King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

something I find in the KJV vs Modern English Translations

- KJV argument is always only strengthened while newer translations feel they are stuck defending their perversion of choice.
(not a sign from God alone? Then let it take from your spirit, leaving you unhappy)

- Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authority confirmation.

- Because Satan is so ever working as much as God Himself, 1 Peter 5:8 (KJV), The newer translations as a group attack the King James; usually differing doctrinally.


Please have a Blissful awakening.

[hmbld]

13 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

 

I am a King James only believer.

I am a Jesus Christ only believer!

not attacking any kjvonly’s, but there are many non English speaking people who know Jesus without kjv. 

[OldSchool2]

12 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Okay, there's got to be some plagiarism in there somewhere 

The go google it and tell us what you find.

[OldSchool2]

11 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

The KJV NT is the most accurate and based on the best manuscripts.    Other translations are based on the inferior texts like the Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus.  

It's isn't based on feelings at all. 

Someone based their feelings on it.

16 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

That is a truly sad statement, I feel like the King James Version Bible is a flawless and 100% whole and perfect translation of God....

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, OldSchool2 said:

Someone based their feelings on it.

 

I know.   I am simply stating that ultimately it isn't based on feeling.  It is based on the actual NT manuscripts.

[LadyKay]

1 hour ago, hmbld said:

I am a Jesus Christ only believer!

not attacking any kjvonly’s, but there are many non English speaking people who know Jesus without kjv. 

I can agree with that. Here is a thumps up for you.

[LadyKay]

2 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authority confirmation.

Who is this "Everyone"? I don't do that. 

Quote

The newer translations as a group attack the King James; usually differing doctrinally.

What? ??

[GandalfTheWise]

Some Christians as a matter of faith believe that some particular variant of the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God for the English speaking people.  I emphasize matter of faith.  Frankly, trying to have a dialog with many KJV-only people is often like trying to have a dialog with a convinced flat-earther.  Some are so convinced that God did it one particular way that their faith rides on being right on this particular matter.  For them, it is not a question of looking at existing manuscripts and textual studies, it is a matter of looking at which things led the the KJV and rejecting all else as either corrupted or Satanically inspired.  In my opinion, it's not much different than those who reject any and all science that in their minds falsely proves the earth is globe-like.

I've looked through a number of KJV only sites.  I consider most of them to at best to be sloppy; and at worst to be a fringe cult.  Most of their "proofs" of satanic inspiration of modern day "perversions" (as they are wont to call any non-KJV translation) boils down to either the devil or sin causing any difference from the KJV.   Pages upon pages of pointing out that different versions are different from the KJV and then assuming that every difference had an insidious doctrinal agenda behind it.  Then a few superficial criticisms and sloppy descriptions of how manuscripts were copied, transmitted, and are studied that sound convincing to people who know little about such things.  Presenting overly simplified scholarly-sounding dichotomies like Antiochian and Alexandrian manuscripts and then giving "proofs" why one is Godly and the other is not.   Most of them seem to play off of the legitimate scholarly debate of the merits of the majority texts versus older texts to reject older texts; and then falsely equate the Textus Receptus with the Majority Text.  The one thing they do well is generating pages upon pages of "proofs" that give an impression of an overwhelming sea of evidence in their favor.  People get lost in this sea of information that is little more than a long list of the differences between the KJV and other translations with speculative comments about the potential sinful, satanic, and heretical reasons for the differences.

My sense is that for most KJV-only believers, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that only one text, only one version, only one possible translation from Greek or Hebrew into English is the correct one and that it is an all or nothing proposition.  Either the entire translation is perfectly God's Word, or it should be rejected.  For people with this belief, it is a critical matter of faith to identify which manuscripts, which texts, which particular phrasing and wording in English is the single and only one the God has chosen as His Word.  This approach is quite frankly similar in outlook to a denomination like the RCC or any other denomination that has historically claimed to have unique access to the entirety of God's truth.  All others are wrong to the extent that anyone disagrees with them.  It is a matter of finding the one and only place where God has put His authority and going there.

Most Christians approach the question of how to deal with the variety of different manuscripts on a passage to passage basis.  For them, it is a question of painstakingly looking at the various manuscript witnesses for each passage to determine which set of witnesses is most credible for a given passage.  For them, it is not a question of asking which manuscript is the anointed one and always correct, but rather, collectively, what do these various witnesses say about the most likely original reading.  For them, it is about considering the range of possible wordings and phrasing of a Greek or Hebrew passage being translated into English.  It is about trying to understand the full range of nuances in the Greek or Hebrew sentences to best understand what a particular passage means and says.   The approach here is that God has not given any one particular group exclusivity, but rather forces Christians to come together and carefully consider as a body what the various witnesses are saying.

