King James Version only?

[Born Crucified]

So, quoting WORD FOR WORD, are you saying that people are saved "through the reading of the King James Bible"? I thought Jesus saves. This is just an example how "word for word" quoting can be taken out of context. I am very aware of what your true meaning for this sentence means and in NO way claim you are stating that KJV saves...as I have said, just using your logic.

Let's be civilized and educated as I know most of us are. Thank you.

Jesus does save, but without the preaching of the Word of God, Jesus cannot save.

Romans 10:14-17 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[BlessedHope]

This question isn't even a challenge. Assuming there were 3 revisions in 1611, all that would indicate was a rush to publication. Being led of God, they quickly fixed the problems, and had the correct finished product on the third edition in 1611.

so it took the Holy Spirit 3 tries to get it mostly right?

There are not a multitude of mistakes today. You only showed me one minor error that was legitimate, and it was only regarding someone's age. The other things you called mistakes were only your opinion, and I dissagree.

I didnt say there was a multitude of mistakes today, but even one mistake would make the Holy Spirit wrong and that I am not willing to agree with, so I have to assume the translators of the KJV were not inspired like the original authors.

The TRANSLATORS of the King James Bible were led and guided by the Holy Spirit to translate the Scriptures from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts....not to re-write the Scriptures. They were not infallible men...but they were brilliant Greek and Hebrew scholars. Typographical errors did occur, but that wasn't because the Holy Spirit made mistakes. The translators of the King James Bible were not INSPIRED as were the original "holy men" who penned the Scriptures:

Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

they (the translators) were led and guided by the Holy Spirit to TRANSLATE...not to re-write the Scriptures.

[pokemaughan]

Try not to let this turn into a KJV vs. everybody else battle... everyone seems pretty ingrained in their own preferences and probably don't plan on changing those. Does Butero love God? Yes he does, amen. Does RunningGator love God? Yes he does, amen. When we all get Up There and it's all said and done, is God gonna say, "You read the NIV. We're sorry, we don't allow those," or, "You only read the KJV. We don't allow those either." No, I think it's gonna be more or less, "You believed in Me and My Son- you followed Me to the End. Welcome Home, son."

Just a thought.

[Guest Butero]

My question implies nothing of the sort. If you read the entire text you could understand that I was speaking of those who don't understand what the KJV is saying so they set it down and don't pick it up again. Many christians today, even admit this. One on this post even admitted it.

If I don't trust a Bible to be reliable, I won't pick it up and read it, and I have no confidence in any modern English translation. I have read the Authorized King James Bible cover to cover at least 12 times straight through, and I am in the process of reading the 1611 King James Bible straight through for the 3rd time. I wouldn't waste my time with the NIV, RSV, Ampilified, Phillips, or any other modern English translation. They would be sitting on my shelf collecting dust, or pulled out for quick reference to compare how they are saying things that are differen't from the true Word of God.

And that is fine my brother. I'm not asking you to purchase these. I am asking for those who believe KJV is the only (which you may or may not be) version, to not hinder those that purchase other versions for the purpose of understanding the message.

I don't have the ability to hinder anyone from doing anything. At the same time, when asked my opinion, I will discourage people from using new translations because I don't trust them. Instead, I would encourage them to get an Abington-Strong's Exhaustive Concordance with Greek & Hebrew Dictionary as a companion so they can look up words they don't understand.

By the way Pokemaughan, I agree with you that just because someone doesn't share my view and they use other translations, that doesn't make them any less saved.

[Botz]

name='BlessedHope' date='Apr 21 2009, 06:41 PM' post='1359933']

they (the translators) were led and guided by the Holy Spirit to TRANSLATE...not to re-write the Scriptures.

To be inspired by the Holy Ghost and pen what G-d drops into your heart, is different from translating from one language to another...which I think most of us agree on.

What I would like to ask is ....do you think it necessary to be inspired by the Holy Ghost in translating from one language to another? Or do you think a translator is not capable of doing a good enough job unless G-d is known to guide him?

[Murse32]

Jesus does save, but without the preaching of the Word of God, Jesus cannot save.

Romans 10:14-17 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall they hear without a preacher? And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things! But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

Born, keep in mind that Paul wrote this to the Romans who did not have a compiled bible as we do now. With no writings to spread around, how would they have heard? Of course it had to be by preaching. That was the exact purpose of the Apostles. And, that's why there aren't any more apostles...just disciples.

