Why the king james?

[KJV1611]

Do you have a "Heavenly" mother? The Mormons believe they do.

Sure I have a heavenly mother, Heavenly Jerusalem the mother of us all. There are 2 allegorical mothers, Agar and Heavenly Jerusalem. I hate the first.

You didn't answer my question, where in that verse does it say we should hate our earthly mother and father? Why did you CHOOSE the earthly mother and father instead of the allegorical mother and father?

 

[Willie-T]

Sure I have a heavenly mother, Heavenly Jerusalem the mother of us all. There are 2 allegorical mothers, Agar and Heavenly Jerusalem. I hate the first.

You didn't answer my question, where in that verse does it say we should hate our earthly mother and father? Why did you CHOOSE the earthly mother and father instead of the allegorical mother and father?

I'm not saying I cannot see what you are saying, but you are reading (interpreting) far more into your conclusions than what is written there. This is the kind of "Scripture stretching" many Atheists try to do.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not saying I cannot see what you are saying, but you are reading (interpreting) far more into your conclusions than what is written there. This is the kind of "Scripture stretching" many Atheists try to do.

I'm not interpretting nor stretching anything Wille, I'm letting the bible teach me. Those verses are not enough to get the context of which mother and father is being talked about. Think about, God doesn't want us to love our parents less he wants us to love everybody the way that Christ loves the church. There is no way those verses should be interpretted as love less, that goes against everything in scripture.

The context for literal or allegorical comes from the rest of the bible, espescially here. We are supposed to honor our earthly parents, not love them less.

John 5:23 KJV
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

There's a ton of theology in that one verse if you will just let the bible interpret itself.

 

[Tresnouveau_ne]

I'm not interpretting nor stretching anything Wille, I'm letting the bible teach me. Those verses are not enough to get the context of which mother and father is being talked about. Think about, God doesn't want us to love our parents less he wants us to love everybody the way that Christ loves the church. There is no way those verses should be interpretted as love less, that goes against everything in scripture.

The context for literal or allegorical comes from the rest of the bible, espescially here. We are supposed to honor our earthly parents, not love them less.

John 5:23 KJV
That all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.

There's a ton of theology in that one verse if you will just let the bible interpret itself.

Adding to scripture is not a good idea...

 

[KJV1611]

Adding to scripture is not a good idea...

Where's the add?

 

[ember]

I have a King James Bible...2 in fact...one was a gift from a very good friend

I don't have a 1611 model though

Doesn't the 1611 KJ Bible have the apocrypha in it?

 

[KJV1611]

I have a King James Bible...2 in fact...one was a gift from a very good friend

I don't have a 1611 model though

Doesn't the 1611 KJ Bible have the apocrypha in it?

I think it did.

 

[Dino246]

Let's say, for arguments sake, the KJV is the preserved pure words of God without error...what would God think about all the other versions? Has He warned us about that in His word?

Let's not, because that would be engaging in circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

 

[John146]

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), the Zurich Bible 1530, the French Olivetan 1535, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. The Reformation bibles included the books known as the Apocrypha. In 1666 they began to print King James Bibles without the Apocryphal books, and eventually they stopped including them altogether.

The KJB indicates that the Apocrypha books are not part of the inspired writings. The KJB clearly indicates the inspired writings to be the Old and New Testament as given.

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

I have a King James Bible...2 in fact...one was a gift from a very good friend

I don't have a 1611 model though

Doesn't the 1611 KJ Bible have the apocrypha in it?

 

[John146]

If the KJV crowd (me included) actually believes they have the holy inspired preserved words of God without error in the English language, do you not blame us for standing up for it and against all false versions, based on what God has said?

It's like a Christian who doesn't evangelize. They have the truth, but refuse to stand up for it.

Let's not, because that would be engaging in circular reasoning, a logical fallacy.

