King James Version Only...?

[farouk]

If you read the Book of Mormon it uses what I call king James english.

I am not sure what bible they use, I had a bible study with one about 20 years ago, out of respect I ready the Book of Mormon, I got about three quarters of the way through when it was so far out in left field it I could no longer go forward

The style of that book would probably to some ppl give it an aura of plausibility.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It talks about Jesus and God, kinda like the modern versions that directly followed it.

But it’s false and it has no gospel in it,

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The "Mormon" Bible is the KJV, which is used for all English congregations. Obviously Spanish speakers use a Spanish Bible version, etc.

Thank you I did not know this

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Which Bible is perfect?

Is it still in existence?

Can you point me to it?

The word of God endureth forever, correct?

It’s not the king James

you do realize back in Jesus day they had scrolls not bibles correct? I believe they also used the Septuagint a lot.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

The style of that book would probably to some ppl give it an aura of plausibility.

That’s what I thought when I read it, it sounded christian

 

[DNB]

One can be Kjv Preferred, but no sense to be Only!

No, exactly. The KJV is a magnificent translation, but by no means is it perfect, nor without error or fallibility.
Personally, I strongly endorse not exclusively favouring one single translation, but as a rule, use as many translations as possible (those that share a translation fidelity and affinity with the most popular), at least at some point in your studies. Having a preference is great, but sooner or later, one must make an appeal to another translation, that renders a particular text more accurately and faithfully than one's preferred version.
Bible Hub underscores this point quite well.

 

[Truther]

Only perfect one were the originals!

And their God ordained copies creating the God ordained KJV.(The originals do not exist)

 

[Truther]

But it’s false and it has no gospel in it,

Agreed, just like the fake modern versions.

 

[tigger 2]

One important thing found in the KJV is the use of God's name. The KJV translators removed that name and replaced it with the mistranslated "LORD" in nearly all of the many thousands of places it was found in the text they used, but miraculously used it at Ps. 83:18.

Psalm 83:16-18, KJV: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [sic]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the most high over all the earth."

So why has the KJV actually removed that very name from its translation in the thousands of places it appears in the manuscripts and texts?

And why do KJV-only advocates not seek that name and use it as Ps. 83:16-18 demands? Do we ever find them consistently using "Jehovah" as their KJV insists in that scripture.

So why does no KJV-Onlyist answer these important questions?

 

[Truther]

It’s not the king James

you do realize back in Jesus day they had scrolls not bibles correct? I believe they also used the Septuagint a lot.

So, we are on our own with only fragments of copies of God's pure word and thousands of differing translators? God dropped out of the picture? God's word did not endure forever?

 

[Truther]

One important thing found in the KJV is the use of God's name. The KJV translators removed that name and replaced it with the mistranslated "LORD" in nearly all of the many thousands of places it was found in the text they used, but miraculously used it at Ps. 83:18.

Psalm 83:16-18, KJV: "Fill their faces with shame; that they may seek thy name, O LORD [sic]. Let them be confounded and troubled for ever; yea, let them be put to shame, and perish: That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH art the most high over all the earth."

So why has the KJV actually removed that very name from its translation in the thousands of places it appears in the manuscripts and texts?

And why do KJV-only advocates not seek that name and use it as Ps. 83:16-18 demands? Do we ever find them consistently using "Jehovah" as their KJV insists in that scripture.

So why does no KJV-Onlyist answer these important questions?

Why does tigger 2 try to debunk a KJV that he has no idea how they translated it?

Your scholar buddies hate the KJV and make up fake arguments, like CNN in ever press briefing with Kailey M.

Thing is, the translators are 400 years old and too old to defend their works.

They were ordained of God to ELECT the words and phrases used.

Also, the word "Easter" is accurate in Acts, but you detractors do not have a clue what the translators meant it to say.

I guarantee that NOBODY here knows what it means, except myself.(because I seek to vindicate the KJV, God showed me)

 

[YeshuaFan1]

Thank you I did not know this

There was a Joseph Smith "insiired revised" edition, but few used it!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

No, exactly. The KJV is a magnificent translation, but by no means is it perfect, nor without error or fallibility.
Personally, I strongly endorse not exclusively favouring one single translation, but as a rule, use as many translations as possible (those that share a translation fidelity and affinity with the most popular), at least at some point in your studies. Having a preference is great, but sooner or later, one must make an appeal to another translation, that renders a particular text more accurately and faithfully than one's preferred version.
Bible Hub underscores this point quite well.

Those in the Kjvo make it seem as if all against them hate the Kjv, we do not, but cannot agree that it is the best or only to use!
Why not use the Greek or Hebrew texts if able to read them?

 

[YeshuaFan1]

And their God ordained copies creating the God ordained KJV.(The originals do not exist)

The Kjv was no more ordained then any other translation!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

Agreed, just like the fake modern versions.

I can see the real Jesus and real Gospel in my Nas and Esv!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

Why does tigger 2 try to debunk a KJV that he has no idea how they translated it?

Your scholar buddies hate the KJV and make up fake arguments, like CNN in ever press briefing with Kailey M.

Thing is, the translators are 400 years old and too old to defend their works.

They were ordained of God to ELECT the words and phrases used.

Also, the word "Easter" is accurate in Acts, but you detractors do not have a clue what the translators meant it to say.

I guarantee that NOBODY here knows what it means, except myself.(because I seek to vindicate the KJV, God showed me)

The Holy Spirit did NOT inspire their decisions and renderings!

 

[JohnDB]

The Kjv was no more ordained then any other translation!

It was actually...but just in the denomination called the Church of England.

Not really any other church denomination...a few might but it was constructed for England's church.

 

[Truther]

The Kjv was no more ordained then any other translation!

An admission that the pure word of God did not endure forever?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So, we are on our own with only fragments of copies of God's pure word and thousands of differing translators? God dropped out of the picture? God's word did not endure forever?

I already showed you how Jesus conversation with peter is not correct in any English version you look at.

if it were to be truely interpreted. It would show how Jesus asked peter if he agape him, and Peters replay that he phileo him, and Jesus asked again, do you agape me, and peter again replying he phileo him, the third time jesus asked do you phileo him, which caused peter to cry out.

yet all three times Jesus said feed my sheep. My lambs etc...

see why did the English interpreter not transliterates the different works here? It was ok for them to do it with Baptizo causing false gospels they could not do it here?

face it, although I can understand, peter denied him three times, so Jesus asked him three times if he loved (English) him as a means of encouraging

but knowing peter could not even come to say he agape Jesus, yet Jesus still told him to feed his people has a much deeper impact on those who read it, than just using one word to translate both types of love like the KJv did

so no. You do not have a perfect bible. If you think you do. Well I feel sorry for you

 

[Truther]

I can see the real Jesus and real Gospel in my Nas and Esv!

LOL

I trow not!