Exposing the foolish lies of King James Only Cult

  • 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.

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#1
Just recently we have seen countless cut and past jobs about how the King James is Gods only true Bible and all other versions are basically Satans, including the New King James, which by reading these versions by satan you will go to Hell or as a minister condemn your congregation to Hell.

I could start the usual way, which you get the same responses, rather like debating athiests and evolutionists, so I will not go down the usual routes or pick on the main points, but instead look at a number of verses which this cult takes exception to, just a quick look at these should be enough to show you how foolish they are and if they can not get even the most basic things right then why should they be trusted with the rest of their claims? If someone tells you that 2+2 =9 then you are not going to trust or even believe them when they tell you what they think the answer to 2342323 x 2343 is, so it is with King James Only Cult.

I recently responded to another cut and paste job which repeated everything on this website The New King James Bible: Counterfeit, telling me why the New King James was just as bad as the other versions as it had the same wording and changes used in what this cult perceive to be Satans Bible. There is a wealth of verses to pick and choose to show the intellecutal stupidity, but here are just two to start with.

I look forward to see what Chosenbyhim has to say regarding this.

Turning Isaacs wife Rebekah into a Cannibal.

One of the issues highlighted is Genesis 24:47, aparently this is one of the errors in the satanic versions of the Bible which will send you to hell.
Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!


The use of Nose ring is correct, its the use of Ear ring which is incorrect.

How can you take this cults claims serious reading this? It should be basic common knowledge that many cultures use nose rings for marriage and engagement. I can not believe people still have blinkered and racist view that a nose ring is only found on primitive forest dwelling tribes who eat people, but here we have it, clear as day.

You only have to look to India, a country which still sees its women wearing nose rings, sure for the wedding, huge elaborate expensive nose rings are worn, but every day we see tiny rings or more popular nose studs being worn.

So the verse in question, in context it is where Abrahams servant is out looking for a wife for Isaac, God tells him that right person will come along, ask questions, and get correct response and actions and she is to be the wife, verse 47 then shows how she is instantly betrothed and is given a nose ring to show this. I have the relevant verses end of this post.

We can examine this further by looking at original texts, the Strongs numbering for this disputed word is as follows.

Strong's Number: 05141
Original Word : ~n
Transliterated Word : Nexem
Definition : ring, nose ring, earring
nose ring (woman's ornament)
earring (ornament of men or women)


Therefore it is clear we are talking about a nose ring, so according to King James only cult anyone who wears a nosering is a Cannibal and that its not really a nosering, but an ear ring, when in fact we see nose rings worn today as a symbol of betrothal and marriage, then you must see how this is a Ridiculous statement to make. If even something so simple as this is declared an error, then how can you trust the rest of the claims ?




Genesis 24
: 43 Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me , I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink ;

44 And she say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels: let the same be the woman whom the LORD hath appointed out for my master's son

45 And before I had done speaking in mine heart, behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down unto the well, and drew water: and I said unto her, Let me drink , I pray thee.

46 And she made haste , and let down her pitcher from her shoulder, and said , Drink , and I will give thy camels drink also: so I drank , and she made the camels drink also.

47 And I asked her, and said , Whose daughter art thou? And she said , The daughter of Bethuel, Nahor's son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands

. 48 And I bowed down my head , and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master's brother's daughter unto his son.

nosering2smll.jpg Noseringsmall.jpg
 

Grandpa

Senior Member
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,189
113
#2
Where does the KJV say that someone wearing a nose ring is a cannibal?

I guess I missed that part...
 
