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.
now see if you can twist the verbatim quote from the preface above into saying that they believed their translation to be the one-and-only-definitive word of God and that every other English version is blasphemy.

go ahead, twist away.

because that's exactly the opposite of what they wrote.
 
KJV1611 said:
LOl no, that's called speaking in tongues... get it? If any man speak in an unkown tongue... and let One interpret.
Click to expand...


what?

is English an unknown tongue to us?

even 1611 English? that it should needs-be interpreted?

methinks thou art by thine own logic, busted, good sir.
 
There is 3 sides to this debate:

1) Those who stick to KJV only, some putting to much emphasis on that one translation.

2) Those who like the KJV, but use other translations as well.
(Descripes me)

3) Those that seem to completely dislike the KJV and use nothing but other versions.

Those in the final category need to understand the NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and others have translation errors as well.

Some of the errors are so blantent they even change the context of the scripture.
 
I thinks you've been reading to much James White BS. Translate the highlighted section into modern English yourself and see what you come up with.

Preface to the King James Version 1611

(Not Copyrighted)

AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES


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. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
 
MeTHINKS, this argument of "idolatry", does NOT come from the different and euphemistical versions and/or translations regarding ANY of the Bibles, out and around these days. But is come from a long held belief, and ASSERTION, that: "GOD, DOESN'T talk with man anymore. The ONLY place HE speaks to "us" is IN (not through) His WORD! And, NOWHERE ELSE!" Holding fast to that scripture in the Revelation of John, chapter 22, verses 18 and 19. And, it would SEEM, rightfully so. What this does, because "testing EVERY THOUGHT that comes into a believer's head, or HOLDING every thought TO Christ", like Paul said, is, and becomes a very tedious, and a very "anti-social" (societal) endeavor, or undertaking, and QUENCHES the Spirit, from revealing that WHICH IS "Spiritually Discerned". Thus, rendering those, whether it be either fear of persecution, and/or fear of "picking up your cross", and following Christ (laziness), into the latter part of verse 19. Or?, an "idolater" of whichever Bible, or version you prefer. Which in this particular case, is the 1611 KJV. Which, I imagine, is because its been around so long. What I have experienced when going to different churches using "newer" translations, are just different steps to the "same old song and dance", which, in time, will go the exact same way as those who use the 1611 KJV. Delusion..........and, apostasy!
 
KJV1611 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In Adam all have died.

I guess that's not in your idol?

The penalty of sin is death, So yes, Adam died the moment he sinned.

proven again by the fact what he know of God before he fell. because foolish to him after he fell.

You evidently do not understand what spiritual death. Maybe because your stuck in religion?
 
KennethC said:
There is 3 sides to this debate:

1) Those who stick to KJV only, some putting to much emphasis on that one translation.

2) Those who like the KJV, but use other translations as well.
(Descripes me)

3) Those that seem to completely dislike the KJV and use nothing but other versions.

Those in the final category need to understand the NASB, NIV, NLT, NKJV, and others have translation errors as well.

Some of the errors are so blantent they even change the context of the scripture.
Click to expand...
It's like I said before, if a person wants to worship a son of the Gods and be led by the one eyed shepherd then any of the newer translations will lead you there. However, if you want to serve the God of the KJV bible then you have to read the KJV bible... no two ways about it, one book is about one God and the other books are about another god.
 
eternally-gratefull said:

In Adam all have died.

I guess that's not in your idol?

The penalty of sin is death, So yes, Adam died the moment he sinned.

proven again by the fact what he know of God before he fell. because foolish to him after he fell.

You evidently do not understand what spiritual death. Maybe because your stuck in religion?
Click to expand...
Explain what spiritual death is.
 
(spiritual-death) is a man-made-term - it is NEVER is the scriptures, and such are many like-wise
terms USED..they are just NOT in the scriptures....

we have the Sept. and the Masoretic Text...we LOVE the KJV, we were WEANED on the KJV -
BUT, after intense study of HEBREW, the KJV, although it gets the 'general concept' across,
it MISSES MUCH of the FINER DETAIL,,,not because of the translators, but because of
the 'language constraint'....
 
oldthennew said:
(spiritual-death) is a man-made-term - it is NEVER is the scriptures, and such are many like-wise
terms USED..they are just NOT in the scriptures....

we have the Sept. and the Masoretic Text...we LOVE the KJV, we were WEANED on the KJV -
BUT, after intense study of HEBREW, the KJV, although it gets the 'general concept' across,
it MISSES MUCH of the FINER DETAIL,,,not because of the translators, but because of
the 'language constraint'....
Click to expand...
Cool! Tell me more.. what's some finer details you've learned.
 
