King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Kerry]

Easter is the worship of Ishtar and it goes all the way back to Babylon. Easter and Passover are not the same holidays.

And they rolled eggs. This was the goddess of fertility.

 

[Last]

While I tried posting my Three Biblical reasons into this thread here into one neat post, it didn't really work. Here is my post from another forum that will hopefully answer your concerns.

Is the King James Bible Infallible? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More

Could you answer my question instead of post links?

 

[KJV1611]

The translation errors ofv the KJ are minimal. Like for instance, the term corn is used when it should have been wheat or barley, but all three are grains. The NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son in John 3:16. Again slowly changing the context of the word.

Kerry corn means a kernel, a corn can be wheat, rye barley or any other type of grain. People today think corn means maize.

 

[Last]

You have things backwards. Think for a moment. If the devil hates the Word of God and seeks to corrupt it, would He reinforce the good things of God (with supposedly added verses that are good), or would the devil take away words from God's Word that are good and or subtly twist them in an attempt to effect the Christian life.

For fasting is taking out in certain translations when it comes to casting out certain demons. Hmmm.... I wonder why? Romans 8:1 in the KJV says "Walk after the Spirit." Other translations remove this which destroys the whole argument that Paul was making in Romans 7-8. 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that actually teaches us about the Trinity clearly. So you have no real authority in telling Anti-Trinitarians that God is triune because you really don't have one clear verse like 1 John 5:7 to defend the Trinity. See, satan wants to remove God's Word as an authority in your life. That's his goal.

Other translations do not remove anything. You cannot remove what is not there. Other translations do not have certain phrases because they were not in the earlier manuscripts - they were added by copyists later on! Also, you don't need that particular passage to prove the Trinity. The Trinity was added to that passage because it was already believed!

 

[Last]

Contradiction - Jesus is the morning star, Satan is the morning star.

Revelation 22:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things [a]for the churches. I am the root and the descendant of David, the bright morning star.”


Isaiah 14:12New American Standard Bible (NASB)

12 “How you have fallen from heaven,
O [a]star of the morning, son of the dawn!
You have been cut down to the earth,
You who have weakened the nations!

That contradiction is the KJV too. Do you not get that?
The KJV use the word "Lucifer" for the Hebrew word meaning "morning star". Lucifer is the Latin word for MORNING STAR!

 

[Last]

Who was standing on the seashore in Revelation 13:1? Was it John or the Dragon (i.e. the devil)?

Some Modern Translations has this as the devil. So here we have two completely different Bibles.

So the bible is completely different because Erasmus chose to pick the version that said John was standing on the shore?

If the Modern Translations are your authority, then how do you decide which Bible is your authority?
None of them agree with each other. Yet the Bible makes the claim that it is perfect and that it would be preserved for ALL generations. Is God's Word lying? I don't think so. See, it takes faith to believe those passages in your Bible. The thing is, the Anti-KJV-onlyist doesn't believe in what those passages actually say. This is a problem, because without faith, it is impossible to please Him. For how is it of faith to deny the plain straight forward meaning of Scripture?

The bibles all agree with each other. Pointing out minute unimportant differences does not change that. There are far larger issues between say, the different Gospel accounts. Even still, does not matter because it does not change what is believed.

 

[Last]

I disagree with this. I believe if I can't trust one word in God's Word, then what makes me trust the rest of i? For me, it is an issue of the foundation of my very faith. For if I thought one word was corrupt in the KJV, then my foundation of belief would crumble. See. The Anti-KJV-Only proponent does not actually care if somebody stops believing in Jesus because of their efforts to try and disprove a perfect Word of God. That's why I am fighting them in love. For it is wrong to potentially contribute in taking away a person's faith.

If a person's faith is shattered by the idea that God does not have a perfect translation available to us, then the person has a bad faith to begin with - and a poor understanding of how translation works.

 

[Last]

See, there are different sets of Greek manuscripts. So as a new believer, I have no way of knowing right away which Greek manuscripts to actually believe in because I don't speak or write Biblical Greek.

It does not matter which one you go with, they all say the same thing.

In fact, nobody does. Yes, Greek scholars can have an understanding on many words, but they really don't know the grammar, the subtle differences in speaking or writing a language (that would not be written down), and or examples of how that language was used within that culture.

Actually, you are totally wrong on that one.

One is only guessing as to which Greek manuscripts they are trusting when they first become a believer. They have to place their faith in MEN WHO INTERPRET GOD'S WORD versus just receiving God's Word simply with the understanding in their own language. In other words, the newbie Anti-KJV-only proponent has to place their faith in holy religious men who think they know the Word of God better than others. They act impressive by speaking or writing words that others don't understand. Yet God is simple and He just gives us His Word from the beginning so we can easily understand it by checking it in our own language (with the understanding).

The question is what bible does the new believer pick?

In other words, the newbie Anti-KJV-only proponent has to place their faith in holy religious men who think they know the Word of God better than others

that is exactly what you are doing! Except your choice isn't even informed. You just randomly decide there can only be one right bible and you randomly decided it was the KJV and want others to think if they don't use that one they have a bad bible.

 

[JackH]

God's Bible in Spanish - by Emanual Rodr

Oh, Chick Publications. Now there is some squirrel bait.

They feature some stuff by the dinosaur man, Kent Hovind.

Hovind is currently incarcerated in a federal prison in Atlanta. I'm not sure what for. He probably parked the dinosaur he was riding in a handicapped spot.

