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.
In Daniel 3:25, Nebuchadnezzar spoke only of the gods that he spoke of using the plural form of the Aramaic word for god, ’ĕlāhîn—that is, the Babylonian gods.
In Daniel 2:47, we find אֱלָהֲכ֗וֹן (’ĕ·lāhăḵōwn [your god]) which is singular; אֱלָ֧הּ (’ĕlāh [a god]) which is also singular; and אֱלָהִ֛ין (’ĕlāhîn [gods]) which is plural. Therefore, the KJV translates Dan. 3:25 incorrectly, but translates Dan. 3:47 correctly.
Daniel 3:25. He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!’ (NASB, 1995)
The Hebrew people were staunchly monotheistic, and Nebuchadnezzar would certainly have been aware of this. Therefore, he would have used the singular form of the Aramaic word for God for a triune God. However, he used the plural form of the Aramaic word for God because he was referring to the Babylonian Gods. Furthermore, the Hebrew people themselves did not believe in a triune God, and such a concept is never found in the Old Testament. The closest thing to such a concept in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 48:16,
16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and his Spirit. (ASV)
However, the context of this verse shows that the pronoun “me” is referring to Cyrus*, who it is prophesied will conquer Babylon—a prophesy that was fulfilled! However, some Old Testament scholars believe that Cyrus is here a type of Christ.
*Isaiah 45:1. Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut:
2. I will go before thee, and make the rough places smooth; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
3. and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that it is I, Jehovah, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. (ASV)
In Daniel 2:47, we find אֱלָהֲכ֗וֹן (’ĕ·lāhăḵōwn [your god]) which is singular; אֱלָ֧הּ (’ĕlāh [a god]) which is also singular; and אֱלָהִ֛ין (’ĕlāhîn [gods]) which is plural. Therefore, the KJV translates Dan. 3:25 incorrectly, but translates Dan. 3:47 correctly.
Daniel 3:25. He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!’ (NASB, 1995)
The Hebrew people were staunchly monotheistic, and Nebuchadnezzar would certainly have been aware of this. Therefore, he would have used the singular form of the Aramaic word for God for a triune God. However, he used the plural form of the Aramaic word for God because he was referring to the Babylonian Gods. Furthermore, the Hebrew people themselves did not believe in a triune God, and such a concept is never found in the Old Testament. The closest thing to such a concept in the Old Testament is found in Isaiah 48:16,
16. Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; from the beginning I have not spoken in secret; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord Jehovah hath sent me, and his Spirit. (ASV)
However, the context of this verse shows that the pronoun “me” is referring to Cyrus*, who it is prophesied will conquer Babylon—a prophesy that was fulfilled! However, some Old Testament scholars believe that Cyrus is here a type of Christ.
*Isaiah 45:1. Thus saith Jehovah to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him, and I will loose the loins of kings; to open the doors before him, and the gates shall not be shut:
2. I will go before thee, and make the rough places smooth; I will break in pieces the doors of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron;
3. and I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that it is I, Jehovah, who call thee by thy name, even the God of Israel. (ASV)
The English version known today as the American Standard Version is the American Edition of what is known today as the English Revised Version—an official (by both houses of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury) revision of the KJV. It is not “the Wesott and Hort re-write of the KJV,” and to refer to it in such a manner is a typical example of the extremely dishonest and sinful behavior of the KJO movement that is disgracing the Bible and bringing it into disrepute. The spiritual forces behind this movement are the principalities, and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, spiritual wickedness in high places—the very purpose of which is to discourage people from reading the Bible in a translation that they can understand, thus impeding them from coming to Christ and growing in their Christian faith.
Among the first printings of the KJV, we find the “he” and the “she” Bibles. Rare 1611 'Great She Bible' found in Lancashire church - BBC News
I agree they don't have to have the same words but the words have to be the RIGHT words. I also agree that they all contain SOME of the word of God mixed in with errors except the KJV.
In your view no he didn't die in the same day because you won't acknowledge that the bible speaks of two different days. Instead you make up a concept called spiritual death which doesn't exist.
I agree, but Peter was referencing Psalm 90:4 which is not making a point about the Lord's patience for his elect.
Psalm 90:4 KJV
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
I believe the word, I don't make things up. There are two timelines in the bible - man's timeline and God's timeline... that's how God hides the good things from those who wont believe the bible.
Yes I believe in the Holy Spirit.
In your view no he didn't die in the same day because you won't acknowledge that the bible speaks of two different days. Instead you make up a concept called spiritual death which doesn't exist.
I agree, but Peter was referencing Psalm 90:4 which is not making a point about the Lord's patience for his elect.
Psalm 90:4 KJV
For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night.
Utterly ridiculous nonsense. God is aging really really fast bro. 
Hopefully you can see how absurd your beliefs are, or, KJVO has done so much indoctrinating you cannot see it.
Hopefully you can see how absurd your beliefs are, or, KJVO has done so much indoctrinating you cannot see it.
Yes I believe in the Holy Spirit.
The 1611 KJV says,
2 Chron. 33:19. His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sinne, and his trespasse, and the places wherein he built high places, and set vp groues and grauen images before hee was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the Seers.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
2 Chron. 33:19. His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
The 1611 KJV says,
Nahum 3:16. Thou hast multiplied thy merchants aboue the starres of heauen; the cankerworme spoileth & flieth away.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
Nahum 3:16. Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and fleeth away.
The 1611 KJV says,
Jer. 34:16. But yee turned and polluted my Name, and caused euery man his seruant, and euery man his handmaide, whome yee had set at libertie at their pleasure, to returne; and brought them into subiection, to bee vnto you for seruants and for handmaids.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
Jer. 34:16. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.
