KJV Only...which one!

[Bible Highlighter]

False. The Bible was written in Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic. If you insist that the Bible was written in English the conversation is over.

The Bible in scroll form was written first in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament), and then in Koine Greek (New Testament).
The Bible then moved into being written in book form by hand known as a Codex.
Then the Bible moved into being in book form with the printing process.
Gutenberg was the first to revolutionize the printing process with movable type in the mid 1400’s.
When the King James Bible came about in 1611, they printed it into one book.
This book was in English and is said by many Baptist churches in the 1600’s, 1700’s, 1800’s, and 1900’s to be the Word of God in English.
Your view is the departure from the standard tradition that began in 1881 that was a movement started by Westcott and Hort who were into Catholicism and who held to other heretical beliefs. Their view got people to create a sea of conflicting English bibles that all say something different (Causing confusion). Their view got all the footnotes in your Bible that have the serpent hissing, “Yea, hath God said,…?” in getting folks to doubt whole sections of Scripture like the ending in Mark, etcetera.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You must use a Hebrew and Greek lexicons to get back into what the original words were used and their meanings!

How do you know they got it right? You do realize James Strong was one of the Revisers right? How can we trust Revisers who worked with men who held to heretical beliefs? Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism. There was also an Arian on their team that they defended to keep on the Revision committee. Doesn’t sound good to me. But if that is the well you want to drink from… by all means.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Did the Holy Spirit inspire to us the biblical Hebrew and Greek, or the English? I want to get back to the Greek term chosen by Him and used!

Do you think God was able to translate the languages perfectly at Pentecost?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

They used the Vulgate and Rheims catholic bibles, so much for "vatican influence"

The Catholics tried to kill King James and stop his translation with a super bomb with a man named Guy Fawkes.
You can actually see in one of the Catholic writings telling other Catholics that the King James Bible is forbidden to read.

The fact of the matter is if you believe the King James Bible as the Word of God as your sole authority you are not falling for the trap of Rome.
The trap of Rome is to get you away from the Bible and for you to trust something else like the priest or scholar instead of the Bible.
Seeing that killing did not work in keeping the Scriptures out of men’s hands, they simply changed tactics without having to kill anyone.
They have now taken the Bible away from men with a different tactic instead of using murder. So the moment they get you to trust the scholar or some priest… they win (Because they have shifted you ever closer to their way of thinking). It’s no longer the Bible Alone as your authority. It’s the scholar or the priest. No longer can you read plainly the Bible. You have get the meaning from the scholar who knows the languages. Just like back in the day when Catholic priests only knew the special language of God (Latin) keeping the layperson (regular guy) in the dark.

Rome has not changed much.
Come out from her my people.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

What would you expect? They are producing an Edition of the Greek text, which is a Greek New Testament, footnotes, margin references, and a lexicon. If someone would find another manuscript, a new Edition is necessary. They got it right every time.

God is not that weak that He would let His Word fall prey to such confusion. For the Scriptures cannot be broken and God is not the author of confusion. We would be able to see clearly where His Word was. For if such was the case as you say, there is no real Word of God that we can trust on this planet without the help of the scholar or priest to give you the real meaning.

Again, think about the history of Rome.
The people could not understand the Scriptures because the priests did the services in Latin. Nobody could own the Scriptures without being killed.
Rome is up to it’s tricks again getting people to believe the scholar or priest over simply just believing the Bible in what it plainly says.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Again, it doesn't matter how the product came about or who paid for it. All that matters is whether the product is scholarly, accurate and reliable. Many of my friends own a copy and can read and understand the Greek. I have seen the Greek edition myself and though I don't personally own a copy, I have read it while sitting next to my friends in Bible study. I can tell you that the product contains ALL manuscript evidence. The disputed texts are always placed in the margin. Nothing is ever deleted. Anyone who understands Kone Greek can produce an English translation of their own. I personally have translated the book of Romans, (four or five times) 1 and 2 Thessalonians, Philippians, Ephesians (four or five times) and some other book I can't remember at the moment. Anyway, I had access to every manuscript available. I could have easily translated 1 John and included 1John 5:7 in my translation.

You argue as if there is some kind of evil dictator making everyone read a bad translation. Get a grip will ya?

This is the same argument used by James White. That makes no sense to say that the beliefs of an individual in no way influences a translation of the Bible unless they are being supervised in such a way that would prevent that. In fact, we can see 14 changed verses that does favor Catholicism, and so we cannot say that nothing happened because of their involvement. In fact, the idea of Modern Scholarship itself is Catholic because it is about getting you to trust the priest or the scholar (and their priestly holy language) instead of just reading Scripture plainly in your own language.

