King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Jason0047]

I'm much less interested in poking holes in the KJV then I am defending virtually every other translation ever from the same treatment.

Who was standing on the seashore in Revelation 13:1? Was it John or the Dragon (i.e. the devil)?

Some Modern Translations has this as the devil. So here we have two completely different Bibles.

If the Modern Translations are your authority, then how do you decide which Bible is your authority?
None of them agree with each other. Yet the Bible makes the claim that it is perfect and that it would be preserved for ALL generations. Is God's Word lying? I don't think so. See, it takes faith to believe those passages in your Bible. The thing is, the Anti-KJV-onlyist doesn't believe in what those passages actually say. This is a problem, because without faith, it is impossible to please Him. For how is it of faith to deny the plain straight forward meaning of Scripture?

 

[Jason0047]

Personally, I'm not satisfied with the responses you have given to errors that have been brought to your attention already.

No explanation will satisfy the Anti-KJV-Only proponent if they are only looking to seek error in God's Word.

 

[Jason0047]

Keep reminding God's people of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen
2 timothy 2:14

I disagree with this. I believe if I can't trust one word in God's Word, then what makes me trust the rest of i? For me, it is an issue of the foundation of my very faith. For if I thought one word was corrupt in the KJV, then my foundation of belief would crumble. See. The Anti-KJV-Only proponent does not actually care if somebody stops believing in Jesus because of their efforts to try and disprove a perfect Word of God. That's why I am fighting them in love. For it is wrong to potentially contribute in taking away a person's faith.

 

[Jason0047]

the easiest way to solve the problem is just to kill all those that tell the truth
like Jesus, John the baptist

Actually, from my experience in these kinds of talks for many many years, it is the Anti-KJV-only crowd that tends to be more hateful in spirit in these types of discussions; However, the Scriptures essentially say that if a believer hates his brother, they are a murderer and no eternal life abides in them.

 

[Jason0047]

See, there are different sets of Greek manuscripts. So as a new believer, I have no way of knowing right away which Greek manuscripts to actually believe in because I don't speak or write Biblical Greek. In fact, nobody does. Yes, Greek scholars can have an understanding on many words, but they really don't know the grammar, the subtle differences in speaking or writing a language (that would not be written down), and or examples of how that language was used within that culture. One is only guessing as to which Greek manuscripts they are trusting when they first become a believer. They have to place their faith in MEN WHO INTERPRET GOD'S WORD versus just receiving God's Word simply with the understanding in their own language. In other words, the newbie Anti-KJV-only proponent has to place their faith in holy religious men who think they know the Word of God better than others. They act impressive by speaking or writing words that others don't understand. Yet God is simple and He just gives us His Word from the beginning so we can easily understand it by checking it in our own language (with the understanding).

 

[Agricola]

Of course they are Jason, one of the characteristics of the Cult of King James Only is that members take the moral high ground on everything, something which you are doing right now by claiming that people who do not agree with your cult are hate filled.

Holy SPirit has yet to tell me that the King James Bible is the only Bible I should read. I therefore conclude that this claim of perfect Bible is yet another man-made invention, which bases its claims on a couple of cherry picked verses.

Fortunately most people can see how ridiculous the claim that a 17th century English translation of the Bible is the Perfect Bible. There is no such thing as a perfect Bible, that brings about all sorts of problems, instead we have countless copies which can be compared and its the message that is important, not if a word is spelt honour or honor.

 

[Jason0047]

Of course they are Jason, one of the characteristics of the Cult of King James Only is that members take the moral high ground on everything, something which you are doing right now by claiming that people who do not agree with your cult are hate filled.

I said most and not all. There is a difference. I have Christian friends who are not KJV-only.
Actually, it is hateful and evil to crumble a person's faith in the KJV if they believe it to be the Word of God and have them to stop in believing in Jesus. That is what I am fighting here. The KJV-only proponent is not out to disprove that the Greek manuscripts are not perfect. So we are not out to destroy anyone's faith.

Holy SPirit has yet to tell me that the King James Bible is the only Bible I should read. I therefore conclude that this claim of perfect Bible is yet another man-made invention, which bases its claims on a couple of cherry picked verses.

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6 KJV) (Psalm 119:140 KJV) (Proverbs 30:5 KJV) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalm 12:7 KJV) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8 KJV) (1 Peter 1:25 KJV). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1 KJV); Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

My challenge to you is to pray over these passages above and ask for understanding by the Spirit concerning these passages (Jeremiah 33:3).

