The King James Only Debate

  • 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.
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
so when did you start reading the KJV?

The bible uses words and terms which

1. Have differing meanings today
2. Are not even used today
3. Have been replaced by other words today.

yet you say it is outdated.

See what I mean.. The whole argument is flawed. And the whole debate in decisive and does NOTHING at all to promote GOD and his kingdom to today's children. All it does is alienate
why did you not respond to these FACTYS about the old English?

"To make things right WE will have to undo much that is cherished error. The problem of revising the Bible shows how difficult it is to do this. For the last hundred years WE have been trying to get out an edition of the Bible that is reasonably correct; but nobody wants it. What's wanted is the good old King James version, every jot and tittle of it, because most people are convinced that God dictated the Bible to King James in English."

"In the next ten years WE will have to rebuild a world civilization. I hope for some psychologists and even philosophers to be among those appointed to administer this problem."

"WE will sit at a council table and figure how to iron out the troubles on the earth."

"The way of that conditioning would be the one used in Central Europe to condition Nazi Minds. There the circulation of an ideology began in the public schools, began with the small child; which is where WE will have to begin, and educate not only our own people but the peoples of the world."

In 1944, occultist Manly P. Hall said these quotes in his article Asia in the Balance of the Scales. In the coming years the theory of evolution started to get accepted into schools which would accomplish his goals as a freemason to indoctrinate the children in schools with the ideology of evolution much of what Hitler supported.

"Let me control the textbooks, and I will control the state." – Adolf Hitler

He wanted a New World Order & in the first quote he mentioned something about making revisions of the bible in the last hundred years while always mentioning "we" in the next quotes. This would only mean that those "we" had to be people in real occultic & political power. And the main things preventing him from doing that was the minds of the people & the KJV. Which proves that the KJV has been for a long time the authorized version of the people, this is not a new saying.

Since this was written in 1944, 100 hundred years back would be 1844, the year the manuscript Sinaiticus behind all the new modern bible versions was "discovered". Manly P. Hall wrote strongly in preference of the Sinaiticus in his quote from the same 1944 article.

"The Codex Sinaiticus is a manuscript of the 4th Century of about the same date as the Codex Vaticanus...."

"This manuscript is one of the great books of the world..."

"...it is sufficiently important to justify considerable revision of our popular conception of the Scriptural writings"

These are monthly letters he wrote expressing his thoughts on the KJV.

"Of importance to students of occultism is the fact that the Codex Sinaiticus contains many passages suppressed from the published Gospels. These passages in many cases greatly alter the significance of the text.".

"But what does this mean to the average Bible student? This enthusiastic jot and tittle worshiper will insist that the words of the King James version are the very words of God Himself."

"...the King James version of the Holy Bible. This translation teems with error and is hopelessly unreliable from a scholastic viewpoint, yet popular acceptance has caused this mis-version of holy writ to come to be recognized as infallible so that the religious public would now reject correct translation. In fact it has already shown its attitude in the matter by refusing a revised edition. For over 300 years erroneous theological notions have been circulated, deriving their authority from the King James translation of the Bible."

Do you want to be a part of the New World Order? Then don't trust your King James Bible. By Hall's standards, YOU are "intolerant" and a hindrance to a One World Government. There must be some pretty deep spiritual messages only found in the KJV, to get occultists and NWO people so riled up. I hope this information will encourage you to gain motivation to get a King James, pray to God for understanding, and put your trust in its holy words.

Here is the problem.

The KJV only group is a cult. So they do not see a need to update their word. The NKJV they reject.

So how can we expect to get an updated version. When KJV onliers are to proud to make one. It would be quite easy, just using the bible itself. Translate it into modern English.

Of course, the only problem is, it would STILL BE FLAWED
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
Yeah that's probably it.

Just how does the KJV define quickened?

Eph 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;

For the cause of Christ
Roger
First mention principle:

Psalm 71:20 Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

Through the context of the first mention of the word quicken we understand that it is about bringing something back to life...to make something alive, you know, kind of what it's saying in Ephesians 2:1.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
First mention principle:

Psalm 71:20 Thou, which hast shewed me great and sore troubles, shalt quicken me again, and shalt bring me up again from the depths of the earth.

Through the context of the first mention of the word quicken we understand that it is about bringing something back to life...to make something alive, you know, kind of what it's saying in Ephesians 2:1.
So instead of updating the translation to say "bring me up from death" or "make alive that which was dead" God has to HOPE that people read psalm 71: 20 so they MIGHT understand what was said???

I rest my case. thank you for showing..

