Why the king james?

[eternally-gratefull]

LOL tell that to works salvation folks who use that verse to say Abraham was seen as righteous by his works. There's a different spirit in the NIV EG. It leads to a different gospel and a different Christ.

The works salvationists group uses acts 2: 28 to say baptism is requird. It does not mean it is true, any more then them mishanding james 2 will support their false belief. Unless God opens there eyes, No one will change their mind, Including you and I.

The NIV does not make james say Abraham was saved by works, That is nonsense.

You may think it does. Then again, Works people use the KJV to say Abraham was justified by works. So it does not matter what version they use, If they want to believe in works they will use this passage to back their faith up.

Context destroys their arguent, not the KJV

 

[trofimus]

Again, the word of God is spirit, the spirit dwells in the body. You are searching the scriptures (the body) trying to find truth but the truth is the spirit behind the words. It doesn't matter what was written in the originals because the same was true with them, the word of God is hidden in the text. You're doing exactly what the Pharisees did, you can't see the word of God because you're stumbling over the words.

John 5:39 KJV
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

How exactly is this reaction to some scribes choosing wrong source to translate from?

 

[KJV1611]

How exactly is this reaction to some scribes choosing wrong source to translate from?

I'm just saying your getting hung up on words while the true word of God is hidden in the words. Again I ask, how do you know they translated from the wrong source.

 

[KJV1611]

The works salvationists group uses acts 2: 28 to say baptism is requird. It does not mean it is true, any more then them mishanding james 2 will support their false belief. Unless God opens there eyes, No one will change their mind, Including you and I.

The NIV does not make james say Abraham was saved by works, That is nonsense.

You may think it does. Then again, Works people use the KJV to say Abraham was justified by works. So it does not matter what version they use, If they want to believe in works they will use this passage to back their faith up.

Context destroys their arguent, not the KJV

Again I ask, was Abraham considered righteous by his works as the NIV says?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm just saying your getting hung up on words while the true word of God is hidden in the words. Again I ask, how do you know they translated from the wrong source.

How do you know they are translated from the right source?

The argument goes both ways, Thus is unusable to prove anything.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Again I ask, was Abraham considered righteous by his works as the NIV says?

Yes he was.

Considered righteous does not mean he was made righteous.

so your argument is again in trouble

ad again, WOuld abraham be considered righteous if he had no works.. The answer is no..

so either way, james is correct in saying, Abraham, as apposed to those who claim to have faith by have no work, is considered righteous (justified) because he had works.

 

[trofimus]

I'm just saying your getting hung up on words while the true word of God is hidden in the words. Again I ask, how do you know they translated from the wrong source.

If it is hidden in the words, we should have the right words, dont you think?

How do I know they translated from the wrong source:

KJV Old testament is different from the OT used by apostles.
Either apostles had wrong OT version or you have the wrong OT version. Simple as that.

 

[KJV1611]

How do you know they are translated from the right source?

The argument goes both ways, Thus is unusable to prove anything.

I'm in totally agreement. It's absurd to think someone can pick this part out of one manuscript and this part from another and claim that's the word of God. There is only one way for man to have the inerrant word of God and that's for God to do the preservation and translation.... it doesn't work any other way.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes he was.

Considered righteous does not mean he was made righteous.

so your argument is again in trouble

ad again, WOuld abraham be considered righteous if he had no works.. The answer is no..

so either way, james is correct in saying, Abraham, as apposed to those who claim to have faith by have no work, is considered righteous (justified) because he had works.

No Abraham was not considered righteous by his works. That's why the NIV is wrong. The verse has nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness period. It's about Abraham's faith, Abraham's faith was justified as being true faith...nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness.

 

[KJV1611]

If it is hidden in the words, we should have the right words, dont you think?

How do I know they translated from the wrong source:

KJV Old testament is different from the OT used by apostles.
Either apostles had wrong OT version or you have the wrong OT version. Simple as that.

Why do you say it's different? Are you trying to say that Isaiah wasn't talking to the Lord in the verse as it says in the New Testament?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

No Abraham was not considered righteous by his works. That's why the NIV is wrong. The verse has nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness period. It's about Abraham's faith, Abraham's faith was justified as being true faith...nothing to do with Abraham's righteousness.

