King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- 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.
That's where below comes in.
John 16:13-14 KJV
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
[14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
John 16:13-14 KJV
Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
[14] He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.
How are the original written texts a self-made idol? That doesn't compute at all. It certainly is no worse than worshiping a book that came along at least 1500 years after the originals.
I would also mention that your statement is a "tu quoque" fallacy: instead of dealing with the charge of idolatry, you fling it back at the one(s) who leveled it.
I would also mention that your statement is a "tu quoque" fallacy: instead of dealing with the charge of idolatry, you fling it back at the one(s) who leveled it.
L
Just to add another comment to this section of the thread.
Romans 5: 8-10 (KJV)
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Forgiveness of sins is the reconciliation, or payment of a debt we can never pay. That is not salvation. the second part of that verse , "much more" or in addition to, says we are saved by his life.
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and salvation is forgiveness of sins, then the whole world is saved. We know that not to be true. So for salvation, something else has to occur.
Galatians 1: v 4: Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.
If it is only "might deliver us" then something else HAS to occur after forgiveness, for salvation. In other words, His death and forgiveness of sin, cannot be salvation, its the 1st part of the process, which the 2nd part is to be saved by His life
So how are we saved by His life?
Romans 5: 8-10 (KJV)
8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Forgiveness of sins is the reconciliation, or payment of a debt we can never pay. That is not salvation. the second part of that verse , "much more" or in addition to, says we are saved by his life.
1 John 2:2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
If Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and salvation is forgiveness of sins, then the whole world is saved. We know that not to be true. So for salvation, something else has to occur.
Galatians 1: v 4: Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father.
If it is only "might deliver us" then something else HAS to occur after forgiveness, for salvation. In other words, His death and forgiveness of sin, cannot be salvation, its the 1st part of the process, which the 2nd part is to be saved by His life
So how are we saved by His life?
Last edited:
Does not matter how many times or how many different ways you put this across and how evidence you produce, a good cult member will just carry on blindly, sticking to the cults mantra that they only accept the King James as Gods own words and if it says Son of God, then everyone else is wrong. I doubt they even stop to think about it, another sign that you are talking to brainwashed cult members.
I agree. I would also add that he did not mention the triune God - elohim in Hebrew or elanah in Aramaic. Nebuchadnezzar spoke of elah - one god which woud be the head god of his gods. He is not talking about the triune God of Daniel - elahin.
I agree that God did not put his words in Daniels mouth in Daniel 2:47. So now let's look at Daniel 3:25.
Daniel 3:25 KJV
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [elahin].
If Nebuchadnezzar was speaking of the gods he would use elahin, my question to you is what Aramaic word would he use for the triune God - Elohim?
I agree that God did not put his words in Daniels mouth in Daniel 2:47. So now let's look at Daniel 3:25.
Daniel 3:25 KJV
He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God [elahin].
If Nebuchadnezzar was speaking of the gods he would use elahin, my question to you is what Aramaic word would he use for the triune God - Elohim?
Do the original writtings exist? Do all copies of the originals match? Which manuscript line is "the right" line? Do you see my point? Pick these words from this manuscript or bible and these form another manuscript line or translation and THIS is the word of God... An idol bult with the hands of men.
How do original lanuage proponents argue against the KJV - "the original maunscript says..." They worship WORDS, not the spirit behind the words. Is see the spirit in the words of the KJV and that's why I defend it.
How do original lanuage proponents argue against the KJV - "the original maunscript says..." They worship WORDS, not the spirit behind the words. Is see the spirit in the words of the KJV and that's why I defend it.
Aparently it does, but who can tell if a printed version is really the original? there is no shrine to the "first" and can we really trust that a printed book claiming to be an original really is original? However, we generally accept that there are a few original first print copies around and quite surprisingly looks and reads nothing like most King James versions available today.
All good King James Onlyists should be using an original 1611 text and not the 1769 Revised Standard Oxford Edition, which corrected all the old spelling of 1611 using Dr Johnson's newly published dictionary. 1611 version is a whole new ball game with language, which is why I say it is difficult for people to read. However I then have cult members just bringing up the "oh its easy to understand thee and thou" and so on, but hang on a minute, this is not what I am refering to, here is original text from the Original King James.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.1
2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.3
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.4
5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.5
Here is a transcript and of course image of Genesis 1.1 So I would like to ask all the King James Onlyists, Do you read from a King James bible with all this spelling? If not then you are not reading the Bible you are supposed to be.
All good King James Onlyists should be using an original 1611 text and not the 1769 Revised Standard Oxford Edition, which corrected all the old spelling of 1611 using Dr Johnson's newly published dictionary. 1611 version is a whole new ball game with language, which is why I say it is difficult for people to read. However I then have cult members just bringing up the "oh its easy to understand thee and thou" and so on, but hang on a minute, this is not what I am refering to, here is original text from the Original King James.
https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org
In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.1
2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.3
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse.4
5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day.5
Here is a transcript and of course image of Genesis 1.1 So I would like to ask all the King James Onlyists, Do you read from a King James bible with all this spelling? If not then you are not reading the Bible you are supposed to be.
