KJV The Pure Word of God?

[Jim B]

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.

Christianity is wrecked? Do you realize how that sounds? Are you really so intolerant and narrow-minded that you think that those of us who don't use the King James translation have destroyed the Christian religion because we don't agree with your choice of Bibles?

Don't you see where your intolerance of others in the body of Christ is leading you?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Glorifies Jesus more? Based on what? Utter nonsense.

Look how many times the word “Christ” appears in the KJV versus the ESV:

KJV: 532
ESV: 502

Utter nonsense that the word “Christ” is missing 30 times?

How about the word “Jesus”, the name above every name?

KJV: 942
ESV: 925

Utter nonsense that the name of Jesus is missing 17 times in the ESV?

And this isn’t even an in-depth investigation. I just did a word search in both versions! God only knows what else is missing. And what context did these words get deleted in? Hmm…

Utter nonsense?

The lies that the fathers of these corrupted texts is where the utter nonsense began friend!

Your arguments are so bogus

The arguments that dethroned the traditional textual base and philosophy is where the “bogus” is!

 

[Jim B]

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

Be blessed @Jim B

There is no perfect Bible. They are all based on the best available source documents of the time, coupled with the art and science of translation. It's beyond belief that you (tragically) consider the KJV to be perfect. It was based in part on earlier (imperfect?) translations, with the addition of the sources available at the time, all in an effort to codify King James' personal view of Protestantism and to make the Bible support secular kingship.

Why do you think the Puritans fled England, risking their lives, bringing their Geneva Bibles with them?

The King James translators stated that their work was based on earlier translations (even though they were ordered to remove all references to opposing secular rule), and they expected it to be modified after they had finished. Which indeed it has! If you have ever seen reproductions of the 1611 KJV, it is virtually impossible to read.

I challenge you: show me anything that proves the KJV is perfect!

 

[Jim B]

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!

King James ordered that the footnotes that accompanied the Geneva Bible be removed? Why? Because they often implied that secular rule was corrupting the kingship of God. King James wanted the Bible to glorify HIM!

Your refusal to see the truth is astonishing! Do some research and perhaps -- just perhaps -- you will see the truth.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

@Jim B

I cannot understand why you’re soooo annoyed with the KJV defenders.

Pray on it friend.

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8)

 

[Michiah-Imla]

King James ordered that the footnotes that accompanied the Geneva Bible be removed? Why?

Because they were very negative towards kings.

But those footnotes in the Geneva Bible didn’t belong there in first place anyway! Non-issue.

King James was correct in instructing the translators to only include footnotes to briefly explain other possible renderings and literal renderings when needed.

James did not demand they add footnotes to promote kingship.

 

[Jim B]

Look how many times the word “Christ” appears in the KJV versus the ESV:

KJV: 532
ESV: 502

Utter nonsense that the word “Christ” is missing 30 times?

How about the word “Jesus”, the name above every name?

KJV: 942
ESV: 925

Utter nonsense that the name of Jesus is missing 17 times in the ESV?

And this isn’t even an in-depth investigation. I just did a word search in both versions! God only knows what else is missing. And what context did these words get deleted in? Hmm…

Utter nonsense?

The lies that the fathers of these corrupted texts is where the utter nonsense began friend!

The arguments that dethroned the traditional textual base and philosophy is where the “bogus” is!

I don't know where you get your (mis)information. The word "Christ" appears in the 1599 Geneva Bible 709 times, 177 times more than the KJV. The word "Jesus" appears 967 times in the 1599 Geneva Bible, 25 times more than the KJV.

So by your (bizarre) standards, you should be using the 1599 Geneva Bible instead of your corrupted KJV.

If you are going to make bizarre statements about translations other than the KJV you should probably do some research!

 

[Jim B]

Because they were very negative towards kings.

But those footnotes in the Geneva Bible didn’t belong there in first place anyway! Non-issue.

King James was correct in instructing the translators to only include footnotes to briefly explain other possible renderings and literal renderings when needed.

James did not demand they add footnotes to promote kingship.

Those footnotes in the Geneva Bible didn’t belong there in first place anyway? In whose opinion? Yours? You're joking!

King James had the footnotes removed because they were not supportive of his secular rule. Period. He wanted the Bible to glorify him! Period.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Your refusal to see the truth is astonishing!

Well, I feel the same way about you.

Do some research

I have looked into this issue. And I examined the evidence according to what I know about God. Not about what I know about what men tell me they think they know what happened in textual transmission.

 

[Jim B]

@Jim B

I cannot understand why you’re soooo annoyed with the KJV defenders.

Pray on it friend.

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour” (1 Peter 5:8)

Why? Because they are so arrogant and intolerant. They glorify a single translation as the only pure word of God. That is nonsense. The KJV is just one of many Bible translations and, with very, very few exceptions, they are all good-to-excellent.

1 Peter 5:5-9b, "In the same way, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. And all of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble. And God will exalt you in due time, if you humble yourselves under his mighty hand by casting all your cares on him because he cares for you. Be sober and alert. Your enemy the devil, like a roaring lion, is on the prowl looking for someone to devour. Resist him, strong in your faith" NET v2.1

The KJV defenders are arrogant! They do not clothe themselves with humility. They attack those of us who prefer carefully-researched modern translations, written in our own language.

Jesus opposed the Pharisees who, although they had the Word of God, were arrogant and opposed Him, the Living Word. I see the same attitude in the KJV defenders. They are clearly latter-day Pharisees.