So if Abraham had no works. He would still be considered righteous?

I am just saying what James said, not trying to add words to it.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm in totally agreement. It's absurd to think someone can pick this part out of one manuscript and this part from another and claim that's the word of God. There is only one way for man to have the inerrant word of God and that's for God to do the preservation and translation.... it doesn't work any other way.

Then we can not trust the KJV or any other version. Because we can only guess which one is right. and since non are left. and since no one is alive who has seen the right ones. All we can do is guess.

so again, the argument of which document is right or wrong is useless. No one can prove their point.

 

[trofimus]

Why do you say it's different? Are you trying to say that Isaiah wasn't talking to the Lord in the verse as it says in the New Testament?

Simply. You can drop many words from many sentences without changing the general context of the sentence, but if we believe the originals are inspired word for word, we cant be so benevolent to drop words according to our wishes. Thats not the right attitude.
Look at the apostles and Jesus, how precise they were in their citations of Scripture.
And find the words of Jesus, that not a word, not a letter will pass away from the Law. Small things matter.

 

[KJV1611]

So if Abraham had no works. He would still be considered righteous?

I am just saying what James said, not trying to add words to it.

If Abraham had no works then he did not have real faith. If he didn't have real faith then he was not considered righteous. That's not what the NIV says though is it. The NIV in plain simple English says Abraham was considered righteous, not because of his faith, but because of his works. Change "considered righteous" to justified and the NIV would be right.

[h=1]James 2:21New International Version (NIV)[/h]21 Was not our father Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

 

[trofimus]

Why do you say it's different? Are you trying to say that Isaiah wasn't talking to the Lord in the verse as it says in the New Testament?

If you wish to be shown some factual error:

1. Look at your KJV New testament:
Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls. (Acts 7:14)

2. Then go to your KJV Old testament:
...all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten. (Genesis 46:27)

3. When I look at my Old testament:
...all the souls of the house of Jacob who came with Joseph into Egypt, were seventy-five souls. (Genesis 46:27)

------------

And you want to tell me, that your Bible is the only one perfect? I dont even bother to mention that KJV dropped some word (souls) again....

 

[KJV1611]

Then we can not trust the KJV or any other version. Because we can only guess which one is right. and since non are left. and since no one is alive who has seen the right ones. All we can do is guess.

so again, the argument of which document is right or wrong is useless. No one can prove their point.

The only way to verify if any version is inspired is by inerrancy and things in the text that only God have known and caused to happen.... the KJV fits that bill.

 

[KJV1611]

Simply. You can drop many words from many sentences without changing the general context of the sentence, but if we believe the originals are inspired word for word, we cant be so benevolent to drop words according to our wishes. Thats not the right attitude.
Look at the apostles and Jesus, how precise they were in their citations of Scripture.
And find the words of Jesus, that not a word, not a letter will pass away from the Law. Small things matter.

"Lord" wasn't dropped, it never was there to start with. Isaiah was talking to the Lord, that's a given whether it says Lord or not.

 

[Budman]

Why The King James?

Why not the King James?

 

[Dino246]

I don't understand what the preface to the KJV has to do with anything. I don't think the KJV translators knew they were giving God's inerrant word in English any more than Paul knew he was writting the New Testament when he wrote a letter to the Romans or Corintians.

I suspected this would be your response. It is illogical, speculative, and downright ridiculous. If you aren't convinced by the translators themselves that the KJV is neither inerrant nor (specifically) inspired, there is no hope to convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can set you free.

By the way, despite your acknowledgment of the need to proofread, you managed to miss two spelling errors.

 

[KJV1611]

I suspected this would be your response. It is illogical, speculative, and downright ridiculous. If you aren't convinced by the translators themselves that the KJV is neither inerrant nor (specifically) inspired, there is no hope to convince you. Only the Holy Spirit can set you free.

By the way, despite your acknowledgment of the need to proofread, you managed to miss two spelling errors.

Nope you wont convince me, my eyes have been opened and I've tasted the honey... no going back for me.