The King James Only Debate

[trofimus]

"I shall sit down to Holy Scriptures with my whole heart, and devote the rest of my life to it… all these three years I have been working entirely at Greek and have not been , playing with it."

"As to me, all I have sought has been to open my contemporaries' eyes and bring them back from ritual to true Christianity."

"Read the Gospels … and see how we have degenerated."

Do you realize Martin Luther was a devouted Catholic monk who also gave us the base for our doctrine against the Catholic tyranny? Who was a well friend of Erasmus. Erasmus was considered a heretic even to the catholics and his books were put in the "forbidden books" by pope Paul IV. The quotes above were from Erasmus himself. Many "catholics" were so bc they had no choice, they were literally persecuted if they didn't obey them.

“Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” - Thomas Linacre, 1490

That quote was before the time of Erasmus time proving that just bc people were Catholics doesn't mean they agreed being their pawns.

The first English translation was the Vulgate from John Wycliffe, and even then the papacy had issues with that where they demanded after he died for his bones to be crushed and scattered in the river. Even Wycliffe felt the need to oppose the Catholics. John Hus, who supported his idea of people being able to read the scriptures in their own language was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindle for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg.

William Tyndale was the first man to translate the Greek manuscripts into a English Bible, and is the one KJV uses, which he got burned for being "heretic" they all were composed from the original manuscripts of the NT Greek in Antioch. Published by Erasmus and through a series of revisions by Martin Luther but the KJV itself says they used the last two editions of Theodore Beza and Stephanius. If your not a Catholic why would you use all these other bibles strictly going against the people who have been persecuted to perserve the word of God. Your a Reformer not a papist heathen.

You seem to imply KJV had added verses then how do you explain bibles that uses the Sinaiticus with 1/4 of the Bible missing?

Your posts are frequently multitopical, you are making too much (wrong) connections so it is almost impossible to simply respond to that.

Erasmus was a big opponent of Luther. They even had a conversation and wrote books against each other. So Erasmus really did not have to be a catholic, he was a catholic by choice.

But I dont care. For me the facts matter. You were advocating against some text just because "it is what catholics use" which is a bad argument.

I am not sure what you mean by "how do you explain bibles that use the Sinaticus". What do you mean by "explain"?

 

[Dan_473]

The message of the bible is always current. The passage in our day and time is the same, instead of taking spears and knifes from the Israelites it would be the government taking our guns away.

sounds like it's the actual message that's important... not particular words like mattocks or guns.

and I'm guessing you probably feel you have the right message - about gun control - because you feel that's what God has laid on your heart.

and it's possible that God has also laid it on your heart to trust only the kjv, because that's the best version for God to communicate the messages in the Bible to you.


Now, can you consider the possibility that for many of your Christian brothers and sisters, God might lead them to use other versions?

 

[Dan_473]

This is one of the reasons that cemented my feet on the foundation that the KJV is THE bible and all westcott and hort translations are satanic counterfeits. Not only are 17 verses completely omitted from the NEW "UPDATED" NIV but the words on this list are far more ridiculous than the KJV counterparts.

Archaic Words in the NIV by Dr. Laurence Vance

if using the kjv only helps you to grow in grace and knowledge, then great!

if you say it's the only Bible any Christian should use (even those that can barely read), then I disagree.

 

[The_Bible]

Your posts are frequently multitopical, you are making too much (wrong) connections so it is almost impossible to simply respond to that.

Erasmus was a big opponent of Luther. They even had a conversation and wrote books against each other. So Erasmus really did not have to be a catholic, he was a catholic by choice.

But I dont care. For me the facts matter. You were advocating against some text just because "it is what catholics use" which is a bad argument.

I am not sure what you mean by "how do you explain bibles that use the Sinaticus". What do you mean by "explain"?

The following are quotes from various researchers:

"In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died." 1
"He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."2

[He was an] "ex monk … a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."3

"In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."4

"[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers" 5

"The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation"6 of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."7

Erasmus was quite the friend with Martin Luther if they weren't give me quotes from where it shows they weren't. They probably had disagreements with a couple of things here and there, just like any man would with another, but the overall moral of the story is that they were good friends with the same idea. What is a bad argument is to try to imply, "well Erasmus was a catholic so that makes the KJV a Catholic doctrine". When there were many other publishers, revisers and editors to recheck what he wrote in may other languages.

