The attack of the KJV

  • 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
I don't know any passage that speaks of "walk in the Spirit." No, Romans 8 does not define Christians as those who "walk in the Spirit." You are confusing are in & walk after & making a hybrid "walk in."
There is a difference between "are in the Spirit" and "walk according to (after) the Spirit." Brethren (Christians) who are in the Spirit may nonetheless walk/live after the flesh (be carnal).


I'm not really hung up on the wording, but I don't see that it matters that much.

First of all, the wording of v4 in terms of walking after the Spirit is the same wording used in the manuscripts the KJV relies on for Romans 8:1. So my basic point about the referral of v1 to v4 still stands, and that was the only point I was interested in making to the Onlyists.

Secondly, I don't think Paul makes nearly as clear a distinction as you suggest between those walk after the Spirit and those who are in the Spirit. In fact, the language is suggestive that he simply writes assuming those who are in Christ are also those who are in the Spirit and who walk after the Spirit. The elements can't be extricated.

8 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who are according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who are according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. 6 For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him. 10 If Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.
I would argue walking after the flesh is very different to sinning in toto. Paul here is speaking of two modes of life - one where the mind is of the flesh, set on death, and hostile to God. The other is the mind of the spirit, that is of life and peace, amenable to God. The Spirit that raised Christ will also raise us too, whose bodies are currently 'dead' and will be dead because of sin, but whose spirits are alive in Christ because of his righteousness. To have the Spirit in you is to walk according to, or in, the Spirit, is to have the mind of the Spirit. They all go together and are of the one source in Paul's mind.

But this is beside the main point the thread. Feel free to take it up with me in another thread of PM if you like :)
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
It's the hypocrisy that gets me. Again, you were all to willing to post links to supposed 'history' before as a criticism of my position and proof as yours, but then the moment I actually engaged with your argument from history (and I can only conclude, the moment at which my argument seemed convincing and carried some wait), you revert to the 'history can't be trusted' stance.
It's not hypocrisy. It's called 2 Timothy 2:23. I strive to encourage people to have faith in God's Word and I do not try to indulge a debate that would encourage one to have doubt about it. Also, I do not place my entire faith in the history I gave you with absolutey 100% reliability in of itself alone, either. I also back up that history with the truth of observable evidences, too. For example. The word "dragon" is in the Bible. That's a fact. The Bible also speaks of dragon like creatures like the Leviathan, as well. This is also a fact. Dragon's have been supposedly reported thru out history in many ways. This is not a fact or an observable evidence. But it lines up with the truth that is within the Bible; And the Bible (KJV) has proven itself to be true in other ways:

(a) By showing that itself to be perfect,
(b) By proving it's superiority in a high moral standard compared to other translations (that appear slightly corrupt),
(c) By it being attacked (devil's name being placed in it and others getting highly emotional and hateful of the brethren),
(d) By Biblical Numerics (To see if Biblical Numerics is Biblical, just read Ecclesiastes 7 and Revelation 13).

The only reasonable conclusion is that you're happy to appeal to history when it suits you, but when it actually argues against you, you call it worthless, and say that it was probably faked or heretical (claims made utterly with out evidence, and usually against evidence to the contrary) That's a very dangerous and arbitrary position to take, because you're essentially arguing that the only worthwhile evidence in a discussion is evidence that a priori agrees with your position. At that point, there's not really a discussion worth having, because no evidence will convince you.
There is a difference between our positions. You use Historical evidence so as to call doubt in God's Word. I use Historical evidence so as to bring faith to God's Word. For faith comes by hearing, and hearing the Word of God (Not doubting it or saying it is full of errors). For without faith, it is impossible to please Him.

So when I see your supposed evidence that strives to call in doubt God's Word, I only hear...

"Yea, hath God said?..."

For God's Word is perfect and it will last forever.
You mean not believe that. But I do because I have faith in God's Word.

You have observable evidence. Great. I would love to see it.
But I highly doubt you can Biblically prove the Modern Translation (i.e. many imperfect Words of God) position or looking to another dead language in order to understand God's Word. Whereas, God's Word does say that it is perfect, and does say it will be preserved for all generations.

Please, repost them. I believe some of it we've discussed before, but I couldn't find it, so f you could repost or link, that's a discussion worth having.
I will find the post.

Sorry, this is a complete non sequiter, and doesn't really answer anything I posted. I don't dispute Job 38-41 is talking about things God has created. Your second sentence is so irrelevant and so ad hominem it doesn't merit a reply. I will repost again, in the genuine hope you might engage with me on this point:

I'm more than happy to keep an open mind about the creature of Job 41, although it's not beyond the nature of the text to believe that Leviathan is a creature being described through poetic hyperbole in order to make a point about God's might, in the same sort of way as locusts are elsewhere poetically described as vicious soldiers. My point is simply that a skeleton of a 3m long creature whose name sounds a little bit like dragon is not proof that the KJV is the single and only Word of God.


