The Sinful Charge of Idolatry Against King James Bible Believers

[fredoheaven]

I'm here. I was asleep.

I'll be kind here. KJV-Onlyism is absolutely idolatry and absolutely responsible for many cults and cultish behaviours.

I bet you really don't understand the KJB issue. A simple question for you to keep :

Could you really win a debate with a JW using your multiple versions on the topic of hell? Unless you really don't believe in Hell.

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

.
The Masoretic Text version of Amos 9:12 (which is what the KJV uses) and the Septuagint version of that verse are not even close. James quote in Acts 15 matches the Septuagint version, so I don't know what the point of your comment was.

If you would like another example that the KJV is not perfect, I direct you to Zechariah 14:5. This is the Masoretic Text version (which the KJV uses).

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, King James Version​

And this is the Septuagint version, which all evidence indicates is the correct version.

The valley between the hills will be filled in, yes, it will be blocked as far as Jasol [Azal], it will be filled in as it was by the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, New Jerusalem Bible​

Search internet for azal + yasul for the evidence. It's too much for me to go into here.

Hi,
Is this your final answer? I hope it’s not!
Here are some errors to those who feel or think they have proven the KJV to be in error on the basis of the following:
1. Translational Error. I have nothing to offer you on this matter since this is not a translational error on the KJV as supposed.
2. Conjectural Emendation. It means to “change the text to what you think it should be.” This process use by the Bible Critic is giving an “educated guess”. This thinking is originated by Origen from the standpoint of Platonic philosophy. A classic example of “Conjectural emendation” is found in Mark 1:2 on the basis that the quotation is from Isaiah. But verse 2 quotes Malachi and verse 3 quotes Isaiah. The KJV is correct on this matter. The LXX is which is so far cited in the above statement is the work of Origen found in his HEXAPLA, a six column polyglot Old Testament. Yet again the statement above does not indulged in a sort of “conjectural emendation.”
3. Scribal Error. Beware of Bible critics/correctors which tend to point “scribal errors” as a means of overcoming Bible difficulties. Example of this is in Matthew 19:24 where textual critics say the word “kameelos” (Camel) was originally “kamelos” (rope) and some scribes messed up. But then again, the above statement is not a scribal error.
4. Typo error. I really doubt that this is a typo error, although it is stated as quoted saying “it is written” to what James says and what the italics on your above statement seems to employ.
5. Interpretational Fallacies. The above problem presents more on the interpretation of the text over other errors as pointed. Context of the passage is very important. Apostle Paul and Barnabas during the council of Jerusalem declared “all things” that God had done on them.

Act 15:4 And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
I see where you coming from but you missed a “word” or “a phrase” in the context of Acts 15 that makes the KJV correct. According to Amos, even though Israel sinned and judgment must fall, still God’s plan for the house of David and promise to Abraham have not failed and will ultimately be realized. Though it is marred, it is not beyond God’s ability to repair. Yes, there’s nothing difficult to Him. The question that of “heathen” being called by God by his name is not impossible to Him. Yes, He surely can do this!

Amos 9:11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
Amos 9:12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the LORD that doeth this.

The passage was quoted then by James in Acts 15 to demonstrate God’s intention to save the Jews and Gentiles alike. Can the Lord does saving the Jews and Gentiles alike. Yes, it is the “Lord, who doeth all these things”.

Acts 15:16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
Acts 15:17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things

Now, Amos said “LORD that doeth this” in bold typed faced is in singular form.
While James says “ these things” in plural form.
Reconciliation:
Amos = the passage is centered in the people of Israel. (singular)
Luke the writer of Acts as quoted by James = focuses on the JEW’s and the Gentiles as per context (plural)

But where’s Edom and the heathen as Amos said? Why James didn’t say anything where in he says “as it is written” Did James quotation incorrect?

The answer to the seeming problem is that the scripture says:
Acts 15:15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,

Thus the word “Gentiles “as per Acts account is still in agreement with the words “ Edom and the heathen.” In agreement that is period.

