King james bible only

[OneLight]

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the apology. I however also owe an apology and must ask for forgiveness. I actually thought very carefully about how I replied and did so with the intention of trying to make you feel bad. Sorry for trying to manipulate you like that. While it is not an excuse I was having a bad day which happens from time to time which if you read my testimony when I hopefully share it shortly you will understand. 

 

 

Looks like we both had our heads down ready to ram each other!  Thanks God for forgiveness! 

[1x1is1]

 

 

 

I have a kj bible and i admit there is some cool about the way the talk in it even though half the time i cant understand what its saying but still it very cool

 

I am right there with you on this.  i am well aware that our Lord did not use the thee's and Thow's that are in the KJV>  But I prefer it to "Yo Bro, follow Me".  And when I don't quite understand a particular word, I read it again and again.  Then, if that doesn't work, I use my KJV Study Bible.  Or, if I am near a computer I can access a Bible commentator like Dr. J. Vernon McGee.  

 

 

I know of no translation that uses the term "Yo Bro, follow Me."

Why not just compare it to the NKJV?

God bless,

GE

 

 

This bible might just say that. 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Word_on_the_Street_(book)

 

But as you said, compare it to commonly used translations.

 

 

Well thanks for that information sheba.  I wonder how they used only 500 pages to paraphrase the Bible when it took them 68 words to paraphrase Gen 1:1-3, when the KJV did it in only 49 words.  Now that particular book would not need any interpretation at all.  And I do not necessarily fault the book. Like it was mentioned, The Holy Spirit will call us while reading a news paper if He wants to. 

[GoldenEagle]

 The KJV has 3 sets of 7 references to each of the following words and phrases describing Christ;

1. The Word

2. The Mediator

3. "After the order of Melchisedec"

The NIV has removed 1 of each of these words.

So the NIV has 3 descriptions of Christ that add up to 666.

The KJV numbers are 777.

The number of perfection, 7, its the number thats most associated with God in the Bible.

And I'm sure we all know what the number 6 means, specifally 666. My conclusion is the NIV is satanic,

KJV

Word  (capital)       (BTW the Bible is the "word of God" ...not "Word of God")

John 1:1  (3 references)

John 1:14

1 John 1:1

1 John 5:7    (X)

Revelation 19:13

KJV=7

The NIV removes 1 John 5:7 dropping the number down to 6

Mediator

Galations 3:19

Galations 3:20 (2 references)   (NIV  -1)

1 Timothy 2:5

Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24

KJV=7

The Niv removes one of the references in Galations 3:20

Niv=6

Melchizedek

Psalm 110:4

Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:11, 7:17, 7:21

KJV=7

Niv removes 7:21 (=6)

KJV=777

NIV=666

PS Not sure about this matter in other versions but the NIV is corrupt...

the 2011 NIV does not have the word "saint(s)" in it at all

The KJV has it exactly 100 times. Overtime the NIV has removed "saints" more and more and now not at all.

My belief and conclusion from my personal study is that ALL new versions are Catholic.

Even the "NKJV", ..its half Textus Receptus and the other half is from the perverted Catholic manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt.

Those are just my 2 main points in not using so called "new" translations.. so in short, yes, I'm KJV only

 

Wow. So basically you base your view of the KJV and NIV on superstitions and random word translation numbers?

 

Rolls eyes

Lol.

[Trinitron]

When you go King James Only, I guess you have to resort to conspiracy theories.

[GoldenEagle]

This is an excerpt from a book I have called "The Answer Book" by Samuel C. Gipp on "Easter" vs "Passover" pages 3-8

 

Some of this fellows tones seem to be a bit chesty, but the study of the Word in the KJV he did is sound enough.   

He is a KJV advocate.

Take a few moments and follow the time lines he gives below.

 ....

 

Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second. But the dates remained the same.

 

II Chronicles 30:l5,21: "Then they killed the passover on the fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of lsrael that were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."

...

 

Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread (April 15-2 1). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement concerning Easter. The next Passover was a year away! But the pagan holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven". He was NOT a Jew. He had no reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are two grievous faults in this line of thinking.

...

 

It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew 26:17- 47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to let the Jews "have all the fun ". He would wait until his own pagan festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.

 

Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate "pascha" as "Easter". It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader and make the truth of the situation unclear. "

As to the unleavened bread comment...

