THE FAKE KJV ONLY ARGUMENT

[Armour of God]

Go look up the 1st edition KJV Bible, and you'll see what I mean.

My bible app hasn't got that. You made a false accusation about me saying that I was just regurgitating what I had heard. Then I proved that you were wrong, im speaking from my personal experience, the KJV iv got is not in modern English. Thank you

God bless

 

[SavedInHim]

Go look up the 1st edition KJV Bible, and you'll see what I mean.

The KJV we have today is easier to understand than the 1611, but it's still hard to understand for modern readers. Aside from that, you started off this thread by saying: "There is propaganda pushed today against those who rely on the 1611 King James Bible . . . " So do you rely on the 1611?

 

[Davy]

My bible app hasn't got that. You made a false accusation about me saying that I was just regurgitating what I had heard. Then I proved that you were wrong, im speaking from my personal experience, the KJV iv got is not in modern English. Thank you

God bless

You didn't prove anything. Just because the modern KJV Bible contains a few words used back in 1611 doesn't mean it is in Old English.

Try this...

www.originalbibles.com/the-original-king-james-bible-1611-pdf/

 

[Wrangler]

You didn't prove anything. Just because the modern KJV Bible contains a few words used back in 1611 doesn't mean it is in Old English.

I don’t think you are open to proof - facts, evidence, reason. The KJV had its day in the sun but is now the worst translation available in English. Not even close. Pushing it IDOLATRY.

We are not saved by a translation.

 

[Davy]

I don’t think you are open to proof - facts, evidence, reason. The KJV had its day in the sun but is now the worst translation available in English. Not even close. Pushing it IDOLATRY.

That is a stupid thought pushed by those of the school of Textual Criticism, a group that doesn't even believe a Bible scholar needs to be a Christian in order to translate... God's Word!!! Might as well be heeding the devil if listening to them.

So of course... those are going to be against the 1611 KJV Bible, which is still the MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION of God's Word, because a word for word dynamic relevance method was used to actually translate what GOD ACTUALLY SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS, and not what men only 'think' He said by paraphrasing, which men don't even have The Holy Spirit to guide them!

ALL NEW Bible translations use as a basis Wescott and Hort's new Greek New Testament they CREATED and presented in 1881. Thus ALL English Bible translations AFTER the 1880's are CORRUPT, and follow QUESTIONABLE Greek texts like the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

 

[Wrangler]

That is a stupid thought

Says the IDOLATOR in response to his idolatry being pointed out.

 

[Taken]

The 1611 KJV over many years was discussed and written by nearly 50 scholars.


I would presume…
Prayer for guidance was paramount for such an esteemed undertaking.
As well… the daunting effort to transcribe…
The manner / style of speech, being considered, when transcribing from one language to another.

I own many Bibles and personally favor the 1611 KJV over the others.
My choice, my Preference.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Davy]

Says the IDOLATOR in response to his idolatry being pointed out.

You WHITE-WASHED WALL. It will not be well for YOU when my Lord Jesus returns in our near future. It is obvious that you are NOT a true Christian, calling someone like me an idolator! I struggle with false Jews like you here in HOPES that you might actually believe The Word of God in The New Testament, and convert to Jesus Christ! But all you care about is tearing The Word of God down, creating chaos and doubt, and mocking His Word.

I may ask Lord Jesus to put YOU under my personal care in the future when He returns, when He gives me His promised "rod of iron" to rule with Him over the nations!

 

[Armour of God]

You didn't prove anything. Just because the modern KJV Bible contains a few words used back in 1611 doesn't mean it is in Old English.

Try this...

www.originalbibles.com/the-original-king-james-bible-1611-pdf/

No you falsely accused me of regurgitating what I heard. You were wrong

 

[rvmb]

That is a stupid thought pushed by those of the school of Textual Criticism, a group that doesn't even believe a Bible scholar needs to be a Christian in order to translate... God's Word!!! Might as well be heeding the devil if listening to them.

So of course... those are going to be against the 1611 KJV Bible, which is still the MOST ACCURATE ENGLISH TRANSLATION of God's Word, because a word for word dynamic relevance method was used to actually translate what GOD ACTUALLY SAID IN HIS OWN WORDS, and not what men only 'think' He said by paraphrasing, which men don't even have The Holy Spirit to guide them!

