The Truth About KJV Only: The Mormon, Ecumenical, Homosexual, and Neo Nazi Agendas

  • 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.
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#21
Hi all. Praus is a guy who has already stated that he does not believe there is any perfect or infallible Bible, so we know right away we are dealing with a man who does not believe in the infallibility of the Bible - ANY Bible in any language. So he turns his efforts and attention of spreading outright fibs and misinformation about the one true Bible - the King James Holy Bible.

One of his tactics, which I have seen many times, is trying to paint king James himself as a homosexual. This is an outright lie.


King James I of England was one of the greatest kings the country has ever known. He was fluent in Greek, Latin, and French in addition to being schooled in Italian and Spanish.

One of the King's bitterest enemies was Anthony Weldon. He had been excluded from the court of King‚ James and had sworn vengeance. Twenty-five years later (1650), after James had died, Weldon wrote a paper alleging James to be a homosexual. Obviously the King could not defend himself. But even then there were enough people still alive who knew King James and knew this accusation was not true. Therefore the rumor died.

In his book "King James Unjustly Accused" Stephen A. Coston Sr. states on page 287 "No less than three contemporary and professional historians (Sanderson, Heylyn, and Wood) sharply disagreed with those who hinted of James over fondness for male favorites. The testimony of these me, and the host of other men I have cited cannot be ignored, yet is ignored by those critical sources who seek to paint James as a homosexual."

Do you know how many children James and his wife Anne had together? EIGHT children. Only three of them reached adulthood, the other five died at birth or within the first year or two. This is all documented on pages 78-79 of King James Unjustly Accused.

Here is an excellent Video done by Dr. Phil Stringer, who tells us from history some things you probably do not know about the man king James, and he most definitely was not a homosexual.

The Real Story of King James - YouTube
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#22
Amos 4:4. As I glanced at this ridiculous article that an unbeliever in the infallibility of ANY Bible put up, I noticed one of his examples of alleged error in the King James Bible was Amos 4:4. This is not an error at all, and here is why. There are NO provable errors in the King James Bible, because it is God's Book.



Amos 4:4 After Three Years or Three Days?

I have read James White's book, The King James Only Controversy, three or four times and have found many inconsistencies, lies and hypocrisy on his part.

Regarding Amos 4:4 Mr. White writes on page 232: "At times the KJV attempts to get around difficulties, so to speak. For example, at Amos 4:4 the KJV renders the Hebrew phrase "three days" as "three years", ostensibly so that the pasage would remain in accordance with Jewish law, which required the gathering of certain of the tithes each three years. Interestingly enough, the NIV also chose to translate the "three days" as "three years", probably for the same reason. While it may be possible that both the KJV and the NIV are correct in their understanding of this passage, the point should be made that neither is strictly translating the text. Both are engaging in a certain amount of interpretation at this point. Given the tremendously strong language that has been used by KJV Only advocates against such translations as the NIV for doing that very thing, we see here another example where the KJV itself makes the KJV Only position self-contradictory and inconsistent."

Mr. White used to work for the NASB committee, so his bias is towards this particular version. However, let's look at the provable facts.

First of all not only does the KJB say "bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after THREE YEARS" but so do the NIV, as pointed out by Mr.White, the TNIV (Today's New International Version 2005), and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1579 and 1909, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Youngs "literal" translation, Websters 1833 translation, the Calvin Bible 1855, Noyes Translation 1869, the Word of Yah translation 1993, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, New International Reader's Version 1998, the English Jubilee Bible 2000 , Green's Modern KJV, the Modern Greek Version, and the 21st Century KJV 1994. The NKJV and the NASB say every three DAYS instead of three "years".

Now it is interesting that a man who used to work for the NASB translation committee, as Mr. James White did, would accuse the KJB of not being as literal as the NASB. The much vaunted NASB is overall far less literal than the King James Bible and the NASBs keep on changing both their underlying Hebrew and Greek texts as well as the English text ever few years. Want proof? Here it is, and lots of it. ever changing NASBs - Another King James Bible Believer



The KJB does give the correct meaning of every three years because this corresponds to what is clearly taught in Deuteronomy 14:28 "At the end of three YEARS thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates".

