BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

still doesn't change the fact it matches the Vulgate that is 100% most Authentic Greek!

What's the point? That was before the "originals" too.

So, in your scholarly opinion, we do not have have the preserved words of God, for it is impossible. I've debunked that old candlestick argument many, many times and so have others on this thread.

When you say "The King James is the only translation that uses the word Easter instead of Passover." I sense you have the wrong information. Tyndale Bible, Coverdale, The Great Bible, The Bishops Bible, Luther Bible have it. When you say" It is a pagan holiday that celebrates fertility with the rolling of the eggs, orgies in the groves Etc..." you are doing the same thing. When those translations I cited on the particular, they didn't ever think of what you are saying. Passover and Easter both carry the same thing in the Old Testament and have nothing to do with paganism. Both Passover and easter are interlinked with each other, yes Christ is the Passover lamb but after his sacrificial offer he rose again which speaks of the resurrection of Christ. So in the case of Acts 12:4, Christ has already been resurrected, a fulfillment of Christ as the Passover lamb. At least for your information if I may, it was Tyndale who invented the word English Passover and Easter and he thought nothing at all of paganism. God bless

found in the kjv

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-5‬ ‭

found after the kjv

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-5‬ ‭NIV‬‬

are there some different words ?

“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”


“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

Yes but that’s the whole point of an alternate translation. Everyone can’t grasp terms in the kjv because it was current 400 years ago to English language

people born 40 years ago , don’t speak the same as tbey did then , so when they translate it to modern English some of the words change , it’s the message of Jesus Christ that Remains the same

“He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,

but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭

the differing words don’t change the message of what God is communicating

“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:9-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:9-14‬ ‭NIV‬‬

is it stated differently using differing terms and phrasing’s ? Yes that’s the point we don’t have to learn antiquated language and speech pattern we have modern versions translated into our way of speaking from the same original Manuscripts in Greek Hebrew and in some cases Latin and Aramaic

If we read a Bible , we’re going to hear the message of Jesus Christ

Hi, actually the first Latin referred to as the Old Latin vulgate is the Clementine Vulgate, the original Latin translation from very Greek and it matches KJB. What the guy, may have referred to is the Latin translation of Jerome which is definitely not in there or could you link me to the online version of Vulgate highlighted in red ink? Thanks

The original Title Page of the KJV does not include Apocrypha and this means it should be removed which is rightly done, being removed.

The "Word of God" is without doubt refers to Christ. Where the "word of God" refers to the scripture. God bless

Yup ! But one some one quotes John 3:16 and it aint JV i bugs me.

We have discussed this passage at length. I’m surprised that you try to use it to defend your statement. You still don’t know what that verse says.

Do you believe every word in the KJB are God's Holy Words

When you tell it to someone do you say "believeth?"

Any real KJVO would certainly agree with you with that statement above. KJV scholars were not inspired!

We have the inspired words of God in the copies in the original languages. Translating into English is just one of the many languages one can translate them into. Then KJV is just one of many attempts to translate to English.

Vulgate was Latin.

Thanks. John146's argument relates to specific words, not the message in general.

YUP My thoughts on KJ are emotional so they likely will not make sense to most guys. After saying it that way for about 70 years it kinda sticks . A few are like that to me. For thou art with me.

I am not a KJO person .

I am reading about 10 commentaries as I study Luke and Acts. From the many explanations from all these different scholars on why a certain text should be translated a certain way in English I learn things. So far I have learned that the CSB seems to often be more in line with what they are saying than the KJV. The NIV also but the CSB seems to have that more literal wording that the KJVO people say they want. the CSB seems to be doing a better job of that than the KJV did.

But these scholars behind the NIV, CSB, ESV are not refusing to use the best manuscripts or resources. There is no conspiracy.

They aren't stupid.

I agreeth with you.

If there was no conspiracy, why would these people attack and denigrate the KJV in order to exalt their corrupt translations?

All they had to do is say "Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with the King James Bible, we wish to introduce a modern translation based on corrupt ancient manuscripts, so that you can compare the differences". That would be the honest truth, and hardly anyone would bother with these new bibles.