The King James Bible

[preacher4truth]

It's amazing the KJVO cultists here just carry on after being refuted for their claims about the "perfect" "KJB" as if nothing happened. Does anyone else find this remarkable to behold, that when they are shown actual errors, they just carry on blindly as if it never happened?

Isn't that dishonest and troubling to you? It is to me.

Imagine spending the majority of your time defending a version with issues, (yes, the KJV, which has been proven to have issues) and employing the words "pure," "corrupt," "preserved," "perfect," "Satanic versions," "add," "subtract," "MV's," "Do you have the word of God?" "KJB" and other words terms to ad nauseam day in, day out, while completely ignoring being refuted and proven in error.

That my friends is sectarianism gone berserk, and they cannot see it.

Again, it is troubling. How very sad these spend more of their time attempting to defend a version than they ever do talking of Christ. (Bring in the excuse and cop out "Jesus is the word" excuse which really means "Jesusis the KJB" so "we're really defending him when we defend the King Jimmy!!!").

Utterly ridiculous!

 

[CS1]

It's amazing the KJVO cultists here just carry on after being refuted for their claims about the "perfect" "KJB" as if nothing happened. Does anyone else find this remarkable to behold, that when they are show actual errors, they just carry on blindly as if it never happened? Isn't that dishonesty and quite troubling to you? It is to me.

Imagine spending the majority of your time defending a version with issues, (yes, the KJV, which has been proven to have issues) and employing the words "pure," "corrupt," "preserved," "perfect," "Satanic versions," "add," "subtract," "MV's," "Do you have the word of God?" "KJB" and others words terms to ad nauseam day in, day out, while completely ignoring being refuted and proven in error.

That my friends is sectarianism gone berserk, and they cannot see it. Again, it is troubling, how very sad they spend more of their time attempting to defend a version than they ever do talking of Christ. (Bring in the excuse and cop out "Jesus is the word" excuse which really means "Jesusis the KJB" so "we're really defending him when we defend the King Jimmy!!!").

Utterly ridiculous!

I'm no KJVO but I do not use the word " error in context to what is the Bible . There are not errors. you need to use a better word. the english language can be weak in the wording for the Hebrew or Greek. example "Atonement " they could not recite the word for "at one with God " that is not an error that is a langauge barrier . that is why we study not to prove error, but reveal more truth.

 

[Nehemiah6]

It's amazing the KJVO cultists here just carry on after being refuted for their claims about the "perfect" "KJB" as if nothing happened.

This could also easily apply to the Calvinist cultists.

 

[preacher4truth]

I'm no KJVO but I do not use the word " error in context to what is the Bible . There are not errors. you need to use a better word. the english language can be weak in the wording for the Hebrew or Greek. example "Atonement " they could not recite the word for "at one with God " that is not an error that is a langauge barrier . that is why we study not to prove error, but reveal more truth.

There are errors between the 1611 and 1769 KJV.

I've shown this to be a fact.

I'm going to continue to use "error" as the word to describe it because that's what it is. I've shown this to be factual, not sure why you're jumping in telling me what words I'm allowed to use.

We study for both reasons, to expose truth and error. Therefore your latter assessment and admonition is incorrect.

 

[preacher4truth]

This could also easily apply to the Calvinist cultists.

Except for the fact nothing you've ever provided accomplishes this. Calvinist cultist sects do not exist.

 

[MarcR]

I'm no KJVO but I do not use the word " error in context to what is the Bible . There are not errors. you need to use a better word. the english language can be weak in the wording for the Hebrew or Greek. example "Atonement " they could not recite the word for "at one with God " that is not an error that is a langauge barrier . that is why we study not to prove error, but reveal more truth.

When a Greek word meaning accomplished is translated as believed, or a word meaning above is translated as 'the very first', I am willing to call it something other than error if you give me a reasonable alternative.

 

[Locutus]

Pesky KJV onlyies.

 

[CS1]

There are errors between the 1611 and 1769 KJV.

I've shown this to be a fact.

I'm going to continue to use "error" as the word to describe it because that's what it is. I've shown this to be factual, not sure why you're jumping in telling me what words I'm allowed to use.

We study for both reasons, to expose truth and error. Therefore your latter assessment and admonition is incorrect.

you can continue to do what ever you like and I'm not jumping you at all your pride has caused you to see things that I have not said. Your facts are not truth . The error is in the statement of error's in what is known as the bible . there are no errors with the word of God . The KJV 1611 those who say there are errors also state this which is the underlying problem :

"The King James Version contains certain translation and textual errors which will facilitate a global transition from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of the Antichrist."

