adimus

BUTERO: You posted a lot of material that is supposed to prove the KJV Bible is not perfect, but in one of your posts, it makes a blatantly false claim. It states that the 1611 KJV Bible says in Matthew 26:36, "Then cometh Judas," when it is supposed to say, "then cometh Jesus." I happen to have a 1611 reprint in front of me right now. As I stated earlier, it is my Bible of choice, and here is what it says:

Matthew XXVI:36 Then commeth Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the Disciples, Sit yee heere, while I goe and pray yonder."

This outright lie calls into question everything else the author posted. I suppose he assumes that most of his readers don't have a 1611 edition to compare what he said to, and that they will simply accept his lie?

ADIMUS Not so. Your 1611 no doubt does say "Jesus." The problem is that your copy is one of many variations that have been printed as "Authorized KJV 1611" Bibles. The KJVs have been "corrected"numerous times in the last 400 years. Originally, there were 4 different KJVs printed. They had around 35,000 marginal commentary notes and alternate renderings options. That "Judas" was originally there and has since been corrected in one of the various updated reprints of the KJV. The "Judas" error is a typical example of a human copyist's mistake. Judas and Jesus both start with J. Both are two sylables. Both end with S. This kind of error is a symptom of a human's mind identifying a familiar pattern and then missing a specific detail.

I would not say that the "Judas" claim is a lie at all.

BUTERO You don't get it. The Bible I am using is a re-print of the original 1611 King James Bible. It is not one of the many newer "Authorized" versions that were printed since. The 1611 King James Bible did not have the mistake in it the author of your article claims it had, so that calls into question everything else he says. You would not call that a lie at all? Fine, but I do call it a lie!

The problem with your arguments are they are based on the opinions of Bible historians. There have always been and always will be historical revisionists. Look at what has happened to our American history books over the years. I finally found a history book I have confidence in called, "A Patriots Guide to American History," but I had to search for that. The information in that will look quite a bit differen't from public school text books of today with a differen't agenda.

ARTIMUS If you refuse to hear out any Bible scholars that say anything that you don't agree with, than you will not listen to anyone. No one agrees on everything. True, there are historical revisionists. But I find it very difficult to believe that you actually have read any books that defend the notion that the KJV is not perfect and that modern translations are working with better evidence and many pieces of older maniscript evidence and more diverse amount of linguistic information than the KJV translators had available at the time. Without researching this, just imagine that there has been absolutely no helpful information about the origianl texts of the Bible discovered in the last 400 years of archeology and intense research. Imagine that ALL of the researchers, historians and language experts (like the president of my Bible school, Dr. Michael L Brown) ALL were purposefully trying to corrupt the Bible. Come on.

BUTERO I don't accept what the "Bible scholars" say, so maybe you will realize the futility involved in trying to convert me? I never stated that I believed everyone is intentionally trying to pervert the Bible. I don't think you are when you promote these new corrupt Bibles, but I do believe that is the end result.

As far as new discoveries go, what does that prove? So someone finds additional copies of manuscripts in caves, and manuscript A leaves out this verse and manuscript B leaves it in, and then some Bible scholar prefers manuscript A and decides it is more reliable than B? This is nothing more than one man giving his opinion. It means absolutely nothing.

There were probably lots of copies or partial copies of the original text spread around all over the place. Just because someone finds copies of the text that leave out the verses that follow Mark 16:8, doesn't mean they didn't belong because certain Bible scholars think that manuscript is more reliable than the Textus receptus. It is all a bunch of nonsense. It is an attempt by Satan to spread doubt as to the reliability of God's Word. After all, who is to say that in a few more years, new discoveries of more manuscripts won't be found that leave out John 3:16? Then we will have new translations that leave it out, or give us the standard warning that "the most reliable manuscripts do not include John 3:16." I am not buying into what you are selling.

ARTIMUS: Remember what Jesus said. " Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town," Matthew 23:34.

And what about these people? "11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," Eph 4:11-13.

Exactlly who are these "teachers" and "scribes" and wise men have Jesus has sent us as promised, only the KJV only ones? The church has certainly not yet achieved "the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." And the KJV only movement is living proof if the church's immaturity and division.

BUTERO I don't know who these wise men are God is sending. Perhaps I am one of them and you are rejecting me? I am not saying that is the case, but how would you know?