2 Chron. 33:19. His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sinne, and his trespasse, and the places wherein he built high places, and set vp groues and grauen images before hee was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the Seers.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
2 Chron. 33:19. His prayer also, and how God was intreated of him, and all his sins, and his trespass, and the places wherein he built high places, and set up groves and graven images, before he was humbled: behold, they are written among the sayings of the seers.
The 1611 KJV says,
Nahum 3:16. Thou hast multiplied thy merchants aboue the starres of heauen; the cankerworme spoileth & flieth away.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
Nahum 3:16. Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and fleeth away.
The 1611 KJV says,
Jer. 34:16. But yee turned and polluted my Name, and caused euery man his seruant, and euery man his handmaide, whome yee had set at libertie at their pleasure, to returne; and brought them into subiection, to bee vnto you for seruants and for handmaids.
But my Oxford KJV printed at the Oxford University Press says,
Jer. 34:16. But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom he had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection, to be unto you for servants and for handmaids.
There are several problems with this theory. Firstly, there is no indication that Peter's words are poetic. Given that he says, "do not be ignorant of this one thing", it would seem that he is talking facts, not "spiritual language". The NASB actually uses the word "fact" there.
Secondly, the fact that the statement is presented both ways negates applying just half of it to Adam's situation. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
Thirdly, this is talking about God, not mankind. Fourthly, this is talking about God's patience, not about any part of our life.
Fifthly, this is a metaphor, a comparison which, in this case, uses "as" to relate one concept to another, without saying that one thing is actually another thing.
Sixthly, this kind of reasoning undermines every use of "day" in the Bible... including the ones in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.
Secondly, the fact that the statement is presented both ways negates applying just half of it to Adam's situation. In other words, you can't have it both ways.
Thirdly, this is talking about God, not mankind. Fourthly, this is talking about God's patience, not about any part of our life.
Fifthly, this is a metaphor, a comparison which, in this case, uses "as" to relate one concept to another, without saying that one thing is actually another thing.
Sixthly, this kind of reasoning undermines every use of "day" in the Bible... including the ones in Genesis 1 and Exodus 20.
I think part of the issue is that they cannot see what contradictions are there. Concession to these would devastate their faith because their faith is in ink printed on paper.
Therefore they become purposefully impenetrable, they indoctrinate one another with their sectarianism, their faith is in jeopardy if they concede to translational errors and KJV error.
I'll put it like this: If proof were given that showed the KJV to have errors, contradictions, errant translation, they would unfortunately crumble concerning their faith. I know there are already those proofs, but I am simply illustrating their position. They must take the position because again their faith would crumble and they wouldn't know how to recover, so they hang on to 1611ism. Not Christ. It is 1611ism they are hanging on to. (not that they aren't born again, I am not saying that).
Therefore they become purposefully impenetrable, they indoctrinate one another with their sectarianism, their faith is in jeopardy if they concede to translational errors and KJV error.
I'll put it like this: If proof were given that showed the KJV to have errors, contradictions, errant translation, they would unfortunately crumble concerning their faith. I know there are already those proofs, but I am simply illustrating their position. They must take the position because again their faith would crumble and they wouldn't know how to recover, so they hang on to 1611ism. Not Christ. It is 1611ism they are hanging on to. (not that they aren't born again, I am not saying that).
If one has trouble "understanding" the KJV, the problem is with the individual and not with God's word. One problem is that people do not grow up reading and studying the word of God like days past. The believer has been commanded to study the word of God precept upon precept, line by line, precept upon precept, line upon line. Any effort to try and make God's word "easier" to read always ends up corrupting the text. Instead of changing God's word we should try reading and studying it more asking for the Holy Spirit's guidance. People live such busy lives today that they are always looking for the easy way out.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Psalm 119:18 Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law.
Error 1
11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.
The KJV translators made a typo or translated it wrong and later versions corrected it or the KJV translators got it right and it was wrongly changed later. I think the original is right because I had already gleaned from the KJV I read that the ark of the covenant was the presence of God. I have never argued that there weren't typos, spelling changes and varitions from the original Greek or Hebrew.
My point is that both verses say exactly the same thing as far as the word of God goes. The message of that verse is - the ark of the covenant passes over first. The 1611 version gives more insight than the later version.
11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
11 Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan.
The KJV translators made a typo or translated it wrong and later versions corrected it or the KJV translators got it right and it was wrongly changed later. I think the original is right because I had already gleaned from the KJV I read that the ark of the covenant was the presence of God. I have never argued that there weren't typos, spelling changes and varitions from the original Greek or Hebrew.
My point is that both verses say exactly the same thing as far as the word of God goes. The message of that verse is - the ark of the covenant passes over first. The 1611 version gives more insight than the later version.
Modern versions are better than the KJV. They are also for the most part easier to read which is a good thing seeing we don't speak that form of English any longer. If the queens English were so much easier to read it would still be used to this day in everything, because people always want easier to assist them in their learning endeavors.
The KJV is "corrupted" because it has added things to the Scriptures which were not in the mss. Thus we have better versions of Scripture today; NASB, NASBU, ESV, CSB, HCSB, NIV &c.
The KJV is "corrupted" because it has added things to the Scriptures which were not in the mss. Thus we have better versions of Scripture today; NASB, NASBU, ESV, CSB, HCSB, NIV &c.
Wait. The revisions are always better. Remember, the KJV was the 7th and 7 means completion. So, the 1769 was a revision of the 1611. So, either the 1611 is the completion, or the 1769 is a better version. Either way, the KJVOnlyists have themselves quite the conundrum. Either the 1611 is the word of God for English speaking folk, or the 1769 is better than the 1611, seeing it is a revision. Which is it?