Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?
- Thread starter brandplucked
- 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.
Hi cfultz. All you have to do to prove you really believe you have an infallible Bible and when other versions differ from it either in TEXT or meaning, then yours is right and the others are wrong, is to simply SHOW us a copy of this infallible Bible you seem to want us to think you believe in. Can you name it for us or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever translation or original language copy we may be using at the moment to see the differences and similarities. Will you do that for us? "Not a chance", you say? Then guess what that makes you...A Bible Agnostic and an unbeliever in the infallibility of the Bible. Wake up and face the reality of your own unbelief.
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Cor. 14:38
"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8
"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Cor. 14:38
Should probably put the title as this - Are King James Bible Only believers - There is a big difference - I have multiple versions, I have 3 KJV, 1 NKJV, 2 NASB, 1 ESV, and a parallel bible with 4 translations, also a NIV
you have a lot of traditional culture in the south where they are southern baptists who only read the KJV Bible, I was visiting my brother in laws' family in NC - and that's exactly what you see.
I wonder if they take an answer to prayer - Tydnale was one of the first people who tried to translate the Bible into common language - King James ended up authorizing the KJV - as that the KJV must be from God, which sounds strange, that they wouldn't take other answers to prayer / or other proofs of God keeping His word - dead sea scrolls - etc
Kind of a strange quirk that KJV onlists have, it's not based on anything but almost turn it into a superstitious belief
you have a lot of traditional culture in the south where they are southern baptists who only read the KJV Bible, I was visiting my brother in laws' family in NC - and that's exactly what you see.
I wonder if they take an answer to prayer - Tydnale was one of the first people who tried to translate the Bible into common language - King James ended up authorizing the KJV - as that the KJV must be from God, which sounds strange, that they wouldn't take other answers to prayer / or other proofs of God keeping His word - dead sea scrolls - etc
Kind of a strange quirk that KJV onlists have, it's not based on anything but almost turn it into a superstitious belief
C
I don't know what to even say to you. It obvious that the KJV is a translation from original manuscripts.
I will ask you the same: Can you name it for us or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever translation or original language copy we may be using at the moment to see the differences and similarities. Will you do that for us? "Not a chance", you say?
You know well the KJV used the Textus Receptus. You should also know there are omission of words, verb tenses misused. But, I still use it. You also know that the original authorized version included extra books which was later taken out. You should know from that that something is wrong. So, no!!! I will not put my faith in a translation, but I will place my faith in the real Word of God who leads me to Truth.
I will ask you the same: Can you name it for us or give us a link to where we can see what it says and compare it to whatever translation or original language copy we may be using at the moment to see the differences and similarities. Will you do that for us? "Not a chance", you say?
You know well the KJV used the Textus Receptus. You should also know there are omission of words, verb tenses misused. But, I still use it. You also know that the original authorized version included extra books which was later taken out. You should know from that that something is wrong. So, no!!! I will not put my faith in a translation, but I will place my faith in the real Word of God who leads me to Truth.
Jimmy, first brother I would ask that you use discretion before you cast judgement on your brethren. I wouldn't want to see you harm yourself. Second, it isn't the KJV in itself that I trust, it is the TEXTUS RECEPTUS. You may call anything in this world whatever you wish. That is your right. I trust that God provided us with thousands of copies of His ancient Words so that we may know His true Words over that of the wolves. It is literally thousands to one when it comes to the ancient manuscripts. God did that on purpose.
The 1599 Geneva Bible was unacceptable to King James because of the side notes and footnotes, not the translation.
The 1611 KJV has no side notes for Exodus 1:17-19, so it supported James' court of Star Chamber quite well--a place where "disobedience" to the king was not "lawful".
Exod 1:17 Notwithstanding the midwives feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt commanded them, but preserved alive the men children. 18 Then the King of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done thus, and have preserved alive the men children? 19 And the midwives answered Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew * women [are] not as the women of Egypt: for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come at them. (Geneva 1599)
Exod 1:19 * Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.
If "Presidential mandate" is important for you, brother Kerry, then feel free to mock the Bible like Mr. President does.
[video=youtube;Hi-V_ilJu0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w[/video]
The 1611 KJV has no side notes for Exodus 1:17-19, so it supported James' court of Star Chamber quite well--a place where "disobedience" to the king was not "lawful".
Exod 1:17 Notwithstanding the midwives feared God, and did not as the King of Egypt commanded them, but preserved alive the men children. 18 Then the King of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done thus, and have preserved alive the men children? 19 And the midwives answered Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew * women [are] not as the women of Egypt: for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come at them. (Geneva 1599)
Exod 1:19 * Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.