1. How hard it would be to interpret a word not used today
2. How flawed your bible is, and how dangerous it would be to give it to a young person today who has never read any bible (I would put it right up there with NLT, just because of the language used)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Not true. How can you decide which reading is the right one just from the content:

TR: “Why is He eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners?” Mk 2:16
NA27: “Why is He eating with tax collectors and sinners?” Mk 2:16
Using context I can tell you that NA27 is wrong. Does the NA27 context of Mark 2:16 match the context of the same story in Luke 5:30? No it does not match.

Luke 5:30New American Standard Bible (NASB)

30 The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and [a]sinners?”
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
So instead of updating the translation to say "bring me up from death" or "make alive that which was dead" God has to HOPE that people read psalm 71: 20 so they MIGHT understand what was said???

I rest my case. thank you for showing..

1. How hard it would be to interpret a word not used today
2. How flawed your bible is, and how dangerous it would be to give it to a young person today who has never read any bible (I would put it right up there with NLT, just because of the language used)
I just looked quicken up in the English dictionary lol.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
So instead of updating the translation to say "bring me up from death" or "make alive that which was dead" God has to HOPE that people read psalm 71: 20 so they MIGHT understand what was said???

I rest my case. thank you for showing..

1. How hard it would be to interpret a word not used today
2. How flawed your bible is, and how dangerous it would be to give it to a young person today who has never read any bible (I would put it right up there with NLT, just because of the language used)
He's commanded us to study and shew ourselves approved unto Him, a workman who needeth not to be ashamed. The serious Bible student will study. Sometimes the easy way is not the best way.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Using context I can tell you that NA27 is wrong. Does the NA27 context of Mark 2:16 match the context of the same story in Luke 5:30? No it does not match.

Luke 5:30New American Standard Bible (NASB)

30 The Pharisees and their scribes began grumbling at His disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with the tax collectors and [a]sinners?”
There are many places where two gospels differ from each other and nobody can say it is a corruption of one of them.

"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36
"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." Mk 13:32

So how will you decide, which variant is the right one for Matthew 24:36?

TR: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36
NA27: "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but My Father only." Matthew 24:36

According to your logic, the variant with "nor the Son" is the right one, because it is also in Mark this way.

In that case you have error in your KJV, because it is based on TR without this clause.
 
Last edited:

The_Bible

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2016
139
1
18
why did you not respond to these FACTYS about the old English?

Here is the problem.

The KJV only group is a cult. So they do not see a need to update their word. The NKJV they reject.

So how can we expect to get an updated version. When KJV onliers are to proud to make one. It would be quite easy, just using the bible itself. Translate it into modern English.

Of course, the only problem is, it would STILL BE FLAWED
Yea ik it uses words that don't mean the same as today, so? That's why you have to study the words in the meaning it had of fhe 1600. They also used the word ye, thee, thou but people weren't going outside speaking in those words as well. Those words help differentiate between one person and everybody. If i went into a crowd of people and said, "You come wit me" who would i be speaking to? ONE of you or ALL of you? That's the point of the literature of the KJV.

You cannot try to improve it bc you believe its outdated so it has to be modernized. Just like how the Bible describes ONLY those with nostrils living or insects having four legs with 2 arms. Those are simple things people would revise bc they would believe is error and corrupted then the original intent of the word of God. Again, this is not a lottery game where you keep trying to improve the bible based on your chances. It says purified 7 times, not keep going and going. God made 7 days in a week, right? He did rest on the 7th, right? If he wanted he could've kept the days in the week longer, something Napoleon tried to do and miserably failed.

We do not believe in KJV just to make it a "cult" but bc it is evidently the infallible word and there is none other in the English language. All ya anti KJV do is complain about the KJV without proving how it is wrong but merely supply poor unwanted excuses while i have given you the timeline of the manuscripts. So if you believe, that if you would update the KJV into a more modern bible it would still be flawed why are you even arguing with us and why are you even trusting a bible that are corrupted lies?
 
Last edited:

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
when we read the kjv, should we rely on ourselves to understand the text,

or
should we ask God to help us get the right meaning?
 

lv2ski

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2016
542
15
18
It was never meant to be this difficult. That's why Jesus said to the Pharisees, you search the scriptures and think that you have eternal life. But these are they that testify of me.

Spirit and truth. Get the gospel out, serve people, lift up Jesus's word and His person. That's what draws people to Him. Debating numerology and exact vernacular references doesn't. Those are interesting things but that's not what we're commissioned to do.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,770
1,447
113
We do not believe in KJV just to make it a "cult" but bc it is evidently the infallible word and there is none other in the English language. All ya anti KJV do is complain about the KJV without proving how it is wrong but merely supply poor unwanted excuses while i have given you the timeline of the manuscripts.
The problem is that it is not "evidently" infallible. It's been shown to NOT be infallible time and again.