When we look up what the Hebrew word is we find that it is yohm. This word is usually translated as "day", but not by any means is it always so translated. We find that the KJB has translated this word 15 times as "year". Now if the NASB is more literal than the KJB, why then did the NASB translators themselves render this same Hebrew word yohm as "years" not just 15 times as the KJB, but 29 times as "years" or "yearly" - almost twice as often? The NIV likewise has it as "years" some 25 times and 65 times they have not translated it at all.

Some examples of where the NASB and KJB have yohm as years are Exodus 13:10 when speaking of the yearly Passover: "Thou shalt therefore keep this ordinance in his season from YEAR TO YEAR." (yohm to yohm)

In Numbers 9:22 the children of Israel journeyed when the cloud was taken up "whether it were two days (yohm) or a month, or a year" (yohm).

In 1 Samuel 2:19 speaking of Samuel: "Morover his mother made him a little coat, and brought it to him from YEAR TO YEAR" (yohm to yohm); see also 1:3, 21; 20:6; and 2 Samuel 14:26 speaking of Absalom: "And when he polled his head,(for it was at every YEAR'S end that he polled it) he weighed the hair of his head..." and in 2 Cronicles 21:19 speaking of the wicked king Jehoram whom the LORD smote in his bowels with an incurable disease: "And it came to pass, that in process of time, after the end of two YEARS, his bowels fell out by reason of his sickness".

Not only has the "more literal" NASB translated the word yohm as years almost twice as often as the KJB, but it also has "literally" translated this same Hebrew word as: "afternoon, age, always, battle, birthday, Chronicles, continually, course of time, daylight, each, entire, eternity, evening, ever, fate, first, forever, full, life, long, now, older, once, period, perpetually, present, recently, reigns, ripe age, short-lived, so long, some time, survived, time, usual, very old, when, while, whole and yesterday" How is that for being more literal than the KJB?!

In the New Testament the NASB has also three times rendered the Greek word hemera, or day, as YEAR. See Luke 1:7,18 and 2:36.

Those King James Bible critics who mention how the NASB is more literal than the KJB, would be wise to refrain from mentioning the good Doctor White's example of Amos 4:4 as being an instance of such "getting around the difficulties, so to speak".

Bible Commentators who agree with the King James Bible reading of "after THREE YEARS"

John Calvin translates Amos 4:4 in the following manner, and then comments on the verse.

Amos 4:4. Come to Bethel, and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgression; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes after three years:

Amos 4: 4. Ita in Bethel et scelerate agite, in Gilgal adjicite scelerate agendum, et adducite mane sacrificia vestra, ad tres dies (hoc est, tertio anno) decimas vestras; - (translation- after three days, that is, three years)

Then Calvin comments: After three years,(* Editor’s footnote) that is, in the third year, “bring also your tenths”; for thus it was commanded, as we read in Deuteronomy 14:28. Though, then, the Israelites worshipped God apparently in the strictest manner, yet Amos declares that the whole was vain and of no worth, yea, abominable before God, and that the more they wearied themselves, the more they kindled the wrath of God against themselves.


*Editor of Calvin’s commentaries footnote: Literally, “on the third of days, but days here are evidently for years. “I cannot doubt,” says Dr. Henderson, “but that the Prophet has in view the enactment recorded in Deuteronomy 14:29, 26:12 , days, mean here, as in Leviticus 25:29, Judges 17:10, the fullest complement of days, i.e., a year.” — Editor.


Adam Clarke commenting on Amos 4:4 - “continue to support your present vicious priesthood by the regular triennial tithes which should have been employed in my service.” (For those who may not know what triennial means, it means THREE YEARS.)

John Gill commenting on Amos 4:4 - “your tithes after three years; the third year after the sabbatical year was the year of tithing; and after the tithe of the increase of the fruits of the earth, there was "maaser sheni", the second tithe, the same with "maaser ani", the poor's tithe, which was given to the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless; and the widow, to eat with them, (Deuteronomy 14:22-28) (26:12) ; and this they are sarcastically bid to observe in their idolatrous way. It is, in the Hebrew text, "after three days"; and so the Targum, “your tithes in three days;'' days being put for years, as Kimchi and Ben Melech observe. It may be rendered, "after three years of days", three complete years.”