This is the point; a very subtle point. Does the KJV really tranlates from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to a false gospel of the Antichrist? NO. It would better serve the word of God and the context of HIS word to not use error and kjv that way. You can do that yes . But I will ensure you, that you will not make a greater impact for the word of God by that method.


While the NASB is generally considered the 'closest translation' and the 'most literal', there are many scholars and Christians who prefer translations based off of the Byzantium texts alone for the New Testament and eschew the Alexandrian texts. For these, only the KJV or NKJV is really a candidate for 'most accurate.' why ?
It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, do to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language. But we do get enough for rightious living and appropriate worship to God. The Holy Spirit helps us a long.

 

[CS1]

When a Greek word meaning accomplished is translated as believed, or a word meaning above is translated as 'the very first', I am willing to call it something other than error if you give me a reasonable alternative.

I respect that question. here is the problem I have with saying "error " 1. God is not the author of Confusion
2. many many people wer and are saved by reading the KJV today.
3. The Holy Spirit would not be in error and use what is known as the Inerrant word of God to to reveal Jesus to those who are lost.

4. we are limited in our understanding so one cannot say something is an error until they have correctly understood the full meaning.
example in Hebrew faith is not as the greek term Believe as the Word Believe in Greek can mean too mental understanding. there are words used that speak to faith also in context to certian areas of the Bible. exmple :

trust, obey, call on, wait for, speak of , can be in context to " faith".

When we as Christians say for example the KJV has errors that term comes from a Liberial christian theology that does not hold to the word of God anyway. the term error would not be proper with those who are studying for more understanding.

would we tell anew believer the bible has errors? This is why we must be mature in our speaking of what is the word of God.

 

[hornetguy]

the King James is the word of God tranlated into English BUT the Holy Spirit is able to speak to anyone in any language

Yes, as is the RSV, NASB, NIV, NLT, etc.... all of the mainstream translations are the word of God translated into English.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

"The King James Version contains certain translation and textual errors which will facilitate a global transition from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of the Antichrist."

May I ask where/who this quote is from?

 

[James37]

Yes, as is the RSV, NASB, NIV, NLT, etc.... all of the mainstream translations are the word of God translated into English.

[FONT=&quot]"E′phraim has encompassed me with lies,[/FONT] [FONT=&quot]and the house of Israel with deceit; [/FONT][FONT=&quot]but Judah is still known by[/FONT][FONT=&quot] God, [/FONT][FONT=&quot]and is faithful to the Holy One." (Hosea 11:12 RSV)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]"Ephraim has surrounded me with lies, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]Israel with deceit. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]And Judah is unruly against God, [/FONT] [FONT=&quot]even against the faithful Holy One." (Hosea 11:12 NIV)

[/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
So both of these verses are the word of God?



"[FONT=&quot]Can two walk together, except they be agreed?" (Amos 3:3)
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[CS1]

May I ask where/who this quote is from?

this is a qoute form group who suggest the KJV is not of God or in some perverse way a false gospel of the antichrist. I will pm you the foolisness

 

[John146]

Yes, as is the RSV, NASB, NIV, NLT, etc.... all of the mainstream translations are the word of God translated into English.

If that's the case then God contradicts Himself and His word cannot be trusted. You know those translations contains different truths. Maybe you didn't. If you did, you would have not made such a statement.

 

[NoNameMcgee]

If that's the case then God contradicts Himself and His word cannot be trusted. You know those translations contains different truths. Maybe you didn't. If you did, you would have not made such a statement.

God did a wonderful job keeping His message safe

in more than one language...


in more than one english translation you can accurately hear about the gospel of Christ and be saved



i personally stick to the KJV

but youre wasting time with this silly battle


maybe you should focus on these supposed "contradictions"

.... even then

i see so many wolves on this site pointing to laws and works in order to be saved (even some who use the KJV)


while people who prefer the nasb
kjv
and niv alike pointing to Jesus Christ


to me you seem like youve gone sooooo far down one rabbit hole
you forgot the main point of sharing the truth our Father in heaven provides to His children....


we ought to be glorifying Jesus Christ here

not making an idol out of one translation of the inspired written word...


if theres an error point it out


maybe YOUR understanding is the problem if you think God is incapable of providing truth to those with ears to hear?

 

[preacher4truth]

...your pride has caused you to see things that I have not said.

No need to go ad hominem. Totally unnecessary.

Your facts are not truth . The error is in the statement of error's in what is known as the bible . there are no errors with the word of God . The KJV 1611 those who say there are errors also state this which is the underlying problem :

My facts? Yes, because I just make things up, then act like those made up things are true.

