Re: King James Bible ONLY! ... give me a break

[boggymark1]

@alexmcginness No, you ignorant plagiarist, you openly admit that you can’t read any Greek or Hebrew, and the only thing you learned on YouTube was how to spam comments.

As KingJamesBible wrote succinctly, "What's with this translate or shut up stuff? The King James is ALREADY translated perfectly! How do you improve upon perfection? Anyone living today who thinks they can translate greek BETTER than the KJV translators is an incredibly stupid and PROUD person."

Learn to read, troll.

[filoIII]

@alexmcginness How in the world is worshipping on the first day of the week preventing a person from being able to buy or sell as the mark of the beast will. Man, I sure am glad I don't roll w/ a works-based religion like yours.

[jjpetkusiii]

@alexmcess

When (if ever) did you come under the conviction that you are a lost sinner on your way to hell, "Trucker Bob,"?

There are no "errors" in the inerrant King James Bible as an irrefutable matter of historical fact, but you antichrist liars without exception who are Biblical illterates in English, Greek and Hebrew are all headed for a hopeless eternity without Christ in a lake of fire where the smoke of your torment will ascend forever according to the Holy Scriptures in any language.

[jjpetkusiii]

@aless LOL!

As RainhadoCanto4 wrote succinctly, "This is hilarious!! I guess you have run out of 'legitimate' reasons for bashing the King James Bible!! Now you go after those who believe in it for the manner in which they express themselves!

"Paranoia setting in? I have no doubt they also speak more intelligibly!!

""A good man obtaineth favour of the LORD: but a man of wicked devices will he condemn.'

"Proverbs 12:2"

Hell awaits you as all you unsaved liars are headed for the lake of fire.

[jjpetkusiii]

@alexmess

Your faulty "premises" (barely intelligible) contradicts not only elementary logic and common sense but the Holy Scriptures starting with Acts 2 also. For example, I could cite languages by the dozen into which my comments could be translated without, errors, omissions or additions. So could any number of legitimate polyglots, and no factual error in the Scriptural text of the King James Bible--which is verbally inerrant in English as a matter of historical fact--has ever been proven.

[jjpetkusiii]

@alexmcginness ROFLOL!

As edwardpf123 wrote succinctly, "Do you realize that what you said doesn't even make sense? Try to follow, even though it might overtax your brain. There was no BC LXX. Christ didn't quote anything from it. The current LXX we have is from the 3rd century AD and Origen had the NT Mss in front of him when he was editing the LXX and matched the NT quotes to the match the LXX readings. So, you haven't proven that a BC LXX was ever in existance-it wasn't."

[boggymark1]

@alexmcginness

As vudumojo put it, "These people who put scholarship above the ability of the Holy Spirit to interpret and above God to give us his Word are sadly mistaken...," but I have only 1 YouTube Channel whether you approve on not.

While foolish infidels like you ought to keep your filthy, ignorant mouths shut, "Trucker Bob," especially since you are so intellectly deficient that you can’t even count to two, there are no errors in the King James Bible as a matter of historical fact.

[boggymark1]

@alexmcginness

Like hers, your Koine Greek--in which you are totally illiterate by your own admission--stinks worse than your English. While you are liar who likes to claim that I am "multiple" different people and ask men and women who are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone if they went to "church today," you, like her and every other Alexandrian cultist who flatters your ilk of lost Pharisees, are incompetent to prove any "error" in the inerrant King James Bible.

[boggymark1]

@jjpetkusiii Amen!

There are no "errors" anywhere in the King James Bible as a matter of historical fact.

As edwardpf123 put it, “What Philo did or didn't do is still speculation. Even if he wrote the letter of Aristeas, it doesn't mean there was an actual BC LXX. He never actually quotes any Gr. OT. The LXX. . . was not composed by orthodox Jews, but by apostate ones-Ebionites. So it would NOT have been used by the Apostles.

"There were likely Gr. Targums in use, not a LXX."

[boggymark1]

@jjpetkusiii Amen!

There are no errors in the King James Bible, and as handydude6 put it, "The question is the Textus Receptus vs the rest. The Textus Receptus had spread all over Europe, N. Africa, and Russia, by... the Council of Nicea. All of the bibles agreed except for the Septuagint which is OT, and the Vulgate. That was 99% of the works against 1%. So we are to believe that the Septuagint and Vulgate which have been resurected in the New Bibles are the true gospel? I don't think so."

[jjpetkusiii]

@boggymark1 Amen, Brother!

There are no errors anywhere in the AV1611,

As RainhadoCanto4 wrote succinctly, "Here [are] the 'revisions' to the King James Bible:

"1. 1612: Typography ( from Gothic to Roman type).

"2. 1629 & 1638: Correction of typographical errors.

"3. 1762 & 1769: Standardization of spelling.

"The 'Board of Managers' of the American Bible Society in 1852 determined that 'The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text...'"

[hummer40316]

Bravo~! Here's a quote for ye: Oil! Give 'em oil, Caster! Pray ye are worthy to belong to a church what hath oil, mateys; if you're sent out to go get some...

Your highest priority, believers in Christ, is if you know what OIL is. And if you wake when the call cometh. God bless.

[mastersman1]

I do agree with you about ill attitudes. There is no use in getting ulcers because someone dont agree with you. I do believe in defending your positions, making a stand...after all, one way is right and the other is wrong. I am in agreement with your post in regards to attitudes, but only saying there is a definate need to defend what you believe in all issues.

