The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Christians can believe whatever they wish so this is not about an attitude to "others". Each one must give account directly to God and Christ, not other Christians. This is the attitude to OTHER BIBLE PERVERSIONS that is perfectly valid. If you had ten bottles labeled as "TONICS" but nine of them actually contained various levels of poison, it would be your duty to let people know that they are not all tonics.
What could be more historically verifiable than the fact that for over 300 years there was ONLY ONE ENGLISH BIBLE throughout the English-speaking world which was in general use? Kindly go to Bible Hub and check out all the 30+ commentaries. They were all based on the King James Bible. So all these commentators belonged to a "cult" according to some of you.
What could be more historically verifiable than the fact that for over 300 years there was ONLY ONE ENGLISH BIBLE throughout the English-speaking world which was in general use? Kindly go to Bible Hub and check out all the 30+ commentaries. They were all based on the King James Bible. So all these commentators belonged to a "cult" according to some of you.
Look, I believe that all protestant Bibles got the wrong OT (masoretic text and narrow canon). And its historically verifiable.
I am saying it from time to time when some specific verse from OT is discussed. But do I say "throw your NIVs, ESVs etc to trash, because you got this or that wrong"? Do I say "your Bibles are of antichrist" or "your Bibles are occult" or "you cannot be saved with such Bibles"?
No. Because I am not cultic. I know they can be saved and even grow spiritually even with the masoretic text.
Look, on the other hand, what the KJVO is doing inside the church, what strife its causing and what vocabulary and attacks its using.
I am saying it from time to time when some specific verse from OT is discussed. But do I say "throw your NIVs, ESVs etc to trash, because you got this or that wrong"? Do I say "your Bibles are of antichrist" or "your Bibles are occult" or "you cannot be saved with such Bibles"?
No. Because I am not cultic. I know they can be saved and even grow spiritually even with the masoretic text.
Look, on the other hand, what the KJVO is doing inside the church, what strife its causing and what vocabulary and attacks its using.
From 1611 until about 1911, there were no issues whatsoever. So those who were using the Authorized Version were not responsible for the strife, conflict, and division. It was the proponents of the modern versions who first attacked the KJB and promoted the propaganda that the modern versions and the critical texts were superior. Had they actually been superior, there would have been no issues. But the WORST manuscripts were promoted as the BEST, and the worst translations as the best. That was totally unacceptable.
I don't ignore them with the ignore button. I refuse to respond to them except to refute hem for the sake of the ungrounded.
There are 3 who sincerely believe what they are saying and who respond civilly and directly to our arguments:
KJV1611, Fredoheaven, and Deade. They do not seem to resort to subterfuge and doublespeak in their arguments.
There are 3 who sincerely believe what they are saying and who respond civilly and directly to our arguments:
KJV1611, Fredoheaven, and Deade. They do not seem to resort to subterfuge and doublespeak in their arguments.
I certainly will not withdraw and apologise when it is you who is in the wrong. You STILL had to take a swipe at modern versions.
Do you really want me to quote the dozens of posts of bizarre claims from KJVO believers from all around this forum? You are being willfully blind if you are saying you haven't noticed. It takes some doing to ignore.
YET AGAIN, you are calling me a liar and you are trying to de-legitimise my faith in Jesus in whom I believe based on the words of the NIV. It is you who owes the apology sir. Many times over for your badgering.
Do you really want me to quote the dozens of posts of bizarre claims from KJVO believers from all around this forum? You are being willfully blind if you are saying you haven't noticed. It takes some doing to ignore.
YET AGAIN, you are calling me a liar and you are trying to de-legitimise my faith in Jesus in whom I believe based on the words of the NIV. It is you who owes the apology sir. Many times over for your badgering.
By this silly logic it would be plausible to claim that motor vehicles are of the devil...
After all, we had horses, oxen, etc, and animal-drawn transport for more than twenty centuries, why do we need the internal combustion engine and motor vehicles??!?
Obviously this is just nonsense, but, so then, is your argument...
And the RCC used a very similar argument for centuries to deny anyone access to a Bible in a language other than Latin.
(This was backed by executions...)
But then, guess what, the REFORMATION happened and Bibles in many different languages appeared.
But, by your logic, all of them, except the KJV, are all demonic trash!
Also you seem to have no idea that there were several English translations that were published both before and after the arrival of the KJV. All of them had substantial use and most of those translations are still available today.