How does beholdeth all things mean he flies? Clearly the point of the verse is merely that Leviathan is supreme over all things, it doesn't at all suggest that he literally flies. Indeed, this further supports why the LXX uses drakon at this point - drakon comes from a root in the Greek meaning 'seeing one' - the idea being of a creature that has exceptional eye sight. Not to mention that the beginning of Job 41 (not to mention later verses) all but explicitly states that Leviathan is a creature of the sea, not the air.

Says who? Certainly the words δεινός , σαῦρος and δράκοντα share no clear semantic or etymological link. You believe the two terms to be interchangeable, then?
The context is an unbroken line God talking about nature. Also, it doesn't make sense from the story's perspective to have God suddenly talk in a metaphorical way to Job when it clearly is still talking about something within nature. You are focusing a laser beam on the words, and you are not actually putting yourself into the actual story and thinking about all of what is happening in the story of Jbo.
 
Last edited:
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
Here is my post on the 3 Major Biblical Reasons for a Perfect Word of God for our day.

Is the King James Bible Infallible? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More

Side Note:

I would like to create this actually into four Biblical points (At some point in the future). Textual superiority of the KJV vs Modern Translation should be one category and the devil's attack against the Modern Translations should be another category.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
It's not hypocrisy. It's called 2 Timothy 2:23. I strive to encourage people to have faith in God's Word and I do not try to indulge a debate that would encourage one to have doubt about it.
No no no. You do not get to use 2 Timothy 2:23 in order to make me agree with your position. I could just as easily argue that yours is the foolish argument and that you are the one snared. Paul does not reject teaching, does not reject correction. He simply rejects letting silly arguments get in the way of Christian fruit (which, I will acknowledge, we are getting very close to in this thread) You are encouraging people to have faith IN THE KJV to the EXCLUSION OF EVERY OTHER ENGLISH TRANSLATION.

Also, I do not place my entire faith in the history I gave you with absolutey 100% reliability in of itself alone, either. I also back up that history with the truth of observable evidences, too. For example. The word "dragon" is in the Bible. That's a fact.
The word drakonta is in the Bible, the word dragon is in the KJV. There is a difference, the main one being what idea of dragon you import into the text from your own preunderstanding.

The Bible also speaks of dragon like creatures like the Leviathan, as well. This is also a fact. Dragon's have been supposedly reported thru out history in many ways. This is not a fact or an observable evidence. But it lines up with the truth that is within the Bible; And the Bible (KJV) has proven itself to be true in other ways:
(a) By showing that itself to be perfect,
(b) By proving it's superiority in a high moral standard compared to other translations (that appear slightly corrupt),
(c) By it being attacked (devil's name being placed in it and others getting highly emotional and hateful of the brethren),
(d) By Biblical Numerics (To see if Biblical Numerics is Biblical, just read Ecclesiastes 7 and Revelation 13).
You mention these in your other thread, which I will get to in due course (probably as a series of posts) and in detail. But let me just say that both a) and b) beg the question by having to assume the KJV is the only acceptable version of God's word before either point can be true, c) is off because it ignores all the things that are attacked that AREN'T God's word, and d) is positive confirmation bias - numerology is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible as a means of testing doctrine or truth, and this approach ignores all the other ways numbers could be read negatively into the KJV, and positively into the modern translations. I had this discussion with KJV1611, but I'll save it for your other thread.

There is a difference between our positions. You use Historical evidence so as to call doubt in God's Word. I use Historical evidence so as to bring faith to God's Word.
No. I use historical evidence to bring people faith and trust in God's word. You use naught but your own opinion to call into doubt every other translation other than the KJV. You don't get to use the 'I'm all about helping people believe' line, because the KJV Only line is utterly destructive for many people's faith.

So when I see your supposed evidence that strives to call in doubt God's Word, I only hear...

"Yea, hath God said?..."

For God's Word is perfect and it will last forever.
Forever does not mean "just from 1611"

You have observable evidence. Great. I would love to see it.
But I highly doubt you can Biblically prove the Modern Translation (i.e. many imperfect Words of God) position or looking to another dead language in order to understand God's Word. Whereas, God's Word does say that it is perfect, and does say it will be preserved for all generations.
I am more than ready to walk you through the manuscript histories, to walk you through the writings of the church fathers, and to give you evidence, but you already have shown that you are not interested in evidence that doesn't come from the KJV. All I can leave you with are these words:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.

For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?

