard of Biblical scholarship." To those ends, the Greek text that was used to translate the New Testament was believed by most to be of higher reliability than the Textus Receptus. The readings used were compiled from a different text of the Greek Testament by Edwin Palmer.[SUP][3][/SUP][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]While the text of the translation itself is widely regarded as excessively literal and flat, the Revised Version is significant in the history of English Bible translation for many reasons. At the time of the RV's publication, the nearly 300-year-old King James Version was still the only viable English Bible in Victorian England. The RV, therefore, is regarded as the forerunner of the entire modern translation tradition. And it was considered more accurate than the King James Version in a number of verses.[SUP][4][/SUP][/FONT]

 

[KJV1611]

That didn't really answer my question. I was asking what is the difference between being saved and being born again?

You have given me some scripture on being born again, but nothing to level that vs being saved.

In Galatians 4:12-20, Paul is presenting his reasons for doubting the Galatians salvation. In v 19, his hope is that they will be saved.
"The formation of Christ in you", is salvation or being born again.

v.20 "I would like to be present with you now and change my tone, for I have doubts about you."

ergo, he is travailing in his salvation, for theirs.

Are you telling me that the people in verse 6 are unsaved?

Galatians 4:6 KJV
And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.

 

[KJV1611]

^^^^^ Also the incorruptible seed and the word of God are referring to God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit. Not the KJV ^^^^^^

How do you draw the line between the Word of God and the word of God? How do you know when the bible is talking about Jesus and when it's talking about the words written on paper?


1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[KJV1611]

Good point about the synoptic gospels. Makes you wonder how a KJVO guy can say that his translation is the perfect word for word “inspired” copy, when many parallel gospel stories are not word for word (including within the KJV itself). If the disciples weren’t word for word in their accounts, yet the message remains the same, that’s okay in the eyes of the KJVO crowd. Yet, if the Bible is not the KJV, but the message remains the same…it is heresy? Funny how that works.

The message remains the same in the 4 gospels, it doesn't between bible versions in many places.

 

[Adstar]

I believe the KJV is the inspired word of God and i rely on it as a trusted source of knowledge in the Way of salvation..

 

[KJV1611]

and i enjoy the KJV, but I worship it not.

You might worship your bible if you could see the spirit of Christ in your bible or if you could see his finger prints and signatures on the pages. To you the bible is just a book, to me it's Christ. It's alive and it speaks to my soul. It's the only image of Christ that we have on this earth. And yes I worship it proudly!

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

Whoa! the argument is “reading” not “speaking” for I can read using my mind, eyes and not my mouth only. And I’m glad if you are not a critic of KJV. This is for the record.
Oh… I see, responses makes pointless…

Woah!

I wish your English was better so I could understand what you write better!

I don't even know what your point is here or what you're trying to assert.

And "responses makes pointless". Huh?

 

[trofimus]

LXX is does not match Luke either. Luke says "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, " LXX says "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God".

So we have either an Old Testament that is totally inaccurate or Luke wasn't quoting the Old Testament, he was paraphrasing or summarizing a statement made in the Old Testament.

Ex. For it is written, there are many mansions in my Fathers house. I didn't quote John 14:2 I paraphrased it... paraphrase or not, according John 14:2 there are many mansions in the Fathers house - this is a true statement.

You must realize that Luke quotes Jesus and Jesus said "it is written". If this can mean paraphrase, in that case any KJV only "every word perfect" concept makes no sense.

So we have two possibilites:
a) we have errors in the NT
b) we have errors in the OT
c) we have errors in both
d) everything can be a paraphrase, what is written is not written etc and the work with the Scriptures in the first century was very free

 

[trofimus]

Mark says "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." One teaching - the commandments of men as doctrine.

LXX Isaiah says "teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." Two teachings - 1) the commandments of men and 2) the doctrines of men.

KVJ Isaiah says "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of man". One teaching - fear toward God (set of beliefs aka doctrine) taught by the precept (rule of conduct) of man.

Can you see how the LXX is completely wrong as compared to Mark?

