Friend, thanks to you and many uninformed such as yourself you help to create division in the body of Christ. To say that ONLY the KJV is the word of God is FALSE. I will say again whoever says that the KJV Bible is the only version with God's word is not telling he truth.
NO version is perfect including the KJV that has translational errors and is based on more recent manuscripts. More importantly why anybody would insist on reading 17th century english in the 21 century is baffling.
King James is a great translation but is also the easiest to twist or distort. We don't speak the way they did back then. I like the New American Standard but some times will refer to the good old King James for clarity on things hard to understand.
Not sure people realize that all reformed churches today are the Dead church of Sardis (Rev 3: 1). The Catholic is Thyatira & the Freemasons, the (illuminati) Pergamos. All pastors are merchants who sell Oil & Wine (God's word) & Souls of men (Rev 18: 11-13). In the Prophets God called all present churches "highplaces" The true Church is the up Coming Mount Zion, (Rev 12; Re 3: 12: Re 19: 7; Re 21: 9. Mic 4; isa 2) She will be the mother of all God's Children Gal 4: 26 ie Smyrna & remnant
These who deny the truth that is preserved in the kjv are blinded by their denial of Jesus Christ through these false bibles. The faith we have is the only true power WE have. No faith and God's word is gibberish. The other versions make more sense to those who are seeking selfish desires over a true God who is perfect. He does not need a translation to speak to those who seek him. Think about it.
@pdflm KJV is missing sheol, and it call's the "morning star, son of dawn" Lucifer when referring to the Babylonian King. I only own a KJV but NASB has the missing verses and (from hat I've read) a more literal translation. Am I wrong in this?
@tgambill So was the NT originally written in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin then?
Isaiah 14:2
Hebrew; Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן שחר) = shining star, son of the dawn.
Greek; Phosphoros (Φωσφόρος) = light-bearer
Latin; Luxferous = Light-bearer or light-bringer
Read all of Isaiah 14 and you will see that it is clearly talking about an earthly king. St. Jerome is a hack, the Latin Vulgate is crap, and the KJV was custom ordered by King James. Helel is satan? Then Jesus is son of Satan, Rev 22:16
@zacbouwens Lucifer = light bringer, not STAR in any form. I have read it and 1000% only a blind and deaf man would say that Isaiah 14 was talking about an earthly king. You pagans have a bad way to go when Jesus judges your soul and sends you to Hell. KJV is the ONLY word of God. Jesus is God incarnate and will return very very soon. You better fix yourself soon....also.
Sorry I meant previously Isaiah 14:12 (missed the one when typing)
John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light (Phos φῶς) of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
@zacbouwens LUCIFER IS called "son of the morning" no star mentioned. ALL VERSIONS after the KJV are based on the heretical Latin vulgate or Catholic Bible. simple.
@tgambill The morning star, son of the dawn is referring to Venus when it is still visible at dawn. Satan is that monster that Christians invented to scare children into believing. If anything he would be like the entity in Job who is a tool of God. Satan being the god of this earth adds to the pantheon by one (Angels, demons, God, Jesus, holy spirit, Satan, and Saints). Obviously it's pointless to argue over which version of the Bible someone holds true. Is that a threat? fix myself soon?
@zacbouwens Oh Pleazzzzzz, lol. You people are like cut and past Atheist, calvinist, Masons, or whatever; same responses and same manual. lol. The Morning Star is jesus, Jesus says he is the bright and Morning star and not remotely Venus. Do you people actually believe this? Or do you just mindlessly go along with these Jesuit pagans or Masonic Luciferians? Satan/Lucifer is real and the supernatural is real. No threat, the only true word of God with evidence is the KJV.
@tgambill I don't honestly believe in satan. I do believe that the morning star is an astrological body. I have no clue what a Jesuit is beyond being some kind of Catholic missionary. I'm not associated with any kind of masonry ideals. Miracles are fake, the holey spirit is a made up being, Jesus was a human who died, God is man made. I grew up as an extremist Evangelical Protestant, and upon reading the Bible for the first time at 26 have realized that they were all fools and liars.
@zIt doesn't matter what we believe to make it true or false. We are not human beings going through a temporary spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings going through a temporary human experience no matter what we want to believe.In the same vein, just not believing in Satan/Lucifer does not take away the reality that he in fact does exist and the KJ Bible will tell you the truth. Jesuits take a horrific oath and are demonic infiltrators, assassins and Alberty Rivera is an Example.
@zacbouwens Miracles are real for sure, The Holy Spirit is of God and in everyone that is born again; and Jesus was God incarnate and will return because he never died. It is not too late for you to repent and come to Jesus before this drama starts.
@tgambill Thank you, I appreciate the gesture. Until God manifests his self in my life and shows me inwardly that he cares or exists, there's not much I can do. 13 years of being a born again Christian and God was never there. The same empty hollow feeling that Mother Teresa had the last 40 years of her ministry. I would be ecstatic if God made a house call, I'd give my self and my family to him but he's as real to me as Allah, Brahma, or any other deity. I'm not obstinate, just a realist.
If you are interested in God's words I think you should spend far more time considering the historical context, the psychological mindframe of the writers of the era, and understanding Greek and Hebrew. Some of these things don't translate well into english.
Why aren't you talking about the bias of the King James Bible being as it was ordered by a king? Or the whole additional texts of the Roman Catholic Bibles? You're sewing dessention not understanding
To remove the deity o f Christ and the Trinity and other major doctrines he hypes about, you would have to systematically alter the bible beyond recognition. The presentation is is bottom line purposefully cryptic with the facts and aims at tugging on heart strings and emotions rather than actually dealing with truth.
This stuff is so manipulative and deceptive, it is astounding. It is posed in highly He continually makes one believe the absence of some words or phrases decimates the deity of Christ and the Trinity, which nothing could be further from the truth. Most people do not even notice these minor variants because they simply do not make the big difference he tries to suggest in his chicken little manner of doing it. This itself evidences his own very shallow conception of the word of God.
This stuff is so manipulative and deceptive, it is astounding. It is posed in highly emotionally charged conspiratorial rhetoric without displaying any of the facts about the many manuscripts with textual variants. Even the Byzantine majority text has variants! Moreover none of them make a big theological difference when the whole canon and the entire books where variants he lists are found are taken into consideration.
I'm glad I finally saw through the THICK smoke screen that religious authorities have up for the "flock of dull sheep" not to see through! Organized religion is NOTHING BUT A MAN MADE system of control! The religious authorities control the flocks pockets and control their minds(keeping them from critical thinking)! If if weren't for the dull flock, religious authorities would be unemployed, period!! Why? because NO GOD WOULD PUT A WEEKLY PAY CHECK IN A PASTOR'S POCKET, PERIOD!
The King James Version possesses unforgivable drawbacks and shortcomings, being an antiquated 400-year-old Anglican translation which reintroduced Elizabethan prose and is completely disconnected from contemporary English-speaking laypeople, incorporating multitudinous Medieval-period archaisms, interpolations, mistranslations, translational inconsistencies, and unjustifiable omissions. Its Shakespearean-like phraseologies and terminologies are outdated, cumbersome, and unforgivable.
It seems to me that you are casting doubt upon God's word even though you are not intending to do so. This debate is important but it can easily result in confusing the masses. I use only the KJV but I am careful how I explain why I use it.
God's word can be mishandled but not corrupted. Psalms 12:6 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Go and get a real Bible KJV rules If you want your ears to be tickled stick with the newer versions. Look up KJV vs NKJV or KJV vs NIV New International
Amen brother... In the end times there will be watering down of the gospel, teaching the doctrines of man rather than those of God. Even priests will be led astray. (2 Tim 3:5, Matt 15:9)
How did the right-hand man know it was the wrong key? Did he try to open the vault prematurely? The story might have been clever if the king had given him the wrong key on purpose to test whether he would really wait for five years. But as it is, the story doesn't make any sense.
@Greywolf82 "CAN God preserve his word and give us an infallible copy of it in the language that we speak?"
OF COURSE, HE CAN! Read Ps. 12:6,7.
If the Omnipotent God created out of nothing, the entire multiverse, and set the course of nature, with its awesome beauty and unfathomable diversity, CAN HE NOT THEN PRESERVE THE MOST IMPORTANT SET OF DIVINE INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAN?
God, Who accurately foretells the future in His Word, cannot foresee to preserve His own Word?
I agree. Regardless of what they say, or even if they realize it or not, modern day translators in fact believe that God is either incapable of translating his word from Hebrew/Greek to English or that he simple chose not to.
I don't think either position is defensible. Of course he could. And if he could and chose not to, why not?
God is more careful with his word than he is with my soul.
i found this an interesting, but true statement--
"The Latin Vulgate has produced fruit, and more cults have used the KJV more than any other translation. So there is good and bad with every version. Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist agreed with you, as did David Koresh. Are they saved, or tight on doctrine? Maybe even having a KJV can lead many astray without the Spirit of GOD in you."
Why do you think more cults have used the KJV? Think about it for a second...just as, 'the most effective lie is one bookended between two truths', the Devil will use the truth to befuddle those not lead by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't turn truth into error! That is no evidence that the KJV is "good and bad"! God is always good!
That was harsh... Hmmm WWJD? Err probably not say that. Twas a simple question. I just can't understand the goodness of God when the bible mentions his wrath so frequently... Isn't wrath a deadly sin?
Don't worry...'we' all knew where this question was coming from. WWJD? Jesus addressed the unsaved Pharisees this way..."Hypocrites, vipers, fools, blind..." (ie.: see Matthew 23), and addressed Satan quite personally as well.
Nothing personal to you, Soop.., I still love you the way Jesus does, just not the spirit standing behind you. Jesus loved you so much He died for you. I just want you to get saved from your sin so we can be in heaven together, because hell is not going to be a party.
I realize, altho that spirit behind you got you to ask that question, even tho it already knows the answer, you still need an answer...
