King James Only

[Enoch111]

One thing, my trust is in God, not in my ability to select and understand the correct version of the Bible.

Since it is God who says that every word of God is pure, it behooves Christians to carefully determine which translation has been faithful in carefully translating the Bible, and which translation has stood the test of time and been regarded as the leading and primary English translation for centuries.

God does NOT have two dozen or three dozen "words of God" all contradicting each other. But this is what we have in modern versions vs the KJV. There are literally thousands of changes in the modern bibles, and hundreds which have doctrinal significance. Yet the scholars and critics (just like today's Democrats) have been promoting the lie and suppressing the truth.

 

[reformed1689]

and hundreds which have doctrinal significance.

This is actually false.

 

[Truther]

Acts 12:4 Lexicon: When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.
Strong's Greek: 3957. πάσχα (pascha) -- the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb
sorry!
iyo maybe, but bunnies and eggs should not be so hard to figure out imo, if the resemblance to Ishtar and/or Oestre did not? You're kidding yourself bro, k? Now go and do Easter with my blessing even, but stop pretending it has anything to do with Christianity if you know whats good for you imo. Easter is a pagan fertility goddess, pretty obv

Don’t be silly.
You mean you did not knot the 16th century meaning of Easter was the pascha feast the early church celebrated per 2 Cor 11?

 

[Truther]

actually i pay english translations very little if any attn now, including the estd ones tbh. Why rely on a scribe when you can go right to the source?
Genesis 1:1 Interlinear: In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

Who invented that stuff?

 

[Truther]

The OP (started by me and quoting an article from David Cloud), distinguishes between the correct KJVO and the false position by some who are on the fringe.

I am all in. All or nothing. I happen to be one of those people who think the word of God is in an English translation. A particular one. Not a variety of them, since they all vary

 

[Enoch111]

This is actually false.

I will take just one example to show you that you are full of hot air. Or should I say BALONEY?

ACTS 8:37
King James Bible
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

New International Version
BLANK

New Living Translation
BLANK

English Standard Version
BLANK

International Standard Version
BLANK

NET Bible
BLANK

GOD'S WORD® Translation
BLANK

Darby Bible Translation
BLANK

English Revised Version
BLANK

Weymouth New Testament
BLANK

World English Bible
BLANK

Any fool can see that this verse has great doctrinal significance. But you persist in your wilful ignorance.

 

[reformed1689]

I will take just one example to show you that you are full of hot air. Or should I say BALONEY?

ACTS 8:37
King James Bible
And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

New International Version
BLANK

New Living Translation
BLANK

English Standard Version
BLANK

International Standard Version
BLANK

NET Bible
BLANK

GOD'S WORD® Translation
BLANK

Darby Bible Translation
BLANK

English Revised Version
BLANK

Weymouth New Testament
BLANK

World English Bible
BLANK

Any fool can see that this verse has great doctrinal significance. But you persist in your wilful ignorance.

This is dishonest. It's right there in my ESV. Sorry, guess you don't know what you are talking about. Not to mention, even if it wasn't there, what doctrine does it change? None.

 

[marks]

Since it is God who says that every word of God is pure, it behooves Christians to carefully determine which translation has been faithful in carefully translating the Bible, and which translation has stood the test of time and been regarded as the leading and primary English translation for centuries.

God does NOT have two dozen or three dozen "words of God" all contradicting each other. But this is what we have in modern versions vs the KJV. There are literally thousands of changes in the modern bibles, and hundreds which have doctrinal significance. Yet the scholars and critics (just like today's Democrats) have been promoting the lie and suppressing the truth.

I've studied this significantly. Myself, I like the King James for a variety of reasons, and, there are certain things one must understand to be able to use the King James well.

One of my favorite quotes from the King James is in the translators notes to the reader:

"Now to the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God."

Bible (King James)/Preface - Wikisource, the free online library

It would seem to me that the translators didn't hold a King James Only position.

But let me ask you this . . . what if someone does not have access, could be a variety of reasons, that someone is not able to do the more scholarly sort of study to wade through a lot of this? As you must know there is a significant amount of information to be considered in order to have some sort of assurance in reaching a reasonable conclusion.

Is not God able both to guide to the translation He wants us to use, and also to speak to us through that?

Is it a matter of my spiritual progression, or is it that God wanted me to hear it different ways, that I've moved through translations as I have? I don't know, but I suspect that its part of my Bible school.

Much love!

 

[marks]

One of the beautiful things about the Bible is that at least myself, I can only find really one place, one only, where the varient in the text is not addressed and specified elsewhere. Can anyone answer what that place is?

I'm not talking about minor spelling differences, instead, things that actually have or may have an impact on doctrine. Where it's not cleared up somewhere else.

If that's right, that everything (except one thing, yes?) is answered somewhere else, then God has still preserved His complete truth even with the confusion of man.

Much love!

 

[Reggie Belafonte]

What about all the other Nations that don't speak English, what of the translation do they have, if what they have is a OKJV translation into what they speak, well then ? when translating from one language to another such will always miss the mark some what.