Well, I was just only fascinated with your Avatar not to deride as something implying or saying but “HeRoseFromtheDead” who?
Jesus
Lazarus
Women (Hebrews 11:35)

I’ll take my pick. It’s Jesus!

God cares,

 

[Tintin]

I bet you really don't understand the KJB issue. A simple question for you to keep :

Could you really win a debate with a JW using your multiple versions on the topic of hell? Unless you really don't believe in Hell.

Ha. Typical. If I don't agree with the KJV-Only stance I must not understand it. Yes, I could totally win a debate with a JW about Hell using modern translations. I think it's you, Bread of Heaven, who doesn't understand. Please explain why the KJV translator's Preface has been excised from modern printings of the KJV. Reading the Preface, it would seem the KJV translators loved the idea of other translations being created as the English language changed.

 

[Blessed2Progress]

.
The Masoretic Text version of Amos 9:12 (which is what the KJV uses) and the Septuagint version of that verse are not even close. James quote in Acts 15 matches the Septuagint version, so I don't know what the point of your comment was.

If you would like another example that the KJV is not perfect, I direct you to Zechariah 14:5. This is the Masoretic Text version (which the KJV uses).

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, King James Version​

And this is the Septuagint version, which all evidence indicates is the correct version.

The valley between the hills will be filled in, yes, it will be blocked as far as Jasol [Azal], it will be filled in as it was by the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, New Jerusalem Bible​

Search internet for azal + yasul for the evidence. It's too much for me to go into here.

in just curious... was Amos or Zechariah originally recorded in the Koine Greek LXX (Septuagint) or Hebrew?

Shalom

 

[fredoheaven]

.
The Masoretic Text version of Amos 9:12 (which is what the KJV uses) and the Septuagint version of that verse are not even close. James quote in Acts 15 matches the Septuagint version, so I don't know what the point of your comment was.

If you would like another example that the KJV is not perfect, I direct you to Zechariah 14:5. This is the Masoretic Text version (which the KJV uses).

And ye shall flee to the valley of the mountains; for the valley of the mountains shall reach unto Azal: yea, ye shall flee, like as ye fled from before the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, King James Version​

And this is the Septuagint version, which all evidence indicates is the correct version.

The valley between the hills will be filled in, yes, it will be blocked as far as Jasol [Azal], it will be filled in as it was by the earthquake in the days of Uzziah king of Judah. Zechariah 14:5, New Jerusalem Bible​

Search internet for azal + yasul for the evidence. It's too much for me to go into here.

Yap, it does, and your Septuagent match with the KJB not the other way around. Well, your lists will go on and on but the Word of God stands sure. You are trying to direct me on Zechariah 14:5 as Masoretic Text Version when in fact it's not. It is a KJV in English. The truth is that the complete KJV text was based 80 % on the previous English Version while comparing with other versions of the Bible, Old Latin, Masoretic Text, Textus receptus including Douay-Rheims etc.

Another thing is that I firstly based mine with scriptures and not to some internet based belief.

As for your NJB, is this your final authority? If so, Is your final authority encourages you to study God's Word? see 2 TIMOTHY 2:15

 

[fredoheaven]

Ha. Typical. If I don't agree with the KJV-Only stance I must not understand it. Yes, I could totally win a debate with a JW about Hell using modern translations. I think it's you, Bread of Heaven, who doesn't understand. Please explain why the KJV translator's Preface has been excised from modern printings of the KJV. Reading the Preface, it would seem the KJV translators loved the idea of other translations being created as the English language changed.

well, this is trite. go to the internet.

 

[LOLOKGal]

KJV does have some translation errors in it, and it would be blind to ignore that.

However with that being said tons of scholars have researched this an have stated it does not effect the gospel message.

Research has shown bad errors in other versions as well, so we should not just pick on the KJV.

The NIV, NASB, and others have their issues as well; some being major !!!

Problem is many more early manuscripts have been found since the 17th century through excavations and archaeological digs etc. As we compile all the manuscripts we see there are small differences between the COPIES (we do not have the originals for comparison). The KJV is not perfect in the sense that many of the early copies had not been discovered at the time of it's translation but neither are the more recent translations perfect due to their variances.
So by comparing all the early manuscrpts we can approach a high degree of accuracy reflecting the originals but to say any one translation is perfect is delusional.