Fortunately most people can see how ridiculous the claim that a 17th century English translation of the Bible is the Perfect Bible. There is no such thing as a perfect Bible, that brings about all sorts of problems, instead we have countless copies which can be compared and its the message that is important, not if a word is spelt honour or honor.

You are not getting it. If one word was corrupt. Just one. What makes you believe the rest of it is true? Is not God's Word a spiritual instruction manual for our lives? How is that different than an instruction manual in building a plane? Would you get in a plane that a group of men built with them ignorig or twisting around certain details in the instruction manual?

 

[Billyd]

You have things backwards. Think for a moment. If the devil hates the Word of God and seeks to corrupt it, would He reinforce the good things of God (with supposedly added verses that are good), or would the devil take away words from God's Word that are good and or subtly twist them in an attempt to effect the Christian life.

For fasting is taking out in certain translations when it comes to casting out certain demons. Hmmm.... I wonder why? Romans 8:1 in the KJV says "Walk after the Spirit." Other translations remove this which destroys the whole argument that Paul was making in Romans 7-8. 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that actually teaches us about the Trinity clearly. So you have no real authority in telling Anti-Trinitarians that God is triune because you really don't have one clear verse like 1 John 5:7 to defend the Trinity. See, satan wants to remove God's Word as an authority in your life. That's his goal.

Jason, I'm not anti KJV. I use it daily. I Keep it, the ESV, and the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible open the entire time I study anything. I also have several other translations available at the same time. My ultimate goal when I'm in personal Bible study is to understand what I'm studying. If there is a difference in the text, there is something missing. When that happens, I want to know why. I can blame it on Satan, or I can find out why. Just quoting the KJV doesn't answer the Why?

You missed my earlier point all together. It is not my responsibility to prove your statements. It is yours. Your comments go on and on. One of your favorites is the number of missing words from the KJV. Please use a specific example of this and prove to us that what you are citing is true.

I'm not trying to be harsh. You have a message that you want to spread. You must be able to prove it based on total analysis of the scripture, not the continuous restatement of your passage. God bless you Brother.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm much less interested in poking holes in the KJV then I am defending virtually every other translation ever from the same treatment.

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [SUP][b][/SUP]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Contradiction – The members of the first resurrection will rule with Christ during the thousand year reign… they are not resurrected until after the thousand year reign of Christ.

 

[Agricola]

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6 KJV) (Psalm 119:140 KJV) (Proverbs 30:5 KJV) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalm 12:7 KJV) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8 KJV) (1 Peter 1:25 KJV). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1 KJV); Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

This is an invention of humans, a few cherry picked verses do not prove anything. People cherry pick verses for all kinds of agenda.

My challenge to you is to pray over these passages above and ask for understanding by the Spirit concerning these passages (Jeremiah 33:3).

LOL thanks for proving my statement correct, no I do not have to do this and I certainly will not as it is a waste of time and I already know that I wont be shown anything or whatever.

You are not getting it. If one word was corrupt. Just one. What makes you believe the rest of it is true? Is not God's Word a spiritual instruction manual for our lives? How is that different than an instruction manual in building a plane? Would you get in a plane that a group of men built with them ignorig or twisting around certain details in the instruction manual?

[/quote]

SO why is it evil to have a word spelt honor instead of honour? If you have a single original source, then you have to have utmost faith that the source you have is correct, this can bring many problems and also could mean that we loose out on many things.

You cult want everything prior to the King James destroyed, along with everyhthing after, that is dangerous, as the King James is not a perfect bible, it is just a good translation and nothing more. There are some issues and problems with the King James that could not be identified and corrected if no other scripture existed.

As it is, we can look at all the ancient greek, hebrew, Latin etc and compare these with each other, we can easily spot the errors and also get a better understanding of what is being written, something you can not do with just a single translation.

How on earth can you even claim that the Enlgish translation is perfect when the original texts were written in totally different language.

King James cult is evil and nasty and should be banned

 

[JackH]

Strong's Concordance is based off of the Textus Receptus.
Most Modern Translations are based off of the Westcott and Hort Greek texts.

These are completely two different sets of Greek manuscripts that are different by thousands of words.
Westcott and Hort were not even true believers.

