King james bible only

[Paradox]

So because people died, it's the one and true manuscript?  Because it was made against the wishes of the evil Catholics?  Who destroyed the native Americans and Hawaiians?

Read the paragraph before that statement. Doctrinal differences is the issue. 

 

England, like Germany were instrumental in publishing the Bible and bringing about freedom. What have protestant countries have done since? What you expect Satan to give up on politics because he lost his best beast? 

 

French revolution, another one of his favorites.

 

I'm done with this topic.

[B3L13v3R]

 Sorry for your loss B3L13v3R. Hopefully he was a Believer?

Yep, thank God he was!

Looking forward to seeing him again.

[another_poster]

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

the problem I have with comparisons like this is that it does not look at the meaning of the passage. I have just done a quick search for the word saints in KJV and then looked at NIV and found no difference in meaning in the five passages I looked at. I made sure to use five books with different authors. I really don't get why people get so caught up on what word is used when the meaning is the same. Can you perhaps explain why it makes such a difference in your opinion?

[another_poster]

 

 

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)

 

technically not correct. the satanic bible is published by Avon books which is a company owned by harper collins which is part of Rupert Murdochs empire. Zondervan is a company owned by Harper Collins. They are different companies with a common owner. Profits do not go into the other. At the end of the day Murdoch is out to make money. Zondervan was making money and Murdoch felt he could grow it bigger and make more money if he purchased it. The independance still remains mostly unlike his newspaper empire where Murdoch still takes a very keen interest and dictates policy. That is simply because Murdochs first love is the newspaper business.

[Guest shiloh357]

What I am saying Shiloh, is that I believe God moved on King James to authorize a new Bible translation, and then moved on the translators to give us a perfect translation we can fully trust.  Of course I can't prove that to everyone's satisfaction. 

I understand all of that, Butero.  I realize that you think they were inspired.  The problem is that you have no good reason to believe it.  It is an empty belief  that has no evidentiary background.  True faith is evidentiary in nature.   You want to believe it is an inspired and an inerrant translation, but  that is really nothing more than a fantasy due to the fact that you can provide nothing solid to show that.  History says your fantasy about the KJV is wrong.

 

It is not even a matter of proving it.  It would be one thing if you could provide evidence to at least show that your position is rational. But you can't.

 

It is like the people who argue that in some countries, the Biblical cannon includes books you don't find accepted here.  How can you prove which cannon is right?  How can you prove the Apocrypha doesn't belong in scripture? 

 

I can provide plenty of evidence why those books don't belong in the canon. There is all kinds of compelling evidence.   You cannot compare that with the baseless, fantasy-based claim that the KJV is inspired by God.  

 

My personal opinion is that God did want it included in the Bible, but wanted it done in a way where it wasn't looked at as the equal of the other 66 books, and that is how it came to be in the middle by itself.  I don't even believe that was an accident.

 

 

 

Again, on what basis?   That's just something that you are pulling out of thin air.  If the original 1611 KJV is an inspired document on the same level of inspiration as the original autographs of Scripture, if the KJV translators back in 1611 were as inspired as Paul, or Moses or Peter, it makes NO sense that they would have included the apocrypha.  You can't really defend the presence of the apocrypha in an inspired document.

 

You have the cart before the horse.  You run with the assumption of inspiration for the translation and then seek to defend that assumption.  What you should do is study the evidence (if it exists) and then go where the evidence leads.

[Trinitron]

This is a must listen for understanding this topic:

 

http://archive.org/details/kjv_preface_0807_librivox

[EndSeeker]

 

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

the problem I have with comparisons like this is that it does not look at the meaning of the passage. I have just done a quick search for the word saints in KJV and then looked at NIV and found no difference in meaning in the five passages I looked at. I made sure to use five books with different authors. I really don't get why people get so caught up on what word is used when the meaning is the same. Can you perhaps explain why it makes such a difference in your opinion?

 

 

It matters because the NIV is a Catholic Bible (with no Apocrypha) You should read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"

in that you'll find lots of crazy stuff... They believe you have to be dead (for 5 years) to be a saint, even then the Pope has to declare it... So basically I'm not a saint, you're not a saint and we are heretics for believing/knowing we are saints

Besides i don't think its the same meaning, being a good person does not make one a saint..and idk which edition you have but "Lords people"..sure it can mean saint but why not just say saint? why change it in the first place? "Saint" is not an archaic word, a lot of people think these new versions are just KJV's with no archaic words but thats far from the truth

Edited July 5, 2014 by EndSeeker

[another_poster]

 

 

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

the problem I have with comparisons like this is that it does not look at the meaning of the passage. I have just done a quick search for the word saints in KJV and then looked at NIV and found no difference in meaning in the five passages I looked at. I made sure to use five books with different authors. I really don't get why people get so caught up on what word is used when the meaning is the same. Can you perhaps explain why it makes such a difference in your opinion?

 

 

It matters because the NIV is a Catholic Bible (with no Apocrypha) You should read the "Catechism of the Catholic Church"

in that you'll find lots of crazy stuff... They believe you have to be dead (for 5 years) to be a saint, even then the Pope has to declare it... So basically I'm not a saint, you're not a saint and we are heretics for believing/knowing we are saints

Besides i don't think its the same meaning, being a good person does not make one a saint..and idk which edition you have but "Lords people"..sure it can mean saint but why not just say saint? why change it in the first place? "Saint" is not an archaic word, a lot of people think these new versions are just KJV's with no archaic words but thats far from the truth

 

so whats wrong with God's faithful people or God's holy people like it says in several passages? Likewise saint also has different meanings. Is it possible that is what the catholic church do?

I also don't agree with the claim that the NIV is a catholic bible. It is mainly targeted at protestants. Why do you say that? 

[GoldenEagle]

Maybe there should be a separate thread discussion on the NIV?

Not sure why the KJV typically gets compared to the NIV by KJV onlyists... The NASB and ESV are significantly better translations and comparisons. Plus, sorry but the NIV language is a lot more appealing than old English in the KJV.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

If King James had not ordered them to create a new translation, it is unlikely they would have embarked on such an enterprise given that they attribute the KJV to the will of the king of England and not to the King of kings.

 

+1 to this whole post. But especially this sentence.