King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

  • 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.

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
2Ki 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.


Verse 24 Joram died THEN his son Ahaziah (1) reigned.
Verse 25 In the twelfth year of Joram, Ahaziah (2) son of Jehoram reigned.
Verse 26 Ahaziah (?) began to reign at 22 years old. Both Ahaziah's were talked about previous to this verse. So which Ahaziah is verse 26 talking about? 2 Chronicles gives the answer, it was Ahaziah (2) the son of Jehoram wo was 42 years old when he began to reign. Verse 26 has to be Ahaziah (1).
I feel like you missed the point of my post. There is no possibility of verse 25 and verse 26 being two different Ahaziahs, first from a grammatical standpoint, and secondly that there is otherwise no other Ahaziah who ruled Judah in that time period.

The Jorams of verses 24 and 25 are clearly two different people. The king of Israel's son did not become the King of Judah, as they were two seperate kingdoms. The Kings of Israel were not buried in Jerusalem, as Jerusalem was a city of Judah.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
No. It does not specifically mention the "Condemnation" (which is also mentioned in John 3:19-21). And no other verse states that you must walk after the Spirit in Christ Jesus to not be under the "Condemnation." Which of course refutes OSAS.
It only matters if you're prooftexting. If you actually read the whole text in full, I don't think you could conclude anything other than the fact that Christians are those who are in Christ, walking in the Spirit. Because of this status, there is no condemnation now. Read the verse several verses together - every element is interconnected in Paul's thinking, so I don't understand why you think that because Paul doesn't mention the word condemnation in that specific phrase that therefore it is absent from his thinking.

Paul said:
So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. For I delight in the law of God, in my inner being, but I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.

There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ Jesusfrom the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit who dwells in you.
And I still don't understand what it actually is about the particular construction of the KJV that has to do with refuting OSAS.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
There is no 'Latin static bible'.
Sorry, I was typing with my phone. That was a mistake. It is the Italic Latin Bible. Hence, why the Google results show that result.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
It only matters if you're prooftexting. If you actually read the whole text in full, I don't think you could conclude anything other than the fact that Christians are those who are in Christ, walking in the Spirit. Because of this status, there is no condemnation now. Read the verse several verses together - every element is interconnected in Paul's thinking, so I don't understand why you think that because Paul doesn't mention the word condemnation in that specific phrase that therefore it is absent from his thinking.



And I still don't understand what it actually is about the particular construction of the KJV that has to do with refuting OSAS.
Death is Condemnation. That's why death is also mentioned. That's why Paul also says in other passages in the New Testament that they which do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. Paul goes out of his way to let you know that if you are walking after the flesh and not after the Spirit, you are under the "Condemnation." Which as I said before, refutes OSAS, my friend.
 
L

Last

Guest
Sorry, I was typing with my phone. That was a mistake. It is the Italic Latin Bible. Hence, why the Google results show that result.
There isn't one of those either. You do know what italic means, right?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I feel like you missed the point of my post. There is no possibility of verse 25 and verse 26 being two different Ahaziahs, first from a grammatical standpoint
2Ki 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and TOMMY his son reigned in his stead.
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did RALPH the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was TOMMY when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

How about now, is this grammatically wrong lol.:)
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
There isn't one of those either. You do know what italic means, right?
No. It is called the "Old Italic" Bible (i.e. manuscripts). Also known as the "Vetus Latina."

Vetus Latina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Vetus Latin (Old Latin Bible) existed before the Latin Vulgate (i.e. the Roman Catholic Bible).

This was all provided for in my Google search results.

It's obvious from the Wiki source that "Italic" is in reference to "Italy" (Ancient Italy) or of pertaining to the Latin language.
 
L

Last

Guest
No. It is called the "Old Italic" Bible (i.e. manuscripts). Also known as the "Vetus Latina."

Vetus Latina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Vetus Latin (Old Latin Bible) existed before the Latin Vulgate (i.e. the Roman Catholic Bible).

This was all provided for in my Google search results.

It's obvious from the Wiki source that "Italic" is in reference to "Italy" (Ancient Italy) or of pertaining to the Latin language.
Are you just going to post random stuff you find on google?