Let me guess. You believe that the earth is around 6,000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with humans. Did I guess right?

 

[Last]

It's purpose of it's removal does not change the fact that it was still removed and we had a perfect Word of God in the English by 1769. But again, if you want it to be 1885. Then go ahead and believe it was 1885. For the date of when God preserved His Word is not as important than just believing those passages that say His Word is perfect and that He would preserve His Word for all generations (Including this generation with it's own world language, which is now English).

That's about God's word being perfect, not the bible. The bible contains part of God's word.

 

[wattie]

Wattie what's the difference between an assembly and a church?

Well, assembly and congregation- both are local and visible. Church MAY be local and visible .. but has taken on the universal church meaning also.

 

[Last]

Thousands of words have been removed, including many many verses, too.

Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (1/2)
Westcott and Hort's Magic Marker Binge (2/2)

The number of words in a translation has nothing to do with removing words. If one translation says "and" and another "as well as", that's a difference in words, not meaning.

The morning star is Jesus and not Satan.

KJV refers to both Jesus and Satan as morning stars. Try again.

 

[Last]

Ok, I want you to build me a morning star. One spec says Satan is the morning star and the other spec says Jesus is the morning star, what are you going to build me?

The KJV says both are the morning star.

 

[Jason0047]

Jason, Matthew 28:19 "... baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is just one reference to the trinity that come to mind.

Yeah, the word "name" being singular is not saying specifically that God is three in one here like 1 John 5:7. It doesn't actually say what 1 John 5:7 says.

I have a whole list of verses that relate to the trinity, but I'm pressed for tim this evening.

Relate but not specifically describe the Trinity like 1 John 5:7. No other verse really does that.

My point is that studying is that it is to understand the subject that you are studying. I made my living as an engineer. Many times I've reached a point in a project where there seemed to be no answer. When I pulled together all the information, the answer became clear. If you restrict yourself to the KJV translation you may miss the point of the scripture all together. It is not heresy to use another translation. It is just common sense analysis.

Never said it was heresy to use another translation. In fact, I have used Modern Translations many times in helping to update the language. However, Modern Translations are also corrupted, so I don't make them my final Word of authority like the KJV.

Here's a great simple and interesting study. Try studying the book of Ecclesiastes with the NLB and the KJV. See how much more you get from your KJV. An old professor once told me don't reinvent the wheel make it better.

Speaking of Ecclesiastes:
Well, the Bible says the number 6 is the number of a man in Revelation 13 and that threescore of that is the mark of the Beast (666). It also tells us within this chapter to count this number as a part of wisdom. Why? So that we may understand what this number means. In fact, did you know that the 666th chapter in the Bible (Ecclesiastes 7) talks about the same thing in Revelation 13?

Ecclesiastes 7:23-29
"All this have I proved by wisdom: I said, I will be wise; but it was far from me. That which is far off, and exceeding deep, who can find it out? I applied mine heart to know, and to search, and to seek out wisdom, and the reason of things, and to know the wickedness of folly, even of foolishness and madness: And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. Behold, this have I found, saith the preacher, counting one by one, to find out the account: Which yet my soul seeketh, but I find not: one man among a thousand have I found; but a woman among all those have I not found. Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions."

Revelation 13:16-18
"And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six."

In other words, what are the odds of the above parallel happening by random chance?

Do you think Stephen Langton, and Robert Stephanus worked together?

 

[Last]

Easter is the worship of Ishtar and it goes all the way back to Babylon.

Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar or babylon. Oester is what the Anglo-Saxons called Pascha when they converted to Christianity - and the Anglo-Saxons of 800 AD had nothing to do with Babylon.

Easter and Passover are not the same holidays.

Easter is the English/German for of Pascha.

 

[Jason0047]

That's about God's word being perfect, not the bible. The bible contains part of God's word.

Please show the context that says this speaking of Jesus and not the written Word.

 

[Last]

Please show the context that says this speaking of Jesus and not the written Word.

I am not sure what you are finding difficult.
There is the Word of God, who is Jesus Christ.
Christ revealed himself in both the OT and NT. Thus, the bible is a revelation of the Word of God, but the Word of God is Jesus. Jesus is more than the OT/NT.

 

[KJV1611]

That contradiction is the KJV too. Do you not get that?
The KJV use the word "Lucifer" for the Hebrew word meaning "morning star". Lucifer is the Latin word for MORNING STAR!

No Lucifer doesn't mean morning star. Lucis means light, ferre means carry.. light carrier.

 

[KJV1611]

Well, assembly and congregation- both are local and visible. Church MAY be local and visible .. but has taken on the universal church meaning also.

Agreed, I don't think it would matter if it had been translated assembly or congregation or church because all of those mean about the same thing anyway. Jesus was with them in the wilderness either way. Church just helps me realize that they had the same Jesus with them that I have with me today.

 

[KJV1611]

Easter has nothing to do with Ishtar or babylon. Oester is what the Anglo-Saxons called Pascha when they converted to Christianity - and the Anglo-Saxons of 800 AD had nothing to do with Babylon.

If they are same thing then why are they celebrated on different days.

Easter is the English/German for of Pascha.

Passover 2014 began in the evening of[COLOR=#212121 !important]Monday, April 14

Sunday, April 20

1. [COLOR=#878787 !important]Easter Sunday 2014[/COLOR]

[/COLOR]