The King James Bible

James37 · Jan 8, 2018

1. I used a computer to count them. God is the one who showed me these patterns and not any man.

2. The numbers are right and it shows that there is a design and order to everything that God does. As far as the chapters and verses are concerned, they were not the point of discussion today (Pi was) but I did take a moment to answer the Bible rejecter who brought it up. As far as the number 37 is concerned, I started a more concise thread discussing its significance which is easy enough to find.

12345679 = 37 x 333667

12345679 x 9 = 111111111
12345679 x 18 = 222222222
12345679 x 27 = 333333333
12345679 x 36 = 444444444
12345679 x 45 = 555555555
12345679 x 54 = 666666666
12345679 x 63 = 777777777
12345679 x 72 = 888888888
12345679 x 81 = 999999999

There is wisdom in these numbers and God will reveal it to us in His appointed time.

"In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight." (Luke 10:21)

"sight" = 333 (37 x 9) times in the King James Bible

fredoheaven · Jan 8, 2018

Nehemiah6 said:

Example of Showing contempt:

Hort declares the Received Text to be Vile and Villainous at age 23 though he read very little of it. [Along with this he is fond of investigating ghost and other supernatural things being believed they exist.}(Life and Letters of Fenton John A. Hort Vol.1 p.211 see also https://archive.org/stream/lifelettershort00hortuoft?ref=ol#page/210/mode/2up)

Here springs the hatred of the Textus Receptus of which the KJV is also based upon. The massive defence is motivated because they loved God and therefore loved His words. With the rise of many English Bible versions that sought to revise, alter, omit, change modify, degenerate etc. KJV, so that many of the defenders of KJV has paid much attention because it is about the words of God. This means they believed the Bible is the infallible, inerrant, pure words of God. The term KJVO on the other hand is common name sake to those who defend the pure words of God in the English Text.

tanakh · Jan 8, 2018

That King Jimmy must be chuckling somewhere at all the attention given to him and his bible.

Sagart · Jan 8, 2018

fredoheaven said:

Why do defenders of the KJVO lie have such an extreme hatred for the truth that they avoid it at all cost? The merits of the Westcott-Hort text of the New Testament are found in the text itself and nowhere else! Furthermore, the Westcott-Hort text of the New Testament has been superseded many times over by newer and more accurate texts. The current Greek text of the New Testament used by translators and scholars of the New Testament is the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland text (abbreviated as “NA28”). This text is identical to the latest Greek text of the United Bible Societies (the 5th edition, abbreviated as “UBS5”). Therefore, all of the mud slinging against Westcott and Hort is of no relevance to the discussion of the value of the KJV versus recent English translations of the Bible.

Moreover, there is absolutely nothing “pure” about any Greek text of the New Testament because they are all man-made redactions of collections of manuscripts. The King James translation of the New Testament is an English translation of a hodgepodge of Greek manuscripts and texts muddied by the personal ambitions of men attempting to out do each other for prestige and financial gain. As though that is not bad enough, the printing of the KJV was performed in such a sloppy manner that all attempts to standardize it miserably failed until the 1760’s when the standard Cambridge Edition (the work of Francis Sawyer Parris) was published in 1760, and the standard Oxford Edition (the work of Benjamin Blayney) was published in 1769, and for the most part superseded the Cambridge Edition.

Nonetheless, there is no shortage of people who confuse both Parris and Blayney with God, attributing their words to God Almighty—but never figuring out which of them was God, and which of them was the Devil. Since most defenders of the KJVO lie use Blayney’s edition, which is not recognized, and has never been recognized, by the British Crown to be a genuine edition of the KJV, those defenders of the KJVO lie could be accused of promoting a “false” Bible—or even the “devil’s” Bible!

Thanks be to God for His mercy, we now have far superior English translations of the Bible—and millions upon millions of people are reading them in spite of the defenders of the KJVO lie attempting to prevent people from reading Bibles that they can understand.

FlyingDove · Jan 8, 2018

The original manuscript had NO errors.

All scripture is God Breathed via inspiration from the Holy Spirit.

The King James is not the original manuscript. And so, King James is still a translation and can have translation errors.