[Born Crucified]

What I would like to ask is ....do you think it necessary to be inspired by the Holy Ghost in translating from one language to another? Or do you think a translator is not capable of doing a good enough job unless G-d is known to guide him?

Many could translate who are not guided by the Holy Spirit, but one who is unsaved may not translate correctly.

Take for instance, when God's Word speaks of 'qadesh', the KJV translates 'sodomite.'

Other versions translate it as 'temple prostitute.' Does this mean God is not against prostitution except in the Temple?

Other translations say 'cult prostitute.' Does this mean that as long was one is not in a cult, one can be a prostitute?

There are many translations of the Bible out there. I myself own 62 different translations. Which is right? Sodomite? Temple Prostitute? Cult Prostitute? Idolatress? or one of the many other translations?

You see, therein lies the problem. God's Word is right, and for a translation to be right, one would have to have to be guided by the Holy Spirit in the translation or there is confusion.

God is not the author of confusion. His Word declares that those who love and make lies shall in no way enter His Kingdom. Who is right? which translation is right? they all cannot be right when they all say different things and lead to differing thoughts.

[Born Crucified]

Born, keep in mind that Paul wrote this to the Romans who did not have a compiled bible as we do now. With no writings to spread around, how would they have heard? Of course it had to be by preaching. That was the exact purpose of the Apostles. And, that's why there aren't any more apostles...just disciples.

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah.

They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ.

[Murse32]

Born, keep in mind that Paul wrote this to the Romans who did not have a compiled bible as we do now. With no writings to spread around, how would they have heard? Of course it had to be by preaching. That was the exact purpose of the Apostles. And, that's why there aren't any more apostles...just disciples.

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah.

They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ.

I do not deny this. They had the Tanakh. And as we see, all the Old Testement writings that pointed to Jesus, were read by the same people who denied Christ. But, How than, did the Apostles and disciples in that time teach people about Christs coming and lessons? Did they hand them a bible? No. They preached the word. The gospels were documented after Christs resurrection. The rest of the books we have are simply letters to the church. Do you think that the Church of Corinth was reading Romans 8:23 on the Sabbath? Of course not, they didn't have that. Disciples went out and verbally spread the word...This was also the reason for the true "gift of tongues". It was a language between two cultures in order for them to understand each other thus the spread of the gospel. The gospel being that the Messiah had come. Not to mention, look at the churches that were written to. These were gentiles for the most part. They didn't even study the Tanakh.

I'm sorry...but the very scriptures that you aim to protect via the KJV are the very scriptures you are destroying by taking them out of context. This just goes to show...it's better to have a different version, with an understanding of the scriptures in their entirity If one can't understand and grasp the KJV.

[Born Crucified]

Born, keep in mind that Paul wrote this to the Romans who did not have a compiled bible as we do now. With no writings to spread around, how would they have heard? Of course it had to be by preaching. That was the exact purpose of the Apostles. And, that's why there aren't any more apostles...just disciples.

I beg to differ. Paul, as well as many others had the writings of the Prophets. Jesus Himself read from the book of Isaiah in the synagogue. Philip was said to have ministered to the Ethiopian eunuch who was reading from Isaiah.

They had their Bible. It was Old Testament Scripture, but it still pointed to Christ.

I do not deny this. They had the Tanakh. And as we see, all the Old Testement writings that pointed to Jesus, were read by the same people who denied Christ. But, How than, did the Apostles and disciples in that time teach people about Christs coming and lessons? Did they hand them a bible? No. They preached the word. The gospels were documented after Christs resurrection. The rest of the books we have are simply letters to the church. Do you think that the Church of Corinth was reading Romans 8:23 on the Sabbath? Of course not, they didn't have that. Disciples went out and verbally spread the word...This was also the reason for the true "gift of tongues". It was a language between two cultures in order for them to understand each other thus the spread of the gospel. The gospel being that the Messiah had come. Not to mention, look at the churches that were written to. These were gentiles for the most part. They didn't even study the Tanakh.

I'm sorry...but the very scriptures that you aim to protect via the KJV are the very scriptures you are destroying by taking them out of context. This just goes to show...it's better to have a different version, with an understanding of the scriptures in their entirity If one can't understand and grasp the KJV.

A different version that in some verses denies the virgin birth? A different version that is some verses remove the deity of Christ? A different version that in some verses removes the blood? A different version that in some verses removes the suffering that Christ went through and instead gives Him a black eye?

No thanks.