1) IF A TRANSLATION IN """ANY""" RECEPTOR LANGUAGE MUST SPECIFY, IN THE TEXT, THAT """THIS""" IS THE WORD OF GOD - THEN NO ONE BUT GREEK AND HEBREW SPEAKING PEOPLE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD, AND EVEN THEN THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO READ COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES. WHAT YOU ASK IS ILLOGICAL, OR YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN NO ONE HAS THE WORD OF GOD ANY MORE.
Makes me laugh at religion that people care more about who's right and who's wrong more than just helping humanity move forward. These people should care about just being a good person and doing good, you argue about stupid stuff like this but not about famine, poverty, peoples suffering. It just makes me love being a non-religious free thinker.
@GeNoTheEndoSmokr It is because these are known topics, with known solutions, the only issue is is the government. If we could somehow get the government to come on board then all would be a much better place. As far as being a non-believer, you are not what you say you are. You are most likely a liar (who has lied in the past), most likely a thief (even if it was when you were little taking something like a paper-clip or pencil). Since this goes against God's Law, instead of repenting you...
@ChristsCombatant777 ...deny his existence altogether in order to feel free from that law which you have broken. The question I have for you is as a non-believer, what came first chicken or the egg? Because if you say the former, then how did that latter occur? If you say the latter, then how did the former occur? The answer is simple that neither came in and of itself, that there is a creator and God is his name. He sent his son Jesus Christ into the world, because of his Grace toward you and I
@ChristsCombatant777 and it is through our faith in his son Jesus Christ, by God's grace that he died for us so that we could have a relationship with God and have eternal life.
If you that don't believe that the KJV is the only inspired,word of God ,then you need your eyeballs pulled out of your eye sockets,so you can see,because apparently you can't see anything while your eyeballs are sitting safely in the sockets of your heads.We need stability,we need to be established in the faith.The body of Christ has become unstable,double minded in all it's ways,sterility has happen to the body of Christ,the church is senile.
@George0025 The KJV, wasn't the only translation,but you can't keep translating the word of God,Why! Because of the lost of meaning.I see this is true in translations,the wording gets weaker and weaker...Hell is a good word,why mess with it?A words like damn is a word that convey what the author meant.The title God is in the masculine,why mess with the wording? The bible is set at a 6th.grade education,it could be understood.There is an agenda to screw up God's word.
@Ajaxxism1 Only to confuse the masses with different bibles.Religionist know better than that,they would say which bible? which God? The religionist are right we are wrong to try to witness our faith, because we are confused.
@George0025 Yes! I know this,but This is where the translations should stop,with the KJV,the Geneva bible,and the Gideon bible.The NSV,RSV,NASV,NIV,NKJV,and the NWT,are contrived perversions.
Will somebody tell me how could anyone go to a church to hear from the word of God,but everyone has their own version of the bible.God isn't the author of confusion.I have my KJV,someone else their, NASV,some one else,RSV,you don't think something is wrong with that?Or are we that numb to what is going on,we need to be established,we need a bases,a foundation to build on,having all of these version is dumb.other religions no better than this.
The point is are these the words God said at that time in that place... NO it isnt about if the doctrine is still in there it is about the specific words God used and if God said corrupt in 2 corinthians 2:17 and the niv says peddle one is right and one is wrong. 1st the 2 words dont mean the same and2nd, at that moment did god say corrupt or did he say peddle? Did God say mark 16:9-20 or not? the words are what matters not the same basic idea, and the clearst trinity vers is gone in the niv
@MargeGood I have never heard of KJV only people using Ecc. 8:4 to support their view. HOW do you get King James out of that text? If you can twist scriptures like that, then you would also have to agree with how the mormons and the JW's twist scripture.
@fbcpastordave1 can we argue about what Scripture says? It clearly says that "Where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Also I agree with MargeGood, that it has to be one or the other, because in 20 different versions of the BIble it makes Jesus look like a liar, Just read John 7:8 in many versions including the ESV, NLT, and the NIV. THEN read verse 10. Next refer back to 8. You will find that Christ is a liar...
@ChristsCombatant777 ...AND the only way we can know that Christ's time to go to the feast was not YET come, because of the KJV and the Greek texts(Textus Receptus(sp?)). Also if you consider it, either Jesus changed his mind or he lied about going to the feast. If I know Christ like I think I do, He ALWAYS had a purpose behind everything, SO He could not have changed his mind based on those "bibles" that He in fact was made out to be a liar.
@MargeGood You do understand that passage has nothing to do with King James...this us a classic example of Scripture twisting to support a false doctrine.
@Dremias5545 You do understand that the name JESUS isnt in the old testament either but we know that it is him that was prophesied about right? Look you asked i answered, the KJV is the only translation that was commanded by a king, and used manuscripts that were always around. Why dont you tell me what made you change from being kjv only to using other modern translations instead of being insulting and assuming. I wanted to discuss you point of view but wont if you are a jerk.
@Dremias5545 how does it not have to do with king james if he is a king god put in power and How can you prove it isnt Gods pure word? And obviously you dont care if these modern translations call satan the name of jesus, add to and take away from Gods word, and have clear contradictions. I thought i would get a serious discussion and was interested enough to respond. obviously you have a huge chip on your shoulder. If you want to have a real discussion i am still up for it.
@MargeGood I don't waste my time debating people like you. It's very clear that you are not interested in the facts, biblical context of passages, and reason.
hey @dreamias5545 I agree with you. Don't grow weary in well doing bro. I appreciate your boldness. I used to be a KJVO as well, but I keep getting stumped with this question, I have a friend who keep telling me that my NASB Bible was translated by two satanic and catholic people names Wescott and Hort, and why would I read a translation translated by such people. How would you respond to this?
@MaaLthecomedian Your friend tells you the truth. Also if you look at the RSV and the NRSV, and the ASB, there's where a lot of your "inspiration" comes from is those two people. Because of the greek bible they made back some 100 years ago.
@MaaLthecomedian I will tell you that most KJVOist simply repeat what Gail "god and" Riplinger said about Wescott and Hort. The best thing to do is read what they actually wrote and not rely upon second and third hand smoke. I would point out that W and H had problems just like people who created the KJV who were Anglicans etc. So if we can pardon those men then we can pardon Wescott and Hort.
Would God make it alright to just leave Deuteronomy and Revelation alone, but the rest of the Bible is fair game??? I think not. The KJV presents things straightforward, goes along with the same writing styles as the Greek and Hebrew texts. Also with these newer translations God is portrayed in the NT as a mean God, if you don't believe me? I have found a 7 part video series that will show you.
ALSO, KJV was the first ever Bible to be mass circulated. It was the 7th English version and from reading scripture, 7 is the number of completion. Do you think that God wanted only the Priests to know the Word of God? Also the basis for any bible should be that of of Revelation Chapter 22 verses 18&19. BUT if you say "oh that is just referring to Revelation" then read Deuteronomy 4:2. Again if you say that it is only referring to Deut. and Rev. then ask yourself this question...
@ChristsCombatant777 The KJV was not the 7 th English version. Just within the KJV family of revisions and corrections, this alone is more than 7 times purified!
@fbcpastordave1 Did you ever consider the fact that 2 of the writers of the NIV were homosexual (one being a sodomite) and that one of the two did an interview (that you could find on youtube) where she says that no Bible can be perfect, that it always will be with error due to humans? ALSO, I stated that the KJB was the 7th English Translated Bible. NOT 7th printing of the KJB.
Now as far as the verse I use as my basis for why the King James Bible is the only ENGLISH translated bible we should be using, is Ecclesiastes 8:4 "Where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou?" By this basis if a king says that this (KJV) is the Bible, then I will believe him. Besides if you do your study of the two bibles that were directly before it, one was very weak, the other was overly authoritative and gave too much power to the nobleman...
@Dremias5545 obviosly you cant do better at undermining this scripture. i wish i had seen this before i posted. why dont you have a real response to this scrip? cause there aint one to support your position.
@ChristsCombatant777 DID King James say that this will be the perfect bible and that there shall never be any more translations of the Bible? King James wanted a bible that everyone could read in the common language. We no longer speak like that. So...we cannot have a bible in our common language?
@fbcpastordave1 Well from reading the letter to King James by the people who got together and were inspired to write the KJV, I notice that the language used in the letter is very much like our own and so what this tells me is that even the language they (God rather) used was archaic even unto them. Also coming from someone who knows a thing or two about english and grammar, the KJV has the BEST grammar of any bible I have read from. ALSO, something else interesting to note...
@fbcpastordave1 ...the quran if you translate it to english sounds very much like the KJV bible, with the thee's, thy's, ye's, and so forth, so what this tells me is that there's something to that "old english" if you will if even our islamic brothers and sisters decided to use it. NOW getting back onto the Scriptures, one must come to a conclusion that our God is Perfect, therefore his Word must be perfect. So there is a perfect Word of God out there...
@fbcpastordave1 ...and Luke 4:4 says "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." therefore the Word of God must be life bearing and very much alive in and of itself and so if one's Bible doesn't seem alive or there is no awe in your bible then it's probably not a bible.
@fbcpastordave1 Nope, because our common language is very much a dumbed down and a concept not considered(why I don't know) BUT I think that God's word usage is Holy, that He will only use words that are above perversion and are pure. He will not use words that we chose to use, but he will not break his will to use the words that he does not approve of.
