The King James Only Debate

[fredoheaven]

why did you not respond to these FACTYS about the old English?




Here is the problem.

The KJV only group is a cult. So they do not see a need to update their word. The NKJV they reject.

So how can we expect to get an updated version. When KJV onliers are to proud to make one. It would be quite easy, just using the bible itself. Translate it into modern English.

Of course, the only problem is, it would STILL BE FLAWED

The KJV only is a cult? I just don't understand this? Well Is not not Wescott and Hort the many basis of this newer versions are into an occult? have they not founded the "ghostly guild"?

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

The OT from the KJV uses the hebrew and aramaic language not the vulgate.

All the texts of the Septuagint base from the "Letter of Aristeas" where the supposed librarian of the Greek Pharaoh, Ptomely 2 Philadelphus asked the high priest for the Hebrew Bible ( Old Testament) to be translated into Greek for the Alexandrian Jews.

Along with, 72 Jewish scholars put in separate cells where they "miraculously" translated word for word the same. So they claim this Septuagint texts existed in the time of Christ & that he used that instead of the preserved Masoretic texts.

Aristeas claims to be Greek court official sent by the "librarian" Demetrius to gather the Hebrew scholars & naming them but they do not match as hebrew names but rather Greek names in the Maccabean era. Demetrius, the supposed librarian in fact, was never librarian of the pharaoh, only served in his court.

In Aristeas 7:14, Ptomely the pharaoh tells Demetrius & the jewish scholars how wonderful it is that they came on fhe anniversary of his naval victory over Antigonus". When the ONLY recorded Egyptian naval victory happened many years after Demetrius death, proving it to be a hoax.

Many Christian scholars claim that Jesus used the septuagint in his time but that contradicts scriptures (see below) where a jot is a hebrew letter & a tittle being a small mark to distingius between hebrew letters. Also, Jesus only mentioned the scriptures in the traditional hebrew way Torah (Law), Nevi'im (prophets), Ketuvim (writings).

Matthew 5:18 - For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Luke 24:44 - And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me.

The reason these texts are still being brought up is of what I said earlier the Roman Catholics & Othodox desperatly want them to be genuinely inspired bc it goes with their doctrine. 45 Alexandrian manuscripts vs the 5,000 Greek manuscripts favoring the textus receptus. The septuagint texts are the ones that started to canonize the apocryphas forcing you to accept everything that the doctrine contains which are leading many protestants to Rome.

"…the Septuagint, the Greek translation from the original Hebrew, and which contained all the writings now found in the Douay version, as it is called, was the version used by the Saviour and his Apostles and by the Church from her infancy, and translated into Latin, known under the title of Latin Vulgate, and ever recognized as the true version of the written word of God" —Preface,1914 edition.

The 72 "interpreters" did not match the LXX = 70.

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

1. The only "perfect" word of God was the origional manuscripts. Of which have been long gone. There is no perfect english text, because the english languag alone is not perfect. (the greek for one is not perfect. but it much more pronounced and complete)
2. Your whole argument is based on the presumption that the KJV is a perfect text. Thats quite an assumption.
3. The english language changed, One does not have to "make it any better" just "make it more readable to todays audience"
4. Point three would go for any english text which is now far outdated (be it KJV or ASV or whatever)
5. Rev 12 is talking about prophesy Not all of the word is prophesy there are many types of language used.. Rev 12 is John talking baout HIS BOOK (revelation) not the whole word. So using it to support your THEORY is pushing it to say the least

The only "perfect" word of God was the origional manuscripts. Of which have been long gone.

I think this is self defeating statement of yours, can perfect God cannot keep his perfect words? The English language change but the words of God do not change. The issue is that when somebody change the good into better it gets worse.

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

The translation can't be trusted absolutely, no

1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me.

Hi sir,

Idk, but you have just quoted the Bible in English version which i don't know, so that this mean, this is "absolutely" can't be trusted. Probably a self defeat statement.