If "Presidential mandate" is important for you, brother Kerry, then feel free to mock the Bible like Mr. President does.
[video=youtube;Hi-V_ilJu0w]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hi-V_ilJu0w[/video]
L
I have read through this entire thread, and truly believe there is more damage happening here than the spreading of truth. There is a serious error when stating that the NIV and ESV are from minority text only. Both translations are know for using majority text as the final say, and using minority for the footnote. Vaticanus is referenced very rarely by either, and never to my knowledge as primary source. These are not the only newer translations using footnotes to clear up any possible mis-translations. I have never heard Sanaiticus being used as main sources other than for Eastern Orthodox translations. Please give some references for these extremely caustic allegations, and I don't want to see a link to some Bible conspiracy theory website.
The KJV IS the inspired Word of God, and therefore, God will use it to inspire us. This is the same for any version of scripture, because though man and mans methods are flawed, God uses flawed objects for His purpose. There is no verse that says anything is infallible except God. It does say that God inspired, or literally breathed into scripture (2Timothy 3:1) and continues to give life the the scriptures. I will admit that some versions are more flawed than others, and some are willfully changed to suit man-made doctrine, but God can still inspire His chosen through those versions.
Matthew 5:18 points out that the law will be unchanged until it is fulfilled, but then again, Christ fulfilled the law when He died on the cross.
For most new Christians, I suggest staying away from the KJV, because the language used is not familiar to modern speakers, and is therefore easy to misunderstand. I have heard several preachers giving messages full of theological errors, because they didn't really understand how a certain prepositional phrase translates into modern English, or other grammatical problems. Once a person has a good base of Biblical knowledge, the KJV is great for it's reverent style, and poetic prose.
I do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that it is historically accurate. I do not believe that my view on translation contradicts a literal interpretation.
The KJV IS the inspired Word of God, and therefore, God will use it to inspire us. This is the same for any version of scripture, because though man and mans methods are flawed, God uses flawed objects for His purpose. There is no verse that says anything is infallible except God. It does say that God inspired, or literally breathed into scripture (2Timothy 3:1) and continues to give life the the scriptures. I will admit that some versions are more flawed than others, and some are willfully changed to suit man-made doctrine, but God can still inspire His chosen through those versions.
Matthew 5:18 points out that the law will be unchanged until it is fulfilled, but then again, Christ fulfilled the law when He died on the cross.
For most new Christians, I suggest staying away from the KJV, because the language used is not familiar to modern speakers, and is therefore easy to misunderstand. I have heard several preachers giving messages full of theological errors, because they didn't really understand how a certain prepositional phrase translates into modern English, or other grammatical problems. Once a person has a good base of Biblical knowledge, the KJV is great for it's reverent style, and poetic prose.
I do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, and that it is historically accurate. I do not believe that my view on translation contradicts a literal interpretation.
Yes, it's copyright 2012 by BookCaps, and has the original and modern translation side-by-side, so you can read the story and learn Shakespeare's English at the same time.
Romeo and Juliet In Plain and Simple English: (A Modern Translation and the Original Version): William Shakespeare, BookCaps: 9781469973746: Amazon.com: Books
Romeo and Juliet In Plain and Simple English: (A Modern Translation and the Original Version): William Shakespeare, BookCaps: 9781469973746: Amazon.com: Books
Brandplucked, Yes the modern day textual critics and Bible agnostics have set themselves up as judges over the word of God. And as more time passes on, the more worse the modern versions get.
I discovered your website a while back and have seen that you have documented many verses and passages of Scripture which have been altered and corrupted by the Vatican Versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, any many others. And your articles have been a great help to me and other King James Bible believers.
The mass of confusion that has been created by the modern versions is just astounding. I do believe that these modern, ever changing corrupt versions are the main reason and cause for the falling away. As when we study the history of a Nation, we can see what happens when a Nation turns its back on God and His word.
The ungodly fruit of modern textual criticism has led to a huge weakening of the authority of Scripture. Another thing that has been tied to these modern versions and their philosophy is the ecumenical movement. And like you said, the modern day scholars are seeking to remove the word "truth" from the Bible. And of course, the only way they can do it is by making more modern and new bible versions ($$$).
As Bible believers, we know and understand that truth divides and separates. And so we can discern the satanic movement to unite everyone at the expense of the truth and to get everyone to overlook their differences. I think that is why the Roman Catholic church and Vatican is continuing to bring out these modern corruptions. They want to destroy absolute truth, they want to create more doubt and uncertainty among the Body of Christ. And they want to bring all religions and faiths back under the control and umbrella of the Vatican and Papacy.