God is perfect and just and when we as His people sin, He has the right to get angry because He made the law that we broke, you see? However, He is patient...the bible mentions that more frequently. God is sovereign over all.
Yes those were good "What DID Jesus do answers"... But when one thinks WWJD, its more like what would he do in this moment of time and how would he represent himself(Hint: a lot more humble that you)...you very good at jumping to conclusions Rem. And I know what Jesus did, he served and preached about the Kingdom of Heaven but most importantly he LOVED... it doesn't matter how you much you say your compassionate or loving for ones well being cause if your fruits don't show it... well you know.
Don't worry, I still love you Soop! If I understand you correctly, you do agree that Jesus DID do that back then. And, you are saying Jesus would NOT do that at this time. Is that correct? So, are you saying Jesus made a mistake and that He has changed His ways?
Let's look at what the bible says. Heb. 13:8, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." So, if you're saying that Jesus would not be the same today, then you are creating a new Jesus just like those corrupt versions do!
Remember that Jesus took a whip and chased the moneychangers out of the temple? He isn't always gentle. He hates those that tell lies. Remember he called the Pharises seplchures? There are a lot of doctrinal differences between the KJY and other version.
David, I've seen multiplied hundreds of instances of folks who take God and his Word seriously, and know zip of the KJV. They were fed well and grew well on a Living Bible, an NIV, or a New American Standard, Revised Standard, American Standard, even a Good News Bible. I've also run into shallow, judgmental, gossipy, grumbly, and/or adulterous KJV readers. The issue is not "which version," but "they did not combine it with faith." Please don't undermine God's Word, whichever version.
If its not br0ke dont fix it the other versions are perversions.Bible today are produced for moneyKing James cared about the people. and wanted Gods word in there hand so they could have the true word in their heart.The N-ever I-mproved V=ersion is wicked
Ive a difficult time with the hithers, thithers, these and thou-s. Hard to get around this. But take this old vernacular out and you have the NKJV! I'm also glad I can read other versions. Where a difference seems to exist, I can pray and research for clarification, but I won't miss the boat. I also refuse to get caught up in the KJVO club. Lots of people have been saved through the Lord's outreach in other versions, believe it or not.
Throughout Church History there have been movements that have attempted to divide the Church. Heresies and cults have popped up.
The Church has withstood all of these movements and it will withstand this one as well.
Docetism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, "The Name It Claim It/Prosperity Movement" and Now the "King James Only Movement".
This is like the New "Light" concept with the Jehovah Witnesses.
which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
Warning Against False Teachers of the Law 3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
would you please try to be kind and Christ like--and explain how I am a hypocrite.
Just be clear I say use the KJV and I say it is the best translation. But to Say things like "God can only save from the KJV" (as some people) do is dangerous.
I have seen him work outside of the KJV and even in the bible He did that very thing.
I know a story of a Muslim that became a believer because of a History book and not the KJV.
But God is not limited to the KJV alone (as some people would say).
how does that make me a hypocrite?
God can call a person into Repentence without that person ever once open ing the KJV. But as they grow and study (if they study in English) the KJV should be the mane source of study.
Throughout Church History there have been movements that have attempted to divide the Church. Heresies and cults have popped up.
The Church has withstood all of these movements and it will withstand this one as well.
Docetism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, "The Name It Claim It/Prosperity Movement" and Now the "King James Only Movement".
This is like the New "Light" concept with the Jehovah Witnesses.
Seems to me that many here are making an idol of the KJV. You ignore God in this whole situation. Are you as perfect as the KJV? Yet God can still use you, you worthless piece of trash (tongue in cheek), to bring people to Christ? Get your eyes on God, not on a book! There was no Bible involved when Finney walked into a factory and people ran to him confessing their sins without him speaking a word. It was not a translation that brought this, but the Holy Spirit!
Excellent words - thanks for shedding some light in this discussion! How on earth did people hear to Word of Truth before the scriptures were canonized, let alone before the KJV came around in 1611?? (tongue in cheek)
Citation please? I know of no one who bows down and worships the KJV. I know of no one who prays to the KJV. I know of no one who thinks that the KJV ascended into heaven.
And I do know of scholars who think that 'the originals' (whatever that means!) are sitting in heaven right now.
If you were a part of my church I would ask that we meet with the board of elders and have an open discusion about this with mediators; In an attemt to establish Reconciliation for the accusations you have brought against me.
I forgive you for calling me a hypocrite.
If I have somehow said something in a way that came across wrong I would like to clear that up and move foward in the love of Christ.
without name calling.
accusations like that are not taken lightly in my Church
Idols are not always bowed down to. Idols are anything that takes our eyes off God or replaces His power. You deny the power of God to convert and replace it with the power only in a specific translation. It doesn't matter what translation it is.
Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God." Sounds fanatical doesn't it? God ordered Joshau to follow a Book (Joshua 1:8). Saul sinned against God AND the words of God (1 Chron. 10:13). Jesus Christ is called the Word of God seven times. What is wrong with "worshipping" a Book that is God's Book? Finney was guided by the Book before he had power of the Spirit. Your "get eyes on God" is pious claptrap. Finney preached from the AV 1611!!!
I had someone condemn the church for speaking in tongues. He was talking preaching from the KJV. The AV 1611 is far more difficult for the average person you are trying to reach. So how does that fit into your idol worship? The AV1611 has changed MANY words. MANY words are extremely poor or limited in meaning from the Greek and Hebrew. So you are also condemning your own version.
Tongues are for a sign and the Jews require a sign (1 Cor. 1:22; 14:22). Tongues are not for the church today especially it is forbidden for all women. The AV 1611 is not difficult unless someone has a proud heart. Common words like giants (nephilim), south (negev), stuff, engine, teller, letters by post, and many others are KJV only words. Nephilim is the new updated word for giants. Is that more clear? You do not have THE Greek or Hebrew. You are condemning yourself (Titus 3:10-11).
Being fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek, I have studied and compared over 40 different English translation and have found the KJV to be the ONLY correct translation. Even the so-called "errors" are so small and have no doctrinal effect as makes no difference - and these so-called errors in the KJV don't hold a candle to the astoundingly and astonishingly massive DOCTRINAL errors of the other versions. The KJV has proved itself as autentic. Anyone with eyes can see it. Only the fool can't.
"Liberal" is the key word. Those are people who do not believe in the Lord and in the infallibility of His Word, and therefore their opinion of the Scriptures is irrelevant. the biblical faith is a personal one, It is not up for debate among non-believers, and any debates they presume to have about someone else's personal faith is irrellavent.We don't answer to them nor is their godless opinions from Satan any consequence to us. They are blind fools leading the blind. And history IS on my side
I have parents, who sadly moved away from the KJV, which they grew up memorizing to switch to NIV, ad NKJV. And one thing they tell me is How they used to read the bible out loud together in unison, conformity, and how beautiful it was, not like the chaos and confusion that would go on if a congregation read their bible out loud. Just as Jesus is the ONLY way, i don't think saying KJV is the only Bible (english speakers) would be too far of a stretch
Honestly, I read English, I speak English, and the King James Bible is the only bible I need, unless we are talking about the greek, hebrew, or latin. Many fundamentalist stick to one side for a reason, just as many stick to the right wing side for a reason. The body of Christ should not been in confusion, and as we know "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,..."Heb 4:12 Why shouldn't WE be able to ALL read God's powerful word TOGETHER in a congrgtn
In Jude verse 25, the NIV says that God gets glory "through Jesus Christ our Lord." The KJV leaves this phrase out. In Acts 16:7 the KJV says, "the Spirit suffered them not." The NIV says, "the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to." "Of Jesus" is left out of the KJV.
When things are left out of the modern versions, some people claim there was a conspiracy or the translators were biased against the deity of Christ, etc. Why did the KJV leave these words and phrases out?
hopefully, you have the KEY info on historical years from 1500-1510...
and be aware of specific deliberate misrepresentations of his work by others, from 1511 onwards... (are you aware even back then Rome always sought to suppress truths about itself, and those who would reveal Rome's very 'typical' dark character?)
Acts 16:6: Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
Acts 16:7: After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
Verse 16's 'Holy Ghost' is what the 'Spirit' in verse 17 was referring. It confirms that after Jesus left the Apostles, He would leave in His place the Holy Ghost to move them according to the Spirit.
"Of Jesus" is left out because it implies that Spirit to be less than who He is, the Holy Spirit. "Of Jesus" was added. The Holy Ghost was sent after Jesus, the promised Comforter. It was not the Spirit of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit, third person of the triune Godhead. The addition lessen His person.
The KJV leaves those words out because they were ADDED by the NIV translators - the same ones who REMOVED 1st John 5:7, "there are three that bear record in heaven: the Fathed and the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. the NIV writers are traitorous heretics who have altered over 40,000 words - because they use satanic minority texts.
If a pastor doesn't know that the new bible translations are corrupt then why would you trust such a pastor to be your spiritual leader? If you know that the bibles are jacked up but you pastor doesn't is he really called by God? Why would he know, you found out?
The only translation of God's written word is by the author, through the Holy Spirit. Anyone who is a believer reading any translation should always depend on the HS for revelation. That is how God speaks to His people through all of the diverse written translations in all languages.
My former pastor used to do prison ministry, but was required to use the Mormon translation. Even it could bring people to the true Jesus Christ! I have found errors in the King James translation. Check out 1 john 5:13. The Greek does NOT have "unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." It also ignores what IS in the Greek tense later on, that you *continue* to believe. Many times other translations do a better job of translation than the KJV. I choose the one that is most accurate.
You can't get somebody saved with a trash perversion bible, you need a King James Bible, the only Bible written by God Himself and 100% complete with zero errors, contradictions, or omissions.
You can read a "bible" with two open queers on the translation committee like the NIV, I'll throw the perversions in the garbage where they belong and read the KJB.
I know a wonderful story of a Muslim that came to America for School and he became a believer in christ because of a history book.
however did God manage that?
