King james bible only

[another_poster]

 

 

 

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. 

[GoldenEagle]

I have looked at your objections Golden Eagle, and I can tell you what I would say to them.  I would disagree with you in every instance and say the word used in the KJV Bible is the best word.  Then it will come down to us arguing over whether or not it really is.  I have defended Easter and unicorn many times over, and will be glad to do so again, along with all the other words you claim are not best.  That includes Holy Ghost, which I also feel is proper. 

 

Even if I were to entertain that something like unicorn would make more sense to people today simply saying ox, that is a minor point compared to my biggest objection to new translations, the foundation they begin with.  I don't believe the majority text is complete or as accurate as the TR.  I believe the TR is the perfectly preserved Word of God.  Nothing will change that. I have serious problems with any translation that calls into question whether certain verses from the TR belong.

 

Okay so you disagree brother. That's it? The subjects presented are 1st and 3rd 

There is no doubt in my mind that other translations have poor choices for words. No translation of the Bible is perfect. Would you agree?

 

I want to make one quick point about this thread.  Nobody asked why people don't take the KJV only position.  It was asked why some people do take the KJV only position?  I tried to answer that initially, because I am KJV only, or at least TR only, but for me, that is KJV only, as that is the only translation I use.  It is all I need.  I don't need a dozen Bibles.

 

Fair enough brother. And that is totally fine for you to study and read from that version. It's just when people tell others that the KJV is the only version people should be reading is what many take issue with I guess. 

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

Willamina, has my response to this topic, but she is much nicer about it.

 

I studied the KJV from an ulterior purpose, you might say, looking for specific answers on topics to do with ancient science, which are conveniently omitted from these other so called 'bibles' published or rather "knocked together" after the year 1930.

 

Because these boards of endowed paling 'scholars' had absolutely no idea of what the Bible was talking about, they supplanted valuable and profound information which had been preserved for thousands of years.

 

The translator of the one Bible was burned at the stake, but the business board and their scholars of the new bibles, went laughing all the way to the bank. 

 

Much later, after comparing modern 'bibles' with the TR derivatives, I found that my salvation could well be in jeopardy if I was not reading the right stuff.

 

Don't take this as an insult, because the Holy Spirit will use a newspaper to call us if He has to, but once we hear a warning we better take the safe route and investigate. 

Question: Are you saying a person's salvation is dependent on reading the right translation of the Bible? More specifically the KJV? Please clarify so we don't misunderstand you...

God bless,

GE

[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.

 

"QUESTION: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word "pascha" and should it be translated as "passover"?

 

ANSWER: No, "pascha" is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as the following explanation will show.

 

    EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is the word "pascha". This word appears twenty-nine times in the New Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "Passover" in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free from four hundred years of bondage.

 

The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have made much of this translation of "pascha".

...

So the first issue here is the concept of a perfect Bible translation. The KJV is not perfect. No translation is.

Further the question should be asked: Why did the translators of the King James Bible translate as Passover all 28 other occurrences of pascha in the New Testament except for this one verse, Acts 12:4, where they translated it Easter?

 

Albert Barnes wrote in his commentary:

 

“There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover, meta to pasca [μετα το πάσχα]. The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honour of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that; nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles.

 

“The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of love, or the Venus of the North, in honour of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). As this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honour of the ressurection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover. In the translation by Wicliffe [Wycliffe], the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tindal [Tyndale] and Coverdale used the word Easter, and hence it has very improperly crept into our [King James Version] translation” (Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible, 1798-1870, comments on Acts 12:4).

 

Instead of supporting the Christian observance of Easter and the KJV translation of Acts 12:4 the translation should corroborate the other 28 uses of the word pascha in the New Testament to show us that the early Church of God observed the Passover. The 29 references cover the span from Christ’s death through the later writing of the apostle Paul. It seems pretty clear that the Church in the New Testament observed the Passover and not Easter.

 

Thoughts?

God bless,

GE

[GoldenEagle]

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.

 

So King Herod was a pagan and he celebrated the fertility festivals surrounding the ancient worship of Astarte or Isthar – known as the “queen of heaven”. Maybe? Evidence to the contrary though.

 

See this link: http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb024.html

It is important to mention at the outset that KJV advocates are dependent upon a 19^th century book written by amateur historian, Rev. Alexander Hislop, entitled The Two Babylons, as a source in support of this argument.  Mr. Hislop’s book attempts to draw an historical link between the sacramental practices and iconographic imagery of Roman Catholicism with ancient Babylonian pagan worship ceremonies.  The book, sadly, is a terrible fraud that contains an abundance of imaginative conspiratorial nonsense, poor historical research and contrived connections between Roman Catholicism and Babylonian paganism that are clearly illogical.  A handful of apologists have performed a fine service for the Church by debunking Mr. Hislop’s imaginary book, but many Fundamental Christians who defend KJV onlyism still accept his work as being truthful.  As a result, when they employ Hislop’s material as evidence for Herod celebrating in fertility festivals named after the goddess Astarte as a reason the word “Easter” should remain in the KJV, they are guilty of promoting at least three historical inaccuracies.

