Is the King James Bible the only Bible?

***CORRECTION*** One mistake I made in the video was that the Texus Receptus (TR) was out during the making of the King James Version (KJV). It was not called the TR though at the time. It was later named the TR after the creation of the KJV.

Mizz Bot becomes a King James Only'ist. She is confronted by a friend named Timer. He helps direct her back onto the right path.

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• xtranormal
• KJV
• KJVO
• King James Version Only
• King James Version
• KJVO'ism
• King James Only'ism
• Ruckman
• Hyles
• Schaap
• Hyles-Anderson College
• HAC
• IFB
• KJB
• King James Bible
• Bible
• Bible Hisotry
• Geneva Bible
• NIV
• NKJV
• New King James Version
• Tyndale

[TheKJVberean]

@Just0A0Though But the debate isn't about the bibles before the KJV, thats a typical arguement that new version defenders go to when they don't have anything to say to the facts that cant be refuted. New versions (NIV, ESV, NKJV, RSV, NASB, et al) are whats being used today by the majority of the church world, hence the apostasy. No one can refute the facts without lying to themselves.

[Just0A0Though]

@TheKJVberean I highly doubt that they are "lying to themselves." I have seen both sides of the argument. I was raised King James Only (KJVO) most of my and I have studied the non-KJVO side too. I tend to agree with the non-KJVO side and I certainly am not lying to myself. I have no need nor desire to make stuff up. It would not denefit me in the least. Actually being non-KJVO makes my life more difficult since my family still is KJVO. Either way, you certainly have a right to your opinion.

[TheKJVberean]

@Just0A0Though Before the KJV the bibles werent 100% true to the original and also had misleading marginal notes and the fact that their werent 47 translators part of the translation of the others therefore making it easier to have bias. Just do your homework. Modern bibles are a big reason of why the church is soo apostate today. When modern bibles remove the blood and diety of Christ and have Christ falling from grace and not Lucifer then you have no ground to stand. Foolish, shameful.

[Just0A0Though]

@TheKJVberean True to the originals? Have you ever read the originals? There originals don't even exist and didn't when the KJV was written. Also, the documents that the KJV translators used did not all agree. If you look at a original AV1611 (KJV) it has other interpretations in the notes since the translators were unsure what the correct translation was.

Also, the Geneva Bible has many people help translate it and it is believe it is more accurate than the KJV. The KJV had rules...

[Just0A0Though]

...it had to floow due to the king. Do you want a Bible that had to follow rules by the government as to how to tranlsate it? Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the KJV. It is supposed to be a good translation. I cannot read the originals so I have no idea how accurate it truly is.

All translations are fine provided they try to hold true to the best of their ability.

[TheKJVberean]

The King James Bible came from the textus receptus and masetoric hebrew text, the modern bibles came from the alexandrian manuscripts/westcott and hort. KJV stands the true Word of God for the english and all others corrupt. The end.

[Just0A0Though]

@TheKJVberean Simple as that huh? Somehow I am wondering if you even watched the video. Can you please explain to me why all the other English versions that came BEFORE the KJV were not the inspired Word of God, but the KJV was?

[markshrey2000]

@MandoMohan My goal is not to mock a person with 2 failed marriages, but instead point out that she is not a super Christian as KJVOs make her out to be. They would call other woman like her whores while she is something amazing. She is no "Hero of the Faith."

Anyway, you still have not given any support. I have plenty of proof in my video. All you have shown is that you can name-call and use "Oakley" in random places which I have no idea what it means.

Throw some proof my way...

[MandoMohan]

You disgusting creature. Oakley...."form a women like Riplinger, whose been divorced twice" OOOOoooh. What about the testimony of a murdering, adulterer like David? What's your slimy word worth you little bundle of perfection? You snake in the grass.

[MandoMohan]

@markshrey2000 1 The KJV is public domain 2 Other versions never banned by the King. The public had no access to a bible of any type. 3 As the reign of Elizabeth closed (1558-1603) there was a draft for an act of Parliament for a new version of the Bible in the common tongue of the people.

An honest reading of the relevant material would not have you lie without end.

The KJV has brought the word of God to the world long before Murdoch and others started to cash in. You'll account for your lies.

[markshrey2000]

@MandoMohan Well, there are no lies in this video. The one mistake I did make it posted in the video description. I am no expert, but I did over 2 year of research on this. You can call me a liar, but I know I am telling the truth. If all you can do is name-call then you need to re-think your argument. There is nothing wrong with a nice, clean debate, but name calling is no needed. Also, bring support to back up your side of the debate.

[markshrey2000]

@MandoMohan Hmmm...did I say I was a Calvinist?

[MandoMohan]

No Christian making any points here. It's all Satan's work in this video, through and through. Full of the lying Oakley crap.

[MandoMohan]

This is a lying piece of work. Typical Calvinists.

[extacy336]

@Just0A0Though Well we'll all know when we're dead now won't we? so, in the event you are wrong, what do you plan to tell God when you are judged?? Just a thought.

[TheKJVberean]

@warblerab Ok, and why rely on manuscripts that do such a thing? You say "appear in early manuscripts." Which manuscripts are those of which you speak? And no, I never said their totally removed, but they are removed in places therefore making contradictions in the Bible. Bible will never contradict itself. Jesus Christ died for us, and its by His blood that our sins are washed away, so with that, why defend a "bible" that removes important words and verses like that?

[warblerab]

@TheKJVberean . . . Only a few verses, which don't appear in early manuscripts have been removed. It doesn't mean that Christ's deity, virgin birth, and the blood have been totally removed from the Bible.