And you completely miss on your description of "us"..... we are not "anti-KJV" at all. Most of us read and use it, along with other translations. What we are is "anti-KJV ONLY".

If you guys simply said, "we prefer the KJV, and we use it exclusively", then that would be fine.... but when YOU come in and say the KJV is the ONLY version that is "acceptable/infallible/correct/whatever" then the disagreements begin.

Stop being a cult....
 

lv2ski

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2016
542
15
18
The problem is that it is not "evidently" infallible. It's been shown to NOT be infallible time and again.

And you completely miss on your description of "us"..... we are not "anti-KJV" at all. Most of us read and use it, along with other translations. What we are is "anti-KJV ONLY".

If you guys simply said, "we prefer the KJV, and we use it exclusively", then that would be fine.... but when YOU come in and say the KJV is the ONLY version that is "acceptable/infallible/correct/whatever" then the disagreements begin.

Stop being a cult....
Bam!!!! What these guys always miss is.... Jesus and the disciples weren't walking around passing out study bibles and demanding grammatical perfection. They, including Jesus, simply proclaimed it.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,430
0
Bam!!!! What these guys always miss is.... Jesus and the disciples weren't walking around passing out study bibles and demanding grammatical perfection. They, including Jesus, simply proclaimed it.
And Jesus didn't say "You must only read from the Hebrew translation of the scriptures and NOT the Greek translation".
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
The problem is that it is not "evidently" infallible. It's been shown to NOT be infallible time and again.

And you completely miss on your description of "us"..... we are not "anti-KJV" at all. Most of us read and use it, along with other translations. What we are is "anti-KJV ONLY".

If you guys simply said, "we prefer the KJV, and we use it exclusively", then that would be fine.... but when YOU come in and say the KJV is the ONLY version that is "acceptable/infallible/correct/whatever" then the disagreements begin.

Stop being a cult....
You know what I think I agree with that.
 

lv2ski

Senior Member
Aug 20, 2016
542
15
18
And Jesus didn't say "You must only read from the Hebrew translation of the scriptures and NOT the Greek translation".
Yes. Sceptics always diminish the diligence and commitment to the truth on the translators. The preservation of the OT / NT record is a miracle in itself.

Whatever errors have been proven time and again to not effect the integrity of the message. They aren't worth stressing over. Unless.....someone is bored or in my opinion, not engaged in spreading the good news
 

Dan_473

Senior Member
Mar 11, 2014
9,054
1,051
113
And Jesus didn't say "You must only read from the Hebrew translation of the scriptures and NOT the Greek translation".
Good observation. And Paul didn't tell the Athenians which Bible to use.

THE ACTS 17:22 Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "People of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious.
THE ACTS 17:23 For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. So you are ignorant of the very thing you worship —
and this is what I am going to proclaim to you.
 

The_Bible

Senior Member
Nov 11, 2016
139
1
18
The problem is that it is not "evidently" infallible. It's been shown to NOT be infallible time and again.

And you completely miss on your description of "us"..... we are not "anti-KJV" at all. Most of us read and use it, along with other translations. What we are is "anti-KJV ONLY".

If you guys simply said, "we prefer the KJV, and we use it exclusively", then that would be fine.... but when YOU come in and say the KJV is the ONLY version that is "acceptable/infallible/correct/whatever" then the disagreements begin.

Stop being a cult....
If then you are agreeing with the King James being infallible are you insinuating that all other bibles are infallible as well? I am KJV ONLY when it comes to being a study bible or a bible in general used for debates and arguments. If not then you would find yourself with a weak book to stand on.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
It was never meant to be this difficult. That's why Jesus said to the Pharisees, you search the scriptures and think that you have eternal life. But these are they that testify of me.

Spirit and truth. Get the gospel out, serve people, lift up Jesus's word and His person. That's what draws people to Him. Debating numerology and exact vernacular references doesn't. Those are interesting things but that's not what we're commissioned to do.
Agree, however, this is a discussion on the thread topic "The King James Only Debate".
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
16,795
3,573
113
The problem is that it is not "evidently" infallible. It's been shown to NOT be infallible time and again.

And you completely miss on your description of "us"..... we are not "anti-KJV" at all. Most of us read and use it, along with other translations. What we are is "anti-KJV ONLY".

If you guys simply said, "we prefer the KJV, and we use it exclusively", then that would be fine.... but when YOU come in and say the KJV is the ONLY version that is "acceptable/infallible/correct/whatever" then the disagreements begin.

Stop being a cult....
Why would I want to study a Bible that has errors? Does God want us to study a Bible that has errors concerning His truth?
 

wanderer6059

Senior Member
Oct 27, 2013
1,282
57
48
Douay-Rheims and Vulgate Bibles are the only true bible...