Here is what I posted earlier:
You are not making any sense. The Vulgate was created by the Catholic Church, mostly translated by Jerome in the 4th Century. There is no "Vaticanus" bible. Prior to the Vulgate, there were Old Latin bibles, also created by the Catholic Church.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
No, the KJV has additional phrases because it relies on manuscripts that had marginal notes added into them.
I would like the video footage that you took while you were in your time machine that proves such a thing. My point is that you were not really there to know. You are only going off what others said in certain documents.

The key difference when I look at History is that I also strive to back it up with Scripture.
Regular History is just written by men who have false agendas. Documents can be forged and faked.
The Bible is written by God and it is impossible for the true Word of God to have any errors within it.
One can determine the Word of God is true but looking at the observational evidences that back it up.

I do not believe there are 'thousands' of additions though, much smaller than that.
Keyword you said here.

"believe"

And not know.

There is a difference.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
So don't lie about the KJV being the very perfect Word of God.
I believe lying is a sin. So no. I am not lying. I would be willing to die for my faith that God's Word is perfect and without error and has been preserved for all generations.
 
Last edited:
L

Last

Guest
I would like the video footage that you took while you were in your time machine that proves such a thing. My point is that you were not really there to know. You are only going off what others said in certain documents.
Oh my gosh, I am relying on history instead of time machines. Surely you pointing out that I do not have a time machine and rely on scholarly historically sources should incline me to ignore all of history and buy into whatever you say.

Seriously, I just hit my head with my palm because that was so bad.

The key difference when I look at History is that I also strive to back it up with Scripture.
No you don't.

Regular History is just written by men who have false agendas. Documents can be forged and faked.
You are starting to sound like an atheist apologist.

The Bible is written by God and it is impossible for the true Word of God to have any errors within it.
No, the bible is written by men and inspired by God. Jesus did not write the bible, sorry.


One can determine the Word of God is true but looking at the observational evidences that back it up.



Keyword you said here.

"believe"

And not know.

There is a difference.
Actually, I admit between what I know for sure and what I recall with confidence. The copyist notes incorporated into are not that high.
 
L

Last

Guest
I believe lying is a sin. So no. I am not lying. I would be willing to die for my faith that God's Word is perfect and without error and has been preserved for all generations.
is the KJV a perfect translation?
 
Nov 2, 2013
1,380
6
0
I believe lying is a sin. So no. I am not lying. I would be willing to die for my faith that God's Word is perfect and without error and has been preserved for all generations.
If I believed in my word much I would be willing to die for it too.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
You are not making any sense. The Vulgate was created by the Catholic Church, mostly translated by Jerome in the 4th Century. There is no "Vaticanus" bible. Prior to the Vulgate, there were Old Latin bibles, also created by the Catholic Church.
“The WORDS of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”
(Psalm 12:6-7)

The KJV is based on the Greek Received Text (Textus Receptus). The Textus Receptus was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians and was sometimes called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text, the Majority Text or the Traditional Text.

SYRIAN TEXT AND ITALIC BIBLE

There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that taught the literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures. Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.

This Received Text was soon translated into old Latin in about 150 A.D. (long before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate) and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.

These men of God preached salvation by grace through faith in the redeeming blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, predestination, the priesthood of the believer, believer’s baptism by immersion—centuries before the Protestant Reformation.

They condemned the Roman Catholic doctrines of idolatry, transubstantiation and the forbidding of the Bible to the common people. Many sealed their testimony with their own blood. Their Italic Bible agrees with the KJV.

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text that later was translated into our KJV Bible. They all rejected Jerome’s Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholics

About 95% of all existing Greek manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus. The remaining 5% are from the Alexandrian Greek texts (including the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus). These texts were later translated into the Latin Vulgate.

If God preserves his Word in every generation, then why do we now have contradicting versions of the Bibl?
One answer that should be obvious to any true believer in Christ is this: Satan hates the Bible and seeks to corrupt it.

SATAN’S METHOD


The Bible clearly warns us of Satan’s method of
CORRUPTING the Word of God. We read about it in the third chapter of Genesis:

Satan questioned God's Word (
“Yea, hath God said?
) misquoted God's Word (“
ye shall not eat of EVERY tree of the garden?”
) then flatly contradicted God's Word (
“ye shall NOT surely die”
).

