Why the king james?

  • 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.

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
Yes, I am a proud member of the Bible believer cult.
please provide 100% concrete irrefutable evidence from the the Bible that the King James is the perfect English version.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
please provide 100% concrete irrefutable evidence from the the Bible that the King James is the perfect English version.
Which translation do you hold to be better?
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
People, please read The King James Only Controversy by James White. It contains a wealth of information regarding this subject, is well-written, and is worth the few hours it will take to read. The evidence it contains addresses most, if not all, of the claims made by people advocating a KJV-only position.
I watched James White on youtube make mistakes and have documented the mistakes.
The scholars I accept can't make mistakes like that.
In order to be the best, you have to be right on the money.

White is the director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, a presuppositional apologetics organization based in Phoenix, Arizona. He received a BA from Grand Canyon College, an MA from Fuller Theological Seminary, and aThM, a ThD and a DMin from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Seminary),[SUP][1][/SUP] an unaccredited distance-learning school
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_White_(theologian)

What do you think about his doctorate degree if his school is unaccredited?
What should we think about your judgment if you are trusting someone who is unaccredited?
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
WE must be very skeptical of new translations of the bible. Avid atheist have been trying to pervert the scriptures since the 1960's. Say that they will change the meaning of the scriptures in an effort to thwart the the church. Google and search Doctor David Day an Atheist from the 1960's and you will see their motive. The King James is sound and true and proven by the test of time. Most of Modern Protestant churches are founded on the basis of the King James Bible. In an attempt to make the word of God more understandable, men have taken the privilege to change the scripture into modern day words. However, To make a new bible you must change the meaning of the text or its plagiarism which is a crime. But at the same time there are good translations that have know evil intent. The Lord will lead and guide if we ask Him.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,159
3,697
113
Satan has been trying to change God's word from the garden. There's a reason why the KJV stands alone and all others attack it.

WE must be very skeptical of new translations of the bible. Avid atheist have been trying to pervert the scriptures since the 1960's. Say that they will change the meaning of the scriptures in an effort to thwart the the church. Google and search Doctor David Day an Atheist from the 1960's and you will see their motive. The King James is sound and true and proven by the test of time. Most of Modern Protestant churches are founded on the basis of the King James Bible. In an attempt to make the word of God more understandable, men have taken the privilege to change the scripture into modern day words. However, To make a new bible you must change the meaning of the text or its plagiarism which is a crime. But at the same time there are good translations that have know evil intent. The Lord will lead and guide if we ask Him.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
Satan has been trying to change God's word from the garden. There's a reason why the KJV stands alone and all others attack it.
Who attacks the KJV? I see no one attacking KJV on here.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,159
3,697
113
Maybe attack is a strong word, but when one doubts it, whines about its "hard to understand" language, or claims it has mistakes, I see this is an attack on the word of God.

Who attacks the KJV? I see no one attacking KJV on here.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,159
3,697
113
It has stood the test of time. There is not one word that has proven to been wrong, only empty attacks like the serpent in the garden trying to get man to doubt the truth of God's word.

please provide 100% concrete irrefutable evidence from the the Bible that the King James is the perfect English version.
 

Agricola

Senior Member
Dec 10, 2012
2,638
88
48
Maybe attack is a strong word, but when one doubts it, whines about its "hard to understand" language, or claims it has mistakes, I see this is an attack on the word of God.
It has stood the test of time. There is not one word that has proven to been wrong, only empty attacks like the serpent in the garden trying to get man to doubt the truth of God's word.
It is this blind fanaticism which is another indicator that you are part of a cult. Someone stating they struggle with getting head around 17th century English is not attacking God or the Bible, its a statement of fact that after 500 years English langauge has evolved.

The King James is not perfect. No English version can be any more perfect than the original writings, the King James is a good translation, but not perfect.


Isn't this threat a subtle attempt to discredit the KJV? You didn't say anything negative?
Not at all, it is a question which I continually ask as well but never get a conclusive concrete irrefutable reply, at best a few cherry picked verses and claims that simply because its been around for 500 years makes it perfect . No one is trying to discredit the King James, only the cult who think it has some special divine status above all over writings.

I love the King James Bible, I have nothing against it, what I do have an objection to is the Cult of King James Onlyism and its insistence that we should only read that version and anyone who dosn't is not spiritually mature and can not know HOly Spirit or that I they are not enlightened enough for God to reveal the Bible issue, that is utterly disgusting and is something that only a cult would claim.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
The KJ is not perfect as it was written by men, However, it is the closet thing to the original manuscripts. But it is the only translation that God moved upon a king to have written. Not to say that others are at fault. I like Young's literal translation. But as for the living and amplified and the NSB or NIV. No likey from me.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
please provide 100% concrete irrefutable evidence from the the Bible that the King James is the perfect English version.
Your argument is flawed. The oneness is on you to prove that the other versions are better.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,159
3,697
113
The "originals" were written by men.

The KJ is not perfect as it was written by men, However, it is the closet thing to the original manuscripts. But it is the only translation that God moved upon a king to have written. Not to say that others are at fault. I like Young's literal translation. But as for the living and amplified and the NSB or NIV. No likey from me.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,596
13,859
113
I watched James White on youtube make mistakes and have documented the mistakes.
The scholars I accept can't make mistakes like that...
What should we think about your judgment if you are trusting someone who is unaccredited?
First, I didn't state that I trusted him. Second, I said nothing about his accreditation, other than referring to him as "Dr. White." Third, I directed the readers of this thread to his book, which is extensively footnoted. If you don't like him because of his accreditation or his mistakes, fine, but don't blow off the evidence he has collected for those reasons. If you flatly refuse to read the evidence, and just argue against the man, that is intellectual dishonesty.

As to accreditation, Moses, Samuel, David, Ezra, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, John the Baptist, John the Revelator, Matthew, Luke, Apollos, Timothy and Jesus Himself were all "unaccredited" (Paul may have been, as a Pharisee). Accreditation, by itself, is no guarantee of truth, and lack of it is no guarantee of error.
 
C

Chuckt

Guest
The KJ is not perfect as it was written by men, However, it is the closet thing to the original manuscripts. But it is the only translation that God moved upon a king to have written. Not to say that others are at fault. I like Young's literal translation. But as for the living and amplified and the NSB or NIV. No likey from me.
How would you know? Have you ever seen an original manuscript?
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
The "originals" were written by men.
True but in Ancient Hebrew as the Holy Spirit searched there vocabulary and gave them the best words to write. The bible is written by men under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Paul was writing in Greek by the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The King James was written under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Do you no what a cockatrice is or have you experienced a threshing floor? The Holy Spirit reveals the the Word of God to the Individual. However, There are many translations that lead astray. The King James has stood the test of time and many can say that. The Holy Spirit has thrusted the King James in English speaking coutries as never before or since.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
Imean really when God told Moses that His name is I AM THAT I AM. What is that in modern English
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,596
13,859
113
It has stood the test of time. There is not one word that has proven to been wrong, only empty attacks like the serpent in the garden trying to get man to doubt the truth of God's word.
The KJV has stood the 'test of' less time than its primary predecessor. The "test of time" is not valid evidence of truth; you keep stating that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt, and yet, they still exist, well over a thousand years later. So this line of argument is faulty.
 
R

RobbyEarl

Guest
The KJV has stood the 'test of' less time than its primary predecessor. The "test of time" is not valid evidence of truth; you keep stating that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are corrupt, and yet, they still exist, well over a thousand years later. So this line of argument is faulty.
How many of you have read the Vaticanus and Sinaitcus and how many millions have read the King James.