Jesus said, beware of the scribes.
The scribes are those who tran-Scribe the Scriptures.
That would be the scholar of our day.
Jesus is telling you to not implicitly trust them.

 

[JesusFan1]

The Bible in scroll form was written first in Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic (Old Testament), and then in Koine Greek (New Testament).
The Bible then moved into being written in book form by hand known as a Codex.
Then the Bible moved into being in book form with the printing process.
Gutenberg was the first to revolutionize the printing process with movable type in the mid 1400’s.
When the King James Bible came about in 1611, they printed it into one book.
This book was in English and is said by many Baptist churches in the 1600’s, 1700’s, 1800’s, and 1900’s to be the Word of God in English.
Your view is the departure from the standard tradition that began in 1881 that was a movement started by Westcott and Hort who were into Catholicism and who held to other heretical beliefs. Their view got people to create a sea of conflicting English bibles that all say something different (Causing confusion). Their view got all the footnotes in your Bible that have the serpent hissing, “Yea, hath God said,…?” in getting folks to doubt whole sections of Scripture like the ending in Mark, etcetera.

NONE until KJVO though held that any translation in English was perfect or only!

 

[JesusFan1]

How do you know they got it right? You do realize James Strong was one of the Revisers right? How can we trust Revisers who worked with men who held to heretical beliefs? Westcott and Hort were into Catholicism. There was also an Arian on their team that they defended to keep on the Revision committee. Doesn’t sound good to me. But if that is the well you want to drink from… by all means.

Did the Holy Spirit inspire the Hebrew and Greek or not? if yes, should one not strive to find out what terms meant in the original languages?

 

[JesusFan1]

Do you think God was able to translate the languages perfectly at Pentecost?

Was English the language He chose to inspire, or was it the Hebrew and the Greek?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

NONE until KJVO though held that any translation in English was perfect or only!

The General Baptists of England published the "Orthodox Creed" In 1678. It says, "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE, of which there hath NEVER been any doubt of their verity, and authority, in the protestant churches of Christ to this day." They then list the books of the Old and New Testament and then say, "All which are given by the inspiration of God, to be the Rule of faith and life." What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678? It was English and there can be little doubt that what they are talking about the Authorized Version of 1611.

Excerpts from the Presbyterian Encyclopaedia - 1884 - under the section of English Bible - W. Adams D.D.

"Nothing which diligence, circumspection, scholarship, love of truth, and prayer, could avail was wanting to perfect this version of the Word of God. It is what it professes to be, a translation not a paraphrase; each word and expression corresponding to the original. What has, by some, been deemed a defect, is in fact a great excellence in our translation; it preserves, as far as possible, the very idiom of the original, the peculiarities of Oriental diction; thus proving that the men who made it understood what was the best style of translation - that which a transparent glass is not seen itself but shows every thing which is beyond it."

"But so it happened, in the kind providence of God, that the received version was made just in that auspicious moment of peace mind and union among Protestants, which has secured its adoption by all as the common standard. None have charged it with partiality, as favoring this or that sect, for the good reason that these sects and partialities did not then exist."

Taken from the Association of Baptists 25th meeting 1830

We the church of Jesus Christ being regularly baptised upon the profession of our faith in Christ are convinced the concessive of associate churches. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCRIPTURES OF THE OLD AND THE NEW TESTAMENTS AS TRANSLATED BY THE AUTHORITY OF KING JAMES TO BE THE WORDS OF GOD AND IS THE ONLY TRUE RULE OF FAITH AND PRACTICE.

The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, ITS PERFECTION ASSUMED, AND THEREFORE ALL PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT VERSIONS MUST BE UNWORTHY OF NOTICE; nay, even the original text need not be consulted... (Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).

Barren River Association of Baptists, in their Articles of Faith adopted in 1830, considered the Old and New Testaments, as translated by the authority of King James, to be the words of God.

Bethlehem Anti-Mission Baptist Association in their Abstract of Principles in 1838 declared the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, as translated by King James, to be the Word of God.

In 1868 the General Conference of Freewill Baptists stated, we hold the sacred Scriptures in veneration, as set forth in King James’s version.

In 1896 the Washington District Regular Primitive Baptist Association changed their Abstract of Principles to say We believe that the King James Translation (out of the original tongues) is the Scripture of truth and the only rule of faith and practice.