No, most modern translations (last 50 years) are not based off of the Wescott and Hort Greek text. Other than the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), I can't think of any.

The NASB, which many consider to be the most "accurate" translation, is based principally on Edward Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece.

 

[JackH]

As I said before. Wikipedia and other sources list that the Apocrypha had been removed in the 1769 edition. So one then needs to ask, is it a 1769 that is:

(a) An original or a fake?
(b) A special edition (That did not follow the majority of the printings where the Apocrypha was removed).

You need to read your own links.

Like the one that says: "For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the AV without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased marketing appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers."

So publishers made a business decision whether or not the 1769 would contain the Apocrypha or not.

Whereas in 1885 an official edict was issued that the Apocrypha should no longer be in any future KJV Bibles.

 

[Jason0047]

You need to read your own links.

Like the one that says: "For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the AV without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased marketing appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers."

So publishers made a business decision whether or not the 1769 would contain the Apocrypha or not.

Whereas in 1885 an official edict was issued that the Apocrypha should no longer be in any future KJV Bibles.

It's purpose of it's removal does not change the fact that it was still removed and we had a perfect Word of God in the English by 1769. But again, if you want it to be 1885. Then go ahead and believe it was 1885. For the date of when God preserved His Word is not as important than just believing those passages that say His Word is perfect and that He would preserve His Word for all generations (Including this generation with it's own world language, which is now English).

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, I'm not anti KJV. I use it daily. I Keep it, the ESV, and the Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic Bible open the entire time I study anything. I also have several other translations available at the same time. My ultimate goal when I'm in personal Bible study is to understand what I'm studying. If there is a difference in the text, there is something missing. When that happens, I want to know why.

Very subtle. No doubt you are not Anti-KJV but you are most definitely 100% Anti-KJV-only. However, if you attempt to point out errors in the KJV while many Christians believe it to be the infallible Word of God and you lead one person to just stop believing all together in Jesus because you convinced them the Word of God is a lie, then that is what I would call the fruits of a dark spirit at work. Why do I say this? Because I was almost led astray in walking away from the faith altogether by those trying to crack the foundation of my belief in the Word of God.

If you want to do a study, I would suggest researching the bad things that are found within the Modern Translations versus the King James if you are honestly seeking after the truth. Don't take my word for it. I did the study many times before.

I can blame it on Satan, or I can find out why.

So why do you think Satan who once corrupted the Word of God in the past (In Genesis chapter 3) has somehow changed his tactics? Is there Biblical support for such a belief?

Just quoting the KJV doesn't answer the Why?

Believing God's Word always takes a step of faith. Once you take that step of faith, you will shortly then be able to see. Sort of like when Indiana Jones took a step of faith off a cliff and then he shortly discovered he was on an invisible bridge.

You missed my earlier point all together. It is not my responsibility to prove your statements. It is yours. Your comments go on and on. One of your favorites is the number of missing words from the KJV. Please use a specific example of this and prove to us that what you are citing is true.

Thousands of words have been removed, including many many verses, too.

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

Modern Translations have removed fasting so as to cast out certain stronger demons. Modern Translations have the mark of the devil in them. Revelation 13:1 should be John (speaking of himself as "I") and not the dragon. The morning star is Jesus and not Satan. It is the Son of God who was in the fiery furnace with Daniel's friends and not the son of the gods. Walk after the Spirit should be in Romans 8:1 and lets us no that there is "Condemnation" for those who do not walk after the Spirit in Christ Jesus. 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that specifically or clearly teaches the Trinity. It's removal or one's lack of faith in believing such a verse is inspired by God neuters your defense against Anti-Trinitarians. For they will agree with you that 1 John 5:7 is not a part of the Word of God and smile. I have no problem teaching the straight forward truth about that verse because I believe Scripture when it says that it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations.

 

[Jason0047]

No, most modern translations (last 50 years) are not based off of the Wescott and Hort Greek text. Other than the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), I can't think of any.

The NASB, which many consider to be the most "accurate" translation, is based principally on Edward Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece.

If you don't have E-Sword already, I would recommend checking it out for yourself. Don't take my word for it. You can compare the Westcott and Hort next to the KJV, and other translations. Look at Romans 8:1, 1 John 5:7, etc.

 

[Jason0047]

This is an invention of humans, a few cherry picked verses do not prove anything. People cherry pick verses for all kinds of agenda.