Actually I showed there were some errors made in the 1611 that were changed in the 1769. They're not my facts, they are just facts in themselves. Just not sure exactly why you're getting personal above yet again.

"The King James Version contains certain translation and textual errors which will facilitate a global transition from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to the false gospel of the Antichrist."

Total straw man.

For the record nothing I've stated, implied or believe supports the above. I never once stated there are errors with the Word of God, there are however translational errors made by man. There really was no need to post the above, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, and it isn't where I was going. Too much broad brushing with a veiled implication added in IMHO.

This is the point; a very subtle point. Does the KJV really tranlates from the true Gospel of Jesus Christ to a false gospel of the Antichrist? NO. It would better serve the word of God and the context of HIS word to not use error and kjv that way. You can do that yes . But I will ensure you, that you will not make a greater impact for the word of God by that method.

And now you're beating on your straw man, this has nothing to do with me or what I stated.

By the way, you can ensure nothing about my impact. It would be like me saying to you in your world that I can ensure you that if you don't deal with translational errors you will not make a good impact for the Word by that method.

This is exactly why translations and advancements in the original languages are continuing to be improved upon and why MV's are so impactful and important. Your stance by implication is this isn't necessary when in fact it is necessary.

While the NASB is generally considered the 'closest translation' and the 'most literal', there are many scholars and Christians who prefer translations based off of the Byzantium texts alone for the New Testament and eschew the Alexandrian texts. For these, only the KJV or NKJV is really a candidate for 'most accurate.' why ?
It is actually impossible to perfectly translate one language into another, do to each language having different grammar, cultural idioms, and words that are not always directly synonymous with a counterpart in a different language. But we do get enough for rightious living and appropriate worship to God. The Holy Spirit helps us a long.

You're conflating preference of versions with accuracy which is a logical fallacy. You're stating it as if what you say makes it true. "Most accurate" (translational accuracy) isn't based on pure subjectivity, yet this is what you're asserting.

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

 

[CS1]

No need to go ad hominem. Totally unnecessary.



My facts? Yes, because I just make things up, then act like those made up things are true.

Actually I showed there were some errors made in the 1611 that were changed in the 1769. They're not my facts, they are just facts in themselves. Just not sure exactly why you're getting personal above yet again.



Total straw man.

For the record nothing I've stated, implied or believe supports the above. I never once stated there are errors with the Word of God, there are however translational errors made by man. There really was no need to post the above, it has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, and it isn't where I was going. Too much broad brushing with a veiled implication added in IMHO.



And now you're beating on your straw man, this has nothing to do with me or what I stated.

By the way, you can ensure nothing about my impact. It would be like me saying to you in your world that I can ensure you that if you don't deal with translational errors you will not make a good impact for the Word by that method.

This is exactly why translations and advancements in the original languages are continuing to be improved upon and why MV's are so impactful and important. Your stance by implication is this isn't necessary when in fact it is necessary.


You're conflating preference of versions with accuracy which is a logical fallacy. You're stating it as if what you say makes it true. "Most accurate" (translational accuracy) isn't based on pure subjectivity, yet this is what you're asserting.

Sorry, but you're incorrect.

If you are going to quote me please provide the whole context in your post thank you forgot :

"you can continue to do whatever you like and I'm not jumping you at all your pride has caused you to see things that I have not said."

context to my statement as to why I said PRIDE my comment was said after you I was jumping on you LOL. And you did not show me any errors .

it is well-known that the KJV nasb. ESV are more conservative and have integrity in the do diligence of study.

no one but liberial thologians says error in context to the Bible . But go a head I'm not making trophies God prefer's Testamonies

 

[preacher4truth]

May I ask where/who this quote is from?

TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION

This is why I wasn't to keen on the veiled implication that this was where I was going in my beliefs and statements. It shouldn't have ever been mentioned in that conversation between CS1 and I unless it was perfectly clear that this is the belief of others and that they go way too far. Otherwise it looks accusatory.

 

[preacher4truth]

your pride has caused you to see things that I have not said.

it is well-known that the KJV nasb. ESV are more conservative and have integrity in the do diligence of study.

no one but liberial thologians says error in context to the Bible

I gave examples in this thread of some errors.

Your continued ad hominem, false accusations and name calling are duly noted. Nothing about me is liberal theologian, you really need to leave off this personal stuff bro. Maybe you should stop with this behavior?

 

[KJV1611]

TRANSLATION ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION

Why the KJV translators used Holy Ghost and Holy Spirit.

Holy Ghost found 90 times in the KJV.
Holy Spirit 7 times in the KJV.

These numbers have meaning and were done purposely.