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown comment: “after three years--every third year; literally, "after three (years of) days" (that is, the fullest complement of days, or a year); "after three full years."

John Wesley comments: “Three years - God had Deuteronomy 14:28, commanded every third year that all the tithe of that year should be brought, and laid up in a publick store-house.”

The King James Bible is right, as always. God bless.
 
C

cfultz3

Guest
#23
Hi all. Praus is a guy who has already stated that he does not believe there is any perfect or infallible Bible, so we know right away we are dealing with a man who does not believe in the infallibility of the Bible - ANY Bible in any language. So he turns his efforts and attention of spreading outright fibs and misinformation about the one true Bible - the King James Holy Bible.
[/url]
And do you place your faith in a translation?
 
G

GraceBeUntoYou

Guest
#24
Oh, looks like it's story time! Good timing on my behalf, I just got home with the Halloween Oreo, and a gallon of milk!
 
Aug 31, 2013
651
3
0
#25
I'm confused. :confused:

I want people to
follow Jesus Christ, not me, whether they use the KJV or the NIV or another translation...



Do you even read the Bible?

Ps 118:8 [It is] better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man. (KJV Pure Cambridge Edition)

Awwwww you are so cute when you posture so. :)
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#26
One of his tactics, which I have seen many times, is trying to paint king James himself as a homosexual. This is an outright lie.
That's a really poor straw man you constructed.

Ki
ng James I is not the same as KJV-onlyism, his sexual tendencies are not an issue. James sponsored the translation and it's certainly not a homosexual-friendly Bible.

The topic is
KJV-onlyists and their motivations, not King James I, not the King James Bible in any edition.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
765
113
39
Australia
#27
You can have what you think is the purest and the best exclusive translation but if you don't walk with Holy Spirit, it means nothing in the end. As long as your walking with God, you'll be alright
 
Dec 21, 2012
2,982
40
0
#28
Im offendend on behalf of mormons every where..

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, their own website:
Moses 4:1-2*

Moses 4:1 And I, the Lord God, spake unto Moses, saying: That Satan, whom thou hast commanded in the name of mine Only Begotten, is the same which was from the beginning, and he came before me, saying—Behold, here am I, send me, I will be thy son, and I will redeem all mankind, that one soul shall not be lost, and surely I will do it; wherefore give me thine honor. 2 But, behold, my Beloved Son, which was my Beloved and Chosen from the beginning, said unto me—Father, thy will be done, and the glory be thine forever. 3 Wherefore, because that Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, and also, that I should give unto him mine own power; by the power of mine Only Begotten, I caused that he should be cast down;

The Pearl of Great Price is not the King James Bible!
 
Aug 31, 2013
651
3
0
#29
You can have what you think is the purest and the best exclusive translation but if you don't walk with Holy Spirit, it means nothing in the end. As long as your walking with God, you'll be alright
AND, Paul said that came through doing the works you were saved to do, NOT reading a book and arguing pedantically over which one says it best. :)

It's about how you live, not what you think you know.
 

ChosenbyHim

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2011
3,343
114
63
#30
AND, Paul said that came through doing the works you were saved to do, NOT reading a book and arguing pedantically over which one says it best. :)

It's about how you live, not what you think you know.





1 Timothy 4:13 KJV
Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.


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


Psalm 138:2 KJV
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.




Psalm 119:9 KJV
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.


1 Timothy 6:3-5 KJV
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, [5] Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.
 
Aug 31, 2013
651
3
0
#31
1 Timothy 4:13 KJV
Till I come, give attendance to reading, to exhortation, to doctrine.
Already answered ALL the timothy verses. It's sorta rude for you to turn your nose like I didn't and post them again as if it means something my comments didn't assess. If you aren't a BISHOP over MANY CHURCHES, the the letter instructing Timothy to study to be approved wouldn't have any relevance to you.

YOUR way says Paul is an idiot and contradicts himself since in Eph 4 his writing is not going to work with your view here.