Please go back and show me the context to prove your case. You can say "cherry pick" all you like, but until you or anyone else actually shows the context or other cross references refuting the idea that God's Word is not perfect and that God's Word would not be preserved for all generations is only pushing a man made opinion that is not backed up by Scripture.

LOL thanks for proving my statement correct, no I do not have to do this and I certainly will not as it is a waste of time and I already know that I wont be shown anything or whatever.

What do you have to lose by asking God? You are asking me. What does it hurt to ask God? Are you afraid that God might show you the truth on this matter?

SO why is it evil to have a word spelt honor instead of honour?

These are not the kind of changes I am talking about. Removal of "walk after the Spirit" in Romans 8:1, the removal of the teaching on the Trinity with 1 John 5:7. The removal of fasting to cast out certain stronger demons. The removal of specific mention of various sins that can be harmful to you. This is what I have a problem with.

If you have a single original source, then you have to have utmost faith that the source you have is correct, this can bring many problems and also could mean that we loose out on many things.

You mean, you can interpret God's Word as you see fit when you think it might be an error because you don't understand it, right? That's what it sounds like to me.

You cult want everything prior to the King James destroyed, along with everyhthing after, that is dangerous, as the King James is not a perfect bible, it is just a good translation and nothing more. There are some issues and problems with the King James that could not be identified and corrected if no other scripture existed.

As it is, we can look at all the ancient greek, hebrew, Latin etc and compare these with each other, we can easily spot the errors and also get a better understanding of what is being written, something you can not do with just a single translation.

How on earth can you even claim that the Enlgish translation is perfect when the original texts were written in totally different language.

King James cult is evil and nasty and should be banned

What is dangerous is that you can lead others away from the faith by destroying their faith in the Word of God (i.e. the KJV). For do you really want to stop the KJV-only proponent from having a sure Word that He can trust so as to believe in Jesus? Do you want to destroy His foundation? His belief in the Word? To break it? To crack it? To get him to walk away from the faith altogether? Is that what you want? Well, my friend; That is what you are doing whether you realize it or not.

 

[JackH]

It's purpose of it's removal does not change the fact that it was still removed and we had a perfect Word of God in the English by 1769. But again, if you want it to be 1885. Then go ahead and believe it was 1885. For the date of when God preserved His Word is not as important than just believing those passages that say His Word is perfect and that He would preserve His Word for all generations (Including this generation with it's own world language, which is now English).

So if you don't speak English you don't have a perfect Bible? Why not a Spanish perfect Bible?

And until 1769, you have said the Latin Vulgate is the perfect Bible. But then became imperfect? How exactly did it become imperfect, without changing at all? Do you know of anybody else who believes what you do about the Vulgate being the perfect Bible until 1769 when the KJV took over?

I don't care about the dates 1769 or 1885. Some KJV ONLY cultists say the KJV is inerrant and always has been. My point is that the Apocrypha is definitely not divinely inspired and inerrant. Do you or any KJV ONLY cultists want to argue that they are? Therefore, if the KJV contained books that are not divinely inspired and inerrant . . .

 

[JackH]

1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that specifically or clearly teaches the Trinity. It's removal or one's lack of faith in believing such a verse is inspired by God neuters your defense against Anti-Trinitarians. For they will agree with you that 1 John 5:7 is not a part of the Word of God and smile.

What is your understanding of how that verse got in the KJV as it reads?

 

[KJV1611]

No, most modern translations (last 50 years) are not based off of the Wescott and Hort Greek text. Other than the New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), I can't think of any.

The NASB, which many consider to be the most "accurate" translation, is based principally on Edward Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece.

Now that's funny JackH... How are you, haven't talked to you in a while.
Jack the NASB is full of contradictions and errors. I wonder how many folks that repeat what you said have ever once verified the statement. I would be willing to bet the answer is naught. Some liberal scholar who doesn't even believe in God probably came up with that slogan.

 

[wattie]

What I was saying- is that so many people want to throw out the KJV because of the old English. Want to update because it is 'too hard to read' or 'antiquated' etc..

But most would not do the same thing with Shakespeare!

As for my position on the KJV. .I say it is a reliable translation.. not the originally written Word of God of course. But it is reliable preservation.. as promised in scripture that it would be preserved.

There are errors.. such as King James keeping old words of 'assembly' and 'congregation' and being replaced with 'church'.. but not anything that would compromise any major christian doctrine.