I want to thank my friend Cobalt for his defense. I know we don't agree on this issue, but as I stated earlier, I don't think that dissagreeing over this matter means one of us is saved and the other is lost.

ARTIMUS I also said the same thing. Here is is again "I even qualified my words by stating "I am not saying that KJV only folks are not saved or going to hell. I am saying that this teaching is not of God but is of the devil. You can believe some demonic teachings and yet still believe in Jesus and be saved."

BUTERO And I believe your teaching is of the devil, so where do we go from here? It appears we are at a stale mate.

He has his reasons for his beliefs and I have mine, and I can accept that. Even so, when this subject comes up, I feel like I have an obligation to God to defend his Word to the best of my ability, and others can decide for themselves if my arguments are valid.

I will tell you specifically the reasons why I hold to the KJV Bible only.

1. Everyone who holds to the idea all translations are basically equal are admitting they believe there are errors in all translations, meaning you can't fully believe any of them 100 percent. You might accept them as 95 percent accurate, but not 100 percent accurate. This opens the door for people to defend doing things contrary to scripture.

ARTIMUS[/b ]True. Does this actually happen very often? If am man wants an exuse he will either find one or invent one no matter what the truth is. This is a strawman argument. Your argument does not prove that the KJV is in any way superior to any other possible translation that can be made.

If you accept the Bible to be 95% accurate (never met anyone like that), than that is enough right there to condemn you as a sinner who needs Jesus to save you.

BUTERO Many of the defenders of modern English translations here at WB have claimed the Bible to be 95 or so percent accurate, and I don't believe that is enough to condemn them as a sinner! I haven't addressed it yet, but I just got through reading one where a person said the word Easter doesn't belong in the Bible. I don't agree with that opinion, but that is one example where you move down from 100 percent. Then there are the questions over the verses after Mark 16:8. That lowers the percentage more. Then there is the example over the word fasting some don't believe belongs after the word prayer, and the pecentage goes down yet again. If you don't believe there is a perfectly preserved English translation of the Bible, then to you, no translation is 100 percent accurate. That is just common sense, because they all differ to some degree or another.

And straw man argument or not, my argument is perfectly valid.

ARTIMUS The disputed words that the modern translations either disagree about, or place footnotes of alternate readings, are all perfectly legitimate ones. Remember, the original 4 1611 KJVs had 35,000 footnotes and alternate renderings listed for the reader to examine themself. 35,000 footnotes and alternate renderings makes the Bible look a lot less reliable than any of the modern translations' which have far fewer such notes. More information that is available today which eliminates many of the translation mysteries that the 1611 had to try to tackle in its 35,000 footnotes. And the disputed words in modern translations are not words that have doctrines resting upon them. They are easily understandable copyist's mistakes like "our joy will be full" as opposed to "your joy will be full."

BUTERO I have no problems with the footnotes that don't leave verses out or call their validity into question. My problem is with the footnotes that bring doubt into the mind of the reader that whole passages don't necessarily belong. You do not find that in the 1611 King James Bible. Are there footnotes? Yes, but I have complete confidence that what is in the text is what belongs. I have no such confidence in the NIV for instance, which has removed verses. In addition, they are not all minor things. Leaving out the words, "without a cause" after angry for instance, would leave the reader thinking Jesus sinned when he cast out the money changers. I am not biting that hook either.

2. New translations often leave out important things from the text. I mentioned two earlier. These are not minor things. In one place, fasting is left out, and in another the words "without a cause" is left out. Then there is the matter of discrediting every verse after verse 8 in the last chapter of Mark's gospel. This is serious to me.

ARTIMUS Why is it? Have you even researched as to why certain words are "left out" of many modern translations? Do you know that there are also places where words are actually "added" that were missing from the KJVs translations? These "missing words" are easily explainable. Copyists mistakes. Ephesians and Colossians have numerous, almost word for word passages. They are a little different in many places though. For example. an unknown copyist for Colossians had added "Jesus Christ" when it should have remained "Jesus." The copyist was likely very familiar with Ephesians and possibly made a mistake when copying Colossians with an almost identical passage to the Ephesian passage that he had commited to memory. That happened, or the copyist thought that another copyist made a mistake when copying Colossians he was copying from, and he then "corrected" the omission of "Christ" and added "Jesus Christ" into his new copy of Colossians. This new error then stayed in all copies that were made of his new copy. The error does not change any meaning of the scriptures either.

