King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[fredoheaven]

I'll take my observation of people's reaction to the reading/hearing of the KJV over online/published/so-called scientific tests.

If you are of the mindset that the KJV style of writing is smoother and easier to read/write, then practice what you preach. See how far you get speaking to people in KJV English and telling them it's easier than modern English.


The modern versions are not telling me to study Scripture? Seriously? Have we not argued on tithing? How did we do that?

All the people on this forum...constantly discussing/debating Biblical topics and using Scripture...you think they all read the KJV?


I use 2 Tim 3:16 in my NIV or NAS or whatever version I have at the time.

Oh, but I am not telling you here that modern versions is not easy to read either. What I am saying is that KJV is almost the same with the newer version base on the available readability test. With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV. Actually,” easy reading argument” is in response on the accusation of Critics of the KJV telling us KJV is outdated, hard to read when the fact is it’s not, using the 8 readability test online as I did and you can do it by yourself if you may proves KJV though age old still readable.

So you see now, that the argument of “easy understanding” is false accusation. We need to X-out that arguments now.

"I use 2 Tim 3:16 in my NIV or NAS or whatever version I have at the time."


And what does it say?

Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

What is the difference between saved and born again ?

Let me interject with this one. Being born again refers to our spirit as the spirit of man needs to born again.

John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.

Being saved on the other hand refers to our soul, hence it is the soul of man that needs to be saved in Hell.

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

​

Psalms 86:3 For great is thy mercy toward me: and thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.

God bless

 

[John146]

I'll take my observation of people's reaction to the reading/hearing of the KJV over online/published/so-called scientific tests.

If you are of the mindset that the KJV style of writing is smoother and easier to read/write, then practice what you preach. See how far you get speaking to people in KJV English and telling them it's easier than modern English.


The modern versions are not telling me to study Scripture? Seriously? Have we not argued on tithing? How did we do that?

All the people on this forum...constantly discussing/debating Biblical topics and using Scripture...you think they all read the KJV?


I use 2 Tim 3:16 in my NIV or NAS or whatever version I have at the time.

The different versions cannot all be called Scripture. Only one can be called Scripture, and if not one, then none. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. They all can't be Scripture inspired by God and contain different words and different truths. That contradicts the very nature of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

The different versions cannot all be called Scripture. Only one can be called Scripture, and if not one, then none. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. They all can't be Scripture inspired by God and contain different words and different truths. That contradicts the very nature of God.

And these scriptures were originally written in Hebrew, Chaldean and Greek. All we have are translations from those scriptures.

 

[preacher4truth]

Utter foolishness. Only one can be called Scripture? IOW he's saying only the KJV. But which one? Oxford? Cambridge? There are many variant KJV's, but they've got answers for this as well in their sectarian indoctrination.

But here it is - all those Bibles in other languages, Chinese languages, Japanese, African tongues et al. None of them are Scripture (acording to the absurdities of the KJVO'ers).

All these tribes must learn English then read the KJV because they cannot be saved until they read the KJV, so, they are really all lost, almost saved, but not quite. (This is what has been stated in this thread, there is no salvation by a modern version.)

I can hear it now; "But if someone goes there and preaches to them in the KJV and someone interprets that preaching to their language, *voila!!* the magic happens!!!!"

The above is the illogical belief system of KJVO cultism. If anyone is hoodwinked to believe one cannot be saved but through the KJV they have denied the faith. Salvation is through Christ alone, not through a specific translation of Scripture. Yes, KJVO in that form is heresy.

 

[hornetguy]

The different versions cannot all be called Scripture. Only one can be called Scripture, and if not one, then none. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. They all can't be Scripture inspired by God and contain different words and different truths. That contradicts the very nature of God.

I told myself I wasn't going to get into this again, but your pig-headedness about "the pure words of God" and "I have to have a version I can believe every word of" just grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard....

the different versions cannot all be called scripture.... what a load of manure.

