King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

I do not think God preserved His word for every generation in the same level of accuracy.

But I think God preserved His word in the suitable accuracy for all of His people in every time.

Like you said "we can still get the message". Even 21 centuries after the autographs. It is a preservation.
But not in the automatic copying style where every bit is the same.

All I know is, I believe every word of the KJV and stick only with it and my beliefs on most things are different than most everybody elses.

 

[KJV1611]

Guess what? Every translation is different than all the rest, or it would be the same as one.

No I'm saying the newer translation pretty much line up with one another but differ from the KJV.

 

[trofimus]

משׁד עניים מאנקת אביונים עתה אקום יאמר יהוה אשׁית בישׁע יפיח לו׃ Psalms 12:6 ​

The Hebrew word יְהֹוָה in this sentence is a tetragrammaton transliterated as YHWH or JHVH and pronounced as Yahweh or Jehovah. The Jewish people have, for well over two millennia, believed that this name is too sacred to be pronounced, or used in written form unnecessarily. Therefore, the word אֲדֹנָי (Adonai) meaning Lord is substituted. The American Standard Version gives us a literal translation:

Psalms 12:6 The words of Jehovah are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, Purified seven times.

This is a very important fact because it further proves the absolute absurdly and incorrectness of the ridiculous claim that “the words of the Lord” in Psalm 12:6 is a reference to the Bible. Indeed, the expression “the word of God” is found four times in the Old Testament, and in none of these places is the tetragrammaton יְהֹוָה used.

Hm... and now the question - what is the inspired term, JHVH (which is not in the text) or Lord which is in the text.

 

[trofimus]

All I know is, I believe every word of the KJV and stick only with it and my beliefs on most things are different than most everybody elses.

But when you respond to "why", you say "because my KJV says so"... Which is a circular reasoning, do you admit it?

 

[pckts]

Here is a link to the rules King James forced the translators to follow

King James' Instructions To The Translators - Print Version

The one I referenced:

“3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

Unless you believe King James rules are divinely inspired, their is political influence on the KJV

 

[KJV1611]

Then your post #1057 where you said “If I ever find an error I will admit and I will deal with it” cannot be considered truthful. You just proved that you are not able to “deal with it”. You only believe in what the KJV tells you, and therefore, you cannot ever find an error…can you?

1 John 5:7 not being in the existing copies of the originals doesn't mean there NEVER was a copy that contained it. I don't care if the KJV translators added it, which I don't think they did, 1 John 5:7 jives with everything I know about the Godhead.

 

[KJV1611]

Here is a link to the rules King James forced the translators to follow

King James' Instructions To The Translators - Print Version

The one I referenced:

“3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

Unless you believe King James rules are divinely inspired, their is political influence on the KJV

I take it you believe this verse is wrong.

Acts 7:38 KJV
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

 

[trofimus]

I take it you believe this verse is wrong.

Acts 7:38 KJV
This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

He probably meant that the word congregation makes more sense than the word "church". But the word "church" was somehow better for king because of political reasons.

 

[KJV1611]

Here's an example of what I consider an error in a bible. This is flat out wrong! Jesus did not have an origin.

Micah 5:2New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

 

[notbythesword]

1 John 5:7 not being in the existing copies of the originals doesn't mean there NEVER was a copy that contained it. I don't care if the KJV translators added it, which I don't think they did, 1 John 5:7 jives with everything I know about the Godhead.

“I don’t care if the KJV translators added it” Maybe you should think about that for a sec...

 

[trofimus]

Here's an example of what I consider an error in a bible. This is flat out wrong! Jesus did not have an origin.

Micah 5:2New International Version (NIV)

[FONT=&][FONT=&]2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”[/FONT]
[/FONT]

No matter if this is error or not, the fact that some translation has error does not mean that the KJV is perfect.

BTW what is the difference between origins and origin? Is there any?

 

[KJV1611]

He probably meant that the word congregation makes more sense than the word "church". But the word "church" was somehow better for king because of political reasons.

It doesn't make more sense though because Christ was in the CHURCH (body of believers) in the wilderness.

 

[KJV1611]

No matter if this is error or not, the fact that some translation has error does not mean that the KJV is perfect.

I haven't seen an error like that in the KJV.

 

[trofimus]

I haven't seen an error like that in the KJV.

Why do you think that it is some kind of a special error?

 

[KJV1611]

“I don’t care if the KJV translators added it” Maybe you should think about that for a sec...

Do you not think God can add more clarity to his word? You must not read the KJV, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of places where the KJV translators changed words or translated the same word differently to give better understanding.

 

[trofimus]

Do you not think God can add more clarity to his word? You must not read the KJV, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of places where the KJV translators changed words or translated the same word differently to give better understanding.

And you believe that what they added God added because...?

 

[KJV1611]

Why do you think that it is some kind of a special error?

No, it's just an error. I'm saying I have never seen an error like that in the KJV.

 

[pckts]

Do you not think God can add more clarity to his word? You must not read the KJV, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of places where the KJV translators changed words or translated the same word differently to give better understanding.

We all believe God can add more clarity to his word and that is why we are not KJVonlyists.

Your circular reasoning has come to the conclusion that it cannot become more clear then in the KJV.

 

[notbythesword]

Do you not think God can add more clarity to his word? You must not read the KJV, there are hundreds or maybe thousands of places where the KJV translators changed words or translated the same word differently to give better understanding.

“more clarity” Is that the new masking of words in which you use to hide from the reality of a changed text?

 

[trofimus]

No, it's just an error. I'm saying I have never seen an error like that in the KJV.

Ok, why do you think that Jesus has no origin?

Is there any difference between origin and origins? I am not sure.