You tried to say that any other manuscripts that does not have what the KJV had, must mean that the KJV has added unto the word of God. So I give the example below of how all those verses the codex Sinaiitcus are omitted. Wouldn't it be adding into the word of God if they had to fill in those omitted verses?

The Codex Sinaiticus are missing all 4 chapters of Genesis, missing all of Exodus, all but 3 chapters of Leviticus, all but 12 chapters of Numbers, all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapter of Joshua, all but 7 chapter of Judges, missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence of Ezra 9:9 without fixing & keeps going! Missing first 8 chapters of Ezra, missing Lamentations after 2:20, missing all of Ezekiel, all of Daniel, Hosea, all of Amos, and all of Micah. That is 11 entire books missing & most of 6 more. 1/4 of the Bible books! But ofc they maintain all of the Apocryphas. ( Don't believe me? Check out the official website)

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

 

[The_Bible]

sounds like it's the actual message that's important... not particular words like mattocks or guns.

and I'm guessing you probably feel you have the right message - about gun control - because you feel that's what God has laid on your heart.

and it's possible that God has also laid it on your heart to trust only the kjv, because that's the best version for God to communicate the messages in the Bible to you.


Now, can you consider the possibility that for many of your Christian brothers and sisters, God might lead them to use other versions?

God doesn't lead people to lies or to a word that is corrupted of his. Much rather try to defend these new bibles that you say are ok for any christian when knowing that all these bibles say verses different. Which would make the interpretation of the actual message corrupt.

 

[Dan_473]

Hello The_Bible,
you assert that modern versions are corrupted, but imo, I haven't seen you present any compelling evidence... though it may be compelling to you, sure.


God can speak through things we least expect

23 When the donkey saw the angel of the Lord standing in the road with a drawn sword in his hand, it turned off the road into a field. Balaam beat it to get it back on the road.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+22&version=NIV

 

[trofimus]

The following are quotes from various researchers:

"In the midst of the group of Protestant scholars who had long been his truest friends, and so far as is known, without relations of any sort with the Roman Catholic Church, he died." 1
"He died at Basel in 1536, committed to neither party, but amid an admiring circle of friends who were all on the , Reformed side."2

[He was an] "ex monk … a Protestant pastor preached his funeral sermon and the money that he left was used to , help Protestant refugees."3

"In 1559 Pope Paul IV 'placed everything Erasmus had ever written , on The Index of Forbidden Books."4

"[H]e was branded an impious heretic, and his works were forbidden , to Catholic readers" 5

"The Council of Trent , condemned Erasmus' translation"6 of the Bible. It is clear that his Bible was not a perverted Roman Catholic Vulgate translation at all.

In 1527, Spanish "monks of the Inquisition began a systematic scrutiny of Erasmus' works, with a view to having [Erasmus] condemned , as a heretic."7

Erasmus was quite the friend with Martin Luther if they weren't give me quotes from where it shows they weren't. They probably had disagreements with a couple of things here and there, just like any man would with another, but the overall moral of the story is that they were good friends with the same idea. What is a bad argument is to try to imply, "well Erasmus was a catholic so that makes the KJV a Catholic doctrine". When there were many other publishers, revisers and editors to recheck what he wrote in may other languages.

You tried to say that any other manuscripts that does not have what the KJV had, must mean that the KJV has added unto the word of God. So I give the example below of how all those verses the codex Sinaiitcus are omitted. Wouldn't it be adding into the word of God if they had to fill in those omitted verses?

The Codex Sinaiticus are missing all 4 chapters of Genesis, missing all of Exodus, all but 3 chapters of Leviticus, all but 12 chapters of Numbers, all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapter of Joshua, all but 7 chapter of Judges, missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings, it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence of Ezra 9:9 without fixing & keeps going! Missing first 8 chapters of Ezra, missing Lamentations after 2:20, missing all of Ezekiel, all of Daniel, Hosea, all of Amos, and all of Micah. That is 11 entire books missing & most of 6 more. 1/4 of the Bible books! But ofc they maintain all of the Apocryphas. ( Don't believe me? Check out the official website)

Codex Sinaiticus - See The Manuscript | Genesis |

Friends or not, it does not matter. I said Erasmus did not have to be catholic, he was a catholic by his own choice.

But if you are interested in what was between them, read for example their works "On free will" (by Erasmus) and "On unfree will" (by Luther).