God bless

 

[Dan_473]

Hi sir,

Idk, but you have just quoted the Bible in English version which i don't know, so that this mean, this is "absolutely" can't be trusted. Probably a self defeat statement.

God bless

'Now we see a blurred image in a mirror.' It's true. We don't see things perfectly.

 

[lv2ski]

Douay-Rheims and Vulgate Bibles are the only true bible...

No. The toddler bible is....

Kids believe based upon the account there

 

[fredoheaven]

'Now we see a blurred image in a mirror.' It's true. We don't see things perfectly.

Yea and what God see's perfectly, what He says, He will do. Seeing in a mirror in a dim image means corrupt and seeing things in "incorruptible words of God" is a good perspective. If i am but asked what mirror should I looked upon, I go to the clear words of God. I believe in the KJV fits well as the "incorruptible words of God"

God bless you.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

 

[fredoheaven]

That's good if you can get someting out of the newer versions, I couldn't. The newer versions destroy the number patterns and symbolism of the KJV.

Here is link of a work of a Filipino pastor for your reference.

thanks

http://internetsecretbook.com/thebibleformula/The_Formula_of_Everything_2012.pdf

 

[fredoheaven]

Just wanted this full video. Find time...

https://youtu.be/kFtI_mVOXbQ

i hope this will, anyway if not you can see the movie "New World Order of Bible Versions" in you tube.

 

[Dan_473]

Yea and what God see's perfectly, what He says, He will do. Seeing in a mirror in a dim image means corrupt and seeing things in "incorruptible words of God" is a good perspective. If i am but asked what mirror should I looked upon, I go to the clear words of God. I believe in the KJV fits well as the "incorruptible words of God"

God bless you.

1 Peter 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

we don't see perfectly, we don't yet see face to face

1 JOHN 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be
has not yet been made known.
But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

 

[fredoheaven]

we don't see perfectly, we don't yet see face to face

1 JOHN 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be
has not yet been made known.
But we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror;
then we shall see face to face.
Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

Thank you for the response and I think this is not the issue of the discussion is all about. Anyway, Apostle John is speaking of the appearance of of our Lord Jesus Christ, His second coming.

The writing of Apostle Paul to the Corinth esp. on Chapter 13:12 and other preceding and or prior verses is about the needs of completion of the words of God. It talks mainly on the character of Christian Charity. Getting its parallel implication, the words of God is a mirror, it reflects who you are. You might or I might be looking ain't perfect in your eyes it is because of what you said which literally "we don't yet see face to face".

Nice one! Ho, ho

 

[fredoheaven]

Well until you are willing to be honest with yourself I guess you will just go around in a delusion.

Open up a bible dictionary and see the word quicken defined in modern English. It's not sin to use a bible dictionary to bring clarity to the text.

02421
חיה chayah khaw-yaw’


a primitive root compare 02331; v; BDB-310b
{See TWOT on 644 }


AV-live 153, alive 34, save 13, quicken 14, revive 12, surely 10, life 9, recover 8, misc 9; 262




1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health


1a) (Qal)


1a1) to live


1a1a) to have life

1a1b) to continue in life, remain alive

1a1c) to sustain life, to live on or upon

1a1d) to live (prosperously)


1a2) to revive, be quickened


1a2a) from sickness

1a2b) from discouragement

1a2c) from faintness

1a2d) from death



1b) (Piel)


1b1) to preserve alive, let live

1b2) to give life

1b3) to quicken, revive, refresh


1b3a) to restore to life

1b3b) to cause to grow

1b3c) to restore

1b3d) to revive



1c) (Hiphil)


1c1) to preserve alive, let live

1c2) to quicken, revive


1c2a) to restore (to health)

1c2b) to revive

1c2c) to restore to life


Much easier than going to the Strongs and the Greek.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Hi Sir,

Isn't this Bible dictionary you referred to is Strong's Bible Lexicon? They are good to use except it shall not be our Final Authority. The one still dictates is God's Word not any man's opinion. Too bad that these Bible Lexicons/dictionaries are sources of edition or corruptions and they are often a works of three, two persons or one which might not believe even the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Deceptive and even crafty.

