The King James Only Debate

[The_Bible]

Douay-Rheims and Vulgate Bibles are the only true bible...

Are you a Catholic? The original manuscripts were in hebrew and greek NOT latin.

 

[HisHolly]

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.

Right!
They did it by the Spirit.. not a typed book of perfection..
Holy Spirit is perfection and is the quide no matter what your eyes are looking at.
Debating is foolish. Those who put Him on standby or disregard wouldn't understand anyway..

 

[wanderer6059]

Are you a Catholic? The original manuscripts were in hebrew and greek NOT latin.

and the Vulgate is from the same sources the KJV used.

 

[notuptome]

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.

Well until you are willing to be honest with yourself I guess you will just go around in a delusion.

Open up a bible dictionary and see the word quicken defined in modern English. It's not sin to use a bible dictionary to bring clarity to the text.

02421
חיה chayah khaw-yaw’


a primitive root compare 02331; v; BDB-310b
{See TWOT on 644 }


AV-live 153, alive 34, save 13, quicken 14, revive 12, surely 10, life 9, recover 8, misc 9; 262




1) to live, have life, remain alive, sustain life, live prosperously, live for ever, be quickened, be alive, be restored to life or health


1a) (Qal)


1a1) to live


1a1a) to have life

1a1b) to continue in life, remain alive

1a1c) to sustain life, to live on or upon

1a1d) to live (prosperously)


1a2) to revive, be quickened


1a2a) from sickness

1a2b) from discouragement

1a2c) from faintness

1a2d) from death



1b) (Piel)


1b1) to preserve alive, let live

1b2) to give life

1b3) to quicken, revive, refresh


1b3a) to restore to life

1b3b) to cause to grow

1b3c) to restore

1b3d) to revive



1c) (Hiphil)


1c1) to preserve alive, let live

1c2) to quicken, revive


1c2a) to restore (to health)

1c2b) to revive

1c2c) to restore to life


Much easier than going to the Strongs and the Greek.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[The_Bible]

and the Vulgate is from the same sources the KJV used.

No it was from greek what vulgate? They only had minor vulgate influences but the texts were in Greek.

 

[KJV1611]

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.

You are right and I get what you're saying here, and I agree with you. The last example you gave is no different than here and I also agree that both the KJV and NA27 are both good on that verse. Now that you have compared scripture with scripture on those passages, take a look at some other examples where it doesn't pan out that the NA27 is right. Find another passage in the NA27 that confirms that Jesus is God's one and son.

[h=1]John 3:16New International Version (NIV)[/h][FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]

 

[wanderer6059]

No it was from greek what vulgate? They only had minor vulgate influences but the texts were in Greek.

the Vulgate was from the same greek the kjv used

 

[The_Bible]

the Vulgate was from the same greek the kjv used

Ya but the KJV did not use the Vulgate. The first English translated Vulgate was from John Wycliffe and even then the papacy had issues with that where they demanded after he died for his bones to be crushed and scattered in the river. Even Wycliffe felt the need to oppose the Catholcis. John Hus, who supported his idea of people being able to read the scriptures in their own language was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindle for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I just looked quicken up in the English dictionary lol.

lol.. Still a problem. Why not just update the words to what it would mean today.. why use an old outdated word 99 percent of young adults would not even have a clue what it means.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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.

all you are doing is using excuses.. Your doing the very thing I said makes this discussion sad.

So what your saying is, updating the bible to todays word would keep people from studying..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

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?

IF WE WOULD UPDATE THE VERSION, THERE WOULD BE NO CONFUSION

You would rather people get sent to hell because they can not understand, then update a version so they can understand?

You people are PROVING MY POINT.. who does this kind of stuff and makes these kind of excuses??

 

[The_Bible]

IF WE WOULD UPDATE THE VERSION, THERE WOULD BE NO CONFUSION

You would rather people get sent to hell because they can not understand, then update a version so they can understand?

