Addressing KJV Errors

[JesusIsFaithful]

If you want to use the KJV, I'm good with that. What I'm not good with is the deceptive and corrupted practices of KJVO's.

I will not defend KJVOnlyism. I do not know everything about it, but by His grace & by His help, I shall defend why I rely only on the KJV.

BTW, your claim regarding 1 Corinthians 1:18 is faulty. Do you know the difference between present participle and present participles?

If you do not see that "preaching of the cross" is the subject and not using preaching as if that is a verb to wit being saved is derived from as seen in most modern Bibles, then I cannot help you.

You also said this: "Most believers spouting from their education, say that the KJV is wrong"

What's wrong with getting an education? The KJV translators were the scholars of their time.

Well, when it is modern day education verses the KJV translators' days education, then I would have to spite modern day education when so many of our pastors and Biblical scholars are educated to believe that the evolution theory is true which is why some Bibles have in footnotes that it is a hippo or an elephant whereas the Liberty KJV Bible's footnotes has it as an unknown large animal ( too chicken to call it a dinosaur ) when in Job 40th chapter, a behemoth's tail that is a cedar which is a tree can only be a dinosaur, ............yeah.... I am going with the KJV translators for their education.

But again, I rely on the Lord Jesus Christ as my Good Shepherd for the wisdom to understand and receive the message & the truths in His words as kept in the KJV for defending the faith in Jesus Christ which is the good fight.

Not every one using the KJV are trusting the Lord Jesus Christ in being their Good Shepherd to do that for them when reading the KJV. They should, but more often times than not, they rely on their pastor or their church's established teachings and practices rather than rely on Him all the time to follow Him.

The KJV is not a magical book where any one can find the truth in it, but wisdom comes from the Lord rather than from men in making easier to read Bibles that are being patented for the sole sake of the love for money. Proof? They are still trying to make an easier to read Bible than the KJV.

All I can do is hope the Lord is ministering to someone to see the necessity for relying only on the KJV in these latter days where faith is hard to find.

 

[JesusIsFaithful]

Take a look at a very good writing on the KJV.
"In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture," by Alister McGrath. I have it in both paperback and Kindle format. I could not lay the book down after starting. I purchased my copies from Amazon.com.
I don't know if you know it or not, but you can download the "Kindle" app for pc's at Amazon.

I would rather readers here take a good look at John 16:13 in all modern Bibles including the KJV on how the Holy Spirit cannot speak His own words but speaks what He hears to see how all modern bibles translated Paul's words wrong in Romans 8:26-27 as if He can utter His own intercessions.

The KJV is the only Bible that has it right where Romans 8:26 says that His intercessions are unspeakable; that means the Holy Spirit cannot utter His own intercessions to the Father and so ANOTHER is needed as Romans 8:17 is testifying of the Son that searches our hearts and knows the mind of the Spirit for it is according to the will of God that the Son Whom is the only One at that throne of grace can give our intercessions and the unspeakable intercessions of the Spirit's to the Father because there is only One Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Only the KJV lines up Romans 8:26-27 with John 16:13 in keeping the truth in the scripture; and since no lie can be of the truth, this is the reason why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words as many believers today are experiencing a phenomenon separate from their salvation where they think it is the Holy Spirit coming bringing tongues which never comes with interpretation as it is a supernatural tongue found in the world as babbling nonsense, but yet because it comes with no interpretation, they think the Holy Spirit is using tongues as a prayer language but John 16:13 in all Bibles says NO !!!

Just as 2 Corinthians 11:1-4 has Paul warning believers not to believe those that preach another Jesus or another spirit to receive, and thus preaching another gospel and another hope of our calling which is not of Him at all. Even the apostle John warned not to believe every spirit, but test them; 1 John 4:1-7

But tongue speakers ignore Paul's warning in 2 Corinthians 11;1-4 and ignore the line of discernment on tongues in John 16:13 because they rpefer the errant translation of modern Bibles of Romans 8:26-27 that supports the false tongue as being of God when God's real gift of tongues are for speaking unto the people ( 1 Corinthians 14:20-22 ) but no. They want the spectacular.. they seek to receive the Spirit by a sign in spite of John 14:16-17 that we are not to seek Him as the world seeks to receives other spirits by a sign in the flesh as we are to receive Him by faith in Jesus Christ ( Galatians 3:14,26 as there is only one baptism of the Holy Spirit from the hope of our one calling ( Ephesians 4:4-6 ) only one drink of the One Spirit ( 1 Corinthians 12:13 ) by trusting the Lord Jesus Christ at the hearing of the gospel ( Ephesians 1:12-15 ) which is the testimony combined with the Spirit's testimony that we have been saved and thus have become the children of God ( Romans 8:9,14-17 )

Romans 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

So while they twist Paul's words around in 1 Corinthians 14th chapter as if the Holy Spirit can pray in tongues, they use modern Bibles Romans 8:26-27 to validate it as well, but still ignore the truth in His words of John 16:13 in whatever modern Bible they are using that says otherwise.