Mates Creek District Association of Old Regular Baptists by 1905, and perhaps earlier, had an Abstract of Principles that claimed that the Scriptures of the Old Testament and New Testament, as translated under the reign of King James, are a revelation from God, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

1881: The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, Let not the hands of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament. We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit, as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible… The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come ( June 6, 1881).

1882: I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not...I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES' TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED... (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).

1890: The Supreme Court said, the practice of reading THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE, COMMONLY AND ONLY RECEIVED AS INSPIRED AND TRUE by the Protestant religious sects (Decision of the Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).

In 1882 author William W. Simkins wrote, I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation and bringing out of the entire [KJV] Bible in the English language. And I also say, that NO VERSION SINCE, BROUGHT OUT IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, HAS THE DIVINE...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict... ...He would not....I FURTHERMORE SAY, THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS THE ONLY DIVINELY INSPIRED TRANSLATION" (The English Version of the New Testament, Compared with King James' Translation, W.W. Simkins, pp. 41,42)

1945: President Harry S. Truman said, THE KING JAMES VERSION OF THE BIBLE IS THE BEST THERE IS OR EVER HAS BEEN OR WILL BE, and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it, and all they do is take the poetry out of it.

Here is Ronald Reagan on the King James Bible vs. a Modern Version:

 

[JesusFan1]

The Catholics tried to kill King James and stop his translation with a super bomb with a man named Guy Fawkes.
You can actually see in one of the Catholic writings telling other Catholics that the King James Bible is forbidden to read.

The fact of the matter is if you believe the King James Bible as the Word of God as your sole authority you are not falling for the trap of Rome.
The trap of Rome is to get you away from the Bible and for you to trust something else like the priest or scholar instead of the Bible.
Seeing that killing did not work in keeping the Scriptures out of men’s hands, they simply changed tactics without having to kill anyone.
They have now taken the Bible away from men with a different tactic instead of using murder. So the moment they get you to trust the scholar or some priest… they win (Because they have shifted you ever closer to their way of thinking). It’s no longer the Bible Alone as your authority. It’s the scholar or the priest. No longer can you read plainly the Bible. You have get the meaning from the scholar who knows the languages. Just like back in the day when Catholic priests only knew the special language of God (Latin) keeping the layperson (regular guy) in the dark.

Rome has not changed much.
Come out from her my people.

I believe that the Kjv is no more no less then Modern versions

 

[Jane_Doe22]

This, of course, is Very troubling (lost sleep over it...), because, the Mormons do
THE SAME about their book of mormon. Pray and ask for God to "put a burning
(indigestion?) in their heart, to know the book is True."

And they Also claim God answers. Problem is their doctrine
Polytheism (Multiple GodS), is DENIED by their own "book of mormon,"
saying "There Is ONE True God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."
(part of 25,000 words plagiarized From The KJB!???)

So much for "God leading them" To Truth! What think ye?

Actual "Mormon" here, clarifying what's believed:
There's one 1 God. 1 way, truth, light, etc. I am a monotheist. The Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons in that 1 God, like Trinitarians also believe.
And a person should come to know study, prayer, and God Spirit witnessing to you. Do not put a man or traditions first. God is King.

 

[JesusFan1]

Actual "Mormon" here, clarifying what's believed:
There's one 1 God. 1 way, truth, light, etc. I am a monotheist. The Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons in that 1 God, like Trinitarians also believe.
And a person should come to know study, prayer, and God Spirit witnessing to you. Do not put a man or traditions first. God is King.

Do you agree with Lds that Trinity is NOT One God in 3 persons, but 3 gods acting in unison?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I believe that the Kjv is no more no less then Modern versions

But the Modern versions are clearly doctrinally impure, and have dark origins.
The King James BIble does not have these kinds of problems.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Actual "Mormon" here, clarifying what's believed:
There's one 1 God. 1 way, truth, light, etc. I am a monotheist. The Father, Son, and Spirit are 3 different persons in that 1 God, like Trinitarians also believe.
And a person should come to know study, prayer, and God Spirit witnessing to you. Do not put a man or traditions first. God is King.

Mormons believe you can become like gods and that you can wear holy underwear. That's pretty far out there and a great departure from any normal Bible reading. The book of Mormon came long after the Bible was completed. So what of those who lived before the book of Mormon? They basically would not be Mormons, right?

 

[Jim B]

Which NIV? Not all NIV's even say the same thing because they are too busy changing it to get copyrights and make money off people. Then there is the new NIV that shows thousands of changes to make gender neutral changes.

