KJV The Pure Word of God?

[Jim B]

I was saved at 18 years old in 1979, and never had a problem understanding the KJV.

I did not need modernists to define "thee" etc to me.

Since then, I have never met a student of mine that could not understand it either.

I think folks that go around saying it is too hard to read are just blowin smoke(making excuses for promoting multiversionism).

Hey, why let the homosexuals steal the word, "gay" from us anyway?

We can correct the modernists, rather than have modernists fix our Bibles.

So I'm glad that your understanding is infallible. Say hello to your unicorn while your sitting in "the lower room". Becuase the KJV is written in a dead language to a culture that no longer exists, ordered by a secular king to make God's word follow his pilitcal agenda, you're welcome to it. For me, it's antiquated, and error-filled.

"multiversionism"? What the hell is that? A belief that there are other translations that are as valid as the KJV? If so, I'm a "Multiversionist", i.e., I have an open mind.

Homosexuals steal the word "gay"? What is wrong with you???

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Where does one find "the faithful underlying uncorrupted text"? Since the originals don't exist and the copies differ from each other, your statment is without merit.

I’m at peace on this topic by faith.

 

[Illuminator]

So I'm glad that your understanding is infallible. Say hello to your unicorn while your sitting in "the lower room". Becuase the KJV is written in a dead language to a culture that no longer exists, ordered by a secular king to make God's word follow his pilitcal agenda, you're welcome to it. For me, it's antiquated, and error-filled.

"multiversionism"? What the hell is that? A belief that there are other translations that are as valid as the KJV? If so, I'm a "Multiversionist", i.e., I have an open mind.

Agreed.
Some Protestants will tell you that the only acceptable version of the Bible is the King James. This position is known as King James-onlyism. Its advocates often make jokes such as, “If the King James Version was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me.” They commonly claim that the King James is based on the only perfect set of manuscripts we have (a false claim; there is no perfect set of manuscripts; and the ones used for the KJV were compiled by a Catholic, Erasmus); that it is the only translation that avoids modern, liberal renderings; and that its translators were extremely saintly and scholarly men. Since the King James is also known as “the Authorized Version” (AV), its advocates sometimes argue that it is the only version to ever have been “authorized.” To this one may point out that it was only authorized in the Anglican church, which now uses other translations.

As amusing as King James-onlyism may sound, some people take it very seriously. There is even a Catholic equivalent, which we might call “Douay-Rheims-onlyism.” The Douay-Rheims version, which predates the King James by a couple of years (the complete KJV was published in 1611, but the complete Douay-Rheims in 1609), was the standard Bible for English-speaking Catholics until the twentieth century.

What many advocates of both King James-onlyism and Douay-Rheims-onlyism do not know is that neither Bible is the original issued in the 1600s. Over the last three centuries, numerous minor changes (for example, of spelling and grammar) have been made in the King James, with the result that most versions of the KJV currently on the market are significantly different from the original. This has led one publisher to recently reissue the 1611 King James Version Bible.
Bible Translations Guide

 

[Truther]

So I'm glad that your understanding is infallible. Say hello to your unicorn while your sitting in "the lower room". Becuase the KJV is written in a dead language to a culture that no longer exists, ordered by a secular king to make God's word follow his pilitcal agenda, you're welcome to it. For me, it's antiquated, and error-filled.

"multiversionism"? What the hell is that? A belief that there are other translations that are as valid as the KJV? If so, I'm a "Multiversionist", i.e., I have an open mind.

Homosexuals steal the word "gay"? What is wrong with you???

Multiversionism is the new age Bible version syndrome that has excited the masses into translation hysteria with the latest and greatest "word of God".

 

[reformed1689]

It was in other faithful translations that followed the faithful underlying uncorrupted text.

And how do you know which text is "faithful and uncorrupted?"

 

[reformed1689]

The ancient manuscripts that neither of us have access to are purely copied, or rejected as needed.

Because they did not have a copier back in those days.

So you did not answer my question. Which copies are pure and how do you KNOW?

 

[Truther]

So you did not answer my question. Which copies are pure and how do you KNOW?

Because they were used by the KJV translators and they match each other.

The modern versions are based on a rejected, Alexandrian text that was riddle with mistakes.

This text was used by the enemy to debunk the Bible as a mistake prone mess to the world.

The enemy won.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

And how do you know which text is "faithful and uncorrupted?"

By faith through the Spirit.

The text underlying the KJV glorifies Jesus more than the text underlying nearly all modern versions.

The text underlying the KJV has more of God’s holy word. The text underlying nearly all the modern versions have less of God’s holy word.

