The attack of the KJV

  • 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.
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
When I mean by corupt, I do not mean that their salvation is effected in any way. Sorry, I should have clarified that. I believe that their faith cannot be perfect if they deny the KJV as the perfect Word of God because Modern Translations change important doctrines and teachings in my opinion (And a complete reliance on them can be dangerous). For the Parable of the Sower is about how you believed the written Word and or how it was sown or rooted in your heart. Without the written Word, receiving of the gospel would be impossible. For Jesus said we must be born of water. What is this water? I believe it is in reference to God's Word. For Ephesians 5:25, 26 tells us that we are to sanctify the church with the washing of the water of the Word.
In other words, how can I completely sanctify the church with the washing of the water of the Word if the Bible I am using is watered down or corrupted in some way?

Especially when I see things changed for the worse and not for the better.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
What Bible did Jesus and Paul and the Apostles likely preach from?

They likely preached from the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the OT from the Hebrew. The reason for the Greek being that was the language the vast majority of people being preached to understood.

Is the Septuagint a "perfect" translation of the Word of God?

One needs merely to take but a few minutes to compare the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint to the Hebrew manuscripts to determine that the Septuagint is not a "perfect" translation.

So any of the Apostles who preached from the Septuagint were using a corrupt Word of God, and so was their faith?
I believe a person can be saved just by hearing a few pieces of Scripture from most any translation in the Bible. But when it comes to sanctifying believers with the washing of the water of the Word (See Ephesians 5:25-26), then that is a different matter. As for those who had the Septuagint back then: We don't know if they didn't have another translation of the Scriptures also available to them. We also don't know why God chooses some to have a perfect Word of God, while others do not have such a thing. We don't know why God takes children home early to be with Him. But God knows. I take it by faith that God's Word is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations because that is what the Bible says plainly.
 
S

sassylady

Guest
The KJV is the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek, though English does not do a very good job of it. Seems every translation gets farther and farther from the original, which is exactly what the devil likes.
 
Jun 5, 2014
1,750
6
0
The KJV is the closest to the original Hebrew and Greek, though English does not do a very good job of it. Seems every translation gets farther and farther from the original, which is exactly what the devil likes.
What manuscript do you consider to be the original Greek?
 
K

Kerry

Guest
Why so much anger against the KJV. it don' make sense.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
I believe that their faith cannot be perfect if they deny the KJV as the perfect Word of God because Modern Translations change important doctrines and teachings in my opinion (And a complete reliance on them can be dangerous). For the Parable of the Sower is about how you believed the written Word and or how it was sown or rooted in your heart. Without the written Word, receiving of the gospel would be impossible..
People in Jesus' day believed, when they either only had the words of Jesus himself, or people telling them what the words of Jesus were. There is no need to assume a written word in that parable. The Word is not the Bible, although the Scriptures are God-breathed and has His words.

Also, for everyone's reference, here is a reply I made to a post of Jason's in which he listed the most important doctrines he saw as being changed in the modern translations. Here is the reply he made to that post of mine, and here is my next reply. There was one more reply from him, and one more of mine, but the discussion had moved away from the original points at that stage (for some reason, dragons were introduced), so they are less useful (although if you want to deal with my last post in that thread, Jason, please do :) ).

My take on this is that what he claims to be important doctrines that have been removed (and which I contend were not original) are not nearly as important as he makes them out to be. Two of them (how to case out demons with fasting and 'withdrawing from those who think godliness is gain) are for very specific situations and are not necessary as a day to day exercise in the Christian walk and general godliness, three of them (withdrawing, the nations being saved in Rev 21, and walking in the Spirit in Romans 8) are actually upheld in a general way in the surrounding context of the passages those verses are found in, and one of them (the Trinity in the Johannine Comma) is, absolutely worse case scenario, simply a missing clear affirmation in what is otherwise affirmed by Scripture.