Having said that, it's thought to be one of the more credible translations. It's always my first of many references.

Believers are positionality, in christ. And have the Holy Spirit dwelling inside them. If we'll reverently open and read the Bible with prayer and devotion. We can/will discern what the Spirit intends. King James version or no King James version.

I find Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words. To be a valuable tool as well. It has 15 Greek to English translators. And enables us to see the many different Greek to English words in their proper context. I don't view either as an absolute. Like chickin, try to eat the meat and leave the bone.

You can find many comentary's & Bible versions at www.biblegateway.com. Put this together & then prayfully try to make the correct decision. There's no doubt I've made many mistakes & will make many more. I try to be an open vessel to reveive any truth that comes my way.

Chester · Jan 8, 2018

James37 said:

Hey, this could get interesting . . .

"sight" is found 333 times in the KJV Bible - and this is in 320 different verses (according to one search engine!)
333 - 320 = 13
Now see post # 1215 where I said that everyone knows that "13" is not a special Biblical number . . .
It looks like it might be a special number after all . . . ?? !!

Let's see what else I can find . . .

Chester · Jan 8, 2018

Ellsworth1943 said:

in your KJV? my KJV? or . . . . Ah, lets see which page number creates an interesting match . . .

James37 · Jan 8, 2018

James37 said:

“And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. And under the brim of it round about there were knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops were cast in two rows, when it was cast.” (1 Kings 7:23-24)

Verse 23

“molten” 15th occurrence in the KJB and the first occurrence of 15 in Pi is at position 314.

“sea” 111th (37x3) occurrence in the KJB of this word

“ten” 111th (37x3) occurrence and 106th verses in the KJB containing this word (111/106) The 12th (37 is the 12th prime) occurrence of 3 in Pi is at position 111 and the 1st occurrence of 106 in Pi is at position 1011 (337 x 3).

“ten cubits” occurs 15 times in the KJB and the first occurrence of 15 in Pi is at position 314.

“the other” 111th (37x3) verse in the Bible containing this phrase.

“round” found 320 times in the KJB and position 320 in Pi contains the 22nd occurrence of 7 in Pi. (22/7 = 3.142..) The word “round” is found in 296 (37x8) verses of the Bible and exactly 37 times in the New Testament. It is found in 259 (37x7) verses of the Old Testament in 157 (157 is 37th prime) chapters and 157 x 2 = 314. Furthermore, position 320 in Pi counting from the decimal point is the 3rd occurrence of the number 74 (37 x 2) in Pi.

“thirty cubits” 7th occurrence of this phrase in the Bible.

“cubit*” 111th (37x3) (in phrase “thirty cubits”) occurrence in the KJB.

verse 24

“round” 111th (37x3) occurrence (1st) in the KJB.

“round about” 106th (1st) occurrence of this phrase in the Bible. (111/106)

“round about” this phrase is found in 285 verses of the Bible and the 1st occurrence of 360 (degrees in a circle) in Pi is at position 285. The 5th occurrence of 285 in Pi its at position 3141 counting from the decimal point.

“ten” 112th (7x16) occurrence of this word in the Bible.

“knop*” 12th (37 is the 12th prime) verse in the Bible containing the words “knop” or “knops” and 30 x 10 = 300 (the number of knops around the circumference of the “sea”). The 3rd occurrence of 37 in Pi (37x3 = 111) occurs at position 300 counting from the decimal point.

“cubit” 22nd occurrence and the 15th verse containing this word in the Bible. (the “ten in a cubit” is referring to the “thirty cubits of verse 23 thus the number 7 and 22 are connected 22/7 = 3.142…). The 1st occurrence of the number 15 in Pi is at position 314.

“the sea” 74th (37x2) occurrence of this phrase in the Bible.

“round” 112 (7x16) occurrence (2nd) of this word in the Bible.

“cast” 73rd occurrence (1st) in the Bible.

“two” 411th (137 x 3) occurrence in the Bible and the 337th verse containing this word.

“cast” 74th (37x2) occurrence in the Bible.

The ratio (111/106) shows up in the “ten” of verse 23 which is referring to the diameter of the “sea” and again in verse 24 in the phrase “round about” which is referring to the “knops” around the circumference of the sea.

