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.
One thing about my (not KJV) Bible:
I don't need continuous argumentation, evidences, concocted defenses, lectures, acrostic algebra, attacks on other versions, excuses for errant verses, chalk talk, Gipp-isms, numerology, lying defenses, nut job cultists, conventions on a version, Youtube conspiracy videos, Ruckmanites &c, KJVO websites, books designed to defend a version, out of context Psalm 12 arguments, or any such like to bolster my faith in God's Word.
Ever.
KJVO'ers on the other hand need all the above, continually, to bolster their faith in God's Word.
I don't need continuous argumentation, evidences, concocted defenses, lectures, acrostic algebra, attacks on other versions, excuses for errant verses, chalk talk, Gipp-isms, numerology, lying defenses, nut job cultists, conventions on a version, Youtube conspiracy videos, Ruckmanites &c, KJVO websites, books designed to defend a version, out of context Psalm 12 arguments, or any such like to bolster my faith in God's Word.
Ever.
KJVO'ers on the other hand need all the above, continually, to bolster their faith in God's Word.
And, you have absolutely no basis for that statement. The TRANSLATION that the king demanded is NOT inspired. The translators were (IMO) guided by the Spirit, but they were not inspired...
In other words, God did not put words in their minds and pens... they were simply MEN, translating the inspired words of God.
Even THEY said so.
Who are YOU to decide their translation is the "perfect, inspired" translation in the English language?
In other words, God did not put words in their minds and pens... they were simply MEN, translating the inspired words of God.
Even THEY said so.
Who are YOU to decide their translation is the "perfect, inspired" translation in the English language?
dont let these scholars and "experts" steal ur faith in the bible. just believe the bible, open your king james bible and believe it. u will not go wrong!
the "experts" have been wrong more often than not, in Jesus' day the experts were da biggest boneheads in the crowd. educated fools.
i got my king james bible right here, its taught me all i know about these things. i havent found nothing wrong with it yet.
the "experts" have been wrong more often than not, in Jesus' day the experts were da biggest boneheads in the crowd. educated fools.
i got my king james bible right here, its taught me all i know about these things. i havent found nothing wrong with it yet.
its not about a version only. its about what is being translated. im sure the NIV is a great translation, but of the wrong book. its the alexandrian manuscripts thats da problem.
so if its translated from the same sources as kjv and accurately so its good. unfortunately all the new translations none of them use textus receptus makes u think doesnt it?
so if its translated from the same sources as kjv and accurately so its good. unfortunately all the new translations none of them use textus receptus makes u think doesnt it?
If you say you do not need evidences, it is clear that you have a closed mind. But that does not give you the right to attack those who hold the the KJB. It simply gives you the right to say "I have chosen to be wilfully blind to the truth".
BTW, the majority of those who stand firmly on the KJV are NOT Ruckmanites, or fans of Gail Ripplinger. These two have actually brought disgrace to a noble position, and have been taken to task for their nonsense.
BTW, the majority of those who stand firmly on the KJV are NOT Ruckmanites, or fans of Gail Ripplinger. These two have actually brought disgrace to a noble position, and have been taken to task for their nonsense.
Snoozy, if I were you I would not bother responding to such loaded questions. Instead turn the tables on the naysayers by asking: "Do you genuinely believe that God is not only able to inspire men to write Scripture but He is also able to preserve Scripture?" Furthermore "Does God prefer the chaff to the wheat?"
Well, as a matter of fact, it all leads to the KJB. Here's how it works:
TRUE BIBLE
Original inspired autographs--->copies of copies over 1,500 years---> printed texts of Hebrew OT and Greek NT---> Reformation Bibles ---> KJB to be the exceptional English translation by design---> deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years by all English speakers.
CORRUPT BIBLES
Hebrew Tanakh---> corrupted Greek translation (LXX) ---> incorporated in to corrupted modern Bible versions
New Testament----> corrupted by Gnostics----> handful of surviving manuscripts incorporated into "critical texts" ---> incorporated into corrupted modern Bibles versions.
TRUE BIBLE
Original inspired autographs--->copies of copies over 1,500 years---> printed texts of Hebrew OT and Greek NT---> Reformation Bibles ---> KJB to be the exceptional English translation by design---> deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years by all English speakers.
CORRUPT BIBLES
Hebrew Tanakh---> corrupted Greek translation (LXX) ---> incorporated in to corrupted modern Bible versions
New Testament----> corrupted by Gnostics----> handful of surviving manuscripts incorporated into "critical texts" ---> incorporated into corrupted modern Bibles versions.
This would probably be a good time to point out that the people of Jesus' day used the LXX (Septuagint) and the Apostles quoted it often.
Not only that but for the majority of the eastern church it was THE Old Testament that they had. This is why the Orthodox church which is an eastern church used it since forever, whereas the west (catholic) would prefer the Latin translation that was later made.
Not only that but for the majority of the eastern church it was THE Old Testament that they had. This is why the Orthodox church which is an eastern church used it since forever, whereas the west (catholic) would prefer the Latin translation that was later made.
Last edited:
And now something historical and factual.
LXX was the Bible of the first Church and of the Byzantine empire... and is actualy till today. Of course you must say that LXX is corrupted, because it is so different from your KJV OT...
Reformation Bibles (New Testaments) were based on various editions of critical text made by Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Elzevirs etc.
The KJV translators used seven of those critical editions and they themselves also critically chosen which readings of those editions to use.
LXX was the Bible of the first Church and of the Byzantine empire... and is actualy till today. Of course you must say that LXX is corrupted, because it is so different from your KJV OT...
Reformation Bibles (New Testaments) were based on various editions of critical text made by Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, Elzevirs etc.
The KJV translators used seven of those critical editions and they themselves also critically chosen which readings of those editions to use.
Last edited:
I addressed this previously. A noble intent/design does nothing to ensure the successful accomplishment of that intent. Further, even if they succeeded in making the best English translation available as of 1611 (and I'm not agreeing that they did!), that doesn't mean it was still the best in 1769, let alone 2017. Language changes, and new discoveries have been made.
Also, your assertion that the KJV was deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years is without historical support or reference. In other words, it's your opinion, and is without merit in a discussion of facts.
Also, your assertion that the KJV was deemed "The Bible" for over 300 years is without historical support or reference. In other words, it's your opinion, and is without merit in a discussion of facts.