You will find very "nice" names and words there

Erasmus, the author of the Textus Receptus was and stayed a catholic for whole his life. He dedicated his work to a pope.

Tischendorff, the researcher and founder of Codex Sinaiticus (the codex you seem to hate very much) was a German protestant with conservative views, defending the faith against liberals.

So when you know the historical facts, you can never say something like "TR is for protestants and Sinaiticus is for catholics" or something like that.

But again, I say - it does not matter at all. Will you deny the deity of Christ just becaus catholics believe it too? You can use "their" work when there are evidences it is better. Thats the principle of reformation. Searching for the truth.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not asking to say anything. I'm encouraging you to stop saying things that are not true. No modern translation is inerrant. God did not inspire the KJV.

From a practical standpoint the KJV is a good and trustworthy bible translation. I do not fault anyone who uses the KJV. I use the KJV which you would have seen had you read any of the scriptures I post here on CC. I simply ask that you do not place the KJV above God Himself.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

No modern translation is inerrant in your eyes... What do you base inerrancy on? Is a translation in error if it translates pneuma Holy Ghost in one place and Holy Spirit in another? Although some people may not like the term Holy Ghost, it means exactly the same thing as Holy Spirit and we all know that it does. So both terms are the word of God and it's not an error just because we don't like the term.

 

[The_Bible]

Friends or not, it does not matter. I said Erasmus did not have to be catholic, he was a catholic by his own choice.

But if you are interested in what was between them, read for example their works "On free will" (by Erasmus) and "On unfree will" (by Luther).

You will find very "nice" names and words there

Erasmus, the author of the Textus Receptus was and stayed a catholic for whole his life. He dedicated his work to a pope.

Tischendorff, the researcher and founder of Codex Sinaiticus (the codex you seem to hate very much) was a German protestant with conservative views, defending the faith against liberals.

So when you know the historical facts, you can never say something like "TR is for protestants and Sinaiticus is for catholics" or something like that.

But again, I say - it does not matter at all. Will you deny the deity of Christ just becaus catholics believe it too? You can use "their" work when there are evidences it is better. Thats the principle of reformation. Searching for the truth.

Erasmus was alive during the Renaissance, what was the only way to get in touch with some scriptures, if it was only available to the catholic aristocrats? I have given many quotes how him and others were definitely against the papacy even tho they were "catholics". He stayed catholic, but his beliefs weren't the same as theirs, and was known as a "heretic" to them, that's not a good status to have by your own clergy. Tischendorff was a "protestant" who worked for the pope bc monks have sent the pope many letters recommending him as a good to work for them.

I wouldn't call that a protestant and knowing that the Sinaiticus was found in a catholic monastery with a false story doesn't help support his document. Read verse below to see also what Bible already says about that. Why can i say this about Erasmus and not Tisch? Bc Tisch didnt show the characteristics of a protestant with lying and only seeking relevancy for himself and not God. Ik the deity of Christ cannot be denied bc it was believe by the true Christians who were Jews starting in Antioch, not pagan roman tyrants. Again, you have tried to assert a statement about the KJV but cannot defend your claims to the Sinaiticus being perfectly fine to use on all other bibles. As well, as missing the point of the thread WHY IS THE KJV THE ONLY INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD NOT IF YOU CAN BE SAVED BY ANOTHER VERSION.

Luke 8:17 - For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

Matthew 24:26 - Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he [the word] is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he [the word] is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

 

[trofimus]

Erasmus was alive during the Renaissance, what was the only way to get in touch with some scriptures, if it was only available to the catholic aristocrats? I have given many quotes how him and others were definitely against the papacy even tho they were "catholics". He stayed catholic, but his beliefs weren't the same as theirs, and was known as a "heretic" to them, that's not a good status to have by your own clergy. Tischendorff was a "protestant" who worked for the pope bc monks have sent the pope many letters recommending him as a good to work for them.

I wouldn't call that a protestant and knowing that the Sinaiticus was found in a catholic monastery with a false story doesn't help support his document. Read verse below to see also what Bible already says about that. Why can i say this about Erasmus and not Tisch? Bc Tisch didnt show the characteristics of a protestant with lying and only seeking relevancy for himself and not God. Ik the deity of Christ cannot be denied bc it was believe by the true Christians who were Jews starting in Antioch, not pagan roman tyrants. Again, you have tried to assert a statement about the KJV but cannot defend your claims to the Sinaiticus being perfectly fine to use on all other bibles. As well, as missing the point of the thread WHY IS THE KJV THE ONLY INFALLIBLE WORD OF GOD NOT IF YOU CAN BE SAVED BY ANOTHER VERSION.