I would hate to think I've hung my whole existence on trying to prove that one TRANSLATION of scripture is somehow endorsed by God, and all others are "not scripture"....

There is ZERO proof that God "ordained" the KJV version, any more than any other good translation, such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.... and your attempt at claiming it is just shows everyone where you have placed your faith.... in a BOOK, not in our Savior.

The KJV is a good translation, if you enjoy reading old English prose, but it is not perfect. If God intended for us to have a "perfect" word for word Bible, He would have seen to it that the original manuscripts would have been preserved, so we could read (or have read to us) the actual words that Moses, and all the apostles wrote with their own hand.

Please explain to me why there are 4 gospel accounts written? If God wanted us to have "pure words", why didn't he only inspire ONE person to write the account of Jesus' ministry, and then preserve that document down through the centuries? Shouldn't ONE version be enough? Or, perhaps seeing/reading different versions of the same story, we get different perspectives on what happened.

Just as, reading a paraphrased version of scripture might give us a different perspective on a particular thought, or teaching. Perhaps reading different translations gives us nuances that we might have missed, had we insisted on one version of "the pure words of God"

Then how do we know what is "true" ? The Spirit gives us understanding....

But, you will probably never understand that, because you are too busy worshiping at that altar of the KJV... a 400 year old translation....

 

[Sagart]

Is this what you're talking about? If so, that is NOT a KJV bible, this is a Wescott and Hort bible.


English Revised Version (1881-1895)

New Testament 1881. C.J. Ellicott, et al., The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised, A.D. 1881. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881.
The New Testament version commonly called the “Revised Version” (RV) or the “English Revised Version” (ERV) of 1881, of which the American Standard Version was an American edition. This version is a revision of the King James version made on the basis of Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857. The readings adopted by the committee of revisers were presented in a continuous Greek text in Palmer 1881, which includes marginal notes showing every departure from the Greek text presumed to underlie the King James version (for which see Scrivener 1881). See the version’s preface for detailed explanations of the principles and method of revision.

As I wrote in my post, the English Revised Version is an officially authorized revision of the Authorized Version of 1611. Furthermore, as I also wrote in my post, “Westcott and Hort had nothing to do with the translation of the Old Testament in the English Revised Version.” Moreover, there is no Bible that can be called, with any degree of accuracy, a “Westcott and Hort bible.” What is more, no KJOist has ever shown that the Greek text edited by Westcott and Hort is inferior to the corrupt Greek text of the New Testament upon which the New Testament in the King James version is based. Rather than even attempt to show such a thing, they falsely, maliciously, and slanderously claim that Westcott and Hort were heretics who messed up the word of God on behalf of the Vatican. Has anything further from the truth ever been claimed by anyone?

 

[limey410]

The best description of what being born again means is here:

1 Peter 1:23 KJV
Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

It takes incorruptible words to become born again. Is "for God so loved the world..." enough words? I don't think so because the spiritual birth in us is the Spirit of Christ.

Galatians 4:19 KJV
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,

I think it takes a lot of time in the word before the spirit of Christ is formed in us, at least it did in me.

That didn't really answer my question. I was asking what is the difference between being saved and being born again?

You have given me some scripture on being born again, but nothing to level that vs being saved.

In Galatians 4:12-20, Paul is presenting his reasons for doubting the Galatians salvation. In v 19, his hope is that they will be saved.
"The formation of Christ in you", is salvation or being born again.

v.20 "I would like to be present with you now and change my tone, for I have doubts about you."

ergo, he is travailing in his salvation, for theirs.

 

[limey410]

^^^^^ Also the incorruptible seed and the word of God are referring to God/Jesus/The Holy Spirit. Not the KJV ^^^^^^

 

[notbythesword]

I told myself I wasn't going to get into this again, but your pig-headedness about "the pure words of God" and "I have to have a version I can believe every word of" just grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard....

the different versions cannot all be called scripture.... what a load of manure.

