The King James Only Debate

[LaurenTM]

my KJ pushed the NIV off the shelf this morning and snarled at the Amplified

the English Standard (which I like for it's poetic renderings that differ just enough to make one appreciate the Bard) puffed itself up and chided the KJ and said 'why can't we all just get along'

well, that was enough for the American King James to mumble something about tea and turn his back on his English brothers

by then, the NIV had picked itself up and was very busy dusting off his newer clothes...he pushed the hair out of his eyes and looking up at the KJ warned him about his prejudice and the fact that kings were no longer ruling other then by popularity and the whole pomp and circumstance thing

a few commentaries had got together and were ready to swing their considerable weight around but the KJ, still quite uppity, told them they were nothing but a bunch of opinions anyway

the laptop got involved at this point and remarked that ALL of them were lightweights compared to the vast array of Bibles he has on display and at that comment, all the versions started throwing quotes at him

they are still at it and I think I shall go for a walk

 

[KJV1611]

my KJ pushed the NIV off the shelf this morning and snarled at the Amplified

the English Standard (which I like for it's poetic renderings that differ just enough to make one appreciate the Bard) puffed itself up and chided the KJ and said 'why can't we all just get along'

well, that was enough for the American King James to mumble something about tea and turn his back on his English brothers

by then, the NIV had picked itself up and was very busy dusting off his newer clothes...he pushed the hair out of his eyes and looking up at the KJ warned him about his prejudice and the fact that kings were no longer ruling other then by popularity and the whole pomp and circumstance thing

a few commentaries had got together and were ready to swing their considerable weight around but the KJ, still quite uppity, told them they were nothing but a bunch of opinions anyway

the laptop got involved at this point and remarked that ALL of them were lightweights compared to the vast array of Bibles he has on display and at that comment, all the versions started throwing quotes at him

they are still at it and I think I shall go for a walk

LOL lol lol... that is too funny. Did you come up with that?

 

[LaurenTM]

LOL lol lol... that is too funny. Did you come up with that?

yeah...I did

I sometimes write short stories...humorous with funny twists...used to have an audience for them on flickr but have not done them in a while

 

[KJV1611]

yeah...I did

I sometimes write short stories...humorous with funny twists...used to have an audience for them on flickr but have not done them in a while

Well that was excellent... you are definitely talented in that area.

 

[John146]

If I am preaching one version over any other. And saying this is the ONLY version and all others are satanic, or evil. I belong to a cult.

If I think the KJV is the best version. And it is my version of choice. But would not judge anyone who disagreed, Then I am just person who would rather use the KJV, but not a cult

If standing up for the word of God as truth is a cult...then count me in.

 

[John146]

I wholeheartedly agree that the bible interprets itself but it cannot define itself. I have read the old KJV long enough to be able to understand the archaic English that is used therein. I have often found it necessary to research the definitions of the old words that were commonly known and accepted centuries ago.

The fact remains that declaring any repeat any translation as inspired is idiotic. God has blessed and used the KJV for many centuries but it is and always will be just a translation of the original manuscripts. Good as it is or poor as it may be God has blessed it and it has been used of God to harvest many souls for the kingdom of God.

If we spent as much time teaching John 3:16 to the world as we do arguing over bible translations well I suspect the results would be tangible.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

The KJV does in fact define itself. Sorry you have missed that.

I never claim that the KJV is inspired, rather, the preserved words of God in the English language.

 

[trofimus]

The KJV does in fact define itself. Sorry you have missed that.

I never claim that the KJV is inspired, rather, the preserved words of God in the English language.

Actually, you must say that KJV is inspired.

If you say that the translation based on the Greek critical edition of Erasmus who had only 7 (seven) not very good manuscripts from the 12th century and did not have any manuscript for some portions of the New Testament so he had to translate it back to Greek from Latin is the perfect word of God, you must believe it was inspired, somehow.

Because its "naturally" impossible.

And the Old Testament? Even much worse situation than with the new one, for KJV.

 

[LaurenTM]

Well that was excellent... you are definitely talented in that area.

well thank you!

 

[Dino246]

Hi,

But I humbly say NO to all versions that the truth of God is found. That's right "if" it doem't pose any threat to a major distortion we can trust the Bible. Yet many of the Newer Versions does that. A case in point? Try to analyze or study this single verse of 1 John 4:3 as rendered in the KJV and hoping you find the major difference. ...

