KJV only....?
- Thread starter LOLOKGal
- 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.
If you truly want to know the explanation of these claims...here it is:
In Acts 1: 1,2 Luke makes the following statement: "The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
"The former treatise" is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke wrote to a believer named Theophilus. Theophilus was apparently an early Christian who had never personally met the Lord while He was on this earth. Considering, though, that he was the recipient of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, he was most certainly one of the best informed.
Luke, in what may have been a passing comment, in the second verse of Acts chapter one, rings the death blow to the famous Nestle's Greek New Testament and also the New American Standard Version. Luke states that his "former treatise" told of all that Jesus began to do, and continued, "until the day in which he was taken up." The things which Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which He was left behind in Jerusalem when Joseph and His mother left to return to Nazareth.
This correlates with Acts 1:1. Luke's gospel is the only one of the four gospels which records any of Christ's actions prior to His baptism at the age of thirty years old. (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9 and John 1:29-34)
Luke's gospel ends with Christ being "carried up into heaven " in Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up."
Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle's Greek Text we find that the Greek words, "Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon," "and was carried up into the heaven" are not found in this text.
The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D, one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a MS which has been erased and written over top of). The phrase "and carried up into heaven" is found inB, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, and Omega plus papyrus p75, and most remaining witnesses. Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the "conservative" scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.
So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.
Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough for me.
In Acts 1: 1,2 Luke makes the following statement: "The former treatise have I made, 0 Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
"The former treatise" is of course the Gospel of Luke which Luke wrote to a believer named Theophilus. Theophilus was apparently an early Christian who had never personally met the Lord while He was on this earth. Considering, though, that he was the recipient of both the Gospel of Luke and the Acts of the Apostles, he was most certainly one of the best informed.
Luke, in what may have been a passing comment, in the second verse of Acts chapter one, rings the death blow to the famous Nestle's Greek New Testament and also the New American Standard Version. Luke states that his "former treatise" told of all that Jesus began to do, and continued, "until the day in which he was taken up." The things which Jesus began to do are first recorded in Luke 2:41-52 in which He was left behind in Jerusalem when Joseph and His mother left to return to Nazareth.
This correlates with Acts 1:1. Luke's gospel is the only one of the four gospels which records any of Christ's actions prior to His baptism at the age of thirty years old. (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:9 and John 1:29-34)
Luke's gospel ends with Christ being "carried up into heaven " in Luke 24:51. This correlates with Acts 1:2 "Until the day in which he was taken up."
Thus, Luke states that his gospel begins with the earliest acts of Christ and ends with His ascension. Therefore, any Greek manuscript or manuscripts, no matter what their age, containing the Gospel of Luke which omits either of these accounts is not authentic. In an examination of the 23rd Edition of Nestle's Greek Text we find that the Greek words, "Kai anepheroto eis ton huranon," "and was carried up into the heaven" are not found in this text.
The footnote in the critical apparatus indicates that the authority for removing this phrase is no more than manuscript (MS) Sinaiticus, D, one majuscule MS known as number 52 and one 5th century palimpsect (a MS which has been erased and written over top of). The phrase "and carried up into heaven" is found inB, C, E, F, G, H, L, S, T, V, Y, Z, Delta, Theta, Psi, and Omega plus papyrus p75, and most remaining witnesses. Yet on the basis of only two MSS the conservative scholars of the secret Lockman Foundation have omitted this phrase from Luke 24:51 in the New American Standard Version (NASV). Hence, the NASV is not truly a reliable translation. In fact, of most modern versions, only the "liberal" scholars of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) agreed with the "conservative" scholars of the NASV in omitting the phrase. Thus the known Communistic liberals of the RSV and the conservatives of the NASV are in full agreement that Christ did not ascend bodily into heaven.
So we see that if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible and a New American Standard Version he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic.
Well, quite frankly, if it's good enough for Luke, it's good enough for me.
This is one of the most foolish things I have ever heard from King Jamesite.......Luke did not examine the King James and to be frank this is ignorant....
Look...The King James is a translation, transliteration some of it has been copied verbatim from an English translation that came before it and it has certain words translated or transliterated with an ANGLICAN twist......