3 x 111/106 = 3.1415…

Therefore:

The circumference (30) times the ratio (111/6) divided by the diameter (10) yields the first 5 digits of Pi which are 3.1415.

All counts in Pi were done using the Irrational Numbers Search Engine:

http://www.subidiom.com/pi/pi.asp?s=285&p=2704&c=pi

Shout out to Posthuman for pointing out my mistake. The second occurrence of 15 is at position 314 not the first.

fredoheaven · Jan 9, 2018

Sagart said:

Hi Saggart,

Let me also explain:

1. My post is in connection with Nehemiahs6 of about the downgrading of the KJV which has been the common English Text for many decades before Wescott and Hort Greek Text evolved. If you have the time to read to the link I pasted then, am sure it will be a fair demonstration of what Hort’s attitude toward the TR that underlies the KJV. The record is still there in its pages of the book for a written contempt to the Received Text. It seems that your post is good only for an opinion with no evidence to substantiate.

2. The Wescott-Hort Greek text is commonly called Critical Greek Text which is generally the basis of the UBS and the Nestle –Aland Greek text. Accordingly,

“Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis.”

We know that W-H have to rely heavily on the two old (not new) Greek text which are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus (Tischendorf). So in simple and short NA28 has nothing new to offer! I tried to research of the new text you are asserting but then they are not new. The additional mss. of P117 -127 are generally categorized as Alexadrian Text Type/Critical Text type written possibly of about 3 Ce. To 6 th Ce. NO they are not a new and accurate text.

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

Weymouth on the other hand is said to be of no critical value though scholar like Metzger applaud it. It is based on the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] Ce. Editors. He expressed the hope that someday there might be a new translation of the Bible which would supersede the King James Version… Weymouth is having an Aprocrypal New Testament and many Gnostic gospels.

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/weymouth-new-testament

3. About your UBS text, the presence of a Jesuit alone in the Editorial Committee is alarming. We don’t need some unholy hand in God’s holy book.

4. Interestingly, your admission of a new and accurate text violated the Canons of biblical criticism preferring the old rather than new (which according to you but it’s not). Certainly they are not new and accurate and possibly with scribal error.
5. The argument of KJV editions is rather weak and is already dealt with in the other thread. Needs to ignore it.

6. Your accusation of KJVO preventing vernacular language is unfounded. Who would not want that the Bible be translated in other language? I cannot speak for other languages, though we Filipinos are using mostly English Versions. Currently, Bearing Precious Seeds Ministries with the help of Filipino Pastors were able to complete the New Testament Tagalog Version of the KJV yet Filipinos inclined more the KJV English and other English versions like the NIV or the NASB.

7. Now, let’s turn the tide, the burden of proof is now on you of your assertion for KJVO’s having the “devils” Bible. Just prove or this might be another example of showing contempt to the words of God.

“Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good”

Fight the good fight of faith…

Nehemiah6 · Jan 9, 2018

Sagart said:

That statement should be "Why do defenders of the KJVO lie have such an extreme LOVE for the truth that they avoid the lies (about critical texts and versions) at all costs?".

You have either swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker, or you are not really familiar with the facts. Kindly read and study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (who was an outstanding textual scholar in his own right) and then get back to us. The W-H Text is the PRIMARY corrupted text of the New Testament with thousands of corruptions.

This is more propaganda from the promoters of the critical texts and the modern versions. Nothing "new" has been discovered to change one iota of the critical texts, which all go back to a handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D and a few others.

Fredoheaven has done a very good job in dealing with some details in your post. The bottom line is you have been seriously misinformed about this issue (and you are not alone). The majority of evangelical Christians have been hoodwinked. This is similar to evolution and global warming. If one promotes a lie long enough and strongly enough, eventually it comes to be accepted as the truth. Thus it is with the Great Bible Version Hoax.

Sagart · Jan 9, 2018

fredoheaven said:

Hi Saggart,

Let me also explain:

1. My post is in connection with Nehemiahs6 of about the downgrading of the KJV which has been the common English Text for many decades before Wescott and Hort Greek Text evolved. If you have the time to read to the link I pasted then, am sure it will be a fair demonstration of what Hort’s attitude toward the TR that underlies the KJV. The record is still there in its pages of the book for a written contempt to the Received Text. It seems that your post is good only for an opinion with no evidence to substantiate.

