King James Only

[bbyrd009]

Pascha per Jew = animal sacrifice feast.

Pascha per Christian = human sacrifice feast.

Pascha(Easter) in ancient English = human sacrifice feast.

Man, keep rolling eggs and buying bunnies then sis OK with me

 

[bbyrd009]

She goes by many names of course, but this will do; ishtar | Origin and meaning of ishtar by Online Etymology Dictionary

 

[Helen]

I am KJVO. I don’t think the infallible word of God is lost in Ancient Greek to be redefined by modern professors of academic commentary. I think God ordained His word to be translated in the dominant language of the world 400 years ago, not through a trickle down method in the 21st century.

So...are you KJVO according to the first half of the opening post?

Are do you relate to the second half ...the “not if” portion of the post.

I am the first , not the second.

 

[bbyrd009]

Passover is an English word right

 

[Truther]

So...are you KJVO according to the first half of the opening post?

Are do you relate to the second half ...the “not if” portion of the post.

I am the first , not the second.

I am totally KJVO. I don’t condemn others who seek “commentary translations”. The rest are mere commentaries of the modern “scholars “ that want to hijack God’s Holy word. If folks seek clarification from the English Bible, they need an old dictionary, not redefined Greek. I think God inspired the King and the scholars to just get er done for us in the last days, before the rubbish of English translations took off in the 20th century.

 

[Truther]

Man, keep rolling eggs and buying bunnies then sis OK with me

Lol

 

[farouk]

I am totally KJVO. I don’t condemn others who seek “commentary translations”. The rest are mere commentaries of the modern “scholars “ that want to hijack God’s Holy word. If folks seek clarification from the English Bible, they need an old dictionary, not redefined Greek. I think God inspired the King and the scholars to just get er done for us in the last days, before the rubbish of English translations took off in the 20th century.

I do use the King James, though wouldn't describe myself as King James Only. It's a truly great version.

 

[Truther]

I do use the King James, though wouldn't describe myself as King James Only. It's a truly great version.

Good for you.

It is the best Bible that you will ever read for the English language.

I will take the thee’s And thou’s anytime over the missing and tweaked verses concocted by the multi versionists

 

[bbyrd009]

Good for you.

It is the best Bible that you will ever read for the English language.

I will take the thee’s And thou’s anytime over the missing and tweaked verses concocted by the multi versionists

its mostly outdated now imo, slanted toward a mithraist perspective of Christ, and commissioned by a homosexual with an agenda to boot. "Lord" is an English title, and a hideous characterization of both Yah and Christ. Still a good reference imo, and i dont mean to judge ol Queenie or his scribes bc that was then and this is now, but the KJV is mostly a great guide to the blind imo.

There is not even any comparison to a multi- or meta-translation or lexicon wherein a more complete perspective of an original term might be realized, not even mentioning that we dont speak the King's Englyshe any more, and so another xlation has to be made immediately anyway.

May as well have literal Romans translating Scripture for you lol, royalty doing it for you? sheesh ppl

 

[bbyrd009]

i think stubborn old farts like the kjv bc they can make it say what they like tbh, being as how it isnt clear in their native tongue? So it becomes a substitute way to Stand where we should not be, similar to overusing an expanded vocabulary?

 

[Truther]

its mostly outdated now imo, slanted toward a mithraist perspective of Christ, and commissioned by a homosexual with an agenda to boot. "Lord" is an English title, and a hideous characterization of both Yah and Christ. Still a good reference imo, and i dont mean to judge ol Queenie or his scribes bc that was then and this is now, but the KJV is mostly a great guide to the blind imo.

There is not even any comparison to a multi- or meta-translation or lexicon wherein a more complete perspective of an original term might be realized, not even mentioning that we dont speak the King's Englyshe any more, and so another xlation has to be made immediately anyway.

May as well have literal Romans translating Scripture for you lol, royalty doing it for you? sheesh ppl

....as he drools over the newest translation hot off the press......

 

[reformed1689]

I am posting this excellent article by David Cloud, since it expresses my own position perfectly.

