King james bible only

[EndSeeker]

 

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?

 

 

As with any book, it needs to be proof read and edited, and with translations its more difficult, as its impossible to have the exact 100% wording from Greek to English.. it just doesn't work that way. It takes more than one try to get it as close as possible.

So this needed to take time, and the "English Bible" was being "purified"...

Besides i took a little trip back into history and found out a lot of disturbing things... to name one is..

 

The Tyndale Bible was never completed, The Roman Catholic Church caused him to be a martyr because he tried to give the people the Bible in their own language. At that time, the RCC wanted everyone to rely on them for teaching and interpretation.

Later on in the1600's They never wanted the KJV to be printed, thats why they had a counter-reformation and printed the 1610 Douay rheims bible with the corrupted manuscripts that are in all new versions... When these new bibles come out saying "older and better manuscripts" its a lie... The translators of the KJV could have used those manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) but they seen they were corrupt. (Luke 2:33 should say Joseph ...not "father") (2 Timothy 2:15 should say study ...not "do your best" or whatever) those are just 2.. i can provide more...much more but those 2 i memorized...

 

The AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611 A.D.), The seventh Bible

Psalms 12:6-7

Psalms 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.

 

The King James Bible was the seventh English Bible, and it was translated in seven years. Do you think that’s just a coincidence?

No other Bible was needed after that.

[EndSeeker]

 

 

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

 

 

 

As long as its not "The Message Bible" and maybe a few others..overall its fine to read a new version as long as 

they know about the issue and can see that Joseph is not the father of Jesus (Luke 2:33) etc.. etc. and the only reason why we believe Calvary is because Luke 23:33 in the KJV...

But the gospel is still there so anyone can be saved by reading those Bibles. So as long as salvation is not in jeopardy

i have no problem.. people just need to know about this issue (which i found out many people don't)

So its okay to disagree.. call it... denominational if you will lol.. we still have unity.

I will address those objections as soon as i can

God bless

[EndSeeker]

@ GoldenEagle... Okay heres my platter...

Okay hope this ain't too long .. I'm familar with the Holy Spirit vs Holy Ghost objection,

i had to go back and look thru some stuff tho and Sam Gipp is awesome so i know his Easter vs Passover article etc..
but idk about the Zeus objection. So first..
From what i know "pneuma" can also be translated to ghost.
By "ghost," the KJV translators did not intend to communicate the idea of "the spirit of a deceased person." In 1611,

when the KJV was originally translated, the word "ghost" primarily referred to "an immaterial being."

In the days King James, ghost meant the living essence of a person
"breath" or "soul" were often used as synonyms of "ghost." During these times, spirit normally meant the essence of a departed person or a demonic or paranormal apparition.
As language evolved, people started saying "ghost" when speaking of the vision of a dead person while "spirit" became the standard term for life or living essence, often also for "soul." With slight exceptions, "ghost" and "spirit" changed places over some 300 years.

KJV
Genesis 25:8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full of years; and was gathered to his people.

There he gave his spirit, or "breathed his last", he was deceased.

Also Gen 2:7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Luke 4:1 And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

 

So im sure that "Holy Ghost" designates the third Person of the Trinity. In contrast, they used "Holy Spirit" to refer to the Spirit of God or Spirit of the LORD encountered by the Hebrews and Jews in the Old Testament.

In the KJV, "Holy Ghost" occurs 90 times in its New Testament portion. The phrase "Holy Spirit" occurs four times in the NT.
Peradventure in the original Greek there is no difference between "Holy Ghost" and "Holy Spirit."

the Greek words are identical: pneuma = ghost, spirit; and hagion = holy.
KJV - Ghost
Matthew 1:18 — "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost"
[pneuma hagion] ... Matthew 3:11 — "he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and fire"

KJV - Spirit
Luke 11:13 — "how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit"

Ephesians 1:13 — "ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise"

God never sent "the Ghost," only "the Spirit" (John 3:34; 14:26; 15:26).

in the 16th century, Bible printers reinforced the distinction of introducing capital and small letters. In the OT they used "spirit" and "holy spirit." In the NT they printed "Spirit" and "Holy Ghost," but with subtle distinctions.
These translation and printing differences do not exist in the Bible itself, in either Hebrew or Greek.