I have not read through all that was said, so if I repeat anyone here, please forgive me. I am quoting these two gentlemen because I agree with what they are saying. I personally do read the KJV and sometimes look at NIV. I reference the strongs alot, in my studies. However, even though the KJV is not completely perfect, it is very close, from what I've studied. Plus, I also like to point out that the newer Bibles that come out, they HAVE to change ALOT in order to pass copyright laws. That's the main reason why I'm concerned with alot of newer translations. How much did they change, take out, or add to get it copyrighted? Scary!

Oh! By the way... In the United States, Congress enacted the first federal copyright law in May 1790, and the first work was registered within two weeks. So, any Bibles that's been copyrighted since then, may have alot changed about them.

 

[Tintin]

well, this is trite. go to the internet.

Grow a brain. I'm done here.

 

[Tintin]

I have not read through all that was said, so if I repeat anyone here, please forgive me. I am quoting these two gentlemen because I agree with what they are saying. I personally do read the KJV and sometimes look at NIV. I reference the strongs alot, in my studies. However, even though the KJV is not completely perfect, it is very close, from what I've studied. Plus, I also like to point out that the newer Bibles that come out, they HAVE to change ALOT in order to pass copyright laws. That's the main reason why I'm concerned with alot of newer translations. How much did they change, take out, or add to get it copyrighted? Scary!

Oh! By the way... In the United States, Congress enacted the first federal copyright law in May 1790, and the first work was registered within two weeks. So, any Bibles that's been copyrighted since then, may have alot changed about them.

Oh, boy. That's NOT at all how or why new translations are made.

 

[LOLOKGal]

Oh, boy. That's NOT at all how or why new translations are made.

It may not be why or how, but the fact still remains that in order to copyright it, it has to be considerably different. :/

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I'm here. I was asleep.

I'll be kind here. KJV-Onlyism is absolutely idolatry and absolutely responsible for many cults and cultish behaviours.

How dare you sleep! when you are needed..lol Welcome back Bro!!

 

[Tintin]

How dare you sleep! when you are needed..lol Welcome back Bro!!

It's what we Aussies do. Cheers, brother.

 

[Brother_Don]

Why Do We Support only The King James Bible For the English people?​

​

The King James Controversy can be a very sore subject for Christians of different denominations. Every Bible-believing church ought to take a stand for the King James Bible of 1611 because of clear evidence of God's hand on the inspiration and preservation of His Word by this Book. I plan (Lord willing) for this page to grow in information. Currently, Presented here are several main reasons for supporting the KJV.
​

Fables And Facts
About The King James Bible​

Over the past few decades, new Bible translations have been popping up like popcorn. Many strong Christians have stood their ground and continued to believe, read, and study only the Authorized King James Bible. Many others, however, have forsaken the Book that God has used for centuries. Such people have fallen for smooth advertising schemes and have actually started believing that the modern versions are superior to the King James Bible. It's very sad that most Christians today have not taken time to study the subject thoroughly enough to see what is really happening.

Originally we published only one tract about the King James Bible. The tract is titled How I Know The King James Bible Is The Word Of God, and it presents some rather strong arguments for the KJV. Then we offered a second tract, titled Let's Compare Bibles. This tract shows how the modem Bible translations are literally attacking God's word! Both of these tracts are still available, and are free upon request.

Now, by the grace of God, we are able to offer a third tract on the King James issue. We call it Fables And Facts About The King James Bible. It's purpose is to better educate Christians about the KJV by clearing up some of the fables that have been spread by the critics. Far too many Christians are accepting the Authorized Version by faith alone, rather than working and studying to become more grounded in some of the basic FACTS about this important issue. The following information should be helpful to the believer who desires to be readily armed with TRUTH.

 

[Brother_Don]

FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611. FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.

FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.
FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. Its also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?"
The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England—B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not Scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the Word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful I work of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.