Luke 8:17 - For nothing is secret, that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.

Matthew 24:26 - Wherefore if they shall say unto you, Behold, he [the word] is in the desert; go not forth: behold, he [the word] is in the secret chambers; believe it not.

I really see no point in trying to make a protestant from a catholic (Erasmus) and a catholic from a protestant (Tischendorf) just because you need it while advocating for KJV Only.

I repeat again - we should care which reading is closer to the originals, not about whether it was discovered by a protestant or not.

So even when you cant win this catholic/protestant debate, it actually does not mean that Textus Receptus is not perfect.

Other facts do.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I really see no point in trying to make a protestant from a catholic (Erasmus) and a catholic from a protestant (Tischendorf) just because you need it while advocating for KJV Only.

I repeat again - we should care which reading is closer to the originals, not about whether it was discovered by a protestant or not.

I think we need to trust God. and know he can use all versions to lead people to himself. and he is not relegated to one translation.

 

[trofimus]

I think we need to trust God. and know he can use all versions to lead people to himself. and he is not relegated to one translation.

Yes. Even though there are about 400 000 variants in Greek texts, only 1% has any influence on the text.

And nothing from this 1% changes anything from Christian theology.

 

[The_Bible]

I really see no point in trying to make a protestant from a catholic (Erasmus) and a catholic from a protestant (Tischendorf) just because you need it while advocating for KJV Only.

I repeat again - we should care which reading is closer to the originals, not about whether it was discovered by a protestant or not.

So even when you cant win this catholic/protestant debate, it actually does not mean that Textus Receptus is not perfect.

Other facts do.

You brought up Tischendorf not me. I simply gave you added details to show you that any evidence that you try to bring to support a non KJV, that are based on corrupted texts, is in inevitable to fail. Judging by the doctrine the manuscrips tesches that are NOW TRANSLATED into the Bible, is what makes & affects certain Christian denominations.

 

[hornetguy]

I would like to see how any "mainstream" translation (other than KJV) has changed/perverted/corrupted ANY denomination.

In fact, I would like to see how any mainstream translation (other than KJV) has changed/perverted/corrupted any one believer....

you KJV only-ists are making mountains out of, well.. NOTHING, actually.

 

[The_Bible]

I would like to see how any "mainstream" translation (other than KJV) has changed/perverted/corrupted ANY denomination.

In fact, I would like to see how any mainstream translation (other than KJV) has changed/perverted/corrupted any one believer....

you KJV only-ists are making mountains out of, well.. NOTHING, actually.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm?lang=eng

https://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/

Books of the Bible - Bible - Catholic Online

 

[trofimus]

You brought up Tischendorf not me. I simply gave you added details to show you that any evidence that you try to bring to support a non KJV, that are based on corrupted texts, is in inevitable to fail. Judging by the doctrine the manuscrips tesches that are NOW TRANSLATED into the Bible, is what makes & affects certain Christian denominations.

You tried to make new Greek editions of catholic origin and the old Textus Receptus of protestant origin.

The opposite is true. Thats why I mentioned Tischendorf vs Erasmus.

I am not sure what and why you call "corrupted texts". Probably the minority texts, so called Alexandrian. What do you mean by "corruption"?

 

[notuptome]

No modern translation is inerrant in your eyes... What do you base inerrancy on? Is a translation in error if it translates pneuma Holy Ghost in one place and Holy Spirit in another? Although some people may not like the term Holy Ghost, it means exactly the same thing as Holy Spirit and we all know that it does. So both terms are the word of God and it's not an error just because we don't like the term.

No modern translation can be inerrant. The best of them are drawn from partial fragmented original manuscripts. Missing sections from one filled in with fragments from another from a similar time period.

Stop fearing newer translations and use them to strengthen what you have learned. Stay with the KJV but do not make it more than it is. Any honest researcher studies more than one test subject if he is to ascertain the truth.

You can cease with the red herrings as in which word the translators used for a given Greek word only illustrates my point. They are all translations and not original manuscripts. Unless you can find a manuscript written by the original writer you at best have a copy.

