Why the king james?

[KJV1611]

Thank God for Dr. James Strong!

That guy did as much to destroy Christianity as Wescott and Horton did.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

That guy did as much to destroy Christianity as Wescott and Horton did.

That's quite the extreme view you hold, there, "KJV1611".

Did you explain your view here? I can't find it (44 pages).

 

[John146]

James Strong was Methodist that believed in infant baptism and the creator of the Strong’s Concordance. He was a member of the Revised Version committee in 1881. The Revised Version uses the corrupt Westcott and Hort text. Westcott and Hort believed that the Vaticanus and Aleph manuscripts which were Roman Catholic manuscripts were better. These two men were heretics that denied the deity of Christ and along with many more main doctrines.

Most of Strong’s definitions came from Gensenius’ Hebrew lexicon which is corrupt. Also the corrupt lexicons of Thayer, Brown, Briggs, Driver and Liddell-Scott. It is important to know that the Strong’s Greek text is not always that which underlies the King James Bible. Also, the later editions of the Strong’s Concordance are being made to match up with the corrupt new versions.

The Greek and Hebrew definitions in the Strong’s Concordance are often not literal renderings of Greek or Hebrew words.
Strong’s Encyclopedia equates Lucifer with Jesus in Isaiah 14:12 by saying the word “Lucifer” means “morning star”. This is impossible because the Hebrew word for “star” is not even used. His corrupt encyclopedia also says that there is a “happy part in Hades” and that the literal description of a hell with fire is wrong.

Strong calls the corrupt Vatican Manuscript the most valuable MSS of the Greek testament. He also recommends Dr. Geddes who was a Roman Catholic that said the King James Bible falls short of the “true principles of translation”.

That's quite the extreme view you hold, there, "KJV1611".

Did you explain your view here? I can't find it (44 pages).

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

James Strong was Methodist that believed in infant baptism and the creator of the Strong’s Concordance. He was a member of the Revised Version committee in 1881. The Revised Version uses the corrupt Westcott and Hort text. Westcott and Hort believed that the Vaticanus and Aleph manuscripts which were Roman Catholic manuscripts were better. These two men were heretics that denied the deity of Christ and along with many more main doctrines.

Most of Strong’s definitions came from Gensenius’ Hebrew lexicon which is corrupt. Also the corrupt lexicons of Thayer, Brown, Briggs, Driver and Liddell-Scott. It is important to know that the Strong’s Greek text is not always that which underlies the King James Bible. Also, the later editions of the Strong’s Concordance are being made to match up with the corrupt new versions.

The Greek and Hebrew definitions in the Strong’s Concordance are often not literal renderings of Greek or Hebrew words.
Strong’s Encyclopedia equates Lucifer with Jesus in Isaiah 14:12 by saying the word “Lucifer” means “morning star”. This is impossible because the Hebrew word for “star” is not even used. His corrupt encyclopedia also says that there is a “happy part in Hades” and that the literal description of a hell with fire is wrong.

Strong calls the corrupt Vatican Manuscript the most valuable MSS of the Greek testament. He also recommends Dr. Geddes who was a Roman Catholic that said the King James Bible falls short of the “true principles of translation”.

That's quite an extreme view you hold, there, John146!

Which Bible version is "safe" for study, in your opinion?

 

[KJV1611]

That's quite the extreme view you hold, there, "KJV1611".

Did you explain your view here? I can't find it (44 pages).

He turned bible believers into bible changers.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

He turned bible believers into bible changers.

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[ember]

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.

actually, you just keep your very own word and consider all who do not obey YOU as lost

same goes for chuck and the rest

it is just silly the way you all carry on and support each other in your misplaced trust in a version of the Bible that is not at all inspired

 

[ember]

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.