Only God can peradventure to recover them from this snare of the devil, but for those not involved in it yet, here is hope that the Good Shepherd is leading some away from that apostasy and away from modern bibles to relying on Him all the time for the reading of His words in the KJV.

 

[kiwimac]

The KJV is not the sole, inspired version of scripture, Any reputable modern version is acceptable.

 

[mjrhealth]

The KJV is not the sole, inspired version of scripture, Any reputable modern version is acceptable.

Theyre all corrupt, every single one of them, that is why the bible cannot possibly be the word of God, God is not corruptible nor changeable as teh bible is and has being. The only turth is in Christ Jesus, if you desire it, you wont find it any where else.

 

[101G]

GINOLJC. to all. I viewed the link and just after the first two question in concern I stopped.

#1. "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
ANSWER: another word for church is temple. no error there.

#2.
"Lucifer" Is 14:12 "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
ANSWER: understand Ezekiel 28:12 & 12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

Now I ask was the king of Tyrus in the garden of Eden?, no. let get something straight about Lucifer. he's a light bearer before his fall, the Lord Jesus is the Light. the difference is light bearer and not the Light.

so looking at these few, I see this link error. conclusion the KJV have no errors

 

[kiwimac]

GINOLJC. to all. I viewed the link and just after the first two question in concern I stopped.

#1. "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"
ANSWER: another word for church is temple. no error there.

#2.
"Lucifer" Is 14:12 "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600's refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon)
ANSWER: understand Ezekiel 28:12 & 12 "Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created".

Now I ask was the king of Tyrus in the garden of Eden?, no. let get something straight about Lucifer. he's a light bearer before his fall, the Lord Jesus is the Light. the difference is light bearer and not the Light.

so looking at these few, I see this link error. conclusion the KJV have no errors

That would be rot.

 

[Marymog]

I do not agree with everything that makes up KJVOnlyism, but He shall help me defend the KJV as the one to rely on in these latter days for the meat of His words for us to discern good and evil by in keeping the faith which is the good fight.

StanJ, a poster of this forum, submitted a link to this site spouting KJV errors.

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!

May the Lord Jesus Christ help us address them with His wisdom.

When we compare the KJV of Acts 19:37 with the 1599 Geneva Bible, we see this.

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. ~ KJV

Acts 19:37 For ye have brought hither these men, which have neither committed sacrilege, neither do blaspheme your goddess. ~ 1599 Geneva Bible

We would wonder what sacrilege or the appearance of it that these saints were accused of.

Acts 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia and the world worshippeth. KJV

So to avoid the appearance of committing sacrilege within the temple of Diana in His words, the sacrilege was better defined as the accusation of being robbers of temple or churches.

The charge by the web site that it should be temple instead of churches...that can hardly be an offense when they mean the same thing. Is it that hard to read, let alone understand?

HTML Bible Index - King James Version - Strongs Concordance - Frames Version

So the charge is frivolous at best for being an error.

Next.....

Which KJV are we talking about? The one with 73 or 66 books?

If it has 66 books...it is in error.

 

[FHII]

Which KJV are we talking about? The one with 73 or 66 books?

If it has 66 books...it is in error.

I have a pocket bible of the new testament with psalms and proverbs. Does that make it in error?

 

[Marymog]

I have a pocket bible of the new testament with psalms and proverbs. Does that make it in error?

Dear FHII,

Please don't play word games with me. You know what I mean. From reading your previse post over the last several months I believe you are more educated about Christian History then what post #47 portrays you.

If you are educated on Christian History then you know that the earliest KJV had 73 books and 1,500 years of Christianity had 73 books. I could be wrong about your knowledge of Christian History. If I am wrong then I take back my "word game" accusation.

Love, Mary

 

[FHII]

Dear FHII,

Please don't play word games with me. You know what I mean. From reading your previse post over the last several months I believe you are more educated about Christian History then what post #47 portrays you.

If you are educated on Christian History then you know that the earliest KJV had 73 books and 1,500 years of Christianity had 73 books. I could be wrong about your knowledge of Christian History. If I am wrong then I take back my "word game" accusation.