I agree. There is a big difference in meaning between mercy and love. If you look up these two words in a Webster's 1828 Dictionary. The vast difference in meaning can be clearly seen:
[TABLE="class: yiv7706775269wysiwyg_dashes yui_3_7_2_40_1378760103745_105, width: 80%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]love
LOVE, v.t. luv. [L. libeo, lubeo. See Lief. The sense is probably to be prompt, free, willing, from leaning, advancing, or drawing forward.]
1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection, on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification. We love a friend, on account of some qualities which give us pleasure in his society. We love a man who has done us a favor; in which case, gratitude enters into the composition of our affection. We love our parents and our children, on account of their connection with us, and on account of many qualities which please us. We love to retire to a cool shade in summer. We love a warm room in winter. we love to hear an eloquent advocate. The christian loves his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, whether animal or intellectual; and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things, as the sum of all excellence and all the attributes which can communicate happiness to intelligent beings. In other words, the christian loves God with the love of complacency in his attributes, the love of benevolence towards the interest of his kingdom, and the love of gratitude for favors received.
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind -
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Matt. 22.2. To have benevolence or good will for. John 3.
LOVE, n.
1. An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual. It is opposed to hatred. Love between the sexes, is a compound affection, consisting of esteem, benevolence, and animal desire. Love is excited by pleasing qualities of any kind, as by kindness, benevolence, charity, and by the qualities which render social intercourse agreeable. In the latter case, love is ardent friendship, or a strong attachment springing from good will and esteem, and the pleasure derived from the company, civilities and kindness of others.
Between certain natural relatives, love seems to be in some cases instinctive. Such is the love of a mother for her child, which manifests itself toward an infant, before any particular qualities in the child are unfolded. This affection is apparently as strong in irrational animals as in human beings.
We speak of the love of amusements, the love of books, the love of money, and the love of whatever contributes to our pleasure or supposed profit.
The love of God is the first duty of man, and this springs from just views of his attributes or excellencies of character, which afford the highest delight to the sanctified heart. Esteem and reverence constitute ingredients in this affection, and a fear of offending him is its inseparable effect.
2. Courtship; chiefly in the phrase, to make love, that is, to court; to woo; to solicit union in marriage.
3. Patriotism; the attachment one has to his native land; as the love of country.
4. Benevolence; good will.God is love. 1John 4.
5. The object beloved.
The lover and the love of human kind.
6. A word of endearment.Trust me, love.
7. Picturesque representation of love.
Such was his form as painters, when they show their utmost art, on naked loves bestow.
8. Lewdness.
He is not lolling on a lewd love-bed.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TABLE="class: yiv7706775269wysiwyg_dashes, width: 80%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]mercy
MER'CY, n. [L. misericordia.]
1. That benevolence, mildness or tenderness of heart which disposes a person to overlook injuries, or to treat an offender better than he deserves; the disposition that tempers justice, and induces an injured person to forgive trespasses and injuries, and to forbear punishment, or inflict less than law or justice will warrant. In this sense, there is perhaps no word in our language precisely synonymous with mercy. That which comes nearest to it is grace. It implies benevolence, tenderness, mildness, pity or compassion, and clemency, but exercised only towards offenders. Mercy is a distinguishing attribute of the Supreme Being.
The Lord is long-suffering and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty. Num.14.
2. An act or exercise of mercy or favor. It is a mercy that they escaped.
I am not worthy of the least of all thy mercies. Gen.32.
3. Pity; compassion manifested towards a person in distress.
And he said, he that showed mercy on him. Luke.10.
4. Clemency and bounty.
Mercy and truth preserve the king; and his throne is upheld by mercy. Prov.28.
5. Charity, or the duties of charity and benevolence.
I will have mercy and not sacrifice. Matt.9.
6. Grace; favor. 1 Cor.7. Jude 2.
7. Eternal life, the fruit of mercy. 2 Tim.1.
8. Pardon.
I cry thee mercy with all my heart.
9. The act of sparing, or the forbearance of a violent act expected. The prisoner cried for mercy.
To be or to lie at the mercy of, to have no means of self-defense, but to be dependent for safety on the mercy or compassion of another, or in the power of that which is irresistible; as, to be at the mercy of a foe, or of the waves.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[HR][/HR]
And consider, if there is that much difference in meaning between two words (love & mercy), imagine how much pure doctrine has been destroyed in the modern versions. Since the modern versions omit thousands of words, add words, and change words. As you have showed and documented with the changes that the modern versions make in changing mercy over to love or lovingkindness.
