Where did King James only originate?

  • 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.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
Why then, were the plagues of the book of Revelation not added to the translators of the King James Version; or to those who originally penned the family of Byzantine texts?

(see Revelation22:18-19).

how do you know if they are or are not?
were the plagues added to W. & H. ?


you're giving very flimsy arguments, friend.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,604
1,901
113
Of course there is very likely an equivalent to the kjv in the Japanese language.
Probably not, as they have a very limited set of words in their language . . . according to my former wife. She said that learning English was very hard as there are such a plethora of words for the same . . . exact . . . thing.
 

JohnDB

Well-known member
Jan 16, 2021
5,634
2,215
113
This whole notion of "Textus Receptis" is a marketing ploy and yet another lie. The Latin Vulgate is the Textus Receptis and everyone is hard pressed to find two copies that agree. The thing is a train wreck of additions and deletions.

Which is why we use Alexandrian, Egyptian, Syrian, Sianaititicus, Masoretic, and many more texts to get a clear understanding of what is right vs wrong.
Lately there has been a bunch coming out of Russia....from before they went communists but after they separated from the Catholic church due to church abused.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
I mean Easter...even as it is today...Easter is a celebration of our Lord's resurrection.
but He gave His life life on Passover, and rose on Firstfruits.
neither of these have anything to do with Eostare.


Ishtar is about chocolate and eggs and rabbits and fertility.
sex. reproduction.
very different subjects. very different words.


in Greek, Pascha. in Latin, Pascha. in english Ishtar???
no, dude. seriously, no.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
that commonly refers to the Easter holiday in nations where the common language is Greek.
but Eostare is a German, not a Greek word ((the word is Pascha in Greek & also Latin & Hebrew -- check your manuscripts)) and does not appear historically until 14th century German texts in areas that are unabashedly and fervently anti-Semitic, where the pagans of the area happen to worship a goddess named Eos around the spring equinox, calculated very differently from the Levitical calendar.

ya got no argument bud.
ya only apologizing for a blatant error.
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
but He gave His life life on Passover, and rose on Firstfruits.
neither of these have anything to do with Eostare.


Ishtar is about chocolate and eggs and rabbits and fertility.
sex. reproduction.
very different subjects. very different words.


in Greek, Pascha. in Latin, Pascha. in english Ishtar???
no, dude. seriously, no.
I don't know what tradition you come from; but where I come from we celebrate the resurrection of Christ on Easter Sunday;

The pastor commonly departs from the Bible book he is preaching out of in order to preach a message on the resurrection of Christ.

but Eostare is a German, not a Greek word ((the word is Pascha in Greek & also Latin & Hebrew -- check your manuscripts)) and does not appear historically until 14th century German texts in areas that are unabashedly and fervently anti-Semitic, where the pagans of the area happen to worship a goddess named Eos around the spring equinox, calculated very differently from the Levitical calendar.

ya got no argument bud.
ya only apologizing for a blatant error.
paschal is a Greek word; and those who commonly speak the Greek language, use the word paschal to refer to the Easter holiday.

To Greek-speaking people, Easter is referred to as paschal.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,536
12,980
113
but He gave His life life on Passover, and rose on Firstfruits. neither of these have anything to do with Eostare.
The truth of the matter is that Easter was divorced from Ishtar a long time ago. By about the 2nd century: See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 84–85. For the dating of Easter, see F. L. Cross, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).

So when the King James translators used the word "Easter" for pascha, they were presenting what was easily understood by Christians in the 17th century. This was a Christian festival which coincided with both Passover and Firstfruits.

People make this a point of contention regarding the KJB, but it is nothing compared to the extremely serious errors and omission of the modern translations. So people use this to deflect from the fact that they are supporting corrupt bibles and misleading others about the truth of the matter.
 

2ndTimothyGroup

Well-known member
Feb 20, 2021
5,604
1,901
113
ALL translations have errors. It seems right to suggest that what is without error are the original manuscripts.