If this is the worst of what is allegedly 'missing' from the modern translations, then there is precious little 'lost' at all.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
First, you completely disregarded my point about faith. I was trying to get you to recognize that you're faith is different than my faith if you believe in Modern Translations as your Word of authority vs. the KJV. For you believe it's not important to cast out demons by prayer and fasting. The Lord did good in casting out demons. People were set free from demonic bondage. Yet you think such a thing is minor and unimportant. Okay then what if it was someone you loved who was possessed? You did everything you could but fast and nothing was happening. Would you trust God's Word or think it was a copyist note or error? See for me. There would be no doubt or lack of faith in God's Word. I simply believe it.

As for the Trinity: You really cannot have the same authority in God's Word as me in properly defending God's triune nature against anti-trinitarans. For I have the clearest description of the Trinity in one verse and believe it has power. You don't have that. You have verses that only imply a Trinity.

As for Romans 8:1. Again. There are only two places the Bible speaks of the Condemnation. John 3:19-21 is one. Romans 8:1 is the second.
Walking after the Spirit is taken out in Romans 8:1 and it is exclusively tied to the Condemnation which is a unique thing mentioned in Scripture.

As for your comment on the Dracorex:
It's head looks exactly like the dragons of myth and legend. Also by your reaction, I take it you don't believe dragons were once real creatures? If you don't believe they were real, then how is that not turning the Scriptures into fables in this case?
 
Last edited:

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
First, you completely disregarded my point about faith. I was trying to get you to recognize that you're faith is different than my faith if you believe in Modern Translations as your Word of authority vs. the KJV. For you believe it's not important to cast out demons by prayer and fasting.
Ah, but my basis for that is twofold. One, I do not have to cast out demons as a matter of santification in the same way I have to, say, flee from temptation. At that level alone, it is clearly not AS IMPORTANT as a lot of other doctrines that potentially could have been, but were not, changed.

Two, I believe it is not important to cast out demons with prayer and fasting PRECISELY BECAUSE I do not believe that is what was in the original writings of the gospels, and thus is not what Jesus originally taught.

The Lord did good in casting out demons. People were set free from demonic bondage. Yet you think such a thing is minor and unimportant.
I never said casting out demons was a bad thing. Let me ask you a question - did Jesus pray and/or fast to cast out demons? Did any of the demons that were cast out by the disciples involved praying or fasting?


Okay then what if it was someone you loved who was possessed? You did everything you could but fast and nothing was happening. Would you trust God's Word or think it was a copyist note or error? See for me. There would be no doubt or lack of faith in God's Word. I simply believe it.
I've never been in this situation, nor know anyone who has been, but I would trust in the authority of the Lord Jesus to cast out a demon, because that is what the Scriptures teach. This is why I asked whether you had ever fasted and only then successfully cast out a demon.

As for the Trinity: You really cannot have the same authority in God's Word as me in properly defending God's triune nature against anti-trinitarans. For I have the clearest description of the Trinity in one verse and believe it has power. You don't have that. You have verses that only imply a Trinity.
I think the only logical conclusion from the rest of the Scriptures is that a) the Father, Son and Spirit are all Divine b) that they are one and interrelated) and c) they are distinctive in person. Thus, Trinity is taught.

But still, you have not shown to me why the Comma must be genuine. I urge you to deal with the substance of my post on this matter, particularly the alleged witness of Tertuliian to the comma.

One other question on this matter for you: If I were to take a pen to the Scriptures, and somewhere in there write the words "The Father, Son and Spirit are one in substance but three in person, thus united as a triunity, or trinity", would you include that in Scripture, seeing as it is completel orthodox and is clearer even than 1 John 5:7 in that regard? If clarity of a doctrine is what matters, does that mean we can adjust Scripture to clarify orthodox doctrine?

If you say no, what about if I travelled back in time and made that change 1000 years ago? or 1500 years ago? What about 1900 years ago? Would your answer change then?

