my God is the KJV
That, right there, is a very dangerous statement and position to hold.
-
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.
my God is the KJV
That, right there, is a very dangerous statement and position to hold.
Do you understand this verse Rickyz?
Psa_69:11 I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.
Then today's yer lucky day!
Why then was the Kjv revised four times, the last being in 1769?
Go look at the 1611 and 1769 versions and compare them to today's versions... then come back and show me the differences.
I believe the 1769 (1611) is when the Word of God was PERFECTLY preserved for our world language today (i.e. English). Before that time, the Word of God perfectly existed in manuscripts within the Latin language. For in 1611, they did not perfect the printing process and or have a standardization of spelling yet. They also did not remove the Apocrypha yet until 1769, too. So yes, I am a 1769 (1611) KJV-only believer. There are not many of us out there. But they do exist.
Also, I do not believe in actually bowing down in worship to the Bible as if it was the entirety of God. God is Spirit. He is not a book. For I believe that one can make an idol out of the Bible (as if it was a statue to worship) and that is wrong. I merely cherish, love, and revere the words within God's Word because they are from God. For example: If I write a love letter to my fiance, she would realize that the letter was not the entirety of me, but that they were words that conveyed my heart, mind, and thoughts about her. She would cherish these things. She would not take the letter and try to kiss it, talk to it, and or marry it. She would merely revere my words and hold them close to her heart because they express how I feel about her. It's the same with the Bible.
Also, I do not believe in actually bowing down in worship to the Bible as if it was the entirety of God. God is Spirit. He is not a book. For I believe that one can make an idol out of the Bible (as if it was a statue to worship) and that is wrong. I merely cherish, love, and revere the words within God's Word because they are from God. For example: If I write a love letter to my fiance, she would realize that the letter was not the entirety of me, but that they were words that conveyed my heart, mind, and thoughts about her. She would cherish these things. She would not take the letter and try to kiss it, talk to it, and or marry it. She would merely revere my words and hold them close to her heart because they express how I feel about her. It's the same with the Bible.
Last edited:
Why am I a 1769 (1611) KJV-only believer and not a 1611 KJV-only believer?
Well, not only for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post above, but I discovered that when I tried to defend certain passages between the 1611 and the 1769, in retrospect (or in looking back), it felt like I was grasping at straws. Now, sure, is it possible that there might be false KJV 1611's out there? It is possible. But I really do not know. What I have to go by is what I do know.
Anyways, here is one of the passages in Ruth that I tried to defend from a KJV 1611 Only position (Of which now i don't think really works):
ECT Why the King James Version over the Others? - Page 4 - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More
Well, not only for the reasons that I mentioned in my previous post above, but I discovered that when I tried to defend certain passages between the 1611 and the 1769, in retrospect (or in looking back), it felt like I was grasping at straws. Now, sure, is it possible that there might be false KJV 1611's out there? It is possible. But I really do not know. What I have to go by is what I do know.
Anyways, here is one of the passages in Ruth that I tried to defend from a KJV 1611 Only position (Of which now i don't think really works):
ECT Why the King James Version over the Others? - Page 4 - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More
In other words, I believe during the 1600's printing erros was a common thing in most written works because the printing process had not been perfected yet. There was also no standardization of spelling yet, either. To put it to you another way, the KJV 1611 was perfect for the world in which existed, but it was not technically the purified Word until the 1769 (1611) edition came out.
Last edited:
Why would the translators employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when they knew what the real name of these creatures are?
Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
My point exactly. A typo is a mistake. God's Word claims that it is perfect. It can't be the perfect Word if it has typos (mistakes) in it. That's why I believe the 1769 (1611) is the perfect Word of God.
Last edited:
First you have to rightly divide as scripture says. Is the passage talking about the physical or spiritual. Obviously unicorns don't exist so we know that we are talking spiritual. So what is the spiritual unicorn... he has one horn.
Psa 92:10 But my horn shalt thou exalt like the horn of an unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil.
Who is the UNICORN (ONE HORN)? Jesus is.
2Sa_22:3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.
Who is the ONE HORN of my salvation? Jesus is.
Who is the unicorn throughout scripture? It's Jesus. Jesus is the unicorn just as Jesus is the Lamb, the Rock, the Living water etc.
You asked why would the translators employ the use of a mythical creature for wild ox.
First off, we have no idea if H7214 really means a wild ox or not, Strong's says it's a wild bull.... who knows what the original word was.
H7214
רם רים ראים ראם
re'êm re'êym rêym rêm
reh-ame', reh-ame', rame, rame
From H7213; a wild bull (from its conspicuousness): - unicorn.
But even if Strong's definition is right, we know that the final word of God gives more revelation than the originals.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
The words of the Lord are like silver ( Think - make thee 2 trumpets of silver) tried in AN EARTHEN FURNACE (Think - we have this treasure in EARTHEN VESSELS), purified 7 times. The original manuscripts, even if we had them do not give as much revelation as the silver tried 7 times. In other words the KJV gives more revelation than the originals.
The short of it is, the Unicorn even though they didn't capitalize it is Jesus, not some mythical creature.
Do you all realize that words change with the passage of time right? I mean, if I transported you back into the 1600's (When the King James was translated into English) they probably would have a hard time understanding you because of your strange vocabulary and accent. The meaning of words change with the times.
In fact, if you were to look up the origin of the word "unicorn" you would see that it is a creature with one horn, that was probably talking about the instinct Aurochs or wild ox with one horns.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satyrs are literal goats. It could be a demon who is worshiped as a goat by pagan worshipers, too (Sort of like Baphomet). Owls are also represented sometimes as evil spirits in the Bible, as well.
In fact, if you were to look up the origin of the word "unicorn" you would see that it is a creature with one horn, that was probably talking about the instinct Aurochs or wild ox with one horns.
Online Etymology Dictionary
Unicorn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Satyrs are literal goats. It could be a demon who is worshiped as a goat by pagan worshipers, too (Sort of like Baphomet). Owls are also represented sometimes as evil spirits in the Bible, as well.
As for making the assumption that they knew what the real names were when they used different names in the Bible: For one, you don't have a time machine to know their heart and intentions when they spoke. Nor did you live during that time to really know. We are only making guesses based on written documents. Second, written testimony tells us that words, such as "unicorn", were not locked into our modern day understanding of such a thing. In other words, when my parents were growing up, the word "gay" meant happy. But today, it has a completely different meaning when you say that word versus back then.
Also, it is just silly to claim that unicorns are just a reference to mythological creatures.
We have Science books on Unicorns today. They are not talking about mythological unicorns, but they are talking about real unicorns (one horned animals) that exist today or in recent history.
Although, I seen one Science book that said "Unicorns" on it with a Rhino on the cover; here are two of other books that you can check out or purchase at Amazon:
The Natural History of Unicorns - Kindle edition by Chris Lavers. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Unicorns are an Endangered Species: John Tobias: 9781595944245: Amazon.com: Books
We have Science books on Unicorns today. They are not talking about mythological unicorns, but they are talking about real unicorns (one horned animals) that exist today or in recent history.
Although, I seen one Science book that said "Unicorns" on it with a Rhino on the cover; here are two of other books that you can check out or purchase at Amazon:
The Natural History of Unicorns - Kindle edition by Chris Lavers. Politics & Social Sciences Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com.
Unicorns are an Endangered Species: John Tobias: 9781595944245: Amazon.com: Books
The verses in the bible that talk about unicorns are not talking about animals at all... the unicorn is Christ.
Do you think King James ordered the translation or do you think God might have done it?
Dan_4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.