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
This is so stupid! I guess those who used the Latin Vulgate before there ever was a King James Bible will say "Latin Vulgate Only" This is a joke. You guys are not even using the Authorized King James Version 1611 which included the Apocrypha. So which King James only Bible is it? Also are you trying to tell us that for the first 1600 years the Church was Apostate (you sound like a Jehovah Witnesss). (Part 1)
Also during the times of Jesus and Paul the Septuagint was in use by the Jews. So were those Jews and early Christians in error.? I don't believe Jesus quoted from the English King James. Ever heard of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew? This is such a silly argument which divides the Church and gives our enemies a lot of ammo. Also the manuscripts which are used by some of the more modern translations (NIV/NASB,etc) are earlier manuscripts then what was used by the King James. (Part 2)
These manuscripts were not available at the time to the translators. I like the King James Bible just like I like ECV, Net, NASB, and NIV. Yet the King James Bible (AV 1611, King James, and the New King James Bible) are just translations just like NASB. I guess the "King James" Only people are "Apostates" as well since they are not using the "1611 Version, or the earlier Latin Vulgate or the Septuagint from the times before Jesus. (Part 3)
You really have to do some homework, you seem to be only aware of the 'manuscripts' referred to by those trying to supplant the AV1611. Look to the 'Received Text' (or 'TR' Textus Receptus)(NT)... but do we have to tell you to watch out which modern textbooks have tampered with the TR translations into English, and which haven't? You know the differences out there, do you? You know the differences are deliberately misleading, a byproduct of self-serving 'modern scholarship'...
@xzotyqa The New King James version is also written from the Textus Receptus. Why isn't this Bible touted as or used by King James Only people? The truth is, your loyalties seem to lie with the King James Version itself and not necessarily the Textus Receptus and its inspiration regarding Erasmus. Was James, whose name is emblazoned on the 1611 Bible gay?
Erasmus' Greek TR was a major influence, and referenced, but the AV1611 translators had much more available to them, to support/compare with his readings, as well as doing the OT translation as well. Today we have both OT & NT, not just the NT by itself.
2) Many printings of MANY EDITIONS (Editions include font changes, spelling changes, printer errors; the odd inconsequential word affecting grammer variant (just two)).
That is, 1) & 2) both still refer to the AV1611 Version. We simply use the last 'Edition'; and there are many printings of that. Sadly, editions can be both good & deliberately bad.
3) NKJV is a pretender; looks on the surface the same, but deeper is very non-AV1611.
Yet almost ALL of the King James Only people that I have run across (Most are every nice people and Christians) do not use or have the 1611 version. That is want I do not understand.
We are Christians we should be standing and fighting together not having these crazy arguments.
I normally deal with Jehovah Witnesses and Atheist and Muslims yet this issue is a issue which is dividing the family. I personally believe the evidence, history and the texts themselves really make this argument crazy yet there is something sinister being applied to those who do not "Only" use the King James Bible -- Almost like the Jehovah Witnesses and Muslims calling us Apostates
it is okay to believe all of the educational texts IF you have them.
it appears you are drawing from the 'status quo' that is taught out there. be wary, it is there for a reason MORE than 'being touted as right'. it's integrity is dubious... finding out that the truth of their lack of integrity is mind boggling.
we can only remain divided, if u refuse to look deeper. when you do, and find out what u learned from the established 'schools' of today being in error, then divided no more are we!
the most important thing is we are able to have civilized conversations about this topic, even if coming from different perspective, even as Christians, means we are not as divided as others would portray us.
many others are just as divided (JW, Atheists, Muslims), so being divided is just a human thing, a thing of starting out a 'babe', then progressively learning new things, and 'knowing' more things. that's how we all appear diverse in our personal stances on our beliefs. that's normal.
they used 2 carry & preach from KJV?/AV1611? but by the early 1950's... their 'New World Translation' bible was used
ironically, the NWTB, is based on same corrupt texts underly majority of 'modern' bibles.
2 Jesuits are found in the preface of 1st edition NWT(full bible; not NT) essentially giving approval. this is like an 'Imprimatur' for a JW Church bible, which normally are only done for RC bibles!!! odd don't u think?
so how do you KNOW the people you run across are 'King James Only' people if they do NOT have a current edition of the AV1611???
if u judge by how they 'preach' (their rhetoric quoting the AV1611)... it is because they in fact are the more common Christians who were brought up on preaching by OTHERs who used the AV1611. this does not make the 'King James Only'. many Christians brought up like this are unaware of the underlying significance of this hidden textual battle
and when those unaware of the key critical textual differences that vastly impact the theology of their own beliefs... come to a maturity... ready to witness to others, using their 'any' bible, they are caught unprepared, searching for what they learned earlier, but NOT finding it the newer 'any' bibles they now hold in their hands...
and then their own witness collapses, in front of those who they are hoping to minister to...
This is because AV people in general see this as a conviction. To us, it is as important as the deity of Christ or the Trinity.
Imagine if someone tried to convince you that Jesus was not God. How would you react?
I (along with many other AVers) was saved being told that I had God's inerrant, infallible word in my lap. Do you think that I would give that up easily?
if he was 'touchy feely' and very affectionate, history does not hide that characteristic of his.
Today, 'non-gay' men may 'hug' or 'pat' each other, is that 'homosexual'??? No. So, perhaps if one kisses another of the same gender, is that 'homosexual'? I doubt it.
realize today's strange unnatural 'split' of manhood, extreme (last 50 years at least) "don't touch me, i'm not a 'homo'" is a 'norm' now? sad, hey, don't kiss me dad!!!
A Dutch Roman Catholic Priest and Greek scholar named Desiderius Erasmus published his first Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus put this text together quickly and haphazardly, and numerous revisions followed. From a preface to one of the revisions we get the name Textus Receptus. (Part 1)
Brief Textus Receptus Info... these are NOT YOUR words... but from a critic IN ERROR... you must DIG DEEPER... this critic's error was found out...
i realize your search is in earnest and sincere, but when you find out the truth... you will be enraged at the deeper battle to distort and suppress the truth from being allowed to be revealed to the masses
you MUST dig deeper...
don't presume standard textbooks of Universities of today will suffice, success of their presence keeps you in the dark
You are so amazingly arrogantly ignorant, not having the slightest bit of descernment or circumspection, that it isn't even worth wasting my breath on you. The Bible calls people like you a fool, and I don't consort with fools. Those who fight against the Word of God are obviously the children of Satan.
The TR was collated from a relatively small collection (about five or six texts) of Byzantine-era Greek texts dating back to about the twelfth to fourteenth century AD. In his haste to beat the competition to press, Erasmus made the mistake of including some margin notes from the Byzantine texts into the verses of the TR. It is largely from the TR that the New Testament of the KJV was translated (Part 2)
Actually your source deliberately lied about the details. So, what can we do but to dig deeper.
You are barely scratching the surface of this conflict of the battle of the texts.
I leave it to you to find out for yourself.
If I say so, it simply isn't good enough.
We all have to find out the dirty secret of this entire field of biblical textual criticism... the hard way. There is absolutely no room on a forum to flesh out vast details, which'd need books to cover.
actually... the NKJV... mimics the English of AV1611 (thus supposedly the TR), but underlying it is closer to Alexandrian in thought, there are plenty of deviations and afinities opposite to the TR...
There has never been a revision of the KJV. EVER EVER EVER. The Apocrypha was removed during the lives of the translators we did NOT include it - and the "revisions" were not revisons but modernizations of existing words which did not effect doctrine - unlike the NIV and the other blasphemous versions.
Ah... that anachonistically dubious and so called 'Septuagint', supposedly used by the Jews... really now? You never question the 'scholars' that push the 'Septuagint' do you?
The Authorized KJV1611, first edition, first printing did NOT contain the apocrypha, not the majority of printings for the first edition. However, the apocrypha was found CAUGHT in ONE early printing, and the run was stopped very short. Do YOU know which printing it was? No, of course not, otherwise, you'd know it is a LIE to say the ENTIRE 1611 VERSION had it. Fact is, for the earliest year of 1611, there were MANY printings, and SEVERAL 'EDITIONS' even up to 1769 (zero 'REVISIONS' mind you)
Question to all the "King [Which Version] James Only People"?
Which version or translation and in which language for the FIRST 1600 YEARS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST was being used by the those early faithful PRE-KING JAMES/ENLISH CHRISTIANS WORLDWIDE?
keep in mind, the vast majority of Christians for most of pre-1600 barely ever saw but a few scraps or bits of paper with scripture captured on them, greek, hebrew, latin, or otherwise.
significance of AV1611 is the consolidation of the entirety of scripture for the masses, utilizing multiple supporting sources, from then onwards. (rather than in isolation and minimal secondary sources)
Well, it kind of depends on what language they spoke. The Textus Receptus was used as the underlying text for hundreds of different languages, including the Syriac, (150AD), the Italic (157AD), and many, many more, including many native American languages. But they were all from the TR manuscripts. The various new versions are primarily from the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, the two manuscripts under the revised Greek NT by Westcott and Hort. Both Latin.
you know both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are least reliable, and considered 2 of many dubious and possible forgeries (Alexandrian philosophically; which Rome has high affinity to). today's christians know that these two differ vastly from Christianity's TR.
You and Satan have one big thing in common: you both say, "yea, hath God said...?" Even if the KJV wasn't a perfect translation, it's excellent translation is so superior to the NIV, etc, as to make the others WORTHLESS as translations. In fact, they are not translations, they are someone else's interpretation of what they think God meant based on their own biased and satanic views.
Oops, you are correct. I checked my office copy and it is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
There is one thing everybody seems to forget. Paul planted, Apollos watered, but it was God who gave the increase. The whole argument here is man based, not God based. We need to do our best and then let the Holy Spirit do the conversion. Which translation was preached from when Finney walked into a factory and without speaking had the factory stop with people falling under extreme conviction?
Actually, grabbing multiple Bibles is a good idea. We don't always have a perfect translation. Some are highly literal, some are highly readable, some are more classic language, but less literal--none is perfect. You're creating a false dichotomy. This won't produce confusion--people are not incapable of understanding that there are various translations, none perfect. This isn't new information.
