Featured Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

Sooooo, because you couldn't address the NT and historical evidence I presented in posts #21 and #46 - you steer the conversation away from the topic onto MY educational history?
Ummmmmm, I'm NOT the one writing a reference Bible and claiming its "accuracy".

Pretty pathetic . . .

 

So is rejecting Pauline Justification, as Rome did and still does!

 

I merely stated that C.I. Scofield didn't have any formal Theological training before he set out to write his Reference Bible.
That is a fact of history - NOT my opinion.

I had NO idea that you would be so offended by that . . .

 

Really?
Can you explain that one?

 

Those who hold the KJV as "inerrant" - and there are many - simply live in a world of make-believe.
Virtually EVERY translation is an errant copy of God's inerrant word.

Just off the top of my head - I san point to where the KJV uses the word "ministering", where "priestly service" is used in the Greek. It is a verb form of the Greek word for "Priest", (heirus).

Romans 15:16 - ESV
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible - KJV
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think that makes the KJV particularly "inferior" - but it certainly is NOT without linguistic error.

 

And by the way - it's only a "waste" of time when I am asked ridiculous and otherwise irrelevant questions . . .

 

Oh is Rome DOING something WRONG?

SOUNDS like they are required to do the right thing, Obviously you agree faith alone is nonsense.

 

The Spanish equivalent of the KJV is called the “1602P VALERA PURIFICADA,” which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish), just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English, and is the closest to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.

The French equivalent of the KJV is the King James Francaise; Le Nouveau Testament King James Francaise by Nadine L Stratford December 21st, 2016.

The Arabic is that of the “ARABIC SMITH-VAN DYKE VERSION” of 1865 claiming source texts from the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus.

The closest Chinese equivalent is the older 1875 “MANDARIN CHINESE BY SCHERESCHEWSKY” of which seems very close to the KJV, it appears there are efforts now underway by “Global Bible Translations” to give the Chinese a pure text. Their website bpsglobal.org, currently has the Gospel of John and the book of Romans translated, as they claim they are using the T.R. for an even more pure text. Another pure version is the “Robert Morrison Chinese Bible” of 1823, which is also available in PDF form online.

 

Have you ever read Nick Sayers book on Revelation 16:5? http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation 16.5 and the Triadic Declaration.pdf

 

Indeed, during the Reformation many translations were made in many languages. Were they perfect? No. Neither was the KJV.
There is no justifiable reason to make people have to translate old English in order to understand what God has spoken. Many English speaking people have been brought to salvation reading other translations that are not KJV. This KJV only belief is an idol taking the place of God, much like the Pharisees traditions were idols taking the place of God.

 

Actual issues should be addressed. Questions of scholarship does not deal with an issue of disagreement. My first study Bible was an 1917 edtion of the Scofield Reference Bible I had bought as a teenager. If there is a particular inaccuracy make a case against that one issue. While the issues may be many. One should, I think, deal with one issue at a time. We might find we agree on some points of issue.

I agree with the saying, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome. Which is a true saying.

 

I agree.

However, I like to refer to the ESV for clarity of some KJV text.

Example:
(Jas 4:13 KJV) Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
(Jas 4:13 ESV) Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"--

 

KJV-only groups or KJV-only advocates are actually divided concerning the Spanish Bible. They do not all recommend the same edition of the Spanish Bible.

Some KJV-only advocates advocate the 2010 Reina-Valera Gomez (RVG) Spanish Bible. For example, KJV-only advocate Emanuel Rodriguez wrote a book entitled God's Bible in Spanish--How God preserved His words in Spanish through the RVG. On the other hand, KJV-only author Robert Breaker III wrote a book entitled The History and Truth about the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible that attacks the RVG and recommends the 1602 Valera Purified. Some other KJV-only advocates use a different edition of the Spanish Bible than those two.

 

Trent stated that per Rome, the "saved by grace alone thru faith alone", which IS Pauline Justification, was declared anathema!

 

Where does it say in the KJV that God's Word is not perfect? Just present the Scriptures, perhaps I overlooked a few.

 

God does not consider the KJV to be His authorized version. I read the ESV, its translation is closer to the original Greek.

Here's what we read.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
~ 2 Timothy 3:16-17