ALL NEW Bible translations use as a basis Wescott and Hort's new Greek New Testament they CREATED and presented in 1881. Thus ALL English Bible translations AFTER the 1880's are CORRUPT, and follow QUESTIONABLE Greek texts like the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus.

Wescott Hort, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Alexandria :-
"""Contrary to what has been taught in most seminaries, these two manuscripts are worthless, and hopelessly corrupt.""

The Unreliability of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries

Bible scholarship of the past 150 years has placed much attention on a very small number of manuscripts. While there are over 5000 known New Testament manuscripts, attention has been placed on less than ten. Of these, Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have been exalted as the “oldest and...

www.preservedword.com

 

[Davy]

No you falsely accused me of regurgitating what I heard. You were wrong

I said the truth. You show you were siding with those in favor of modern English Bible translations. Your original statement wrongly assumes the NIV and more modern translations come from the same Bible manuscripts that the KJV used, when they do not. If you are using a Bible translation done after 1880, you are using Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation of the New Testament as a basis, which is from questionable Greek texts like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus, all Greek texts which the KJV DID NOT USE.

You are using a DIFFERENT BIBLE than the KJV and you don't even know it!

You even said...

"Im not sure it really matters what translation you use. I personally find it very difficult to follow the old English of the KJV. I prefer to use the NIV because the modern English is much easier for me to follow, reading isn't really a strong point of mine"​

The KJV reading is not that difficult, plus, Dr. James Strong provided a great tool that goes with the KJV Bible called The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance where you can go into the original Bible text used in the translation of the KJV.

 

[David Lamb]

The KJV we have today is easier to understand than the 1611, but it's still hard to understand for modern readers. Aside from that, you started off this thread by saying: "There is propaganda pushed today against those who rely on the 1611 King James Bible . . . " So do you rely on the 1611?

I agree. I know that we can look up unknown words in a concordance to discover their meaning, but the difficulty comes with words and phrases that are still in use now, but with completely different meanings to what they have in the KJV. Here are just a few examples; after each one, I have given the meaning in the KJV, followed by the meaning in today's English: "Prevent" (Go before/Stop something happening). "Carriages" (equipment or luggage/wheeled vehicles). "Fetched a compass" (Turned around, especially at sea/procured a direction-finding device) "Dreadful" (Awe-inspiring/terrible, something extremely bad). "Conversation" (Manner of life/what happens when two or more people talk to each other). "Peculiar" (special/strange, odd). There are others - those are just examples. Because the words and phrases are still used today, there is nothing to indicate that we need to look up their meaning. I remember there used to be a Christian denomination here in the UK known as "The Peculiar People." The name was based on verses from the KJV such as:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Unsurprisingly, the denomination changed its name in the second half of the 20th century to "the Union of Evangelical Churches."

 

[Armour of God]

I said the truth. You show you were siding with those in favor of modern English Bible translations. Your original statement wrongly assumes the NIV and more modern translations come from the same Bible manuscripts that the KJV used, when they do not. If you are using a Bible translation done after 1880, you are using Wescott and Hort's new Greek translation of the New Testament as a basis, which is from questionable Greek texts like Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus, all Greek texts which the KJV DID NOT USE.

You are using a DIFFERENT BIBLE than the KJV and you don't even know it!

You even said...

"Im not sure it really matters what translation you use. I personally find it very difficult to follow the old English of the KJV. I prefer to use the NIV because the modern English is much easier for me to follow, reading isn't really a strong point of mine"​

The KJV reading is not that difficult, plus, Dr. James Strong provided a great tool that goes with the KJV Bible called The Strong's Exhaustive Concordance where you can go into the original Bible text used in the translation of the KJV.

I don't know what manuscripts are used for what translations. All I know is that you made a false accusation about me and you were wrong about that

 

[doctrox]

I don’t think you are open to proof - facts, evidence, reason.

You haven't posted any of that - just the same ole ad hominems and non sequiturs.

This looks like a copy&paste text from some KJV Only cult website.

It would "look like" that to someone like you, who is too lazy to perform his own due diligence and rather relies on a worn out misdirection. You remain without excuse.

 

[Davy]

I don't know what manuscripts are used for what translations. All I know is that you made a false accusation about me and you were wrong about that

Nah... you're just wanting to start an argument that has NO... weight.

Welcome to my IGNORE list.

 

[Armour of God]

Nah... you're just wanting to start an argument that has NO... weight.

Welcome to my IGNORE list.