But I also offer you this: Stop worrying about irrelevant, frivolous matters, and focus on the Core doctrine of the Bible . . . which is Spiritual Circumcision. If we don't understand Spiritual Circumcision, none of this other fodder will survive the Lord's Fire. It is useless and a waste of time to ponder. Even our modern Bibles haven't botched the Doctrine of Spiritual Circumcision. Why? Because you cannot botch what you cannot see (Understand).
 

justbyfaith

Well-known member
Sep 16, 2021
4,707
462
83
The kjv is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine.

Because the original manuscripts have been lost to us; and therefore if the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God is limited to the originals, the unadulterated message of the whole counsel of God has therefore been lost to us.

But if it has been preserved in the kjv, we can trust the kjv to give us "everything that we need for life and godliness" (2 Peter 1:3-4).
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
24,536
12,980
113
This reinforces what I've been saying: the KJV is a work of high literature, but it runs counter to the colloquial Greek in which the New Testament is written...
Where did you pick up this insane idea? "Runs counter to the colloquial Greek!". Just imagine! Do you know anything at all about the translators of the KJB, and their excellence in all the biblical languages including Greek? Do you know anything about Desiderius Erasmus?" In a letter to Antoon van Bergen in 1501 Erasmus wrote:
"Latin scholarship, however elaborate, is maimed and reduced by half without Greek. For whereas we Latins have but a few small streams, a few muddy pools, the Greeks possess crystal-clear springs and rivers that run with gold. I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is specially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of construing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal, meaning." [1]
http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Desiderius_Erasmus

And do you know that they faithfully translated the Greek word for word as much as possible? The Authorized version is not only an outstanding piece of English literature, but literary scholars have even admitted that it molded the English language. There are dozens of sayings and expressions in English which hark back to the KJB.

But there is more to it than the literary aspect. This translation was the most powerful English translation ever produced, and millions of Christians accepted it as the Word of God for hundreds of years. Millions of souls were saved through preaching out of this book. And there is not a single conservative commentator from before the 20th century who raised any objections about this Bible. They based their commentaries on what was in this Bible, regarding it as the Word of God, and then giving their expositions.

It was the Higher and Lower Critics in the 19th century who decided that it would be fun to attack the Bible and Bible doctrines. And so the mostly German critics began gnawing away at the Bible and casting doubts on everything, until Westcott and Hort threw out the Received Text and substituted an extremely corrupt critical text for their Revised Version. And thus began the stream of corrupt modern English bibles which need to be constantly revised (perhaps more as cash cows than anything else).
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
The truth of the matter is that Easter was divorced from Ishtar a long time ago. By about the 2nd century: See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, rev. ed. (London: Penguin Books, 1993), 84–85.
found it and no, he's talking about the controversy over the right time to observe Pascha, because the western part of the empire observed it at a different time than the eastern part, and there was a movement for everyone to observe it at the same time, and to distance Christianity from its Judaic roots.

but it wasn't called 'Eostare' then it was called Pascha.
Mssr. Chadwick refers to Irenaeus -- search his writings for any mention of the word? he never used that word! he called it Pascha!
Mssr. Chadwick refers to a sermon by Melito of Sardis -- that sermon is in Greek and it's titled "Peri Pascha" !
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).
same thing in this book -- the authors use the word 'Easter' referring to the controversy over the date in the late 2nd century, but no one among the early church fathers ever used that word. they all called it Pascha and the whole reason there was a debate about when to remember it is because it is the feast day from the Torah but great anti-Semitism was growing in the church and many people wanted to dissociate the church from anything and everything Jewish.

