Why the king james?

[fredoheaven]

please don't keep your head buried too long...you need to breathe at one point

the KJV 1611 is no more inspired then the posts defending it

worse, it is simply downright silly to insist that a translation chock full of errors, that has been corrected multiple times over the centuries is inspired

I cannot begin to state how unsound and how just simply silly and uneducated the claims are that try to make an idol out of the 1611 translation

you guys are building your tiny little structures on sinking sand

HOW IS IT YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT IF YOU ARE TEARING OUT PORTIONS OF YOUR VERY EXTRA SPECIAL INSPIRED EDITION, IT CANNOT POSSIBLY BE INSPIRED

gaaaa....I can't even begin to have sympathy for such silly silly ideas

Hi,

"A little learning is a dangerous thing". What you are harping is not even close. This is for you to clarify:
1. I do not Idolize the Word of God. I just keep the Word!
2. I do not believe in the extra-biblical,pseudo graphical scriptures like your Apocrypha. You better read John14:6 posts.
3. I do not believe in building in tiny little structures on sinking sand. It is the Modern Versions that lies in a quick sand. I am not surprise of your partial research.

 

[KJV1611]

The Hebrew word "cherub" is transliterated in most English bibles. The plural should either be, "cherubs" (English plural) or "cherubim" (Hebrew plural). What does the KJV have? "Cherubims". There ya go... the KJV has an error (actually, 57 of them in this one example).

Case closed. Have a nice day.

Are you serious? The idea is more than one cherub, whether we call it cherubs, cherubim, or cherubims does nothing to change the meaning. Look if you're going to prove errors, use real errors like the error in the NIV verse below. It's WRONG, Jesus was not God's only son.

John 3:16New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life

 

[KJV1611]

here's another error that you and your brethren refuse to acknowledge


Staunch Calvinist Theodore Beza was one of the editorsof the Textus Receptus. The KJV translators had hischanges, which included “If they shall fall away” in Heb.6:6. Such a misrendering helps to preserve Calvinism’sperseverance of the saints. Adam Clarke’s commentaryshows the errors of that as being: (a) the word “If” was unjustlyinserted and (b) the tense is aorist, meaning it shouldbe translated in the past tense, “HAVE fallen away.”Another distortion occurred at Heb. 10:38!

you ask for proof of errors and when you are given them, you ignore them

it is inconceivable that people would actually think a version of the Bible in English was inspired by God

and everyone who speaks a different language is going to hell because they don't have the inspired version

you may not believe that folks who do not swear to the KJV only club are not saved, but apparently many do, which is one of the main reasons that KJV onlyists are considered to be a cult with erroneous teaching...

erroneous teaching ALWAYS includes a refusal to acknowledge that another outside of the group may be right

it also ALWAYS teaches that the interpretation given by the group is 100% correct and unquestionable...meaning everyone else is wrong

All who have been enlightened, tasted the heavenly gift, partook in the Holy Ghost, tasted the good word of God and the powers of the world to come HAVE NOT ALL FALLEN AWAY. But IF some did, it is impossible for them to be renewed again to repentance.

 

[KJV1611]

It certainly is, It is amazing what I am shown when I read my NIV.

The NIV amazes me too... they call Jesus a son of the gods and Lucifer the Morning Star lol. What fools.... there's actually a guy on this forum who thinks Isaiah is talking about Jesus falling from heaven.

 

[Dino246]

The same reasoning is applied to the word cherubims as to seraphims.

Well if you want to point out additional errors in the KJV, be my guest.

There are quite a few English words whose singular form ends in 'im' and the plural of these English words ends in "ims". We have brim, claim, denim, interim, maxim, trim, pilgrim, rim and victim to name a few. ...
And in Exodus 25:18-19 - “And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubims on the two ends thereof. “ Notice that the “cherubimS” is plural and the “cherub” is singular.

Precisely. Given that the context makes clear that cherubim is plural for cherub, there is absolutely no need to make up a word which violates the grammatical rules of both source and destination languages. God knows how to pluralize a word in both English and Hebrew, but He didn't see fit to inform the allegedly-inspired KJV translators. None of the examples you give are transliterations of Hebrew plurals, so listing them is irrelevant.

Again, the KJV rules supreme.

Actually, Jesus reigns supreme. However, idolatry does tend to blind people to truth.

Are you serious?

Yes. Wrong is wrong, error is error. You claim that the KJV is inerrant, but when shown that it is in error, you and your compatriots try to redefine what is error and what isn't. 'The KJV is inspired and inerrant' is an absolute truth claim, so even the smallest error proves it untrue. Done. Finished.