 

[MatthewG]

I have a question for the KJVO crowd. If the KJV is the "pure word of God" what was the pure word of God before the KJV? Please give us a timeline from 50AD to 1611AD what the pure word of God was in detail with support.

Thanks.

Hello reformed1689,

I enjoy the King James Bible, Revised Standard Edition, Youngs Literal Translation, New Living Translation (good for people with lower reading skills as it is 6th grade language usage).

When it comes to the Bible, I believe it was indeed inspired by those who were lead of God to write down the accounts since the creation, to the revelation. When it comes down to a word perfected bible, not really in English I do not believe we have a perfected worded bible, as when you go back into the past, there are actually less words in the Hebrew, and Aramic, or Greek, and the English tends to add more words to the Bible.

Now is the Bible still useful? Absolutely to learn the truths about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, and the dealings with the nation of Israel and mankind. I believe the Bible increases our faith when we learn about the truths of God, and the principles set forth from what can be learned from in the scriptures.

Love you.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

The word "Christ" appears in the 1599 Geneva Bible 709 times

You did a search on Bible Gateway?

Your research is faulty.

Here’s why:

Bible Gateway includes the added Geneva’s translators chapter preview segments in the search for “Christ” which you can image appear there quite often. This is not an accurate sample from the text alone.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Those footnotes in the Geneva Bible didn’t belong there in first place anyway? In whose opinion? Yours? You're joking!

Those footnotes in the Geneva Bible are not in the Greek text!

Can’t you understand that?!

 

[Jim B]

Those footnotes in the Geneva Bible are not in the Greek text!

Can’t you understand that?!

I have news for you. There isn't a single word of English in the Greek text.

King James ordered the Geneva Bible footnotes removed because they didn't glorify him. Can’t you understand that?

I won't continue to discuss this with you. You clearly show the intolerance of all KVOs. Your worship a book, just like the Pharisees did. And they missed Christ!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

There isn't a single word of English in the Greek text.

How is this relevant to our discussion?

King James ordered the Geneva Bible footnotes removed because they didn't glorify him. Can’t you understand that?

King James certainly didn’t like the Geneva Bible footnotes, true.

But this does not matter one iota! THOSE FOOTNOTES ARE NOT IN THE GREEK!!!

NEITHER ARE THEY THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!

Your worship a book

“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psalms 138:2)

 

[Jim B]

How is this relevant to our discussion?



King James certainly didn’t like the Geneva Bible footnotes, true.

But this does not matter one iota! THOSE FOOTNOTES ARE NOT IN THE GREEK!!!

NEITHER ARE THEY THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD!



“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psalms 138:2)

Interesting that you quote from the Old Testament, where "thy word" is clearly not referring to Jesus.

John 1, 1-4, " In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God. The Word was with God in the beginning. All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created. In him was life, and the life was the light of mankind."

BTW, here is a better translation of Psalm 138:2, with the accompanying translator's note ...

I will bow down toward your holy temple,
and give thanks to your name,
because of your loyal love and faithfulness,
for you have exalted your promise above the entire sky"

The MT reads, “for you have made great over all your name your word.” If retained, this must mean that God’s mighty intervention, in fulfillment of his word of promise, surpassed anything he had done prior to this. However, the statement is odd and several emendations have been proposed. Some read, “for you have exalted over everything your name and your word,” while others suggest, “for you have exalted over all the heavens your name and your word.” The translation assumes an emendation of “your name” to “your heavens” (a construction that appears in Pss 8:3 and 144:5). The point is that God has been faithful to his promise and the reliability of that promise is apparent to all. For a fuller discussion of these options, see L. C. Allen, Psalms 101-150 (WBC), 244.

Another mistranslation by the KJV!

 

[reformed1689]

Look how many times the word “Christ” appears in the KJV versus the ESV:

KJV: 532
ESV: 502

Utter nonsense that the word “Christ” is missing 30 times?

How about the word “Jesus”, the name above every name?

KJV: 942
ESV: 925

Utter nonsense that the name of Jesus is missing 17 times in the ESV?

And this isn’t even an in-depth investigation. I just did a word search in both versions! God only knows what else is missing. And what context did these words get deleted in? Hmm…

Utter nonsense?

The lies that the fathers of these corrupted texts is where the utter nonsense began friend!



The arguments that dethroned the traditional textual base and philosophy is where the “bogus” is!

So if you are going to make this argument, at least know what you are talking about. Several times the ESV says "Annointed One" as opposed to Christ. Is that any less glorious? Any less holy? No. MANY times the KJV has it italicized which means they ADDED it in. So did you also know that the ESV has the word Jesus in Acts 9:20 and the KJV doesn't? The KJV puts Christ in that verse. Which one is "holier?" Your argument is absurd and doesn't hold water.

 

[reformed1689]

Don't you see where your intolerance of others in the body of Christ is leading you?

Definitely not to the gates of Heaven that's for sure.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Interesting that you quote from the Old Testament, where "thy word" is clearly not referring to Jesus.

I didn’t say it did.

This reference clearly went over your head.

a better translation of Psalm 138:2,

Any rendering other than the KJV is a better rendering, I get it. That’s how you guys roll.

Funny how you claim “no Bible is perfect” yet it’s always the KJV that’s the least perfect of them all without fail.

 

[reformed1689]

Any rendering other than the KJV is a better rendering, I get it. That’s how you guys roll.

I don't think that is what any of us has claimed. Have I ever said I do not like the KJV? No. Have I ever said that the KJV is a BAD translation? No. Have I said it is outdated? Yes, and it is. And no, the KJV is not the worst translation out there, it is a good, a very good, translation. Is it the best available today? No.