The New NIV Controversy: Gender Neutral Language

The New International Bible and other modern versions have removed verses and words found in the King James Bible.

Also, there are approximately 55-60 thousands words that are missing in the NIV when compared to the KJB (Depending on what source you go by).

And which KJV do you think is the best? There have been a significant number of revisions to the 1611 edition, which relied in part on earlier versions. Also, different KJVs that have been copyrighted because of their references, comments, study notes, etc. My KJV has the following: Copyright (c) 1964 by B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co, Inc. Even the earliest KJV was copyrighted under English law. So your comments are misguided.

Regarding the use of gender neutral language, the Greek pronoun translated "brothers" referred to both genders (roughly equivalent to "you guys" often used by both genders in modern English). And it's nonsense to say that it was changed "thousands of times". A point that you and others overlook is that the gender was retained in other places where it clearly meant males. So your argument falls flat -- twice.

"The New International Bible and other modern versions have removed verses and words found in the King James Bible" is also meaningless. There are verses that are footnoted all through the KJV with phrases like "the meaning of this verse is uncertain" and "this verse doesn't appear in all manuscripts" or [alternative reading].

It would be helpful if you paid attention to what you are writing and not waste people's time with nonsense.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Do you agree with Lds that Trinity is NOT One God in 3 persons, but 3 gods acting in unison?

3 divine persons, 1 God.
The difference between the LDS Christian view and the Creedal Christian view is that the LDS Christians believe that they are 1 through 1 will/purpose/glory/etc (see John 17). The Athanasian Creed adds that they are 1 through a shared substance.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Do you agree with Lds that Trinity is NOT One God in 3 persons, but 3 gods acting in unison?

Right, in Mormonism, it's about polytheism.

 

[Jane_Doe22]

Mormons believe you can become like gods and that you can wear holy underwear. That's pretty far out there and a great departure from any normal Bible reading. The book of Mormon came long after the Bible was completed. So what of those who lived before the book of Mormon? They basically would not be Mormons, right?

(This is getting to a big de-rail, but heh this thread is already de-railed from the OP).
A disciple of God becomes one with Him-- that's the entire point of Christ's atonement! See John 17. We never replace Him, but rather become white as snow & join Him. His atonement covers all will have faith in Him, regardless of when or where their mortal lives took place.

Right, in Mormonism, it's about polytheism.

I literally just corrected this statement.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And which KJV do you think is the best? There have been a significant number of revisions to the 1611 edition, which relied in part on earlier versions. Also, different KJVs that have been copyrighted because of their references, comments, study notes, etc. My KJV has the following: Copyright (c) 1964 by B.B. Kirkbride Bible Co, Inc. Even the earliest KJV was copyrighted under English law. So your comments are misguided.

Psalms 12:6
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.”

There are seven different MAJOR KJB Editions that line up with the seven purifications that is prophesied according to Psalms 12:6.

It was settled with the 1900 Cambridge KJB Edition.

You can read more about this here:
www.bibleprotector.com/forum • View topic - Seven major purifications of the KJB

Note: The KJB 1900 Cambridge Edition you can read online with the KJV listed at Biblehub.com (Which is provided by Bible Protector).

Note 2: Oh, and you cannot say that the super subtle slight updates in the KJB editions (ending with the Cambridge 1900) are on the same level as the blatant massive changes in Modern bibles because that simply would not be true. Modern bibles actually make all kinds of changes forced to fit the copyright so they can make money.

Regarding the use of gender neutral language, the Greek pronoun translated "brothers" referred to both genders (roughly equivalent to "you guys" often used by both genders in modern English). And it's nonsense to say that it was changed "thousands of times". A point that you and others overlook is that the gender was retained in other places where it clearly meant males. So your argument falls flat -- twice.

The point is that there should be no change to begin with if it is truly God's Word.
The gender neutral changes merely shows the end times we are living in (gender neutral bathrooms, etcetera). In fact, one of the past NIV's had a sodomite working on the translation.

"The New International Bible and other modern versions have removed verses and words found in the King James Bible" is also meaningless. There are verses that are footnoted all through the KJV with phrases like "the meaning of this verse is uncertain" and "this verse doesn't appear in all manuscripts" or [alternative reading].

The NIV's (Many of them) are based on the Critical Text by Westcott and Hort. WH departed from the Traditional Text, or Received Text and the King James Bible. Hort thought of the Textus Receptus as villainous and vile. So when we talk about something removed, we are talking about it being removed from the Bible that stood for hundreds of years long before WH showed up and attacked the Bible that was already previously received.