Why the king james?

[PeacefulWarrior]

Yes, however, if the text you use has errors in it, why would a lost person want to here about the Savior of that text? What do we have to stand up against the world's view, if we don't have 100% truth to rely on? I need the word of God to appeal to for truth.

What do you mean, by errors?

Can you provide an example?

2 Timothy 3:16 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

 

[John146]

The modern versions ommit many whole verses and partial verses. For example, Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost." This verse is missing out of modern versions. Partial verses that hold important truths like Colossians 1:14, see below.

(KJV) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
(ESV) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
(NASB) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

It is an error to ommit entire verses or even partial verses according to God who said do not add to or take away from His words.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

The modern versions ommit many whole verses and partial verses. For example, Matthew 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which is lost." This verse is missing out of modern versions. Partial verses that hold important truths like Colossians 1:14, see below.

(KJV) "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:"
(ESV) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."
(NASB) "in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins."

It is an error to ommit entire verses or even partial verses according to God who said do not add to or take away from His words.

Thanks for sharing these verses with me!

I cannot agree or disagree as to whether it is error to omit these particular verses or partial verses. However, I am more fond of versions which include footnotes to explain these instances.

I think people can benefit from parallel versions.

We must drink milk before we can chew solid food.

 

[Dino246]

If you can not prove it then that must mean your claims are false.

While I agree with you in general, I must disagree with you here. This is a logical fallacy. One person's inability to prove something as true does not prove it false. However, that does not mean it is true either.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

I don't think it's bible hang ups, it's the same old story... the flesh children have always persecuted the spirit children. Think about it, they hated Jesus, called him a blashpemer and eventually killed him. For what reason? Because Jesus talked about the spirit of the scripture and they couldn't understand it because they could not hear his word in the scripture. No different here on this thread, I talk about the spirit of the letter and folks hate me for it. Just wait... the stones will be flying after they read this lol.

What did they do before King James was born, what child is this?

 

[Dino246]

Innocent until proven guilty. The KJV has been attacked since its beginning, but has never been proven wrong.

Actually, 'innocent until proven guilty' does not apply here; this is not a legal proceeding, and it's not American law anyway. The issue is not one of innocence; rather, you have made the assertion that the KJV is both inspired and inerrant; the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. You cannot do that by asserting errors in other translations, alleging corruption in manuscripts, or questioning people how they come to faith. You made the assertion; now defend it. Your colleague in debate has admitted that he can't prove the KJV's inerrancy; I doubt you can either, but if you do try, please do so with sound and cogent argumentation. Logical fallacies will receive buckshot. Alternately, you may also graciously concede that you can't prove it either.

 

[ember]

Originally Posted by KJV1611

I don't think it's bible hang ups, it's the same old story... the flesh children have always persecuted the spirit children. Think about it, they hated Jesus, called him a blashpemer and eventually killed him. For what reason? Because Jesus talked about the spirit of the scripture and they couldn't understand it because they could not hear his word in the scripture. No different here on this thread, I talk about the spirit of the letter and folks hate me for it. Just wait... the stones will be flying after they read this lol.

the flesh children and the spirit children?

you do know that Christ came in the flesh and was resurrected in flesh...he even ate...

you do talk...that's for sure...but you are not helping anyone here

it is deception to state that the KJV is inspired...that is just foolish to even think or believe that and quite possibly even worse to teach it or try and get others to believe what you believe

the doctrine you teach is not sound and it has led to many errors

now, in the post above, you are trying to sound spiritual...ie: we are all such spiritual dullards that we cannot grasp the deep spiritual insight that you and others like you think you have

it's hogwash and utter nonsense

and then, in case the appeal to spiritual superiority does not wash, you make an emotional appeal...saying you are hated...that is typical manipulation with a desire to sneak in through the back door

no one hates you or has said they hate you

you are just using different forms of spiritual witchcraft to try and gain control here because you have actually lost control

and then you state stones will be flying...AFTER YOU have set it up for the stones to fly in the first place

this is darkness and not light...you do not have freedom in Christ...what your cult does is control, manipulate and finally dominate

 

[John146]

Of course there were the words of God before 1611. This is obvious. Millions heard the gospel and came to faith in Christ. Most people never had a whole Bible in any language until the printing press was invented; then translations had to be made public. All earlier Bibles like Tyndale (N.T. only) Coverdale, Great Bible, Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible and all Reformation Bibles in other languages like German, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc. were far more complete textually than are todays modern versions like the NIV, ESV, NASB, RSV.


Any of these Bibles no matter how corrupt or deficient, contains parts of the words of God, though they are also mixed with many words that are not inspired by God and omit thousands of words that were inspired by God.


But I don't believe there was any perfect or 100% complete Bible before the KJB. If you happen to know of one, then please tell us what it was. Not one of the modern day version scholars believes there was a perfect Bible before 1611 nor do they believe there is one now!

What did they do before King James was born, what child is this?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I do not disagree that the KJV is inspired.

I also think other versions are inspired, not KJV only.