They are invented theological biases imported into the English Bible.
They provided both verbal and visual validation for the already existing conviction that Christianity must be separated from its Hebraic/Jewish foundations. **NOTE KJV OT**
* Psalm 51:11 — "Take not thy holy spirit from me"
Isaiah 63:10 — "They rebelled and vexed his holy spirit"
Isaiah 63:11 — "Where is he who put his holy spirit within him?"

^only occurs 3 times.

Easter vs Passover. I agree with Sam Gipp, i seen someone quote his article on here already so thats that.

Jupiter/Mercurius instead of Zeus/Hermes
This i don't know of...but i do know the NKJ is NOT a KJV
In short.. The NKJV has both sets of greek manuscripts
so its mix and match / hit and miss.

[walkonwater]

For myself KJV the open bible edition is my favorite, its through Gods Spirit that our eyes, ears, and heart are open to know Him, what child does not learn from their father?  Our Heavenly Father teaches us also, and no there is no better teacher than Him.  I don't prefer the New King James Version, as I see some words taken away, and even changed, that's robbing of Gods Word, I know NKJV is more simplified and modernized, but for some it might be perfect for them, only if Gods Word is taught in the Spirit of Truth.  As for any other versions of the Bible, I really don't know much, I'm happy and comfortable that through the Spirit of my God, Our Heavenly Father, the Holy Spirit teaches me through my KJV, and that it is right for me.  

[B3L13v3R]

GE thanks for the input on Albert Barnes and 2 inputs on Fred Butler. Looks like you were anxious to get Fred Bulters information out!
I had not heard of him before.

I buried a friend two days ago, he will be missed, thus the delay.

Fred Butler's reference to "Passover Week" being the same as "Passover" appears to be in error.
The actual Passover is only a one day event. This fact is more important to me than the things that have been associated with the word.
Fred Butler lumps the Passover together with the Feast of Unleavened Bread. I don't see this with the Scripture verses he has given, again Passover is only one day.
 Jesus Christ as my "Passover" who spared me from Hell , died only once for all, on one day.

Looks like he may or may not have some merit concerning Herod "not" being a Pagan, and the word Easter not being derived from Astrate or Isthar. I've got something to look into when time permits on this.
For certain Herod was not a Jew.

It would be great to hear from any well studied Greek theologians who understand the merits of the Textus Receptus verses those Alexandrian Scripts to weigh in here on the board on this matter, while leaving out all bias and feelings.
Fred Butler was not able to do this so well himself with his demeaning overtones quoted below:
" any person with just a basic working knowledge of the history behind the transmission of our English Bible, as well as a general understanding of translation theory, recognizes the inherent difficulties in such a misguided belief."
"creates an absurd anachronism"
"obviously a mistake"
"fundamentally and indefensibly flawed"

I did read his testimony as well, and while I think little of Augustine or Calvinism, I too think even less of Gail Ripplinger's book " New Age Bible Versions" that I own for some of the same reasons he states, (along with other concerns he does not note.) I can identify with this being cast my way by some KJV only advocates as well:
Quote Fred Butler:"... I was also becoming aware of a couple of other problem areas inherent to KJV onlyism as a system.  First, there is the vitriolic tone that is practically ubiquitous in all KJV only literature.  This tone takes the shape of angry and vicious slander against the character of anyone who would dissent from the opinion of KJVO advocates and dare to challenge their core presuppositions.  The person who boldly withstands them, will be called a Bible rejecter, corrector, or denier; equated with an atheist, humanist or worse yet, a Roman Catholic Jesuit; and, as if those designations are not strong enough, the person’s Christian testimony is questioned and he is told that he is an apostate from the true faith.  The sad reality is that these KJVO advocates actually believe it is their Christian duty to hurl ungodly accusations and call their detractors names."