God bless

KJV 1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

ESV 1 John 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.

NIV 1 John 4:3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

This post caught my attention, because I memorized this passage from the NIV and the above didn't sound right. However, I checked a popular online source, "biblegateway.com" and indeed, its versions of the NIV and ESV read as above (For the record, I consciously chose not to address the NWT version, because I and most Christians don't consider it a true Bible). I don't have my paper edition handy, but I checked other sources and found the following:

2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God (https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1jn.4.niv)

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4 - ESVBible.org) ((for clarity I removed the footnote markers))

Now... the KJV says this:
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:[SUP]3 [/SUP]And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So... we have the assertion that you can discern the value of a translation by comparing one verse. The above shows plainly that the truth is in all three versions, though it is not spelled out in verse 3 in the newer versions. However, it is quite clear that verse 3 is a continuation of the sentence in verse 2, and does not require restatement of the full concept to put across the truth.

Either way, let's all be careful about the sources we quote and not be hasty in our judgments. Intellectual integrity requires that we not misrepresent what a source says, and then make a serious charge based on incomplete or misleading evidence.

 

[hornetguy]

LOL lol lol... that is too funny. Did you come up with that?

I agree.... that is classic!

 

[notuptome]

The KJV does in fact define itself. Sorry you have missed that.

I never claim that the KJV is inspired, rather, the preserved words of God in the English language.

No belief regardless of how ardently it is held that is not true will never have any virtue.

1Sa 13:21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

I do love the KJV. Where did I leave my coulter? Have you seen it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[trofimus]

This post caught my attention, because I memorized this passage from the NIV and the above didn't sound right. However, I checked a popular online source, "biblegateway.com" and indeed, its versions of the NIV and ESV read as above (For the record, I consciously chose not to address the NWT version, because I and most Christians don't consider it a true Bible). I don't have my paper edition handy, but I checked other sources and found the following:

2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God (https://www.bible.com/bible/111/1jn.4.niv)

2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. (1 John 4 - ESVBible.org) ((for clarity I removed the footnote markers))

Now... the KJV says this:
[SUP]2 [/SUP]Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:[SUP]3 [/SUP]And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

So... we have the assertion that you can discern the value of a translation by comparing one verse. The above shows plainly that the truth is in all three versions, though it is not spelled out in verse 3 in the newer versions. However, it is quite clear that verse 3 is a continuation of the sentence in verse 2, and does not require restatement of the full concept to put across the truth.

Either way, let's all be careful about the sources we quote and not be hasty in our judgments. Intellectual integrity requires that we not misrepresent what a source says, and then make a serious charge based on incomplete or misleading evidence.

Well said. I wanted to give you reputation, but I was not allowed to do that (yet).

 

[KJV1611]

No belief regardless of how ardently it is held that is not true will never have any virtue.

1Sa 13:21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

I do love the KJV. Where did I leave my coulter? Have you seen it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What a coulter in that verse is is not the point, they were tools for making a living and taking care of yourself in that time. The key in that story is gun control. The Phlillistines (the elite) and Saul and Jonathan (the government) took the weapons from the children of Israel.... gun control in our day.

 

[Dan_473]

No belief regardless of how ardently it is held that is not true will never have any virtue.

1Sa 13:21 Yet they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, and to sharpen the goads.

I do love the KJV. Where did I leave my coulter? Have you seen it?

For the cause of Christ
Roger

I can't find a definition for mattocks or coulters in the kjv.




here are words I understand

There weren’t any blacksmiths in the whole land of Israel. That’s because the Philistines had said, “The Hebrews might hire them to make swords or spears!” 20 So all the Israelites had to go down to the Philistines. They had to go to them to get their plows, hoes, axes and sickles sharpened. 21 It cost a fourth of an ounce of silver to sharpen a plow or a hoe. It cost an eighth of an ounce to sharpen a pitchfork or an axe. That’s also what it cost to put new tips on the large sticks used to drive oxen.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Sam+13&version=NIRV

 

[Dan_473]

What a coulter in that verse is is not the point, they were tools for making a living and taking care of yourself in that time. The key in that story is gun control. The Phlillistines (the elite) and Saul and Jonathan (the government) took the weapons from the children of Israel.... gun control in our day.

