King James Onlyism supported

[B3L13v3R]

On 12/14/2019 at 4:21 AM, The_Patriot2019 said:

...I should also point out, that your using the modern KJV, the one in the 1700s. That's not even a translation, it's a transliteration. If you want to call yourself a true purist you need to use the 1611

Some days I'm a purist then!

I do read from this genuine "photocopied" 1611 KJV that I have at times, that's currently in a museum.

A portion of John 3: 8-36

John 3: 14-19


For those wanting a look at the original 1611 KJV in "text" it's here it's entirety.
It has some photo portions of an original 1611 below the text at the same page:

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

[B3L13v3R]

The original 1611 KJV was printed in "Gothic" type. We now use "Roman" type.
So a "u" in Gothic, is now a "v" in Roman.
An "I" is now a "J."
An "f" in Gothic is now often an "s" in Roman type. 
The 1611 KJV "Iefvs" in Gothic, is now "Jesus" in Roman type.

At the same time, they did not have the grammatical "rules" we now have.
The 400 "changes" we now have since 1611 that have been done were for Gothic to Roman type, and for our newer grammar rules being applied towards the same words in spelling.

When applying the above thoughts, I do not find it too hard to read "the original" 1611 KJV!

[ayin jade]

58 minutes ago, B3L13v3R said:

The original 1611 KJV was printed in "Gothic" type. We now use "Roman" type.
So a "u" in Gothic, is now a "v" in Roman.
An "I" is now a "J."
An "f" in Gothic is now often an "s" in Roman type. 
The 1611 KJV "Iefvs" in Gothic, is now "Jesus" in Roman type.

At the same time, they did not have the grammatical "rules" we now have.
The 400 "changes" we now have since 1611 that have been done were for Gothic to Roman type, and for our newer grammar rules being applied towards the same words in spelling.

When applying the above thoughts, I do not find it too hard to read "the original" 1611 KJV!

Which 1611 are you reading? The he bible or the she bible? The first folio printing that contains certain errors, or the second which corrected those errors but added new errors?

[The_Patriot21]

2 hours ago, B3L13v3R said:

Some days I'm a purist then!

I do read from this genuine "photocopied" 1611 KJV that I have at times, that's currently in a museum.

A portion of John 3: 8-36

John 3: 14-19


For those wanting a look at the original 1611 KJV in "text" it's here it's entirety.
It has some photo portions of an original 1611 below the text at the same page:

https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/

I've got nothing against the KJV, or even the 1611, for those who care to use one. My primary study Bible is a kjv and I own a 1611. I'm just honest enough to realize it's not the only good translation out there, and it is harder to read. 

[InChristAlways]

Posted December 10

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.

===========================================

Personally, I use the KJperVersion as a paper weight, JK...........It is grossly mistranslated and would probably make for good Bible for children and newbies to Jesus.

I prefer going directly to the Hebrew and Greek Mss along with a good concordance and lexicon for deeper study.

From google search. Everything one wants to know about that version but were afraid to ask.....and for good reason!

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-ab&sxsrf=ACYBGNRZ-ESNgGxVnsxLGTR81JGLfiw6mw%3A1576544224920&source=hp&ei=4Cf4XY7SNdHwsQWN6Y24Ag&q=king+james+version+mistranslated&oq=king+james+version+mistranslated&gs_l=psy-ab.3...304859.334591..335535...15.0..0.232.4947.11j29j2......0....1..gws-wiz.....10..35i362i39j0j0i131j35i39j0i20i263j0i10j0i22i10i30j0i22i30j33i160.LLILqQs9U1I&ved=0ahUKEwiOwvzzvLvmAhVReKwKHY10AycQ4dUDCAc&uact=5

http://www.considerthis.net/Files/Textfile/kjv-errors.htm

Many adherents to the theory of an inerrant translation of scripture, namely those referred to as KJV-onlyists, are thoroughly convinced that Yahuwah has preserved His sacred written word in the English language through the translation of the King James Version, which is also called the Authorized Version. (The naming of this version is another interesting story that I will not go into here. Let it suffice that if you are interested there are many accurate sources available that tell that story.) These King James Onlyist people can (and usually do) get arrogant, violently agitated, and very rude with anyone who opposes their theory on any grounds, but especially on the grounds that the errors of translation that are there are quite obvious to anyone with an honest and discerning eye.

Let it be understood and rest assured that if there is ONE error ANYWHERE in ANY translated text of scripture, then that error is a fatal flaw in the idea of divine inspiration and therefore the version CANNOT be a divinely inspired translation, but the work of man. Our Eloah cannot and will not make ANY errors of ANY kind ANYWHERE .

Unhappily for the KJV-onlyists, there are many, many errors of translation found in the King James Version of the scriptures that can be readily seen by anyone who is honest in their evaluation of what they are reading. These errors on occasion cause the meaning of a particular verse or passage to be muddled and in some cases will even change the intended meaning to the point that it will be completely misunderstood by the average reader.

Conclusion

The very apparent errors of translation in the KJV, and a lot of them have been carried over into other versions, have also produced the greatest majority of so-called "contradictions" of scripture and so given the opponent a solid basis for denying the divine inspiration of the original language texts. Listen to the naysayers of scripture and see if that is not the message you hear. Then look at the particular passage under attack and even though what they say is in accordance with the KJV, it will not be in accordance with the underlying original language text.

So the only honest and legitimate conclusion possible is that there is no "divinely inspired" translated version of scripture. Since that is the case, and you are responsible for what you believe, it behooves you to take no man’s word for what is in scripture. Get the original language scripture and learn how to decipher it for yourself. The texts are easily obtained and with the language tools available today the decipherment is not as hard as you may imagine.

 

 

Edited December 17, 2019 by InChristAlways

[dhchristian]

17 hours ago, Godismyloveforever said:

20 hours ago, Margo1945 said:

Are we where yet?

End of the thread. 

I Think Both sides of the debate have been fairly presented here, and that makes me happy

You all have the information presented to you, so you can approach this topic knowing all sides of the debate. Just remember, what Paul Wrote in 1 Cor 3....

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

If You substitute Paul with the KJV and Apollos with other versions, then you will see what we all need to see on this debate. The strife is the result of carnality, God is the source of the Growth... Paraphrasing verse 6, The NIV may have planted the seed, and the KJV may have watered the seed, But God granted the Growth. Both sides have valid points, But the Growth is from God, and he can use whatever scripture translation he wants to in order to Grant the Growth. The Word of God is a Living Word, as @Margo1945 said. The Holy Ghost will move through the Word, and speak to each of us. My Personal preference is the KJV, But this does not mean that he does not use the other versions to speak through to you. 

So I think(?) we have arrived....