King james bible only

[GoldenEagle]

@ 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.

...

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.

 

@ Endseeker

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Pneuma can indeed be translated to ghost. However, it is not a very good translation of the word. The HS is not a ghost but God’s Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the same when encountered by the Hebrews/Jews in the OT as He is today with Believers in Jesus Christ.

The issue is Sam Gapp is wrong regarding Easter and Passover. Historically, Biblical contextually, and from a translation point of view the word "Easter" should not be in the Bible.

Clearly Jupiter/Mercurius is the wrong translation. Those are ROMAN false gods. Zeus/Hermes were GREEK false gods. The translation just shows the bias of the English translators and proves (along with other passages) that the KJV is not a perfect translation.

 

Seems to me the KJV is hit and miss in some passages as well?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

 

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

 

I agree the Message is a paraphrase.

It is true it's okay to agree to disagree. We still have one Holy Spirit, one Savior, and one Church that unites us.

God bless,

GE

[Guest]

Although many Christians only accept the King James Version as they believe it to be closer to the original Greek, it is actually not the most 'literal' translation. That would be the New American Standard, which I read from.

[Guest shiloh357]

 

 

To Shiloh, I would love to see how you are going to prove why some parts of the world add books like the one about Adam and Eve in the garden, and call that canon, and why the Catholic Church adds part of the Apocrypha in their Bible and calls that canon, and how you know for a fact they don't belong and our 66 books are correct.  I believe the 66 books are correct, but what is the "compelling evidence?"  In addition to that, I believe God wanted the Apocrypha included in the Bible, so we would have that knowledge, even if it is not on the same level as the other 66 books.  I don't believe that was a mistake. 

The apocrypha don't belong in the Christian Bible for the following reasons:

 

1.  None of the authors claim Divine inspiration for what they wrote

 

2. None of the writers of the New Testament quote from the apocrypha or reference them as Scripture directly or indirectly.

 

3. The apocryphal writings contradict the Scriptures and contain historical errors, such as claiming that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of Syria.

 

4.  There are unbiblical doctrines like praying for dead people and walking in total, sinless perfection.

 

5.  The Apocrypha is the basis for teaching works-based salvation, purgatory, the sinless birth of Mary.

 

6.  Another important reason that we know the Apocrypha shouldn't be included is that the world has no problem with the apocryphal writings.  The world and Satan attack ONLY the 66 books of the Christian Bible.  Every Satan-inspired BBC documentary meant to tear apart the Bible are aimed only that claims made in the 66 books of the true canon.  If anything they will use the apocrypha to contradict the Bible's claims, because the apocrypha is so unbiblical and contrary to genuine biblical doctrine.  Satan doesn't attack what isn't a threat to him.  Persecution comes for the Word's sake.

 

There is no reason why God would include the Apocrypha in the Bible.

 

I realize there is no way to prove divine inspiration of a translation, but I believe it by faith for one reason. 

 

That ins't faith; it's presumption.  You are presuming something you have no good reason to believe is true. 

 

I don't believe God would leave us with a bunch of imperfect Bibles we can't fully trust.  I believe he is powerful enough to preserve his Word for his church in our language. 

 

But He wasn't powerful enough to inspire the perfect English Bible the first time?   Did God relinquish his power over the preservation of His Word when the first six English translations were created?   Why let man read imperfect and corrupt Bibles until 1611??

 

Those who don't hold to divine inspiration with any translation believe they all have errors, so they have to go by their own biases when they decide which translation to accept as right. 

 

You do realize that in order to hold to the notion that the Textus Receptus is Divinely inspired, you have to make that case for the entire manuscript evidence path starting with the Textus Receptus going backward, right?  You would have to demonstrate an unbroken chain of Divinely inspired manuscripts going back to antiquity

[GoldenEagle]

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.

...

 

Honestly, Fred Butlers is able to put into words what would’ve taken me a long time to write. I can’t say that I agree with everything he says or the tone of some of the comments as you gave examples of but a lot of the objections are sound. I hadn’t read his testimony either.

Herod was perhaps not born a Jew but he likely was  a practicing Jew. The first Herod that is mentioned in the Bible is “Herod the Great”.  He was the son of Antipater the 2nd and he likely reigned from 40-4 B.C.  Information about Herod the Great can be found in the Bible (See Matt. 2:1-22 and Luke 1). Herod’s father was an Idumean who converted to Judaism. An Idumean was both a Greek and Roman term for an Edomite (Mark 3:8 and Mark 34:5-6)

I’d be interested to see what further insights you gain when you look into Easter/Herod further.