I don't know the point of every verse, or how I could be sure
what I thought was the point
actually was.

a Bible, even if perfect, is of no value to me if I can't read the words.

 

[notuptome]

What a coulter in that verse is is not the point, they were tools for making a living and taking care of yourself in that time. The key in that story is gun control. The Phlillistines (the elite) and Saul and Jonathan (the government) took the weapons from the children of Israel.... gun control in our day.

If you do not know what the coulter, mattock, forks and goads are then you cannot understand the verse.

If you have the verse in front of you written in Hebrew you would not know what the verse said at all. I realize you just feign being dense because the argument you make is wholly without virtue.

Part of what we are to get from the word of God is knowledge followed by understanding which produces wisdom. You must know before you can understand and only then can wisdom be produced.

The KJV has some fine attributes but it is not an end all of bibles. Read the one you have and let the others read theirs. Quit sniveling over translations and let the word of God go forth that souls will be converted and saved from condemnation.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

 

[KJV1611]

I can't find a definition for mattocks or coulters in the kjv.
.



here are words I understand

There weren’t any blacksmiths in the whole land of Israel. That’s because the Philistines had said, “The Hebrews might hire them to make swords or spears!” 20 So all the Israelites had to go down to the Philistines. They had to go to them to get their plows, hoes, axes and sickles sharpened. 21 It cost a fourth of an ounce of silver to sharpen a plow or a hoe. It cost an eighth of an ounce to sharpen a pitchfork or an axe. That’s also what it cost to put new tips on the large sticks used to drive oxen.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Sam+13&version=NIRV

When I run across words that I dont know I look them up in the dictionary or check the etymology.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't know the point of every verse, or how I could be sure
what I thought was the point
actually was.

a Bible, even if perfect, is of no value to me if I can't read the words.

The message of the bible is always current. The passage in our day and time is the same, instead of taking spears and knifes from the Israelites it would be the government taking our guns away.

 

[masmpg]

Hello all

As a supporter of the King James Version (Authorized Version) I wanted to put into perspective the primary issues in this debate. For those who suggest the argument is a superficial one, based on the style it is written in compared to the style used in the NIV, New American Standard edition, or other - you have it totally wrong.

Don't get me wrong, the old English is beautiful, but this debate is centered on the family of manuscripts which has come down through the apostolic churches as the foundation for its scholarship - Versions such as the NIV and others are based on manuscripts of unknown authorship and origin that cannot be linked to any churches. The primary manuscripts that form their so called "Critical Text" are known as Sinanticus and Vacticanus. Now modern scholars like Bart Erhman, James White & Daniel Wallace reject church texts in favor of these manuscripts which calls into questions scripture passages which they state were not part of the original writings of the apostles such as the last 12 verses of Mark, The women in Adultery in Johns Gospel as well as others.

The awesome short videos provide witness testimony from the second century on the received texts of the apostolic churches against the gnostics who claim to be in possession of the true manuscripts. Let the debate begin.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqjsB-lvDBWXDB-DYVLt-Zg

I have no idea why, if you are a KJV supporter that you would use these videos. The videos you posted prefer the codex siniaticus and codex vaticanus over the textus receptus. The church "fathers" were the ones who perverted the codex vaticanus and siniaticus. The reason scholars have kept from using these errant manuscripts in the KJV was because they were full of errors. They had erasures, and whole verses scratched out and/or replaced. The received text (textus receptus) had no such errors. The masoritic texts which were the ones protected by the masoritic jews were so carefully handled that when any mistake was made on a page while transcribing they would throw away the whole page so there was no room for errors. These texts are what became known as the textus receptus (received text) or also the majority text. I have no idea why so many would flock to an errant translation that is so obviously full of errors and erasures of whole bible verses in the translation itself. ALL translations that use what is known as the westcott and hort manuscripts are what I refer to as satanic counterfeits. Westcott and hort took the corrupted manuscripts, codex vaticanus and siniaticus, one of which was found in the trash in a monastery in Sinai egypt and corrupted them more.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If standing up for the word of God as truth is a cult...then count me in.

Yeah, Keep thinking that..

everyone here is standing for the word of truth as much as you are.