We can also cross examine the thousands of quotes from the NT found in many of the early church father's writings. You can compile almost all (97% or more) of the NT just from mining these letters alone. You can reasonably date each of the early church fathers' letters. Then you cross examine the quotes of scriptures in their letters with other letters with the same quotes from letters written later on. Then you can see the minor variations in the translations that they were copying from. The older and more common a quote is that is found, the more likely that the older rendition is the original one. If a passage is quoted that has one rendering, and then that same passage is found in all newer documents that has a slightly different rendering, you can examine the difference and usually it becomes obvious which is in error and the reason how that error krept in. This is one way how modern translators have so much more evidence to work with than the KJV translators did.

BUTERO First of all, I am not convinced that the claims you make here are true with regard to being able to compile "almost all 97 percent or more of the NT just from mining these letters alone." I would need proof. Second, those letters are not the innerant Word of God to begin with, so this is irrelivant to me anyway. As for words being added, they are always in parentheses, and I believe they belong there. I believe God gave the translators the wisdom to know what words to place in the text to make it right in English. Greek has more words than English does to describe the same thing. You might have more than one Greek word describing various types of love for instance, yet in English, the only proper word to use is love. This would not be a mistake, but a language issue. It is the same thing with the word Easter that is always being disputed. Easter makes perfect sense to the English speaking world, so that is the word I believe God wanted to be placed in the text.

3. Anyone who accepts the idea all translations are equal opens up a pandora's box for abuse. Any denomination can create a translation that supports their personal beliefs. A Baptist Bible might put a greater emphasis on the security of the believer. A Pentecostal Bible might put more emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. A Wesleyan Bible might put more emphasis on sanctification being a second definate work of grace. Cults can do the same thing, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done with the New World Translation, and feminists have come up with the New NIV, which has taken all references to God in the male form out.

ARTIMUS All translations are not equal but all translations deserve a fair chance. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses have produced a new Bible, not a translation. All scholars disagree with many of the "New World Translation" Jehovah Witness Bible's renderings. Creating words out of thin air and then added them into the Bible is not what you call translating, and that is what the JWs have done in their Bible. Just because humans can do this does not mean that no honest scholars can get together, with new evidences to work from, and then produce a modern translation that is more reable and accurate than some of the older translations. That is why there was a KJV translated in the first place.

BUTERO Why should we give new translations a chance, when we have a perfectly good translation in the King James Bible? In addition, because there are so many translations, and they are all placed together for sale at the same book stores, someone with a sincere heart looking for a good Bible could pick up a tampered with version, like the New NIV for instance, that has been approved for use by feminists. The person doesn't know the story behind this so-called Bible, and gets a perverted Bible. I am thankful to have a good Christian Book Store in my area that will only sell King James Version Bibles. All the new translations lead to confusion, which is of the devil.

4. I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect. As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate, and that God used the King James translators to produce a perfect English translation. I have no regard for the opinions of so-called scholars. So called scholars often make all kinds of claims, including the notion that the Bible is not really the innerant Word of God.

I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect

ARTIMUS As do I.

BUTERO Since all the new translations have differences, and you believe they should all be given a fair chance, you cannot believe that, or you believe it is possible in theory, but that it didn't actually occur.

As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate, and that God used the King James translators to produce a perfect English translation.

You know that there was no one, certain copy of the TR in existance? The KJV had a TR "tradition" to work with of many slightly different TRs in extant at the time. Also, there were certain places, like in Revelation for instance, which the KJV had no Greek manuscripts at all to translate from so they used the Latin Vulgate to translate from. The RT is not "perfect" in the sense that you think it is.

You said "I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect. As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate." God's word never said anything at all about the TR manuscripts (and they were each a little different, what about the missing pieces also?). Where is the connection?

BUTERO There were manuscripts we gave the name Textus receptus to. Of course God never called them the TR by name. They were simply the Word of God. As for there being more than one manuscript that made up the TR, so what? The King James writers had the true Word of God to translate from. With regard to your claims about how the writers translated the book of Revelation, I need proof to even begin to accept that claim. When I say proof, I don't mean the word of "scholars." I want real proof, which I doubt you can provide.