May 18, 2010
931
15
18
#3
It was what someone said in the thread above which is also a link.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#4
It dosnt, but the King James only Cult perceive that changing the new translation to Nose Ring is mocking or insulting Rebehka by making her look like a cannibal. In case you missed it skimming through my post, this is from thier website listed under the evil changes made to the KJV. The New King James Bible: Counterfeit

Genesis 24:47: The "old" KJV reads: "I put the earring upon her face". But the NKJV has different plans for beautiful Rebekah: "I put the nose ring on her nose". Where did it get the ridiculous idea to "cannibalize" Rebekah? Just take a peek at the NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV!
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,240
6,532
113
#5
From my reading I have always understood the many of the Children of Israel wore nose rings. Now, Agricola, I thought we had established that any version of the Word is more than adequate as long as the Holy Spirit is our teacher? I love the KJV, but I also love the CEV (Contemporary English Version) and just about any other translation. This should not be a point of debate for the family in Yeshua. It takes away from adoring Him.
Which version do you prefer? I really do love them all, and several in French and Spanish...they are wonderful.

It dosnt, but the King James only Cult perceive that changing the new translation to Nose Ring is mocking or insulting Rebehka by making her look like a cannibal. In case you missed it skimming through my post, this is from thier website listed under the evil changes made to the KJV. The New King James Bible: Counterfeit
 

Descyple

Senior Member
Jun 7, 2010
3,023
48
48
#7
I already linked this debate on CC last year, but for those who are new here I will link it again.

The debate below is between Jack Moorman (King James Only) and James White (against King James Only). The debate is done very professionally and respectfully. I found it very helpful and educational regarding this ongoing discussion.

I hope it can help others to deal with this subject as well.

For the record, I very much enjoy the KJV, but I do not hold it as the only authoritative translation.


[video=youtube;kTfiuksOwl4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kTfiuksOwl4[/video]
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#8
I have nothing against the King James Bible, I read it all time, what I am objecting to though is the Cult of the King James Only. The King James is just one of many translations, it is not Gods only version, NIV is not satans Bible, this is what I object to. The King James only cult acts as if it is in the right, just like a cult behaves.

As I said Descyple, the debate is never ending with same arguments and points, however I am addressing this in a different way, pointing out the bits people may not notice. As I said in my original post, if someone tells you 9+3 = 203230 then you not going to trust them with anything else.

The "errors" and "changes" which are being objected over are non existant as this whole thing about rings in noses shows, so again I say, if they are making such a fuss about this, then how can you trust them about the other stuff?


=
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,215
2,551
113
#9
I do find it odd how to some people any version other than the KJV is satanic, I want to know who told them this and why the believe it so strongly. I would not have the guts to call the word of God satanic. While I do not agree with them and their view on the word of God at least they are devoted to the word of God right? But perhaps they have been misguided and thus it is our job to lead them towards the truth. I suggest we we pray very hard for god to show us how to do this.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#10
Here is another bewilldering change they do not approve of.

Acts 12:4: change "Easter" to "Passover" (NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV)

Sorry, but how is this wrong? Easter is in the King James, but yes it is more acuratly translated as Passover in other versions. I suggest people do a study on Passover and Christs death and resurection.

Easter is a new word which was obviously put in the 1611 King James as lesser educated people reading it would understand Easter where as they would not passover. Of course there was no "Easter" when Jesus died and was resurrected, it was Passover.

SO tell me, why is this so wrong?
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#11
Good grief, dont we have enough arguments and divisions in Christianity . Now it's not just about whats written in the Bible, but the Bible its self ? Come one. can we all mature just a little please.

There are mistranslations in all the bibles even the new ones. But you can easily correct some typos and out of place translations by seeing what is written in the manuscripts with a simple Strong's exhaustive concordance of the Bible, ( Index - King James Bible with Strongs Dictionary - SpeedBible by johnhurt.com
) which just happens to be keyed to the KJV.

So it shows the proper translation with no need to go out and buy new bibles .

whatever the case, I could care less what ''ENGLISH' version people use, i mean after all, the Bible was not even written in that language, English .
 
Last edited:

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#12
Yes but try telling that to the King James Only Cult.
 
N

nathan3

Guest
#13
Yes but try telling that to the King James Only Cult.