@kc7fys: You're right, grabbing multiple Bibles is a GREAT idea. The perfect, God-breathed King James Bible I'll read, study, memorize, and get my doctrine from. The other twisted satanic perversions are great if I run out of fire starter or toilet paper.
God bless you brother Daniels!!! Right on target. Pastors: The apostate "Christianity" is going to be judged by The Lord for abandoning the King James Bible and promoting the blasphemous "Bibles" like NIV, NASB, The Message, Good News Bibles and all the others based on False Greek and Hebrew texts, unbelievers translators, false theology of the Gnostics and false and devilish translation technique of "dynamic equivalence". Brethren: go back to the old KJB, live it and pprech it! Amen!
I have grown up in KJV only churches, I have heard 100's of KJV only pastors and I don't know anyone who believes what you claim "KJV only" people believe.
I also don't know of any KJV only people who believe that King James was a saint.
I'm not saying that those people don't exist, I am saying that you are pushing a 'straw man' argument.
I also was raised as a believer in KJV only churches.
Then I learned Portuguese and Spanish and I have been in different cultures around the world from Afghanistan Panama, Brazil, Mexico etc.... and I have come to learn many things about language and culture.
KJV "The King's English" means nothing to someone that doesn't know english.
and it sometimes doesn't translate correct into a cultural understanding.
What is the difference between the KJV and the outlawed Geneva Bible?
they are 90% the same. Most of the difference is the wording. "The King's English" v/s" the Old English"
Geneva-Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knewe that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaues together, and made them selues breeches.
KJV-Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Why does any of that matter? I can trace my family roots back to the Mayflower and I believe in the AV 1611. I don't care what Bible, if any, that they used.
King James killed people. So what? Paul killed Christians and he wrote half of the New Testament.
If you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to care about your history lessons, you will have to show why it matters. And so far, you haven't. Sorry.
for me when I read in the ESV I like the language. Then I go look in the KJV to compare and see if it is correct. then I go to the Greek to compare and better understand the text.
Then I go to The Geneva to see into the Reformes of that time and the English they used to see into their culture and language----- and I learn.
I also look at the Portuguese and I find things that make no sence if read in KJV because of the Culture differences.
I tried to read through the Bible in a year in different translations, but I got tired or the Holy Spirit constantly asking me "Does My Word say that?" After checking against the Greek/Hebrew I would always find it was wrong. I now stick to the KJV and NKJ, but still find other translations more accurate in some passages.
You can go ahead and rely on human reasoning. I will go with the Holy Spirit any day.
I think was just hitting keys random in that last post (lol) sorry.
anyway.
I do have to admit that I have used the NWT.
because I get JWs every month or so.
I have learned how to use their bible to show --with all there attempts to wipe out the deity of Christ they still missed a few things.
It often puzzles them
one of my favorite is ; they couldn't get rid of all the "I am" in the NT. So they changed it in Exodus. they would tell a Jew he translated his own language wrong lol
Friend, thanks to you and many uninformed such as yourself you help to create division in the body of Christ. To say that ONLY the KJV is the word of God is FALSE. I will say again whoever says that the KJV Bible is the only version with God's word is not telling he truth.
NO version is perfect including the KJV that has translational errors and is based on more recent manuscripts. More importantly why anybody would insist on reading 17th century english in the 21 century is baffling.
swiftpremium 3 days ago
Amen! GOD BLESS YOU! I PRAY EVERY PASTOR PREACHER SEE AND UNDERSTANDS AND ACTS ON THESE TRUTHS
starryskye6829 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
MOVIE COMING SOON!
True Story of 1 man's search for Trurh!
Hell is not Eternal Burning!
Hell & Mr Fudge Promo (Copy & paste or type in to SEE TRAILER)
Georgephyl 2 months ago
Check out 180movie.com
stjohn37 3 months ago
King James is a great translation but is also the easiest to twist or distort. We don't speak the way they did back then. I like the New American Standard but some times will refer to the good old King James for clarity on things hard to understand.
deadlydavem 4 months ago
Not sure people realize that all reformed churches today are the Dead church of Sardis (Rev 3: 1). The Catholic is Thyatira & the Freemasons, the (illuminati) Pergamos. All pastors are merchants who sell Oil & Wine (God's word) & Souls of men (Rev 18: 11-13). In the Prophets God called all present churches "highplaces" The true Church is the up Coming Mount Zion, (Rev 12; Re 3: 12: Re 19: 7; Re 21: 9. Mic 4; isa 2) She will be the mother of all God's Children Gal 4: 26 ie Smyrna & remnant
isawHim86 6 months ago
I walk out of Churches who use multiple Bibles. I found many Pastors do so to twist what they want to deliver to back up THEIR view point.
mrbunnylamakins 9 months ago
These who deny the truth that is preserved in the kjv are blinded by their denial of Jesus Christ through these false bibles. The faith we have is the only true power WE have. No faith and God's word is gibberish. The other versions make more sense to those who are seeking selfish desires over a true God who is perfect. He does not need a translation to speak to those who seek him. Think about it.
wallaceju 10 months ago
@pdflm KJV is missing sheol, and it call's the "morning star, son of dawn" Lucifer when referring to the Babylonian King. I only own a KJV but NASB has the missing verses and (from hat I've read) a more literal translation. Am I wrong in this?
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens The King James Bible calls Lucifer the son of the Morning, NOT Morning Star. Son of the Dawn is Lucifer/Satan ONLY not a king.
tgambill 1 year ago
@tgambill So was the NT originally written in Hebrew, Greek, or Latin then?
Isaiah 14:2
Hebrew; Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן שחר) = shining star, son of the dawn.
Greek; Phosphoros (Φωσφόρος) = light-bearer
Latin; Luxferous = Light-bearer or light-bringer
Read all of Isaiah 14 and you will see that it is clearly talking about an earthly king. St. Jerome is a hack, the Latin Vulgate is crap, and the KJV was custom ordered by King James. Helel is satan? Then Jesus is son of Satan, Rev 22:16
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens Lucifer = light bringer, not STAR in any form. I have read it and 1000% only a blind and deaf man would say that Isaiah 14 was talking about an earthly king. You pagans have a bad way to go when Jesus judges your soul and sends you to Hell. KJV is the ONLY word of God. Jesus is God incarnate and will return very very soon. You better fix yourself soon....also.
tgambill 1 year ago
Sorry I meant previously Isaiah 14:12 (missed the one when typing)
John 8:12 When Jesus spoke again to the people, he said, “I am the light (Phos φῶς) of the world. Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.”
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens LUCIFER IS called "son of the morning" no star mentioned. ALL VERSIONS after the KJV are based on the heretical Latin vulgate or Catholic Bible. simple.
tgambill 1 year ago
@tgambill The morning star, son of the dawn is referring to Venus when it is still visible at dawn. Satan is that monster that Christians invented to scare children into believing. If anything he would be like the entity in Job who is a tool of God. Satan being the god of this earth adds to the pantheon by one (Angels, demons, God, Jesus, holy spirit, Satan, and Saints). Obviously it's pointless to argue over which version of the Bible someone holds true. Is that a threat? fix myself soon?
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zacbouwens Oh Pleazzzzzz, lol. You people are like cut and past Atheist, calvinist, Masons, or whatever; same responses and same manual. lol. The Morning Star is jesus, Jesus says he is the bright and Morning star and not remotely Venus. Do you people actually believe this? Or do you just mindlessly go along with these Jesuit pagans or Masonic Luciferians? Satan/Lucifer is real and the supernatural is real. No threat, the only true word of God with evidence is the KJV.
tgambill 1 year ago
@tgambill I don't honestly believe in satan. I do believe that the morning star is an astrological body. I have no clue what a Jesuit is beyond being some kind of Catholic missionary. I'm not associated with any kind of masonry ideals. Miracles are fake, the holey spirit is a made up being, Jesus was a human who died, God is man made. I grew up as an extremist Evangelical Protestant, and upon reading the Bible for the first time at 26 have realized that they were all fools and liars.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
@zIt doesn't matter what we believe to make it true or false. We are not human beings going through a temporary spiritual experience; we are spiritual beings going through a temporary human experience no matter what we want to believe.In the same vein, just not believing in Satan/Lucifer does not take away the reality that he in fact does exist and the KJ Bible will tell you the truth. Jesuits take a horrific oath and are demonic infiltrators, assassins and Alberty Rivera is an Example.
tgambill 1 year ago
@zacbouwens Miracles are real for sure, The Holy Spirit is of God and in everyone that is born again; and Jesus was God incarnate and will return because he never died. It is not too late for you to repent and come to Jesus before this drama starts.
tgambill 1 year ago
@tgambill Thank you, I appreciate the gesture. Until God manifests his self in my life and shows me inwardly that he cares or exists, there's not much I can do. 13 years of being a born again Christian and God was never there. The same empty hollow feeling that Mother Teresa had the last 40 years of her ministry. I would be ecstatic if God made a house call, I'd give my self and my family to him but he's as real to me as Allah, Brahma, or any other deity. I'm not obstinate, just a realist.
zacbouwens 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@zacbouwens Mother Teresa lost her faith. God was always there. He is there, and always was...
King James Bible Revelation 3:20
Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
tgambill 1 year ago 2
@zacbouwens What you mean is a sign. A physical sign. God is a spiritual God.
aietes 11 months ago
@aietes A theophany
zacbouwens 11 months ago
Do you have a theological degree?
If you are interested in God's words I think you should spend far more time considering the historical context, the psychological mindframe of the writers of the era, and understanding Greek and Hebrew. Some of these things don't translate well into english.
