The King James Only Debate

[KJV1611]

I believe God is speaking here to disobedient Israelites

ISAIAH 28:14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.

Yes he was speaking to disobedient Israelites but what does that have to do with anything? Paul spoke to Romans does that mean the book of Romans only applies to Romans? Of course not.

If we're going to understand anything from the bible it has to be a little here and a little there, Old Testament and New Testament because the whole story of anything is never given in just one place, it has to be pieced together to get the whole picture.

Take the resurrection of Jesus, you have to read all 4 gospel accounts to understand who witnessed his resurrection.

 

[Yonah]

What's your comment?

read much?

 

[KJV1611]

read much?

I try to, but if the comment is not addressed to me sometimes I don't read them.

 

[fredoheaven]

Preserved? Preserved from 1611. Not very long time when you consider Jesus was here 2000 years ago.


Authorized? Authorized only by the King of England. that does carry much weight here in the United States.


The KJV is "authorized" in title only. It has no authority. And it is NOT God's Word. It's more like the watered down version of God's Word.

Oh my goodness, you sound to be a superhero but you're not! Well, that maybe called fantasy...

Hoho...

 

[fredoheaven]

just curious but why doesn't any one pro KJV only address my comments directly?

Anyway, what's your concern? Will you reiterate?

Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

I hate to be the one to burst your bubble. But that is not true at all.


What "original" manuscripts do you think were used to make the KJV?


Actually, 85% of the KJV matches Tyndale's Tavern Bible exactly. Hey, who was going to sue the king of England for plagiarism?

One good thing about the scriptures that is true scriptures are copies of copies but when you copy something that's not true then perhaps what you'll say is altogether not true. Anyway not good in English but your "actually" is not "exactly". Maybe or maybe not...

 

[Dino246]

No the KJV is the preserved infallible authorized word of God and if someone wishes to use another Bible then so be it but do not claim it is the "authorized version" unlike the KJV.

The KJV was "authorized" only for translation, and only by a secular king, never by any ecclesiastical body or assembly. The word means nothing in terms of its alleged infallibility.

 

[The_Bible]

The KJV was "authorized" only for translation, and only by a secular king, never by any ecclesiastical body or assembly. The word means nothing in terms of its alleged infallibility.

Read the information on all the other main codexes that are available as a second option. Once you do that come back and tell me if you really trust those catholic heresies or the preserved word that many were persecuted for.

 

[notbythesword]

The mark of the beast is a very popular and heavily researched topic. Christians are always wary of what this mark could potentially be so that they can avoid it at all costs. With this being such an important topic, why is it that the KJV has the translation wrong? I’m talking about Revelation 13:16.

According to the KJV, the mark will be placed “in” the right hand or forehead. However, the Greek uses the word “epi” which means “on”. That’s a huge discrepancy in my opinion. I haven’t read through all the posts yet, but has this already been touched on?

 

[GaryA]

The KJV was "authorized" only for translation, and only by a secular king, never by any ecclesiastical body or assembly. The word means nothing in terms of its alleged infallibility.

What you say is true. However, the 'infallibility' part - as you are calling it - comes from the scriptures themselves, because of the particular manuscripts from which it was translated. The KJV bible is the most accurate English translation available; all of the more modern versions are actually "watered down"... ( 'perverted' - having come from 'perverted' manuscripts )

All of the modern Wescott and Hort based bibles are 'corrupted' / 'perverted' bibles.

The only other thing that might can be said about the "authorization" by King James for 47 chosen men to translated the Bible - is - God used that king and those men to accomplish a "good-and-proper" translation of the scriptures into English at a time when:

~ it was handled with utmost reverence for the task

~ it was done by a group of scholars whose qualifications for the task have been unequaled since that time

~ the English language was "in its prime"; the "beauty of the language" has 'waned' much since that time

 

[The_Bible]

What you say is true. However, the 'infallibility' part - as you are calling it - comes from the scriptures themselves, because of the particular manuscripts from which it was translated. The KJV bible is the most accurate English translation available; all of the more modern versions are actually "watered down"... ( 'perverted' - having come from 'perverted' manuscripts )

All of the modern Wescott and Hort based bibles are 'corrupted' / 'perverted' bibles.

The only other thing that might can be said about the "authorization" by King James for 47 chosen men to translated the Bible - is - God used that king and those men to accomplish a "good-and-proper" translation of the scriptures into English at a time when:

~ it was handled with utmost reverence for the task

~ it was done by a group of scholars whose qualifications for the task have been unequaled since that time

~ the English language was "in its prime"; the "beauty of the language" has 'waned' much since that time

Psalm (12:6-7) - 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.

The King James Bible was also the 7th English Bible and took the scholars 7 years to publish it from 1604-1611. It may have something to do with the "purified seven times" part.

 

[trofimus]

All of the modern Wescott and Hort based bibles are 'corrupted' / 'perverted' bibles.

Can you also prove it? Because what you are saying is a huge attack on both old and new Bibles.

And Christian should be glad for many Bibles, not to call them "perverted" without proof.

 

[trofimus]

Haha try telling your theory to a muslim , "hey i have a bible but the words in it are probably not even the real words but is ok bc is the word od God" how foolish would you sound. I do not understand the 20 or 40 yr old king if its a story in the bible quote it here and explain what you mean.