Some of the "vitriolic tone that is practically ubiquitous" he mentions is also hurled my way by some Calvinist and Augustines also.

If we count the New Testaments there are hundreds of completed English Bible versions. Many more yet uncompleted. One thing for certain, things can be VERY confusing with this many "versions." Here are over 100 for an example.
One I do not believe to be a Bible at all that I have, would be “The Message” a very “messy Message” indeed.

For the record, I'm not a KJV only as many are.
However, after years of self study, I believe in the Textus Receptus to be the most reliable that the KJV and other Bibles stemmed from rather than the Codex Vaticanus Alexandrian text manuscripts.

I was Born Again after reading a paraphrased Bible from cover to cover as a heathen dog in 82.
Repented and believed on Jesus Christ shortly after reading it. Thank God!
Salvation was made clear enough for me through reading that paraphrased version, so along with the conviction of Almighty God, He can use those other versions!
In wanting more depth, I moved on to the NAS (1977 version) the KJV, later the NAS 95 version with it's "changes" to it's 77 NAS counterpart, and a number of others along the way including a few parallel Bibles before the home computer age that made so many Bibles available for all.

There was the one in the midst of the above that really through my faith in God's Word for a loop. That being an NIV “study” Bible I picked up in 86. I knew my Salvation to be intact in Jesus Christ, but wow, those non-Textus Receptus "footnotes” in that one really cast doubt on God's Word for me. I found myself not wanting to read the Word at all as a result of this particular "study" Bible. Along with 30ish completely missing verses, many other verses missing half of what the KJV had in it's verses, and those two black lines casting doubt on two entire areas in the Bible found at Mark 16:8 and John 7:53, and a multitude of other times the NIV saying of many Biblical verses "Some manuscripts do not have this verse." I sorrowfully and laboriously tried to read along with the NIV study Bible in 86 not knowing whether I could trust God's Word or not.
This was also the same year I found out about the various Greek manuscripts, when at the time the NIV I was reading had me thinking there was only "one."
 I also found Virginia Mollenkott to be of interest too in her being one of the NIV's “stylistic consultants” while she was (and still is) a practicing homosexual...

I do not identify with a number of roughshod individuals, heretical teachings, or cults that use the KJV either. Such as Peter Ruckman, the Masons, or the Mormons, who all use the KJV.
The strawman being because "they" use the KJV it must therefore be the wrong version for those who support the KJV.

I have come to conclude this after studying  many of the Bibles through the years, that the KJV is the most correct in English. If I had to point to just one of the many I own, it would be and has been the KJV for years.
For now, Easter works for me in it, as it was indeed after the Passover.

This holds much more importance to me than the lesser argument of it's not standing for eggs, Astrate or Isthar that I'll look into at a later time.
My understanding is as a notable Scholar, William Tyndale was the first to use Easter for good reason in an English Bible and he also came up with the word Passover.

I would not seeing what Butero had to say on defending Easter in the KJV as well.

[GoldenEagle]

B3L13v3R and EndSeeker will read more thoroughly and get to your post hopefully over the weekend. Sorry for your loss B3L13v3R. Hopefully he was a Believer?

 

God bless you brother!

GE

[Guest shiloh357]

As with any book, it needs to be proof read and edited, and with translations its more difficult, as its impossible to have the exact 100% wording from Greek to English.. it just doesn't work that way. It takes more than one try to get it as close as possible.

So this needed to take time, and the "English Bible" was being "purified"...

Besides i took a little trip back into history and found out a lot of disturbing things... to name one is..

 

The Tyndale Bible was never completed, The Roman Catholic Church caused him to be a martyr because he tried to give the people the Bible in their own language. At that time, the RCC wanted everyone to rely on them for teaching and interpretation.