@Dremias5545 Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
I see what you mean but isnt the text the proof? If Jesus' words are not in certain versions doesnt that mean something isnt right? I have certain versions that dont have a certain word which turns Jesus into a liar in the verse. Im not a KJVO,but I do have enough common sense to see certain versions are aweful,and I think God wants us to use our common sense to see these problems and to use the best version we can find.It doesnt mean its all going to be a doctrine in the Bible. Use common sense
I use the New Jerusalem Bible and I re the Apocrypha too. I also study ancient Hebrew, it helps when you are looking for proper translations. Nothings better than going back to the Hebraic source. Trouble is, too many people still hold a grudge toward the Jews. Not me! YHVH! ;)
@WorldBibleUnion454 KJV passage teaches that Jesus Christ will deny reigning with him if the believer denies suffering with him in 2 Timothy 2:12,13 without taking away the believer's salvation (Ephesians 5:29,30/2 Timothy 2:13) . The NIV teaches that Jesus Christ will totally disown the believer if they disown Jesus Christ. What doctrine changed here between the NIV and KJV?
@WorldBibleUnion454 So go ahead and try finding the "faith of Christ" passages listed below in the NIV and try teaching that scriptural doctrine. They're not in there.
@WorldBibleUnion454 A believer's faith can be weak (Romans 4:19, Romans 14:1), shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19). Their faith can fail (Luke 22:32). In 2 Timothy 2:12,13 the scripture teaches that Jesus Christ cannot deny his own body (believers in Jesus Christ) if they deny suffering with him because "he (Jesus Christ) abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
@WorldBibleUnion454 The "faith of Christ" which is Jesus Christ's faith in his Father that never fails and keeps the church age believer's salvation eternally secure. Remember that Jesus Christ is both God (Job 9:8/Matthew 14:26) and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and is our mediator at the right hand of God the Father. Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:22, Philippians 3:9.
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
Does it say some words are pure but there is errors? Or does it say every word is pure? Thank you.
For the second time I've been told by a KJVonlyist that I'm not saved on the basis of what translation I was reading when I was born again. I don't even bother trying to talk sense to these dissemblers any more. They have gone well and truly beyond the pale. Church discipline is warranted and if they don't repent, excommunication.
@Dremias5545 i believe you just created a confusion. Does the Bible say, "Jesus was killed and "then" hung on a tree"? I believe it says "...,whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." That does not establishes the order in which those things were done to Christ. On the other hand what "you" said does. You added the word "then" Please don't twist the words of truth. The Greek word that's use for slew is "diacheirizō" which means,
1) to move by the use of the hands, take in hand, manage, administer, govern
2) to lay hands on, slay, kill [with one's own hand]. The mean that comes out of it look more like "Took to Him to hang" "administered to hang" or "Killed by hanging" but not "Killed and then hanged". Not trying to put you down, on contrary pulling you up.
Also, want to say the KJV is not without translational errors but it is the richest and closest to the truth in meaning. Im not condemning new versions but prefer to use things that "Best" in quality and when it comes to the Bible it's KJ. But it does not mean that God will not use new versions to bring people to salvation.
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii). I'm sorry did Westcott just say his bible and is faith were a compromise?
We should be asking ourselves what the purpose of copyright is? To protect ones work. Um... I thought it was God's Word. Oh thats right Zondervan owns the copyright of most English versions. I can understand copyrighting material so that someone else doesn't copyright the material and abuse it, but then why be so particular on the use of the material? Hm... Maybe its for profit? Any other suggestions? Why not give free reign on use of the material? sean_donovan_ministries@hotmail.com
Greetings, It's unfortunate that since posting, you haven't logged in to see the response. #1 Has anyone ever addressed copyright of the modern versions? International copyright law states that there must be a 10% variance for all new copyright material. Hence the newer the version the farther from truth. The KJV has no copyright and may be re-produced by anyone. Ever look at how stringent the copyrights are in modern versions? Questions or comments sean_donovan_ministries@hotmail.com
@Dremias5545 The KJV has always been in the Public Domain with the exception of the UK! Many publsihers including Zondervan place a copyright notice, however such notices are not legally binding and have no authority. Great Britian has a crown copyright however, its a law for the protection of the material. It is a reminder of the era when the Crown held complete control over all the printing and publishing that happened in the UK. Anything created by the Crown has a perpetual copyright!
@Dremias5545 Would you mind addressing the 10% variance that is required for all new translations. Also I recommend reading the "Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott" and the "Life & Letters of John Anthony Hort" These are books comprised of the letters written by both men. I'm sure you're aware they are the creators of the source text. Their letters run aproxamatly 2000 pages. I recommend it for your research.
@Dremias5545 Once you read the letters of both men, and I recommend that you do. You'll notice both took part in occult practices, worshiped idols and Mary, did not believe in hell, supported Charles Darwin, did not believe in a six day literal creation, believed in evolution, did not believe the scriptures to be taken literally nor that they held any authority. There is no greater condemnation of these men in regards to the faith that that of their letters. May God bless you as you search.
@fundamentletruth Now let's hold these same standards to the people behind the creation of the KJV. To start off: Erasmus was a Catholic. So is his work suspect and untrustworthy? If you are consistent with your standards then you will admit that the TR has a very Catholic influence and slant.
Now stop all the smoke screens and answer my two simple questions presented in this video.
@Dremias5545 "[T]he Catholics, instead of repenting of their sins, pile superstition on superstition…" (p. 374 The Life and Letters of Erasmus)
Pope Paul IV in 1559 added all of Erasmus' books and works, to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Rome's index of forbidden books. The Council of Trent, condemned Erasmus' translation of the Bible.
Sounds like a great Catholic and hero of Rome. Do YOUR research please.
One can always judge a KJVO by the fact they are almost always hostile or even attack others who disagree with them. They have not any love towards others even for Christ they have no love of their brother or sister in Christ.
@1John2v27 I kind of see where you're coming from. The KJVO videos Ive seen have a "strange" spirit about it. I dont sense a loving spirit coming from the KJVO people. The modern bibles have proven to be a blessing. I wasnt very interesed in reading the bible until I discovered easier to read and understand bibles such as the NLT. When I start reading the KJV again, I find myself starting to lose interest like my old self again. Many KJV people dont have this problem. I do. Live and let live
Because they are not of the holy but a hostile demonic spirit. They have not any love because they are devoid of it. They make the KJV into an idol and worship it.
@1John2v27 On the flipside though you can see where the KJVO are coming from. Ive read several modern bibles where "yet" is missing in John 7, turning Jesus into a liar. And "without a cause" is also missing in most modern bibles when Jesus is talking about being angry. Jesus seemed to be angry in the Bible on a couple of occassions, so leaving this out means He will also face judgment. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the Trinity doctrine. Its missing in most modern Bibles. The strongly feel this is wrong
They are right on the money on some things but satan uses them also. I spent almost two years in that kjvo rut and know their perversions of what they call the truth.
@Dremias5545 Yeah, the NKJV seems good too. I like the NLT also. It may be more of a paraphrase, but it brings the meaning of the words to life by conveying the thought of the writers. Now the Message I dont care for one bit. Its WAY OUT THERE. But the NLT is about 50/50 literal/paraphrase.The original Living Bible is also not too bad, but a little too much of a paraphrase. Nothing compares to that MESSAGE bible. I reckon all versions are paraphrased in some way compared to the original writings
At this point it is up to you, if you had the same eye as the kjvo but didn't even spar the kjv from it you will find flaws in almost every bible in print including the kjv going back to the 1611. Hell there is even masonic symbolism in the 1611! Most bibles are good enough for general study but to get it all requires that one know most versions and translations but with a young mind and the holy spirit to guide the way.
@bradfordpestservices Nothing but misconceptions. The same type of reasoning can be applied to the KJV to make it look bad: In the Acts 5:30 the KJV says Jesus was killed and then hung on a tree So if we use KJVO logic then the KJV creates confusion because of Acts 5:30.
They (kjvo) know not the truth nor have love of the truth. With blind eyes and deaf ears they search only after half truths and lies that they agree with or supports their false doctrines.
I hate the KJVO movement with a passion, they have made an idol of the kjv bible. I know some of the key figures of this movement here on youtube that have made it so prevalent in these last days. The worst and most heretical is Peter Ruckman. You can't be KJVO without being an hard core Ruckmanite and they train others into attacking others who disagree or use different bible translations. They can't prove them selves right because their doctrines are not of God or his word.
You have twisted my comment around, God has reserved his word on his own and doesn't need man to do it for him or any works of man for that matter. Twisting comments around is a stale old trick at best and have found many KJVO to be empty or dead in spirit as far as God and Jesus is concerned.
@1John2v27 You can't answer can you, you can only name call. Explain how it is heretical to believe God preserved His Word as He promised?
"God has (p)reserved his word on his own and doesn't need man to do it for him or any works of man for that matter"
And where can I find that Word that He preserved? I'd love you to show me. Interesting you believe God doesn't work through man, that's all scripture written through the apostles and prophets in the trash then. Very interesting.
@1John2v27 Show me scripture that states the KJV is not the Word of God. Show me scripture that states onlyism for the KJV is wrong, Show me where you get your info because it needs updating.
The premise that we start with is that the following verses are true: Psalm 138:2 Ecc. 8:4 Psalm 119:130 Proverbs 8:8-9 2 Tim. 2:8-9 John 8:47 2 Cor. 2:17 Isa. 40:8 Matt. 5:18, and yes, Psalm 12:6-7 all as they appear in the AV, or the Bishop's Bible, or Mathew's Bible or the Tyndale Bible, or the Geneva Bible. (of these, God's choice in history is obvious) Based on these simple criteria, every version since 1881 is eliminated from qualifying. Only 1 remains. It's really that simple.
