Why the king james?

[Agricola]

I see the shift in argument has turned again, I have yet to see a single fact to indicate that the King James is the final perfect English version, just interpretation and claims that can not be backed up.

Innocent until proven guilty. It has never been proven that it contains errors. Agitators have tried through the years unsuccessfully. Men don't want to submit authority. They always want to have the upper hand on what God has said.

You are avoiding the question as usual and just re-spouting rhetoric.

Where is the proof in what you claim, that this is Gods perfect version? Answer that please with a direct answer, not another turn the tables and answering question with an accusation.

 

[KJV1611]

Here's a good example of why we must have an inerrant bible. You can never come to truth if you doubt the written word. If you believe your bible is the perfect word of God then you have no problem with the verse below and you don't try to change it.

1 Timothy 2:12 KJV
But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

 

[John146]

God promised to preserve His pure words for all generations. Jesus said, "thy word is truth." God has promised to give us a perfect Bible that is truth. The KJV has never been proven to be untruthful. God never promised to preserve the originals, so I believe God has used the KJV to preserve his word in the English language.

You are avoiding the question as usual and just re-spouting rhetoric.

Where is the proof in what you claim, that this is Gods perfect version? Answer that please with a direct answer, not another turn the tables and answering question with an accusation.

 

[tanakh]

Oh my, what ever did Christians do before the KJV? Are any saved?

Nay verily thou hast to speek in the tongue of King Jimmy before thou enterest the kingdom. Multitudes the Lord hast cast aside that includeth all the Disciples and those which peredventure dwelt in heathen lands

 

[JaumeJ]

The thread has turned into in-box clutter, all who believe Jesus Christ will read the form of the Word given them..........bye all.

 

[KJV1611]

God wrote an incorruptible book about each and every one of us, we call the book DNA. DNA is a set of divine instructions that make our physical man what it is. DNA determines whether we have brown hair, blonde hair, whether we are male or female, how tall we will be.

God wrote another incorruptible DNA book called the bible. The words of that book detemine exactly what our spiritual man will be. It determines how he views works, grace, baptism, the Holy Spirit, preservation of the word and everything to do with being a Christian.

We have a choice in our spiritual DNA, we can choose the incorruptible seed or we can choose the seed that man has manipulated as he sees fit. Regaurdless of the choice, which ever DNA is used to build our spirit man will determine the way our spirit man turns out. Interestingly enough, in the past it wasn't possbile to choose our physical DNA but that's not true any more. Today we can actually cut out and change the divine book that God just like man has done with the bible today.

 

[John146]

There are 130+ English translations of the Bible. You have two choices when it comes to the growth of your spiritual life. All Bibles come from two choices:

1. Those 129+ that come from Sinaiticus/Vaticanus/Alexandrian texts.
2. Only one, the KJV, comes from the Textus Receptus.

For 1500 years God's people used the Textus Receptus and 300 years the KJV. In the 1800's came the Age of Reason/Enlightenment which birthed darwinism, Communism, modern psychology, textual criticism, and the mind to change the Bible.

 

[Dino246]

Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."

The KJV as the seventh one in the line as God perfected His Bible:

1. Tyndale Bible
2. Coverdale Bible
3. Matthew's Bible
4. Great Bible
5. Geneva Bible
6. Bishop's Bible
7. King James Bible

... For 1500 years God's people used the Textus Receptus and 300 years the KJV. In the 1800's came the Age of Reason/Enlightenment which birthed darwinism, Communism, modern psychology, textual criticism, and the mind to change the Bible.

Hmmm. You have just contradicted yourself. I'm not surprised.

As for people using the TR for 1500 years, do your homework before spewing your propaganda. Even better, just do your homework.

 

[Lost_sheep]

Why does the answer have to be a contest seeing who can pee the farthest off the porch?

I read the KJV of the Bible because that's what I have. It's what I bought and I like reading it. Sure some of the language is a bit...archaic from a modern vernacular standpoint, but I like the way it reads. It also sounds awesome when it is read aloud to me in Bible Gateway.

 

[John146]

How? Those other versions I listed all came from the Textus Receptus.

Hmmm. You have just contradicted yourself. I'm not surprised.

As for people using the TR for 1500 years, do your homework before spewing your propaganda. Even better, just do your homework.

 

[John146]

I would say God's truth is very important. They contain different truths versus the KJV, and most are missing important truths.

Why does the answer have to be a contest seeing who can pee the farthest off the porch?

I read the KJV of the Bible because that's what I have. It's what I bought and I like reading it. Sure some of the language is a bit...archaic from a modern vernacular standpoint, but I like the way it reads. It also sounds awesome when it is read aloud to me in Bible Gateway.

 

[Lost_sheep]

I would say God's truth is very important. They contain different truths versus the KJV, and most are missing important truths.