I don't see that as qualifying as a cult. when it involves God's written words; It is just a Bible version. And one of the first, naturally people are going to stick with whats time tested and what they feel they can trust. The history of The kjv is out there for anyone to read. That is one reason its used exclusively by many.....

The new versions and who translated them, are not as well known. etc. .. If you wanted to take it a step farther, we can just leave all English Bibles alone, and just start reading the manuscripts themselves, and there would be no problems. But that takes learning Greek and Hebrew and some other languages maybe.

Either way. Let them use the KJV, and let everyone form their opinions. & lets do that without alienating Christians from other Christians based on these differences.
 
Last edited:

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
#14
You may want to take another look at discussion such as this one http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66236-best-church-you-brother-james-l-melton.html

This is basically telling us to examine our churches pastor and leadership and see if they are using King James Bible, if they are not using King James Bible we should tell them to examine it using hundreds of verses to compare, such as the ones I have already highlighted, then if they continue to use other versions other than King James, then we are to leave our churches as the minister is going to send the congregation to Hell for reading out of a bible other than King James.

Now is this rational behaviour or cult behaviour?
 

Blain

The Word Weaver
Aug 28, 2012
19,215
2,551
113
#15
You may want to take another look at discussion such as this one http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/66236-best-church-you-brother-james-l-melton.html

This is basically telling us to examine our churches pastor and leadership and see if they are using King James Bible, if they are not using King James Bible we should tell them to examine it using hundreds of verses to compare, such as the ones I have already highlighted, then if they continue to use other versions other than King James, then we are to leave our churches as the minister is going to send the congregation to Hell for reading out of a bible other than King James.

Now is this rational behaviour or cult behaviour?
!? that is insane, is this person serious? that is like saying I am going to hell because i use a NIV bible.
 
D

Donkeyfish07

Guest
#16
I have nothing against the King James Bible, I read it all time, what I am objecting to though is the Cult of the King James Only. The King James is just one of many translations, it is not Gods only version, NIV is not satans Bible, this is what I object to. The King James only cult acts as if it is in the right, just like a cult behaves.
The same company that publishes the NIV also publishes the Satanic Bible. That is what most anti-NIV folks object to. It's not a bad reason for objection IMO
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#17
The same company that publishes the NIV also publishes the Satanic Bible. That is what most anti-NIV folks object to. It's not a bad reason for objection IMO
the same company that publishes the NIV also publishes the edition of the king james version that is closest to the original formatting...i know because i checked that when i was buying a KJV bible...
 
R

RachelBibleStudent

Guest
#18
I don't see that as qualifying as a cult. when it involves God's written words; It is just a Bible version. And one of the first, naturally people are going to stick with whats time tested and what they feel they can trust. The history of The kjv is out there for anyone to read. That is one reason its used exclusively by many.....

The new versions and who translated them, are not as well known. etc. .. If you wanted to take it a step farther, we can just leave all English Bibles alone, and just start reading the manuscripts themselves, and there would be no problems. But that takes learning Greek and Hebrew and some other languages maybe.

Either way. Let them use the KJV, and let everyone form their opinions. & lets do that without alienating Christians from other Christians based on these differences.
ok evidently you haven't seen some of the teachings coming out of the king james only cult these days under their de facto leader peter ruckman...

for one thing they have started teaching that the king james version is superior to the original divinely inspired texts written by the apostles and prophets...they call the king james version an 'advanced revelation' with -new- truths from God that were not in the originals...
 
T

Tintin

Guest
#19
Yes, I think it's more about the almighty dollar than any demonic conspiracy on their part.

the same company that publishes the NIV also publishes the edition of the king james version that is closest to the original formatting...i know because i checked that when i was buying a KJV bible...
 
S

sunshinelovin1700

Guest
#20
Where does the KJV say that someone wearing a nose ring is a cannibal?

I guess I missed that part...
I thought the same thing.