God bless

 

[tanakh]

Some Bible translaters use the Dead Sea Scrolls in their research. These are older than any other OT books used prior to their discovery so how can the KJV be so accurate?

 

[fredoheaven]

Some Bible translaters use the Dead Sea Scrolls in their research. These are older than any other OT books used prior to their discovery so how can the KJV be so accurate?

Well as history shows that nobody knows for sure who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I go for the the sure thing. The Bible says, it was committed to the Jews about the oracles of God and it should not be going to be outside of the Palestine. The sure thing is that scribes must be inside not outside. The Masoretic Text that underlies the KJV is a sure thing. One thing more, antiquity is not all the basis of reliability.

God bless

6 Things You May Not Know About the Dead Sea Scrolls - History Lists

 

[trofimus]

"Hoho" is my own modification of "Ho, ho" not by Santa but came from the LORD! This maybe off topic, but you are still unarmed on the issue of KJV only debate...

God bless...

Zechariah 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD.

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[trofimus]

Ok nobody responded that I saw, and I know why. The book of David's DNA is not in that NASB verse neither is the body of Christ. Now see if you can see it in the KJV.

Because nobody uses the Bible as the DNA text book, probably.

 

[trofimus]

Some Bible translaters use the Dead Sea Scrolls in their research. These are older than any other OT books used prior to their discovery so how can the KJV be so accurate?

KJV is not "so accurate". Thats the problem.

Dead Sea scrolls showed that many variants existed in the first century, not just one.

For example they found portions of Isaiah very similar to massoretic text.
On the other hand, they found portions of Jeremiah very different from massoretic text and similar to LXX.
And some texts differ from both.

 

[notuptome]

Hi Sir,

Isn't this Bible dictionary you referred to is Strong's Bible Lexicon? They are good to use except it shall not be our Final Authority. The one still dictates is God's Word not any man's opinion. Too bad that these Bible Lexicons/dictionaries are sources of edition or corruptions and they are often a works of three, two persons or one which might not believe even the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ. Deceptive and even crafty.

God bless

Thanks for pointing that out. Glad you noticed.

The issue here is not that we should not use outside sources because they are not inspired and they are not inspired. The issue here is that to interpret the bible we must define the words translated and even consider what the translators used in translating our bible from the original manuscripts into our modern language.

I wholeheartedly agree that the bible interprets itself but it cannot define itself. I have read the old KJV long enough to be able to understand the archaic English that is used therein. I have often found it necessary to research the definitions of the old words that were commonly known and accepted centuries ago.

The fact remains that declaring any repeat any translation as inspired is idiotic. God has blessed and used the KJV for many centuries but it is and always will be just a translation of the original manuscripts. Good as it is or poor as it may be God has blessed it and it has been used of God to harvest many souls for the kingdom of God.

If we spent as much time teaching John 3:16 to the world as we do arguing over bible translations well I suspect the results would be tangible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The KJV only is a cult? I just don't understand this? Well Is not not Wescott and Hort the many basis of this newer versions are into an occult? have they not founded the "ghostly guild"?

God bless

If I am preaching one version over any other. And saying this is the ONLY version and all others are satanic, or evil. I belong to a cult.

If I think the KJV is the best version. And it is my version of choice. But would not judge anyone who disagreed, Then I am just person who would rather use the KJV, but not a cult

 

[Dan_473]

Thank you for the response and I think this is not the issue of the discussion is all about. Anyway, Apostle John is speaking of the appearance of of our Lord Jesus Christ, His second coming.

The writing of Apostle Paul to the Corinth esp. on Chapter 13:12 and other preceding and or prior verses is about the needs of completion of the words of God. It talks mainly on the character of Christian Charity. Getting its parallel implication, the words of God is a mirror, it reflects who you are. You might or I might be looking ain't perfect in your eyes it is because of what you said which literally "we don't yet see face to face".

Nice one! Ho, ho

right! that's how I know that I probably don't have a perfect translation. and even if I did, I wouldn't understand it, see it, perfectly.