But lets say for the sake of argument that for 300 years no English-speaking Christian read or used any other Bible apart from the KJV, this in no way, by itself, proves that it was a good translation, or even the best for that matter. And, ally that with the fact that until the 20th century the various Churches still had considerable influence in making decisions for their adherents about what translation was acceptable. In addition, particularly in Europe, even in the post-Reformation period the rank-and-file did not own their own Bibles even if they could read, in which case what they read was stacked in the pew next to the hymn book. That kind of subtle coercion makes the claim even less tenable. It just meant people read and used what was available, not that it had any particular virtues...
It is a massive stretch to try and make the argument that the KJV is the only valid translation, or even the only valid English translation, when, really, the only apparent "evidence" that is presented is the rather obvious fact that when comparing the KJV to other translations that they are "different"
And, as far as I am aware, not one the KJVO adherents active on this forum have the slightest training in the original languages, never mind any real knowledge of manuscripts and which are the most accurate and reliable, and so have no idea which, if any, of the translations are correct, yet are willing, month in and month out, year in and year out, to argue the toss about a topic that they know absolutely nothing about!
Go figure...
After all, we had horses, oxen, etc, and animal-drawn transport for more than twenty centuries, why do we need the internal combustion engine and motor vehicles??!?
Obviously this is just nonsense, but, so then, is your argument...
And the RCC used a very similar argument for centuries to deny anyone access to a Bible in a language other than Latin.
(This was backed by executions...)
But then, guess what, the REFORMATION happened and Bibles in many different languages appeared.
But, by your logic, all of them, except the KJV, are all demonic trash!
Also you seem to have no idea that there were several English translations that were published both before and after the arrival of the KJV. All of them had substantial use and most of those translations are still available today.
But lets say for the sake of argument that for 300 years no English-speaking Christian read or used any other Bible apart from the KJV, this in no way, by itself, proves that it was a good translation, or even the best for that matter. And, ally that with the fact that until the 20th century the various Churches still had considerable influence in making decisions for their adherents about what translation was acceptable. In addition, particularly in Europe, even in the post-Reformation period the rank-and-file did not own their own Bibles even if they could read, in which case what they read was stacked in the pew next to the hymn book. That kind of subtle coercion makes the claim even less tenable. It just meant people read and used what was available, not that it had any particular virtues...
It is a massive stretch to try and make the argument that the KJV is the only valid translation, or even the only valid English translation, when, really, the only apparent "evidence" that is presented is the rather obvious fact that when comparing the KJV to other translations that they are "different"
And, as far as I am aware, not one the KJVO adherents active on this forum have the slightest training in the original languages, never mind any real knowledge of manuscripts and which are the most accurate and reliable, and so have no idea which, if any, of the translations are correct, yet are willing, month in and month out, year in and year out, to argue the toss about a topic that they know absolutely nothing about!
Go figure...
I would agree to a point, there are those here who speak of the KJV as having "error" and that too is not proper just as the KJVO people.
Versions and Translations of the Word of God must do diligence in as closely with in context to the original language as possible. The underlying issue with the word “Error” is not how the vast majority of Christians see the Word of God. We must use edifying descriptiveness in context to what we know is the Word of God.
The idea of Error directly hurt the understanding of The Inerrant word of God. In addition, those who see the bible as containing the “Word of God” over “IS the word of God”. Surely, with your understanding, you know; liberal theologians have attack the Bible this way. As have atheist. The comment I posted you may not have seen yet. However, those in CC concerning this topic have said it in the past.
Versions and Translations of the Word of God must do diligence in as closely with in context to the original language as possible. The underlying issue with the word “Error” is not how the vast majority of Christians see the Word of God. We must use edifying descriptiveness in context to what we know is the Word of God.
The idea of Error directly hurt the understanding of The Inerrant word of God. In addition, those who see the bible as containing the “Word of God” over “IS the word of God”. Surely, with your understanding, you know; liberal theologians have attack the Bible this way. As have atheist. The comment I posted you may not have seen yet. However, those in CC concerning this topic have said it in the past.
My usual position is that the Bible is the absolute standard of truth; and anything that contradicts it is a lie or an error.
When the KJVO adherents make claims of unique inspiration for the KJV and refer to other versions as corrupt or even Satanic; and question the Salvation of those who read other versions; I feel led to point out that the KJV has the same problems that they ascribe to other versions. I consider the KJV to be the most beautiful and most literary version available; and I use and prefer it myself. However I will defend the many other versions which I understand to be equally God's Word.