KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

  • 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.

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
2,201
202
63
#41
Man, go back under your bridge and wait for those three goats.

I bet this is a KJVO’er on here whose made up another account to keep spreading their stupidity.
Or, maybe it was Sovereign grace who made up another account just so we all could have some fun! LOL! :rolleyes:
 
D

Depleted

Guest
#43
Or, maybe it was Sovereign grace who made up another account just so we all could have some fun! LOL! :rolleyes:
Real question. (Not to be mistaken for scoldy question.) Do you ever go to the Miscellaneous forum? Sov gives us the fun there. (Oh, and please do check out his thread on pictures of other CCers. I really would love to see how you see folks on this site. It's fun/funny.)
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,963
792
113
#44
I know I am late to the thread, but I have to say it!

Oh no! Not again!

That’s all!
 
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#45


The Bible has been around for 1900 years. King Jimmy's version has only been around for 400 years. KJV IS a modern Bible. Unless you just need the finger exercise of typing out all this junk, assume ain't no one buy other KJVonlyist are buying your manure. And since KJVOnlyist already believe KJVonly, you're not even convincing to them.

The discussion is about "English Bibles"
& God's word has been around, in my opinion obviously in the Textus Receptus, if we are looking at the New Testament before it was in English.
 
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#46
In this endeavor I don't understand why I should have to teach a lost person that I would rather feel the sanctification of God then refer to Sodomy in separation.

- Walking in the New man.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,884
120
63
#47
Sometimes I wonder if ye blokes knoweth how to getteth thineselves outeth of the rain.
And yet, none of you new version guys can point to anything as your final authority on what God has said. It doesn't exist.
 
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#48
Nobody is going to start a thread like that, because none of us do "translation worship".... None of us are so anal-retentive about having the "exact, pure words of God"... every jot/tittle/comma/letter like you are.

I don't believe the NASB is the ONLY translation of the Bible that is good. I believe there are several, including the KJV translation.


Errr, correction. I am that anal retentive. Then again, that's why I've got to have my eSword, so I can check out several versions, and then what scholars say, and, oh, oh, let's not forget the concordances.

Which is also why I cannot go with just one version. To me that's more diarrhetic to go just-one-version. I'm trying to keep it in rather than...


Oops, could not keep that metaphor going without grossing even myself out.


In a Christian endeavor I don't understand why I should have to teach a lost person that I would rather feel the sanctification of God then refer to Sodomy in separation.

- Walking in the New man.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,753
1,039
113
#49
In this endeavor I don't understand why I should have to teach a lost person that I would rather feel the sanctification of God then refer to Sodomy in separation.

- Walking in the New man.
Wut?

Is there any connection at all between this post and your opening post?
 
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#50
Nobody is going to start a thread like that, because none of us do "translation worship".... None of us are so anal-retentive about having the "exact, pure words of God"... every jot/tittle/comma/letter like you are.

I don't believe the NASB is the ONLY translation of the Bible that is good. I believe there are several, including the KJV translation.

In a Christian endeavor I don't understand why I should have to teach a lost person that I would rather feel the sanctification of God then refer to Sodomy in separation.

- Walking in the New man.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,753
1,039
113
#51
And yet, none of you new version guys can point to anything as your final authority on what God has said. It doesn't exist.
You shall not be heard for your repetitious babble.
 
Dec 28, 2016
6,041
295
83
#52
And yet, none of you new version guys can point to anything as your final authority on what God has said. It doesn't exist.
Actually we do, in the several modern versions where God's Word exists. We're smart enough to know there is no translation on earth that is a word for word translation from the extant mss. and languages into any language today.

We are also aware that the KJV doesn't magically erase the double standard you have that; 1) God's Word must be translated word for word to be preserved, true and pure; 2) Yet, although your version does not accomplish this, it is blindly accepted as if it does -or- it is accepted as if it doesn't really matter since the King Jimmy is magic and all.
 
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#55
Actually we do, in the several modern versions where God's Word exists. We're smart enough to know there is no translation on earth that is a word for word translation from the extant mss. and languages into any language today.

We are also aware that the KJV doesn't magically erase the double standard you have that; 1) God's Word must be translated word for word to be preserved, true and pure; 2) Yet, although your version does not accomplish this, it is blindly accepted as if it does -or- it is accepted as if it doesn't really matter since the King Jimmy is magic and all.
- 2 Cor. 11:3-4
This is very old scripture, yet you are so ignorant.
& look at in KJV text.
 
Last edited:
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#57
Actually we do, in the several modern versions where God's Word exists. We're smart enough to know there is no translation on earth that is a word for word translation from the extant mss. and languages into any language today.

We are also aware that the KJV doesn't magically erase the double standard you have that; 1) God's Word must be translated word for word to be preserved, true and pure; 2) Yet, although your version does not accomplish this, it is blindly accepted as if it does -or- it is accepted as if it doesn't really matter since the King Jimmy is magic and all.
& look at in KJV text.
 

NotmebutHim

Senior Member
May 17, 2015
1,560
166
63
#58
One thing I have noticed is that when I watch (or try to watch) various YouTube videos where the pastor or preacher is speaking against a certain heresy or errant movement, he will almost inevitably connect the KJV to it. What I mean is that the person will say that one of the reasons to reject whatever errant doctrine is being discussed is because it undermines the KJV. Usually, in my experience, this happens when Bible version/translation issues are not pertinent to the doctrinal issue at hand.

I'll just be sitting there listening to the preacher talk about the specific heresy and then he'll say something to the effect of "it goes against the King James Bible" or "don't use any of the corrupt or devil-inspired versions". At that point, I just have to stop the video and go elsewhere because I'm thinking "well you've lost my ear right there". It's like full-stop, you know?

I find that one of the indicators of someone being KJVO is if he/she makes a special point to say during the sermon or speech that the KJV is being used, especially, as I mentioned above, it really has no connection to the subject matter of the sermon or speech.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,884
120
63
#59
Actually we do, in the several modern versions where God's Word exists. We're smart enough to know there is no translation on earth that is a word for word translation from the extant mss. and languages into any language today.

We are also aware that the KJV doesn't magically erase the double standard you have that; 1) God's Word must be translated word for word to be preserved, true and pure; 2) Yet, although your version does not accomplish this, it is blindly accepted as if it does -or- it is accepted as if it doesn't really matter since the King Jimmy is magic and all.
We do...we don't...we do...we don't...
 
Dec 28, 2016
6,041
295
83
#60
We do...we don't...we do...we don't...
Yes, that's all you have as a retort, this instead of facing the truth of what was stated and addressing the facts. What a shameful and completely disingenuous response.

But I get it, in order to be a valid citizen of KJVO cultism, you cannot accept refutation or facts. To do so would cause separation anxiety in you, while causing you to be disowned by your peers. You're afraid of that.

You cannot stand on your own, face facts, accept reason, and think for yourself to the extent you are able to admit you do not own a word for word translation of Scripture. Everything must be weighed as to the cost of becoming an outcast from among the sectarians with whom you affiliate. That is called the fear of man, and you're ensnared.

I feel sorry for you, you are not allowed to know or admit the truth because you know full well it will cost you the applause of your sect.