2. The Wescott-Hort Greek text is commonly called Critical Greek Text which is generally the basis of the UBS and the Nestle –Aland Greek text. Accordingly,

“Nestle took the three leading scholarly editions of the Greek New Testament at that time by Tischendorf, Westcott/Hort and Weymouth as a basis.”

We know that W-H have to rely heavily on the two old (not new) Greek text which are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus (Tischendorf). So in simple and short NA28 has nothing new to offer! I tried to research of the new text you are asserting but then they are not new. The additional mss. of P117 -127 are generally categorized as Alexadrian Text Type/Critical Text type written possibly of about 3 Ce. To 6 th Ce. NO they are not a new and accurate text.

Nestle Aland Novum Testamentum Graece :: History

Weymouth on the other hand is said to be of no critical value though scholar like Metzger applaud it. It is based on the 19[SUP]th[/SUP] Ce. Editors. He expressed the hope that someday there might be a new translation of the Bible which would supersede the King James Version… Weymouth is having an Aprocrypal New Testament and many Gnostic gospels.

https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/weymouth-new-testament

3. About your UBS text, the presence of a Jesuit alone in the Editorial Committee is alarming. We don’t need some unholy hand in God’s holy book.

4. Interestingly, your admission of a new and accurate text violated the Canons of biblical criticism preferring the old rather than new (which according to you but it’s not). Certainly they are not new and accurate and possibly with scribal error.
5. The argument of KJV editions is rather weak and is already dealt with in the other thread. Needs to ignore it.

6. Your accusation of KJVO preventing vernacular language is unfounded. Who would not want that the Bible be translated in other language? I cannot speak for other languages, though we Filipinos are using mostly English Versions. Currently, Bearing Precious Seeds Ministries with the help of Filipino Pastors were able to complete the New Testament Tagalog Version of the KJV yet Filipinos inclined more the KJV English and other English versions like the NIV or the NASB.

Roman Catholic Jesuit scholars are some of the most brilliant and cable of biblical scholars today. From their point of view, if the truth is Roman Catholic—that is fine. If the truth is NOT Roman Catholic—that is no less fine and it is no less true. Moreover, we do not find in the NA28 even one instance of a distinctly Roman Catholic preference.

fredoheaven said:

I made no such assertion!

Sagart · Jan 9, 2018

Nehemiah6 said:

That statement should be "Why do defenders of the KJVO lie have such an extreme LOVE for the truth that they avoid the lies (about critical texts and versions) at all costs?".

You have either swallowed their propaganda hook, line, and sinker, or you are not really familiar with the facts. Kindly read and study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (who was an outstanding textual scholar in his own right) and then get back to us. The W-H Text is the PRIMARY corrupted text of the New Testament with thousands of corruptions.

This is more propaganda from the promoters of the critical texts and the modern versions. Nothing "new" has been discovered to change one iota of the critical texts, which all go back to a handful of very corrupt Greek manuscripts -- Aleph A B C D and a few others.

Fredoheaven has done a very good job in dealing with some details in your post. The bottom line is you have been seriously misinformed about this issue (and you are not alone). The majority of evangelical Christians have been hoodwinked. This is similar to evolution and global warming. If one promotes a lie long enough and strongly enough, eventually it comes to be accepted as the truth. Thus it is with the Great Bible Version Hoax.

Study the issue for 23 years as I have, and then come back with you apology!

Nehemiah6 · Jan 9, 2018

Sagart said:

I could also engage in one-upmanship, but let's stick to the issues. I make no apology whatsoever for standing firmly on and for the Authorized Version (the King James Bible).

Sagart · Jan 9, 2018

Nehemiah6 said:

The issues are that the New Testament in the King James translation of the Bible is translated from badly corrupted manuscripts, that the translation is seriously incorrect in many places, that the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing causing confusing inconsistencies in the translation, that the English is terribly outdated and even unintelligible in some places, that the names of people and places are spelled differently in the New Testament than they are in the Old Testament, that the names of people and places are often spelled differently within the Testaments, and that hugely more accurate and readable English translations are currently available.

