The Sinful Charge of Idolatry Against King James Bible Believers

  • 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.
(quoted from the original preface to the 1611 KJB):

Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?
​

. . the translators of the KJB disagree with your statement.
furthermore (reading the last sentence in the quote) they also in humility disagree that their work is "perfect" :rolleyes:
Right... just like when Caiaphas said it's expedient that one man die for the people so the whole nation wouldnt perish.... Do you think he thought he was prophecying about Jesus dying for the sins of the world?

Seriously... do you have a clue as to how powerful God is? I don't think you do, I think you live in willy nilly world where God can't even translate his word into other languages... and I'm the moron on this thread.
 
Well, so far no one has accused me of idolatry. I wonder if anyone can make the case that I am an idolater for the position I hold. Personally I think I have adequately proved that I or those that believe like me are not.

maybe we don't understand what constitutes idolatry :rolleyes:
 
Right... just like when Caiaphas said it's expedient that one man die for the people so the whole nation wouldnt perish.... Do you think he thought he was prophecying about Jesus dying for the sins of the world?

Seriously... do you have a clue as to how powerful God is? I don't think you do, I think you live in willy nilly world where God can't even translate his word into other languages... and I'm the moron on this thread.

further roof of idolatrous worship of a book.

He did not even read what is posted. the words of them men who wrote the book he idolizes exposed his false ideology, Yet all he could do is compare his leaders to a false high priest who will never see the kingdom of heaven to continue to live in his idolotry.

Please, anyone exposed to this idolatrous notion of worshiping a book. Flee and run far away from it, it is satanic.
 
Adam died the moment he ate of the fruit. (the penalty of sin is death)

How do we know?

1. He tried to Hide from God
2. He tried to cover his nakedness (shame)
3. He tried to lie to God (blame shift)

The things of God were foolish to him. why? He died spiritually, he separated himself from God. he had to be born again (made alive) in order to have that fellowship restored.

He died physically 900 some years later (as a byproduct of sin, but not the penalty)
That's the biggest bunch of religious mumbo jumbo I've every seen lol. I think you're saying Adam was "born again" when he was created, then God killed his "born again", then God made him "born again" again.

There is no such thing as born again spiritual death. We are born again as in born out of spirit and not water. Adam was not "born again" at his creation.
 
further roof of idolatrous worship of a book.

He did not even read what is posted. the words of them men who wrote the book he idolizes exposed his false ideology, Yet all he could do is compare his leaders to a false high priest who will never see the kingdom of heaven to continue to live in his idolotry.

Please, anyone exposed to this idolatrous notion of worshiping a book. Flee and run far away from it, it is satanic.
Seriously, no offence but you need think before you write. Caiaphas hated Jesus... God used Caiaphas to speek GODS PROPHETIC WORDS through Caiaphas...

Just in case you half read this post also... AlL caps - IF YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED CAIAPHAS IF GOD WAS SPEAKING THROUGH HIM, HE WOULD HAVE SAID NO.
 
That's the biggest bunch of religious mumbo jumbo I've every seen lol. I think you're saying Adam was "born again" when he was created, then God killed his "born again", then God made him "born again" again.

Dude, You need to look in the mirror. Then maybe record what you say, so you can see how foolish it sounds. before you type and hit send,

Adam was not born in a "born again" state, that has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard. He was BORN ALIVE TO GOD. There was no death to be born again from. he was born perfect. fully standing on his own merit Acceptable to God.

The moment he sinned, He lost that life. He died. As we too are born dead (in adam all die)

so please. if your going to try to refute something, take my advice and think about what your saying.


There is no such thing as born again spiritual death. We are born again as in born out of spirit and not water. Adam was not "born again" at his creation.

1. We must be dead if we have to be born again
2. Something had to have caused that death (the bible calls that sin)
3. Adam did not need to be born again, He was born perfect. His sin caused him (and all mankind) to die.

Again, Please think before you post next time.
 
Seriously, no offence but you need think before you write. Caiaphas hated Jesus... God used Caiaphas to speek GODS PROPHETIC WORDS through Caiaphas...