I would hate to think I've hung my whole existence on trying to prove that one TRANSLATION of scripture is somehow endorsed by God, and all others are "not scripture"....

There is ZERO proof that God "ordained" the KJV version, any more than any other good translation, such as the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, etc.... and your attempt at claiming it is just shows everyone where you have placed your faith.... in a BOOK, not in our Savior.

The KJV is a good translation, if you enjoy reading old English prose, but it is not perfect. If God intended for us to have a "perfect" word for word Bible, He would have seen to it that the original manuscripts would have been preserved, so we could read (or have read to us) the actual words that Moses, and all the apostles wrote with their own hand.

Please explain to me why there are 4 gospel accounts written? If God wanted us to have "pure words", why didn't he only inspire ONE person to write the account of Jesus' ministry, and then preserve that document down through the centuries? Shouldn't ONE version be enough? Or, perhaps seeing/reading different versions of the same story, we get different perspectives on what happened.

Just as, reading a paraphrased version of scripture might give us a different perspective on a particular thought, or teaching. Perhaps reading different translations gives us nuances that we might have missed, had we insisted on one version of "the pure words of God"

Then how do we know what is "true" ? The Spirit gives us understanding....

But, you will probably never understand that, because you are too busy worshiping at that altar of the KJV... a 400 year old translation....

Good point about the synoptic gospels. Makes you wonder how a KJVO guy can say that his translation is the perfect word for word “inspired” copy, when many parallel gospel stories are not word for word (including within the KJV itself). If the disciples weren’t word for word in their accounts, yet the message remains the same, that’s okay in the eyes of the KJVO crowd. Yet, if the Bible is not the KJV, but the message remains the same…it is heresy? Funny how that works.

 

[limey410]

and i enjoy the KJV, but I worship it not.

 

[limey410]

One more thing 1 Peter 1: v 3 Says He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

 

[preacher4truth]

One more thing 1 Peter 1: v 3 Says He has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

Amen!!! To preach a certain version is needed in that transaction is to preach another gospel.

 

[posthuman]

___ __


_ ___ ___ ___ covfefe

 

[Dai3234]

I use multiple translations when i study scripture. And then i see what the passages say in Hebrew or greek. Then see what translations fit it best. Sometimes its kyv sometimes its niv or hcsb or nlt. I just get the verses paralleled and see which one or ones fit it best. I find translation wise the NIV, KJV, NKJV, HCSB and sometimes the MSG to be accurate.

My favorite is NIV its in my language and trying to evangelize with the KJV only brings confusion when using their own language will solve a lot of confusion.

People are more prone to twist scripture when they cant understand it because they think the kjv is the only accurate version. Its outdated but no less accurate. Its just now we have translations just as accurate.

I like the idea of using the Amplified Bible as the main reading version. As it's very quick to read, faster for me than NIV, has alot of helpful filler words eg, (not the Nehemiah that wrote the book) / (the previous king) etc. But with light underlining of verses that are slightly off compared to the KJV.

The only issue is it costs more than the KJV & NIV together. But AMP & KJV together seem best for me I think. My ESV, NKJV, NIV, don't seem to gel together in any way that fill gaps. The other way does. Just feels better personally. Plus, less to read.

 

[Dai3234]

Note that I do think it is probably Very important to elevate the KJV to still be very necessary, just for copyright freedom in the USA etc. Though I'm in UK.

 

[Dai3234]

Good point about the synoptic gospels. Makes you wonder how a KJVO guy can say that his translation is the perfect word for word “inspired” copy, when many parallel gospel stories are not word for word (including within the KJV itself). If the disciples weren’t word for word in their accounts, yet the message remains the same, that’s okay in the eyes of the KJVO crowd. Yet, if the Bible is not the KJV, but the message remains the same…it is heresy? Funny how that works.