Later on in the1600's They never wanted the KJV to be printed, thats why they had a counter-reformation and printed the 1610 Douay rheims bible with the corrupted manuscripts that are in all new versions... When these new bibles come out saying "older and better manuscripts" its a lie... The translators of the KJV could have used those manuscripts (Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) but they seen they were corrupt. (Luke 2:33 should say Joseph ...not "father") (2 Timothy 2:15 should say study ...not "do your best" or whatever) those are just 2.. i can provide more...much more but those 2 i memorized...

 

The AUTHORIZED VERSION (1611 A.D.), The seventh Bible

Psalms 12:6-7

Psalms 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.

 

The King James Bible was the seventh English Bible, and it was translated in seven years. Do you think that’s just a coincidence?

No other Bible was needed after that.

 

That still doesn't answer the question as to why an all knowing, all powerful God couldn't have created a perfect English Bible the first time.

 

I would point out that you are making claims about the KJV that not even the translators make.   King James wanted a new translation because he didn't care for the commentary notes in the Geneva Bible.  The Geneva Bible was the Puritan Bible and the notes in it were Calvinistic and he objected namely the notes in the Geneva Bible that denied the divine right of Kings to rule.   The Geneva Bible also angered the bishops because those Geneva Bible notes also denied the right of bishops appointed by the king  to govern the church and instead insisted that the Church should be governed by presbyters elected by congregants of each church.

 

The KJV isn't the result of God's inspiring anyone to write it.  You need to study history

[J.Winnfield]

Basic beginning understanding of topic this is good

http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

Love, Steven

Thank you for that link; I've been thinking along these lines as well.  I'm an old guy and seeing the culture/words change over the years, I tend to distrust "newer" interpretations of the Bible (or even of the Constitution, BofR and Dec. Ind)

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh, I have a 1611 edition KJV Bible, with all the notes from the translators, and all I would say is just because they didn't realize the magnitude of what they were doing, and they didn't make bold claims in what they wrote, that doesn't prove it isn't God inspired. 

Simply placing the mantle of "inspired" on it, doesn't make it so.   There has to be evidence of inspiration.  The doctrine of inspiration ONLY applies to the original authors.  They were inspired and the original text is an inspired document.  But copies are never "inspired" and neither are translations. 

 

Besides.  The original 1611 KJV contains the uninspired Apocrypha.  Were it inspired by God, He would not have included uninspired apocryphal writings, rife with historical error, in a "pure" and "inspired" translation of the Scriptures.

 

I would imagine Paul the Apostle didn't realize all his letters would become scripture, yet they did.  The same thing would apply to the others who wrote the Bible under the inspiration of God.

 

Actually, that isn't true.  They did know, generally speaking that what they were writing was inspired and said so.  The inspiration of the text is a claim that the Bible makes about it's self over and over again, in nearly every book of the Bible. Whether they knew that their writings were going would comprise a canon of Scripture is another

 

 

I am aware of the history of the KJV Bible, and I won't argue with what you said about why it was authorized, but I still believe it is God inspired. 

 

Inspired?  Based on... what?

[Trinitron]

Well, more often than not, the NT authors quoted the LXX.  There are also many allusions to the apocryphal books in the NT.  At least the 14 contained in the LXX, not the extra 2 that later ended up in the Catholic Bible.  The Church for the first 4 centuries used the LXX as their OT.  Jerome's Latin version of the Hebrew was actually unpopular and took some time to gain acceptance.  Back on topic.  It's funny how much the KJV translators were Latin lovers.  If you look at a 1611, most of the time on the side of the page in the OT there is there is a remark of what the Hebrew read for the given passage.  That is to say in many cases, they went with the Latin reading over the Hebrew.  Take a look.  You can click on the facsimile picture and see for yourself:  http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

Edited July 4, 2014 by Trinitron