Just in case you half read this post also... AlL caps - IF YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED CAIAPHAS IF GOD WAS SPEAKING THROUGH HIM, HE WOULD HAVE SAID NO.

YOU IGNORED WHAT THE PEOPLE SAID. in fact, what Caiaphas said was true. God can not lie, So did all those people lie when they made the statement that their work was not perfect or not?

You can't claim they spoke for God. then not agree with everything they said in the book now.. Which is it?

(then again, You think Adam had to be born again in order to die spiritually and have to be born again, again so I guess it should not surprise me)


 
Right... just like when Caiaphas said it's expedient that one man die for the people so the whole nation wouldnt perish.... Do you think he thought he was prophecying about Jesus dying for the sins of the world?

Seriously... do you have a clue as to how powerful God is? I don't think you do, I think you live in willy nilly world where God can't even translate his word into other languages... and I'm the moron on this thread.


look,
you said "not every Bible contains the word of God"
&
the translators of the 1611 KJB said
"the very meanest translation.. containeth, nay is the word of God"

directly refuting your statement. now, i agree they're not all equal - i greatly doubt the efficacy of using such things as "the message" alone, or any other paraphrase, but as to whether the message of God to mankind is contained in it or not, well hey - i'm not even making an argument here; it's the people who put together that book you named yourself after who said it. i only quoted them.

so i have no idea where this reply of yours comes from, why you bring up Caiaphas, or make some random accusations about what i believe about the power of God.

what, is the olde Queen's English i quoted too hard to understand? need to be translated to the modern tongue?
;)
 
Seriously... do you have a clue as to how powerful God is? I don't think you do, I think you live in willy nilly world where God can't even translate his word into other languages... and I'm the moron on this thread.

Certainly God ensures that the Bible is not forgotton or dies, however I can not accept your cults claims based on a couple of cherry picked verses that the King James 1611 is the final perfect version of the Bible.

God was certainly behind the European movement to translate Bibles, the printing press helped this process, the King James Bible was late to the party, by the time the English version was being translated and produced, the rest of Europe already had their copies in print.

So why is the King James Bible special? I see nothing at all, especially in the Bible to indicate that we must hold the King James Bible as the final perfect copy. The so called proof you have this is the case can also be applied to German Bible as well.
 

Dude, You need to look in the mirror. Then maybe record what you say, so you can see how foolish it sounds. before you type and hit send,

Adam was not born in a "born again" state, that has got to be one of the silliest things I have ever heard. He was BORN ALIVE TO GOD. There was no death to be born again from. he was born perfect. fully standing on his own merit Acceptable to God.

The moment he sinned, He lost that life. He died. As we too are born dead (in adam all die)

so please. if your going to try to refute something, take my advice and think about what your saying.




1. We must be dead if we have to be born again
2. Something had to have caused that death (the bible calls that sin)
3. Adam did not need to be born again, He was born perfect. His sin caused him (and all mankind) to die.

Again, Please think before you post next time.

I know Adam was not born again when he was created that's why I said what I said. You said Adam died spiritually. Your spirit can't die if it's never been born. Adam didn't die spiritually.


The things of God were foolish to him. why? He died spiritually, he separated himself from God. he had to be born again (made alive) in order to have that fellowship restored
 
Certainly God ensures that the Bible is not forgotton or dies, however I can not accept your cults claims based on a couple of cherry picked verses that the King James 1611 is the final perfect version of the Bible.

God was certainly behind the European movement to translate Bibles, the printing press helped this process, the King James Bible was late to the party, by the time the English version was being translated and produced, the rest of Europe already had their copies in print.

So why is the King James Bible special? I see nothing at all, especially in the Bible to indicate that we must hold the King James Bible as the final perfect copy. The so called proof you have this is the case can also be applied to German Bible as well.
Hey I wont argue that the German bible isn't inspired, in fact I'm sure there is a God inspired German version... English speakers aren't special, God gave his word in all languages.
 
I know Adam was not born again when he was created that's why I said what I said. You said Adam died spiritually. Your spirit can't die if it's never been born. Adam didn't die spiritually.

That's silly

One can not die UNLESS they are ALIVE.

One can not be BORN AGAIN, unless they were alive, died, then have the need to be born again.

