The King James Only Debate
- Thread starter calvinsx76
- 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.
Where do you guys GET this stuff? You just make it up as you go along? Where does it say that if you don't have "all the truth" that the Spirit will not still lead and guide you?
Come on.... this is just getting beyond silly.
edit: I see that others beat me to this question... .I'm playing catchup
Come on.... this is just getting beyond silly.
edit: I see that others beat me to this question... .I'm playing catchup
Last edited:
I don't know that the number 9 is always used in every chapter or every mention of 9.... It could be as you say in Psalm 90:12 and I'm not seeing it.
Yes you are absolutely right about Samuel, Samuel was the new beginning. I like Samuel because he represents the bible. The word of the Lord comes to Samuel and he gives it to Israel just like the word of the Lord is in the bible and we get it from reading the bible.
Yes you are absolutely right about Samuel, Samuel was the new beginning. I like Samuel because he represents the bible. The word of the Lord comes to Samuel and he gives it to Israel just like the word of the Lord is in the bible and we get it from reading the bible.
One and only meaning Jesus is unique. He is one and there is no one else in the Trinity who is called the Son of God. Also, that Jesus is the only way to know God. I do not understand your hang up over that. May that help. God bless. 
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord , Israel is my son, even my firstborn:
Israel is God's firstborn son, that makes Jesus God's second born son. Think of all the Old Testament stories about the firstborn and second born son... the 2nd born son gets the blessings because the firstborn squanders it away.
well, maybe...
GENESIS 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son,
thine only son Isaac,
whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Abraham has another son, but Isaac is specially treasured, Jesus is specially treasured...
GENESIS 22:2 And he said, Take now thy son,
thine only son Isaac,
whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.
Abraham has another son, but Isaac is specially treasured, Jesus is specially treasured...
Which Abraham is that verse talking about?
Abraham the pyshical father of Isaac AND Ishmael or Abraham the spiritual father of Isaac, the only "son of faith" at the time Abraham said that. We believers today are also children of Abraham.
Romans 4:16 KJV
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Abraham the pyshical father of Isaac AND Ishmael or Abraham the spiritual father of Isaac, the only "son of faith" at the time Abraham said that. We believers today are also children of Abraham.
Romans 4:16 KJV
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Which Abraham is that verse talking about?
Abraham the pyshical father of Isaac AND Ishmael or Abraham the spiritual father of Isaac, the only "son of faith" at the time Abraham said that. We believers today are also children of Abraham.
Romans 4:16 KJV
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Abraham the pyshical father of Isaac AND Ishmael or Abraham the spiritual father of Isaac, the only "son of faith" at the time Abraham said that. We believers today are also children of Abraham.
Romans 4:16 KJV
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,
Your post is full of false information.
There are no NT manuscripts between the Dead Seas Scrolls. There are few fragments with the words "genesareth". So some think it could be part of first gospels.
Really nothing that would prove TR/KJV readings to be old.
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament - Biblical Archaeology Society
https://www.ministrymagazine.org/ar...estament-documents-among-the-dead-sea-scrolls
-------------------
It is also not true, that Westcot and Hort were not Christians. Westcot was a Bishop of Durham. Hort was "only" a theologican. I think they both were Anglicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooke_Westcott
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fenton_Hort
-----------------
Masoretic texts are the Jewish edited texts of the OT. It has nothing to the with the Christian writings like the codex vaticanus and sinaiticus.
While Jews just changed what they did not like and destroyed the old version, the church took a different position.
Christian scribes left what they supposed to be an erro in the place and wrote a note near to it. Thats why the old christian codexes do not look so "pretty and clean". But in the end, its better for us, because we can see what was there originally and what correction they thought it needed.
----------------
Older men should teach us, younger ones and to lead us into the truth. Not to give us false information. Please, get your data right so you can help me grow as the Bible says.
