King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

Nobody is suggesting not reading or using the KJV.
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.

What are the simple facts?

 

[preacher4truth]

Stick with the...modern versions...let some tell you that you need Greek and Hebrew. Because you do...God hath <has> preserved His wonderful and holy word in the English language and also other languages.

There. Much better.

Yes, Amen! He has preserved it in the ESV, NASB, HCSB, CSB, YLT, GENEVA BIBLE, NKJV, NIV, NASBU and other English versions yet to be published. And those are just the English versions!

 

[limey410]

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.

I believe that the Holy Spirit of God is powerful enough to guide me to the truth no matter which translation I may use. I do like the KJV and NKJV, also the NASB. Not a fan of the NIV so much any more. (just an aside)

It is the voice of truth that I listen to. In prayer, He will always lead me to the right spot, the right understanding, as I grow in Him, I hope He will reveal more.

I truly trust in Him and what He can still accomplish, even 400 years after this document was produced by God for that time.

You see, when God actually spoke to Moses it wasn't English, When Jesus spoke to those around Him, it wasn't English, When Jesus spoke to Saul, it wasn't English. He spoke in the language that was understood by the people He was speaking to at that time.

But then in 1611 He froze in the way that He wishes to communicate to people? That is rather presumptuous, and certainly makes no sense to me.

I believe whatever document you might use, if you can see the true heart of God, and He reveals Himself in some way to you, then you are reading the correct version.

And if you are not reading the correct version, The Holy Spirit will guide you away from it, if you can open your ears long enough to be led by Him. For me prayer and discernment seem to work.

 

[graceNpeace]

What are the simple facts?

Go and read up about textual criticism.
It is the study of ancient manuscripts and is especially important in the Christianity.
Key aspects are the dating of these manuscripts with the understanding that copies of manuscripts dating closer to the time that the originals were written are likely to be more accurate than copies written later.

As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread the manuscripts that are the basis of the KJV translation are much later than modern archaeology has now discovered.
Newer translations (not just English ones) are based on these earlier manuscripts.

However the most troubling aspect of the whole debate is the fairy-tale that somehow the KJV is "inspired".
It is not.
And to keep insisting that God was directly involved in creating the KJV translation, to the exclusion of all others, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim.

As for the simple facts regarding the manuscripts it is up to you and others to actually do the yards and research what has been said over and over again, for yourself! You have shown no inclination to accept anything said in opposition to your point of view on this forum. Fine, do not take our word for it. Go to the people who do actually know what they are talking about and actually earn their living doing the research.
Idiots like Steven Anderson do not count!

 

[KJV1611]

1 Peter 1:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

KJV - God has begotten us again to a lively hope.


1 Peter 1:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

NASB - God has caused us to be born again.

Which version is right?
Does this verse affect our beliefs on what born again really means?

 

[graceNpeace]

1 Peter 1:3King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

KJV - God has begotten us again to a lively hope.


1 Peter 1:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

NASB - God has caused us to be born again.

Which version is right?
Does this verse affect our beliefs on what born again really means?

Honestly!
If you understand English both versions are saying exactly the same thing thing!
The wording is slightly different but the MEANING is the same.
Somehow you cannot see this...

What you have just done, by your selective quotations is erect a straw-man to your weird ideology.

 

[KJV1611]

Go and read up about textual criticism.
It is the study of ancient manuscripts and is especially important in the Christianity.
Key aspects are the dating of these manuscripts with the understanding that copies of manuscripts dating closer to the time that the originals were written are likely to be more accurate than copies written later.

As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread the manuscripts that are the basis of the KJV translation are much later than modern archaeology has now discovered.
Newer translations (not just English ones) are based on these earlier manuscripts.

However the most troubling aspect of the whole debate is the fairy-tale that somehow the KJV is "inspired".
It is not.
And to keep insisting that God was directly involved in creating the KJV translation, to the exclusion of all others, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim.

As for the simple facts regarding the manuscripts it is up to you and others to actually do the yards and research what has been said over and over again, for yourself! You have shown no inclination to accept anything said in opposition to your point of view on this forum. Fine, do not take our word for it. Go to the people who do actually know what they are talking about and actually earn their living doing the research.
Idiots like Steven Anderson do not count!

Older does not mean better. People were perverting the gospel at the same time the gospel was being written. Which verses are perverted in the TR? Just one is fine.

 

[KJV1611]

Honestly!
If you understand English both versions are saying exactly the same thing thing!
The wording is slightly different but the MEANING is the same.
Somehow you cannot see this...

What you have just done, by your selective quotations is erect a straw-man to your weird ideology.