I will also say that I’ve met people that are willing to die for the idea that the KJV is the only accurate, perfect version of the Bible. They view dying for that idea (KJV only) on par with dying for Jesus Christ.  Strange.

It is interesting brother the note about The Message paraphrase considering you were saved using a paraphrase. But God is good and still get’s the glory!

I agree the NAS is a good version too.

Interesting that you’d mention you didn’t want to be associated with “.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.” I wonder if the Jehovah’s witnesses also use the KJV? I would agree that it is a straw man fallacy to say since they use the KJV it must be wrong.

I wonder about your thoughts on the translation of 2nd objection translation?

Glad to know your friend who passed was a Believer. He is with our Savior now.

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

BTW, if pneuma can be translated ghost, end of story.  I have looked up the word translated Easter, and it can be translated Easter, and that is absolutely correct.  The pagans actually celebrated a holiday known as Easter when the Bible was written.  I stand with the KJV translators on both, and if necessary, I can go back to each word one by one and show they are correct.  I have done it before.  You can keep claiming the KJV translators got it wrong, but the  Greek and Hebrew Dictionaries will continue to show the words used are valid choices.

Can and should are two different things brother. I'm not sure if saying either of the Easter or the Holy Ghost can be stated as absolutely correct. Sure, if you'd like to share your thoughts and the Scriptural backing on the matter go for it.

 

Interesting, does the Greek and Hebrew dictionaries say anything about the translation 2nd objection to ?

God bless,

GE

 

[gdemoss]

i have run accross many ppl who say the king james bible is the true word of God, Why exactly is that?

Because they have been led to believe that is the truth. Even if you present absolute bulletproof arguments to the contrary they cannot believe it.

These doctrines are part of their core beliefs and subconsciously tied to salvation in their belief though they usually can't see it.

I have recovered from this error myself.

[Willa]

My parents bought a new translation that was recommended by one of the television preachers they like. It wasn't the NIV, and it left out the same verses the NIV leaves out. I was showing this to my Father. You can start a separate thread on the NIV, but the problem goes much deeper than that. The new translations start with a corrupt, or at best, incomplete majority text, and that is the biggest problem. Any translation that begins with anything but the TR is not trustworthy.

Coheir, I think you may be confused here. The critical text is the one used by most modern scholars. It is based on the alexandrian group and especial the text found in Alexandria Egypt, alexandianus? The Byzantine majority text was used by Erasmus to create Textus Receptus. He was trying to create a better translation of the Vulgate when he made this translation into latan, including the Greek text beside it. However, in many cases he adjusted his greek text to correspond to readings of the church fathers and the vulgate used by the catholics. So it essentially is a new catholic bible which was based mostly on the Alexandrian majority texts, and modified to correspond to Vulgate. [ The Vulgate was translated into latin by Jerome from the old latin western manuscripts with the edits of later alexantrian manuscripts like vaticanius and new translations of the old testament directly from hebrew]. The third edition of Erasmus' greek notes was used as a basis for Textus Receptus, I believe.

Wescott & Hort's translation of vaticanus in 1881 is the basis of the American Standard Version which has fewer revisions than modern translations.

However, we should not cause those with weaker faith to stumble if they can trust no other version than KJV. It is more important that we read and believe God's Word.

[Trinitron]

Above is mostly incorrect and or incomplete information.

 

Erasmus had 6 late Greek Manuscripts from the 10th to the 14th Century that are from the Byzantine family but are not a proper representation.

For that you need the Hodges and Farstad or the Robinson Pierpont Byzantine Texts.

Wescott and Hort didn't only use Vaticanus.  They also used Alexandrinas and Sinaticus.

The best representative of this is in the Numerics New Testament in English by Ivan Panin.

 

Back in Erasmus's day there was no way of dating texts.  No concept of textual families.  Very little Greek texts available.
In fact some of the Greek Text was completely missing especially in Revelation where the Vulgate had to be converted to Greek to complete it.

 

The Alexandrian Text is the Majority Text for the first 9 centuries of Christianity. which is an important and overlooked fact. 

[gdemoss]

Isn't it strange how dogmatically people teach things as fact that they either read somewhere or were taught without the possibility to confirm those things as fact?