Why aren't you talking about the bias of the King James Bible being as it was ordered by a king? Or the whole additional texts of the Roman Catholic Bibles? You're sewing dessention not understanding
TheBluesBeggar 1 year ago
To remove the deity o f Christ and the Trinity and other major doctrines he hypes about, you would have to systematically alter the bible beyond recognition. The presentation is is bottom line purposefully cryptic with the facts and aims at tugging on heart strings and emotions rather than actually dealing with truth.
sacramentum5 1 year ago
This stuff is so manipulative and deceptive, it is astounding. It is posed in highly He continually makes one believe the absence of some words or phrases decimates the deity of Christ and the Trinity, which nothing could be further from the truth. Most people do not even notice these minor variants because they simply do not make the big difference he tries to suggest in his chicken little manner of doing it. This itself evidences his own very shallow conception of the word of God.
sacramentum5 1 year ago
This stuff is so manipulative and deceptive, it is astounding. It is posed in highly emotionally charged conspiratorial rhetoric without displaying any of the facts about the many manuscripts with textual variants. Even the Byzantine majority text has variants! Moreover none of them make a big theological difference when the whole canon and the entire books where variants he lists are found are taken into consideration.
sacramentum5 1 year ago
I'm glad I finally saw through the THICK smoke screen that religious authorities have up for the "flock of dull sheep" not to see through! Organized religion is NOTHING BUT A MAN MADE system of control! The religious authorities control the flocks pockets and control their minds(keeping them from critical thinking)! If if weren't for the dull flock, religious authorities would be unemployed, period!! Why? because NO GOD WOULD PUT A WEEKLY PAY CHECK IN A PASTOR'S POCKET, PERIOD!
mythicalhell 1 year ago
I hold to the KJV of the Bible. I will keep you and your mission in my prayers.
tobindunnjd 1 year ago
Comment removed
737flyhigh 1 year ago
The King James Version possesses unforgivable drawbacks and shortcomings, being an antiquated 400-year-old Anglican translation which reintroduced Elizabethan prose and is completely disconnected from contemporary English-speaking laypeople, incorporating multitudinous Medieval-period archaisms, interpolations, mistranslations, translational inconsistencies, and unjustifiable omissions. Its Shakespearean-like phraseologies and terminologies are outdated, cumbersome, and unforgivable.
TheHeroOfChrist 1 year ago
@TheHeroOfChrist LOL!
tonyb408 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHeroOfChrist
and who told you that?
av1611preacher 1 year ago
Look What's Missing is next on my reading list. Thanks for writing that book.
boaz212 1 year ago
It seems to me that you are casting doubt upon God's word even though you are not intending to do so. This debate is important but it can easily result in confusing the masses. I use only the KJV but I am careful how I explain why I use it.
God's word can be mishandled but not corrupted. Psalms 12:6 - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
How can God's Word be partly corrupted?
reconciled2God 1 year ago
Go and get a real Bible KJV rules If you want your ears to be tickled stick with the newer versions. Look up KJV vs NKJV or KJV vs NIV New International
Per-version
TrustJesusandrepent 1 year ago
Amen brother... In the end times there will be watering down of the gospel, teaching the doctrines of man rather than those of God. Even priests will be led astray. (2 Tim 3:5, Matt 15:9)
DivineNewsNetwork 2 years ago
If you don't hear from me in 5 years..
send Link.
KyazuTheInsane 2 years ago
How did the right-hand man know it was the wrong key? Did he try to open the vault prematurely? The story might have been clever if the king had given him the wrong key on purpose to test whether he would really wait for five years. But as it is, the story doesn't make any sense.
TomSFox 2 years ago
If you don't want a version translated and defines
by spirists and pedophile, better buy a KJV
cduez10 2 years ago
I am AV, totally. You do not need any Bible to get saved. That has nothing to do with the debate.
You can be AV and still be completely nuts. That has nothing to do with the debate.
Lost people don't care about translations. And that has nothing to do with the debate.
Did God (or even CAN God) preserve his word and give us an infallible copy of it in the language that we speak?
That is the debate.
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82 "CAN God preserve his word and give us an infallible copy of it in the language that we speak?"
OF COURSE, HE CAN! Read Ps. 12:6,7.
If the Omnipotent God created out of nothing, the entire multiverse, and set the course of nature, with its awesome beauty and unfathomable diversity, CAN HE NOT THEN PRESERVE THE MOST IMPORTANT SET OF DIVINE INSTRUCTIONS FOR MAN?
God, Who accurately foretells the future in His Word, cannot foresee to preserve His own Word?
R u serious?
rastinchacha7 2 years ago
@ Rastin~
I agree. Regardless of what they say, or even if they realize it or not, modern day translators in fact believe that God is either incapable of translating his word from Hebrew/Greek to English or that he simple chose not to.
I don't think either position is defensible. Of course he could. And if he could and chose not to, why not?
God is more careful with his word than he is with my soul.
Greywolf82 2 years ago
i found this an interesting, but true statement--
"The Latin Vulgate has produced fruit, and more cults have used the KJV more than any other translation. So there is good and bad with every version. Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist agreed with you, as did David Koresh. Are they saved, or tight on doctrine? Maybe even having a KJV can lead many astray without the Spirit of GOD in you."
mtdeadhead 2 years ago
Why do you think more cults have used the KJV? Think about it for a second...just as, 'the most effective lie is one bookended between two truths', the Devil will use the truth to befuddle those not lead by the Holy Spirit. That doesn't turn truth into error! That is no evidence that the KJV is "good and bad"! God is always good!
RemiKJV1611 2 years ago
Always good.. does that mean God can't sin?
Soopatone 2 years ago
o-kaayyy....I didn't know Satan had an account with YouTube.
RemiKJV1611 2 years ago
That was harsh... Hmmm WWJD? Err probably not say that. Twas a simple question. I just can't understand the goodness of God when the bible mentions his wrath so frequently... Isn't wrath a deadly sin?
Soopatone 2 years ago
Don't worry...'we' all knew where this question was coming from. WWJD? Jesus addressed the unsaved Pharisees this way..."Hypocrites, vipers, fools, blind..." (ie.: see Matthew 23), and addressed Satan quite personally as well.
Nothing personal to you, Soop.., I still love you the way Jesus does, just not the spirit standing behind you. Jesus loved you so much He died for you. I just want you to get saved from your sin so we can be in heaven together, because hell is not going to be a party.
RemiKJV1611 2 years ago
I realize, altho that spirit behind you got you to ask that question, even tho it already knows the answer, you still need an answer...
God is perfect and just and when we as His people sin, He has the right to get angry because He made the law that we broke, you see? However, He is patient...the bible mentions that more frequently. God is sovereign over all.
Oh...BTW, ALL sin is deadly.
If you don't believe me, don't die.
RemiKJV1611 2 years ago
Yes those were good "What DID Jesus do answers"... But when one thinks WWJD, its more like what would he do in this moment of time and how would he represent himself(Hint: a lot more humble that you)...you very good at jumping to conclusions Rem. And I know what Jesus did, he served and preached about the Kingdom of Heaven but most importantly he LOVED... it doesn't matter how you much you say your compassionate or loving for ones well being cause if your fruits don't show it... well you know.
Soopatone 2 years ago
Don't worry, I still love you Soop! If I understand you correctly, you do agree that Jesus DID do that back then. And, you are saying Jesus would NOT do that at this time. Is that correct? So, are you saying Jesus made a mistake and that He has changed His ways?
Let's look at what the bible says. Heb. 13:8, "Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever." So, if you're saying that Jesus would not be the same today, then you are creating a new Jesus just like those corrupt versions do!
RemiKJV1611 2 years ago
Remember that Jesus took a whip and chased the moneychangers out of the temple? He isn't always gentle. He hates those that tell lies. Remember he called the Pharises seplchures? There are a lot of doctrinal differences between the KJY and other version.
cduez10 2 years ago
Well, did God have a reason for his wrath? Anger without a proper cause for it is a sin.
Did the Word made Flesh have a bone to pick with the coin changers turning his Father's house to a market? Damn right he did.
WatcherPrime 1 year ago
@WatcherPrime jesus loves you
unpopulardorkz 1 year ago
David, I've seen multiplied hundreds of instances of folks who take God and his Word seriously, and know zip of the KJV. They were fed well and grew well on a Living Bible, an NIV, or a New American Standard, Revised Standard, American Standard, even a Good News Bible. I've also run into shallow, judgmental, gossipy, grumbly, and/or adulterous KJV readers. The issue is not "which version," but "they did not combine it with faith." Please don't undermine God's Word, whichever version.
hallockd 2 years ago
If its not br0ke dont fix it the other versions are perversions.Bible today are produced for moneyKing James cared about the people. and wanted Gods word in there hand so they could have the true word in their heart.The N-ever I-mproved V=ersion is wicked
Bibledefender4u 2 years ago
Comment removed
denyvrob 2 years ago
Ive a difficult time with the hithers, thithers, these and thou-s. Hard to get around this. But take this old vernacular out and you have the NKJV! I'm also glad I can read other versions. Where a difference seems to exist, I can pray and research for clarification, but I won't miss the boat. I also refuse to get caught up in the KJVO club. Lots of people have been saved through the Lord's outreach in other versions, believe it or not.
Gloria youre not a hypocrite!
mcycleman 2 years ago
Would you let me subtitle this for the Deaf or will you CC it yourself?
Subtitledworship 2 years ago
Is this Jack Chick?
JokerKlownX 2 years ago
@JokerKlownX No. this is David W. Daniels author of the book "Look What's Missing"
MrJeffsleuth 2 years ago
Throughout Church History there have been movements that have attempted to divide the Church. Heresies and cults have popped up.
The Church has withstood all of these movements and it will withstand this one as well.
Docetism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, "The Name It Claim It/Prosperity Movement" and Now the "King James Only Movement".
This is like the New "Light" concept with the Jehovah Witnesses.
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
which is by faith. 5The goal of this command is love, which comes from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith. 6Some have wandered away from these and turned to meaningless talk. 7They want to be teachers of the law, but they do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm.