 

The word “Easter” must be retained, because to change it to “Passover” would create a contradiction. Peter was imprisoned during the days of unleavened bread that followed after the celebration of Passover.        

           

            At first glance, this argument seems to hold some weight.  The Days of Unleavened Bread appear to follow after Passover and the narrative of Acts indicates it was during this time following Passover that Peter was imprisoned.  KJV only advocates appeal to Leviticus 23:5 that states Passover is celebrated on the 14^th day of the first month, whereas the 15^th day of the month (the next day) begins the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Does this mean, then, there are two, clearly distinct celebrations? 

 

A closer study of scripture reveals the actual Passover day was not separated from the entire week of Unleavened Bread as KJV only proponents wish to suggest, but was the first day of the entire week of Unleavened Bread and because of that fact, the week can also be correctly termed Passover. The King James Version itself affirms this.  Beginning with the historical narrative of Exodus 12 where the Passover is instituted, the scriptures record,

 

15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day [Passover] ye shall put away leaven out of your houses…

            16 And in the first day [Passover] there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you …

            17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.

            18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.

 

Throughout this passage, the words leaven and unleavened have a special emphasis. If other biblical references to the Passover are to be checked, such as Exodus 13:6,7; Leviticus 23:5,6; and Numbers 28:16-25, they too place a similar emphasis on the word unleavened.  The entire week is known as the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  In Exodus 23:15, the Lord commanded all the adult males from the Children of Israel to keep three annual feasts.  The first one is the Feast of Unleavened Bread, when Passover would be celebrated.

 

Yet, because the actual Passover meal was eaten on the 1^st day of Unleavened Bread, the week came to be known as the Passover Week, or shortened to the Passover.  The Passover is synonymous with the Days of Unleavened Bread.  This is further affirmed in the New Testament by Luke himself in his gospel.  Luke 22:1 reads in the KJV, Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the passover.  Exodus 23:15 establishes the fact that the first feast to be celebrated by the Jews is the Feast of Unleavened Bread.  Luke 22:1 then states the feast, which encompassed the entire week or Days of Unleavened Bread, is also know as the Passover.  Hence, the Feast, or the Days, of Unleavened Bread are the same as the Passover, and KJV advocates are severely mistaken to think Luke is distinguishing between two specific celebrations with his narrative in Acts 12:3,4.  There is no hidden “nugget” of truth waiting to be uncovered in the KJV by a genuine Bible-believer if the word “Easter” is kept in favor of “Passover.” Luke is simply stating the same thing in two different ways.  First, Luke points out that when Peter was taken prisoner, it was during the Passover feast, or the Days of Unleavened Bread, and Herod determined to deal with Peter after the Passover, or when the Jewish holy week came to an end.  The text could not be any clearer. 

 

Before drawing some conclusion, it is worth noting that a minority of KJV only advocates recognize the inherent difficulties with these two arguments, especially the first one concerning Herod’s supposed worship of Isthar or Astrate.  They understand Herod was not religious in any fashion, nor would he even know the Saxon goddess, Eostre, from where the word “Easter” is derived.  However, this minority will still insist Easter should be retained as the correct translation of pascha, because Easter is considered a post-Resurrection word tied to Jesus Christ being the type of the Passover lamb. All other NT uses of the word pascha are pre-Resurrection and are rightly translated as Passover. 

 

This line of argumentation is also fraught with at least two problems. 

First, the proponents of this viewpoint begin with the unproven assumption that God intended the King James translation to be the final, English Bible forever representing His written Word.  For example, KJV advocate, Scott Jones, argues the translators were under a spiritual unction from the Holy Ghost, implying there was a supernatural move of God upon them to accurately choose the rendering of Easter over Passover at Acts 12:4

Though many KJV proponents are cautious to suggest the King James translation itself is directly inspired by God, this assertion by Mr. Jones of some special unction upon the translators can only lead such a conclusion.  Obviously, a special, providential move by God upon the translators could only suggest their entire work bears this mark of spiritual unction.  Thus, any revision in the form of updating spelling, language usage, or translational correction would be tampering with something directly given by God through an alleged “unction.”   This conclusion is pure subjectivism and overstates the true spiritual abilities of any translator, let alone those who translated the King James Bible.  It ascribes to God something He never promised to do: preserve His word in one specific translation in only one specific language, English. 