To elaborate the early English translations came from the Textus Receptus: Wycliffe, Tyndale, The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1st and second editions of the King James Bible. The Textus Receptus is the GNT that the great reformers used and defended with their Sola Scriptura doctrinal statement. It wasn't until Wescott and Hort came up with a "better" GNT that we had an explosion of new English Translations. Which one is better is for you to decide, again, God Bless!
I think the KJV-onlyist side of the debate is not centered around the KJV itself, but on the new testament manuscripts that it was translated from: The Textus Receptus. Most KJV/NKJV-MOSTLIES like myself are actually TR-Byzantine GNT-onlyists or prioritizors. The real source of controversy is the set of new Greek New Testaments from which most of the Bible versions of the last 130 years are translated: Wescott/ Hort and Nestle/Aland. Do more research, please, before slandering. God Bless!
Yes and no.. Doctrine is attacked in your modern version... If you disagree I can show you plenty.. I dont know what i believe 100% but what i do know is the end of mark is supposed to be there.. I trust God I know hell lead me to truth
Jesus did not speak KJV english, he spoke mainly Greek and Aramaic. ALL modern translations go back to the original languages, just like the KJV did. the KJV did not come into existence until 1611.
I appreciate your comments. You're not attacking, which is what I see so often, perhaps on both sides. If we argue for truth in a way that is ungodly, we're not really right, just maybe correct.
If I demonstrate pride, or loss of self-control, or any of that stuff, I really don't think God is going to say to me 'well done, good and faithful servant'. The fruits of the spirit are in all of the translations I've seen, and in very few of the arguments.
How 'bout a parallel Bible??(shotgun approach) For generations, the Church of Rome insisted on Latin only Bibles, keeping the Gospel from the common people. I can't help but wonder if the KJV only folks are inadvertently going down the same path.
There is no perfect English translation, including the King James. And unless you are very educated in archaic English, the King James is the worst. Or sit their and read it with a Webster's 1828 dictionary in your hand. And that doesn't solve the up-side-down King James syntax. I suspect the real reason behind the "King James Only" movement is so they can make creative "interpretations" of the often confusing text.
hope you get my responce-- Numbers 21:6-9 (Standard)--- acts27:17 amd ICor. 12:28 (helps)... i am not a KJV onlyist but do recognize the difference between a STANDARD AND AN HELP--- i hope to hear/see you typing to me--- 800-834-8034 ---- martin
Read the biography of King James 1 you will understand that God used a KING to bring about his word to the English speaking people JAmestowne Va. was the first English setlement of the US King James intended to bring his translation to the free world to spread the gospel. Before william Tindale was martyred he said " Lord open the eyes of the King".
kjv only causes division and is contrary to walking in the spirit for sure the same ones will say you have to tithe to be right with god or you have to show up everytime the doors are open, i use the kjv and the greek and hebrew this is how i study but not force others
Thank you brother for exposing the KJV-only cult. I was once one too, until I realized the differences between the 1769 and the 1611. KJV onlyism breeds ignorance, lack of study, and an angry spirit (a la Ruckman). I praise God He Has given my the opportunity to pull out a dear friend out of KJV onlyism.
the margins are not scripture .you don't go by the margin you go by Gods words psa. 12:6-7 is Gods promise to keep and preserve his words.English is the 7th universal language God has preserved his word in. It's in it's purest form now.the furnace is the church going through tribulation in order to get it. It's called prophecy. The real question is what is YOUR finale authority? the fact that new bibles attack Christs's deity, remove scripture,give Christ's title to satan(rev.22:16 w Isa.14:12
Personally I prefer the KJV, but I study the NIV as well. The KJV is a great Bible to study from, but it has it's share of problems along with the NIV. It's not going to affect anyone's salvation because they chose one translation over another.
You approach it from a good angle as most KJV only people I talk to admit that they have never studied the Hebrew or Greek of the KJV, and are unwilling to.
The scriptures were written thousands of years before the KJV. I used to be a KJV onlyist. I have a 4th year college reading level. I still to this day don't understand the KJV. I AM NOT OF SATAN! I read the NIV and HCSB. I am now closer to God than I ever was then. Period. Christians need to stop attacking other christians. If you guys could understand your Bible, you might not be miscontruding the Bible so much. Oh yeah, that word means messing everything up. I knew you rednecks can't read.
2. There is a single BIBLE out there that is preserved: Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So let us pick a bible to stick with and read and understand and what better Bible than the most used Bible in the last 400 years.
@yank2441 Unfortunately, the scripture you quoted (KJV) is in fact from an incorrect translation that distorts its true meaning. The modern English translations correct that error. It is NOT the "words" of the Lord that shall be kept and preserved, but the PEOPLE (the "poor", "helpless", "oppressed" and "needy" mentioned in the previous verses). Only KJV only advocates ignore the previous verses (which contain the subject of the scripture in question) and apply it to the "words".
@yank2441 You do realize that Psalms 12 was written thousands of years before English was even a language and even before the Teutonic language group existed? You obviously miss the clear point of the text, which is the immutibility of God and the omnipotence of God and the righteousness of God. This proclaims what God declares is right, and that declaration will not change and He will accomplish what He has declared.
1. God is not the author of confusion. You go to church and the preacher starts reading scripture that you dont recognize because you use the NIV, and half the church uses ESB, the other part of the church uses ASV. This causes confusion and gives the devil the inch he needs. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
@yank2441 That's all you could think off. How abouth the facth thatth thou Bibleth isith hardth to readth. Youth wanteth confusionith, readth the Kingth Jamesth.
@yank2441 If people are confused over translations we have an education issue here, I can hear someone read out of any reliable translation be it KJV, ASV, ESV, NIV and although they may not be word for word, the information communicated is the same.
Was this some person's experience? And how does one living in error determine if a 'sin' is forgiven? The whole pool is so murky, one cannot see thru any of it. Believing things by def, means you don't know. Why don't we just admit this? We intellectually go down so many dark alleys, none of which have anything to do with reality. IMO, scriptures were written to control people. Until we can provide evidence they came from God, we should work on experiencing other areas of life.
All doctrine must be backed up by scripture. My comment on this open forum is that
although what you say may be true for a tidy, intellectual exercise, what good is it for
the real existence we are all living? The scripture may or not be "true". There is absolutely no way to verify. My motto therefore, is not to go overboard on the doctrines that are not provable, such as Jesus died for my sins. Doesn't matter who said that in scriptures, where exactly did that revelation come from?
Where is the scripture that says only the original autographs are inerrant? You said, if its not in the scripture, then it is a man made idea.
Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by INSPIRATION. Is the KJV scripture or not? If it is, then it is given by inspiration. If it is given by inspiration of God then it is inerrant. So if the KJV is not scripture, not inspired...then make a video and hold up a copy of inspired inerrant scripture, ie, the orginal.??? I'll be waiting.
I have noticed a strong "female" spirit with those males who are open to translations besides the KJV... not attempting to insult. Just a strong, SERIOUS observation.
@cb120594 I have noticed a strong "ignorant" spirit with those who are open to King James Onlyism,which clouds their mind to reason when discussing the facts about how we got our English Bibles... not attempting to insult. Just a strong, SERIOUS observation.
What needs to be done here, is you need to ask your OWN self these questions.
1. Do I believe that God settled his Word and that it shouldn't be added to or taken away from?
2. If I believed in the KJV for seven years, what reason would I have to turn away from it, do I want something that new versions will give me, that the KJV will condemn me for?
3. Do I need to care about what's doctrinally correct, or keep thinking it's no big deal?
@guitardavid79 But of course, you will not heed to any scripture that might point you in the right direction, you said yourself you've read it through and followed it for seven years. Yet, you turn around and want somebody to give you what you've already read and make them believe they can win you over when your mind is already made up to begin with.
@guitardavid79 No game here at all. The point is the KJVO doctrine is a lie. It has no scriptural/historical support. Even the KJV translators would condemn KJVOism as false(See To the Reader in the 1611KJV).
@Dremias5545 "Even the KJV translators would condemn KJVOism as false"
I doubt that very seriously. They were inspired, modern day translators are not. We can figure this all out from what the Bible tells us about Gods Word being "tried as silver in a furnace of the earth" and "where the word of a king is, there's power". When he tells us that his Word is settled and shouldn't be added to or taken away from, we should assume that he means what he says. Modern scholars are no authority.
@guitardavid79 See my video Which KJV for quotes from the so-called "inspired" KJV translators and you will see that they shot down the KJVO lie circa 1611.
@Dremias5545 Yeah, yeah, now your on the famous "revision hoax". Do you realize the printing conditions those guys had to put up with in 1611, TALK ABOUT TIME CONSUMING!!! They were dealing with "plates", letters that are laid down individually for the whole Bible. They were bound to make printing errors. Naturally, they'd have found the errors and corrected them, which is why we have those "editions" (not revisions).
@guitardavid79 Also, those words you find that are supposedly added in:
1611 - PSALM 69:32 has "seek good", when it should've said "seek God".
There's two things here to think about: 1. Those words are really similar looking. 2. That error was so obvious, that they caught it in 1617, just 6 years after the original printing and well before the so-called "revision".
@guitardavid79 There were quite a few corrections, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the modern day scholars would have you to believe.
I suggest you read "The Answer Book" by Sam Gipp. It goes deeper into this issue than I can.
@guitardavid79 Things that are different are not the same. Both can not be perfect. It seems the infallible translators goofed in 1611! Or did God goof? Oh yeah that right...printing errors! God had no power over thy printers!