As for Romans 8:1. Again. There are only two places the Bible speaks of the Condemnation. John 3:19-21 is one. Romans 8:1 is the second.
Walking after the Spirit is taken out in Romans 8:1 and it is exclusively tied to the Condemnation which is a unique thing mentioned in Scripture.
v.4 is about condemnation too. You can't separate v1 and v4 as if they have nothing to do with each other. This is prooftexting at its absolute worst.

As for your comment on the Dracorex:
It's head looks exactly like the dragons of myth and legend.
As are the heads of most dinosaurs. In any case, if you actually go through dragon mythology, you will see there is quite a variety in how their heads are depicted.

Also by your reaction, I take it you don't believe dragons were once real creatures? If you don't believe they were real, then how is that not turning the Scriptures into fables in this case?
If by dragon you mean flying fire breathing carnivores with a mass muscled body, then no. Just at the level of raw physics, such a large creature would not be able to fly. If you look at something like a pterodactyl, that has a vastly different body composition to that of a typical dragon.

The Bible certainly speaks of large creatures (such as Leviathan), but there is not reason to assume this is the same thing as what we consider today to be a dragon. Most of what the word translated as dragon refers to in the OT is some sort of sea dwelling creature, which rules out the traditional conception of dragon.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
As an addendum to the above, I want to clarify my language - I'm actually quite prepared to accept Jesus taught prayer was needed when casting out demons. It is the fasting I specifically question as original (again acknowledging fasting is a good thing). I want to reiterate that I'm not that much interested in disputing the KJV reading - I'm much more interested in defending the text critical reading.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
As are the heads of most dinosaurs. In any case, if you actually go through dragon mythology, you will see there is quite a variety in how their heads are depicted.
If by dragon you mean flying fire breathing carnivores with a mass muscled body, then no. Just at the level of raw physics, such a large creature would not be able to fly. If you look at something like a pterodactyl, that has a vastly different body composition to that of a typical dragon.

The Bible certainly speaks of large creatures (such as Leviathan), but there is not reason to assume this is the same thing as what we consider today to be a dragon. Most of what the word translated as dragon refers to in the OT is some sort of sea dwelling creature, which rules out the traditional conception of dragon.
As for the verses: Yeah, I have already provided my explanations and I stand behind them. There is nothing more to argue or debate about. From an objective standpoint, I see things changed for the worse and not for the better. You see things from History, which I believe is not as reliable and as trust worthy as observable evidences.

As for the Leviathan:

Scripture mentions this creature as a fire breathing dragon.

Job 41:21
"His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth."
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
Also, check out this video on dragons at the Creation Today Show, too.

[video=youtube;PnBwPryb1wE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBwPryb1wE[/video]
 

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38
As for the verses: Yeah, I have already provided my explanations and I stand behind them. There is nothing more to argue or debate about. From an objective standpoint, I see things changed for the worse and not for the better. You see things from History, which I believe is not as reliable and as trust worthy as observable evidences.

As for the Leviathan:

Scripture mentions this creature as a fire breathing dragon.

Job 41:21
"His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth."
[SUP]12 [/SUP]I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

[SUP]15 [/SUP]His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

[SUP]17 [/SUP]They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

[SUP]18 [/SUP]By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

[SUP]21 [/SUP]His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

[SUP]24 [/SUP]His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

[SUP]25 [/SUP]When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

[SUP]26 [/SUP]The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

[SUP]27 [/SUP]He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

[SUP]28 [/SUP]The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

[SUP]29 [/SUP]Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

[SUP]30 [/SUP]Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

[SUP]31 [/SUP]He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

[SUP]32 [/SUP]He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

[SUP]33 [/SUP]Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

[SUP]34 [/SUP]He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.