SATAN’S MANUSCRIPTS

In Alexandria, Egypt there existed a school of learned men who wanted to blend Christianity with paganism. Their names were Philo, Marcion, Origen, Clement, Eusebius and others. They lived in the early centuries of church history.

These men deliberately corrupted the Bible manuscripts in their possession. They felt
free to add, delete and changewords, sentences, chapters and even whole books of the Bible to make it say what they believed it should say.

Bible believing Christians everywhere rejected their manuscripts. But Roman Catholic scholars kept these Alexandrian manuscripts. Today, they are best represented by two old Greek texts: the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus.

These are the two main Greek texts upon which almost all the modern Bible versions are based. You can read footnotes in the
NASB
or
NIV
stating:

“this verse not found in the earliest mss.”
Or

“other ancient authorities omit this verse”

Can you smell Serpent’s breath in these statements
?
It is the same old questioning of God’s Word (
“Yea, hath God said?”
) that occurred in the Garden. It is meant to sow confusion about what is and what is not the real Word of God.

The terms earliest manuscripts and ancient authorities are generally referring to these two very old, but
corrupt, Roman Catholic manuscripts—the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus. Let’s take a brief look at each of these Alexandrian texts.

THE VATICANUS

The Vaticanus was discovered in the Vatican library in the year 1481. It was in excellent condition. Yet it omits Genesis 1:1 to 46:28, Psalms 106 to 138, Matthew 16:2-3, all the Pauline Pastoral Epistles (1 Timothy through Titus) Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and the entire book of Revelation!!!

In other words, it omits much that was used by ancient believers to
condemn Roman Catholic doctrines and traditions. For example, Paul’s Pastoral Epistles twice declare that a bishop should be the husband of one wife (1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6).

Paul also warns of devil doctrines like forbidding to marry (1 Timothy 4:3). This contradicts Catholic demands that its bishops and priests be unmarried (celibate). It is therefore omitted in the Vaticanus.

Hebrews 10:10-14 condemns (by implication) the re-sacrificing of Christ done at the “sacrifice of the Mass” as taught in the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. This passage is omitted in the Vaticanus.

The book of Revelation, chapter 17 clearly describes a religious whore headquartered in Rome (the city of seven hills that rules over the kings of the earth). Revelation 13 warns of the Mark, Name and Number of the Beast.

Both chapters are missing in the Vaticanus. Besides the above listed omissions, the Vaticanus—in the Gospels alone (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John)—leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses and 748 whole sentences.

THE SINAITICUS

The Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus disagree with each other over 3,000 times in the Gospels alone!!! The Sinaiticus was found on a trash pile in St. Catherine’s Monastery, near Mt. Sinai, in 1844.

It contains nearly all of the New Testament, but it adds the “Shepherd of Hermes” and the “Epistle of Barnabas.” On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by ten different people.

Even worse, the Shepherd of Hermes and the Epistle of Barnabas include commands to do things God has
forbidden in His Word, including:

Take “the name” of the beast.

Give up to the beast.

Form a One-World Government.

Kill those not receiving his “name.”

Worship female virgins.

Receive another spirit.

Seek power.

Avoid marriage and permit fornication.

Abstain from fasting.

Source:
The Preserved Word of God in English, Part 2
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
If I believed in my word much I would be willing to die for it too.
Die for what exactly? Do you actually have a copy of this Bible? Do you read it with the understanding with no problem? Would you be able to read it to some kids without them having confused looks on their faces? Remember, children our of the Kingdom of God. So you would think God would provide His Word for children so that they can understand His Word on some basic level.
 
L

Last

Guest
“The WORDS of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt PRESERVE them from this generation for ever.”
(Psalm 12:6-7)
That's nice, but the bible is not the words of the Lord. It's the word as revealed to us.

The KJV is based on the Greek Received Text (Textus Receptus). The Textus Receptus was used by the earliest Syrian and Greek Christians and was sometimes called the Syrian Text, the Byzantine Text, the Majority Text or the Traditional Text.
BZZT wrong! The TR was created by Erasmus, a Catholic priest, using mostly Byzantine manuscripts. He compiled the TR based on what texts he had available to him, found the most agreement within a particular passage.

SYRIAN TEXT AND ITALIC BIBLE
There was a school in Antioch of Syria in very early Christian times that taught the literal, historical, grammatical approach to interpreting the Scriptures.
That name being?

