For my KJB supporting brethren
- Thread starter South_FLA
- 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.
No, I will check that Bible, find differences against the KJV and will ask you how it is possible when you said there cannot be two different and inspired Bibles 
no cockatrices either. & not even a single confirmed basilisk as far as anyone knows. no unicorns ((though there were plenty of aurochs, no rhinoceri)).
and i know, yeah, that's inconsequential to our faith - if our faith is in God, not in a translated text.
i can readily come to the conclusion that 400 years ago, people weren't sure what animal a word that fell out usage 3,000 years prior meant to describe, so they inserted something mythical. but what does a person do with this if their faith is centered on the absolute purity of an English-language rendition of something that was never in English to begin with?
does that person believe in cockatrices? or basilisks?
maybe there's a millennia-long global conspiracy to keep their existence hidden?
isn't such a person forced into a position like that?
((if they can stop deflecting, and actually face such questions for a moment?))
and i know, yeah, that's inconsequential to our faith - if our faith is in God, not in a translated text.
i can readily come to the conclusion that 400 years ago, people weren't sure what animal a word that fell out usage 3,000 years prior meant to describe, so they inserted something mythical. but what does a person do with this if their faith is centered on the absolute purity of an English-language rendition of something that was never in English to begin with?
does that person believe in cockatrices? or basilisks?
maybe there's a millennia-long global conspiracy to keep their existence hidden?
isn't such a person forced into a position like that?
((if they can stop deflecting, and actually face such questions for a moment?))
What was his question? Can't remember exactly I'm so tired. He asked if the King James Bible is based off an older version of the bible right? Or was he asking solely for the old testament? I'm not literally saying that John is an old testament book, rather that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies of the old covenant. Sorry if worded it weird I'm so tired.
So you do not believe that the word of God is perfect in any generation?
What perfect Bible had the generation in English in 1400 AD?
What perfect Bible had the Roman empire in 500 AD? Vulgate?
What perfect Bible had the Greek church in 500 AD (Eastern Roman Empire)? LXX + Byzantine majority text?
Give me specific examples of perfect Bibles. If you cant I cannot compare anything.
What perfect Bible had the generation in English in 1400 AD?
What perfect Bible had the Roman empire in 500 AD? Vulgate?
What perfect Bible had the Greek church in 500 AD (Eastern Roman Empire)? LXX + Byzantine majority text?
Give me specific examples of perfect Bibles. If you cant I cannot compare anything.
Last edited:
Was this the preserved old testament? https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hebrew-Bible
Lol I'm so freakin' tired and I'm such a noob I laugh at myself.
Lol I'm so freakin' tired and I'm such a noob I laugh at myself.
Imagine spending your time trying to come up with some new defense of a version of the Bible, namely the KJV. Something pithy, a quip, something that sounds intellectual, another alleged "gotcha all now" line, something fresh and new, another lecture to defend the errors in the text, a new spin to defend the indefensible.
Then standing before the KJVO cultists to preach about a version with some translational erros, not about Christ.
I'd imagine if a person went to exposit the Gospel and Christ this same crowd wouldn't be as interested, nor would the speaker be as interested to "preach."
Then standing before the KJVO cultists to preach about a version with some translational erros, not about Christ.
I'd imagine if a person went to exposit the Gospel and Christ this same crowd wouldn't be as interested, nor would the speaker be as interested to "preach."