Whatever, or whoever, this is, it is not a literal Dragon, even in the King James Version (at least not this version of the KJ)
 

skipp

Senior Member
Mar 6, 2014
654
7
0
I honestly didn't realize just how extreme KJV-onlyism was until reading this thread. Wow. It really does help illustrate the dangers of idolatry for Christians.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
As for the verses: Yeah, I have already provided my explanations and I stand behind them. There is nothing more to argue or debate about. From an objective standpoint, I see things changed for the worse and not for the better. You see things from History, which I believe is not as reliable and as trust worthy as observable evidences.
Just FYI, you never replied to my return post about 1 John 5:7 at all. You made sweeping claims about the testimony of the church fathers, decrying my knowledge of history, and then not only do you not respond to my post that actually engages with your point, but you go as far as to claim historical documents as untrustworthy, almost in the same breath as you appeal to them (albeit rather lazily and vaguely). If that's how you want to argue things, fine. But I hope I've at least given you, and maybe others reading, something to ponder.

As for the Leviathan:

Scripture mentions this creature as a fire breathing dragon.

Job 41:21
"His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth."
I'm more than happy to keep an open mind about the creature of Job 41, although it's not beyond the nature of the text to believe that Leviathan is a creature being described through poetic hyperbole in order to make a point about God's might, in the same sort of way as locusts are elsewhere poetically described as vicious soldiers. My point is simply that a skeleton of a 3m long creature whose name sounds a little bit like dragon is not proof that the KJV is the single and only Word of God.

Also worth pointing out that not even the KJV describes the leviathan of Job 41 as a dragon.
 

Nick01

Senior Member
Jul 15, 2013
1,272
26
48
Also, check out this video on dragons at the Creation Today Show, too.

[video=youtube;PnBwPryb1wE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PnBwPryb1wE[/video]
I couldn't be bothered watching through the whole thing, so I scanned to a random spot to find just one thing to chew on. Around the 5min mark, the claim is made that the word that often turns into serpent or jackal in the OT in modern translations has has been continuously and consistently translated dragon or equivalent since the LXX.

This is true, however, the Greek idea of dragon (or δράκοντα, from the root 'seeing one') was quite different to ours. For one, they were usually wingless and were basically giant snakes, or sometimes lizards. The chimera was considered a kind of drakonta, although it included the parts of a lion as well, and actually in some ways became the template for the medieval/English style dragon we associate with today. They could also be sea or land animals, in much the same way that the root word appears to be used for both sea and land animals in the OT.

You can read in depth info about the Greek understanding of drakonta here (if historical info isn't too irrelevant or inaccurate for you), but the point is really that the term as used in the Septuagint and in the NT in all probability had no relation to what we understand dragons to be now, and in all actuality probably referred to nothing more specific than 'some sort of scary reptilian thing'. Given this fact, using the term dragon in English is in one sense sensible - it is simply an anglicisation or transliteration of the Greek term, rather than a translation. On the other hand, it's potentially misleading, and in the modern mind refers to a creature that simply was not part of any cultural zeitgeist until the medieval period.

OF course, all this is just the argument in regards to the Greek text, I have no idea if the video deals with the Hebrew, but given it took all that time to deal with one true but rather misleading statement from that video, I have no interest in dealing with the remaining 28 mins unless you're willing to summarise the main arguments in text form first :)
 
Last edited:
2

2Thewaters

Guest
I honestly didn't realize just how extreme KJV-onlyism was until reading this thread. Wow. It really does help illustrate the dangers of idolatry for Christians.
That is true.