LOL! you actually mean all those who disagree with you

it's really kind of sick the way you pervert a verse from scripture and try to apply it to those who realize you all are nothing short of a cult

 

[ember]

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:

that's just sick

you have no understanding whatsoever

cult

 

[ember]

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!

yes...but you guys are doodling around in the 1611 verson and then disavowing certain things in that version

I guess you all are still perfecting the version

the point is, it was not the first translation

you have an exclusionary view...everyone outside of what YOU believe is wrong

that's wrong

 

[ember]

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.

exactly...they manipulate and massage everything to fit their personal doctrine

I really am being reminded of conversations I have had with JW's...they have their own very special translation of the Bible as well and you cannot reason with them

It takes an act of God for them to be set free...same here I imagine

 

[KJV1611]

I am not sure what you mean.

People look at a word in the Greek dictionary that can have multiple mearnings and pick the definition they want i.e. a son of the gods or the son of God.

There's no accuracy in that. If a person loves the KJV then they pick son of God. If a person hates the KJV or kjv believers than they pick son of the gods. God's word is not what we want it be, it is what it is, it's not for us to pick and choose what we want it to be.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

People look at a word in the Greek dictionary that can have multiple mearnings and pick the definition they want i.e. a son of the gods or the son of God.

There's no accuracy in that. If a person loves the KJV then they pick son of God. If a person hates the KJV or kjv believers than they pick son of the gods. God's word is not what we want it be, it is what it is, it's not for us to pick and choose what we want it to be.

It is called context. We can not just pick any old definition. You are not being truthful.

No English version is completely accurate, because there is no English complete interpretation of the ancient texts in any bible. only word for word translations. and since many English words can not completely convey the greek or Hebrew meaning, all English texts are flawed.

 

[ember]

That guy did as much to destroy Christianity as Wescott and Horton did.

you know, what you have said here reveals how weak your faith actually is

no man can destroy what God Himself raises up

on the other hand, no one can stand if God takes it down

you all don't understand what you are believing because you are believing what you have heard from someone who is just as misled as you are

the word of God does not change...however, that does not mean a version of the Bible

you seem to have forgotten the Holy Spirit and it also appears you have a relationship with a book...not the One that the book tells us about

 

[ember]

People look at a word in the Greek dictionary that can have multiple mearnings and pick the definition they want i.e. a son of the gods or the son of God.

There's no accuracy in that. If a person loves the KJV then they pick son of God. If a person hates the KJV or kjv believers than they pick son of the gods. God's word is not what we want it be, it is what it is, it's not for us to pick and choose what we want it to be.

that's ridiculous

you may be uncertain of what you believe and perhaps maybe even Whom you believe, but a Christian knows Christ and that Christian believes Christ and knows He is THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD

wake up there!

Israel did not die for the sins of the world

you honestly do not seem to even know what you say you believe

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

What's the verse in question, anyway?
I'm seeing reference to "Son of God" vs "Son of gods" ...

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

People look at a word in the Greek dictionary that can have multiple mearnings and pick the definition they want i.e. a son of the gods or the son of God.

There's no accuracy in that. If a person loves the KJV then they pick son of God. If a person hates the KJV or kjv believers than they pick son of the gods. God's word is not what we want it be, it is what it is, it's not for us to pick and choose what we want it to be.

I am not following this entire thread.

Are you stating that Dr. Strong "picks the definition he wants" in his Concordance that many of us use for Bible study?

 

[Willie-T]

I am not following this entire thread.

Are you stating that Dr. Strong "picks the definition he wants" in his Concordance that many of us use for Bible study?

No, he is saying that God somehow neglected to correctly pass on all the many the renderings of Scripture written long before the KJV was ever even proposed. Supposedly, He waited all those centuries to finally give the group of men King James hired the proper interpretation.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

No, he is saying that God somehow neglected to correctly pass on all the many the renderings of Scripture written long before the KJV was ever even proposed. Supposedly, He waited all those centuries to finally give the group of men King James hired the proper interpretation.

Thanks. That's what I thought--reminds me of the LDS (Mormon) and Jehovah's Witnesses faiths.

 

[Willie-T]

Thanks. That's what I thought--reminds me of the LDS (Mormon) and Jehovah's Witnesses faiths.

It DOES seem to parallel the same thinking.