@Dremias5545 Well, bottom line, if you are saved, remember that you were in the KJV to begin with. Now, will those other new versions save somebody? Yes, I believe they will, but, once the person starts wanting to study the Bible and learn more, that's when the new versions will throw them off and lead them away.
Everybody wants the truth and they will look for it. They will realize why there is so many different versions out there and then hunt down only "ONE" to be labeled as the truth.
@guitardavid79 Here we go again with another attack questioning my salvation. Why must KJVO defenders always resort to these types of baseless attacks? These types of comments just show how hollow and defenseless the KJVO myth is because those who defend it must deflect the Scriptural support question.
It's really sad how you have posted so much junk here without ever addressing my 2 simple questions head on.
@Dremias5545 Oh man, gimme a break, how am I to know if your saved or not? This is not an attack as much as you'd want it to be.
And as for your two "demanding" questions. I have already addressed them. Your looking for scripture that you know nobody can give you in the first place.
You are however lacking in one area, "KNOWLEDGE".
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...
There are translation mistakes in the KJV. In Acts 12:4 uses the word "Easter" in The Bible centuries before it became an official holiday anywhere.
I also want to say: Why is it in God's Will to allow some people, especially of those who speak English as a second language, to struggle at understanding His word? Surely it would definitely be in His will to release a more modern translation.
They don't want to be opposing the king James because then thy would have to acknowledge that that is the real issue. They dot want the truth. They want the lie.
These new versions water down the doctrines at best. I just don't see how you could believe what you would have to believe to think that all these bibles are correct when they openly are different. One key thing is that all the any bible(any Jesus) crowd don't seem to acknowledge is that they say it is ok to read the kjv ad all the others but the kjv is so different and latterly says the opposite from the other versions. They don't want to be opposing the king James because then thy would have
@wallaceju All that typing and no real answer to my two questions. Everything you wrote is an opinion at best. I could go back to 1612 and say the KJV was not needed because the Geneva Bible is perfect, after all God used the Geneva greatly! I could apply everything you said to the Geneva or Bishop's Bible.
Simple idea. Why would God want many English versions that cause confusion. It would make more sense that there is one God one truth one Jesus and one English bible. We must have faith and tha is the crux in knowing Christ and his words. If we say that man needs different versions ad it is ok, it is taking away from these concepts and doctrines. These different bibles do not support each-other even though you say that they all contain the correct doctrine. These new versions water down the doc
"Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands" (Matthew 26:67).
Even STILL today the wicked treatment of Jesus Christ continues through "unholy hands" and unholy words of men "spit in His face" and upon the "Word Of God" denying His Holiness and perfection through the everlasting, forever settled Words in Heaven. The only "originals" are in Glory and it is FAITH that believes He has preserved it forever here upon the earth.
This (man)? says that Psalms 12:7 is about "people" instead of God's pure Holy Words.
So, God is going to keep and preserve them (the"poor" and "needy") from the "generation" that David wrote this psalm, until "forever"?? Wow! I would really like to see some of these poor people who have been preserved and kept since David! Let's see, how old would these poor folk be now? hmm--1005 B.C. to 2011 A.D.--ahh that's about 3006 years on God's federal assistance program! My oh my, FOREVER poor!
@locustweed I would hope that you are smarter than this...but then again the KJVO myth has a way to totally blind and distort it's followers. Is this the best you can do?
@Dremias5545 I was simply showing the ridiculousness when logic is applied to a faulty interpretation of Psalms 12:7. I didn't have to reason too long or hard to expose this. I am saddened by the departure of people like yourself from God's forever settled Words. I would not call you blind or distorted--that would give you a viable excuse. You are where you are at by choice and it appears ANY excuse you can come up with to vilify where you once stood is OK, no matter how far off course it is.
As was stated before you have a list of all the scriptures you will NOT LISTEN TO in your quest to bury your past ignorance. Like a frantic canine scratching the earth to cover his doo-doo, your retreat from what you were must smothered at all costs. Unfortunately, you shoot yourself in the foot by your own rules. Luke 18:8 Jesus asks the question, when He returns will He find "FAITH" on earth? Our Savoir is Holy and without blemish "the Word of God". It is your FAITH in Him that is at stake!
I was once a king James onlyist. I do believe in sola scriptura "by scripture alone". But now let show you a deeper thing. Prima Scriptura, What is it? think about it. Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. When did canon scripture come to be? Think about it. The canon we come to recive came about in 300-325 A.D.
As Thought about this we have long believed a doctrine of men as a doctrine of God. When Just as you have proven that JKVB onlyism is man-made in its self. I bring to the table that we go further back than that to Before the RCC was formed. That Sola Scriptura meant what Matthew 4:4 states when it was spoken during that time.And this Belief-ism that canon scripture is the only words of God we should believe goes against John 16:13 and 2 Timothy 2:15.
According to Sola Scritura which refuted Prima scriptura. States "However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God." Unlike the misinterpretation of the term today it meant all divinely inspired scripture must line up with it's self Isaiah 28:10. My friend we must move deeper into the origins of God's word!
Prima Scriptura is False which we all ignorantly follow and Sola scriptura is misunderstood and misinterpreted. "by scripture alone" means what Matthew 4:4 and 2 Timothy 2:15 state before the canon law. Good will hunting-
@jsmccarty82 Canon Law is not Holy LAW. Man made laws are what Jesus vehemently spoke out against. The traditions of men are against truth and especially it is used in an attempt overthrow God's "forever settled Words". He has magnified His Word above all His name (Psalm 138:2) That is pretty serious business to tamper with the WORD.
1) IF A TRANSLATION IN """ANY""" RECEPTOR LANGUAGE MUST SPECIFY, IN THE TEXT, THAT """THIS""" IS THE WORD OF GOD - THEN NO ONE BUT GREEK AND HEBREW SPEAKING PEOPLE HAVE THE WORD OF GOD, AND EVEN THEN THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO READ COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES, OF COPIES. WHAT YOU ASK IS ILLOGICAL, OR YOU HAVE JUST PROVEN NO ONE HAS THE WORD OF GOD ANY MORE.
2) WHAT IS DIFFERENT IS NOT THE SAME.
jehovahuponyou 4 days ago
I am a New Living Version only man.
MrQuaker62 3 weeks ago
Makes me laugh at religion that people care more about who's right and who's wrong more than just helping humanity move forward. These people should care about just being a good person and doing good, you argue about stupid stuff like this but not about famine, poverty, peoples suffering. It just makes me love being a non-religious free thinker.
GeNoTheEndoSmokr 3 weeks ago
@GeNoTheEndoSmokr It is because these are known topics, with known solutions, the only issue is is the government. If we could somehow get the government to come on board then all would be a much better place. As far as being a non-believer, you are not what you say you are. You are most likely a liar (who has lied in the past), most likely a thief (even if it was when you were little taking something like a paper-clip or pencil). Since this goes against God's Law, instead of repenting you...
ChristsCombatant777 2 days ago
@ChristsCombatant777 ...deny his existence altogether in order to feel free from that law which you have broken. The question I have for you is as a non-believer, what came first chicken or the egg? Because if you say the former, then how did that latter occur? If you say the latter, then how did the former occur? The answer is simple that neither came in and of itself, that there is a creator and God is his name. He sent his son Jesus Christ into the world, because of his Grace toward you and I
ChristsCombatant777 2 days ago
@ChristsCombatant777 and it is through our faith in his son Jesus Christ, by God's grace that he died for us so that we could have a relationship with God and have eternal life.
ChristsCombatant777 2 days ago
If you that don't believe that the KJV is the only inspired,word of God ,then you need your eyeballs pulled out of your eye sockets,so you can see,because apparently you can't see anything while your eyeballs are sitting safely in the sockets of your heads.We need stability,we need to be established in the faith.The body of Christ has become unstable,double minded in all it's ways,sterility has happen to the body of Christ,the church is senile.
Ajaxxism1 3 weeks ago
@Ajaxxism1 You know that the KJV was not the first English translation.
George0025 1 week ago
@George0025 The KJV, wasn't the only translation,but you can't keep translating the word of God,Why! Because of the lost of meaning.I see this is true in translations,the wording gets weaker and weaker...Hell is a good word,why mess with it?A words like damn is a word that convey what the author meant.The title God is in the masculine,why mess with the wording? The bible is set at a 6th.grade education,it could be understood.There is an agenda to screw up God's word.
Ajaxxism1 1 week ago
@Ajaxxism1 Only to confuse the masses with different bibles.Religionist know better than that,they would say which bible? which God? The religionist are right we are wrong to try to witness our faith, because we are confused.
Ajaxxism1 1 week ago
@George0025 Yes! I know this,but This is where the translations should stop,with the KJV,the Geneva bible,and the Gideon bible.The NSV,RSV,NASV,NIV,NKJV,and the NWT,are contrived perversions.
Ajaxxism1 1 week ago
@Ajaxxism1 See I agree with you
. Because the NKJV's earliest printings included a Tiquetra symbol on it. A pagan/wiccan symbol, which begs the question, why is it there?
ChristsCombatant777 2 days ago
Comment removed
Ajaxxism1 1 day ago
This is a systematic attack on the KJV,we had it right the first time,now you want to stick all ten of your thumbs in one slice of pie.
Ajaxxism1 3 weeks ago
Will somebody tell me how could anyone go to a church to hear from the word of God,but everyone has their own version of the bible.God isn't the author of confusion.I have my KJV,someone else their, NASV,some one else,RSV,you don't think something is wrong with that?Or are we that numb to what is going on,we need to be established,we need a bases,a foundation to build on,having all of these version is dumb.other religions no better than this.