But you must understand the REASON for kjv onlyism.
KING JAMES was loosing the war against pilgrim ddoctrines which are Biblical, so he said they had to make another version that would blunt the harcsh attacks against the FALSE DOCTRINES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND

so they made words different than the Bibshops Bible

you can easily prove this by putting them side by sids


on the church of ENGLANDS FALSE DOCTRINES of once saved always saved, which was the MAIN false doctrine, they tok verses and softend them and put in words that had MANY MEANINGS

and on the topic of DIVORCE they put in OTHER WORDS that had MNANY MEANINGS so their lawyers could argue their false doctrines

king james was happy, for his lawyers could now defend their catholic based faith better.

that is the bolttom line


King james said so in a letter to the committe

"We need a version that defends our church of england faith better..."

its on line you can go read it.


so here are the doctrines they adjusted in theat version

once saved always saved can now be argued from KJV
Predestination can now be argued from the kjv
ETERNAL BURNING HELL can now be argued from KJV
and DIVORCE is now totally unclear in KJV
and they took out all those 85 SABBATH DAY REST texts from the New testament which were bothering tham
and they took out ALL REFERENCES to kneeling in prayer as a necessity


otherwise the king james is basically the same as the bishops bible which BOTH CAME FROM THE SAME GREEK VERSION

and yet
they read DIFFERENTLY

so the false doctrines of the church of england can be argued and the other churches who love to keep right on sinning and still call themselves christians LOVE THE KJV

they know if those verses were LOOKED UP and READ in the greek they would have to give up adultery, trysts beer drinking warfare stealing and cheating in taxes and business and all the other things rednecks like to do
 
2

2Thewaters

Guest
the king james is not in error
the original text is the word of God

their translation includes more weasel words, which, if taken correctly make it perfectly correct
but if taken another way make it wrong

so it depends on how you take it

do you take it this way

Verily I say unto you today, thou shalt be with me in paradise
Verily I say unto you, today thou shalt be with me in paradise


they just moved commas around whenever they could to twist the meaning.

and they put in EASTER
which of course is silly
for Jews didnt keep easter!

they are just made to know they are discovered and dont have a leg to stand on on their KEEP ON SINNING WE ARE GOING TO HEAVEN ANYWAY false doctrine

they removed the cross from the Bile and made it a transit system to heaven for the mafia.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
[SUP]12 [/SUP]I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

[SUP]13 [/SUP]Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

[SUP]14 [/SUP]Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

[SUP]15 [/SUP]His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

[SUP]16 [/SUP]One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

[SUP]17 [/SUP]They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

[SUP]18 [/SUP]By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

[SUP]19 [/SUP]Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

[SUP]20 [/SUP]Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

[SUP]21 [/SUP]His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

[SUP]22 [/SUP]In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

[SUP]23 [/SUP]The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

[SUP]24 [/SUP]His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

[SUP]25 [/SUP]When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

[SUP]26 [/SUP]The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

[SUP]27 [/SUP]He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

[SUP]28 [/SUP]The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

[SUP]29 [/SUP]Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

[SUP]30 [/SUP]Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

[SUP]31 [/SUP]He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

[SUP]32 [/SUP]He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

[SUP]33 [/SUP]Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

[SUP]34 [/SUP]He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.


Whatever, or whoever, this is, it is not a literal Dragon, even in the King James Version (at least not this version of the KJ)
First,, before 1841, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist. The word "dragon" was a description for these types of creatures (Which is confirmed by dictionaries that existed around and or before that time). Hence, why the 1611 KJV uses the word "dragon" instead of dinosaur.

Second, as for the passage:

It's using metaphorical language in describing a real creature. How so? Well, if you were to do a study on Job, and understand what is actually happening, God is showing Job all the things within creation as His answer to Job. In Job 38, the Lord is upset with Job for thinking He knows better than God. So God basically tells Job of all His wonderous things within creation as His answer to Job (Who thinks he knows better). So in Job 38, God tells Job about certain things in nature. In Job 39, God talks about various regular animals we are familar with. In Job 40, God mentions a Sauropod (What some people might call a Brontosaurus) (dinosaur); And finally in Job 41, God describes the Leviathan creature (Which is a dragon or dinosaur). All these things are a description of things within God's creation. It doesn't make any sense to have God describe things within nature and then suddenly have Him shift the conversation to talk about something that doesn't exist.
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
I couldn't be bothered watching through the whole thing, so I scanned to a random spot to find just one thing to chew on. Around the 5min mark, the claim is made that the word that often turns into serpent or jackal in the OT in modern translations has has been continuously and consistently translated dragon or equivalent since the LXX.