Last edited:
Ho, ho,
Firstly you said “[FONT="]The rest of your post has no impact on the discussion, I think”. So what you think therefore has no impact on the discussion. Your shoddy research gives you the false information connecting KJV to Catholicism and that 1 John catholic connection of the Johanine Comma as you are insinuating must also be false.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Second, I have given some real facts in regards to Modernist Versions that there was a Catholic connection and unbelieving Translation Committee. I will name two, and it’s up to you to research their identity, anyway, they are off topic as you said. I name Carlo Martini and J.H. Thayer.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thirdly, Erasmus did have 5 not 5-10 mss but the basis of Erasmus text were two (2 ) “miniscules” manuscripts (2 & 2 ap) not “uncial” or “Codexes”. BTW, correct if I am wrong, the plural form of Codex is “Codices”. He used the two manuscripts not because they were all he could obtain, but because (from the great knowledge of the manuscripts) he knew they were representative of the Byzantine Text.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Lastly, you are trying to lecture me which I already knew of the Textus Receptus and which I did not comment or said anything that the KJV was based on “one” mss. Pardon me but in almost all of my post in the issue is not what your imagination.
[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
Firstly you said “[FONT="]The rest of your post has no impact on the discussion, I think”. So what you think therefore has no impact on the discussion. Your shoddy research gives you the false information connecting KJV to Catholicism and that 1 John catholic connection of the Johanine Comma as you are insinuating must also be false.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Second, I have given some real facts in regards to Modernist Versions that there was a Catholic connection and unbelieving Translation Committee. I will name two, and it’s up to you to research their identity, anyway, they are off topic as you said. I name Carlo Martini and J.H. Thayer.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Thirdly, Erasmus did have 5 not 5-10 mss but the basis of Erasmus text were two (2 ) “miniscules” manuscripts (2 & 2 ap) not “uncial” or “Codexes”. BTW, correct if I am wrong, the plural form of Codex is “Codices”. He used the two manuscripts not because they were all he could obtain, but because (from the great knowledge of the manuscripts) he knew they were representative of the Byzantine Text.
[/FONT]
[FONT="]Lastly, you are trying to lecture me which I already knew of the Textus Receptus and which I did not comment or said anything that the KJV was based on “one” mss. Pardon me but in almost all of my post in the issue is not what your imagination.
[/FONT]
[FONT="][/FONT]
Yep, this makes it an occult assumption. Anyone can become a god of his own mystical belief that there’s a mistake of God’s word as many in here are insinuating. Perhaps, I want to hear someone demonstrating this accusation using scriptures. At least, I see a toned down of this post. I hold KJV is given by inspiration that’s all and non kj’s holds nothing but in error as they admittedly claim. In fact I didn’t claim original writings did not get its inspiration. Maybe someone do have an erroneous view of the inspiration that is why he has all the wrong view of translation.
So far don’t know what you are insinuating about legalist who appear humble??? Umm…this is not a salvation issue. It’s about the Bible.
So far don’t know what you are insinuating about legalist who appear humble??? Umm…this is not a salvation issue. It’s about the Bible.
trofimus;2874180[B said:
]KJV is getting old.[/B].. Im tired of talking about this version has been tried, this version says blah blah blah. Are any of you interested in studying bible verses and see how the stories do not line up in this version?
Sorry, I could not help myself
Sorry, I could not help myself
No one is insinuating there is a mistake of or in God's word, you are claiming that is what we are implying. The original writings are inerrant and are God-breathed, all the translations we have (except the New World Translation, the book of Mormon, etc are perversions) do not deviate from any major doctrine of Christianity, it is clear in all of them that you must accept Jesus Christ as your personal Savior and sovereign Lord, that he died on the cross for your sins, and rose again on the third day. Finally, that you can start living a new life through Christ starting today if you repent (change your mind) and put your trust in Christ. These translations as their goal try to be as close to the original writings as possible. Some are thought for thought, paraphrase (The Message), very literal (NASB), etc but God uses them all to convict, correct, and change a person from the inside out. Leave this KJV-only cult, recant, repent, and reconcile to God. Thanks. God bless.