It is one thing for a believer to have their personal reasons for preferring the KJV.  It is by far another to make claims that English speaking Christians should not use any other version or to claim that the majority of differences are due to satanic, heretical, or sinful activities.

[LadyKay]

10 minutes ago, GandalfTheWise said:

Some Christians as a matter of faith believe that some particular variant of the KJV is the perfectly preserved Word of God for the English speaking people.  I emphasize matter of faith.  Frankly, trying to have a dialog with many KJV-only people is often like trying to have a dialog with a convinced flat-earther.  Some are so convinced that God did it one particular way that their faith rides on being right on this particular matter.  For them, it is not a question of looking at existing manuscripts and textual studies, it is a matter of looking at which things led the the KJV and rejecting all else as either corrupted or Satanically inspired.  In my opinion, it's not much different than those who reject any and all science that in their minds falsely proves the earth is globe-like.

I've looked through a number of KJV only sites.  I consider most of them to at best to be sloppy; and at worst to be a fringe cult.  Most of their "proofs" of satanic inspiration of modern day "perversions" (as they are wont to call any non-KJV translation) boils down to either the devil or sin causing any difference from the KJV.   Pages upon pages of pointing out that different versions are different from the KJV and then assuming that every difference had an insidious doctrinal agenda behind it.  Then a few superficial criticisms and sloppy descriptions of how manuscripts were copied, transmitted, and are studied that sound convincing to people who know little about such things.  Presenting overly simplified scholarly-sounding dichotomies like Antiochian and Alexandrian manuscripts and then giving "proofs" why one is Godly and the other is not.   Most of them seem to play off of the legitimate scholarly debate of the merits of the majority texts versus older texts to reject older texts; and then falsely equate the Textus Receptus with the Majority Text.  The one thing they do well is generating pages upon pages of "proofs" that give an impression of an overwhelming sea of evidence in their favor.  People get lost in this sea of information that is little more than a long list of the differences between the KJV and other translations with speculative comments about the potential sinful, satanic, and heretical reasons for the differences.

My sense is that for most KJV-only believers, there is a fundamental underlying assumption that only one text, only one version, only one possible translation from Greek or Hebrew into English is the correct one and that it is an all or nothing proposition.  Either the entire translation is perfectly God's Word, or it should be rejected.  For people with this belief, it is a critical matter of faith to identify which manuscripts, which texts, which particular phrasing and wording in English is the single and only one the God has chosen as His Word.  This approach is quite frankly similar in outlook to a denomination like the RCC or any other denomination that has historically claimed to have unique access to the entirety of God's truth.  All others are wrong to the extent that anyone disagrees with them.  It is a matter of finding the one and only place where God has put His authority and going there.

Most Christians approach the question of how to deal with the variety of different manuscripts on a passage to passage basis.  For them, it is a question of painstakingly looking at the various manuscript witnesses for each passage to determine which set of witnesses is most credible for a given passage.  For them, it is not a question of asking which manuscript is the anointed one and always correct, but rather, collectively, what do these various witnesses say about the most likely original reading.  For them, it is about considering the range of possible wordings and phrasing of a Greek or Hebrew passage being translated into English.  It is about trying to understand the full range of nuances in the Greek or Hebrew sentences to best understand what a particular passage means and says.   The approach here is that God has not given any one particular group exclusivity, but rather forces Christians to come together and carefully consider as a body what the various witnesses are saying.

It is one thing for a believer to have their personal reasons for preferring the KJV.  It is by far another to make claims that English speaking Christians should not use any other version or to claim that the majority of differences are due to satanic, heretical, or sinful activities.

Yes I agree. Very good. With very good information. 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On 2/13/2018 at 5:19 AM, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

 

- Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

 

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

 

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

 

- Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)

 

Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

 

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

 

Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

 

Here is our History:

The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Protestant Reformation for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

 

 

The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.

 

- Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)

 

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

 

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
 

.............................................................................................
 

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.

I am a KJV only person myself. Now no English translation is perfect and the KJV makes mistakes occasionally too but the KJV is the only one out there that doesnt dilute or outright remove scripture from the bible. 

Or cast doubt about the nature of the divinity of Christ. Havent you all noticed how some other bibles, especially the NIV bible, often have these annoying little footnotes saying "The most ancient and reliable texts do not contain such and such a verse", mostly with regards to Jesus' divine nature? What a great way for Satan to inspire doubt in people about the veracity of Scripture. 

And then you do some real reading about what the translators considered the most ancient and reliable and then you find out that they are NEITHER