I cannot believe you actually believe that LUKE examined the King JAMES.....so much for inspiration and God-breathed....WOW......
Look...The King James is a translation, transliteration some of it has been copied verbatim from an English translation that came before it and it has certain words translated or transliterated with an ANGLICAN twist......
I cannot believe you actually believe that LUKE examined the King JAMES.....so much for inspiration and God-breathed....WOW......
This is the length and breadth of Satan's deception over them......I had a pastor get booted from a wedding ceremony because he was not reading ole King Jimmy....he called me and I said ...is this not happening at your church, he said yeah, so...I said did they pay you to use the church, he said yep, I said, have you deposited the check he said, nope...I said go hand it back and tell them to get out the house, because here we stand for the living word....he did and called back and they left....
Agree. Luke did not examine the KJV. That would be absurd. But, if Luke, the writer of the Gospel of Luke and the book of the Acts of the Apostles, could examine a King James Bible today and a New American Standard Version today he would declare the New American Standard Version a fraud and promptly proclaim the King James Bible as authentic. Why? Because the NASV removes Luke's inspired words from God.
Of course you would not...you see you try to be cagey and slick, but we know all your tricks...
BTW, back in the day the Pastor was called to that Church and God put him there..the new era of demon, er deacon boards and elders picking the pastor and the congregation voting him in is satanic and not found anywhere in the Bible...
Besides you Baptist Bible believers go through pastors faster than my zero turn goes through tall grass...
Only a legalist would insist upon some kind of strange archaic perfection, which never existed in 1611, and certainly doesn't exist today. The Bible is the Word of God. But that word is not mediated through some 17th century translators, directed by a homosexual king.
The Word of God is mediated by the Holy Spirit who lives in our hearts. Sometimes we understand imperfectly, but the Spirit keeps on correcting, using the Word of God, in any language, to do it.
The Holy Spirit is the final authority on the Word of God. That is who leads us in all truth. Sad that you have given up the inspiration of the Holy Spirit for an erroneous 17th century translation, which is not even in our modern English. I certainly do not understand King James English, but I am grateful for the men and women who have followed the motivations of the KJV, and put the Word of God into our heart language which we understand and can follow.
I am also grateful God has lead me down the road of learning the original languages. It certainly was not my choice, but it has immensely enriched my understanding of God's Word, on a theological level. Does that make me better than someone who has not studied Greek and Hebrew? No! But it does mean I can look deeper into the delights and directions that God wrote in the original languages. Because Greek has so much more subtleties. The verbs are so much more complex, and there are things that just cannot be conveyed in English. And Hebrew is a completely different language and culture, and again, the verbs convey things in a different way.
As I said earlier, any accurate modern version will inspire, direct, lead and inform. God has not left us with just some mouldy old 17h century version, but instead, has lead the various translations of excellent modern versions of the Bible. And in hundreds of other languages! I just feel sorry for those who think the inspiration is the words on paper of an old translation, instead of the Holy Spirit!
King James a homosexual? Nope, probably learned that from you Greek professor who hates God's word.
When your Bible is missing whole Scripture passages, does the Holy Spirit fill in the blanks for you? When your Bible is wrong on thousands of verses, does the Holy Spirit correct them?
Our modern English? Really? The perverted form of English we speak today? You study Greek and Hebrew but you can't learn the English of the KJV? That's funny to me.
When your Bible is missing whole Scripture passages, does the Holy Spirit fill in the blanks for you? When your Bible is wrong on thousands of verses, does the Holy Spirit correct them?
Our modern English? Really? The perverted form of English we speak today? You study Greek and Hebrew but you can't learn the English of the KJV? That's funny to me.
Maybe you should study the word inspiration......and then make such comments!
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Inspired-->θεόπνευστος-->
theopneustos: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by GodOriginal Word: θεόπνευστος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theopneustos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
Short Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God
Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God.
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;
Inspired-->θεόπνευστος-->
theopneustos: God-breathed, i.e. inspired by GodOriginal Word: θεόπνευστος, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: theopneustos
Phonetic Spelling: (theh-op'-nyoo-stos)
Short Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God
Definition: God-breathed, inspired by God, due to the inspiration of God.