As I stated earlier, I have heard these arguments you brough up before. I rejected them then, and I reject them now. The only one I hadn't heard before was the false claim with regard to a supposed error in the 1611 King James Bible, but as I said already, that argument is a lie, and discredits everything else the author said. The Bible says it is the thief that is a liar and the Father of a lie. The author of that article you posted made a slanderous and false statement against the King James Bible, and you posted it. If you are really so good at identifying what is demonic from the scriptures, you would know bearing false witness is the work of the devil.

BUTERO I wanted to respond to this yesterday, but didn't have time.

Well brother, I tried.

My name is Adimus, not "Artimus of the Ephesians." I don't appreciate the subtle attempt at associating me with pagan idolotry. You need to be more like Jesus who loves his bretheren.

I agree with others here that trying to reach out to these KJV onlyers has proven to be a fruitless effort for me. Last time I do it here.

I placed all the relevant passages that deal with the rapture, with specific reguard to their chronological order (the order that they were originally written in) and picked them apart. This is what I came up with. If you find your beliefs challenged, re-examine them in the light of scripture interpreted in the order that God gave it.

The Tribulation

12:1

Thanks a lot. This post has raised quite a ruckus at some other places. I only ask that people actually read it and then show me where I am taking anything out of context. Obviously I worked hard on this and I believe that it is simple enough and accurately presented.

I disagree with you. Plenty has been posted about the rapture occurring before the trib. In fact there are threads that address this issue exclusively. So, I won't bother to get into it with you. I just wanted to make sure that you knew that there are many here who disagree with your position.

"I only ask that people actually read it and then show me where I am taking anything out of context."

This thread is not about the Rapture. There are countless of those elsewhere here. I would suggest finding one of them and "resurrecting" it...pun intended!

What is wrong with this thread. Do you have a problem with newbies who have never posted here and want to talk about something that has been talked about but is bothering them or that they have aquestion about?

I hope not.

I like this thread. I can't start a new one yet. This thread is entitled "Christ's Second COming." The rapture is, in my understanding, part of Messiah's second coming. If you disagree than that makes my post all the more relevant to this thread. Did you read my post?

Thanks for coming to my aid, Massorite.

You posted a lot of material that is supposed to prove the KJV Bible is not perfect, but in one of your posts, it makes a blatantly false claim. It states that the 1611 KJV Bible says in Matthew 26:36, "Then cometh Judas," when it is supposed to say, "then cometh Jesus." I happen to have a 1611 reprint in front of me right now. As I stated earlier, it is my Bible of choice, and here is what it says:

Matthew XXVI:36 Then commeth Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the Disciples, Sit yee heere, while I goe and pray yonder."

This outright lie calls into question everything else the author posted. I suppose he assumes that most of his readers don't have a 1611 edition to compare what he said to, and that they will simply accept his lie?

Not so. Your 1611 no doubt does say "Jesus." The problem is that your copy is one of many variations that have been printed as "Authorized KJV 1611" Bibles. The KJVs have been "corrected"numerous times in the last 400 years. Originally, there were 4 different KJVs printed. They had around 35,000 marginal commentary notes and alternate renderings options. That "Judas" was originally there and has since been corrected in one of the various updated reprints of the KJV. The "Judas" error is a typical example of a human copyist's mistake. Judas and Jesus both start with J. Both are two sylables. Both end with S. This kind of error is a symptom of a human's mind identifying a familiar pattern and then missing a specific detail.

I would not say that the "Judas" claim is a lie at all.

The problem with your arguments are they are based on the opinions of Bible historians. There have always been and always will be historical revisionists. Look at what has happened to our American history books over the years. I finally found a history book I have confidence in called, "A Patriots Guide to American History," but I had to search for that. The information in that will look quite a bit differen't from public school text books of today with a differen't agenda.

If you refuse to hear out any Bible scholars that say anything that you don't agree with, than you will not listen to anyone. No one agrees on everything. True, there are historical revisionists. But I find it very difficult to believe that you actually have read any books that defend the notion that the KJV is not perfect and that modern translations are working with better evidence and many pieces of older maniscript evidence and more diverse amount of linguistic information than the KJV translators had available at the time. Without researching this, just imagine that there has been absolutely no helpful information about the origianl texts of the Bible discovered in the last 400 years of archeology and intense research. Imagine that ALL of the researchers, historians and language experts (like the president of my Bible school, Dr. Michael L Brown) ALL were purposefully trying to corrupt the Bible. Come on.

