King James Version Only...?

[HIM]

This article admits part of Codex Sinaiticus was found in the trash. What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? | GotQuestions.org

And yet it was

 

[RLT63]

And yet it was

Yes and the article says it was

 

[RLT63]

The proof of your idolatry is in repeatedly not answering my question.

There would be no hesitation among readers of other translations that the answer is not to foist their preferred translation on people over bringing people to Christ. I don't think you'd know what idolatry is if it came up and bit you on your KJV/NKJV preferring behind.

In your many attempts to discredit other translations, you have revealed your profound ignorance of the Bible and the God of the Bible, e.g., God does kill children and babies when it suits him. This notion of doctrinal supremacy over the actual word of God is common among KJV idolators.

You confessed you used to be KJV only. I let you know the shadow of that remains. See above points. There is a rabid Atheist on these boards. Like you, he denies is true nature. He claims to really be merely a skeptic, an agnostic. Clearly, he had recognized it is easy to defend "I don't know" than " X is true." But God taught us it is not what people say that matters. It is by their fruit you shall know them. If this offends you, well, bless your heart.

Did God Order the Killing of Babies? - Apologetics Press

Skeptics and atheists have been critical of the Bible’s portrayal of God ordering the death of entire populations—including women and children. For example, God instructed Saul through the prophet Samuel to “go and attack Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and do not spare them. But...

apologeticspress.org

. Your question proves nothing and as I said there was a reason for the order to kill everyone.

 

[amigo de christo]

Career equals agenda. The Scribes and Pharisees or the Holy Spirit through God's people?

 

[Naomanos]

They false . wescott and hort were men of satan and did his bidding .

You were asked for proof. Do you have said proof?

 

[RLT63]

You were asked for proof. Do you have said proof?

Here’s a balanced article Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

 

[Naomanos]

Here’s a balanced article Who were Westcott and Hort, and what did they have to do with the text of the Bible? | GotQuestions.org

I've read that before. Not very convincing.

I think I have said before, maybe not in this thread, but that I cannot read the KJV. It is distracting to me with the thees and the thous. It's just not the English that I speak or write today. So, I stay away from it. I have an NKJV, and I like it, but I prefer the NRSV Catholic Edition. As an Episcopalian, it just works better with the daily office readings. I also have an NIV Men's Devotional Bible that my ex-wife gave me when we were together as it was my first Bible. So, it has sentimental value.

Not saying the KJV is a bad version, just that it's not for me. I failed Shakespeare in High School because I couldn't read it.

 

[RLT63]

I've read that before. Not very convincing.

I think I have said before, maybe not in this thread, but that I cannot read the KJV. It is distracting to me with the thees and the thous. It's just not the English that I speak or write today. So, I stay away from it. I have an NKJV, and I like it, but I prefer the NRSV Catholic Edition. As an Episcopalian, it just works better with the daily office readings. I also have an NIV Men's Devotional Bible that my ex-wife gave me when we were together as it was my first Bible. So, it has sentimental value.

Not saying the KJV is a bad version, just that it's not for me. I failed Shakespeare in High School because I couldn't read it.

I like the NKJV and the NET full notes edition. I have nothing against the KJV. Everyone should know about this controversy but it’s really a waste of time to argue about it. There is no perfect Bible and the modern versions are good Bibles too,

 

[Davy]

Lol.
I have a copy of the 1611 edition and it is way harder to read than the old English archaic version I use.

One thing folks seem to forget or run over is the  FACT that the Holy Spirit of God is our teacher. HE ALONE MAKES IT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF GOD AND HIS TRUTH !

It has little to do with HOW we hear the word, which is another FACT, that we must respond to it in repentance, belief, confession and trusting God completely. To be hearers and to be doers of his word we must walk in the Spirit of God as he leads.

Will God's Spirit lead us into error, or deception ?
Will the Spirit let us walk in confusion and chaos ?

Just bc folks MOUTH they have , walk and are led of God's Spirit DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE !

We know God's children by the Spirit of God that bears witness with his Spirit in us!

NOT BY THE WORDS THAT COME FROM THEIR PROFESSION OF SUCH !

I got a copy of the 1st edition 1611 KJV too, from Nelson Publishers in Nashville. Of course it's hard to read, its characters are in Old English.

But what makes you think that I'm advocating that FIRST EDITION KJV?