FABLE: New translations are needed to correct the errors and contradictions in the King James Bible.
FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many "Christian" colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.

 

[Brother_Don]

FABLE: New Translations are needed to bring the archaic Old English language up to date. People have trouble understanding the language of the King James Bible. FACT: The King James language is NOT hard to understand. Most of the so-called "archaic" words are explained by the context of the passage or by comparing the passage with other passages in the Bible where the same word is used. Heady and high-minded people resent the King James language because it is plain and simple, and it isn't in tune with their high-minded vocabulary. In fact, the Grade Level Indicator of the Flesch-Kincaid research company says the King James language is EASIER to understand than the new versions.
We certainly agree that the language of the King James Bible is a unique language, but why shouldn't it be? It's the WORD OF GOD!

FABLE: The King James Bible cannot be infallible because the translators were only men, and all men are sinners. The human element prevents the KJV from being infallible.
FACT: If this is true, then even the ORIGINAL AUTOGRAPHS in Hebrew and Greek were not infallible, because they too were penned by men!
The fact of the matter is that the King James translators were only INSTRUMENTS of preservation (which is exactly what they called themselves in the Dedicatory to the A.V. 1611) God has always been the Divine Preserver of His word (Psalm 12:6-7), but He has used men as tools and instruments of preservation, just as He uses men to teach and preach His words. When men humbly yield themselves to the will of God, God can use them to accomplish His will (Romans 12:1 2), and this is precisely what happened between 1604 and 1611.

FABLE: The King James translators added to the word of God, because the italicized words in the KJV were not in the originals.
FACT: The Italics in the KJV prove that the translators were HONEST in their work. They set the words in italics so we'd know they were not in the manuscripts they were using.
Besides, no one has a copy of the original manuscripts today, so no one knows for certain that the italicized words aren't in them. In fact, there are many cases where we know that the italicized words are justified. For example, notice in Deuteronomy 8:3 that the word "word" is in Italics. However, when Jesus quotes this verse in Matthew 4:4 he INCLUDES the italicized word! If the italicized word does not belong in the Bible, why did the Lord Jesus quote it?

FABLE: The original King James Bible included the Apocrypha in the Old Testament.
FACT: The King James translators knew the Apocrypha was not scripture, so they placed it BETWEEN the Old and New Testament as a HISTORICAL DOCUMENT, not as Scripture.
Friend, don't be deceived by the crafty critics of God's word. LEARN THE FACTS! If you haven't read our other tracts on the KJV, order them soon and read them. Arm yourself with the facts!
If you've never received Jesus Christ as your Savior, please send for a free copy of Understanding God's Salvation Plan.
I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth (3 John 4:1)

 

[HeRoseFromTheDead]

Yap, it does, and your Septuagent match with the KJB not the other way around. Well, your lists will go on and on but the Word of God stands sure. You are trying to direct me on Zechariah 14:5 as Masoretic Text Version when in fact it's not. It is a KJV in English. The truth is that the complete KJV text was based 80 % on the previous English Version while comparing with other versions of the Bible, Old Latin, Masoretic Text, Textus receptus including Douay-Rheims etc.

Another thing is that I firstly based mine with scriptures and not to some internet based belief.

As for your NJB, is this your final authority? If so, Is your final authority encourages you to study God's Word? see 2 TIMOTHY 2:15

The version of Zechariah 14:5 in the KJV comes from the Masoretic Text. It has no basis in reality, but derives from Jewish tradition. Masoretic, of course, in essence means tradition. The NJB is not my final authority, by any means, but it does have the best translation of this verse in existence.

 

[oldthennew]

11TIM. 2:15.
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed,
rightly dividing the word of truth.

ROMANS 10:15.
And how shall they preach, except they be sent?
How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings
of good things.

our Heavenly Father speaks to us in so many ways and He gives us the ways and means
to understand and discern in His time and place in our lives -

when we hunger and thirst for a connection to Him and when His Word becomes
real and living, we pull on that cord for more of His Holy validation and security -
such powerful blessing available to us through this most astounding Love...

