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.
Does anyone actually know where I can find a dated list or at least the order of Bible books, 1st to last etc. Just reading Leviticus and saw that plague and other, were examined by priest and deemed unclean. Then told to say unclean living in rags, warning people as lepers etc. Wondered where the healing was?
I am the new guy on the block and it is interesting to me that the post before me has a soldier dressed prepared for battle... This battle has been going on a long time, in fact until I joined a Christian boards over 15 years ago I didn't know what a KJVO was... I have been reading and studying from the KJV since the age of seven and I am now seventy-one. I enjoy the language and the structure of the KJV... At no time have I ever tried to tell another one that read a different version than mine that they were wrong... There are some that read ESV and others that read NIV and other that read YLT and there are various variations and translations and to me what ever version or translation bring you comfort and joy in your walk with the Lord read and enjoy... If someone comes on here and starts quoting from the Book Of Mormon then we have a problem... Others say the KJV is archaic and out of date... I heard that argument before but mine is in English same as yours and if I have a problem with some words I have Strong's and many other resources at my disposal... I'm positive in every version there is the Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection Of Jesus Christ and his return though the telling of it is somewhat different... I want to leave a message for those who are KJVO... I am KJVO too but I don't try to shove the KJV down any ones throat... But I always get sucked into these battles because we want to show other their are different KJVO out there and I know many... There are some of us who are KJVO but as you can see we show respect to those who aren't, I know I do and I also know of other who would do the same... I already fought a battle in Vietnam and never realized that I would have to come home and fight another one... So to the true KJVO camp lighten up... There are a very large group of us who are also KJVO but not of your camp... We are peacemakers not agitators... K. James
Last edited:
What is the difference between the two? What meaning is changed, how is the Son not the Son of God?
After looking at Daniel Aramaic I have found that the Aramaic word for the triune God is elan. My apologies to Sagart because ancient texts that use elahin in Daniel 3:25 is a son of the gods.... no doubt about it.
Now my question is why does blue letter bible have elahh but bible hub has elahin in Daniel 3:25?
Now my question is why does blue letter bible have elahh but bible hub has elahin in Daniel 3:25?
I agree, no bible should be shoved down anyone's throat. At the same time though when people claim errors in the kjv I feel like I should speak what the Lord has shown me about those so called errors. That's why I participate in these discussions.
Ehm, its exactly that type of change you are calling out in for example NIV, saying that "it is against the deity of Christ", when the NIV leaves it or some of His titles somewhere.
So I am surprised that when the KJV does it, its OK.
Which version is therefore inspired and perfect, the version with "the Son of God" or the version with "the Son"?
It's not the same with NIV, Jesus is not Gods only son, a son of the gods didn't deliver them from the furnace, Jesus did not have an origin.
Do you see the difference?
You always see "the difference" regarding the KJV, because you want to. You never see "the difference" in NIV or others, because you do not want to...
Wow! And so this thread continues! Well, lucky for me, since I saw a funny BabylonBee article about this subject. Of course, it is a bit off topic, but for anyone left reading this, it makes a point!
KJV-Only Church Still Staunch Defender pf Early Web Design Principles
GASTON, KY—Independent Baptist Fellowship of Kentucky (AV 1611) remains the world’s staunchest defender of early web design practices, a report released by the Federal Communications Commission revealed Monday.
The church of 27 members hosts, runs, and maintains what the FCC report describes as the world’s most archaic website, accurately reflecting the beliefs of its pastor that the church should stay as close as possible to early web design standards as well as computer hardware and technology.
The website, which is compatible with only Internet Explorer 4.01 and Netscape Navigator 4.08, features a garish red font, which declares in capital letters dripping with blood that the NIV and similar translations are “Satan’s favorite Bible PER-versions.” The text is laid over a background including a tiled pattern of spinning GIFs showing Satan’s head cackling maniacally, making it barely readable to the modern eye.
“Any changes or updates to the old web design practices are the devil’s way of undermining the gospel and our Lord Jesus,” pastor Tony Allen told reporters Thursday. “So-called modern ‘webpage versions’ have eliminated entire spinning GIFs and unreadable text colors from the canon, not to mention God’s favorite font—Comic Sans.” He then produced an extensive table detailing all the differences between original web design standards and modern “abominations,” including Web 2.0 designs, Google Chrome-compatible pages, and HTML5 code.
At publishing time, Allen had shot down a proposal from his deacon board suggesting the church upgrade the church office’s rotary telephone to a corded touch-tone model, calling the latter a “demonic imitation of the real deal.
KJV-Only Church Still Staunch Defender Of Early Web Design Principles
No offence to the KJV Only people, or anyone who reads the KJV because it is their preferred version. I just thought some levity was called for, on occasion.
KJV-Only Church Still Staunch Defender pf Early Web Design Principles
GASTON, KY—Independent Baptist Fellowship of Kentucky (AV 1611) remains the world’s staunchest defender of early web design practices, a report released by the Federal Communications Commission revealed Monday.