The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express. Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth, that after that Rome had been burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had been most slightly and convenient; [Plutarch in Camillo.] was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezra, and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon, was by no means to be compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former, wept when they considered the latter) [Ezra 3:12] notwithstanding, might this latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the Greeks?

The like we are to think of Translations. The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it?

Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were the Authors of the translations, (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong) we marvel what divinity taught them so. We are sure Tertullian was of another mind: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? [Tertul. de praescript. contra haereses.] Do we try men's faith by their persons? we should try their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of another mind: for he lighting upon certain rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his own book, with giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seen in S. Augustine's third book De doctrina Christiana. [S. August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.]

To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred years, were of another mind: for they were so far from treading under foot, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselyte, that is, one that had turned Jew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretics, that they joined together with the Hebrew Original, and the Translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
Jason said:
The context is an unbroken line God talking about nature. Also, it doesn't make sense from the story's perspective to have God suddenly talk in a metaphorical way to Job when it clearly is still talking about something within nature. You are focusing a laser beam on the words, and you are not actually putting yourself into the actual story and thinking about all of what is happening in the story of Jbo.
I'm curious, do you think Leviathan had doors on its face?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
You mention these in your other thread, which I will get to in due course (probably as a series of posts) and in detail. But let me just say that both a) and b) beg the question by having to assume the KJV is the only acceptable version of God's word before either point can be true, c) is off because it ignores all the things that are attacked that AREN'T God's word, and d) is positive confirmation bias -
Make sure they are observables evidences. I won't read or respond to Historical evidences that are based on ignoring God's Word. For no Scripture encourages us to doubt God's Word or to believe that it has errors within it. Unless you can prove that the Modern Translation Postion or Looking to a Dead Language Position exists within Scripture.

numerology is nowhere sanctioned in the Bible as a means of testing doctrine or truth, and this approach ignores all the other ways numbers could be read negatively into the KJV, and positively into the modern translations. I had this discussion with KJV1611, but I'll save it for your other thread.
Honestly. Read Ecclesiastes 7 and Revelation 13. Revelation 13 essentially says for you to count the number in order to have wisdom.

Side Note:

Ecclesiastes 7 is the 666th Chapter in the Bible. Revelation 13 talks about 666. I realize that chapter and verse numbers are not inspired, but I believe they have become a very important part of the Christian faith, though. Anyways, what are the odds of this happening?
 
Last edited:

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
Make sure they are observables evidences. I won't read or respond to Historical evidences that are based on ignoring God's Word. For no Scripture encourages us to doubt God's Word or to believe that it has errors within it. Unless you can prove that the Modern Translation Postion or Looking to a Dead Language Position exists within Scripture.
Yep, just let me know which of the evidences in the other thread are KJV-only, so I don't waste my time with things I already agree with. :)



Honestly. Read Ecclesiastes 7 and Revelation 13. Revelation 13 essentially says for you to count the number in order to have wisdom.
As it does in all translations, including the NIV.

Side Note:
Ecclesiastes is the 666th Chapter in the Bible. Revelation 13 talks about 666. I realize that chapter and verse numbers are not inspired, but I believe they have become a very important part of the Christian faith, though. Anyways, what are the odds of this happening?
Again, this isn't a KJV only phenomena, but I'd be wary of reading too much into it, seeing as the significance of the number vis a vis Ecc 7 is never discussed in Scripture or the church fathers, and that 666 is actually the number of the Beast, positioned as antithetical to God (with perfection often being symbolised by 7 in apocalyptic literature)
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Here is my post on the 3 Major Biblical Reasons for a Perfect Word of God for our day.

Is the King James Bible Infallible? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More

Side Note:

I would like to create this actually into four Biblical points (At some point in the future). Textual superiority of the KJV vs Modern Translation should be one category and the devil's attack against the Modern Translations should be another category.
I'm interested in talking about the idea of the KJV being a perfect bible... I'll say my bias upfront and say that it strikes me as not true... I'll try to keep an open mind, though...I checked out the link above... PS 12:6 talks about the words of the lord... are any documents here on earth perfect copies of those words? Is there a test?... or how do we decide which documents?
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
I'm interested in talking about the idea of the KJV being a perfect bible... I'll say my bias upfront and say that it strikes me as not true... I'll try to keep an open mind, though...I checked out the link above... PS 12:6 talks about the words of the lord... are any documents here on earth perfect copies of those words? Is there a test?... or how do we decide which documents?
Watch the videos in my post from the link. Also do a Google search on Westcott and Horts magic marker binge.
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
Watch the videos in my post from the link. Also do a Google search on Westcott and Horts magic marker binge.
so, I gather from the videos that if a document has amazing number patterns, it then is a perfect copy of the words of the lord... and it can't be based on wescott... are those the two tests?