July 31, 2019 (first published January 20, 1996)
David Cloud, Way of Life Literature, P.O. Box 610368, Port Huron, MI 48061
866-295-4143, [email protected]

There is a lot of debate and confusion surrounding the man-made term "King James Only." It has been popularized in recent years by men who claim they are concerned about a dangerous and cultic view of the King James Bible. Rarely do they carefully define the term, though, and as a result a wide variety of Bible-believing men are given a nebulously-defined label.

The term “King James Only” was invented by those who oppose the defense of the King James Bible and its underlying original language texts. It was intended to be a term of approbation, and it is usually defined in terms of extremism.

I have been labeled “King James Only” because of my writings on the subject of Bible texts and versions. To set the record straight, let me explain what I believe. And I know that this is also what a large number of other King James Bible defenders believe.

I WILL ACCEPT THE LABEL OF “KING JAMES ONLY” IF IT MEANS THE FOLLOWING:
[1] 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.”

[2] If “King James Only” defines one who believes modern textual criticism is heresy, call me “King James Only.” Prior to the Internet era, I spent hundreds of dollars to obtain the writings of the men who have been at the forefront of developing the theories underlying modern textual criticism, and I have read them. They are not dependable. They refuse to approach the Bible text from a position of faith in divine preservation. That is a fundamental error. Most of them are out-and-out heretics, and I refuse to lean upon their scholarship. I am convinced they do not have the spiritual discernment necessary to know where the preserved Word of God is located today.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that God has preserved the Scripture in its common use among apostolic churches through the fulfillment of the Great Commission and that He guided the Reformation editors and translators in their choice of the Received Text and that we don’t have to start all over today in an to attempt to find the preserved text of Scripture, call me “King James Only.” The theories of modern textual criticism all revolve around the idea that the pure text of Scripture was not preserved in the Reformation text but that the Reformation editors, because of their alleged ignorance and or lack of resources and bad luck, chose an inferior text. In fact, modern textual criticism is predicated upon the theory that the supposed best text of the New Testament (the Egyptian or Alexandrian) was rejected in the earliest centuries and replaced with a corrupt recension that was created through the conflation of various manuscript readings (the Byzantine or Traditional text) and that this supposed corrupt text became the dominant text throughout most of church history (for 1,500 years) until the alleged best text was rediscovered in the 19th century. You are free to accept such views if it suits you. I, for one, believe it is absolute nonsense.

[4] 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.”

[5] 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:
[1] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given byinspiration, 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.

[2] 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.

[3] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible is advanced revelation over the Hebrew and Greek texts that God gave through inspiration to holy men of old, I am not “King James Only.”

[4] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that we do not need to study Greek and Hebrew today or that it is not important to use lexicons and dictionaries, I am not “King James Only.” God’s people should learn Greek and Hebrew, if possible, and use (with caution and wisdom) study tools. When the Bible says that “holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost,” we know that the words they spake were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words. But foundational to the study of the biblical languages is a proper understanding of the textual issue. We must study the right Greek and Hebrew, and we must also be careful of original language study tools, because many of them were influenced by the unsound theories of modern textual criticism.

[5] If “King James Only” defines one who believes the preserved Word of God is available only perfectly in English, I am not “King James Only.” The Masoretic Hebrew Old Testament and Greek Received New Testament translated correctly into any language is the preserved Word of God in that language, whether it is German, Spanish, French, Korean, or Nepali.

[6] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that translations in other languages should be based on English rather than (when possible) Greek and Hebrew, I am not “King James Only.”

[7] 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.

[8] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

[9] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, 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.”
Copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

The KJVO or the KJV Preferred positions do not take reality into account.

Book Review: Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible - Reformed Truths

 

[marks]

The KJVO or the KJV Preferred positions do not take reality into account.

I prefer the King James for various reasons.

Thank you for your information that I'm not taking reality into account. I would not have known that but for your kind words this morning!

Thank you!!