Preachers like Chrysostom held to the Syrian Text that agrees with our KJV.[/quote]

Chrysostom was the Patriarch of Constantinople. He was Byzantine, not Syrian.

This Received Text was soon translated into old Latin in about 150 A.D. (long before Jerome’s Latin Vulgate)
BZZT wrong! RT was created by Erasmus in the 16th Century.

and was called the Italic Bible. The Vaudois (later called Waldensians) of northern Italy used the Italic Bible.
Wrong, no Italic bible. The Waldensians were neo-Manicheans, meaning GNOSTIC HERETICS. They were started around the 11-12th Century.

These men of God preached salvation by grace through faith in the redeeming blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, predestination, the priesthood of the believer, believer’s baptism by immersion—centuries before the Protestant Reformation.
Yes, prior to the reformation Gnosticism spread across western Europe. It's always a good idea to identify with THE ONLY CHRISTIAN GROUP EVER CONDEMNED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

They condemned the Roman Catholic doctrines of idolatry, transubstantiation and the forbidding of the Bible to the common people. Many sealed their testimony with their own blood. Their Italic Bible agrees with the KJV.
Yes, prior to the reformation Gnosticism spread across western Europe. It's always a good idea to identify with THE ONLY CHRISTIAN GROUP EVER CONDEMNED IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

They did not have an "Italic bible" and what the heck do you mean it agrees with the KJV? Agrees how? Was it written in English?

The Vaudois (Waldenses) the Albigenses, the Reformers (Luther, Calvin and Knox) all held to the Received Text that later was translated into our KJV Bible. They all rejected Jerome’s Latin Vulgate used by the Roman Catholics
It's clear you are just making stuff up at this point hoping that I'm stupid.
The received text was compiled in the 16th Century by a Catholic priest.

About 95% of all existing Greek manuscripts agree with the Textus Receptus. The remaining 5% are from the Alexandrian Greek texts (including the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus). These texts were later translated into the Latin Vulgate.
No, that would actually be impossible.

At this point I looked up what you cut and pasted-
Copyright 2002 through 2014 by George R. Theiss

I don't think that is you and I have no interested in responding to whatever you cut and paste.
 
L

Last

Guest


Yes, the 1769 (1611) is a perfect translation for our world language today.
How does one perfectly translate a language into another? You do realize that perfect translation is not possible due to the differences in language, right?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
That's nice, but the bible is not the words of the Lord. It's the word as revealed to us.
No, all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16).

BZZT wrong! The TR was created by Erasmus, a Catholic priest, using mostly Byzantine manuscripts. He compiled the TR based on what texts he had available to him, found the most agreement within a particular passage.
Don't know where you are getting your faulty information from. But like I said before. The difference between my view of History and your view of History is that I can also support my position with the Word of God (without even looking to History). For God's Word claims that it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. All generations would include this one. Scripture also teaches that there is only one Word of God and not many Words of God or that we have to go to another language we don't understand so as to have a perfect Word of God.

In other words, there is no Biblical position for Anti-KJV-onlyism.

Wrong, no Italic bible.
Then Wikipedia got it wrong.

It's clear you are just making stuff up at this point hoping that I'm stupid.
No, I believe you believe what you say is true based off the teaching you had. And I don't hope that you are dumb so as that you might slip up in some kind of Historical area (So that I can catch you in messing up). That type of thinking is a foregn concept to me. I really honestly don't care about what men's documents say. They can all be fakes. History is only useful in so far as it lines up with God's Word. So I question the validity of your teaching and it's accuracy or reliability and not your intelligence.

At this point I looked up what you cut and pasted-
Copyright 2002 through 2014 by George R. Theiss
Well, the source link should have given you a clue that it was not what I wrote (Seeing you could easily click on the link and say to yourself, "Ah, he is posting an article. Now I get it"). I posted the article here because you didn't read it before when I posted the link. The purpose was to get you to read it.
 
Last edited:

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
2Ki 8:24 And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and TOMMY his son reigned in his stead.
2Ki 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did RALPH the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.
2Ki 8:26 Two and twenty years old was TOMMY when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

How about now, is this grammatically wrong lol.:)
Thus endeth the lesson. I bow to your clear, sensical arguments, sir. :/