 

[ember]

I think it did.

well, don't you personally disavow all other Bibles save the 1611?

seriously, what are you actually saying here?

cause like I said, I have a couple of KJ's and I am very familiar with it

 

[ember]

Early editions of the King James Bible, as well as many other English-language Bibles of the past, including the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishop's Bible (1568), the Douay-Rheims Bible (1609), and the Authorized Version (1611), the Zurich Bible 1530, the French Olivetan 1535, the Spanish Reina Bible of 1569, the Reina Valera of 1602, and the German Luther (1545), all contained the Apocrypha, but these books were included for historical reference only, not as additions to the canon of Scripture. The Reformation bibles included the books known as the Apocrypha. In 1666 they began to print King James Bibles without the Apocryphal books, and eventually they stopped including them altogether.

The KJB indicates that the Apocrypha books are not part of the inspired writings. The KJB clearly indicates the inspired writings to be the Old and New Testament as given.

It is ironic and somewhat hypocritical of those who criticize the KJB for including the Apocrypha in its earlier printings, when they usually favor the modern English versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, and the NIV. These versions are based primarily on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts, which actually contain the Apocrypha books and then some others as well mixed up within and scattered throughout the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures with no separation indicating that they are less than inspired and authoritative.

you are not helping...

I'm perfectly able

thank you

there is a difference between offering water and spilling it on someone's head

 

[KJV1611]

well, don't you personally disavow all other Bibles save the 1611?

seriously, what are you actually saying here?

cause like I said, I have a couple of KJ's and I am very familiar with it

I'm just saying the KJV is inspired and I haven't seen any other English versions that are.

 

[ember]

I'm just saying the KJV is inspired and I haven't seen any other English versions that are.

well now, I'm educated...even been to school...you must be educated? yes? no?

so would you kindly answer my very simple question?

here it is again...

Do you not disavow ALL other Bibles save the 1611 King James Version?

 

[Dino246]

If the KJV crowd (me included) actually believes they have the holy inspired preserved words of God without error in the English language, do you not blame us for standing up for it and against all false versions, based on what God has said?

My view is that your belief is fundamentally the same as every other erroneous belief: wrong. Therefore, your zeal is misplaced. I can respect a Muslim for his devotion, but not for his beliefs. He's still in error, and his zeal profits him nothing.

 

[John146]

I understand, people don't want to give up being their own final authority on what God has said. We either have it, or we don't know for sure what God has said.

My view is that your belief is fundamentally the same as every other erroneous belief: wrong. Therefore, your zeal is misplaced. I can respect a Muslim for his devotion, but not for his beliefs. He's still in error, and his zeal profits him nothing.

 

[ember]

well now, I'm educated...even been to school...you must be educated? yes? no?

so would you kindly answer my very simple question?

here it is again...

Do you not disavow ALL other Bibles save the 1611 King James Version?

and now for the third time

you are a staunch defender of the 1611 version of the KJV?


it's a yes or no answer that is required

yes or no...do you use the 1611 version of the KJ Bible?

Do you disavow all other Bibles?

you defend it, so kindly respond...yes or no? we have almost 800 posts many of which are yours stating the 1611 is the ONLY inspired Bible...equal with prophecy straight from God!
?

 

[KJV1611]

well now, I'm educated...even been to school...you must be educated? yes? no?

so would you kindly answer my very simple question?

here it is again...

Do you not disavow ALL other Bibles save the 1611 King James Version?

Of course I don't support them. Why would I recommend a bible translated by men who are not inspired. The best you could hope to get is partial accuracy.

 

[KJV1611]

and now for the third time

you are a staunch defender of the 1611 version of the KJV?


it's a yes or no answer that is required

yes or no...do you use the 1611 version of the KJ Bible?

Do you disavow all other Bibles?

you defend it, so kindly respond...yes or no? we have almost 800 posts many of which are yours stating the 1611 is the ONLY inspired Bible...equal with prophecy straight from God!
?

Sorry miss impatient I was at dinner. YES!

 

[KJV1611]

My view is that your belief is fundamentally the same as every other erroneous belief: wrong. Therefore, your zeal is misplaced. I can respect a Muslim for his devotion, but not for his beliefs. He's still in error, and his zeal profits him nothing.

Try believing every word in the KJV and you might see that it's inspired and inerrant.