King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

  • 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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
And you believe that what they added God added because...?
That's just my belief, I can't prove it. I couldn't have understood how God would send people in to cities to kill every man woman and child in the old testament if it weren't for the translation of fellars, nephilim etc into giants. Now I know why God had them do it... they were all descendants of the giants.
 

notbythesword

Senior Member
Apr 28, 2015
305
5
0
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.
Don’t you realize that the “more clarity” argument that you are making, is the same argument that people have been making with you in regards to other Bible versions in this entire thread? How is this not hypocrisy?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
That's just my belief, I can't prove it. I couldn't have understood how God would send people in to cities to kill every man woman and child in the old testament if it weren't for the translation of fellars, nephilim etc into giants. Now I know why God had them do it... they were all descendants of the giants.
OK, but in that case it is quite irrelevant to prove it by discussions on the Bible forum :D Or, do you still think it can be proved? :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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.
If all these modern translations agreed then I would believe the same also but they don't agree and they don't lead the reader to the same conclusions as the KJV. I'm living proof, my beliefs will hardly ever match up to your beliefs.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
No Jesus didn't have an origin, he's eternal.
Is it really necessary that origin must be against the eternity?

We know that Son is begotten by Father. Therefore His origin is in the Father.

It does not say that there was some time He did not exist. Like my eye has an origin in me, but it exists as long as I do, if you understand what I am saying.
 
P

pckts

Guest
The KJV only people's final argument and hill they choose to die on is "I KNOW it's God's perfect word because when I READ it I CAN TELL!" Non-english speakers and those born prior to 1611 did not have access to this perfection.

But I guess you've spent too many pages arguing this point to back down now.
If all these modern translations agreed then I would believe the same also but they don't agree and they don't lead the reader to the same conclusions as the KJV. I'm living proof, my beliefs will hardly ever match up to your beliefs.
Do all modern translators believe the KJV is perfect?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
OK, but in that case it is quite irrelevant to prove it by discussions on the Bible forum :D Or, do you still think it can be proved? :)
My arguments aren't WHY God did something, my argument is the KJV is innerant meaning it DOES NOT contradict itself and it doesn't call Jesus a small god or say that he has an origin and so on. And these are just the larger contradictions in the newer translations, there are many more subtle errors.
 
P

pckts

Guest
That's just my belief, I can't prove it. I couldn't have understood how God would send people in to cities to kill every man woman and child in the old testament if it weren't for the translation of fellars, nephilim etc into giants. Now I know why God had them do it... they were all descendants of the giants.
[h=1]2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV)[/h] [SUP]23 [/SUP]And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.


Were these 42 children the descendants of Giants too?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
My arguments aren't WHY God did something, my argument is the KJV is innerant meaning it DOES NOT contradict itself and it doesn't call Jesus a small god or say that he has an origin and so on. And these are just the larger contradictions in the newer translations, there are many more subtle errors.
It contradicts itself, OT and NT, but you always say "eh, it is ok, its a free interpretation" :)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Is it really necessary that origin must be against the eternity?

We know that Son is begotten by Father. Therefore His origin is in the Father.

It does not say that there was some time He did not exist. Like my eye has an origin in me, but it exists as long as I do, if you understand what I am saying.
Jesus is eternal, he is part of the eternal Godhead and has no origin. Not only that, Micah 5:2 in the KJV is saying that the ETERNAL Jesus HAS been going forth from old.. it's talking about Jesus in the burning bush, the captain of the host in Joshua, and most probably Melchizadec. This verse is about Jesus making appearances before the incarnation.

Micah 5:2King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I understand your ananlogy and completely disagree. There is a fake Jesus out there that had an origin and was a son of the gods. Surely you know this.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
2 Kings 2:23-24King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]23 [/SUP]And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
[SUP]24 [/SUP]And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.


Were these 42 children the descendants of Giants too?
I don't know I'm not that familiar with the story.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Jesus is eternal, he is part of the eternal Godhead and has no origin. Not only that, Micah 5:2 in the KJV is saying that the ETERNAL Jesus HAS been going forth from old.. it's talking about Jesus in the burning bush, the captain of the host in Joshua, and most probably Melchizadec. This verse is about Jesus making appearances before the incarnation.

Micah 5:2King James Version (KJV)

[FONT=&]2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

I understand your ananlogy and completely disagree. There is a fake Jesus out there that had an origin and was a son of the gods. Surely you know this.[/FONT]
Actually, I am loosing you in this. You think that the Son is not begotten by Father and therefore has not His origin in Him? I think its quite a clear teaching of the Church and you can see it even from His submission to the Father as to the primary one.