Love, Mary

Post #47 was your post, not mine.

I am by no means going to brag about my knowledge, but I know what you are referring to. The original KJV included the books of the Apocrypha. That does not mean without it, is in error anymore than my pocket NT with Psalms and Proverbs is in error.

Why was it included in the first place? Well, King James wanted it as close to what was standard in that day. He wasn't Catholic, but he didn't necessarily hate the current production of the Catholic Bible which was in Latin. He hated all the sidenotes and distractions being put into it. I will admit its been years since I studied that history. But I am sure irts no too far off.


[Correction: he wanted the Bishops Bible to be followed as close as possible, but did note that when in question the original greek and hebrew should be kept in tact as much as possible]
Why was it excluded?

Heard many rumors. To cut down on shipping, repeated info to the notiin that even eaely Church fathers didn't feel it was inspired. Probably a combo of reasons.

But for you to claim that unless its got 73 books that its in error is unreasonable, regardless if it was actually inspired or not.

 

[Marymog]

Post #47 was your post, not mine.

I am by no means going to brag about my knowledge, but I know what you are referring to. The original KJV included the books of the Apocrypha. That does not mean without it, is in error anymore than my pocket NT with Psalms and Proverbs is in error.
Why was it included in the first place? Well, King James wanted it as close to what was standard in that day. He wasn't Catholic, but he didn't necessarily hate the current production of the Catholic Bible which was in Latin. He hated all the sidenotes and distractions being put into it. I will admit its been years since I studied that history. But I am sure irts no too far off.
Why was it excluded?
Heard many rumors. To cut down on shipping, repeated info to the notiin that even eaely Church fathers didn't feel it was inspired. Probably a combo of reasons.
But for you to claim that unless its got 73 books that its in error is unreasonable, regardless if it was actually inspired or not.

OMG...You are right. Post #47 was mine.

My assertion still holds true. Christianity had 73 books BEFORE the Reformation. Then, mysteriously, it had 66. Make your choice.

1,500 years of Christian History/tradition or 500 years.

I know what I choose.

Love, Mary

 

[FHII]

OMG...You are right. Post #47 was mine.

My assertion still holds true. Christianity had 73 books BEFORE the Reformation. Then, mysteriously, it had 66. Make your choice.

1,500 years of Christian History/tradition or 500 years.

I know what I choose.

Love, Mary

Ok. So lay it on us what alterations to faith those books (which were written when every man did that which was right in their own eyes) have?

Does the fact that those 7 books aren't in one of my Bibles mean that the other 66 are in error?


Tour beef isn't [logically] with the 66 books of the Bible, its just with people who read the 66 books and don't read the 7. And that doesn't seem very logical to me unless there is some faith altering information in them.

And there isn't.

 

[FHII]

Just wanted to add to this... The KJV 1611 actually has 80 books. So maybe yous of 77 is "in error".

 

[Marymog]

Ok. So lay it on us what alterations to faith those books (which were written when every man did that which was right in their own eyes) have?

Does the fact that those 7 books aren't in one of my Bibles mean that the other 66 are in error?


Tour beef isn't [logically] with the 66 books of the Bible, its just with people who read the 66 books and don't read the 7. And that doesn't seem very logical to me unless there is some faith altering information in them.

And there isn't.

Oh goodness FHII. Do you prefer to have ALL the inspired word of God in your life or just a portion of it? It seems to choose only a portion of it. I choose all of it.

Love Mary

 

[Marymog]

Just wanted to add to this... The KJV 1611 actually has 80 books. So maybe yous of 77 is "in error".

Thank you FHII. I only read the inspired ones. You can read whichever ones you choose.

Love Mary

 

[Job]

I only read the inspired ones.

What makes them inspired? I'm just curious.

 

[Marymog]

What makes them inspired? I'm just curious.

Hi Job,

Are you asking WHO decided they were inspired?

 

[Job]

Hi Job,

Are you asking WHO decided they were inspired?

Yes.

 

[Marymog]

Yes.

You can GOOGLE it or BING it. Your choice. You won't believe anything I say so why should I answer you? You are asking a question that you have already concluded what The True answer is.

I'm not playing your game. Sorry!!

Mary

 

[Job]

You can GOOGLE it or BING it. Your choice. You won't believe anything I say so why should I answer you? You are asking a question that you have already concluded what The True answer is.

I'm not playing your game. Sorry!!

You're so rude. I ask a serious question and this is what you come back with.

There's no excuse for that.