ECC.3:14.
I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it,
nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

 

[Brother_Don]

The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) is a Catholic translation of the Bible published in 1985. The New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) has become the most widely used Roman Catholic Bible outside of the United States. It has the imprimatur of Cardinal George Basil Hume.
Like its predecessor, the Jerusalem Bible, the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) version is translated "directly from the Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic." The 1973 French translation, the Bible de Jerusalem, is followed only "where the text admits to more than one interpretation." Introductions and notes, with some modifications, are taken from the Bible de Jerusalem.
Source: The Very Reverend Dom (Joseph) Henry Wansbrough, OSB, MA (Oxon), STL (Fribourg), LSS (Rome), a monk of Ampleforth Abbey and a biblical scholar. He was General Editor of the New Jerusalem Bible. "New Jerusalem Bible, Regular Edition", pg. v.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

FABLE: The King James Bible was revised several times before 1800, so modern translations are just additional revisions of the original King James Bible of 1611. FACT: The so-called "revisions" of the King James Bible prior to 1800 were to correct typographical errors, add notes, and omit the Apocrypha from between the Testaments. There were no changes in the actual TEXT of the King James Bible. The REAL changes (over 36,000 of them) didn't start until the modern revisionists came on the scene.

FABLE: The modern translations are more accurate because they have been translated from older and better manuscripts.
FACT: It is truly amazing how so many Christians have bought into this lie without ever checking to see WHAT these manuscripts are, WHERE they came from, and WHO wrote them. Its also strange that no one seems to be asking the question, "Has God honored these 'older' and 'better' manuscripts throughout Church History?"
The modem translations are based on the work of two nineteenth century Greek scholars from England—B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Westcott and Hort, who were deeply involved in the occult, hated the Textus Receptus Greek text from which the King James Bible was translated, so they conjured up THEIR OWN Greek text. This Westcott and Hort Greek text was based primarily on two very corrupt fourth century ROMAN CATHOLIC manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (discovered in the Pope's library in 1481) and Sinaiticus (discovered in 1859 in a trash can at St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai). These are usually the "older" and "better" manuscripts that we keep hearing so much about. These manuscripts support most of the attacks in the new versions.
The Vaticanus is considered to be the most authoritative, although it is responsible for over thirty-six thousand changes that appear today in the new versions. This perverted manuscript contains the books of the pagan Apocrypha, which are not Scripture; it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10!). The attacks on the Word of God found in these manuscripts originated in Alexandria, Egypt with the deceitful I work of such pagan Greek "scholars" as Origen and Clement of Alexandria. Then in 313 A.D. the Roman emperor Constantine ordered fifty copies of "the Bible" from Eusebius, the Bishop of Caesaria. Eusebius, being a devout student of Origin's work, chose to send him manuscripts filled with Alexandrian corruption, rather than sending him the true word of God in the SYRIAN text from Antioch, Syria. So the corrupt Alexandrian text (also called the "Egyptian" or "Hesychian" type text) found it's way into the Vatican manuscript, then eventually into the Westcott and Hort Greek Text, and finally into the new "Bible" versions in your local "Christian" bookstore. Therefore, when you hear or read of someone "correcting" the King James Bible with "older" or "more authoritative" manuscripts, you are simply hearing someone trying to use a ROMAN CATHOLIC text to overthrow the God-honored text of the Protestant Reformation and the great revivals. God has never honored this corrupt text and He never will.

FABLE: New translations are needed to correct the errors and contradictions in the King James Bible.
FACT: No one has ever proven that there are errors and contradictions in the KJV. Many "Christian" colleges and preachers have a nasty habit of pointing out APPARENT contradictions to their people, but these arguments have been disproven so many times that it is nothing less than disgusting to hear them still being used.

These are not facts, they are a persons opinion.

The fact that someone claims an opinion is a fact, when it is not proven as fact, just goes to prove the hypocrisy KJV onliers will go to prove their points. and goes to show why people claim they are idolotors.

 

[Tintin]

Brother_Don, what you just posted is a steaming pile of crap. There's no other way to put it. The KJV-Only cult is dangerous.