Haha how weak. That's fine, I don't like dishonest people anyway.
You made a false accusation and your not honest enough to admit that.

 

[HealthyShape]

It would "look like" that to someone like you, who is too lazy to perform his own due diligence and rather relies on a worn out misdirection. You remain without excuse.

You have no basis for saying this. You are just angry.

 

[doctrox]

You have no basis for saying this. You are just angry.

The proof is in the posts in this thread, for all to see.

 

[Davy]

I agree. I know that we can look up unknown words in a concordance to discover their meaning, but the difficulty comes with words and phrases that are still in use now, but with completely different meanings to what they have in the KJV. Here are just a few examples; after each one, I have given the meaning in the KJV, followed by the meaning in today's English: "Prevent" (Go before/Stop something happening). "Carriages" (equipment or luggage/wheeled vehicles). "Fetched a compass" (Turned around, especially at sea/procured a direction-finding device) "Dreadful" (Awe-inspiring/terrible, something extremely bad). "Conversation" (Manner of life/what happens when two or more people talk to each other). "Peculiar" (special/strange, odd). There are others - those are just examples. Because the words and phrases are still used today, there is nothing to indicate that we need to look up their meaning. I remember there used to be a Christian denomination here in the UK known as "The Peculiar People." The name was based on verses from the KJV such as:

1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.

Unsurprisingly, the denomination changed its name in the second half of the 20th century to "the Union of Evangelical Churches."

That matter is still moot, simply because the English Bible translations after Wescott and Hort's corrupt 'personal' Greek NT translation was presented to the revision committee, and also used thereafter by modern translations, even the NEW King James Version of 1982, is what the real attack against the 1611 KJV Bible is about.

Wescott and Hort definitely wanted to get Christianity away... from use of the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, which is from the Majority Text, the majority of existing Greek texts, something like over 2,000 manuscripts. They admitted it in their personal letters to each other, which were made public after their deaths.

Therefore, if Wescott and Hort were not the sole conspirators in the attack against the Textus Receptus and 1611 KJV Bible, then who else was, and why?

Those who started the school of Textual Criticism are factors in that attack, as also certain crept in unawares from Rome who wanted to bring Protestant Christianity back under the yoke of the Catholic Church. But deeper than that also, because those groups still only represent the visible surface attackers. The secret societies, mystical fraternities, who's high members follow and worship Lucifer as their god, are the most suspect. That because they exist in 'secret' in those positions in the Church, and among Textual Criticism, and Bible translation committees. Even Wescott and Hort's letters reveal they had a personal connection with those secret societies.

Thus arguments over how difficult the KJV Bible is to read over modern translations is actually a useless argument to get attention away from the real 'conspiracy', and the real conspirators in the attack against the 1611 KJV Bible.

 

[HealthyShape]

That matter is still moot, simply because the English Bible translations after Wescott and Hort's corrupt 'personal' Greek NT translation was presented to the revision committee, and also used thereafter by modern translations, even the NEW King James Version of 1982, is what the real attack against the 1611 KJV Bible is about.

Wescott and Hort definitely wanted to get Christianity away... from use of the Greek Textus Receptus for the New Testament, which is from the Majority Text, the majority of existing Greek texts, something like over 2,000 manuscripts. They admitted it in their personal letters to each other, which were made public after their deaths.

Therefore, if Wescott and Hort were not the sole conspirators in the attack against the Textus Receptus and 1611 KJV Bible, then who else was, and why?

Those who started the school of Textual Criticism are factors in that attack, as also certain crept in unawares from Rome who wanted to bring Protestant Christianity back under the yoke of the Catholic Church. But deeper than that also, because those groups still only represent the visible surface attackers. The secret societies, mystical fraternities, who's high members follow and worship Lucifer as their god, are the most suspect. That because they exist in 'secret' in those positions in the Church, and among Textual Criticism, and Bible translation committees. Even Wescott and Hort's letters reveal they had a personal connection with those secret societies.

Thus arguments over how difficult the KJV Bible is to read over modern translations is actually a useless argument to get attention away from the real 'conspiracy', and the real conspirators in the attack against the 1611 KJV Bible.

KJV Only proponents really need to stop talking about Westcott-Hort all the time.

For over one hundred years, the standard Greek edition for the Bible translators is Nestle-Aland.

People just ignore your attacks on Westcott-Hort, because they are not interested. Not because such arguments are "so good that the opponents are silenced!".