 

[John146]

God has promised to preserve His words, not in every language or to every people, but in such a way as they would be known by many of God's believing people. The Lord Jesus said: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Matthew 24:35


God testifies through Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."


"For the LORD is good: his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations." Psalm 100:5


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


"The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever." 1 Peter 1:25


We who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant word of God do not place our trust in the King James translators. We do not defend their comments in the Preface, nor their theology, though I agree with much of it. We trust in God alone Who has fulfilled His promises to preserve His inspired words. He just happened to use the believing men of the 1611 Holy Bible as His instruments to continue this preservation.

Without the pure words of God, we have no stance against this world. Why would you argue about things in a book to a lost person, when you yourself don't believe the book is 100% true?

Actually, 'innocent until proven guilty' does not apply here; this is not a legal proceeding, and it's not American law anyway. The issue is not one of innocence; rather, you have made the assertion that the KJV is both inspired and inerrant; the burden of proof is on you to support your claim. You cannot do that by asserting errors in other translations, alleging corruption in manuscripts, or questioning people how they come to faith. You made the assertion; now defend it. Your colleague in debate has admitted that he can't prove the KJV's inerrancy; I doubt you can either, but if you do try, please do so with sound and cogent argumentation. Logical fallacies will receive buckshot. Alternately, you may also graciously concede that you can't prove it either.

 

[John146]

Only one version can contain the pure words of God, because they differ in many ways.

I do not disagree that the KJV is inspired.

I also think other versions are inspired, not KJV only.

 

[ember]

The KJV of the Bible is NOT inspired

here is what inspired actually means according to scripture:

When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need?

ARTICLE

What the KJV only people state, is that the TRANSLATION is inspired ... they are not stating that God willed it...which it seems He very well may have...just like other translations into other languages

A translation cannot possibly be inspired. A drunkard was one of the translators of the King James...now does anyone actually believe he was an apostle or a prophet?

That, is why these KJV onlyists state there is no other version of the Bible that is any good

They hold a simple translation as though God Himself directed every word and it is perfect



Arguing or debating with cult members very seldom changes anything

 

[John146]

All SCRIPTURE is inspired by God, not the man doing the writing. The matter at hand I am interested in is God's preservation of His pure words in the English language.

David was not inspired when he wrote Scripture. The Scripture is inspired, David preserved the Scripture by writing it down through the Holy Spirit.

The KJV of the Bible is NOT inspired

here is what inspired actually means according to scripture:

When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need?

ARTICLE

What the KJV only people state, is that the TRANSLATION is inspired ... they are not stating that God willed it...which it seems He very well may have...just like other translations into other languages

A translation cannot possibly be inspired. A drunkard was one of the translators of the King James...now does anyone actually believe he was an apostle or a prophet?

That, is why these KJV onlyists state there is no other version of the Bible that is any good

They hold a simple translation as though God Himself directed every word and it is perfect



Arguing or debating with cult members very seldom changes anything

 

[John146]

David was an adulterer. Paul was a murderer. Moses was a murderer. It's not about using a perfect man, but about a perfect God preserving His words for man.

A translation cannot possibly be inspired. A drunkard was one of the translators of the King James...now does anyone actually believe he was an apostle or a prophet?

 

[John146]

God never promised that every nation or individual would have a perfect Bible, but He did promise to preserve His pure, complete and 100% true words in a Book somewhere on this earth. "Seek ye out of the Book of the LORD and read..." Isaiah 34:16.


God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. There was a period of time when for about 2000 years only one small nation had the true and pure words of God. Psalms 147:19-20 says: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Only one version can contain the pure words of God, because they differ in many ways.

Jesus is the pure Word of God.

What does 'pure words of God' mean?

 

[John146]

[h=1]Psalm 12:6 (KJV)[/h]6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

The words of the Lord, plural. The actual words of Scripture.

Jesus is the pure Word of God.

What does 'pure words of God' mean?

 

[John146]

God fulfills His purposes in the fulness of time. His timetable is not the same as mans. In Galatians 4:4 we read: "But when the FULNESS OF THE TIME WAS COME, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."


One might well question why some 2000 years ago was the "fulness of time" to send forth the prophesied Saviour when men had been perishing in their sins for hundreds of years previously. Yet God does all things according to His timetable in the fulness of time.


God sent the Lord Jesus Christ at the perfect time in history. When He completed what He came to do, He said, "it is finished" and then the work was complete. What happened through that work still lives on today.


Just as God did with the INCARNATE Word, so He has done with His WRITTEN Word. God's translation work for the English Bible was completed with the King James Bible. It happened in the fulness of time.

Jesus is the pure Word of God.

What does 'pure words of God' mean?

 

[Dino246]

Only one version can contain the pure words of God, because they differ in many ways.

Here again you've committed a logical fallacy. The exclusivity of purity does not in any way prove, or even suggest, that any particular English translation meets that qualification of purity. Also, the argument does not prove that there must be in existence the pure words of God in any particular language other than the originals.

 

[Miri]

Ok, I was just using this term in a generic fashion. I apologize if you thought I was meaning you. I am not part of the crowd on this board who attack people.

Apology accepted it's easy to get lost in all the threads.