Ok, point out or paraphrase where the KJV said God has caused us to be born again in that verse.

 

[graceNpeace]

Older does not mean better. People were perverting the gospel at the same time the gospel was being written. Which verses are perverted in the TR? Just one is fine.

I will repeat - go and do the research for yourself.

 

[limey410]

Ok, point out or paraphrase where the KJV said God has caused us to be born again in that verse.

KJV1611,

You owe me some commentary on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the difference between being born again and salvation I didn't forget, and you seem pretty diligent in replying to all rebuttals. Unless you posted and I missed it.

 

[preacher4truth]

Go and read up about textual criticism.
It is the study of ancient manuscripts and is especially important in the Christianity.
Key aspects are the dating of these manuscripts with the understanding that copies of manuscripts dating closer to the time that the originals were written are likely to be more accurate than copies written later.

As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread the manuscripts that are the basis of the KJV translation are much later than modern archaeology has now discovered.
Newer translations (not just English ones) are based on these earlier manuscripts.

However the most troubling aspect of the whole debate is the fairy-tale that somehow the KJV is "inspired".
It is not.
And to keep insisting that God was directly involved in creating the KJV translation, to the exclusion of all others, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim.

As for the simple facts regarding the manuscripts it is up to you and others to actually do the yards and research what has been said over and over again, for yourself! You have shown no inclination to accept anything said in opposition to your point of view on this forum. Fine, do not take our word for it. Go to the people who do actually know what they are talking about and actually earn their living doing the research.
Idiots like Steven Anderson do not count!

I appreciate your tenacity but cultic KJVO'ers aren't going to listen. I was around them for years, and except for the grace of God they will continue to worship ink on a page and offer up deluded nonsense about a perfect version while employing more than a double standard.

 

[KJV1611]

I will repeat - go and do the research for yourself.

I'm not the one saying the TR is screwed up, you are. You proclaim this like it's the gospel truth and haven't presented one iota of evidence that it is.

 

[KJV1611]

KJV1611,

You owe me some commentary on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the difference between being born again and salvation I didn't forget, and you seem pretty diligent in replying to all rebuttals. Unless you posted and I missed it.

I presented my case but let's do another thread on it.... I will start it.

 

[limey410]

I presented my case but let's do another thread on it.... I will start it.

No, you only presented a partial case. I showed you that forgiveness of sins was not the full picture of salvation. And I believe I showed you that salvation from eternal death is accomplished by God through His indwelling Spirit

I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.

 

[KJV1611]

No, you only presented a partial case. I showed you that forgiveness of sins was not the full picture of salvation. And I believe I showed you that salvation from eternal death is accomplished by God through His indwelling Spirit

I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.

I didn't say salvation from eternal death is accomplished by the indwelling of the Spirit. I said and I'm paraphrasing here... believe God and it is counted to us as righteousness - Chirst's righteousness.

 

[preacher4truth]

I didn't say salvation from eternal death is accomplished by the indwelling of the Spirit. I said and I'm paraphrasing here... believe God and it is counted to us as righteousness - Chirst's righteousness.

Imagine, a sectarian KJVO'er stooping to paraphrase while claiming to have a perfect version which could be quoted instead. And a typo to boot. You saw it here first.

 

[graceNpeace]

Ok, point out or paraphrase where the KJV said God has caused us to be born again in that verse.

The word translated as "begotten us again" in the KJV or "born again" in the NASB is this: [FONT=&quot]ἀναγεννήσας [/FONT]and it literally means "born again".
The problem here is not a textual one - clearly you have some alternate meaning for the word "begotten" because of a theological bias or presupposition. However "hath begotten us again" means "has caused us to be born again".

 

[preacher4truth]

Isn't it amazing that the TR was originated by a catholic priest, but the cultic KJVO'ers here give that a bye?

 

[KJV1611]

The word translated as "begotten us again" in the KJV or "born again" in the NASB is this: ἀναγεννήσας and it literally means "born again".
The problem here is not a textual one - clearly you have some alternate meaning for the word "begotten" because of a theological bias or presupposition. However "hath begotten us again" means "has caused us to be born again".

Would you agree that it means to beget or bear again?


ἀναγεννάω anagennáō, an-ag-en-nah'-o; from G303 and G1080; to beget or (by extension) bear (again):—beget, (bear) × (again).

 

[limey410]

I didn't say salvation from eternal death is accomplished by the indwelling of the Spirit. I said and I'm paraphrasing here... believe God and it is counted to us as righteousness - Chirst's righteousness.

I know, I said that salvation is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.