Here is where your faith in God comes into play. We believe that God preserved His word for us to have today. We can only speculate as to whether it is complete or not. We can trust that it is sufficient that we can be made wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[John146]

No modern translation can be inerrant. The best of them are drawn from partial fragmented original manuscripts. Missing sections from one filled in with fragments from another from a similar time period.

Stop fearing newer translations and use them to strengthen what you have learned. Stay with the KJV but do not make it more than it is. Any honest researcher studies more than one test subject if he is to ascertain the truth.

You can cease with the red herrings as in which word the translators used for a given Greek word only illustrates my point. They are all translations and not original manuscripts. Unless you can find a manuscript written by the original writer you at best have a copy.

Here is where your faith in God comes into play. We believe that God preserved His word for us to have today. We can only speculate as to whether it is complete or not. We can trust that it is sufficient that we can be made wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

One thing I can guarantee is no new version will enhance any knowledge out of the word of God from the KJV. Guaranteed!

 

[The_Bible]

No modern translation can be inerrant. The best of them are drawn from partial fragmented original manuscripts. Missing sections from one filled in with fragments from another from a similar time period.

Stop fearing newer translations and use them to strengthen what you have learned. Stay with the KJV but do not make it more than it is. Any honest researcher studies more than one test subject if he is to ascertain the truth.

You can cease with the red herrings as in which word the translators used for a given Greek word only illustrates my point. They are all translations and not original manuscripts. Unless you can find a manuscript written by the original writer you at best have a copy.

Here is where your faith in God comes into play. We believe that God preserved His word for us to have today. We can only speculate as to whether it is complete or not. We can trust that it is sufficient that we can be made wise unto salvation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

Psalm (12:6-7) - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


God specifically says he will preserve his word so i ask where is it? All these bible versions are out but they obviously do not say the sa,e things making only ONE infallible. The KJV took 7 years to complete & was the 7th English Bible to be published maybe that had something to do with the "purified seven times". The OT is made from Masoretic Texts from the Masoretes that spoke hebrew & aramaic. The NT is made from the Textus Receptus of the Koine Greek from the very first church of antioch where the term "Christians" was made to the disciples. There are close to 6,000 Greek manuscripts to support the Textus Receptus & well the Masoretic Texts are from the original hebrew languages. These are the texts that the KJV is made from.


ALL other Bibles try to use the Septuagint, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus texts but are corrupted heresies mostly promoted by Catholics bc it benefits them with their Apocrypha agenda. The Septuagint main evidence will always be the supposed "Letter of Aristeas" where a librarian asks Jews from Israel to come to Alexandria and translate their OT in Greek but the letter is proven a hoax bc the dates dont add up. I would give some information but this paragraph is looking kind of long. The Sinaiticus of the NT is also proven a hoax bc first off, they NEVER dated the manuscript to see how old they were. They were GOING to but canceled, i wonder why? There are two versions of the description of sinaiticus, one being white which means it looks recent and new while the other is tainted and brown too make it seem old. To this day you can see a version of the Sinaiticus in a library that is clearly WHITE.


King James Bible has been the chosen bible of authorization for a long time that it has attracted masons to corrupt the version and wicked companies ESPECIALLY Wescott & Hort who are mainly in charge if the distributions of other verisons. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THE KING JAMES VERSION IS THE ONLY WORD OF GOD.


GOD'S words will never pass away, Heaven and earth shall pass away: but MY words shall not pass away. (Jesus Christ, Son of God) (Mark 13:31)

Numbers 23:19 - God [is] not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do [it]? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

 

[The_Bible]

You tried to make new Greek editions of catholic origin and the old Textus Receptus of protestant origin.

The opposite is true. Thats why I mentioned Tischendorf vs Erasmus.

I am not sure what and why you call "corrupted texts". Probably the minority texts, so called Alexandrian. What do you mean by "corruption"?

Ik the reason why you brought up Erasmus & Tischendorf , but you have brought them up first, which is ok bc thats why we debate. Point im making is that the TR came from protestants bc it was revised so many times more than just Erasmus who was fond of opposing the Catholics. These new Greek editions are def catholic origin,but not even that, they are complete forgeries.

I mean corrupted texts that they do nor say what God had intended them to originally mean. They got 1/4 of the whole bible missing what are you suppose to do with that? Then they add it into bible and deceive people to go along with it. Something built on a lie is already corrupted.