My view assesses and handles both views.

I'm going to stick to the "truth" that doesn't make half of the verses a lie, and rather makes them all fit well together. You will, of course, do what you can to not change anything in your thinking, even to editing out verses, ignoring them, or evading them.

Psalm 138:2 KJV
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.


Err, this has nothing to do with if you learn by study or not? And it's not from Paul, and it doesnt' address Ephesians 4.

Psalm 119:9 KJV
Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.



You dont' have to read the Bible to take heed to his word, newsflash. And this still doesnt' change what PAUL says in eph 4. Are you set out to prove Paul to be a Heretic?

1 Timothy 6:3-5 KJV
If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness; [4] He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words, whereof cometh envy, strife, railings, evil surmisings, [5] Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

LISTEN TO ME PLEASE>

Paul wrote to timothy, who was a leader over many churches. I.E. what we would see as a bishop.

He was over the teachers and elders of the churches in his area. His responsibility was to make sure they kept the doctrine he, paul, taught them.

Paul wrote, that the leaders of the church are to lead the people TO WORKS WORKS WORKS, and they gain UNITY in the faith, and KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST through those works, until they became,,,, not a scholar, but one as Spiritually mature as Jesus was on earth.> EVERY BIT AS SPIRITUALLY MATURE as the Christ was.

That comes through works.

Your way is like learning how to bat lefty when you are a righty, by reading books and not ever swinging a bat.
 
Aug 31, 2013
159
3
0
#32
First of all, I do not believe your "quote" from Winston Churchill is accurate or true at all. I think you got it from this goofy article that some other Bible agnostic wrote and he just made it up. I cannot find this "quote" anywhere except from the same site and others who copied it.

Here is a good video teaching done at a recent Dean Burgon Society meeting discussing the true king James and this silly charge of him being a homo.

Video Dr. Phil Stringer - king James not a homo - 55 minutes quite good


The Real Story of King James - YouTube


King James loved his wife, wrote love poems to her all his life and they had eight children together. Strange behavior for a homo.

Secondly, king James himself had nothing to do with translating the King James Bible.

Thirdly, YOU yourself do not have nor do you believe yourself that ANY Bible in Any language IS the complete and infallible words of God, so you have made your own mind and personal preferences your "final authority" subject to change at any moment.

And finally, the King James Bible is right for saying "earring" and not "ring for her nose" in spite of what you or anyone else says about it. It is GOD who has honored and used this Book far, far more than any other in history and it is the only Bible honestly believed by thousands even today to be the infallible words of the living God.

All those on the other side of this issue are like you - unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language on this earth. You guys will NEVER show us a copy of what you believe or defend as the complete and inerrant words of God.

"earring" or "nose ring"?


Genesis 24:47 “earring upon her face” or “a nose ring on her nose”?

In the King James Holy Bible we read of the servant of Abraham traveling to a foreign land to find a virgin bride for Abraham’s son Isaac. The servant finds a young woman named Rebecca and he gives her “a golden EARRING and two bracelets for her hands” (24:20) Her brother Laban sees “the EARRING and bracelets upon his sister’s hands” (24:30) and the servant later testifies how the Lord God of his master Abraham had guided him and how he had “put the EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands.” (Genesis 24:47)

"EARRING" is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534 - "And I put the earynge vpon hir face and the bracelettes apon hir hondes.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "the man toke a golden earynge", Matthew's Bible 1549 - "he toke a golden earing", Bishops' Bible 1568 - "and I put the earring vpon her face", Webster's translation 1833, Brenton's Translation 1851, the Lesser Bible 1853, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and I put on her the earrings" and the 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture.

However versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, RSV, ESV and NET translations tell us that the unnamed servant of Abraham didn’t give Rebeccah an EARRING but rather A NOSE RING to put in her nose.

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both correct read "EARRING", but the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "Then I put this RING THROUGH HER NOSE". But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now come out and it has gone back to the reading of "EARRINGS". -"And so, I hung the EARRINGS on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands."