 

Moreover, Acts 12:4 is not the only post-Resurrection use of pascha recorded in the New Testament.  Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 5:7 that Christ is our Passover.  If these KJV advocates are correct and pascha is to now be understood in connection with the Resurrection of Jesus Christ so that any post-Resurrection use of pascha in the NT is to be translated as Easter, then why was there no unction from the Spirit to render pascha as Easter in this verse?  The theological aim of Paul’s teaching in this passage is showing Christ’s sacrificial relationship with His people.  If Christ’s Resurrection so impacts pascha that it is to be rendered as Easter, then God should have providentially guided the translators with translating Easter instead of Passover in this instance.  Apparently, God saw no need to guide the translators, so the pre/post-Resurrection argument is just as contrived for the sake of maintaining an unrevised King James text as the traditional KJV argument we have examined in full. 

 

Now, some may ask, “Why is this so important?”  It is important because of the simple fact of a Christian’s duty to the truth.  Ephesians 4:25 states that Christians must put away lying and speak the truth.  A Christian believer must be committed to truth in all things, including the accuracy of Bible translations.   Furthermore, when KJV advocates are shown the truth about the word “Easter,” they must have the humble fortitude to admit error exists in their favored Bible version and conform it to the correct translation.  Donald Waite has written,

 

“I think that the KING JAMES translators, when they took the Hebrew or Aramaic … and the Greek, putting it into English, that they matched up one of the Hebrew meanings, or one of the Greek meanings, as they translated the English language.  There are many other choices in English they could have used, but what they did pick was within the rules of both the Hebrew and Greek grammar and English grammar.  Therefore, I have not found any translation errors in the KING JAMES BIBLE.

Can Mr. Waite honestly say, after offering such a bold declaration, the KJV translators provided the best word-for-word translation of pascha with their choice of “Easter” that fits the rules of both Greek and English grammar?  If Mr. Waite is an honorable man, and I am sure his comments express the sentiments of many other honorable KJV defenders, then he must recognize the utter silliness of adhering to such an obvious mistake all for the sake of promoting an unsubstantiated belief in the total accuracy of a 17^th century English translation. 

 

 Bible-believers cannot make a habit of inventing fantastic excuses for what they may perceive as helping out God by defending His written Word.  Granted, KJV advocates believe they are speaking the truth with their explanation for retaining the word “Easter” at the text of Acts 12:4, but when placed under the tests of genuine historical and biblical scholarship, their explanation is severely flawed to the point of embarrassment.  To further cling to this argumentation, even after it has been shown to be bankrupt, does not serve God, but scandalizes the gospel and hinders the work of the Church.

 

 

http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb024.html

[OneLight]

OK, let's allow His love to speak through us toward each other.  Though this thread is one of the nicer one on this topic, if not careful, it can turn ugly and get closed.

[EndSeeker]

 

 The KJV has 3 sets of 7 references to each of the following words and phrases describing Christ;

1. The Word

2. The Mediator

3. "After the order of Melchisedec"

The NIV has removed 1 of each of these words.

So the NIV has 3 descriptions of Christ that add up to 666.

The KJV numbers are 777.

The number of perfection, 7, its the number thats most associated with God in the Bible.

And I'm sure we all know what the number 6 means, specifally 666. My conclusion is the NIV is satanic,

KJV

Word  (capital)       (BTW the Bible is the "word of God" ...not "Word of God")

John 1:1  (3 references)

John 1:14

1 John 1:1

1 John 5:7    (X)

Revelation 19:13

KJV=7

The NIV removes 1 John 5:7 dropping the number down to 6

Mediator

Galations 3:19

Galations 3:20 (2 references)   (NIV  -1)

1 Timothy 2:5

Hebrews 8:6, 9:15, 12:24

KJV=7

The Niv removes one of the references in Galations 3:20

Niv=6

Melchizedek

Psalm 110:4

Hebrews 5:6, 5:10, 6:20, 7:11, 7:17, 7:21

KJV=7

Niv removes 7:21 (=6)

KJV=777

NIV=666

PS Not sure about this matter in other versions but the NIV is corrupt...

the 2011 NIV does not have the word "saint(s)" in it at all

The KJV has it exactly 100 times. Overtime the NIV has removed "saints" more and more and now not at all.

My belief and conclusion from my personal study is that ALL new versions are Catholic.

Even the "NKJV", ..its half Textus Receptus and the other half is from the perverted Catholic manuscripts from Alexandria Egypt.