 

[hornetguy]

It's WRONG, Jesus was not God's only son.

ummm... elaborate, please.

 

[Willie-T]

ummm... elaborate, please.

He's upset because Bible quotes have to use whatever words the KJV uses. They make a big deal of the word "begotten" as opposed to simply saying "son."

Of course they ignore the fact that at Jesus' baptism by John, God, Himself "forgets" He was supposed to say "begotten."

 

[KJV1611]

ummm... elaborate, please.

Jesus is not God's only son, Israel was a son of God. Israel was God's firstborn son, Jesus was God's second born son. Jesus was the only begotten of the Father born from above but he was not his only son.

Exodus 4:22 KJV
And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith the Lord , Israel is my son, even my firstborn:

 

[hornetguy]

God was talking about the nation of Israel.. not Israel himself.

 

[KJV1611]

God was talking about the nation of Israel.. not Israel himself.

I know, it goes all the way back to Adam, Adam was the son of God. Humanity is God's firstborn who sold their birthright which Christ the second born gets.

 

[fredoheaven]

Well if you want to point out additional errors in the KJV, be my guest.



Precisely. Given that the context makes clear that cherubim is plural for cherub, there is absolutely no need to make up a word which violates the grammatical rules of both source and destination languages. God knows how to pluralize a word in both English and Hebrew, but He didn't see fit to inform the allegedly-inspired KJV translators. None of the examples you give are transliterations of Hebrew plurals, so listing them is irrelevant.



Actually, Jesus reigns supreme. However, idolatry does tend to blind people to truth.



Yes. Wrong is wrong, error is error. You claim that the KJV is inerrant, but when shown that it is in error, you and your compatriots try to redefine what is error and what isn't. 'The KJV is inspired and inerrant' is an absolute truth claim, so even the smallest error proves it untrue. Done. Finished.

Oop’s… you’re straining at gnats and swallowing camels. Ask you if you mind, have you been in the translation committee? Are you familiar with the Hebrew and Greek? How many languages you know? Anyway, to tell you honestly I am not an expert, no real education in Greek and Hebrew but let me give you an example to illustrate the point: So when the Hebrew word for” Elohim” translated mostly in New Versions both “God” and “gods” is therefore in errors? You've got to laugh at yourself!

Not only does the King James Bible have “cherubimS” but so also do the following Bible translations: the Great Bible (Cranmer) 1540, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Douay-Rheims 1610 "Cherubims", the Douay 1950, The Word of Yah 1993 - "cherubimS", the 1994 KJV 21st Century version, the 1998 Third Millennium Bible, Bond Slave Version 2009, The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible 2011.

CHERUB, n. plu. Cherubs, but the Hebrew plural cherubim is also used. So when the Hebrew word “Cherubim” was transliterated by the KJV translator they have added “s” to indicate plurality. BTW who told you that “God didn't see fit to inform the allegedly-inspired KJV translators.”

Again you said “None of the examples you give are transliterations of Hebrew plurals, so listing them is irrelevant.”
At least to give an idea CHERUB (

; plural, Cherubim) is a Transliteration – translation of original words into English based on sounds. So the KJV is absolutely correct in this matter of transliterating the plural Hebrew word “cherubim” into English “Cherubims”.

CHERUB - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Miri]

This thread is so nonsensical.

Debating a handful of alphabet letters and words when God has provided the entire
bible for.... well see below. Do we not also have the help of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with people preferring one version over another, I tend to
use various and like anyone else, tend to prefer some over others
depending on circumstances. If I am chatting to new Christians for example
i may use something which is easy to read for them. If I am doing a study
of my own I look at various versions.

To suggest only one version should ever be used and only one version is
inspired, just shows a lack of understanding, and also underestimates the
power of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, no version would be any
use to us.

To limit use to KJV only will be a stumbling block for many. Is that what you
want to happen, to prevent people coming to salvation cos it is insisted they
read a book with outdated language. If people understand the KJV and
like it etc that's fine, but to insist to people who may not understand it
or find it hard to follow, that it is the only version to read, is just not
right, it is placing a millstone around their neck.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
[16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete,
thoroughly equipped for every good work.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 NLT
[16] All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make
us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us
to do what is right. [17] God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.






2 Timothy 3:16 AMP
[16] Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction,
for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, and for
training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and
action),



KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

 

[fredoheaven]

READ ALL ABOUT IT.....FACTS NOT FICTION...