Uhm, no, I cant see it. Because the KJV NT translation misses the word "and" compared to LXX, you conclude it quotes the MSS, which has almost no word identical....

Its too much twist for me

 

[SovereignGrace]

Give the verse that says a person is born again the moment they are saved.... I can't find it.

In 1 Cor. 1:21, it says God chose the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. Now, for one to have saved, they must have faith, as we are justified by faith. And also, faith is a fruit of the Spirit, per Galatians 5:22. One does not possess a fruit of the Spirit w/o also possessing the Spirit. So, if one has faith, a fruit of the Spirit, then one is born again. Those who are born again are saved by believing.

 

[SovereignGrace]

So God said that all English speakers must read the King James? Really?

Nope.

He said, "Thou which speaketh English must readeth only the King James. Reallyeth!"

But you was close.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The different versions cannot all be called Scripture. Only one can be called Scripture, and if not one, then none. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. They all can't be Scripture inspired by God and contain different words and different truths. That contradicts the very nature of God.

Again, these scriptures were inspired when they were originally peened in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek. They were God-breathed. You saying that the KJV is God-breathed? You got that much sand to say it?

 

[RedeemedGift]

I agree that the word of God is spritual and is not confined to any language and I don't understand why some people say the inerrant word of God only exists in the original languages. The word of God has always been hidden in the symbolic language of whatever language the plain text is written in... only a born again believer can understand that language because it's not learned, it's revealed.

I'm saying the essence of the word is inherently spiritual, not physical. As far as text goes only the original autographs can be called divinely inspired. Exact perfect copies of the original autographs can be called inerrant as much as the originals are. That inconsequential errors, flaws creep into our manuscripts and translations is the inevitability of human nature, but God's word is spiritual, no? So it's not a big deal. The New Testament has the richest ancient manuscript history of anything in the world, so that's proof enough that God has indeed preserved His word despite many attempts to wipe it from existence. The KJVO crowd do a great disservice to this fact by denying the validity of the Alexandrian text-type.

 

[KJV1611]

One more thing 1 Peter 1: v 3 Says He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

I can see why you believe what you believe about being born because your bible says something completely different than the KJV in 1 Peter 1:3 and many other place.

1 Peter 1:3 KJV
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

This perfectly illustrates my argument about being born again by words. The born again man (Christ) in you has been formed from the words of the bibles you read just like the born again man (Christ) in me is formed from the words of the bible that I read.

My views on Jesus, the written word, salvation, works and most all other doctrines will be different than yours because the Christ in me is made of different words than the Christ in you.

 

[KJV1611]

Amen!!! To preach a certain version is needed in that transaction is to preach another gospel.

I agree with that statement completely. There are only two types of seed, corruptible and incorruptible and the two seeds are certainly different gospels.

 

[KJV1611]

You must realize that Luke quotes Jesus and Jesus said "it is written". If this can mean paraphrase, in that case any KJV only "every word perfect" concept makes no sense.

So we have two possibilites:
a) we have errors in the NT
b) we have errors in the OT
c) we have errors in both
d) everything can be a paraphrase, what is written is not written etc and the work with the Scriptures in the first century was very free

What is the case with this verse from the LXX? Daniel says "As it is written"... where are those exact words "all these evils HAVE come upon us" written?

13As it is written in the law of Moses, all these evils have come upon us: yet we have not besought the Lord our God, that we might turn away from our iniquities, and have understanding in all thy truth.

 

[KJV1611]

Uhm, no, I cant see it. Because the KJV NT translation misses the word "and" compared to LXX, you conclude it quotes the MSS, which has almost no word identical....

Its too much twist for me

What is being preached in this verse?

Mark 7:7 KJV
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

What is being taught here?

LXX
13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.

 

[trofimus]

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures which ye made to worship them ."
(Acts 7:43 KJV).

But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god, which ye made to yourselves.
(Amos 5:26 KJV)

But you carried a tabernacle for your Moloch, and the image of your idols, the star of your god, which you made to yourselves.
(Amos 5:26 Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate).

"Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Raephan, the images of them which ye made for yourselves."
(Amos 5: 26 LXX)

----

I know, I know... coincidence again