The church of 27 members hosts, runs, and maintains what the FCC report describes as the world’s most archaic website, accurately reflecting the beliefs of its pastor that the church should stay as close as possible to early web design standards as well as computer hardware and technology.
The website, which is compatible with only Internet Explorer 4.01 and Netscape Navigator 4.08, features a garish red font, which declares in capital letters dripping with blood that the NIV and similar translations are “Satan’s favorite Bible PER-versions.” The text is laid over a background including a tiled pattern of spinning GIFs showing Satan’s head cackling maniacally, making it barely readable to the modern eye.
“Any changes or updates to the old web design practices are the devil’s way of undermining the gospel and our Lord Jesus,” pastor Tony Allen told reporters Thursday. “So-called modern ‘webpage versions’ have eliminated entire spinning GIFs and unreadable text colors from the canon, not to mention God’s favorite font—Comic Sans.” He then produced an extensive table detailing all the differences between original web design standards and modern “abominations,” including Web 2.0 designs, Google Chrome-compatible pages, and HTML5 code.
At publishing time, Allen had shot down a proposal from his deacon board suggesting the church upgrade the church office’s rotary telephone to a corded touch-tone model, calling the latter a “demonic imitation of the real deal.
KJV-Only Church Still Staunch Defender Of Early Web Design Principles
No offence to the KJV Only people, or anyone who reads the KJV because it is their preferred version. I just thought some levity was called for, on occasion.
As Dr. James White correctly asserts there is KJVO and then there is KJVO cultic. For any here besides yourself that are KJVO to say they aren't trying to shove it down others throats, well, frankly, that is simply untrue. That is exactly what they are doing.
Anyhow, I respect your post!
I think there are only 3 reasons I could use the KJV.
Because it's royalty free in the USA (from UK), because it is in my opinion the hardest preaching Bible that may hit the heart like a shotgun and not a lettuce (though potentially biblically undesirable? maybe?) and because the phrases give more depth of meaning when they are understood in many areas/limiting the need for extra words.
Oh, 4, it's a Bible.
Stick with the blessed King James Holy Bible. Get rid of the modern versions for they are Satanic. Oh and By the way, do not let some Alexandrian tell you that you need to go back to Greek and Hebrew. Because you do not. God hath preserved His wonderful and holy word in the English language and also other languages.
Now you, are exactly what we are talking about!
You have been brainwashed to believe the propaganda that 7 late, corrupted Byzantine manuscripts, with numerous additions are the truth.
I would say that is the devil, myself! So many good modern versions, compare them and use them! Just wonderful they are in our language, not some 400 year old dead language.
Maybe you need to get a "Bible" education from a dude with a PhD and learn how to correct the word of God and become your own final authority. And then you can correct others on Bible words and translation errors because of your vast knowledge of the original languages (you know, the originals that God allowed to be destroyed because they were so important...). Or, keep reading the beautiful, timeless KJV and let the other translations continue to update to the ever changing English language. Heck, in 20 years the accepted translation may be a short hand, slang text version. Please stick with the KJV and don't be shy about defending the word of God.
Do most Modern Versions alter the meaning when it changes the word?
There are place in the Bible where changed word alter the meaning. These changes come into varieties which may destroy the teaching and turn the truths of God into a lie. Here we look on the two major changes:
1. Substitution. This means the word is swap to watered down or muddy the meaning. Examples:
A)1 Timothy 3:16 where God was substituted to either He/Who/Which, that demoted the deity.
B) John 3:3,7 “Born again” to born anew or born from above.
2. Ommision. Omitted words that cause theological impact of the scriptures. Examples:
A) Ephesians 3:9 “by Jesus Christ” is omitted in most New Versions implying Jesus Christ is not a Creator.
B) John 6:47 “on me” is omitted which new versions may teaches “universalism”. Salvation is by Grace through faith alone in Christ.” Watered down is “he that believes shall be saved”
C) 1 John 4:3 “Christ is come in the flesh” is omitted in most of the new versions following Gnostic beliefs that Christ is only a phantom.
The Greek “Anothen” in John 3:3, 7, is it Born Again/Born Anew /Born from Above?
There is the question that the accordingly, Gk “anothen” in the given text must somehow be translated Born” anew” or “from above” in the text of John 3:3, 7 where the KJV translated it as born “again” and not as mention in some modern versions. Interestingly, many new versions adapted the traditional KJV reading of the text though some had in their footnotes the variant readings of anew or from the above.
For the record, the KJV translators used it as
1) From above (5x)
2) Top (3X)
3) From the first (1x)
4) From the beginning (1x)
5) Not tr (1x)
Certainly, the KJ translators were non ignoramus of these instances. But why “FROM ABOVE “ is not used in the given text? The NET put it this way and few more
John 3:3 Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
It cannot be well said that “from above” since we are not from above. We don’t simply caught up while we’ve been born for the second time in our spirit. Only Christ and the Holy Spirit that is from the above that goes down that dwell among men. Verse 31 sheds light when it says we are not “from above” so that we cannot be born from above. In fact, Nicodemus thought of a sort of earthly things, “from the womb”.