"And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"
Nicene Creed
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
It contradicts itself, OT and NT, but you always say "eh, it is ok, its a free interpretation" :)
We've already been through this. :eek: You're looking for quotations where they are not making quotations... they're making citations.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
We've already been through this. :eek: You're looking for quotations where they are not making quotations... they're making citations.
You must say that, because in the KJV the differences are so huge.

I can say "they are making quotations", because I have it almost identical.

So again... you will just advocate for anything in the KJV, because you have your belief.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Actually, I am loosing you in this. You think that the Son is not begotten by Father and therefore has not His origin in Him? I think its quite a clear teaching of the Church and you can see it even from His submission to the Father as to the primary one.


"And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"
Nicene Creed
I don't believe Jesus was BIRTHED by God. I believe God prepared a body for him and the eternal Jesus inhabited that body.

Hebrews 10:5 KJV
Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:
 

tanakh

Senior Member
Dec 1, 2015
4,635
1,040
113
76
The first English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible I think
Yes it was but I am thinking more of the 18th and 19th Century. I believe Wycliffes Bible was used as part of the KJV translation. Modern translations are relatively new in any case. I was at School in the early 1960s and even then the only trnslations available to most English People were the KJV and the Revised Standard version, which we used in religious knowledge classes.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
You must say that, because in the KJV the differences are so huge.

I can say "they are making quotations", because I have it almost identical.

So again... you will just advocate for anything in the KJV, because you have your belief.
You said some Greek word means qoute. I said there is nothing in English that says qoute.
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
The concept that the KJV is not riddled with translation errors is a consequence of the KJO camp being unable to read the Bible in its original languages and make comparisons between the two. We saw that in the discussion on Dan. 3:25, and listed below are more examples.

"devils" (Matt. 4:24; 8:16, 33; Mark 1:32; 5:12; etc.) for "demons"
"by" (Matt. 5:21) for "to"
"of" (Matt. 6:1) for "with"
"I am a" (Matt. 8:9) for "I, too, am a"
"Who is" (Matt. 18:1) for "Who, then, is"
"are gone out" (Matt. 25:8) for "are going out"
"in the end of the Sabbath" (Matt. 28:1) for "after the Sabbath"
"observed" (Mark 6:20) for "kept safe"
"pineth away" (Mark 9:18) for "stiffens out" for "becomes rigid"
"And Jesus himself began to be about thirty" (Luke 3:23) for "And when He began his ministry, Jesus himself was about thirty"
"in the plain" (Luke 6:17) for "on a level place"
"Herod will kill" (Luke 13:31) for "Herod wants to Kill"
"husks" (Luke 15:16) for "pods"
"in their generation" (Luke 16:8) for "in relation to their own generation"
"possess" (Luke 18:12) for "get"
"possess" (Luke 21:19) for "gain"
"bare" (John 12:6) for "used to pilfer"
"comfortless" (John 14:18) for "orphans"
"Touch me not" (John 20:17) for "stop clinging to me"
"when this was noised abroad" (Acts 2:6) for "when this sound occurred"
"should be saved" (Acts 2:47) for "were being saved"
"Grecians" Acts 6:1; 9:29) for "Hellenists" for "Hellenistic Jews"
"Libertines" (Acts 6:9) for "Freedmen"
"since you believed" (Acts 19:2) for "when you believed"
"taken up" (Acts 27:40) for "casting off" for "cutting loose"
"they" (Acts 28:1) for "we"
"remission" (Rom. 3:25) for "passing over"
"ordinances" (1 Cor. 11:2) for "traditions"
"gathering" (1 Cor. 16:1, 2) for "collection"
"all died" (2 Cor. 5:14) for "were all dead"
"knew" (2 Cor. 12:2) for "know"
"large a letter" (Gal. 6:11) for "large letters"
"dung" (Phil. 3:8) for "rubbish"
"Euodias" (Phil. 4:2) for "Euodia" (Euodias is masculine rather than feminine)
"gain is godliness" (1 Tim. 6:5) for "godliness is a means of gain"
"embraced" (Heb. 11:13) for "obtained"
"appearing" (1 Peter 1:7, 13) for "revelation"
"sincere" (1 Peter 2:2) for "pure"
"kings and priests" (Rev. 1:6) for "a kingdom, priests"
"kingdoms" (Rev. 11:15) for "kingdom"