Was adam DEAD to God when he sinned or was he alive to God?

Your still not thinking..
 
Hey I wont argue that the German bible isn't inspired, in fact I'm sure there is a God inspired German version... English speakers aren't special, God gave his word in all languages.

You failed to answer my question Why is the King James Bible, a 400 year old translation the only English translation we are allowed to use?
 


look,
you said "not every Bible contains the word of God"
&
the translators of the 1611 KJB said
"the very meanest translation.. containeth, nay is the word of God"

directly refuting your statement. now, i agree they're not all equal - i greatly doubt the efficacy of using such things as "the message" alone, or any other paraphrase, but as to whether the message of God to mankind is contained in it or not, well hey - i'm not even making an argument here; it's the people who put together that book you named yourself after who said it. i only quoted them.

so i have no idea where this reply of yours comes from, why you bring up Caiaphas, or make some random accusations about what i believe about the power of God.

what, is the olde Queen's English i quoted too hard to understand? need to be translated to the modern tongue?
;)
The translators of the bible said this:
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

Translated into modern English:

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, no we affirm and confess openly that the very intended translation of the bible in English set forth by men of our profession, contains the word of God, no, IS the word of God.
 
That's silly

One can not die UNLESS they are ALIVE.

One can not be BORN AGAIN, unless they were alive, died, then have the need to be born again.

Was adam DEAD to God when he sinned or was he alive to God?

Your still not thinking..
There is no such thing as Adam dying spiritually and no Adam was not dead to God after he sinned any more than you or I are dead to God after we sin... Are you dead to God because you sinnned?
 
You failed to answer my question Why is the King James Bible, a 400 year old translation the only English translation we are allowed to use?
If two bibles say something different are they the same bible? Are they both the inspired word of God?
 
Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, no we affirm and confess openly that the very intended translation of the bible in English set forth by men of our profession, contains the word of God, no, IS the word of God.

this is a gross misrepresentation of what they said.

to paraphrase, the context here is that they did not mean to undermine previous translations by doing this work, and toward that end, specifically and without mincing of words, acknowledge that even the roughest translation of the Bible is still the word of God.

you purposefully re-wrote what they said to give it an entirely different meaning. here's the entire context:



And to the same effect say wee, that we are so farre off from condemning any of their labours that traveiled before us in this kinde, either in this land or beyond sea, either in KingHenries time, or King Edwards (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of ever-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to have beene raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posteritie in everlasting remembrance. The Judgement ofAristotle is worthy and well knowen: If Timotheus had not bene, we had not had much sweet musicke; but if Phrynis (Timotheus his master) had not beene, wee had not had Timotheus. Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of soules. Now what can bee more availeable thereto, then to deliever Gods booke unto Gods people in a tongue which they understand? Since of an hidden treasure, and of a fountaine that is sealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or masters of the Jewes, as witnessethEpiphanius: and as S. Augustine saith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a stranger(whose tongue is strange unto him.) Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, doe endevour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade our selves, if they were alive, would thanke us. The vintage of Abiezer, that strake the stroake: yet the gleaning of grapes of Ephraim was not to be despised. See Judges 8.verse 2. Joash the king of Israel did not satisfie himselfe, till he had smitten the ground three times; and yet hee offended the Prophet, for giving over then. Aquila, of whom wee spake before, translated the Bible as carefully, and as skilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to goe over it againe, and then it got the credit with the Jewes, to be called , that is accuratly done, as Saint Jerome witnesseth. How many bookes of profane learning have bene gone over againe and againe, by the same translators, by others? Of one and the same booke ofAristotles Ethikes, there are extant not so few as sixe or seven severall translations. Now if this cost may bee bestowed upon the goord, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to morrow is cut downe; what may we bestow, nay what ought we not to bestow upon the Vine, the fruite whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stemme whereof abideth for ever? And this is the word of God, which we translate. What is the chaffe to the wheat, saith the Lord? Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum (saithTertullian,) if a toy of glasse be of that rekoning with us, how ought wee to value the true pearle? Therefore let no mans eye be evill, because his Majesties is good; neither let any be grieved, that wee have a Prince that seeketh the increase of the spirituall wealth of Israel (letSanballats and Tobiahs doe so, which therefore doe beare their just reproofe) but let us rather blesse God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to passe, that whatsoever is sound alreadie (and all is sound for substance, in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the originall, the same may bee corrected, and the trueth set in place. And what can the King command to bee done, that will bring him more true honour then this? and wherein could they that have beene set a worke, approve their duetie to the King, yea their obedience to God, and love to his Saints more, then by yeelding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the worke? But besides all this, they were the principall motives of it, and therefore ought least to quarrell it: for the very Historicall trueth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at this Majesties comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court having bene appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion booke, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poore and emptie shift; yet even hereupon did his Majestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to satisfie our scrupulous Brethren.
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romanistes therefore in refusing to heare, and daring to burne the Word translated, did no lesse then despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as mans weaknesse would enable, it did expresse. Judge by an example or two. Plutarchwriteth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles, they fell soone to builde it againe: but doing it in haste, they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely fashion, as had bene most sightly and convenient; was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good Patriot, that sought to bring it to a combustion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So, by the story of Ezrah, and the prophesie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon, was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembred the former, wept when they considered the latter) notwithstanding, might this later either have bene abhorred and forsaken by the Jewes, or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Translations. The translation of the Seventie dissenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perspicuitie, gratvitie, majestie; yet which of the Apostles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men doe confesse) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene unworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forsooth) were the Authours of the translations, (heretikes they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marveile what divinitie taught them so. Wee are sure Tertullian was of another minde: Ex personis probamus fidem, an ex fide personas? Doe we trie mens faith by their persons? we should trie their persons by their faith. Also S. Augustine was of an other minde: for he lighting upon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was not ashamed to make use of them, yea, to insert them into his owne booke, with giving commendation to them so farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be seene in S. Augustines third booke De doctrinâ Christianâ. To be short, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were so farre from treading under foote, (much more from burning) the Translation of Aquila a Proselite, that is, one that had turnedJew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, most vile heretikes, that they joyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Translation of the Seventie (as hath bene before signified out of Epiphanius) and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all. But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.
Yet before we end, we must answere a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Taanslations [sic] so oft; wherein truely they deale hardly, and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe over that which hee had done, and to amend it where he saw cause? Saint Augustine was not afraide to exhort S. Jerome to a Palinodia or recantation; the same S. Augustine was not ashamed to retractate, we might say revoke, many things that had passed him, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities. If we will be sonnes of the Trueth, we must consider what it speaketh, and trample upon our owne credit, yea, and upon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it. This to the cause: then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought to bee most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what alterations have they made, not onely of their Service bookes, Portesses and Breviaries, but also of theirLatine Translation? The Service booke supposed to be made by S. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in speciall use and request: but Pope Hadrian calling a Councill with the ayde of Charles the Emperour, abolished it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Service-booke of Saint Gregorie universally to be used. Well, Officium Gregorianumgets by this meanes to be in credit, but doeth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Romane Service was of two fashions, the New fashion, and the Old, (the one used in one Church, the other in another) as is to bee seene in Pamelius a Romanist, his Preface, before Micrologus. The same Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Rivo, that about the yeere of our Lord, 1277. Pope Nicolas the third removed out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient bookes (of Service) and brought into use the Missals of the Friers Minorites, and commaunded them to bee observed there; insomuch that about an hundred yeeres after, when the above named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the bookes to be new, (of the new stampe.) Neither was there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times onely, but also of late: Pius Quintus himselfe confesseth, that every Bishopricke almost had a peculiar kind of service, most unlike to that which others had: which moved him to abolish all other Breviaries, though never so ancient, and priviledged and published by Bishops in their Dioceses, and to establish and ratifie that onely which was of his owne setting foorth, in the yeere 1568. Now, when the father of their Church, who gladly would heale the soare of the daughter of his people softly and sleightly, and make the best of it, findeth so great fault with them for their oddes and jarring; we hope the children have no great cause to vaunt of their uniformitie. But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at us: O tandem major parcas insane minori: they that are lesse sound themselves, ought not to object infirmities to others. If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found fault with their vulgar Translation, and consequently wished the same to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would answere peradventure, that we produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no other sort enemies, then as S. Paul was to theGalatians, for telling them the trueth: and it were to be wished, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftner. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the tenth allowedErasmus Translation of the New Testament, so much different from the vulgar, by his Apostolike Letter & Bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnin to translate the whole Bible, and bare whatsoever charges was necessary for the worke? Surely, as the Apostle reasoneth to the Hebrewes, that if the former Law and Testament had bene sufficient, there had beene no need of the latter: so we may say, that if the olde vulgar had bene at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and charges bene undergone, about framing of a new. If they say, it was one Popes private opinion, and that he consulted onely himselfe; then wee are able to goe further with them, and to averre, that more of their chiefe men of all sorts, even their owne Trent-champions Paiva & Vega, and their owne Inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop Isidorus Clarius, and their owne Cardinall Thomas à Vio Caietan, doe either make new Translations themselves, or follow new ones of other mens making, or note the vulgar Interpretor for halting; none of them feare to dissent from him, nor yet to except against him. And call they this an uniforme tenour of text and judgement about the text, so many of their Worthies disclaiming the now received conceit? Nay, we wil yet come neerer the quicke: doth not their Paris-edition differ from the Louaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authoritie? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confesse, that certaine Catholikes (he meaneth certainte of his owne side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latine, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertaine and manifold a varietie of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seeme to be left certaine and firme in them, &c? Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordaine by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsell and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latine edition of the olde and new Testament, which the Councill of Trent would have to be authenticke, is the same without controversie which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the eight his immediate successour, publisheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them waightie and materiall) and yet this must be authenticke by all meanes. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord JESUSCHRIST with Yea and Nay, if this be not? Againe, what is sweet harmonie and consent, if this be? Therfore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great King, before he talked of the dissentions among the Grecians, to compose his domesticke broiles (for at that time his Queene and his sonne and heire were at deadly fuide with him) so all the while that our adversaries doe make so many and so various editions themselves, and doe jarre so much about the worth and authoritie of them, they can with no show of equitie challenge us for changing and correcting.
​
 
