King James Onlyism supported

[The_Patriot21]

5 hours ago, walla299 said:

Seems a good place to add a point or two here:

I've run into new believers in Christ who were given a KJV and couldn't read it and their walk with Christ suffered because of that - until they found out about newer translations (ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) that use modern English. I know from personal experience that trying to read a KJV without prior exposure to it is like trying to read a newspaper in a foreign language. KJV was all that was available in our home - so I had to read that and have a dictionary handy . . . at least until we started on Shakespeare in school . . .  

Before anyone freaks out: I'm not saying the KJV is bad. I'm saying modern folks (especially new believers!) usually need to get their feet on the ground first. The "best" Bible translation is one that someone can read and understand. The Lord will lead them from there.

 

realistically, the KJV is only listed at a 12th grade reading level, however, with that said, its not the easiest read. People often times dont want to read something thats difficult to read, one shouldn't have to pull out a dictionary if they want to read the word of God. I remember in high school, some of my required reading was Charles Dickens books such as Oliver twist. I hated it, partly because it was depressing, partly because it was so difficult to read. Ive never had the issue with understanding the KJV that I did with Dickens, but the point remains, young christians arnt likely to read something that they need translated to them. Sure, mature christians have no issue with pulling out commentaries and greek word studies, in fact many enjoy that, but someone who is young in Christ isnt likely to, nor should they have to. Its not effectively witnessing to them.

Realistically, saying "the KJV is the only one thats accurate" is no more a true statement then the Catholic church saying that the Bible couldn't be translated into english, because only the latin Vulgate was pure. Its keeping Gods word out of peoples hands.

 

[The_Patriot21]

4 hours ago, dhchristian said:

Patriot,

Does how the Word for Unicorn or Great Aurochs or rhino and how it is translated as affect any Doctrine Of Scripture? Look at the link I posted and the omissions of some of the Modern versions.... These are not minor changes, but ones that affect serious doctrines, By removing the Deity of Christ and the Blood of the Lamb, and the removal of "The Lord" from in front of Jesus approximately a Hundred times. Here is an example, of a verse that is a test of the Spirit, and notice what they do with the definitive article "The" Lord in the versions.

Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor 12:3, KJV) 

Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking [fn]by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is [fn]accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except [fn]by the Holy Spirit. (NASB)

The Word for Lord is Kyrios which means Lord and master, By placing the definitive article "The" In Front of Kyrios this verse is saying that Jesus is the LORD as in God without a doubt, But without the definitive article there is doubt as to meaning. 

How does this test of the Spirit work, if you ask a non-believer (A wolf in sheep's clothing) can you say that "Jesus is the Lord", they will respond back Jesus is Lord, or Jesus is my Lord, But they will not nor cannot say "Jesus Is the Lord". This is by no means the only test of the Spirit given us, but this does weed out most of the cults out there who have an issue with the deity of Christ. They see Jesus as a lesser Lord.... or another lord, hence the Words of Jesus where he says "Lord, Lord" together in the often quoted verse of the works teachers.

If You look at all the places where this dual "Lord, Lord" is placed you will see that these verses are pointing to a false understanding of Jesus' Deity. Not to the conditional security many of these works Christians promote and use these verses to Promote. In Other words, many who use these verses are condemning themselves without realizing it. Here is the Link to those verses and notice the theme of them all. 

https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Lord+Lord&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1 

Jesus is the LORD, Not another Lord of a Pantheon. The trinity is One God, Not three Gods. Our God is One. 

Here again is the link I posted earlier, take the time and read it, this list is not exhaustive by any means.

https://helpersofyourjoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/THEKJVvsModern.pdf

no, it doesnt really effect doctrine. theres some interesting discussion over what the "unicorn" actually was, but it doesnt change the message of the Bible at all, just makes for some interesting discussion points.

[LadyKay]

1 hour ago, Cletus said:

I really can not fathom how anyone can argue that their bible is somehow better when it has over 800 things missing. 

I already explain why verses were taken out.  So what else can I say here?  All I can do is just let it be. 

[B3L13v3R]

David Cloud pretty well defines where I stand as "King James Only." 
And where "I am not “King James Only."

 

https://www.wayoflife.org/database/king_james_only.html
(About a 10 minute read) A portion of the article:

"I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has given infallible Scripture in the original Greek and Hebrew writings and that He has preserved that in the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Received Text and that we have a beautiful translation of it in the English language in the Authorized Version, call me “King James Only.”

"...Similarly, if “King James Only” defines one who rejects the theory that the “preserved” Word of God was hidden away in the Pope’s library and in a weird Greek Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai (a monastery which has a room full of the skulls of dead monks) for hundreds of years, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that it is necessary to have one biblical standard in a language as important as English and who believes that the multiplicity of competing versions has created confusion and has weakened the authority of the Word of God, call me “King James Only.”

"...ON THE OTHER HAND, I WILL NOT ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration. The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspiration as would confine it to the Hebrew and Greek words in which it was written, so that one who reads a good translation would not have ‘the words of the Lord.’” To say that the King James Bible is the inspired Word of God in the English language because it is an accurate translation of the preserved Hebrew and Greek is not the same as saying that it was given by inspiration"

If “King James Only” defines one who believes the English KJV is superior to the Hebrew and Greek texts upon which it was based, I am not “King James Only.” In fact, I believe such an idea is pure nonsense and heresy, as it would mean the pure and preserved Word of God did not exist before 1611.