You people are PROVING MY POINT.. who does this kind of stuff and makes these kind of excuses??

I already answered you plenty of times with the same answer. You act as if we don't ALREADY have a preserved word, aka the KJV. You only want to update it bc you dont understand yet in the previous post you say it would still be flawed so i dont understand. People are saved regardless w/o having a KJV but the argument is if we are going to have a bible to rely on without it being corrupted it will be the KJV it was purified 7 times it needs no more. Just look at the very first sentence of the KJV and the NKJV already a error within the first sentence and you believe we can somehow improve it.

 

[wanderer6059]

Ya but the KJV did not use the Vulgate. The first English translated Vulgate was from John Wycliffe and even then the papacy had issues with that where they demanded after he died for his bones to be crushed and scattered in the river. Even Wycliffe felt the need to oppose the Catholcis. John Hus, who supported his idea of people being able to read the scriptures in their own language was burned at the stake in 1415, with Wycliffe's manuscripts as kindle for the fire. The last words of John Hus were that, “in 100 years, God will raise up a man whose calls for reform cannot be suppressed.” Almost exactly 100 years later, in 1517, Martin Luther nailed his famous 95 Theses of Contention (a list of 95 issues of heretical theology and crimes of the Roman Catholic Church) into the church door at Wittenberg.

The Vulgate Old Testament texts that were translated from the Greek – whether by Jerome himself, or preserving revised or unrevised Old Latin versions – are however early and important secondary witnesses to the Septuagint.

 

[KJV1611]

lol.. Still a problem. Why not just update the words to what it would mean today.. why use an old outdated word 99 percent of young adults would not even have a clue what it means.

If God wants to update it, he will and it will be obvious... his signature will be all over it.

 

[blue_ladybug]

This is sort of off-topic, but has/does anyone use the Touchpoint bible, NLT? How do you like it? For me, it's easier to understand than my KJV is..

 

[Grace777x70]

This is sort of off-topic, but has/does anyone use the Touchpoint bible, NLT? How do you like it? For me, it's easier to understand than my KJV is..

I have one NLT I use for reading the scriptures through chronologically but I would not use it for making any final thoughts on any doctrine. It serves a good purpose in making some truths come alive as I read it.

That I would use the Greek and Hebrew but I also generally trust the NASB and the KJV unless I get a "witness" on the inside of me from the Holy Spirit that says 'This is not complete or it is inaccurate" - then I search the original language scriptures.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If God wants to update it, he will and it will be obvious... his signature will be all over it.

lol.. again Easy excuse.. Don;t people get sick of these excuses.. or IF's?? We do not base doctrines on assumptions. And this whole reasoning is based off an assumption.

Again, why this subject is awful

 

[KJV1611]

How many of you guys can see the book of David's DNA in this verse. Also do you see the body of Christ in this verse.

Psalm 139:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)

16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I already answered you plenty of times with the same answer. You act as if we don't ALREADY have a preserved word, aka the KJV. You only want to update it bc you dont understand yet in the previous post you say it would still be flawed so i dont understand. People are saved regardless w/o having a KJV but the argument is if we are going to have a bible to rely on without it being corrupted it will be the KJV it was purified 7 times it needs no more. Just look at the very first sentence of the KJV and the NKJV already a error within the first sentence and you believe we can somehow improve it.

No, What you have done is use the same arguments all you people use. You think your the first person I have discussed this with? (I actually at one time believed as you do)

No english bible can be completely relied on. because the english language is flawed.

You have done absolutelu NOTHING to refute that FACT

You could not even respond to the three points I made, and you expect me to listen to you??

and you did not answer my question as to why God would hod english people above all other people. and why he did not preserve his the words he origionally wrote..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

This is sort of off-topic, but has/does anyone use the Touchpoint bible, NLT? How do you like it? For me, it's easier to understand than my KJV is..

The NLY is easy to read. But a horrible translation. You have to continuouslly go to the NASB,KJV or NKJV to make sure of the interpretation.