Isaiah 63:1. Who is this that commeth from Edom, with died garments from Bozrah? this that is glorious in his apparel, trauelling in the greatnesse of his strength? I that speake in righteousnesse, mightie to saue.
2. Wherefore art thou red in thine apparell, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the winefat?
3. I haue troden the winepresse alone, and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my furie, and their blood shall be sprinkled vpon my garments, and I will staine all my raiment.
4. For the day of vengeance is in mine heart, and the yeere of my redeemed is come.
5. And I looked, and there was none to helpe; and I wondered that there was none to vphold: therefore mine owne arme brought saluation vnto me, and my furie, it vpheld me.
6. And I will tread downe the people in mine anger, & make them drunke in my furie, and I will bring downe their strength to the earth. (The REAL KJV of 1611, before it was messed with)

One of the very serious of the hundreds errors in the KJV is that most of the poetry is translated as prose rather than poetry. Much of Isaiah is written in poetry rather than prose, but the translators of the KJV apparently did not know the Hebrew language well enough to realize that! The Old Testament scholars who translated Isaiah in the New Revised Standard Version did realize it—and they gave us a translation that is not only technically highly accurate, but is also a masterpiece of English literature!

1. “Who is this that comes from Edom,
from Bozrah in garments stained crimson?
Who is this so splendidly robed,
marching in his great might?"
“It is I, announcing vindication,
mighty to save.”
2. “Why are your robes red,
and your garments like theirs who tread the wine press?”
3. “I have trodden the wine press alone,
and from the peoples no one was with me;
I trod them in my anger
and trampled them in my wrath;
their juice spattered on my garments,
and stained all my robes.
4. For the day of vengeance was in my heart,
and the year for my redeeming work had come.
5. I looked, but there was no helper;
I stared, but there was no one to sustain me;
so my own arm brought me victory,
and my wrath sustained me.
6. I trampled down peoples in my anger,
I crushed them in my wrath,
and I poured out their lifeblood on the earth.” (NRSV)

Lucy-Pevensie · Jan 9, 2018

It's slightly odd that Americans would want to insist we MUST use the KJV. I'm English and I'm not keen on it. I read through The whole Bible the first time when I was 20. I wouldn't have done it if I had had only the KJV to use.

We don't speak, read or write King James English today. We don't speak Elizabethan English or Old English (Anglo Saxon) either.

I left Catholicism at the age of 18. What a relief to get away from Latin! To me insisting on KJV only is like a step backwards. Jesus spoke Hebrew, Aramaic and possibly some Greek. He didn't go about saying Thee, Thou and hadst & to and fro.

I have no problem with people reading the KJV if they like it. I have one and I refer to it sometimes. But if people are insisting KJV ONLY. That's just wrong.

Dino246 · Jan 9, 2018

Nehemiah6 said:

You have repeatedly recommended the reading of Burgon's study. Have you read James White's The King James Only Controversy (in its second edition presently)?

As to your closing comment, that goes both ways. I find the dogmatism of the KJVo types does more to turn me off the KJV and leads me to suspect deception somewhere, even if it is inadvertent at this stage.

hornetguy · Jan 9, 2018

I find it amusing that the KJVO folks do not believe that Jehovah God cannot enable all people to understand the gospel and accept Jesus, no matter WHAT translation they use.

I have my own preferences in translations, but if someone came along and told me they only read the "Good News for Modern Man" version, I would have no heartburn with that. I KNOW that God, through the Spirit will lead them to Jesus... I have ZERO doubt.

Anybody that insists that there is only "one true Bible" that has the "pure words of God" is engaging in nothing more than translation worship. They are elevating a translation of God's word to the status of deserving worship.

That is wrong.

Nehemiah6 · Jan 9, 2018

hornetguy said:

Where did you come up with this bizarre notion?

preacher4truth · Jan 9, 2018

Nehemiah6 said:

From those within your KJVO camp.

preacher4truth · Jan 9, 2018

James37 said:

Actually the man who invented the "Bible program" you use showed it to you.

The King James Bible

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Banned

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member