So with this in mind:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13-14)

I have been guided to the KJV by the Spirit of truth.

The KJV glorifies Jesus more than the modern versions. The KJV has stronger wording. The KJV pre-dates much of the corrupting influences of today (television, internet, sports, etc.).

The choice of the KJV is a no brainer!

 

[Truther]

By faith through the Spirit.

The text underlying the KJV glorifies Jesus more than the text underlying nearly all modern versions.

The text underlying the KJV has more of God’s holy word. The text underlying nearly all the modern versions have less of God’s holy word.

So with this in mind:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13-14)

I have been guided to the KJV by the Spirit of truth.

The KJV glorifies Jesus more than the modern versions. The KJV has stronger wording. The KJV pre-dates much of the corrupting influences of today (television, internet, sports, etc.).

The choice of the KJV is a no brainer!

Excellent post.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Excellent post.

Thanks brother!

Be blessed!

 

[Truther]

Thanks brother!

Be blessed!

You're welcome. You too.

 

[Jim B]

Multiversionism is the new age Bible version syndrome that has excited the masses into translation hysteria with the latest and greatest "word of God".

"Multiversionism"? I've never heard that one. Is that synonymous with an open mind?

 

[Jim B]

Because they were used by the KJV translators and they match each other.

The modern versions are based on a rejected, Alexandrian text that was riddle with mistakes.

This text was used by the enemy to debunk the Bible as a mistake prone mess to the world.

The enemy won.

This is beyond nonsense. Modern versions are developed individually. The translators don't get to gether and decide to use one corrupted text. My favorite translations are developed by committees of ecumenical people, using the best available sources and deciding, with God's help, how to render the ancient writings into modern English.

By contrast, King James ordered the translators of his version to develop a translation that a) glorified secular kingship and b) codified his personal idea of Protestantism.

Why not accept facts instead of lies?

 

[Jim B]

By faith through the Spirit.

The text underlying the KJV glorifies Jesus more than the text underlying nearly all modern versions.

The text underlying the KJV has more of God’s holy word. The text underlying nearly all the modern versions have less of God’s holy word.

So with this in mind:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13-14)

I have been guided to the KJV by the Spirit of truth.

The KJV glorifies Jesus more than the modern versions. The KJV has stronger wording. The KJV pre-dates much of the corrupting influences of today (television, internet, sports, etc.).

The choice of the KJV is a no brainer!

I agree that if you hold to the KJV you have no brain!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I agree that if you hold to the KJV you have no brain!

The above quote is a good example of the fruits of a person who has no perfect Bible.

Be blessed @Jim B

 

[Michiah-Imla]

King James ordered the translators of his version to develop a translation that a) glorified secular kingship and

How does the KJV “glorify secular kingship”?

Why isn’t there any added footnotes in the KJV to glorify secular kingship?

Many footnotes in the modern Bibles take glory away from God!! This should concern you sir!

 

[Truther]

"Multiversionism"? I've never heard that one. Is that synonymous with an open mind?

...a little too open.

 

[Truther]

This is beyond nonsense. Modern versions are developed individually. The translators don't get to gether and decide to use one corrupted text. My favorite translations are developed by committees of ecumenical people, using the best available sources and deciding, with God's help, how to render the ancient writings into modern English.

By contrast, King James ordered the translators of his version to develop a translation that a) glorified secular kingship and b) codified his personal idea of Protestantism.

Why not accept facts instead of lies?

No, I said the enemy won.

Sinners think there is no pure word of God now, and they are off the hook.

Scriptural critics and redefiners wrecked Christianity.

 

[reformed1689]

The modern versions are based on a rejected, Alexandrian text that was riddle with mistakes.

Rejected by who and when?

 

[reformed1689]

By faith through the Spirit.

The text underlying the KJV glorifies Jesus more than the text underlying nearly all modern versions.

The text underlying the KJV has more of God’s holy word. The text underlying nearly all the modern versions have less of God’s holy word.

So with this in mind:

“Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.” (John 16:13-14)

I have been guided to the KJV by the Spirit of truth.

The KJV glorifies Jesus more than the modern versions. The KJV has stronger wording. The KJV pre-dates much of the corrupting influences of today (television, internet, sports, etc.).

The choice of the KJV is a no brainer!

Glorifies Jesus more? Based on what? Utter nonsense. Have more of God's word? Based on what? According to who?

KJV has stronger wording? Predates corrupting influences? What about the corrupting influences of the 17th century? Do you really think they did not exist?

Your arguments are so bogus I would laugh but it isn't funny.