Remember what Jesus said. " Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town," Matthew 23:34.

And what about these people? "11 And he gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the shepherds and teachers, 12 to equip the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 13 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ," Eph 4:11-13.

Exactlly who are these "teachers" and "scribes" and wise men have Jesus has sent us as promised, only the KJV only ones? The church has certainly not yet achieved "the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." And the KJV only movement is living proof if the church's immaturity and division.

I want to thank my friend Cobalt for his defense. I know we don't agree on this issue, but as I stated earlier, I don't think that dissagreeing over this matter means one of us is saved and the other is lost.

I also said the same thing. Here is is again "I even qualified my words by stating "I am not saying that KJV only folks are not saved or going to hell. I am saying that this teaching is not of God but is of the devil. You can believe some demonic teachings and yet still believe in Jesus and be saved.""

He has his reasons for his beliefs and I have mine, and I can accept that. Even so, when this subject comes up, I feel like I have an obligation to God to defend his Word to the best of my ability, and others can decide for themselves if my arguments are valid.

I will tell you specifically the reasons why I hold to the KJV Bible only.

1. Everyone who holds to the idea all translations are basically equal are admitting they believe there are errors in all translations, meaning you can't fully believe any of them 100 percent. You might accept them as 95 percent accurate, but not 100 percent accurate. This opens the door for people to defend doing things contrary to scripture.

True. Does this actually happen very often? If am man wants an exuse he will either find one or invent one no matter what the truth is. This is a strawman argument. Your argument does not prove that the KJV is in any way superior to any other possible translation that can be made.

If you accept the Bible to be 95% accurate (never met anyone like that), than that is enough right there to condemn you as a sinner who needs Jesus to save you.

The disputed words that the modern translations either disagree about, or place footnotes of alternate readings, are all perfectly legitimate ones. Remember, the original 4 1611 KJVs had 35,000 footnotes and alternate renderings listed for the reader to examine themself. 35,000 footnotes and alternate renderings makes the Bible look a lot less reliable than any of the modern translations' which have far fewer such notes. More information that is available today which eliminates many of the translation mysteries that the 1611 had to try to tackle in its 35,000 footnotes. And the disputed words in modern translations are not words that have doctrines resting upon them. They are easily understandable copyist's mistakes like "our joy will be full" as opposed to "your joy will be full."

2. New translations often leave out important things from the text. I mentioned two earlier. These are not minor things. In one place, fasting is left out, and in another the words "without a cause" is left out. Then there is the matter of discrediting every verse after verse 8 in the last chapter of Mark's gospel. This is serious to me.

Why is it? Have you even researched as to why certain words are "left out" of many modern translations? Do you know that there are also places where words are actually "added" that were missing from the KJVs translations? These "missing words" are easily explainable. Copyists mistakes. Ephesians and Colossians have numerous, almost word for word passages. They are a little different in many places though. For example. an unknown copyist for Colossians had added "Jesus Christ" when it should have remained "Jesus." The copyist was likely very familiar with Ephesians and possibly made a mistake when copying Colossians with an almost identical passage to the Ephesian passage that he had commited to memory. That happened, or the copyist thought that another copyist made a mistake when copying Colossians he was copying from, and he then "corrected" the omission of "Christ" and added "Jesus Christ" into his new copy of Colossians. This new error then stayed in all copies that were made of his new copy. The error does not change any meaning of the scriptures either.

We can also cross examine the thousands of quotes from the NT found in many of the early church father's writings. You can compile almost all (97% or more) of the NT just from mining these letters alone. You can reasonably date each of the early church fathers' letters. Then you cross examine the quotes of scriptures in their letters with other letters with the same quotes from letters written later on. Then you can see the minor variations in the translations that they were copying from. The older and more common a quote is that is found, the more likely that the older rendition is the original one. If a passage is quoted that has one rendering, and then that same passage is found in all newer documents that has a slightly different rendering, you can examine the difference and usually it becomes obvious which is in error and the reason how that error krept in. This is one way how modern translators have so much more evidence to work with than the KJV translators did.