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
1 Timothy
Warning Against False Teachers of the Law 3As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain men not to teach false doctrines any longer 4nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Acts 20:28-32
28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. 29I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. 30Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. 31So be on your guard! Remember that for three years I never stopped warning each of you night and day
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
I gotta go my God bless you guys.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
God can raise children without the KJV? wow.
God made Adam with out the KJV?
wow.
God got Saul's (Paul) attention with out the KJV.
how did he do that?
he is GOD!!!!
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Gloriaa~
God didn't have any Bible when he made Adam. Why have any Bible now?
God didn't have any New Testament when Saul was converted, why have one now?
In accordance with Proverbs 26:5, no one in Bible times had chapter and verse markings, why do you have them in your Bible, you hypocrite?
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
would you please try to be kind and Christ like--and explain how I am a hypocrite.
Just be clear I say use the KJV and I say it is the best translation. But to Say things like "God can only save from the KJV" (as some people) do is dangerous.
I have seen him work outside of the KJV and even in the bible He did that very thing.
I know a story of a Muslim that became a believer because of a History book and not the KJV.
how does this make me a hypocrite?
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
Just to be real clear.
I say use the KJV above all other versions.
But God is not limited to the KJV alone (as some people would say).
how does that make me a hypocrite?
God can call a person into Repentence without that person ever once open ing the KJV. But as they grow and study (if they study in English) the KJV should be the mane source of study.
And this makes me a hypocrite?
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
Also To be real clear.
Paul did study Scripture and much of his writings he quotes the Old test,
i.e.--In Romans 3:10-11 Paul is quoting from Psalm 14.,Rom 9 he quotes from Malachi, etc...
But it was not Scripture that converted Paul it was Christ himself that did it. Paul used Scripture to back this up as he wrote his letters.
Why have bible?
Even Jesus quoted his own Scripture.
But he also works outside of it.
It wasn't Scripture that blinded Saul (Paul)
I'm a hypocrite?
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Throughout Church History there have been movements that have attempted to divide the Church. Heresies and cults have popped up.
The Church has withstood all of these movements and it will withstand this one as well.
Docetism, Arianism, Gnosticism, Montanism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, "The Name It Claim It/Prosperity Movement" and Now the "King James Only Movement".
This is like the New "Light" concept with the Jehovah Witnesses.
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
WDOWTIN~
Seriously, you're not a troll? (and a rather lame one at that!)
You state: There have been heresies and cults attacking the church, therefore, KJV Only is a cult.
Your premise (there have been heresies) provides no proof of your conclusion. (KJVO is one of them)
Let me give you an example to show you how wrong you are:
There are men who are perverts who are left handed. WDOWTIN is left handed. Therefore, he must be a pervert.
Greywolf82 2 years ago
Seems to me that many here are making an idol of the KJV. You ignore God in this whole situation. Are you as perfect as the KJV? Yet God can still use you, you worthless piece of trash (tongue in cheek), to bring people to Christ? Get your eyes on God, not on a book! There was no Bible involved when Finney walked into a factory and people ran to him confessing their sins without him speaking a word. It was not a translation that brought this, but the Holy Spirit!
beaded 2 years ago
Excellent words - thanks for shedding some light in this discussion! How on earth did people hear to Word of Truth before the scriptures were canonized, let alone before the KJV came around in 1611?? (tongue in cheek)
finalewiz 2 years ago
beaded~
Citation please? I know of no one who bows down and worships the KJV. I know of no one who prays to the KJV. I know of no one who thinks that the KJV ascended into heaven.
And I do know of scholars who think that 'the originals' (whatever that means!) are sitting in heaven right now.
If you have such examples, do tell!
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
If you were a part of my church I would ask that we meet with the board of elders and have an open discusion about this with mediators; In an attemt to establish Reconciliation for the accusations you have brought against me.
I forgive you for calling me a hypocrite.
If I have somehow said something in a way that came across wrong I would like to clear that up and move foward in the love of Christ.
without name calling.
accusations like that are not taken lightly in my Church
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Idols are not always bowed down to. Idols are anything that takes our eyes off God or replaces His power. You deny the power of God to convert and replace it with the power only in a specific translation. It doesn't matter what translation it is.
beaded 2 years ago
Jesus Christ said, "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God." Sounds fanatical doesn't it? God ordered Joshau to follow a Book (Joshua 1:8). Saul sinned against God AND the words of God (1 Chron. 10:13). Jesus Christ is called the Word of God seven times. What is wrong with "worshipping" a Book that is God's Book? Finney was guided by the Book before he had power of the Spirit. Your "get eyes on God" is pious claptrap. Finney preached from the AV 1611!!!
seekerofconsistency 2 years ago
I had someone condemn the church for speaking in tongues. He was talking preaching from the KJV. The AV 1611 is far more difficult for the average person you are trying to reach. So how does that fit into your idol worship? The AV1611 has changed MANY words. MANY words are extremely poor or limited in meaning from the Greek and Hebrew. So you are also condemning your own version.
beaded 2 years ago
Tongues are for a sign and the Jews require a sign (1 Cor. 1:22; 14:22). Tongues are not for the church today especially it is forbidden for all women. The AV 1611 is not difficult unless someone has a proud heart. Common words like giants (nephilim), south (negev), stuff, engine, teller, letters by post, and many others are KJV only words. Nephilim is the new updated word for giants. Is that more clear? You do not have THE Greek or Hebrew. You are condemning yourself (Titus 3:10-11).
seekerofconsistency 2 years ago
Being fluent in Hebrew and Koine Greek, I have studied and compared over 40 different English translation and have found the KJV to be the ONLY correct translation. Even the so-called "errors" are so small and have no doctrinal effect as makes no difference - and these so-called errors in the KJV don't hold a candle to the astoundingly and astonishingly massive DOCTRINAL errors of the other versions. The KJV has proved itself as autentic. Anyone with eyes can see it. Only the fool can't.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
Probably most Biblical Scholars and Bible College/Seminary Professors would disagree with you. This would even
include some very Liberal Professors from some Liberal Bible Colleges and Seminaries. You are in error.
Also the facts and history are not on your side either.
Peace
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
"Liberal" is the key word. Those are people who do not believe in the Lord and in the infallibility of His Word, and therefore their opinion of the Scriptures is irrelevant. the biblical faith is a personal one, It is not up for debate among non-believers, and any debates they presume to have about someone else's personal faith is irrellavent.We don't answer to them nor is their godless opinions from Satan any consequence to us. They are blind fools leading the blind. And history IS on my side
hmghosthost 2 years ago
If you are in a church that does what this man is talking about, run....................
Search for a church that promotes and believes only King James Bible.
yohandi25 2 years ago
I have parents, who sadly moved away from the KJV, which they grew up memorizing to switch to NIV, ad NKJV. And one thing they tell me is How they used to read the bible out loud together in unison, conformity, and how beautiful it was, not like the chaos and confusion that would go on if a congregation read their bible out loud. Just as Jesus is the ONLY way, i don't think saying KJV is the only Bible (english speakers) would be too far of a stretch
nato3688 2 years ago
Comment removed
nato3688 2 years ago
Honestly, I read English, I speak English, and the King James Bible is the only bible I need, unless we are talking about the greek, hebrew, or latin. Many fundamentalist stick to one side for a reason, just as many stick to the right wing side for a reason. The body of Christ should not been in confusion, and as we know "For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,..."Heb 4:12 Why shouldn't WE be able to ALL read God's powerful word TOGETHER in a congrgtn
nato3688 2 years ago
In Jude verse 25, the NIV says that God gets glory "through Jesus Christ our Lord." The KJV leaves this phrase out. In Acts 16:7 the KJV says, "the Spirit suffered them not." The NIV says, "the Spirit of Jesus would not allow them to." "Of Jesus" is left out of the KJV.
When things are left out of the modern versions, some people claim there was a conspiracy or the translators were biased against the deity of Christ, etc. Why did the KJV leave these words and phrases out?
mtdeadhead 2 years ago
KJV's Jude 1:25: To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.
The KJV TEACHES that Jesus is God our Saviour. It leaves NOTHING out, and translates the Greek.
Whereas the NIV teaches otherwise, the subject of 'glory' rather than Godhood. It ADDs in English a non-existent Greek text.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
There are some issues with the Textus Receptus for which I will post later.
Hint the Book of Revelation will be one of my starting points
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Also a historical background need to be linked or posted to the historical figure Erasmus as well. That will be key and important
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
hopefully, you have the KEY info on historical years from 1500-1510...
and be aware of specific deliberate misrepresentations of his work by others, from 1511 onwards... (are you aware even back then Rome always sought to suppress truths about itself, and those who would reveal Rome's very 'typical' dark character?)
xzotyqa 2 years ago
Be absolutely sure which 'editorialized' translation of the TR you are relying on. Don't assume you have something that has its integrity 'intact'!
xzotyqa 2 years ago
KJV's Acts 16 (in context):
Acts 16:6: Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia,
Acts 16:7: After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
Verse 16's 'Holy Ghost' is what the 'Spirit' in verse 17 was referring. It confirms that after Jesus left the Apostles, He would leave in His place the Holy Ghost to move them according to the Spirit.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
"Of Jesus" is left out because it implies that Spirit to be less than who He is, the Holy Spirit. "Of Jesus" was added. The Holy Ghost was sent after Jesus, the promised Comforter. It was not the Spirit of Jesus, but the Holy Spirit, third person of the triune Godhead. The addition lessen His person.
whisperingsage 2 years ago
The KJV leaves those words out because they were ADDED by the NIV translators - the same ones who REMOVED 1st John 5:7, "there are three that bear record in heaven: the Fathed and the Word and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. the NIV writers are traitorous heretics who have altered over 40,000 words - because they use satanic minority texts.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
If a pastor doesn't know that the new bible translations are corrupt then why would you trust such a pastor to be your spiritual leader? If you know that the bibles are jacked up but you pastor doesn't is he really called by God? Why would he know, you found out?
joi1900 2 years ago 2
HEY! the other bible versions are great translations...
of the corrupted text.
i use the KJV.
dustydirt 2 years ago 2
The only translation of God's written word is by the author, through the Holy Spirit. Anyone who is a believer reading any translation should always depend on the HS for revelation. That is how God speaks to His people through all of the diverse written translations in all languages.
registeredguest 2 years ago
My former pastor used to do prison ministry, but was required to use the Mormon translation. Even it could bring people to the true Jesus Christ! I have found errors in the King James translation. Check out 1 john 5:13. The Greek does NOT have "unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God." It also ignores what IS in the Greek tense later on, that you *continue* to believe. Many times other translations do a better job of translation than the KJV. I choose the one that is most accurate.
beaded 2 years ago
You can't get somebody saved with a trash perversion bible, you need a King James Bible, the only Bible written by God Himself and 100% complete with zero errors, contradictions, or omissions.