Ajaxxism1 3 weeks ago
The point is are these the words God said at that time in that place... NO it isnt about if the doctrine is still in there it is about the specific words God used and if God said corrupt in 2 corinthians 2:17 and the niv says peddle one is right and one is wrong. 1st the 2 words dont mean the same and2nd, at that moment did god say corrupt or did he say peddle? Did God say mark 16:9-20 or not? the words are what matters not the same basic idea, and the clearst trinity vers is gone in the niv
MargeGood 1 month ago
scripture to answer # 1,,,Ecclesiastes 8:4
Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou? Awaiting your response...
MargeGood 1 month ago
@MargeGood kjv is the only "version" that is commanded by a king whom the LORD put in power and cannot apply to any other version!
MargeGood 1 month ago
@MargeGood I have never heard of KJV only people using Ecc. 8:4 to support their view. HOW do you get King James out of that text? If you can twist scriptures like that, then you would also have to agree with how the mormons and the JW's twist scripture.
fbcpastordave1 4 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 can we argue about what Scripture says? It clearly says that "Where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Also I agree with MargeGood, that it has to be one or the other, because in 20 different versions of the BIble it makes Jesus look like a liar, Just read John 7:8 in many versions including the ESV, NLT, and the NIV. THEN read verse 10. Next refer back to 8. You will find that Christ is a liar...
ChristsCombatant777 6 days ago
@ChristsCombatant777 ...AND the only way we can know that Christ's time to go to the feast was not YET come, because of the KJV and the Greek texts(Textus Receptus(sp?)). Also if you consider it, either Jesus changed his mind or he lied about going to the feast. If I know Christ like I think I do, He ALWAYS had a purpose behind everything, SO He could not have changed his mind based on those "bibles" that He in fact was made out to be a liar.
ChristsCombatant777 6 days ago
@ChristsCombatant777 That's messed up.
Ajaxxism1 2 days ago
@MargeGood You do understand that passage has nothing to do with King James...this us a classic example of Scripture twisting to support a false doctrine.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 but then again KJVOist do not care about rightly dividing the Word.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 You do understand that the name JESUS isnt in the old testament either but we know that it is him that was prophesied about right? Look you asked i answered, the KJV is the only translation that was commanded by a king, and used manuscripts that were always around. Why dont you tell me what made you change from being kjv only to using other modern translations instead of being insulting and assuming. I wanted to discuss you point of view but wont if you are a jerk.
MargeGood 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 how does it not have to do with king james if he is a king god put in power and How can you prove it isnt Gods pure word? And obviously you dont care if these modern translations call satan the name of jesus, add to and take away from Gods word, and have clear contradictions. I thought i would get a serious discussion and was interested enough to respond. obviously you have a huge chip on your shoulder. If you want to have a real discussion i am still up for it.
MargeGood 1 month ago
@MargeGood I don't waste my time debating people like you. It's very clear that you are not interested in the facts, biblical context of passages, and reason.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
hey @dreamias5545 I agree with you. Don't grow weary in well doing bro. I appreciate your boldness. I used to be a KJVO as well, but I keep getting stumped with this question, I have a friend who keep telling me that my NASB Bible was translated by two satanic and catholic people names Wescott and Hort, and why would I read a translation translated by such people. How would you respond to this?
MaaLthecomedian 1 month ago
@MaaLthecomedian Your friend tells you the truth. Also if you look at the RSV and the NRSV, and the ASB, there's where a lot of your "inspiration" comes from is those two people. Because of the greek bible they made back some 100 years ago.
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
@ChristsCombatant777 That makes no sense.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 What do you mean it makes no sense?
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
@MaaLthecomedian I will tell you that most KJVOist simply repeat what Gail "god and" Riplinger said about Wescott and Hort. The best thing to do is read what they actually wrote and not rely upon second and third hand smoke. I would point out that W and H had problems just like people who created the KJV who were Anglicans etc. So if we can pardon those men then we can pardon Wescott and Hort.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
Would God make it alright to just leave Deuteronomy and Revelation alone, but the rest of the Bible is fair game??? I think not. The KJV presents things straightforward, goes along with the same writing styles as the Greek and Hebrew texts. Also with these newer translations God is portrayed in the NT as a mean God, if you don't believe me? I have found a 7 part video series that will show you.
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
ALSO, KJV was the first ever Bible to be mass circulated. It was the 7th English version and from reading scripture, 7 is the number of completion. Do you think that God wanted only the Priests to know the Word of God? Also the basis for any bible should be that of of Revelation Chapter 22 verses 18&19. BUT if you say "oh that is just referring to Revelation" then read Deuteronomy 4:2. Again if you say that it is only referring to Deut. and Rev. then ask yourself this question...
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
@ChristsCombatant777 The KJV was not the 7 th English version. Just within the KJV family of revisions and corrections, this alone is more than 7 times purified!
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@ChristsCombatant777 hmmm I think that I have a 7th printing of the NIV. Using your argument, my NIV is the word of God.
fbcpastordave1 4 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 Did you ever consider the fact that 2 of the writers of the NIV were homosexual (one being a sodomite) and that one of the two did an interview (that you could find on youtube) where she says that no Bible can be perfect, that it always will be with error due to humans? ALSO, I stated that the KJB was the 7th English Translated Bible. NOT 7th printing of the KJB.
ChristsCombatant777 6 days ago
Now as far as the verse I use as my basis for why the King James Bible is the only ENGLISH translated bible we should be using, is Ecclesiastes 8:4 "Where the word of a king is, there is power; and who may say unto him, what doest thou?" By this basis if a king says that this (KJV) is the Bible, then I will believe him. Besides if you do your study of the two bibles that were directly before it, one was very weak, the other was overly authoritative and gave too much power to the nobleman...
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
@ChristsCombatant777 Ah the old power of a king defense....you can do better than this.
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 obviosly you cant do better at undermining this scripture. i wish i had seen this before i posted. why dont you have a real response to this scrip? cause there aint one to support your position.
MargeGood 1 month ago
@ChristsCombatant777 DID King James say that this will be the perfect bible and that there shall never be any more translations of the Bible? King James wanted a bible that everyone could read in the common language. We no longer speak like that. So...we cannot have a bible in our common language?
fbcpastordave1 4 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 Well from reading the letter to King James by the people who got together and were inspired to write the KJV, I notice that the language used in the letter is very much like our own and so what this tells me is that even the language they (God rather) used was archaic even unto them. Also coming from someone who knows a thing or two about english and grammar, the KJV has the BEST grammar of any bible I have read from. ALSO, something else interesting to note...
ChristsCombatant777 3 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 ...the quran if you translate it to english sounds very much like the KJV bible, with the thee's, thy's, ye's, and so forth, so what this tells me is that there's something to that "old english" if you will if even our islamic brothers and sisters decided to use it. NOW getting back onto the Scriptures, one must come to a conclusion that our God is Perfect, therefore his Word must be perfect. So there is a perfect Word of God out there...
ChristsCombatant777 3 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 ...and Luke 4:4 says "And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." therefore the Word of God must be life bearing and very much alive in and of itself and so if one's Bible doesn't seem alive or there is no awe in your bible then it's probably not a bible.
ChristsCombatant777 3 weeks ago
@fbcpastordave1 Nope, because our common language is very much a dumbed down and a concept not considered(why I don't know) BUT I think that God's word usage is Holy, that He will only use words that are above perversion and are pure. He will not use words that we chose to use, but he will not break his will to use the words that he does not approve of.
ChristsCombatant777 6 days ago
Matt 17:21 is missing out of every niv,..all through the new testement
TATEBOX 1 month ago
@TATEBOX Parts of Jude 1:25 is missing out of every KJV when compared to the NASB.
Next....
Dremias5545 1 month ago
@Dremias5545 Revelation 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"
ChristsCombatant777 1 month ago
I see what you mean but isnt the text the proof? If Jesus' words are not in certain versions doesnt that mean something isnt right? I have certain versions that dont have a certain word which turns Jesus into a liar in the verse. Im not a KJVO,but I do have enough common sense to see certain versions are aweful,and I think God wants us to use our common sense to see these problems and to use the best version we can find.It doesnt mean its all going to be a doctrine in the Bible. Use common sense
bradfordpestservices 2 months ago
I use the New Jerusalem Bible and I re the Apocrypha too. I also study ancient Hebrew, it helps when you are looking for proper translations. Nothings better than going back to the Hebraic source. Trouble is, too many people still hold a grudge toward the Jews. Not me! YHVH! ;)
loriannaprays 2 months ago
And just think, this little display is being used to exalt the King James Bible even higher, and stir up another one of God's elect.
Proverbs 21:30 "There is no wisdom nor understanding nor counsel against the LORD."
Awesome!!!
ChacierLogos 2 months ago
Way cool Brother dude!
twd58 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 That particular reign mentioned in the below passage is in Revelation 20:4.
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 KJV passage teaches that Jesus Christ will deny reigning with him if the believer denies suffering with him in 2 Timothy 2:12,13 without taking away the believer's salvation (Ephesians 5:29,30/2 Timothy 2:13) . The NIV teaches that Jesus Christ will totally disown the believer if they disown Jesus Christ. What doctrine changed here between the NIV and KJV?
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 KJV 2 Timothy 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us:
13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself. NIV 1984 version 12if we endure,
we will also reign with him.
If we disown him,
he will also disown us;
13if we are faithless,
he will remain faithful,
for he cannot disown himself.
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 So go ahead and try finding the "faith of Christ" passages listed below in the NIV and try teaching that scriptural doctrine. They're not in there.