The KJV I use is NOT a 1st Edition in Old English, so those who TRY to argue that the KJV is still in Old English are pushing a LIE.

 

[Keturah]

I got a copy of the 1st edition 1611 KJV too, from Nelson Publishers in Nashville. Of course it's hard to read, its characters are in Old English.

But what makes you think that I'm advocating that FIRST EDITION KJV?

The KJV I use is NOT a 1st Edition in Old English, so those who TRY to argue that the KJV is still in Old English are pushing a LIE.

Oh shut up.
You're a BORE.

 

[Davy]

Undocumented Greek text? Why do you say that? Please explain.

Tischendorf is who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript in 1850's Greece, in a monastery. He is the one who claimed its antiquity WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTED PROOF. By un-documented means no OTHER manuscripts of that sort, nor historical quotes by the early Church fathers, etc.

Same applies to the Codex Vaticanus which Wescott and Hort also used in their new Greek translation. THEY are the ones claimed its antiquity without any documented proof, even though it was found in the Vatican library in 1475.

As I have said before, those who want to know the 'real' history of what the modern Bible revisionists have been up, see the scholarly documentary below...

 

[Keturah]

I use the King James version bible myself a Thompson chain reference that has been used for 50 years.
It has a lot of my own praises, thoughts, connections and encouragement I have found through the Spirit.
I thank my God that I am still free to use the bible of my choice.

 

[Davy]

Oh shut up.
You're a BORE.

Not a comment by a gentleman.

 

[Keturah]

Not a comment by a gentleman.

Lol, here is my last comment to you and your forked tongue and attitude; I would not KNOW as I am NOT a gentleman.
Lol lol lol lol But I'd say you AIN'T A GENTLEMAN EITHER!

 

[Davy]

For the footnotes

That's funny!

Just because there's footnotes in the NKJV pointing to the NU (Critical text having also been used), he thinks that means it is NOT in the actual body of the NKJV text??? What confusion!

 

[Davy]

I use the King James version bible myself a Thompson chain reference that has been used for 50 years.
It has a lot of my own praises, thoughts, connections and encouragement I have found through the Spirit.
I thank my God that I am still free to use the bible of my choice.

Oh really... now that's trying to use a 'revolutionist' type position with suggesting those familiar with the modern Bible version hoax are going to stop all usage of later Bible versions! Quite funny!

 

[Keturah]

Oh really... now that's trying to use a 'revolutionist' type position with suggesting those familiar with the modern Bible version hoax are going to stop all usage of later Bible versions! Quite funny!

Your attitude stinks so I'll not smell, hear, nor see you anymore !

 

[Davy]

Lol, here is my last comment to you and your forked tongue and attitude; I would not KNOW as I am NOT a gentleman.
Lol lol lol lol But I'd say you AIN'T A GENTLEMAN EITHER!

YOU are NOT to be TRUSTED WITH GOD'S WRITTEN WORD.

You are a DECEIVER, and clearly have come here to MOCK The Word of God. So go back to your Occult friends and tell them that Jesus Christ IS... coming soon to end their matters.

 

[Davy]

For those faithful followers of Jesus Christ, the strong meat of this KJV matter vs. the modern corruptionists can found in the Thread I started at the link below...

Oldest and Best, Really??

There is a difference between New Testament Bible translations today. Depending on which one you use, it comes from one of two different types of Greek text. And it DOES matter which one you rely upon for The New Testament. The authors of the Critical text (Wescott and Hort) claimed that the...

www.christianityboard.com

In that Thread, I gave links to documented proofs of 19th century Bible scholar's Wescott and Hort's affiliations with the 'ghostly guild' at Cambridge, which later because the Society For Psychical Research, an Occult experimentation group that existed in London in those days, and still today. In the personal letters of Hort, he admits his association with the group.

That means the two 19th century British Bible scholars who presented the 1881 Bible version committee with a 'new' Greek text of the New Testament, were associated with Occult movements in Britain. That suggests influence by ANOTHER SPIRIT in their work.

And all... later post 1881 Bible versions using the Critical Greek text by Wescott and Hort for the New Testament translation, are manipulations by that 'another spirit' through them.

 

[RLT63]

That's funny!

Just because there's footnotes in the NKJV pointing to the NU (Critical text having also been used), he thinks that means it is NOT in the actual body of the NKJV text??? What confusion!

Yes, you are confused