 

First of all, there is absolutely no historical proof that Herod was the least bit religious, even as a “pagan.” In fact, most historical accounts about Herod indicate that he was non-religious and more akin to being a political secularist.  Yet, despite his a-religious tendencies, he still respected the Jewish festivals out of necessity, because it was politically expedient for him to do so.  He did not want to stir up trouble with the Jewish establishment and in turn, incur the wrath of Roman for not keeping the peace in his district.  It would have been foolish for him to engage in pagan worship practices and not show respect to the Passover, because it would cause trouble with the religious Jews.

 

A second major inaccuracy is the claim that the fertility goddess Astrate/Isthar was worshipped in Israel during the time of Herod.  Again, there is absolutely no historical evidence to suggest anyone during that time participated in any pagan worship practices, let alone those dedicated to Astrate/Isthar.  Any and all ancient pagan worship practices were abolished when the Jews returned from exile in 535 BC.  They had, in a sense, learned their lesson about committing spiritual adultery against their covenant God.  If Herod was in the habit of overtly engaging in paganism, then he (and anyone else for that matter) most certainly would have been under fire from the Jewish leadership and in danger of loosing his appointment as ruler over the district of Judea. 

 

Moreover, the English word “Easter” is not derived from either Astrate or Isthar, or any other near-Eastern pagan god or goddess. This fact alone absolutely devastates the KJV onlyist’s argument defending Acts 12:4.  It is true “Easter” is named for a goddess, but it was one King Herod never knew existed.  Easter comes from an old, Anglo-Saxon word Eostre that is the name of a Saxon goddess of fertility and sunrise whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox.

 

Our modern word east is also derived from Eostre, because east is the direction of the sunrise.  According to Venerable Bede, an 8^th century, English pastor and theologian, Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted the goddess’s name along with many of the celebratory practices for the Mass of Christ’s Resurrection.

 

In an article posted at the Trinitarian Bible Society website, William Tyndale was the first English translator to employ the use of Easter as a translation for the word pascha: 

 

When Tyndale applied his talents to the translation of the New Testament from Greek into English, he was not satisfied with the use of a completely foreign word, and decided to take into account the fact that the season of the passover was known generally to English people as 'Easter' … The Greek word occurs twenty-nine times in the New Testament, and Tyndale has ester or easter fourteen times, esterlambe eleven times, esterfest once, and paschall lambe three times.  When Tyndale began his translation of the Pentateuch he was again faced with the problem in Exodus 12.11 and twenty-one other places, and no doubt recognising that easter in this context would be an anachronism he coined a new word, passover, and used it consistently in all twenty-two places. It is therefore to Tyndale that our language is indebted for this meaningful and appropriate word. His labours on the Old Testament left little time for revision of the New Testament, with the result that while passover is found in his 1530 Pentateuch, ester remained in the N.T. of 1534, having been used in his first edition several years before he coined the new word passover.

 

As other English translations began to follow after Tyndale’s initial work, the translators of the various English editions recognized the confusion the word “Easter” caused as a translation for pascha, so they began the process of removing references to “Easter” and rightly translating in its place the word “Passover.”  By the time the King James was translated, all the references to “Easter” in place of “Passover” had been corrected.  The one exception was Acts 12:4.  More than likely, this was an unintentional oversight on the part of the editors for the final draft of the KJV.  Some historians speculate “Easter” may have been retained for ecclesiastical purposes, but if that were the case, the translators would have hardly been satisfied with just one instance.

 

[Guest]

 

There is no doubt in my mind that other translations have poor choices for words. No translation of the Bible is perfect. Would you agree?

God bless,

GE

 

 

One of my pet peeve examples of that, is the fact that most bibles fail to translate the Greek word "baptizo". They invent an English word "baptism" which is just a transliteration. Would it have hurt to actually translate the word to what it really means: "immersion"? Maybe it would hurt sales, I don't know, would Catholics and Lutherans avoid specific bible versions for saying immersion? Would people be offended by an actual translation there?

 

I suppose that some words are translated as they are, to help support specific doctrinal beliefs. I wonder, for example, about the original words for "coming", "appearance", "arrival", "meet", "tribulation", "wrath" and on and on - words that relate to ones understanding of eschatology. I have noticed that people have a way of saying, "this means that, when it is here, but it means this other thing, when it is there".

 

Why would we want to have a bible or a translation, that is consistent and honest, when it is so much easier and entertaining, to confuse everyone?

[ayin jade]

 

 

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.

[ayin jade]

I found that my salvation could well be in jeopardy if I was not reading the right stuff.

 

 

Jesus is the means by which we are saved. So how could not reading the right stuff prevent you from being saved? The bible isnt what saves us. 

[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

Edited July 2, 2014 by EndSeeker

[ayin jade]

Rolls eyes