20th century books using the wrong word do not in any way prove when the word Eostare came into use. kjv deliberately mistranslating Pascha as Ishtar is not proof that it was right to do. before the 3rd century ((which is clearly the time period of Acts 12)) Christians were remembering Jesus Christ rising from the dead on God's feast day - because God chose His own feast days to do these things. Unleavened Bread. Passover. Firstfruits.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,600
3,181
113
It becomes very difficult to trust a person who claims that any single Bible is the only Bible that we should read and follow. I once had a Baptist preacher tell me that the KJV is the only translation that we should use. I promptly informed him that my blessed, former wife was Japanese and that English alone was difficult, let alone the "Old English" of the KJV. Imagine being a person where English is a second language and being told that if you don't understand the KJV that you're in some sort of jeopardy. Sad . . . very sad.

Credit to that pastor, as he opted to keep his mouth shut after I shared the Truth with him.
Great point. What if a person doesn't have a KJV and can't get one? Can they be saved?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,689
13,141
113
paschal is a Greek word
Pascha is the Greek transliteration for Pesach. Passover.
no one ever called it Ishtar until a thousand years later when they were trying to erase all things Jewish from Christianity and kick all the Jews out of their countries.
they changed the day of Pascha because they didn't want to be celebrating on the same day as the Jews.
they changed the name because they didn't want to be seen as keeping the Jewish feast.
but Jesus is a Jew. God chose the Jewish feast day to offer Himself, a Lamb. God chose His feast day to rise.


you're using the wrong word, and there's literally no argument you can make.
the wrong word has been used for 800-900 years now, an anti-Semitic word.
you can find tons of people using the wrong word, sure. but it's the wrong word. usually on the wrong day.
so when you use that word, you are cursing Israel, and you are dissociating what God did from the day God chose to do it.


Chag HaMatzot. Unleavened Bread
Pesach. Passover.
Bikkurim. Firstfruits.
Shavuot. Pentecost.


if you want to learn about the significance of the day Christ chose to lay down His life, search your Bible for Passover. not for Ishtar.
search for Firstfruits. ((but oh yeah that association is deleted now eh because you want to use a made up word instead))
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,600
3,181
113
My conclusion is KJV onlyists are living in irrational fear of change. They deserve our mercy, not ire. It's like a person with a phobia of leaving the house. They need our compassion not anger. All the berating and pointing out of facts will do absolutely no good. They're in a state of irrationality so reason is useless.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
7,600
3,181
113
Where did you pick up this insane idea? "Runs counter to the colloquial Greek!". Just imagine! Do you know anything at all about the translators of the KJB, and their excellence in all the biblical languages including Greek? Do you know anything about Desiderius Erasmus?" In a letter to Antoon van Bergen in 1501 Erasmus wrote:
"Latin scholarship, however elaborate, is maimed and reduced by half without Greek. For whereas we Latins have but a few small streams, a few muddy pools, the Greeks possess crystal-clear springs and rivers that run with gold. I can see what utter madness it is even to put a finger on that part of theology which is specially concerned with the mysteries of the faith unless one is furnished with the equipment of Greek as well, since the translators of Scripture, in their scrupulous manner of construing the text, offer such literal versions of Greek idioms that no one ignorant of that language could grasp even the primary, or, as our own theologians call it, literal, meaning." [1]
http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Desiderius_Erasmus

And do you know that they faithfully translated the Greek word for word as much as possible? The Authorized version is not only an outstanding piece of English literature, but literary scholars have even admitted that it molded the English language. There are dozens of sayings and expressions in English which hark back to the KJB.

But there is more to it than the literary aspect. This translation was the most powerful English translation ever produced, and millions of Christians accepted it as the Word of God for hundreds of years. Millions of souls were saved through preaching out of this book. And there is not a single conservative commentator from before the 20th century who raised any objections about this Bible. They based their commentaries on what was in this Bible, regarding it as the Word of God, and then giving their expositions.

It was the Higher and Lower Critics in the 19th century who decided that it would be fun to attack the Bible and Bible doctrines. And so the mostly German critics began gnawing away at the Bible and casting doubts on everything, until Westcott and Hort threw out the Received Text and substituted an extremely corrupt critical text for their Revised Version. And thus began the stream of corrupt modern English bibles which need to be constantly revised (perhaps more as cash cows than anything else).
Peace be with you brother.