You can read a "bible" with two open queers on the translation committee like the NIV, I'll throw the perversions in the garbage where they belong and read the KJB.
Proverbs1x26refurbed 2 years ago 2
@Proverbs1x26refurbed
I know a wonderful story of a Muslim that came to America for School and he became a believer in christ because of a history book.
however did God manage that?
Luk 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.
Mat 3:9 And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
This is so stupid! I guess those who used the Latin Vulgate before there ever was a King James Bible will say "Latin Vulgate Only" This is a joke. You guys are not even using the Authorized King James Version 1611 which included the Apocrypha. So which King James only Bible is it? Also are you trying to tell us that for the first 1600 years the Church was Apostate (you sound like a Jehovah Witnesss). (Part 1)
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Also during the times of Jesus and Paul the Septuagint was in use by the Jews. So were those Jews and early Christians in error.? I don't believe Jesus quoted from the English King James. Ever heard of Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew? This is such a silly argument which divides the Church and gives our enemies a lot of ammo. Also the manuscripts which are used by some of the more modern translations (NIV/NASB,etc) are earlier manuscripts then what was used by the King James. (Part 2)
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
These manuscripts were not available at the time to the translators. I like the King James Bible just like I like ECV, Net, NASB, and NIV. Yet the King James Bible (AV 1611, King James, and the New King James Bible) are just translations just like NASB. I guess the "King James" Only people are "Apostates" as well since they are not using the "1611 Version, or the earlier Latin Vulgate or the Septuagint from the times before Jesus. (Part 3)
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
You really have to do some homework, you seem to be only aware of the 'manuscripts' referred to by those trying to supplant the AV1611. Look to the 'Received Text' (or 'TR' Textus Receptus)(NT)... but do we have to tell you to watch out which modern textbooks have tampered with the TR translations into English, and which haven't? You know the differences out there, do you? You know the differences are deliberately misleading, a byproduct of self-serving 'modern scholarship'...
xzotyqa 2 years ago
@xzotyqa The New King James version is also written from the Textus Receptus. Why isn't this Bible touted as or used by King James Only people? The truth is, your loyalties seem to lie with the King James Version itself and not necessarily the Textus Receptus and its inspiration regarding Erasmus. Was James, whose name is emblazoned on the 1611 Bible gay?
denyvrob 2 years ago
Erasmus' Greek TR was a major influence, and referenced, but the AV1611 translators had much more available to them, to support/compare with his readings, as well as doing the OT translation as well. Today we have both OT & NT, not just the NT by itself.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
The question still stands?
Which King James (they are different in a lot of ways you know) is the "Inerrant" Word of God"
1) The 1611 Version
2) The many different Updates/Revisions
3) New King James
I am only asking this because of the arguments made by the "King James" Only Camp
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Answer:
1) The 1611 Version (there is only ONE VERSION)
2) Many printings of MANY EDITIONS (Editions include font changes, spelling changes, printer errors; the odd inconsequential word affecting grammer variant (just two)).
That is, 1) & 2) both still refer to the AV1611 Version. We simply use the last 'Edition'; and there are many printings of that. Sadly, editions can be both good & deliberately bad.
3) NKJV is a pretender; looks on the surface the same, but deeper is very non-AV1611.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
Yet almost ALL of the King James Only people that I have run across (Most are every nice people and Christians) do not use or have the 1611 version. That is want I do not understand.
We are Christians we should be standing and fighting together not having these crazy arguments.
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
I normally deal with Jehovah Witnesses and Atheist and Muslims yet this issue is a issue which is dividing the family. I personally believe the evidence, history and the texts themselves really make this argument crazy yet there is something sinister being applied to those who do not "Only" use the King James Bible -- Almost like the Jehovah Witnesses and Muslims calling us Apostates
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
it is okay to believe all of the educational texts IF you have them.
it appears you are drawing from the 'status quo' that is taught out there. be wary, it is there for a reason MORE than 'being touted as right'. it's integrity is dubious... finding out that the truth of their lack of integrity is mind boggling.
we can only remain divided, if u refuse to look deeper. when you do, and find out what u learned from the established 'schools' of today being in error, then divided no more are we!
xzotyqa 2 years ago
the most important thing is we are able to have civilized conversations about this topic, even if coming from different perspective, even as Christians, means we are not as divided as others would portray us.
many others are just as divided (JW, Atheists, Muslims), so being divided is just a human thing, a thing of starting out a 'babe', then progressively learning new things, and 'knowing' more things. that's how we all appear diverse in our personal stances on our beliefs. that's normal.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
as for Jehovah's Witnesses...
they have a strange predicament
they used 2 carry & preach from KJV?/AV1611? but by the early 1950's... their 'New World Translation' bible was used
ironically, the NWTB, is based on same corrupt texts underly majority of 'modern' bibles.
2 Jesuits are found in the preface of 1st edition NWT(full bible; not NT) essentially giving approval. this is like an 'Imprimatur' for a JW Church bible, which normally are only done for RC bibles!!! odd don't u think?
xzotyqa 2 years ago
so how do you KNOW the people you run across are 'King James Only' people if they do NOT have a current edition of the AV1611???
if u judge by how they 'preach' (their rhetoric quoting the AV1611)... it is because they in fact are the more common Christians who were brought up on preaching by OTHERs who used the AV1611. this does not make the 'King James Only'. many Christians brought up like this are unaware of the underlying significance of this hidden textual battle
so they buy 'any' bible
xzotyqa 2 years ago
and when those unaware of the key critical textual differences that vastly impact the theology of their own beliefs... come to a maturity... ready to witness to others, using their 'any' bible, they are caught unprepared, searching for what they learned earlier, but NOT finding it the newer 'any' bibles they now hold in their hands...
and then their own witness collapses, in front of those who they are hoping to minister to...
xzotyqa 2 years ago 2
WDOWTIN (assuming you are serious)
This is because AV people in general see this as a conviction. To us, it is as important as the deity of Christ or the Trinity.
Imagine if someone tried to convince you that Jesus was not God. How would you react?
I (along with many other AVers) was saved being told that I had God's inerrant, infallible word in my lap. Do you think that I would give that up easily?
Greywolf82 2 years ago
King James Gay?
if you mean, by 'gay', homosexual?
i doubt it.
if he was 'touchy feely' and very affectionate, history does not hide that characteristic of his.
Today, 'non-gay' men may 'hug' or 'pat' each other, is that 'homosexual'??? No. So, perhaps if one kisses another of the same gender, is that 'homosexual'? I doubt it.
realize today's strange unnatural 'split' of manhood, extreme (last 50 years at least) "don't touch me, i'm not a 'homo'" is a 'norm' now? sad, hey, don't kiss me dad!!!
xzotyqa 2 years ago
Brief Textus Receptus Info
THE TEXTUS RECEPTUS
A Dutch Roman Catholic Priest and Greek scholar named Desiderius Erasmus published his first Greek New Testament in 1516. Erasmus put this text together quickly and haphazardly, and numerous revisions followed. From a preface to one of the revisions we get the name Textus Receptus. (Part 1)
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Brief Textus Receptus Info... these are NOT YOUR words... but from a critic IN ERROR... you must DIG DEEPER... this critic's error was found out...
i realize your search is in earnest and sincere, but when you find out the truth... you will be enraged at the deeper battle to distort and suppress the truth from being allowed to be revealed to the masses
you MUST dig deeper...
don't presume standard textbooks of Universities of today will suffice, success of their presence keeps you in the dark
xzotyqa 2 years ago
You are so amazingly arrogantly ignorant, not having the slightest bit of descernment or circumspection, that it isn't even worth wasting my breath on you. The Bible calls people like you a fool, and I don't consort with fools. Those who fight against the Word of God are obviously the children of Satan.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
The TR was collated from a relatively small collection (about five or six texts) of Byzantine-era Greek texts dating back to about the twelfth to fourteenth century AD. In his haste to beat the competition to press, Erasmus made the mistake of including some margin notes from the Byzantine texts into the verses of the TR. It is largely from the TR that the New Testament of the KJV was translated (Part 2)
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
Your source, is in ERROR.
Actually your source deliberately lied about the details. So, what can we do but to dig deeper.
You are barely scratching the surface of this conflict of the battle of the texts.
I leave it to you to find out for yourself.
If I say so, it simply isn't good enough.
We all have to find out the dirty secret of this entire field of biblical textual criticism... the hard way. There is absolutely no room on a forum to flesh out vast details, which'd need books to cover.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
You have no idea what you are talking about. Make war against the Word of God and He will make war with you. And you will not win.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
actually... the NKJV... mimics the English of AV1611 (thus supposedly the TR), but underlying it is closer to Alexandrian in thought, there are plenty of deviations and afinities opposite to the TR...
xzotyqa 2 years ago
The question still stands?