KJV John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
ESV John 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.
What about born anew?
According to Meriam Websters
Definition of anew
1. 1: for an additional time : again begin anew
2. 2: in a new or different form a story told anew on film
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anew
So while it is true that it has the same meaning as again yet it cast the differing views of the No. 2 definition which may allow the Eastern belief of “reincarnation” or “nirvana” thus this is not pure.
The definition of the word ‘again” is quite pure. Here is what Meriam Websters Learners Dictionary says:
again /əˈgɛn/ adverb
Learner's definition of AGAIN
1
: for another time : one more time
§ Please, come see us again.
§ Spring is beginning again.
§ It was nice to see my friends again.
2
: to a previous position or place
“Anew” speaks of time in a new or different form
“Again” speaks of one more time to a previous position or place
Exactly the KJV translation is by far correct in this instance.
God bless
There are place in the Bible where changed word alter the meaning. These changes come into varieties which may destroy the teaching and turn the truths of God into a lie. Here we look on the two major changes:
1. Substitution. This means the word is swap to watered down or muddy the meaning. Examples:
A)1 Timothy 3:16 where God was substituted to either He/Who/Which, that demoted the deity.
B) John 3:3,7 “Born again” to born anew or born from above.
2. Ommision. Omitted words that cause theological impact of the scriptures. Examples:
A) Ephesians 3:9 “by Jesus Christ” is omitted in most New Versions implying Jesus Christ is not a Creator.
B) John 6:47 “on me” is omitted which new versions may teaches “universalism”. Salvation is by Grace through faith alone in Christ.” Watered down is “he that believes shall be saved”
C) 1 John 4:3 “Christ is come in the flesh” is omitted in most of the new versions following Gnostic beliefs that Christ is only a phantom.
The Greek “Anothen” in John 3:3, 7, is it Born Again/Born Anew /Born from Above?
There is the question that the accordingly, Gk “anothen” in the given text must somehow be translated Born” anew” or “from above” in the text of John 3:3, 7 where the KJV translated it as born “again” and not as mention in some modern versions. Interestingly, many new versions adapted the traditional KJV reading of the text though some had in their footnotes the variant readings of anew or from the above.
For the record, the KJV translators used it as
1) From above (5x)
2) Top (3X)
3) From the first (1x)
4) From the beginning (1x)
5) Not tr (1x)
Certainly, the KJ translators were non ignoramus of these instances. But why “FROM ABOVE “ is not used in the given text? The NET put it this way and few more
John 3:3 Jesus replied, "I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God."
It cannot be well said that “from above” since we are not from above. We don’t simply caught up while we’ve been born for the second time in our spirit. Only Christ and the Holy Spirit that is from the above that goes down that dwell among men. Verse 31 sheds light when it says we are not “from above” so that we cannot be born from above. In fact, Nicodemus thought of a sort of earthly things, “from the womb”.
KJV John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
ESV John 3:31 He who comes from above is above all. He who is of the earth belongs to the earth and speaks in an earthly way. He who comes from heaven is above all.
What about born anew?
According to Meriam Websters
Definition of anew
1. 1: for an additional time : again begin anew
2. 2: in a new or different form a story told anew on film
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anew
So while it is true that it has the same meaning as again yet it cast the differing views of the No. 2 definition which may allow the Eastern belief of “reincarnation” or “nirvana” thus this is not pure.
The definition of the word ‘again” is quite pure. Here is what Meriam Websters Learners Dictionary says:
again /əˈgɛn/ adverb
Learner's definition of AGAIN
1
: for another time : one more time
§ Please, come see us again.
§ Spring is beginning again.
§ It was nice to see my friends again.
2
: to a previous position or place
“Anew” speaks of time in a new or different form
“Again” speaks of one more time to a previous position or place
Exactly the KJV translation is by far correct in this instance.
God bless
Nobody is suggesting not reading or using the KJV.Maybe you need to get a "Bible" education from a dude with a PhD and learn how to correct the word of God and become your own final authority. And then you can correct others on Bible words and translation errors because of your vast knowledge of the original languages (you know, the originals that God allowed to be destroyed because they were so important...). Or, keep reading the beautiful, timeless KJV and let the other translations continue to update to the ever changing English language. Heck, in 20 years the accepted translation may be a short hand, slang text version. Please stick with the KJV and don't be shy about defending the word of God.
What is being questioned is any notion that the KJV can be the only "English" version of the Bible that is trustworthy.
Frankly, your comment is on the lines of "don't confuse me with facts."
Your dismissal of the "PhD dude" is consistent with your view that ignorance is best!
And the whole KJVO debate is based on utter ignorance of simple facts that can be easily independently verified.
Use the KJV - I do - but don't make silly claims about the KJV and don't make silly claims about other versions.
Yes, it is the word of God= scripture, if it is scripture = 2 Timothy 3:16 which is able to make thee wise unto salvation and that the man of God maybe perfect througly furnish unto good works.
God bless