 

[Nancy]

I have had this copy and pasted to a notepad on my desktop for awhile. I do not remember the site but, there are good arguments here...I learned on the KJV and still read it, but I do have other versions. I think in KJ because the scriptures seem to stick in my mind but...

"How to answer a KJV Only advocate

When a KJV-onlyite asks “Where is God’s word today?” reply to him as follows: “Where was God’s word in 1610?” If he replies “I’m not interested in 1610 — I’m interested in where the word of God is now” you know you have a sophist on your hands who is not prepared to discuss the issue sanely and sensibly. However, if he says “The word of God was represented in the Bibles translated by the Waldensian's, Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale” ask him if these Bibles were 100% perfect. If he answers “Yes” he needs to do some homework, for all these Bibles differ from the KJV 1611 (incidentally, the Waldensian Bible and Wycliffe’s Bible came from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek and Hebrew). However, if he answers “No”, ask him again, “Where was the perfect inerrant preserved word of God in 1610?” This is a reasonable question which is not at all hypothetical. If he says the word of God was represented in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, ask him to which edition of the Textus Receptus he is referring. From 1516 (Erasmus’ 1st edition) to 1650 (Elziver’s 3rd) more than 25 editions of the Textus Receptus were produced. Which one was the perfect word of God? If none of them was, had God failed in His promise to preserve the word of God at that stage? If the KJV-onlyite says the word of God was preserved, prior to the KJV, not in one but in various manuscripts (thus the ‘originals’ do exist after all); however now, by a divine work of God in grace and providence, all the words of God have been put into a single book (the KJV 1769 in English), he has just defeated his own argument. He has admitted that prior to 1769, every translation and text was corrupt – while God’s word was still being preserved across a variety of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts – thus the people of God had no one book they could call the ‘word of God’ and we are back to square one! God’s promise, as interpreted by the KJV-only advocates, wasn’t worth the paper it was written on prior to 1611"

 

[stunnedbygrace]

I prefer the King James for various reasons.

Thank you for your information that I'm not taking reality into account. I would not have known that but for your kind words this morning!

Thank you!!

He was saying those two positions do not take reality into account. To say you prefer KJV is just stating your preference. It's not the position he was talking about, (your preference).

 

[Truther]

Passover is an English word right

Acts 12:4 uses Easter describing an early Christian feast commonly found 1 Cor 11.

Modernists wrecked the ancient meaning along with their modern versions.

 

[marks]

He was saying those two positions do not take reality into account. To say you prefer KJV is just stating your preference. It's not the position he was talking about, (your preference).

Well, he was talking about the "King James Preferred" position, which I think describes me.

I mean, I use a number of translations. I've studied over the years regarding the original manuscripts, and manuscript families, translation styles and comparing translations.

Personally, I think God's Word is most completely contained in the Majority Manuscript New Testament, and the Septuagint Old Testament, and I use these quite a bit.

But I definitely prefer the King James, for readability, for it's translation style, for the clarity of God's message I find in it's translation.

I know, there is much to be said for and against it. At times I've latched onto the NASB, the NLT, the ESV, Holman, the LITV, others too, each of these occupied the place now held by the KJV.

Just the same . . . positions don't have views, they are views, and to say a position doesn't take reality into account, well, that's my position, so what does it say about me?

I find these sorts of comments really have no place in Christian discussion, but that's just me.

Much love!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

Well, he was talking about the "King James Preferred" position, which I think describes me.

I mean, I use a number of translations. I've studied over the years regarding the original manuscripts, and manuscript families, translation styles and comparing translations.

Personally, I think God's Word is most completely contained in the Majority Manuscript New Testament, and the Septuagint Old Testament, and I use these quite a bit.

But I definitely prefer the King James, for readability, for it's translation style, for the clarity of God's message I find in it's translation.

I know, there is much to be said for and against it. At times I've latched onto the NASB, the NLT, the ESV, Holman, the LITV, others too, each of these occupied the place now held by the KJV.

Just the same . . . positions don't have views, they are views, and to say a position doesn't take reality into account, well, that's my position, so what does it say about me?

I find these sorts of comments really have no place in Christian discussion, but that's just me.