This is true, however, the Greek idea of dragon (or δράκοντα, from the root 'seeing one') was quite different to ours. For one, they were usually wingless and were basically giant snakes, or sometimes lizards. The chimera was considered a kind of drakonta, although it included the parts of a lion as well, and actually in some ways became the template for the medieval/English style dragon we associate with today. They could also be sea or land animals, in much the same way that the root word appears to be used for both sea and land animals in the OT.

You can read in depth info about the Greek understanding of drakonta here (if historical info isn't too irrelevant or inaccurate for you), but the point is really that the term as used in the Septuagint and in the NT in all probability had no relation to what we understand dragons to be now, and in all actuality probably referred to nothing more specific than 'some sort of scary reptilian thing'. Given this fact, using the term dragon in English is in one sense sensible - it is simply an anglicisation or transliteration of the Greek term, rather than a translation. On the other hand, it's potentially misleading, and in the modern mind refers to a creature that simply was not part of any cultural zeitgeist until the medieval period.

OF course, all this is just the argument in regards to the Greek text, I have no idea if the video deals with the Hebrew, but given it took all that time to deal with one true but rather misleading statement from that video, I have no interest in dealing with the remaining 28 mins unless you're willing to summarise the main arguments in text form first.
If you can't be bothered to watch the whole video, then you really are not interested in hearing the truth of the argument that is presented that defends the truth about how dragons (dinosaurs) have existed for real. For the moment you say that dragons are not real is to turn the Scriptures into fables (Which the Bible warns against). In fact, I remember a Pastor (when I was growing up) who did not actually believe the story of Jonah was a real story but it was simpy metaphorical. In other words, to me, what this sounded like was that he couldn't explain it, so he just wrote the whole thing off as if it was a fable. That is what folks are doing here.

Oh, it's a dragon that breathes fire. That's impossible!

Uh huh. Okay. Do you know that cows can burp methane gas? And that farm kids have lit their burps on fire? Do you know about the Bombardier Beetle? Search YouTube on this little guy. Then tell me it's not possible.

See, that is what concerns me about this whole Anti-KJV-only movement (or churches). They are slowly moving away from God's Word and are beginning to turn the Scriptures into fables. So if dragons are not real in the Bible, then maybe Jesus is not real, too. See, the seeds of doubt in God's Word have already begun and it will be a matter of time before it spreads like a cancer until complete apostasy has hit the church (i.e. the great falling away).

For you have to ask yourself. When is disbelief in God's Word ever a good thing?
 
Last edited:

Timeline

Senior Member
Mar 20, 2014
1,826
17
38


First,, before 1841, the word "dinosaur" didn't exist. The word "dragon" was a description for these types of creatures (Which is confirmed by dictionaries that existed around and or before that time). Hence, why the 1611 KJV uses the word "dragon" instead of dinosaur.

Second, as for the passage:

It's using metaphorical language in describing a real creature. How so? Well, if you were to do a study on Job, and understand what is actually happening, God is showing Job all the things within creation as His answer to Job. In Job 38, the Lord is upset with Job for thinking He knows better than God. So God basically tells Job of all His wonderous things within creation as His answer to Job (Who thinks he knows better). So in Job 38, God tells Job about certain things in nature. In Job 39, God talks about various regular animals we are familar with. In Job 40, God mentions a Sauropod (What some people might call a Brontosaurus) (dinosaur); And finally in Job 41, God describes the Leviathan creature (Which is a dragon or dinosaur). All these things are a description of things within God's creation. It doesn't make any sense to have God describe things within nature and then suddenly have Him shift the conversation to talk about something that doesn't exist.
It's using metaphorical language applied to a creature to describe something else! This is clearly not a dinosaur, dragon, or any other reptile :)