Well, I don't know anything about that. It seems to be another one of those hot-button topics people like to debate about and I'd rather just sit back and watch you all throw haymakers at each other rather than get into it myself. I have my KJV Bible and it's good enough for me. Period.

 

[Agricola]

Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."

The KJV as the seventh one in the line as God perfected His Bible:

1. Tyndale Bible
2. Coverdale Bible
3. Matthew's Bible
4. Great Bible
5. Geneva Bible
6. Bishop's Bible
7. King James Bible

Purified seven times. It is pure, with no mixture.

This is what I refer to by Cherry picking a verse or two and shoehorning history and texts to fit it in order to prove the agenda is right.

Sorry, but Tyndale never translated a complete Bible. There were plenty of other partial translations in English prior to this, such as the King Alfred Bible, Wessex and what about the Douay–Rheims Bible or the Taverner's Bible? Therefore to claim "refined seven times" is utterly flawed and utter garbage.

 

[Lost_sheep]

Soon after I signed up for the online course through the World Bible School, I got a package in the mail. Inside was a Westminster Reference Bible, and it has become my most treasured possession, and with it's 200,000 cross references, it has made Bible study much more of a pleasure than a chore.

I find my PhD studies to be a CHORE. Not so with my Bible, and the WRB is KJV. Honestly folks, I don't know why you all argue about minutia like this. I mean if you want to jump in the middle of the Book of Mormon, go right ahead because I can at least back your play on that, but really? KJV versus NIV versus ESV? Do you all need hobbies?

 

[Agricola]

Soon after I signed up for the online course through the World Bible School, I got a package in the mail. Inside was a Westminster Reference Bible, and it has become my most treasured possession, and with it's 200,000 cross references, it has made Bible study much more of a pleasure than a chore.

I find my PhD studies to be a CHORE. Not so with my Bible, and the WRB is KJV. Honestly folks, I don't know why you all argue about minutia like this. I mean if you want to jump in the middle of the Book of Mormon, go right ahead because I can at least back your play on that, but really? KJV versus NIV versus ESV? Do you all need hobbies?

Well thing is, people such as myself do like the King James and have no problem with it, what I do have a problem with is the Cult of King James Onlyism trying to force everyone to just read the King James and nothing else.

 

[DP]

Hmmm. You have just contradicted yourself. I'm not surprised.

As for people using the TR for 1500 years, do your homework before spewing your propaganda. Even better, just do your homework.

Yeah, how so? I'd like to hear your answer to John146 about the Textus Receptus.

 

[Dino246]

For 1500 years God's people used the Textus Receptus

Those other versions I listed all came from the Textus Receptus.

Here is where your homework is lacking.

"The term Textus Receptus is Latin meaning "Received Text". It comes from the preface to the second edition of a Greek New Testament published by the brothers Elzevir in 1633. In this preface the Elzevirs wrote, Textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum: in quo nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus -- “What you have here, is the text which is now received by all, in which we give nothing changed or corrupted.”^[1]^ From this statement comes the term Textus Receptus or TR, which today is commonly applied to all editions of the printed Greek NT before the Elzevir’s, beginning with Dutch humanist Desiderius Erasmus (1496-1536) and his first published edition in 1516.| (Textus Receptus | Theopedia) (- emphasis in source material)

Published... 1633! That's a little late for all the other English versions prior to the KJV, and a little late for God's people to be using for 1500 years too. Please sir, again, do your homework. Start by reading where the version known today as the TR came from. Read from a variety of sources, to make sure that your views aren't slanted by bias.

 

[DP]

Here is where your homework is lacking.
....

Published... 1633! That's a little late for all the other English versions prior to the KJV, and a little late for God's people to be using for 1500 years too. Please sir, again, do your homework. Start by reading where the version known today as the TR came from. Read from a variety of sources, to make sure that your views aren't slanted by bias.

The way you're saying that is a bit contrived, because Erasmus didn't just create his translation from nothing!

The Textus Receptus is also called the Byzantine Text or Majority Text, because it involved the majority of NT manuscripts in existence. Lucian in A.D. 250, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers were only editors that eventually cause the formation of the Textus Receptus, which was only a name given to the Majority Texts in the 16th-17th centuries. So the Textus Receptus had much older beginnings than your post admits.

 

[fredoheaven]

The way you're saying that is a bit contrived, because Erasmus didn't just create his translation from nothing!

The Textus Receptus is also called the Byzantine Text or Majority Text, because it involved the majority of NT manuscripts in existence. Lucian in A.D. 250, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Elzevir brothers were only editors that eventually cause the formation of the Textus Receptus, which was only a name given to the Majority Texts in the 16th-17th centuries. So the Textus Receptus had much older beginnings than your post admits.

To further trace back, it is also called the Antiochan Text.

 

[KJV1611]

To further trace back, it is also called the Antiochan Text.

To trace it back even further, it's the opposite of the vine of Sodom.