KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

Bumping Thread.

Spend time to show him you care!
Thank you

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=3u8xW9LXHMOg0wLr1Yy4Bg&q=Praise&oq=Praise&gs_l=psy-ab.3...0.0.0.14.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0....0...1c..64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.CktLkRIblzE

Bumping Thread.

Bumping thread.

Bumping Thread.

7 hours ago, simplejeff said:

unbelief. But not trivia , no -  permanent sinful separation from the GIVER OF LIFE !  after HE DIED CRUCIFIED AND RAISED to save as many as will come to HIM !

Everyone is judged for their own sin - they can't blame anyone else ......  the penalty for sin is death.

WOE though to anyone who causes one of the little ones to stumble, or does anything to keep the little ones /anyone/  from finding the Kingdom of Heaven !  It would be better for them if they had never been born !

 

There are sinful acts that can completely separate you from the father.

- 1 John 3:15 (KJV)

Reasons why I could personally never chose to be Catholic:
Baptist prospective

1st of all, comparing spiritual things with spiritual, I feel that as old as the Roman Catholic Church is; it still has not worked out it's kinks.
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV Bible)

I feel like if I'm going to partake congregationally to worship, it is a absolute must that i am 100% comfortable with the Church and its Doctrines, all elements combined.
- Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV Bible)

It is well known most Baptist have issues with Catholicism because of the Catholic claim of: transubstantiation. Within the ritual of a catholic mass, the pope holds a piece of bread, turns his back, and while his back is turned. Proclaims that it "literally" turns into the physical flesh of Christ.

3rdly, Christ is the head of the Church, There is absolutely no need for a Pope. It is opposite of scriptural and from what Iv heard, Pagan derived.
- 1 Corinthians 11:3 (KJV Bible)

God Bless you,
I have large hopes that you find a profitable King James Version Only proud and preaching Church near you & find the Bible way to Heaven.

18 minutes ago, Yowm said:

The KJV was a ‘modern’ version back in the 1600’s, so how did the poor Church survive before the 1600’s without the King James being stuck with ‘inferior’ versions? 

Being unhappy Catholics

.............................................................................................
 

18 hours ago, Jayne said:

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

• 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contradiction - a context and meaning error.

• Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
• Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Old English writing had U to V vice versa,

I don't recall it having u to w vice versa, 

do you?

22 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God.

I would personally compare this to

Acts 5:34-42 (KJV)

something I find in the KJV vs Modern English Translations

- KJV argument is always only strengthened while newer translations feel they are stuck defending their perversion of choice.
(not a sign from God alone? Then let it take from your spirit, leaving you unhappy)

- Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authority confirmation.

- Because Satan is so ever working as much as God Himself, 1 Peter 5:8 (KJV), The newer translations as a group attack the King James; usually differing doctrinally.


Please have a Blissful awakening.

6 hours ago, ScottA said:

If didn't open any links, but yes, I read all that you posted.

I too prefer the KJV or the NKJV, but my comment is based on the fact that God's word is under His own providence alone, and not subject to the folly of men. Regardless...it "shall not return unto Him void."

Matt. 20:20 & Acts 12:4, show different scripture in these two different translations.

Something to be aware of & think about.

26 minutes ago, ScottA said:

None of that matters.

Did you read all of it?

Did you read everything?

49 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

• 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contraction - a context and meaning error.

• Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
• Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Regardless of all, I use the 1769 modern day slandered text not both.

I Believe that is truly the most preserved word of God, they might have had very small issues with the AV, 

I am a King James only believer.

............................................................

This is a Bible Translation its self with a foundation that I promise will never fade and doesn't quit. Endorsed by the Father.

35 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

• 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contraction - a context and meaning error.

• Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
• Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Regardless of all, I use the 1769 modern day slandered text not both.

I Believe that is truly the most preserved word of God, they might have had very small issues with the AV, 

I am a King James only believer.

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

That is a truly sad statement, I feel like the King James Version Bible is a flawless and 100% whole and perfect translation of God. By God's Decision, Shown in proof by God's work and will , in efforts for it to be chosen to lead the English speaking people to God's absolutely pure and perfect word.

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Just to be clear here, the Geneva Bible in the English  51 years before the King James Version was the preferred version of the reformers. That fact is, that part of the reason for the commisioning of a new version to be made in English, was because the Geneva Bible seemed to be so popular, that it was a threat to the claim of the Church of England to have unique authority. The reformers viewed the Church of England, as being too 'Catholic', with the King as it's head, sort of being the new pope. 

The Reformers believed that there was no special class of people, like kings and popes, who could claim to speak for the church and it's head, Jesus. The criticisms of the notes, in the Geneva Bible was a large part of why the new version (the KJV) was commissioned by James Stuart to be a new Bible for use in the churches.

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God. It is also of note, that the so called King James Version, was not the first 'authorized' version, but the third authorized version. The Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, were the previous authorized versions. Authorized here, just means officially athorized for use in the Church of England.

However, where this thread is located (as I type this) is the welcome area of the forums, where the purpose is to introduce yourself to our community, and to be welcomed in to it. Therefore, I will be moving this to a different area of the forums, probably to the General Section.

However, if you want to continue this topic, it would be better to do so, in an existing thread on the topic of Bible versions. I am curious though, about why you though it important to introduce Hebrews 4:12 into your 'sermon'.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 12:  6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

or as they were written in 1611:

For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. 

My curiosity is due to the fact that "our times" there, were some 1546 years before the King James version, and Psa 12 some 2600 years before the KJV, so what exactly was your point there?

Anyway, welcome to Worthy!