Apparently testing the spirit by "how the spirit is leading a person" doesn't work... the Mormons, Jehovahs witness, "drunk in the spirit" Charismaniacs and all the other cults out there believe they're being led by the Holy Spirit also.
The Sinful Charge of Idolatry Against King James Bible Believers
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
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.
Do you have a KJV decoder ring
Seriously, I like the KJV Old English language a lot.
But you need to stay in the real world with it.
You guys are doing more to make yourselves look like a bunch of idolatrous kooks than your opponents in this thread are.
A person has to be pretty blind to not realize the bible is a coded book... and yes I do have the decoder ring, it comes with the KJV bible.
So....the point of the post was...there are things in the bible that are truly stated BUT not necessarily statements of truth...the serpent said that she wouldn't die...and she did
There are things like that all in the bible...and as you say ..we need to rightly divide to perceive them
There are things like that all in the bible...and as you say ..we need to rightly divide to perceive them
W
WarriorForChrist
Guest
HI all. So for the KJV only people. I heard a KJV only person say that if an individual doesn't hear the Word of God from the KJV then they aren't saved. Basically what the person was saying is if they didn't quote scripture from the KJV then that person isn't saved because they haven't heard the Word of God yet. Is this standard belief among the KJV only crowd?
Yes the original 1611 version has been revised many times. An Anniversary edition of the original has been published. among other differences between it and the latest edition is that it included the Apocrypha. Are we to include the Apocrypha as being the word of God as well? Anyone who is interested can order a copy from their local Christian book store or from Amazon.
(quoted from the original preface to the 1611 KJB):
Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is still the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expresly for sence, every where. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could say, Verùm ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c. A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee have made many slips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all) also a comely man and lovely, though hee have some warts upon his hand, yea, not onely freakles upon his face, but all skarres. No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sunne, where Apostles or Apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of Gods spirit, and priviledged with the priviledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand?
. . the translators of the KJB disagree with your statement.
furthermore (reading the last sentence in the quote) they also in humility disagree that their work is "perfect"
Loaded statements like the title basically say - I am wright, you are wrong - and I'll defend that no matter how illogical my stance is 
Loaded statements like the title basically say - I am wright, you are wrong - and I'll defend that no matter how illogical my stance is
Loaded statements like the title basically say - I am right, you are wrong - and I'll defend that no matter how illogical my stance is
This is a dumb topic - I think we should be more concerned with getting God's word in us and doing it, rather than arguing if KJV is the only bible -
This is the big battle that you have decided to fight? A Version of the Bible, that has a reading level above your own? Does it make you feel smarter when you read it? I know it's a big southern thing, and the education down here isn't the greatest, so that might be it. My friend learned Photosynthesis in 3rd grade in NY, moved to Virginia and learned Cat.
Do you speak normally in Old English?
Forgive my sarcasm - do you not see that this is foolish, and profits nothing?
Is the KJV only stance Idolatry,
And are you committing sin by accusing a person who holds that stance, an Idolater
And are you committing sin by accusing a person who holds that stance, an Idolater
(also from the 1611 preface -- thank you Tintin for suggesting we have a look at it; i'd never read it before or even thought to! it's an interesting bit of writing, for sure)
For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?
For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as commodiously?
(another quote from the 1611 preface -- here the translators themselves entertain the idea that they would be idolaters if they treated the English language as though certain words and phrasing are holy when other words that carry the same meaning could also be used.. since God Himself in the scripture uses various vocabulary speaking of the same things. did we finally, by inference, find someone to call you an idolater, Andrew?)
We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequall dealing towards a great number of good English wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happie that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: so if wee should say, as it were, unto certaine words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be banished for ever, wee might be taxed peradventure with S. James his words, namely, To be partiall in our selves and judges of evill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that nicenesse in wordes was alwayes counted the next step to trifling, and so was to bee curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himselfe; therefore hee using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if wee will not be superstitious, may use the same libertie in our English versions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or store that he hath given us.
i've been reading & quoting from the full text of preface (it's pretty long) found here:
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
it's not the "manner of speeche" that you can find in the KJV today, for sure!!
why not?
because sound-minded men realized that language and its use change over time, and the purpose of translation is so the scripture can be understood in 'the vulgar tongue' -- so what was commonly understood in 1611 isn't so easily read today, or even in 1711. therefore they re-translated and revised what was earlier written.
hmm..
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Adam died the moment he ate of the fruit. (the penalty of sin is death)
How do we know?
1. He tried to Hide from God
2. He tried to cover his nakedness (shame)
3. He tried to lie to God (blame shift)
The things of God were foolish to him. why? He died spiritually, he separated himself from God. he had to be born again (made alive) in order to have that fellowship restored.
He died physically 900 some years later (as a byproduct of sin, but not the penalty)
If a son of the gods is with you in your fiery trials, or your morning star is lucifer, or your shepherd has his right eye darkened, or if your prince that shall come is antichrist rather than Jesus, or if your gods chosen people are circumcised in the flesh rather than in the heart then that statement would be a true statement.
Last edited:
Spelling and typos have been corrected and the Apocrypha was never part of scripture.