Which King James (they are different in a lot of ways you know) is the "Inerrant" Word of God"
1) The 1611 Version
2) The many different Updates/Revisions
3) New King James
I am only asking this because of the arguments made by the "King James" Only Camp
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
There has never been a revision of the KJV. EVER EVER EVER. The Apocrypha was removed during the lives of the translators we did NOT include it - and the "revisions" were not revisons but modernizations of existing words which did not effect doctrine - unlike the NIV and the other blasphemous versions.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
Ah... that anachonistically dubious and so called 'Septuagint', supposedly used by the Jews... really now? You never question the 'scholars' that push the 'Septuagint' do you?
xzotyqa 2 years ago
The Authorized KJV1611, first edition, first printing did NOT contain the apocrypha, not the majority of printings for the first edition. However, the apocrypha was found CAUGHT in ONE early printing, and the run was stopped very short. Do YOU know which printing it was? No, of course not, otherwise, you'd know it is a LIE to say the ENTIRE 1611 VERSION had it. Fact is, for the earliest year of 1611, there were MANY printings, and SEVERAL 'EDITIONS' even up to 1769 (zero 'REVISIONS' mind you)
xzotyqa 2 years ago
Question to all the "King [Which Version] James Only People"?
Which version or translation and in which language for the FIRST 1600 YEARS OF THE CHURCH OF CHRIST was being used by the those early faithful PRE-KING JAMES/ENLISH CHRISTIANS WORLDWIDE?
WDOWTIN 2 years ago
King [Which Version] James Only People?
now i KNOW you aren't talking to me!!!
you presume too much!
keep in mind, the vast majority of Christians for most of pre-1600 barely ever saw but a few scraps or bits of paper with scripture captured on them, greek, hebrew, latin, or otherwise.
significance of AV1611 is the consolidation of the entirety of scripture for the masses, utilizing multiple supporting sources, from then onwards. (rather than in isolation and minimal secondary sources)
xzotyqa 2 years ago
@xzotyqa
"A house divided against itself cannot stand." That is in all the true bibles.
denyvrob 2 years ago
Well, it kind of depends on what language they spoke. The Textus Receptus was used as the underlying text for hundreds of different languages, including the Syriac, (150AD), the Italic (157AD), and many, many more, including many native American languages. But they were all from the TR manuscripts. The various new versions are primarily from the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus, the two manuscripts under the revised Greek NT by Westcott and Hort. Both Latin.
whisperingsage 2 years ago
you know both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are least reliable, and considered 2 of many dubious and possible forgeries (Alexandrian philosophically; which Rome has high affinity to). today's christians know that these two differ vastly from Christianity's TR.
xzotyqa 2 years ago
You and Satan have one big thing in common: you both say, "yea, hath God said...?" Even if the KJV wasn't a perfect translation, it's excellent translation is so superior to the NIV, etc, as to make the others WORTHLESS as translations. In fact, they are not translations, they are someone else's interpretation of what they think God meant based on their own biased and satanic views.
hmghosthost 2 years ago
Which Latin Vulgate, the one used by Christians, or the one(s) contrived by Rome? Do you know which one you are referring to?
xzotyqa 2 years ago
There is no such thing as a "Mormon" translation. They use KJV.
qhlth 2 years ago
... they might SELL KJV... or some facsimile of it... AV1611?... BUT, they read from the BOOK OF MORMON as central to their beliefs.
don't get fooled by 'bible peddlers'...
even Atheists sell bibles, even AV1611!!!
and true Christians can use the KJV/AV1611 to witness to them...
xzotyqa 2 years ago
Oops, you are correct. I checked my office copy and it is the Jehovah Witness New World Translation.
There is one thing everybody seems to forget. Paul planted, Apollos watered, but it was God who gave the increase. The whole argument here is man based, not God based. We need to do our best and then let the Holy Spirit do the conversion. Which translation was preached from when Finney walked into a factory and without speaking had the factory stop with people falling under extreme conviction?
beaded 2 years ago
Actually, grabbing multiple Bibles is a good idea. We don't always have a perfect translation. Some are highly literal, some are highly readable, some are more classic language, but less literal--none is perfect. You're creating a false dichotomy. This won't produce confusion--people are not incapable of understanding that there are various translations, none perfect. This isn't new information.
God Bless. Jonathan
kc7fys 2 years ago
@kc7fys: You're right, grabbing multiple Bibles is a GREAT idea. The perfect, God-breathed King James Bible I'll read, study, memorize, and get my doctrine from. The other twisted satanic perversions are great if I run out of fire starter or toilet paper.
Proverbs1x26refurbed 2 years ago 2
God bless you brother Daniels!!! Right on target. Pastors: The apostate "Christianity" is going to be judged by The Lord for abandoning the King James Bible and promoting the blasphemous "Bibles" like NIV, NASB, The Message, Good News Bibles and all the others based on False Greek and Hebrew texts, unbelievers translators, false theology of the Gnostics and false and devilish translation technique of "dynamic equivalence". Brethren: go back to the old KJB, live it and pprech it! Amen!
zagi2007 2 years ago 2
I use the KJV and always have but I also compare to Geneva, ESV, and Greek text. To better see the whole truth of God's word.
I agree that some versions are in question and should not be held as a good source.
Not to mention--- When I preach in Brazil I do not use any of the above versions because English means very little to the common man in Brazil.
KJV is by far the best source of study in the English but not the only source.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
There is so much more here that I could share but the space is limited.
basicly the" KJV only" people take part in thanksgiving every year not knowing that The Geneva Bible was the bible present in Plymouth not the KJV.
and
Under King James Reign people were put to death for using the Geneva bible as he pushed his version to be the only version by his Law.
The "church" needs to be educated on these events. and why the KJV became the domanting version.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
@TheGloriaaDeus fyi- when you post too many comments really quickly they get marked as spam and people can't see them.
buriedeternally 2 years ago
I have grown up in KJV only churches, I have heard 100's of KJV only pastors and I don't know anyone who believes what you claim "KJV only" people believe.
I also don't know of any KJV only people who believe that King James was a saint.
I'm not saying that those people don't exist, I am saying that you are pushing a 'straw man' argument.
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
You have missed the point.
I also was raised as a believer in KJV only churches.
Then I learned Portuguese and Spanish and I have been in different cultures around the world from Afghanistan Panama, Brazil, Mexico etc.... and I have come to learn many things about language and culture.
KJV "The King's English" means nothing to someone that doesn't know english.
and it sometimes doesn't translate correct into a cultural understanding.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Your post mentions the pilgrims not using the KJV and that King James had people killed. Then you said people needed to be taught that.
If that isn't your point, then what is? I whole heartedly support you speaking to people in their own language. I never suggested otherwise.
And because I don't reach the same conclusions doesn't mean that I don't know history. (Christian or otherwise)
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
The point is that I have seen in America by "KJV only" people that say things like "God cannot save outside of the KJV."
When he does save outside the KJV-- all the time.
He can raise himself Children from Stones if he chooses.
I know a story of a Muslim that came to know Christ because of a history book.
My point is not against the KJV.
I am for the KJV and always compare what I read to it.
But "KJV only" is a stretch.
continue...
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
maybe when Chick (I like his tracks)
makes Tracks in other languages he should stop using the verses he uses because they are not from the KJV.
Don't misunderstand me-
I will never stop using my KJV but I also will not stop using my ESV, Geneva, Greek Text, and Portuguese bibles.
I do not like other English translations and will not use them.
if you would like to learn a little about your Christian history.
Look up a man named Dr. Marshal Foster he is a wonderful historian
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
What is the difference between the KJV and the outlawed Geneva Bible?
they are 90% the same. Most of the difference is the wording. "The King's English" v/s" the Old English"
Geneva-Gen 3:7 Then the eyes of them both were opened, and they knewe that they were naked, and they sewed figge tree leaues together, and made them selues breeches.
KJV-Gen 3:7 And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
That is not the 1611 KJV, but the modernized version. The original was much more like the Geneva. Very little changed in the 1611 KJV.
beaded 2 years ago
Most people that adhere to the KJV only; do not know the history of how the Geneva Bible was more known and accepted by the people.
Then James had the KJV compiled and under his reign a law was made to outlaw all other bibles accept the KJV.
As his loyal subjects tried to kill and wipe out the Reformes that used the Geneva Bible.
to escape this a group of believer got on a ship called the Mayflower and the first Bible in America was the Geneva Bible.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
Look, I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Why does any of that matter? I can trace my family roots back to the Mayflower and I believe in the AV 1611. I don't care what Bible, if any, that they used.
King James killed people. So what? Paul killed Christians and he wrote half of the New Testament.
If you want me, or anyone else for that matter, to care about your history lessons, you will have to show why it matters. And so far, you haven't. Sorry.
Greywolf82 2 years ago
@Greywolf82
for me when I read in the ESV I like the language. Then I go look in the KJV to compare and see if it is correct. then I go to the Greek to compare and better understand the text.
Then I go to The Geneva to see into the Reformes of that time and the English they used to see into their culture and language----- and I learn.
I also look at the Portuguese and I find things that make no sence if read in KJV because of the Culture differences.
And I learn about Culture.
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
I tried to read through the Bible in a year in different translations, but I got tired or the Holy Spirit constantly asking me "Does My Word say that?" After checking against the Greek/Hebrew I would always find it was wrong. I now stick to the KJV and NKJ, but still find other translations more accurate in some passages.
You can go ahead and rely on human reasoning. I will go with the Holy Spirit any day.
beaded 2 years ago
@beaded
I understand completely.
I do not read out of NIV,NWT, etc.....I do not support those bibles at all.
I spend most of my time in the KJV.
But I also like how the ESV oftn words things in a language i actuall use evreryday.
I sat with these two Bibles almost always.
ESV and KJV. I happen to like the ESV over The NKJV.
Do I push this on other people? no.
When they ask i tell them. Do I tell them to not read the NIV? NO.
With Love, I say let me look in my bible and compare
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago
@beaded
I think was just hitting keys random in that last post (lol) sorry.
anyway.
I do have to admit that I have used the NWT.
because I get JWs every month or so.
I have learned how to use their bible to show --with all there attempts to wipe out the deity of Christ they still missed a few things.
It often puzzles them
one of my favorite is ; they couldn't get rid of all the "I am" in the NT. So they changed it in Exodus. they would tell a Jew he translated his own language wrong lol
TheGloriaaDeus 2 years ago