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 A believer's faith can be weak (Romans 4:19, Romans 14:1), shipwrecked (1 Timothy 1:19). Their faith can fail (Luke 22:32). In 2 Timothy 2:12,13 the scripture teaches that Jesus Christ cannot deny his own body (believers in Jesus Christ) if they deny suffering with him because "he (Jesus Christ) abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself."
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 The "faith of Christ" which is Jesus Christ's faith in his Father that never fails and keeps the church age believer's salvation eternally secure. Remember that Jesus Christ is both God (Job 9:8/Matthew 14:26) and man (1 Timothy 2:5) and is our mediator at the right hand of God the Father. Romans 3:22, Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:22, Philippians 3:9.
preachingJesusChrist 2 months ago
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. (Proverbs 30:5-6)
Does it say some words are pure but there is errors? Or does it say every word is pure? Thank you.
LionPebsX 3 months ago
@WorldBibleUnion454 Sure, the doctrine that Lucifer is son of the morning. Please post me the verse from the NIV that says this. Thanks.
LionPebsX 3 months ago
For the second time I've been told by a KJVonlyist that I'm not saved on the basis of what translation I was reading when I was born again. I don't even bother trying to talk sense to these dissemblers any more. They have gone well and truly beyond the pale. Church discipline is warranted and if they don't repent, excommunication.
Keruaran 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dremias5545 i believe you just created a confusion. Does the Bible say, "Jesus was killed and "then" hung on a tree"? I believe it says "...,whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." That does not establishes the order in which those things were done to Christ. On the other hand what "you" said does. You added the word "then" Please don't twist the words of truth. The Greek word that's use for slew is "diacheirizō" which means,
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
This has been flagged as spam show
1) to move by the use of the hands, take in hand, manage, administer, govern
2) to lay hands on, slay, kill [with one's own hand]. The mean that comes out of it look more like "Took to Him to hang" "administered to hang" or "Killed by hanging" but not "Killed and then hanged". Not trying to put you down, on contrary pulling you up.
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
Also, want to say the KJV is not without translational errors but it is the richest and closest to the truth in meaning. Im not condemning new versions but prefer to use things that "Best" in quality and when it comes to the Bible it's KJ. But it does not mean that God will not use new versions to bring people to salvation.
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
"Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise." (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii). I'm sorry did Westcott just say his bible and is faith were a compromise?
fundamentletruth 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We should be asking ourselves what the purpose of copyright is? To protect ones work. Um... I thought it was God's Word. Oh thats right Zondervan owns the copyright of most English versions. I can understand copyrighting material so that someone else doesn't copyright the material and abuse it, but then why be so particular on the use of the material? Hm... Maybe its for profit? Any other suggestions? Why not give free reign on use of the material? sean_donovan_ministries@hotmail.com
fundamentletruth 4 months ago
Greetings, It's unfortunate that since posting, you haven't logged in to see the response. #1 Has anyone ever addressed copyright of the modern versions? International copyright law states that there must be a 10% variance for all new copyright material. Hence the newer the version the farther from truth. The KJV has no copyright and may be re-produced by anyone. Ever look at how stringent the copyrights are in modern versions? Questions or comments sean_donovan_ministries@hotmail.com
fundamentletruth 4 months ago
@fundamentletruth The KJV does have a copyright. Do your research please.
Dremias5545 4 months ago
@Dremias5545 The KJV has always been in the Public Domain with the exception of the UK! Many publsihers including Zondervan place a copyright notice, however such notices are not legally binding and have no authority. Great Britian has a crown copyright however, its a law for the protection of the material. It is a reminder of the era when the Crown held complete control over all the printing and publishing that happened in the UK. Anything created by the Crown has a perpetual copyright!
fundamentletruth 3 months ago
@Dremias5545 Would you mind addressing the 10% variance that is required for all new translations. Also I recommend reading the "Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott" and the "Life & Letters of John Anthony Hort" These are books comprised of the letters written by both men. I'm sure you're aware they are the creators of the source text. Their letters run aproxamatly 2000 pages. I recommend it for your research.
fundamentletruth 3 months ago
@Dremias5545 Once you read the letters of both men, and I recommend that you do. You'll notice both took part in occult practices, worshiped idols and Mary, did not believe in hell, supported Charles Darwin, did not believe in a six day literal creation, believed in evolution, did not believe the scriptures to be taken literally nor that they held any authority. There is no greater condemnation of these men in regards to the faith that that of their letters. May God bless you as you search.
fundamentletruth 3 months ago
@fundamentletruth Now let's hold these same standards to the people behind the creation of the KJV. To start off: Erasmus was a Catholic. So is his work suspect and untrustworthy? If you are consistent with your standards then you will admit that the TR has a very Catholic influence and slant.
Now stop all the smoke screens and answer my two simple questions presented in this video.
Dremias5545 3 months ago
@Dremias5545 Video reply to follow
fundamentletruth 3 months ago
@Dremias5545 "[T]he Catholics, instead of repenting of their sins, pile superstition on superstition…" (p. 374 The Life and Letters of Erasmus)
Pope Paul IV in 1559 added all of Erasmus' books and works, to the Index Librorum Prohibitorum, Rome's index of forbidden books. The Council of Trent, condemned Erasmus' translation of the Bible.
Sounds like a great Catholic and hero of Rome. Do YOUR research please.
LionPebsX 3 months ago
WORSHIPPING A WHITE MAN
SmklookinGlass 4 months ago
One can always judge a KJVO by the fact they are almost always hostile or even attack others who disagree with them. They have not any love towards others even for Christ they have no love of their brother or sister in Christ.
1John2v27 4 months ago
@1John2v27 I kind of see where you're coming from. The KJVO videos Ive seen have a "strange" spirit about it. I dont sense a loving spirit coming from the KJVO people. The modern bibles have proven to be a blessing. I wasnt very interesed in reading the bible until I discovered easier to read and understand bibles such as the NLT. When I start reading the KJV again, I find myself starting to lose interest like my old self again. Many KJV people dont have this problem. I do. Live and let live
bradfordpestservices 4 months ago
@bradfordpestservices
Because they are not of the holy but a hostile demonic spirit. They have not any love because they are devoid of it. They make the KJV into an idol and worship it.
1John2v27 4 months ago
@1John2v27 On the flipside though you can see where the KJVO are coming from. Ive read several modern bibles where "yet" is missing in John 7, turning Jesus into a liar. And "without a cause" is also missing in most modern bibles when Jesus is talking about being angry. Jesus seemed to be angry in the Bible on a couple of occassions, so leaving this out means He will also face judgment. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the Trinity doctrine. Its missing in most modern Bibles. The strongly feel this is wrong
bradfordpestservices 4 months ago
@bradfordpestservices
They are right on the money on some things but satan uses them also. I spent almost two years in that kjvo rut and know their perversions of what they call the truth.
1John2v27 4 months ago
@1John2v27 So what version do you recommend?
bradfordpestservices 4 months ago
@bradfordpestservices NASB, KJV, or any other faithful translation. I do not recommend any paraphrased translations like the Message etc...
Dremias5545 4 months ago
@Dremias5545 Yeah, the NKJV seems good too. I like the NLT also. It may be more of a paraphrase, but it brings the meaning of the words to life by conveying the thought of the writers. Now the Message I dont care for one bit. Its WAY OUT THERE. But the NLT is about 50/50 literal/paraphrase.The original Living Bible is also not too bad, but a little too much of a paraphrase. Nothing compares to that MESSAGE bible. I reckon all versions are paraphrased in some way compared to the original writings
bradfordpestservices 4 months ago
@bradfordpestservices
At this point it is up to you, if you had the same eye as the kjvo but didn't even spar the kjv from it you will find flaws in almost every bible in print including the kjv going back to the 1611. Hell there is even masonic symbolism in the 1611! Most bibles are good enough for general study but to get it all requires that one know most versions and translations but with a young mind and the holy spirit to guide the way.
1John2v27 4 months ago
@bradfordpestservices Nothing but misconceptions. The same type of reasoning can be applied to the KJV to make it look bad: In the Acts 5:30 the KJV says Jesus was killed and then hung on a tree So if we use KJVO logic then the KJV creates confusion because of Acts 5:30.
Dremias5545 4 months ago
Comment removed
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
Comment removed
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
Comment removed
Shek21YT 3 months ago in playlist More videos from Dremias5545
@WorldBibleUnion454
They (kjvo) know not the truth nor have love of the truth. With blind eyes and deaf ears they search only after half truths and lies that they agree with or supports their false doctrines.
1John2v27 4 months ago
I hate the KJVO movement with a passion, they have made an idol of the kjv bible. I know some of the key figures of this movement here on youtube that have made it so prevalent in these last days. The worst and most heretical is Peter Ruckman. You can't be KJVO without being an hard core Ruckmanite and they train others into attacking others who disagree or use different bible translations. They can't prove them selves right because their doctrines are not of God or his word.
1John2v27 4 months ago 2
@1John2v27 I've never listened to or read anything by Peter Ruckman. Explain how it is heretical to believe God preserved His Word as He promised?
LionPebsX 3 months ago
@LionPebsX
You have twisted my comment around, God has reserved his word on his own and doesn't need man to do it for him or any works of man for that matter. Twisting comments around is a stale old trick at best and have found many KJVO to be empty or dead in spirit as far as God and Jesus is concerned.
1John2v27 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@1John2v27 You can't answer can you, you can only name call. Explain how it is heretical to believe God preserved His Word as He promised?