KJV1611 said:
I thinks you've been reading to much James White BS. Translate the highlighted section into modern English yourself and see what you come up with.

Preface to the King James Version 1611

(Not Copyrighted)

AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES


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. As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
Click to expand...

same as i already put;
that even the roughest translation made by scholars contains - no, more than contains, is, the word of God.

this is directly contrary to the idea that only the KJB either contains or is the word of God in English.

here, by the way, is the verbatim "imputation" they were answering (from a paragraph previous to what i posted earlier)

Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?​
​

this is the very same as what might be imputed about the scholars who brought us the ESV for example.
was the KJV no good? ans: sure it is good - it is in fact the word of God - just as any scholarly translation is indeed.
why now emend it? ans: because it may be improved, so better to be understood, and mistakes that later came to light to be corrected.
 
KJV1611 said:
lighten up... it was a joke man.
Click to expand...

same here;

i do love you :)

♥

i got a new copy of the Bible a couple years ago, an AKJV scoffield reference. so, there.
i do love reading the KJV, and even don't mind scoffield's point of view in some of the margins - there's a great cross-reference system and good appendixes in this, and it was very cheap for the quality of binding etc.

put me in the "also read other translations" category. i'm kind of partial to the NIV and Young's, but starting to read the ESV more on my phone.
 
posthuman said:
same as i already put;
that even the roughest translation made by scholars contains - no, more than contains, is, the word of God.

this is directly contrary to the idea that only the KJB either contains or is the word of God in English.

here, by the way, is the verbatim "imputation" they were answering (from a paragraph previous to what i posted earlier)

Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?​

this is the very same as what might be imputed about the scholars who brought us the ESV for example.
was the KJV no good? ans: sure it is good - it is in fact the word of God - just as any scholarly translation is indeed.
why now emend it? ans: because it may be improved, so better to be understood, and mistakes that later came to light to be corrected.
Click to expand...

Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?


What webpage did you get the above from, I would like to read it.
 
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

​
how does that statement square with the idea that, for example, the ESV isn't the word of God, by virtue of it not being the KJV? can we get that re-stated in today's modern English?
 
KJV1611 said:
Was their Translation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?


What webpage did you get the above from, I would like to read it.
Click to expand...

here -- http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm

the whole thing is way too long to repost here. and it's very interesting! thanks again to Tintin for suggesting we look at the preface, several pages ago now.

EDIT:

that particular quote is in the 16[SUP]th [/SUP]paragraph from the top
 
oldthennew said:
(spiritual-death) is a man-made-term - it is NEVER is the scriptures, and such are many like-wise
terms USED..they are just NOT in the scriptures....

we have the Sept. and the Masoretic Text...we LOVE the KJV, we were WEANED on the KJV -
BUT, after intense study of HEBREW, the KJV, although it gets the 'general concept' across,
it MISSES MUCH of the FINER DETAIL,,,not because of the translators, but because of
the 'language constraint'....
Click to expand...

So can you tell me how I can be physically alive, yet dead at the same time? WHy do I need to be made "Alive in Christ" if I am already alive? In fact, How can I be "dead" because of sin. as the bible says..

can you explain what type of "death" that is?
 
posthuman said:
same here;

i do love you :)

♥

i got a new copy of the Bible a couple years ago, an AKJV scoffield reference. so, there.
i do love reading the KJV, and even don't mind scoffield's point of view in some of the margins - there's a great cross-reference system and good appendixes in this, and it was very cheap for the quality of binding etc.

put me in the "also read other translations" category. i'm kind of partial to the NIV and Young's, but starting to read the ESV more on my phone.
Click to expand...

I love you too brother... you made my day! :)
I can't even argue with you anymore lol.. love conquers all.
 
eternally-gratefull said:

So can you tell me how I can be physically alive, yet dead at the same time? WHy do I need to be made "Alive in Christ" if I am already alive? In fact, How can I be "dead" because of sin. as the bible says..

can you explain what type of "death" that is?
Click to expand...
You can't be physically alive and dead at the same time. There are two days in the bible... mans 24 hour day and Gods 1000 year day. Adam died before he reached 1000 years old... he died in the day he ate the fruit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back