According to CNN about 200 of the original printings still exists.
https://www.google.com/amp/religion...y-church-finds-original-king-james-bible/amp/
King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- Start date
-
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.
According to CNN about 200 of the original printings still exists.
https://www.google.com/amp/religion...y-church-finds-original-king-james-bible/amp/
L
limey410
Guest
This is gonna be long so bear with me.
If I understand that if I am saved by His life after His death, then it is not Jesus physical life that I am saved by. So it must be His Spiritual life. (Jesus said he is the resurrected life)
If we go back to Genesis, God breathed life into Adam, it can be determined by hermenuetics that this is the Spirit of God that provides a Spiritual life, after all He didn't the breathe life into animals, only Adam, so His breathe of life was reserved for us, but animals still physically live.
When Adam ate from the tree he didn't physically die, so it must have been a Spiritual death. Or the absence of the Spirit of God. Adam sinned the God could not reconcile that sin, so He had to leave. (Jesus later reconciled that sin on the cross)
Genesis 2:17
17But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Yet he lived physically for 900+ years. Physical death was more of a blessing, because this ain't heaven, and that was no longer the garden of Eden.
So from Adam forward we were born into sin spiritually dead. Because humans are kicking around, but Paul describes us as dead.
This is the problem, or the bad news: sin and death.
Romans 5:15,16 (KJV)
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
16 And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification.
So I think we can all agree that we are not saved from physical death, so we must be saved from Spiritual death.
How does that occur for the believer?
Jesus said (right before raising Lazarus from physical death, pretty cool) in John 11:25
25Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: 26And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?
Now in v:25 he that beleives in me will live, and in 26 he that lives and beleives in me shall never die.
How does that happen, forever, never die from now until eternity?
This is how it happens: John 14:16 (KJV)
16And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; 17Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.
He sends us the comforter, to live with us for ever, but the world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth, because it does not believe.
We know the Spirit of truth because He dwells in us, because we believed. (John 11:26)
Well who is the Spirit of truth?
John 14:6 (KJV)
"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me"
Jesus said He is the truth, so it is His spirit that is the Spirit of Truth.
So He sent the Spirit of truth, His Spirit ergo the Spirit of God. Only God is Holy, so it must be the Holy Spirit of God.
He sent us the Holy Spirit of God (himself) to dwell in us, and then we also dwell in him because we beleiveth Him (John 11:26).
So as a result of our belief in Him and what he accomplished on the cross, He now lives in us. He imputes His righteousness on us so that He doesn't have to leave the next time we commit sin.
So the last question is does the Holy Spirit dwell in us?
I go to Romans 8:9-11 (KJV)
9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 10And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
He lives in us, and we in Him, by His Spirit that He sent, for eternity physically now and when we physically die.
That is salvation! Being saved from eternal death by His Spirit.
Good News: Forgiveness of sIn and life everlasting. Him abiding in us, and us in Him.
Last edited:
Should not you sell everything you have and buy one?
If it is so important to you, why do you use some corrupted revision of later date?
L
limey410
Guest
I may have said this on another KJV thread, but here goes:
I love the KJV, and I think it's one of the best translations out there.
I use the NKJV for study and for quoting Scripture, and I use the NIV to read along at church.
Personally, I have absolutely NO issue with preachers and theologians who use the KJV exclusively for preaching and for teaching. However, I do draw the line when one of them says that the KJV is the ONLY translation we should use and that any more modern version is full of doctrinal errors and worse, inspired by the devil himself. I even heard one KJV-only preacher mock the idea that we now have access to manuscripts which have made some of the modern translations possible.
To be sure, there are some modern translations that I stay away from, including the NWT and the Message. Sometimes my church pastor quotes from the Message and I cringe every time. That said, it is entirely over the top to say that anything more modern than the KJV itself is inspired or influenced by Satan.
I love the KJV, and I think it's one of the best translations out there.
I use the NKJV for study and for quoting Scripture, and I use the NIV to read along at church.
Personally, I have absolutely NO issue with preachers and theologians who use the KJV exclusively for preaching and for teaching. However, I do draw the line when one of them says that the KJV is the ONLY translation we should use and that any more modern version is full of doctrinal errors and worse, inspired by the devil himself. I even heard one KJV-only preacher mock the idea that we now have access to manuscripts which have made some of the modern translations possible.
To be sure, there are some modern translations that I stay away from, including the NWT and the Message. Sometimes my church pastor quotes from the Message and I cringe every time. That said, it is entirely over the top to say that anything more modern than the KJV itself is inspired or influenced by Satan.
I was typing quickly in an effort to get my thoughts out, and I forgot to include my reason.
Maybe it's my upbringing, but I just like how the language (of the day) flows throughout the KJV. I don't necessarily believe that it's any better doctrinally though. Some of the more modern translations use too much paraphrasing, IMHO.
That's misleading, insinuating that the 1611 version says something different than the KJV I read today. It says exactly the same thing.
The words in 1611
I will comment on the rest after this. The point you made above is where we will probably have irreconcilable difference due to my belief that every word in the bible is right.
Those verses don't say Adam died spiritual, it says in the DAY he eats he will surely die and he did die in the very day he ate the fruit.... physically died.
2 Peter: 3. 8. But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. - Bible Offline
This is poetry or "spiritual" talk and does not really mean what it says. I believe it exactly as it is written, 1 day with God is exactly to the minute 1000 years. Many places all over the bible that refer to this.
I don't believe Adam or anybody else's spirit is dead.
L
limey410
Guest
He didn't die the day he ate the fruit. He lived and had children and did some farming.
L
limey410
Guest
Well, we believe the Word of God is just that. I enjoy it in several versions and so do many others. They are all the Word of God, and they don't have to have the same exact words, they all teach the same doctrine. Sadly, the KJV has added things to Scripture that weren't in many mss.
No, he didn't die physically that same day. He died physically years later, he died spiritually at the moment he ate. ANd your hermeneutic is inconsistent, literalism is blinding your mind to spiritual truths.
This verse isn't speaking of the time in the garden. Peter is making a point about the LORD's patience for His elect. Notice it says "as" not "is." It's figurative speech, not literal.
Utterly ridiculous nonsense. God is aging really really fast bro.
Hopefully you can see how absurd your beliefs are, or, KJVO has done so much indoctrinating you cannot see it.
No, sorry. you're taking passages out of context to support an erroneous doctrine you've developed.
Then you don't believe the NT theology of the Holy Spirit via Paul and others. KJVO will do that to you, it is that deceptive.
Okay, I understand your point now. I think there is still a distinction, because "original language proponents" as you classify them do not make any claim to worshiping the words, and I suspect most would reject that notion. I certainly reject it. I worship the triune God, manifest in Jesus, not the words of the Bible, whether they be original, manuscript, printed version, or translation. They are "theopneustos" as distinct from "theos".