One chap claimed to me that the KJV is the only Bible and ranted on and on with so much dribble, that god made the English his Language because most people on Earth speak English really ? for a start I would not rate English highly at all, for one the bastard of English is that it can change meaning and do so wildly from even 180 deg that it makes such pathetic, especially nowadays with how words are totally bastardised, Sick for one such means good or something like that, I am not totally sure what the young ones are talking about nowadays at times, too easy is another I don't get it, why says such nonsense, I give an employee a task and get this 'too easy' gibberish back, it's not easy at all, they don't want to do such, but that's what they say .
Then I have one chap who claims to be KJV and demands all of it must be taken literally really ! so why then did Jesus speak in parables.

The Bible can not be clearly understood unless one has the Holy Spirit as your guide and you also must have some understanding of how Hebrew interprets things and also Greek to get a better handle on what and why it's being portrayed as it is into English, as you then can see why the English version uses such words in the KJV especially, but with many of the new versions such things are totally bastardised, it's just some ignorant bastard version that misses the mark or some what, mainly because it is not guided by the Holy Spirit. it's just a worldly version that people will not pick up on as to the depth of such that was in the OKJV. one also needs foot notes, if it does not contain such information you could easy be lost as to a point that is being touched on. the OKJV has many such great footnotes and ect that one can pop back and study all over the Bible in relation as to what you are reading if you are so inclined to be like me.
I seen a show Columbo where Lt Columbo was described as some one who would spend his spare time searching through the OT just to find errors. Prescription for murder I think it was called.

 

[reformed1689]

It would seem to me that the translators didn't hold a King James Only position.

Exactly

 

[Enoch111]

It would seem to me that the translators didn't hold a King James Only position.

Because they were speaking about the same family of English Bibles. That was a different time and a different scenario. Their goal was also to make one translation out of many, which no one would take exception to. Modern critics have tried to throw away this Bible.

 

[Copperhead]

The biggest issue for me is modern textual criticism, as it pertains to received text vs majority text.

Many modern translations will side with the majority text view, which states that the only reliable text is the one that most of the extant manuscripts agree with. while on the surface that sounds good, in practice it is not.

For instance, there are examples where some modern translations have left out verses because the "majority" did not have that verse. Why not just leave the verse in and translate it? Just make a side note about it not being in all manuscripts if one is so motivated to let the reader know. One would think that the "safe" position would be to leave in a verse even if only the minority of texts have it.

It becomes a subjective exercise that risks taking away from the scripture things which were intended to be there but somehow got left out of subsequent copies. The only criteria for leaving a verse out would be if it contradicted the rest of scripture.

So, to that end, I prefer any word for word translation that adheres to the standard received text that the LV, Geneva, KJV, NKJV, LITV, YLT, etc are based on. So the KJV only crowd doesn't have it all wrong. when it comes to received text (textus receptus) vs majority text, I have to side with the KJV folks. For all else, not so much.

 

[bbyrd009]

You should know that the original Enoch (the seventh from Adam) was taken up to Heaven for a good reason.

cmon p you already know he was not, and you cannot Quote that for a very good reason

No one has ever gone up to heaven but He Who came down from it; the Son of Man

But you are not here for the facts either.

ok, have a good one

You are here to UNDERMINE the truth.

yes, ok, ty

 

[bbyrd009]

Don’t be silly.
You mean you did not knot the 16th century meaning of Easter was the pascha feast the early church celebrated per 2 Cor 11?

sorry, im not too hip on ancient fertility rites bro; and wadr i think you're getting played. Did they do the bunnies and eggs back then, too? But i cant imagine why they wouldnt tbh. Near as i can tell the mistaken/intentional conflation of "Easter" and Passover goes back a lot further than the 16th century, but i do not know. What i do know is that "Passover" as an English term goes back further than that? So, why not use "Passover" there, again? See, the answer is really pretty simple i guess; bc then the pagan fertility goddess would not be invoked, yeh?

 

[Base12]

I wonder who that fourth person was in the fire along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

Let's consult the NIV on this matter...

Daniel 3:25 (NIV)
"He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods"

Welp... it can't be Jesus since Jesus is the Son of God and not 'a Son of the Gods'.

I guess it was Zeus that saved them.

Thanks for clearing that up NIV!

 

[Base12]

Forget Mansions, the NIV promises ROOMS!!!

John 14:2
"My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"

 

[reformed1689]

I wonder who that fourth person was in the fire along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

Let's consult the NIV on this matter...

Daniel 3:25 (NIV)
"He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods"

Welp... it can't be Jesus since Jesus is the Son of God and not 'a Son of the Gods'.

I guess it was Zeus that saved them.

Thanks for clearing that up NIV!

Son of the God's makes more sense in that passage, you realize this right? Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't have said "Son of God." Now, the ESV has the same rendering as the NIV but they add a footnote to give the KJV alternate reading.

 

[reformed1689]

Forget Mansions, the NIV promises ROOMS!!!

John 14:2
"My Father's house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"

Which is consistent with the Greek word. This word is actually a "false friend." Mansion, in 1611 did not mean A huge house. It meant a place where someone stays. So no, you were never going to get your own huge house, not even in the KJV.

Read about false friends. Book Review: Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible - Reformed Truths

 

[Base12]

Nebuchadnezzar wouldn't have said...

Cool story bro.

Glad someone here can speak for Nebuchadnezzar. I was beginning to worry.