People can say what they want about the King James Bible,or for that matter,the Bible in general,but I read through it and it is the same theme all the way through it.

Someone does not have to know the Bible as a whole,or know a lot that is in it to get the truth of it,for the truth of it that gives us a benefit can be summed up quick,although it is good to know and read the whole Bible,and the Old Testament is a witness to the New Testament,and God said that He identifies Himself as the true God of all the false gods of the world by telling us the whole history of mankind,which God said no other person would be able to do that(Isaiah 43:41:21-29).

The main theme of the Bible is to recognize that there is a God that does exist that loves people,for creation testifies that He exists,and His attributes,which one is love for He provided food,and clothing,and materials,for shelter,and such things,and since God loves us we should love each other,which we are supposed to represent goodness,and love.

We recognize Jesus as our savior,for only a holy man can approach a holy God,on mankind's behalf,which the man Christ Jesus is the only mediator between man and God.We have to believe that it was God Himself manifest in the flesh,which He gave us His human body to take away sins,which the Bible says that God laid down His life for the saints,and gave His own blood to take away our sins.

In the times we are at now,God warns us to stay away from the false interpretation of the Bible that is based on the occult,and witchcraft,and exalts people,and diminishes God(1 Timothy 4:1-5),put out by Alice Bailey,that developed in to the new age movement,that will become so popular in the future that people will only want to hear it according to that interpretation(2 Timothy 4:2-4),which will probably be during the first half of the tribulation that people will not want to hear it,because of the unified religious system.

So while the Bible can save people,in the future it will ensnare many people with that false interpretation,and become the most popular belief,and that is because God is allowing the world to have their way for 7 years,and cause all who do not love Him to follow the beast kingdom,and when they take the mark then God can put them down.

Stay away from the world coming together saying they can solve their problems,because God said it is not of Him,and they will cut God out of the picture,which will be the beast kingdom in Revelation.

As long as you know the basics of the Bible,and the main things to know,you are alright,which what we really need to know can be summed up in a few pages,but the Bible is essential as a whole,for it testifies that God does truly exist,which God said all scripture is beneficial.