3. Anyone who accepts the idea all translations are equal opens up a pandora's box for abuse. Any denomination can create a translation that supports their personal beliefs. A Baptist Bible might put a greater emphasis on the security of the believer. A Pentecostal Bible might put more emphasis on the gifts of the Spirit. A Wesleyan Bible might put more emphasis on sanctification being a second definate work of grace. Cults can do the same thing, as the Jehovah's Witnesses have done with the New World Translation, and feminists have come up with the New NIV, which has taken all references to God in the male form out.

All translations are not equal but all translations deserve a fair chance. Cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses have produced a new Bible, not a translation. All scholars disagree with many of the "New World Translation" Jehovah Witness Bible's renderings. Creating words out of thin air and then added them into the Bible is not what you call translating, and that is what the JWs have done in their Bible. Just because humans can do this does not mean that no honest scholars can get together, with new evidences to work from, and then produce a modern translation that is more reable and accurate than some of the older translations. That is why there was a KJV translated in the first place.

4. I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect. As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate, and that God used the King James translators to produce a perfect English translation. I have no regard for the opinions of so-called scholars. So called scholars often make all kinds of claims, including the notion that the Bible is not really the innerant Word of God.

I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect

As do I.

As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate, and that God used the King James translators to produce a perfect English translation.

You know that there was no one, certain copy of the TR in existance? The KJV had a TR "tradition" to work with of many slightly different TRs in extant at the time. Also, there were certain places, like in Revelation for instance, which the KJV had no Greek manuscripts at all to translate from so they used the Latin Vulgate to translate from. The RT is not "perfect" in the sense that you think it is.

You said "I believe God is able to preserve his Word perfect. As such, I believe the TR manuscripts to be 100 percent accurate." God's word never said anything at all about the TR manuscripts (and they were each a little different, what about the missing pieces also?). Where is the connection?

As I stated earlier, I have heard these arguments you brough up before. I rejected them then, and I reject them now. The only one I hadn't heard before was the false claim with regard to a supposed error in the 1611 King James Bible, but as I said already, that argument is a lie, and discredits everything else the author said. The Bible says it is the thief that is a liar and the Father of a lie. The author of that article you posted made a slanderous and false statement against the King James Bible, and you posted it. If you are really so good at identifying what is demonic from the scriptures, you would know bearing false witness is the work of the devil.

4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Tim 4:1

This is what I meant by that. In Pensacola Florida, where I once lived, there were a number of churches that held the KJV as the gospel itself. They even taught that if you did not believe in the KJV 1611 only, you were not even saved! That is demonic. Most of the results of this KJV only doctrine are destructive in nature. The tree is known by its fruit. I am not saying that KJV only folks are not saved or going to hell. I am saying that this teaching is not of God but is of the devil. You can believe some demonic teachings and yet still believe in Jesus and be saved.

Your kidding, right? You don't know Butero from a box of Post Toasties. I do. He and I have debated this point before. We don't agree. He has his position, and I have mine, and I am willing to leave it at that and not resort to name-calling or tactics like calling it "demonic." Your comparing anyone who only believes in the KJV to some sect you know of in Florida, and since you don't know what Butero believes, and since you don't know him persoanlly, it's a comparison that doesn't hold up. You do your Christian brothers and sisters a huge dis-service when you just start arbitrarily start tacking labels like "demonic" onto things. If believing in the KJV only is demonic, then so is running around labeling everything you don't agree with as "demonic." Some things are just a difference of opinion, and nothing more. It does not have to be any more sinister than that.

I am not kidding about anything that i wrote there. I also did not call Butero or anyone any names. Labeling a teaching as "demonic" is not insulting or name calling either. I learned how to identify what is demonic from the scriptures themselves. The Bible calls doctrines "demonic" in 1 Tim 4:1. What exactly did I write in my post that was name calling or our of hand?

I even qualified my words by stating "I am not saying that KJV only folks are not saved or going to hell. I am saying that this teaching is not of God but is of the devil. You can believe some demonic teachings and yet still believe in Jesus and be saved."

I am utterly serious when I say that the fruits of this teaching, in any form, are destructive. That is why I say it is demonic. It does no one any actual good. It only promotes pride, inclusiveness, suspicion, division, distraction from the gospel, etc. If Butero is not a KJV activist, than he is not likely to raise any ungodly ruckus over this issue.