This is all you can say in response to my clear questions? Weak.

So again

1) how exactly not having for example the book of Ester will make me corrupted or not a complete Christian?

2)
2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king.

How exactly will this make me a corrupted Christian? How not knowing his right age makes me incomplete?

Please,try without "hoho", "muslim argument" etc.

 

[The_Bible]

This is all you can say in response to my clear questions? Weak.

So again
1) how exactly not having for example the book of Ester will make me corrupted or not a complete Christian?

2)
2 Kings 8:26
Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king.

2 Chronicles 22:2
Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king.

How exactly will this make me a corrupted Christian? How not knowing his right age makes me incomplete?

Please,try without "hoho", "muslim argument" etc.

*Inserts "hoho" & "muslim argument"*

I was mocking the fact that you still BELIEVE we do not have a preserved word of God with NO ERRORS OR CONTRADICTIONS have some self respect your a Christian. You can't just say that to a person who is going to criticize your Bible, the very essence of Christianity, I mean how would you even witness when your word is not even reliable?

2 Kings 8:26 - Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 - Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

There is no contradiction to confuse about not knowing his age. There were simply two coronation ceremonies, when he was 22 he was anointed king with the co-regent being his mother. And the second time he was anointed king by himself, read the chapter in its context. The KJV is given the titled as the infallible word of God and many research has been put out to live up to the reputation. The link below is separate book for answers to anti-KJV.

https://shop.avpublications.com/product_info.php?products_id=165

The point I'm making is not that you cannot be a Christian without a KJV you can use whichever Bible you want, BUT you said a COMPLETE Christian, how do you expect to be "complete" anything when you give examples of not having a whole book of God's word. Is NOT essential for you to be a Christian BUT if your going to engage in debates, share opinions, witness to other, and bound to get criticized. You MUST then study on a real bible, that contains no errors and is the official word of God, that God tells you to put on as armor for combat. If you use any other Bible your sword will be weak and will hurt your battle in war with spiritual forces.

Ephesians 6:17 - And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

1 Peter (1:23-25) - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

If you use another Bible version you will be saved bc YOU personally understand the concept of Christianity but when a new convert stumbles upon these Bibles he will scoff at the errors it contains and either have a whole different interpretation most likely turning into a heathen all bc of the word or he might just leave Christianity. You can use w.e Bible you want but when your going to defend your religion or a Bible do not use a non-KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

The KJV was "authorized" only for translation, and only by a secular king, never by any ecclesiastical body or assembly. The word means nothing in terms of its alleged infallibility.

If God were to authorize a version how would we know it? What is something that would validate that it came from God?

 

[Dan_473]

I'm suprised you don't see the subtle changes in the NIV to make the Jesus of the KJV the New Age Jesus.

JOHN 1:14 The Word became human and lived among us.

We saw his glory.

It was the glory that the Father shares with his only Son, a glory full of kindness and truth.

 

[Dan_473]

No he doesn't. He says that [FONT=&]Hezekiah's God can't deliver them out of his hand.[/FONT]

right! the Bible sometimes quotes people who are mixed up

JOB 42:7 After the LORD had said those things to Job, the LORD said to Eliphaz from Teman, "I'm very angry with you and your two friends because
you didn't speak what is right
about me as my servant Job has done.


DANIEL 3:25 The king replied, "But look, I see four men. They're untied, walking in the middle of the fire, and unharmed. The fourth one looks like
a son of the gods."

 

[Dan_473]

Yes he was speaking to disobedient Israelites but what does that have to do with anything? Paul spoke to Romans does that mean the book of Romans only applies to Romans? Of course not.

If we're going to understand anything from the bible it has to be a little here and a little there, Old Testament and New Testament because the whole story of anything is never given in just one place, it has to be pieced together to get the whole picture.

Take the resurrection of Jesus, you have to read all 4 gospel accounts to understand who witnessed his resurrection.

Those who seek God get big chunks

THE ACTS 20:27 for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.

 

[KJV1611]

The mark of the beast is a very popular and heavily researched topic. Christians are always wary of what this mark could potentially be so that they can avoid it at all costs. With this being such an important topic, why is it that the KJV has the translation wrong? I’m talking about Revelation 13:16.

According to the KJV, the mark will be placed “in” the right hand or forehead. However, the Greek uses the word “epi” which means “on”. That’s a huge discrepancy in my opinion. I haven’t read through all the posts yet, but has this already been touched on?

I don't think it has been touched on yet but it's a perfect example of why we need an inerrant bible. I don't know what epi meant 2000 years ago, all we have is Strong's opinion of what it meant but that doesn't really matter when we understand what the mark is.

The mark of the beast is both on and in our right hand and forehead."Mark in" is a much better word for understanding the mark. Think of the mark of the beast in the forehead as the opposite of the seal of God in the forehead... because it is the exact opposite.

The saints of God are sealed "in" their forehead right? What is that seal? It's the seal of promise, it's the Holy Spirit and it's in our foreheads (mind) not on our forehead. If you will count the number 666 you will know exactly who the beast is and what his mark is and why it's "in" their right hand (symbolic of salvation) and "in" their forehead (symbolic of the mind).

 

[Dan_473]

PSALMS 119:96 I have seen an end of all perfection
but thy commandment is exceeding broad.

PSALMS 119:89 O LORD, your word is established
in heaven
forever.