[mastersman1]

What kind of "Christian dialogue" is advanced by telling KJV only folks that they are wrong? If an argument for the kjv dont help, then what makes you so sure an argument against a kjv will help anything in ragards to "furthering the Christian agenda." What you are espousing is the same philosophy put forth by Catholics of yesterday, nazi's, and modern socialists. Which is, keep your view to yourself or you ll offend those of us who dont agree. I believe KJV, you feel free to choose for you

[Godisyoursolution]

Do NOT associate with those given to Change! The Lord has made all for Himself, Yes, even the wicked for the day of doom. Even a child is known by his deeds, Whether what he does is pure and right. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding, In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty! Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people -Proverbs FEAR NOT

See NWO Solution

[apologeticsman]

I'm glad we have Gods original word in Greek and Hebrew to defeat all false doctrines. I am not angry at the KJV only people, but I am angry that there are people who are claiming to preach Christ, yet are preaching that if one doesn't have the KJV only, one is not saved. The Bible also says that we are supposed to expose darkness, and Jesus called the people who were in charge of teaching the truth and who were corrupt "a brood of vipers". I have a holy anger toward abuse of power in the pulpit

[rb300dx]

Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

[locustweed]

@rb300dx Psalm 12:6 "The Words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a FURNACE OF EARTH, PURIFIED 7 TIMES." By what standard did the so-called revisions follow to arrive at 1850?  You highly over-exaggerate the whole purification of the KJV. Remember, there was NO STANDARDIZED dictionary in 1611. The NIV says Jesus was created, had an origin. Also has changed to agree with the KJV in 2 Samuel 21:19. The NIV revised again 2011NIV! Took out more verses again! How many more next?!!!

[rb300dx]

@locustweed The only point I'm arriving at is you can't use the KJV to "correct" people when it itself is a TRANSLATION. If you'll read the Preface to the KJV the collaborators never claimed "divine" inspiration; Or even eluded to the "fact" that their version would be the end all version for English speaking people. I implore you to quit listening to misinformed or ignorant people who refuse to do a UNBIASED study of the History of the bible. If you did you would see error of Trans. "worship".

[rb300dx]

If you thought/think the NIV is inspired by Satan, perhaps you need to read:

Mar 3:24-26 (KJV) "And if a kingdom be divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. [25] And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. [26] And if Satan rise up against himself, and be divided, he cannot stand, but hath an end."

[rb300dx]

The NIV inspired by Satan? The NIV brings thousands to Christ, helps thousand of others grow in Christ, and has the name of "Jesus" approximately 300 times more often than the KJV!

[jonbob100]

the isuue for me is the thousands of verses and words missing from new versions, specially ones about Jesus is Lord, and Father, Son, Holy Spirit, verses about fasting, ect. yokeup has put his milage in cerainly; i'm not KJV only, but support the version more than others.

[ericthered65]

I have only done a little study on the issue, and the primary question, I think, relating to the changes. That question is whether or not the words that were taken out by the new versions should have been in there in the first place. And this answer is based on the textual evidence.

I know that the argument for the KJV only is compelling to a point,but I see no Biblical reason why the preserved Word would (a) be in English or (b) be the 1611.

[ericthered65]

I don't dislike or hate the KJV, I just doubt its primacy as the SINGLE INSPIRED TRANSLATION of the Bible. I believe that the Bible is inspired, and any translation is to be considered inspired insofar as much as it accurately represents what was originally written. Hence, I reject Eugene Peterson's "Message" because it is his commentary/interpretation of the Scriptures, and not a translation of the greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

[Ammyai]

Come on man ;-) surely even as the name suggest, the NIV for instance is not inspired. For even the abbreviation suggests, Nearly Inspired Version ;-)

For me, Nearly is not good enough. Oh yeah, I don't want to just Nearly go to heaven...

Shalom!

[ericthered65]

NIV is not my fav either, but it is a decent thought for thought translation. The TNIV, however, crosses some major lines when it de-sexes the Scriptures.

The problem is that the KJV translation is not inspired - the originals were inspired,and all translations are inspired insofar as much as they reflect the originals.

The KJV is good, but it is not perfect. The Message is bad - not because its not the KJV, but bc it is a paraphrase of a translation - it tries to interpret not reflect.

[KiwiGraceboy]

Bless you bro for the great reminder, I try to reason with the KJVo crowd on a regular basis and must admit from time to time slightly overstepping the line. It is our responsibility as brothers to gently remind each other in the fine way that you have done. KJVo is a matter that must be addressed, and you are a credit to our faith in the way you have done so.

[KiwiGraceboy]

Got to back you up on inspiration too dude... The scriptures were as we know, inspired by God to the writers. They were not written in 1611, they were translated... Praise God for translation, (my Greek is terrible), and praise God for the incomparable Authorised Version. If the A.V. was verbally inspired by God, as were the originals, the translators would not have required the Received Text or compared earlier Bibles as we all know to be the case. But praise God that they did!

[shubzilla]

Factcheck

[ericthered65]

WHat are you suggesting to "factcheck"?

[shubzilla]

The "thousands of missing verses" and their subjects. It's to jonbob100

[rb300dx]

And in response to your circular reasoning, I suppose you are unaware that MORE words were added to the KJV is that not just as bad?

[jonbob100]

the KJV is a good english "benchmark" bible. it's still widely available, and easy to study/read from.

"the scriptures" is one with hebrew names in, and no "added" words", but does not make good sense in english.

[thrufaithalone]

Well done!

[icartoon2]

Please pray about it, my friend, and you will be a proponent. Being a proponent doesn't mean you need to be radical. We only need be submissive to God's truth.

God IS able to preserve His Word and He has.