THE KJV1611 IS A WEE BABE COMPARED TO THE ACTUAL FIRST TRANSLATIONS

History of the manuscripts we now know as 'The Bible"

Fact on the website. The timeline of Bible translation is INCOMPLETE as per RECORD. It did not brought out the translations from Old English to Middle English.

Fact: KJV is a Modern English Translation!

 

[KJV1611]

He's upset because Bible quotes have to use whatever words the KJV uses. They make a big deal of the word "begotten" as opposed to simply saying "son."

Of course they ignore the fact that at Jesus' baptism by John, God, Himself "forgets" He was supposed to say "begotten."

I'm not upset I'm just pointing out that the NIV is wrong. Like I said, the newer translations are full of errors.

 

[KJV1611]

This thread is so nonsensical.

Debating a handful of alphabet letters and words when God has provided the entire
bible for.... well see below. Do we not also have the help of the Holy Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with people preferring one version over another, I tend to
use various and like anyone else, tend to prefer some over others
depending on circumstances. If I am chatting to new Christians for example
i may use something which is easy to read for them. If I am doing a study
of my own I look at various versions.

To suggest only one version should ever be used and only one version is
inspired, just shows a lack of understanding, and also underestimates the
power of the Holy Spirit. Without the Holy Spirit, no version would be any
use to us.

To limit use to KJV only will be a stumbling block for many. Is that what you
want to happen, to prevent people coming to salvation cos it is insisted they
read a book with outdated language. If people understand the KJV and
like it etc that's fine, but to insist to people who may not understand it
or find it hard to follow, that it is the only version to read, is just not
right, it is placing a millstone around their neck.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 NKJV
[16] All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness, [17] that the man of God may be complete,
thoroughly equipped for every good work.


2 Timothy 3:16-17 NLT
[16] All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful to teach us what is true and to make
us realize what is wrong in our lives. It corrects us when we are wrong and teaches us
to do what is right. [17] God uses it to prepare and equip his people to do every good work.






2 Timothy 3:16 AMP
[16] Every Scripture is God-breathed (given by His inspiration) and profitable for instruction,
for reproof and conviction of sin, for correction of error and discipline in obedience, and for
training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and
action),



KJV
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

If the translations didn't contradict each other then I would agree, but they don't. My bible is God breathed, he translated every word of it perfectly. I'm not interested in some bible translators interpretation, I want God's interpretation. What I can't figure out is why don't others feel the same way.

 

[KJV1611]

He's upset because Bible quotes have to use whatever words the KJV uses. They make a big deal of the word "begotten" as opposed to simply saying "son."

Of course they ignore the fact that at Jesus' baptism by John, God, Himself "forgets" He was supposed to say "begotten."

Where did John call Jesus God's only son in the KJV?

 

[Agricola]

The NIV amazes me too... they call Jesus a son of the gods and Lucifer the Morning Star lol. What fools.... there's actually a guy on this forum who thinks Isaiah is talking about Jesus falling from heaven.

No they do not call Jesus son of the Gods, it is a quote by Nebuchadnezzar, it is not the authors, narrators or the translators who are saying this, its just a quote, if you want to argue that Nebuchadnezzar was mis-quoted, then that is your choice, but its not the authors of the NIV trying to make out Jesus is "son of the gods".

You lot will manipulate every verse going to bend it to your agenda.

 

[John146]

Agree, it's not the authors causing the errors, the errors are mostly caused by using the corrupted Sinaiticus and Vaticanus manuscripts.

No they do not call Jesus son of the Gods, it is a quote by Nebuchadnezzar, it is not the authors, narrators or the translators who are saying this, its just a quote, if you want to argue that Nebuchadnezzar was mis-quoted, then that is your choice, but its not the authors of the NIV trying to make out Jesus is "son of the gods".

You lot will manipulate every verse going to bend it to your agenda.

 

[KJV1611]

No they do not call Jesus son of the Gods, it is a quote by Nebuchadnezzar, it is not the authors, narrators or the translators who are saying this, its just a quote, if you want to argue that Nebuchadnezzar was mis-quoted, then that is your choice, but its not the authors of the NIV trying to make out Jesus is "son of the gods".

You lot will manipulate every verse going to bend it to your agenda.

How do you know what came out of Nebuchadnezzars mouth? All you know is this:

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

God is the only one who knows, therefor he is the only one capable of translating that passage.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Thank God for Dr. James Strong!