The modern versions here are seeking to put God's word and His name on the same level.
Now God's Name is certainly great and mighty. After all, His Name is the Name above all names (Philippians 2:9). But even as highly exalted as the precious and wonderful name of Jesus is, God has elevated His word above the wonderful name of Jesus. God holds His word at a higher regard and magnitude than that of even His very name.
Essentially, the principle God could also be teaching us in Psalm 138:2 is that His name is only as trustworthy as His word.
This truth is even understood in the secular world. It is like that old saying: "a man is only as good as his word." A lot of truth in that statement.
Also, in Bible Numerics, the Scripture further verifies the fact that God elevates His word above His name.
The word "Word" (capitalized) appears 7 times in the Authorized Version. Now check this out. The word "JESUS" (all Capital letters) appears exactly 6 times in the Authorized Version. That is just amazing! Even the Bible numerical codes and patterns bear witness to the truth in Psalm 138:2.
Also, consider the following:
In the Authorized Version:
word (both lower case and capital) appears 697 times in the Authorized King James Version.
words appears 546 times.
word's appears 2 times.
All forms of this very word total up to 1,245 times.
Jesus (both lower case and capital) appears 973 times
Jesus' appears 10 times.
Totaling up to 983 times!
It is Absolutely incredible. The Numerical codes and patterns bear witness to the testimony of Scripture. They are in complete agreement.
And the fact that the modern versions have also changed words in Psalm 138:2 and corrupted it to say something else, just further shows that these modern day scholars, Bible critics and revisors do not have a high regard and reverence for the words of the living God.
Amen Brandplucked. Good point brother.
Daniel Wallace is one of the many Bible critics who has set up his own vain mind as his final authority. And the rendering that Daniel Wallace gave of Psalm 138:2 just distorts the truth which God intended in that verse of Scripture.
Daniel Wallace is messing with God's Book; he is changing the text to how he feels it should be written. And he is one of the many destructive textual critics who have changed the truth of God into a lie (Rom. 1:25).
These wicked and foolish men think that they are smarter than God. In their vain and puffed up minds, the Alexandrian scholars think that they can correct God.
The Bible prophesied in 2 Timothy 3 that these men would come in the last days. These wicked men are proud and highminded. And they refuse to submit to God's Authoritative word, which is the Authorized King James Bible.
These guys do not like the idea of submitting to a Perfect Written Final Authority that can judge them.
The proud, arrogant and foolish Alexandrian Scholars like James White, Doug Kutilek, and Daniel Wallace are the new protestant popes, and plenty of modern professing Christians love to have it so.
Who ever thought that the day would come when the majority of Christians would abandon the English Text of the Protestant Reformation and replace it with the Jesuit Rheims Greek text of Westcott and Hort. The very text that can be traced back to Alexandria, Egypt, which is the place where the altered and corrupted manuscripts and texts began to show up.
There indeed is a famine right now in the land of hearing the words of the LORD (Amos 8:11). Many pastors and preachers have forsaken God's holy word (the Authorized King James Version) and are now using the Vatican versions such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, Message, NLT, and Holman Christian Standard, etc.
It's really bad what's going on these days, and how many Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the word of God. I looked up Psalm 138:2 in the most "up to date" NIV (2011 revision) and this is their new rendering that they gave:
I will bow down toward your holy temple and will praise your name for your unfailing love and your faithfulness, for you have so exalted your solemn decree that it surpasses your fame. (NIV 2011)
The confusion and madness just doesn't seem to end. The more these modern versions get revised, the worse they get.
This also is a fulfillment of the following Scriptures:
10 For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.- 1 Timothy 6:10 (KJV)
13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. - 2 Timothy 3:13 (KJV)
That's funny that people only believe that the KJV is the infallible word of God, sounds like the roman Catholics with latin bibles.
I think Christ would be ashamed to see His children drone on about KJV only when Jesus Himself used modern translations of the Bible
Or that people who profess His name would say that if anyone doesn't read a KJV they are not reading God's word
This argument is irreverent and turns the Living word into a translation, but alas KJV onliers will think they are being persecuted for their version of the Bible(but think it's for being Christian)
If your the weaker brother and think that the KJV is the only translation, that's fine
I think Christ would be ashamed to see His children drone on about KJV only when Jesus Himself used modern translations of the Bible
Or that people who profess His name would say that if anyone doesn't read a KJV they are not reading God's word
This argument is irreverent and turns the Living word into a translation, but alas KJV onliers will think they are being persecuted for their version of the Bible(but think it's for being Christian)
If your the weaker brother and think that the KJV is the only translation, that's fine