"If “King James Only” defines one who believes that a person can only be saved through the King James Bible, I am not “King James Only.” It is the gospel of Jesus Christ that is the power of God unto salvation (Rom. 1:16), and even a Bible that is textually corrupt contains the gospel."

If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly a***s, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”

[B3L13v3R]

I was Saved after reading a paraphrased version called "The Living Bible" from cover to cover, ever so shallow that it was! Thus started my quest in finding out many of the same things the above author mentions.

For me, it's a funny place to be with some. On one side, I've been "fussed at" for not believing the KJV was inspired. It was preserved, not inspired.
The 66 Books that are now entailed as one Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, through men, who wrote in the languages in which they were fluent.
God used 40 or more writers, over a period of 1500-1600 years, across 3 continents. During this time God did not inspire these men to write in the Kings 1611 English.

On the other side, for the anything goes on the next latest and greatest Bible "translation" that comes out, some feel I'm not "hip enough" and "with it" or "don't understand." What they don't seem to understand is the majority of these translators are often siding with at least some unreliable Hebrew and Greek renderings. I'm personally aware of yet another "version" that's coming out next year.

That being said, there are FIVE "bibles" that I feel should be completely done away with, that I don't consider "Bibles" at all. They are "The Message, The Passion Translation, The Queen James Bible, (Homosexual) and The New World Translation. (A Cultic Jehovah's Witness version, where all the Deity of the eternal Son of God, Jesus Christ, has been removed.)
There are likely more out there along these same lines.

[Willa]

GOT QUESTIONS:"Question: "What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?"

Answer: When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary inspiration.” That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need?

Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse helps us to understand that even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote. Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law...” (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark, because it is the very Word of God.

Because the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, we can conclude that they are also inerrant and authoritative. A correct view of God will lead us to a correct view of His Word. Because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely perfect, His Word will by its very nature have the same characteristics. The same verses that establish the inspiration of the Scriptures also establish that it is both inerrant and authoritative. Without a doubt the Bible is what it claims to be—the undeniable, authoritative, Word of God to humanity."

 

I believe in verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures in their original autographs.  That means that while God has preserved the Scriptures for mankind, there are small errors in every translation because man is fallible.  No doctrine has been changed by this.  However, King James version has had many errors over the years of translating.  The only radical one in KJV was the infamous "Thou shalt commit adultery".  There are small errors in many Greek translations because the laity were allowed to make their own personal copies by the Greek Church.  Only priests made copies in the Roman Church.  But most of them followed Jerome's translation into Latin.  Whenever we change from one language to another there will be problems because there is often no word that directly translates into that language.  So the original very first Greek and Hebrew books even with a touch of Aramaic were without error.  The Holy Spirit has guarded and guided the translations and copies over the years.  Shakespeare had far more errors in the copies of his books and that is after the printing press.  It is when we compare to the copies of other literature that we stand in awe at God's miracle of preservation of His word.

 

[LadyKay]

See. I said it would all end in tears.

[LadyKay]

22 minutes ago, DustyRoad said:

--- Heretics and homosexuals were on the translation committees of modern versions.

Now just where did you hear that? 

Quote

Newer translations contain confusing footnotes which offer different meanings of certain words and even alternative renderings of verses. 

I don't find the footnotes confusing at all.   

Quote

Finally, I encourage readers to research the "King James Only" controversy for themselves. The internet has plenty to offer by way of information. 

Oh I did that! It turns out that everything I have been saying is right. 

[LadyKay]

Oh..... Nevermind. I'm done. You all have fun. 

Edited December 16, 2019 by LadyKay

[Yeshua153]

On 12/10/2019 at 5:21 PM, WBO said:

The truth I’m about to present is not popular to Christians which is shocking. But here it is. 

 

The King James Version Bible is the pure Word of God and it does not contain any errors. No not a single one.

 

 

Oh dear! where do I start, shall I give you the good news first? The NKJV is good for reference, as Strong's concordance uses that translation, to then define what the words mean in the original Hebrew & Greek.

No English translation is correct, as it is IMPOSSIBLE to translate, as the Greek, for example, has 22-27 different spellings of each word, Each word is dependent on whether its singular or plural, masculine, feminine or neuter gender, 1st, 2nd or 3rd person speech, & whether the case is nominative, accusative, dative or genitive. So the Hebrew Majority text, of the old testament & the Textus Receptus (received text) of the Greek in the new testament. An interlinear bible has both the original & what the translators imply as to what they think it should be in English.

The half Catholic & half protestant translators did similar for The KJV/NKJV, but they had there own denominational thinking, that influenced how they would translate.

The glaring example of an ERROR in the KJV is Acts 12v4;   And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. 

Notice Easter (even capitalised), is translated from Pasch, which is Passover in every other verse except this one. It is because the translator's church/denomination celebrates this pagan festival, & wanted to promote it!

For the sake of taking up too much reading, I will leave it there.