Also, I saw every KJV 1611 is not 1611 that's printed today, their 1700's updates. But it's not printed in the KJV to not lose customers etc.

 

[Angela53510]

The Bible is so important to me. It leads and guides me. It has never shown me the wrong way to go. It comforts and exhorts me. It has been there through the hard times and the good times. Reading 5 Psalms daily in HCSB helped pull me out of a serious depression, caused by the pain of untreated RA, and the condemnation of Word Faith people. That version was so important, because it didn't use the KJV words, which I could not understand.

"Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted in me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him for the help of his countenance." Psalm 42:5 KJV.

I had no idea what "cast down" even meant. I finally read "A Shepherd Looks at the 23rd Psalm" by Philip Keller, and got the meaning. But how much better this meaning:

"Why am I so depressed?
Why this turmoil within me?
Put your hope in God, for I will still praise Him,
my Savior and my God." Psalm 42:5 HCSB

Certainly, that meant something to my parched soul. This 2nd semester in Intermediate Biblical Greek, we translated the Septuagint for this Psalm. It was tough going. In fact, the professor left it off the final exam! But, that Psalm was put there for me! We learned about the words and what they meant.

That word "depressed" in the Septuagint was περίλυπος or perilupos. In Greek, it means "very sad, grieved, deeply grieved." Pretty close to "depressed" and certainly it is a word that has a lot more meaning. So, I will take Holman's version any day over the KJV.

I would imagine that the Masoretic text says something related to sheep? Like them being cast down, meaning they will die? But then, who wouldn't be depressed, if they knew without help they were going to die. Hmm! I am going to have to brush up my Hebrew, it is obvious. I guess the Hebrews knew a lot about shepherding, and the city scholars who translated the Septuagint realized that most people did not. It is said the LXX is inspired, but I doubt it is any more inspired than the KJV. Instead, it was an incredible vehicle or tool to preserve the written Word of God.

My point being, the Bible is the most wonderful book ever written. But the reason it is so wonderful, is that it reveals Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation, from Genesis to Revelation. I find Jesus in the pages of my Bible. I trust him totally, the only power and authority there is.

"Then Jesus came near and said to them, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." Matt 28:18

Who are you trusting? Some of you are trusting in an old translation, that doesn't even clearly translate meaning. As for me and my house, we will serve Jesus, who is revealed in the Bible! And my Bible, (and I have read many versions, plus much of the original languages, says "Jesus Christ is Lord!"

"so that at the name of Jesus
every knee will bow—
of those who are in heaven and on earth
and under the earth—
11 and every tongue should confess
that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father." Phil. 2:10-11

 

[Angela53510]

___ __


_ ___ ___ ___ covfefe

OK, I give up! I admit, I have no clue about early modern English. I'm thinking consese? The v being an N, like Greek, and maybe the f being an s?? Except consese has no meaning, or does it??

 

[posthuman]

OK, I give up! I admit, I have no clue about early modern English. I'm thinking consese? The v being an N, like Greek, and maybe the f being an s?? Except consese has no meaning, or does it??

the POTUS apparently fell asleep ((or was tackled by secret service agents)) mid-sentence while tweeting late last night and "covfefe" was the garbled result.

since this morning, it has become an integral part of the American dialect, taking on an enormous number of meanings. it's just a really, really great word. the POTUS has the best words; he's a really amazing linguist. because just think, just look, he mutters nonsense syllables and bam, next morning our entire language is changed. just like that [SUB][citation needed][/SUB]. and the polls, the good polls, not the ones that are negative, show just how much. they show the people love it.

in keeping with the patriotic air of admitting no wrong, ever ((see: Trumps description of what repentance means to him, or more succinctly, his track record on malarkey)), no matter how obvious it may be that what you've just said is nonsense, i stand by this group of consonants and vowels and won't let the "fake dictionary" divide us.

sorry, bloviating. anyway i figured what better way to surmise this thread so far in a single word?

covfefe​