Those are just my 2 main points in not using so called "new" translations.. so in short, yes, I'm KJV only

 

Wow. So basically you base your view of the KJV and NIV on superstitions and random word translation numbers?

 

 

If thats how you choose to see it then sure, but its much more than that. And not superstition but indeed a conspiracy. I did my research and i can point out A LOT of verse perversions and scripture that was taken out. A few months ago i seen a post somewhere in the forums here from someone that said all the new versions are satanic... i thought he was crazy, but then i kept seeing it all over the place, and concluded he was right. The enemy is trying to destroy Gods word.. and if anyone has a Bible published by "Zondervan" ...BURN IT, that publisher is owned by Harpercollins, which also publishes the "satanic bible". So thats who your money is going to. (and zondervan also makes counterfeit KJV's)

[EndSeeker]

End seeker, what is a counterfeit kjv?

 

(i forget if i can post links here, but this is an excerpt from biblebelievers(.)com) :

 

"Because the King James Bible is in the publick domain and not copyrighted, these worldly publishing companies think they can make minor changes to the standard text so that they can please certain groups which translates into extra sales for them.  That's the way the modern world operates to day.  All the common ordinary Bible believer wants is the same Bible that his grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had and the same Bible her grandmother had etc. that's all.

Just give us the text that has established itself as the standard text of the Holy Bible, an old fashioned, Christ exalting, devil kicking, Authorized King James Bible.  To the best of my understanding this is the 1769 edition of the 1611 King James Bible with a few minor printing errors and spellings corrected along the way in the 1800's."

 

So its really not a big deal, the 1611 needed reprinted as with any book we need to proof read and make edits sometimes, even today... Plus the font used in 1611 was very hard to read other than that, the KJV is essentially still a 1611. With the alterations or spelling errors, they just tried to modernize it but that still takes away from the text.. Depending on how bad it is.. "Counterfeits" are just "spelling errors" (modernized) or at least bad connotations like :

a 6 letter Savior (should be 7 letter Saviour)

lower case "spirit" as in Spirit of God ( Holy Spirit appears 7 times in the KJV and is always capitalized) (Holy Ghost 90 times)

-when spirit refers to a person it should be lower case obviously..

In Genesis 1:1 it should read "heaven" not "heavens". (These "corrections" aren't found every time tho.)

 

These are less critical changes.. Asswaged has been changed to assuaged.  Basons has been changed to basins.  Chesnut has been changed to chestnut.  Cloke has been changed to cloak.  Enquire has been changed to inquire.  Further has been changed to farther.  Jubile has been changed to jubilee.  Intreat has been changed to entreat.  Morter has been changed to mortar.  Ought has been changed to aught, and rereward has been changed to rearward.... etc. etc

 

God gave the KJV to us in a pure language, and that language is the standard text of the King James Bible.  This is the Bible that has stood the test of time without any editing whatsoever.

The Believers organization, with God's help, intends to preserve for all future generations.

The Bible cannot be "improved" the KJV is God's infallible word for the English speaking people.

[Guest shiloh357]

God gave the KJV to us in a pure language, and that language is the standard text of the King James Bible.  This is the Bible that has stood the test of time without any editing whatsoever.

The Believers organization, with God's help, intends to preserve for all future generations.

The Bible cannot be "improved" the KJV is God's infallible word for the English speaking people.

 

So what about the previous English versions?   I mean why did God wait until 1611 to give the English speaking  people a perfect translation?   Was God unable to preserve His Word in English until 1611?

[GoldenEagle]

 

If thats how you choose to see it then sure, but its much more than that. And not superstition but indeed a conspiracy. I did my research and i can point out A LOT of verse perversions and scripture that was taken out. A few months ago i seen a post somewhere in the forums here from someone that said all the new versions are satanic... i thought he was crazy, but then i kept seeing it all over the place, and concluded he was right. The enemy is trying to destroy Gods word.. and if anyone has a Bible published by "Zondervan" ...BURN IT, that publisher is owned by Harpercollins, which also publishes the "satanic bible". So thats who your money is going to. (and zondervan also makes counterfeit KJV's)

 

Interesting. So anyone who doesn't read the KJV is reading a counterfit or perverted version of Scripture. I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Care to address the objections presented in previous posts in this thread re: 1st and 3rd 

God bless,

GE