The Amplified bible 1987 can't seem to make up its mind, so it gives us BOTH readings, saying: "And I put the EARRING OR NOSE RING on her face and the bracelets on her arms." (Hey, it was one or the other; I just can't remember right now ;-)

NKJV 1982 - “the man took a golden NOSE RING”...”So I put THE NOSE RING ON HER NOSE” - Genesis 24:22,47.

The Hebrew word for “face” (#639 aph) has many meanings and is variously translated by all versions as “face, anger, nostrils, nose, wrath and forehead.” The NKJV has translated this same word as “face” some 20 times, and the NIV, NASB as “face” 19 times.

The Hebrew word translated as “earring” is # 5141 neh-zem, and is used only 17 times and the KJB correctly translates it as “earring” 14 of the 17 times, and as “jewel” three times. It is never translated as “nose ring” in the KJB. The NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV have translated it as both “earring” and “nose ring”, with the NKJV having “earring” 10 times, the NASB 7 times and the NIV as “earring” 6 times.

You have to admit, there is a difference when your wife or girlfriend wears earrings and when she might chose to wear a nose ring. So, does God’s infallible Book tell us that Rebecca wore an EARRING of gold on her face (***the ear is a part of the face) or “a NOSE RING IN HER NOSE”? If you do not believe in an infallible Bible, then you will never know.

Maybe it was as a couple of other weird versions put it. The English Jubilee bible 2000 says: "Then I put THE PENDANT OVER HER NOSE." or perhaps as the Ancient Roots Translinear Version of 2008 has it saying: “I set THE HOOP OVER HER NOSE, and the bracelets over her hands.” Now, that must have been a sight to see, huh?

***The ears are part of the human face.

American Heritage Dictionary - the face - The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.

Webster’s New World English Dictionary, 4th Edition. the Face - the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, and from ear to ear; visage; countenance.

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary - the face -the part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from ear to ear.

The UltraLingua English Dictionary - the face - The front of the head from the forehead to the chin and ear to ear

Because we Bible believers do believe that God has in fact given us an infallible Bible in the Authorized King James Holy Bible, we maintain that it was an earring and not a nose ring that Rebecca, the young bride to be, wore on that day.

Other Bible translations that agree with the KJB that it was an earring.

Wycliffe 1395 - “hangide eere ryngis to ourne (to adorn) hir face”

Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before being put to death) - “And I put the earynge vpon hir face”

Coverdale 1535 - “Then layed I the earinge vpon hir face”

The Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, and Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) of 1549 - “And I put the earing vpon hyr face, and the bracelettes vpon hyr handes.”

Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “and I put the earring vpon her face, and the bracelettes vpon her handes.”

Webster’s 1833 translation, and the 1851 Brenton Translation - “and I put the ear-ring upon her face”

The Douay-Rheims - “So I put earrings on her to adorn her face”

Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “and I put the EARRINGS ON HER EARS and the bracelets on her hands.”

The so called Greek Septuagint has - “So I put on her the EARRINGS” (τὰ ἐνώτια) Verses 22, 30, 47.

And the Modern Greek translation reads the same having “I put the earrings on her face” - και περιεθεσα τα ενωτια εις το προσωπον αυτης

The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version all read like the KJB.

The 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture - “and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.”

The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - “And so, I hung the earrings on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands.”

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - KJB Articles - Another King James Bible Believer
 
L

LT

Guest
#33
I refuse to read the Authorized King James Version for the same reason I would not read an Authorized Hitler Version: Regardless of how well it is translated, I don't support the actions of the one who put his name on the book.
I don't know if King James was a homosexual, as it is historically subjective only to rumors; but he was a murderer.
He also had people tortured, and would watch the proceedings for entertainment!
He persecuted Christians who were not in his denomination.
He was an anti-Christ.



Just kidding, I love the KJV because it sounds like Shakespeare,

and it is obviously infallible because I believe it is, and anyone who doesn't believe what I believe is an agnostic, because no other sect has the audacity to place their translation in such an unbiblically high regard, and you can't prove any errors because obviously your translation has errors if it's different than my perfect version, and King James was an infallible man, and therefore his authority means a lot... GO KJV-ONLYISTS!!!