"God has (p)reserved his word on his own and doesn't need man to do it for him or any works of man for that matter"
And where can I find that Word that He preserved? I'd love you to show me. Interesting you believe God doesn't work through man, that's all scripture written through the apostles and prophets in the trash then. Very interesting.
LionPebsX 3 months ago
@1John2v27 Show me scripture that states the KJV is not the Word of God. Show me scripture that states onlyism for the KJV is wrong, Show me where you get your info because it needs updating.
Gadhouser 2 months ago
Man you better resurch before you post because you will be held to this in the end! I got gail riplinger the word is in revelations 22
johninitforfun 5 months ago
KevinThompson1611 5 months ago
To elaborate the early English translations came from the Textus Receptus: Wycliffe, Tyndale, The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, Geneva Bible, and the 1st and second editions of the King James Bible. The Textus Receptus is the GNT that the great reformers used and defended with their Sola Scriptura doctrinal statement. It wasn't until Wescott and Hort came up with a "better" GNT that we had an explosion of new English Translations. Which one is better is for you to decide, again, God Bless!
jlopez47 5 months ago
I think the KJV-onlyist side of the debate is not centered around the KJV itself, but on the new testament manuscripts that it was translated from: The Textus Receptus. Most KJV/NKJV-MOSTLIES like myself are actually TR-Byzantine GNT-onlyists or prioritizors. The real source of controversy is the set of new Greek New Testaments from which most of the Bible versions of the last 130 years are translated: Wescott/ Hort and Nestle/Aland. Do more research, please, before slandering. God Bless!
jlopez47 5 months ago
You poor man,,,,your a dime a dozen.
Jackiedajackass 5 months ago
Yes and no.. Doctrine is attacked in your modern version... If you disagree I can show you plenty.. I dont know what i believe 100% but what i do know is the end of mark is supposed to be there.. I trust God I know hell lead me to truth
Isfora 5 months ago
Jesus did not speak KJV english, he spoke mainly Greek and Aramaic. ALL modern translations go back to the original languages, just like the KJV did. the KJV did not come into existence until 1611.
TheOklahomaSoonerfan 5 months ago
I appreciate your comments. You're not attacking, which is what I see so often, perhaps on both sides. If we argue for truth in a way that is ungodly, we're not really right, just maybe correct.
If I demonstrate pride, or loss of self-control, or any of that stuff, I really don't think God is going to say to me 'well done, good and faithful servant'. The fruits of the spirit are in all of the translations I've seen, and in very few of the arguments.
Thanks again,
Ron
RDBremner 6 months ago
i have noticed a strong spirit of a liar in someone who chooses HE was manifest in the flesh instead of GOD was...............
jonniec7 6 months ago
How 'bout a parallel Bible??(shotgun approach) For generations, the Church of Rome insisted on Latin only Bibles, keeping the Gospel from the common people. I can't help but wonder if the KJV only folks are inadvertently going down the same path.
huguenot67 6 months ago
There is no perfect English translation, including the King James. And unless you are very educated in archaic English, the King James is the worst. Or sit their and read it with a Webster's 1828 dictionary in your hand. And that doesn't solve the up-side-down King James syntax. I suspect the real reason behind the "King James Only" movement is so they can make creative "interpretations" of the often confusing text.
thewordofgod2010 6 months ago
hope you get my responce-- Numbers 21:6-9 (Standard)--- acts27:17 amd ICor. 12:28 (helps)... i am not a KJV onlyist but do recognize the difference between a STANDARD AND AN HELP--- i hope to hear/see you typing to me--- 800-834-8034 ---- martin
1yourtrust2 6 months ago
Read the biography of King James 1 you will understand that God used a KING to bring about his word to the English speaking people JAmestowne Va. was the first English setlement of the US King James intended to bring his translation to the free world to spread the gospel. Before william Tindale was martyred he said " Lord open the eyes of the King".
wlewis5021 6 months ago
kjv only causes division and is contrary to walking in the spirit for sure the same ones will say you have to tithe to be right with god or you have to show up everytime the doors are open, i use the kjv and the greek and hebrew this is how i study but not force others
ncbookz 7 months ago
Thank you brother for exposing the KJV-only cult. I was once one too, until I realized the differences between the 1769 and the 1611. KJV onlyism breeds ignorance, lack of study, and an angry spirit (a la Ruckman). I praise God He Has given my the opportunity to pull out a dear friend out of KJV onlyism.
Victornotvictim77 7 months ago
is a good reason to get rid of it. If your going to reject Gods words go ahead fill free but don't mess up lost souls and baby christains.
dswa2286 7 months ago
the margins are not scripture .you don't go by the margin you go by Gods words psa. 12:6-7 is Gods promise to keep and preserve his words.English is the 7th universal language God has preserved his word in. It's in it's purest form now.the furnace is the church going through tribulation in order to get it. It's called prophecy. The real question is what is YOUR finale authority? the fact that new bibles attack Christs's deity, remove scripture,give Christ's title to satan(rev.22:16 w Isa.14:12
)
dswa2286 7 months ago
Personally I prefer the KJV, but I study the NIV as well. The KJV is a great Bible to study from, but it has it's share of problems along with the NIV. It's not going to affect anyone's salvation because they chose one translation over another.
theduckie1994 7 months ago
Well done video my brother.
You approach it from a good angle as most KJV only people I talk to admit that they have never studied the Hebrew or Greek of the KJV, and are unwilling to.
preachinshawn 7 months ago
The Apostles did not carry the KJV,you cannot convince people this
OnlyTheScriptures 8 months ago
The scriptures were written thousands of years before the KJV. I used to be a KJV onlyist. I have a 4th year college reading level. I still to this day don't understand the KJV. I AM NOT OF SATAN! I read the NIV and HCSB. I am now closer to God than I ever was then. Period. Christians need to stop attacking other christians. If you guys could understand your Bible, you might not be miscontruding the Bible so much. Oh yeah, that word means messing everything up. I knew you rednecks can't read.
drfrallew 9 months ago 2
Reasons why we need to stick to one BIBLE:
2. There is a single BIBLE out there that is preserved: Psalms 12:6-7 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
So let us pick a bible to stick with and read and understand and what better Bible than the most used Bible in the last 400 years.
yank2441 9 months ago
@yank2441 Unfortunately, the scripture you quoted (KJV) is in fact from an incorrect translation that distorts its true meaning. The modern English translations correct that error. It is NOT the "words" of the Lord that shall be kept and preserved, but the PEOPLE (the "poor", "helpless", "oppressed" and "needy" mentioned in the previous verses). Only KJV only advocates ignore the previous verses (which contain the subject of the scripture in question) and apply it to the "words".
captainbryce1 9 months ago
@yank2441 You do realize that Psalms 12 was written thousands of years before English was even a language and even before the Teutonic language group existed? You obviously miss the clear point of the text, which is the immutibility of God and the omnipotence of God and the righteousness of God. This proclaims what God declares is right, and that declaration will not change and He will accomplish what He has declared.
ryno200 7 months ago
Reasons why we need to stick to one BIBLE:
1. God is not the author of confusion. You go to church and the preacher starts reading scripture that you dont recognize because you use the NIV, and half the church uses ESB, the other part of the church uses ASV. This causes confusion and gives the devil the inch he needs. 1 Corinthians 14:33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
yank2441 9 months ago
@yank2441 That's all you could think off. How abouth the facth thatth thou Bibleth isith hardth to readth. Youth wanteth confusionith, readth the Kingth Jamesth.
drfrallew 9 months ago
@yank2441 If people are confused over translations we have an education issue here, I can hear someone read out of any reliable translation be it KJV, ASV, ESV, NIV and although they may not be word for word, the information communicated is the same.
ryno200 7 months ago
Was this some person's experience? And how does one living in error determine if a 'sin' is forgiven? The whole pool is so murky, one cannot see thru any of it. Believing things by def, means you don't know. Why don't we just admit this? We intellectually go down so many dark alleys, none of which have anything to do with reality. IMO, scriptures were written to control people. Until we can provide evidence they came from God, we should work on experiencing other areas of life.
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
All doctrine must be backed up by scripture. My comment on this open forum is that
although what you say may be true for a tidy, intellectual exercise, what good is it for
the real existence we are all living? The scripture may or not be "true". There is absolutely no way to verify. My motto therefore, is not to go overboard on the doctrines that are not provable, such as Jesus died for my sins. Doesn't matter who said that in scriptures, where exactly did that revelation come from?
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
The verse that says anything removed or addaed is a curse!
NWOpartycrasher 9 months ago
Where is the scripture that says only the original autographs are inerrant? You said, if its not in the scripture, then it is a man made idea.
Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by INSPIRATION. Is the KJV scripture or not? If it is, then it is given by inspiration. If it is given by inspiration of God then it is inerrant. So if the KJV is not scripture, not inspired...then make a video and hold up a copy of inspired inerrant scripture, ie, the orginal.??? I'll be waiting.
mastersman1 9 months ago
@mastersman1 Bravo!!!!!
rovingdesertfox 9 months ago
I have noticed a strong "female" spirit with those males who are open to translations besides the KJV... not attempting to insult. Just a strong, SERIOUS observation.
cb120594 10 months ago
@cb120594 I have noticed a strong "ignorant" spirit with those who are open to King James Onlyism,which clouds their mind to reason when discussing the facts about how we got our English Bibles... not attempting to insult. Just a strong, SERIOUS observation.
LOL....
Dremias5545 10 months ago 2
@Dremias5545 Good retort - LOL
athb4hu 5 months ago
@cb120594
o_0
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!