However, Butero aside, I do not see how anyone can actually do unbiased research into the KJV only teachings and still remain convinced of the KJV being somehow superior. That notion causes me to have doubts about the motives behind someone steadfastly adhering to KJV only-ism. The reality is that the entire concept of KJVO is founded upon certain authors, speakers and preachers blatantly being deceptive and manipulating the facts to force their personal beliefs of KJVO. Deception is Satanic.

Thanks a lot. This post has raised quite a ruckus at some other places. I only ask that people actually read it and then show me where I am taking anything out of context. Obviously I worked hard on this and I believe that it is simple enough and accurately presented.

I found this book to be very informative on this topic.

The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?

by James R. White - Religion - 1995 - 286 pages

I would highly recommend it to you. It tells the account of exactly who, what, when, where and how the KJV was first translated and published. It also tells the story of the textus receptus and the other major resources that many modern translations draw from. He explains exactly how translations are made and why there are differences between the KJV and most modern translations. Have you read this book?

The KJV is a human translation like all translations.

Since 1611, there has been a lot more information discovered to work with that help us translate the Bible into modern vernacular. The KJV is outdated.

If you go to the bush in Africa, or to any other country where they do not speak or read English (let alone 17th century English), the gospel is the power of God, not any certain translation of the Bible. Those people will never read a KJV. No one before 1611 ever read the KJV either and God had raised up many prophets and apostles who did fine without it.

This KJV only teaching is demonic.

It puffs up.

It keeps the Bible from being more easily read and understood.

It makes the Bible out to be an extrememly "religious" book.

It makes the Bible appear to be a dated book that is irrelevant for real life.

It dishonestly ignores the weaknesses and errors of the KJV. Its leaders are proven to be liars, plagerizers, and manipulators.

It's unwise, not to mention insulting to start throwing the word "demonic" around in regards to a difference of opinion such as this. I feel that people that believe only in the KJV are misguided, but it goes no deeper than that. There is nothing demonic about it. Stubborness perhaps, but not demonic. That isn't a word we should just be tossing around.

4:1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 1 Tim 4:1

This is what I meant by that. In Pensacola Florida, where I once lived, there were a number of churches that held the KJV as the gospel itself. They even taught that if you did not believe in the KJV 1611 only, you were not even saved! That is demonic. Most of the results of this KJV only doctrine are destructive in nature. The tree is known by its fruit. I am not saying that KJV only folks are not saved or going to hell. I am saying that this teaching is not of God but is of the devil. You can believe some demonic teachings and yet still believe in Jesus and be saved.

The KJV is a human translation like all translations.

Since 1611, there has been a lot more information discovered to work with that help us translate the Bible into modern vernacular. The KJV is outdated.

If you go to the bush in Africa, or to any other country where they do not speak or read English (let alone 17th century English), the gospel is the power of God, not any certain translation of the Bible. Those people will never read a KJV. No one before 1611 ever read the KJV either and God had raised up many prophets and apostles who did fine without it.

This KJV only teaching is demonic.

It puffs up.

It keeps the Bible from being more easily read and understood.

It makes the Bible out to be an extrememly "religious" book.

It makes the Bible appear to be a dated book that is irrelevant for real life.

It dishonestly ignores the weaknesses and errors of the KJV. Its leaders are proven to be liars, plagerizers, and manipulators.

Hi everybody!

This is my first post here. I can't start an new topic yet so I thought that this thread may be a good place to jump in.

The topic of the thread is a great issue to search out. It has perplexed me for years. My big Q is this: Since Jesus returns when Israel is repentant and is wanting his return, and all the believing Jews (and Gentiles) will be transformed into glorified bodies at his return, what mortal Jews will populate millennial Israel? It is not an impossible question to answer. But it does stretch your mind a bit to look deeper.

I am sorry to change the subject, but here is my synopsis of the rapture, which has everything to do with the second coming of Christ, which this thread is about:

I placed all the relevant passages that deal with the rapture in chronological order and picked them apart. This is what I came up with. If you find your beliefs challenged, re-examine them in the light of scripture interpreted in the order that God gave it.

The Tribulation

12:1