Much love!

So, is your position that KJV should be the preferred translation for all? No? Then you are simply stating your preference.

The NLT is my preferred translation. I take no position that my preference should be the preferred one to quote or teach from.
Do you see?

 

[reformed1689]

Well, he was talking about the "King James Preferred" position, which I think describes me.

I mean, I use a number of translations. I've studied over the years regarding the original manuscripts, and manuscript families, translation styles and comparing translations.

Personally, I think God's Word is most completely contained in the Majority Manuscript New Testament, and the Septuagint Old Testament, and I use these quite a bit.

But I definitely prefer the King James, for readability, for it's translation style, for the clarity of God's message I find in it's translation.

I know, there is much to be said for and against it. At times I've latched onto the NASB, the NLT, the ESV, Holman, the LITV, others too, each of these occupied the place now held by the KJV.

Just the same . . . positions don't have views, they are views, and to say a position doesn't take reality into account, well, that's my position, so what does it say about me?

I find these sorts of comments really have no place in Christian discussion, but that's just me.

Much love!

Let me clarify.

KJVO and KJV Preferred, in most cases, are based on false premises. I am not saying this about every individual that has that view, but the view itself.

KJVO is just ridiculous and isn't even worth my time.

KJV Preferred often miss the mark. I am sure there are quite a few passages that has words you think you know what they mean but do not because they have changed meaning. The reality is that the KJV is not written in the same language we use today. Sure it is English, but English has changed.

 

[Enoch111]

How to answer a KJV Only advocate

This so-called answer to the KJV Only advocate is totally bogus. In any event, the real issue is whether ALL modern bible versions since 1881 are corrupt. And the truth is that they are all corrupt -- the fruit of the poisonous tree.
Doth a fountain send forth at the same place sweet water and bitter?Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (James 3:11,12)

All Christians need to understand why so many Christians refuse to use any of the modern versions. It all goes back to the use of corrupted Hebrew and Greek manuscripts starting in the 19th century. And once they know this for a fact, they will have no alternative except to use the King James Bible (which has also been updated (not changed) in the King James 2000 Bible.

And for those who falsely claim that it has been changed from 1611 to the present time (simply because spellings, punctuation, and orthography have changed), all you have to do is go to this website OFFICIAL KING JAMES BIBLE ONLINE: AUTHORIZED KING JAMES VERSION (KJV) and compare for yourself.

Here is the evidence that other than spelling there have been no changes to this Bible which has stood the test of time for over 400 years.

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS (EXODUS 20)

ORIGINAL KJV FROM 1611
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the Lord thy God, which haue brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage:
3 Thou shalt haue no other Gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make vnto thee any grauen Image, or any likenesse of any thing that is in heauen aboue, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water vnder the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow downe thy selfe to them, nor serue them: For I the Lord thy God am a iealous God, visiting the iniquitie of the fathers vpon the children, vnto the thirde and fourth generation of them that hate me:
6 And shewing mercy vnto thousands of them that loue mee, and keepe my Commandements.
7 Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vaine: for the Lord will not holde him guiltlesse, that taketh his Name in vaine.
8 Remember the Sabbath day, to keepe it holy.
9 Sixe dayes shalt thou labour, and doe all thy worke:
10 But the seuenth day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not doe any worke, thou, nor thy sonne, nor thy daughter, thy man seruant, nor thy mayd seruant, nor thy cattell, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
11 For in sixe dayes the Lord made heauen and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seuenth day: wherefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and halowed it.
12 ¶ Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy dayes may bee long vpon the land, which the Lord thy God giueth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steale.
16 Thou shalt not beare false witnes against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not couet thy neighbours house, thou shalt not couet thy neighbours wife, nor his man seruant, nor his maid seruant, nor his oxe, nor his asse, nor any thing that is thy neighbours.

STANDARD KJV USED TODAY
1 And God spake all these words, saying,
2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger thatis within thy gates:
11 For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
13 Thou shalt not kill.
14 Thou shalt not commit adultery.
15 Thou shalt not steal.
16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.