That's just about the funniest bit of fruity nonsense I've heard from a KJVO! LOL!
Keruaran 7 months ago
What needs to be done here, is you need to ask your OWN self these questions.
1. Do I believe that God settled his Word and that it shouldn't be added to or taken away from?
2. If I believed in the KJV for seven years, what reason would I have to turn away from it, do I want something that new versions will give me, that the KJV will condemn me for?
3. Do I need to care about what's doctrinally correct, or keep thinking it's no big deal?
4. Am I being turned over to my reprobate mind?
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 But of course, you will not heed to any scripture that might point you in the right direction, you said yourself you've read it through and followed it for seven years. Yet, you turn around and want somebody to give you what you've already read and make them believe they can win you over when your mind is already made up to begin with.
What exactly is your game?
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 No game here at all. The point is the KJVO doctrine is a lie. It has no scriptural/historical support. Even the KJV translators would condemn KJVOism as false(See To the Reader in the 1611KJV).
Dremias5545 10 months ago
Comment removed
pittmanronnie46 10 months ago
@Dremias5545 "Even the KJV translators would condemn KJVOism as false"
I doubt that very seriously. They were inspired, modern day translators are not. We can figure this all out from what the Bible tells us about Gods Word being "tried as silver in a furnace of the earth" and "where the word of a king is, there's power". When he tells us that his Word is settled and shouldn't be added to or taken away from, we should assume that he means what he says. Modern scholars are no authority.
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 See my video Which KJV for quotes from the so-called "inspired" KJV translators and you will see that they shot down the KJVO lie circa 1611.
Dremias5545 10 months ago
@Dremias5545 Yeah, yeah, now your on the famous "revision hoax". Do you realize the printing conditions those guys had to put up with in 1611, TALK ABOUT TIME CONSUMING!!! They were dealing with "plates", letters that are laid down individually for the whole Bible. They were bound to make printing errors. Naturally, they'd have found the errors and corrected them, which is why we have those "editions" (not revisions).
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 Also, those words you find that are supposedly added in:
1611 - PSALM 69:32 has "seek good", when it should've said "seek God".
There's two things here to think about: 1. Those words are really similar looking. 2. That error was so obvious, that they caught it in 1617, just 6 years after the original printing and well before the so-called "revision".
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 There were quite a few corrections, one was made in 1613, one in 1616, one in 1617, eight in 1629, five in 1638, one in 1743, two in 1762, and one in 1769. That means that 16 out of 20 corrections, or 80%, were made within twenty-seven years of the 1611 printing. That is hardly the long drawn out series of revisions the modern day scholars would have you to believe.
I suggest you read "The Answer Book" by Sam Gipp. It goes deeper into this issue than I can.
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 Things that are different are not the same. Both can not be perfect. It seems the infallible translators goofed in 1611! Or did God goof? Oh yeah that right...printing errors! God had no power over thy printers!
Dremias5545 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 My answer is simple:
I am honest.
When I studied the evidence, as an honest man, I could no longer push the KJV only belief.
Dremias5545 10 months ago
Comment removed
pittmanronnie46 10 months ago
@Dremias5545 Well, bottom line, if you are saved, remember that you were in the KJV to begin with. Now, will those other new versions save somebody? Yes, I believe they will, but, once the person starts wanting to study the Bible and learn more, that's when the new versions will throw them off and lead them away.
Everybody wants the truth and they will look for it. They will realize why there is so many different versions out there and then hunt down only "ONE" to be labeled as the truth.
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 Here we go again with another attack questioning my salvation. Why must KJVO defenders always resort to these types of baseless attacks? These types of comments just show how hollow and defenseless the KJVO myth is because those who defend it must deflect the Scriptural support question.
It's really sad how you have posted so much junk here without ever addressing my 2 simple questions head on.
No more spin and attacks. Put up or shut up.
Dremias5545 10 months ago
@Dremias5545 Oh man, gimme a break, how am I to know if your saved or not? This is not an attack as much as you'd want it to be.
And as for your two "demanding" questions. I have already addressed them. Your looking for scripture that you know nobody can give you in the first place.
You are however lacking in one area, "KNOWLEDGE".
Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee...
guitardavid79 10 months ago
@guitardavid79 Attack and attack is all you have. You have no foundation to stand upon. The idolatry of KJVOism has blinded you to the truth.
I am done running in circles with you and your evasive spin.
Dremias5545 10 months ago
There are translation mistakes in the KJV. In Acts 12:4 uses the word "Easter" in The Bible centuries before it became an official holiday anywhere.
I also want to say: Why is it in God's Will to allow some people, especially of those who speak English as a second language, to struggle at understanding His word? Surely it would definitely be in His will to release a more modern translation.
V3ryan 10 months ago
They don't want to be opposing the king James because then thy would have to acknowledge that that is the real issue. They dot want the truth. They want the lie.
wallaceju 10 months ago
These new versions water down the doctrines at best. I just don't see how you could believe what you would have to believe to think that all these bibles are correct when they openly are different. One key thing is that all the any bible(any Jesus) crowd don't seem to acknowledge is that they say it is ok to read the kjv ad all the others but the kjv is so different and latterly says the opposite from the other versions. They don't want to be opposing the king James because then thy would have
wallaceju 10 months ago
@wallaceju All that typing and no real answer to my two questions. Everything you wrote is an opinion at best. I could go back to 1612 and say the KJV was not needed because the Geneva Bible is perfect, after all God used the Geneva greatly! I could apply everything you said to the Geneva or Bishop's Bible.
Now what about answering my 2 questions.
Dremias5545 10 months ago
Simple idea. Why would God want many English versions that cause confusion. It would make more sense that there is one God one truth one Jesus and one English bible. We must have faith and tha is the crux in knowing Christ and his words. If we say that man needs different versions ad it is ok, it is taking away from these concepts and doctrines. These different bibles do not support each-other even though you say that they all contain the correct doctrine. These new versions water down the doc
wallaceju 10 months ago
"Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands" (Matthew 26:67).
Even STILL today the wicked treatment of Jesus Christ continues through "unholy hands" and unholy words of men "spit in His face" and upon the "Word Of God" denying His Holiness and perfection through the everlasting, forever settled Words in Heaven. The only "originals" are in Glory and it is FAITH that believes He has preserved it forever here upon the earth.
locustweed 10 months ago
This (man)? says that Psalms 12:7 is about "people" instead of God's pure Holy Words.
So, God is going to keep and preserve them (the"poor" and "needy") from the "generation" that David wrote this psalm, until "forever"?? Wow! I would really like to see some of these poor people who have been preserved and kept since David! Let's see, how old would these poor folk be now? hmm--1005 B.C. to 2011 A.D.--ahh that's about 3006 years on God's federal assistance program! My oh my, FOREVER poor!
locustweed 10 months ago
@locustweed I would hope that you are smarter than this...but then again the KJVO myth has a way to totally blind and distort it's followers. Is this the best you can do?
Dremias5545 10 months ago
@Dremias5545 I was simply showing the ridiculousness when logic is applied to a faulty interpretation of Psalms 12:7. I didn't have to reason too long or hard to expose this. I am saddened by the departure of people like yourself from God's forever settled Words. I would not call you blind or distorted--that would give you a viable excuse. You are where you are at by choice and it appears ANY excuse you can come up with to vilify where you once stood is OK, no matter how far off course it is.
locustweed 10 months ago
As was stated before you have a list of all the scriptures you will NOT LISTEN TO in your quest to bury your past ignorance. Like a frantic canine scratching the earth to cover his doo-doo, your retreat from what you were must smothered at all costs. Unfortunately, you shoot yourself in the foot by your own rules. Luke 18:8 Jesus asks the question, when He returns will He find "FAITH" on earth? Our Savoir is Holy and without blemish "the Word of God". It is your FAITH in Him that is at stake!
locustweed 10 months ago
I was once a king James onlyist. I do believe in sola scriptura "by scripture alone". But now let show you a deeper thing. Prima Scriptura, What is it? think about it. Prima scriptura is a doctrine that says canonized scripture is "first" or "above all" sources of divine revelation. When did canon scripture come to be? Think about it. The canon we come to recive came about in 300-325 A.D.
jsmccarty82 10 months ago
As Thought about this we have long believed a doctrine of men as a doctrine of God. When Just as you have proven that JKVB onlyism is man-made in its self. I bring to the table that we go further back than that to Before the RCC was formed. That Sola Scriptura meant what Matthew 4:4 states when it was spoken during that time.And this Belief-ism that canon scripture is the only words of God we should believe goes against John 16:13 and 2 Timothy 2:15.
jsmccarty82 10 months ago
According to Sola Scritura which refuted Prima scriptura. States "However, sola scriptura is not a denial of other authorities governing Christian life and devotion. Rather, it simply demands that all other authorities are subordinate to, and are to be corrected by, the written word of God." Unlike the misinterpretation of the term today it meant all divinely inspired scripture must line up with it's self Isaiah 28:10. My friend we must move deeper into the origins of God's word!
jsmccarty82 10 months ago
Prima Scriptura is False which we all ignorantly follow and Sola scriptura is misunderstood and misinterpreted. "by scripture alone" means what Matthew 4:4 and 2 Timothy 2:15 state before the canon law. Good will hunting-
jsmccarty82 10 months ago
@jsmccarty82 Canon Law is not Holy LAW. Man made laws are what Jesus vehemently spoke out against. The traditions of men are against truth and especially it is used in an attempt overthrow God's "forever settled Words". He has magnified His Word above all His name (Psalm 138:2) That is pretty serious business to tamper with the WORD.
locustweed 10 months ago