The Pure Word of God

NewLady3203: "I will follow the King
James Bible always ... "

Which King James Version (KJV) do you use now?
Most KJVs that I have inspected personally
do NOT reveal which KJV they are.
Here is a litmus test for determing which
of the three major KJV's one might have:

Ruth 3:15d (KJV1769):
... and she went into the city.

Ruth 3:15d (KJV1873):
... and he went into the city.

Ruth 3:15d (KJV1611):
... and he went into the citie.

 

newlady3203: "The NIV refers to Lucifer as the Morning Star.
I know who the morning star is and it is not Lucifer!"

Actualy, if you read the King James Bible, you
will find out that Lucifer is the Morning Star.

Ifaiah XIIII:12 (KJV1611):
How art thou fallen from heauen,
||O Lucifer, sonne of the morning? how
art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

||Or, O daystarre.

Ifaiah XIIII:12 (KJV1611 alternate translation):
How art thou fallen from heauen,
O daystarre, sonne of the morning? how
art thou cut downe to the ground,
which didst weaken the nations?

The present planet called Venus
called the Evening Star when it follows the setting
sun, the Morning Star when it preceeds the
rising sun, and Daystar anytime.

What happened here?
The unknown editors of the KJV1873 and KJV1769 who
took the footnotes out of the original KJV1611
chose to follow the Church of England Doctrine
that says the Lead Devil, Satan, is called by
the name "Lucifer".
Sorry, I do NOT consider a Church of England doctrinally
correct translation to be superior to
a Bible with Baptist translators.
Though i will admit that all three King James Versions
are the inerrant, pure, and perfect written word
of God: the Holy Bible.

 

No, that is not right.

 

Yes.

No. That's why I use the best, most faithul. </font>[/QUOTE]Hmmm...one more time: QUOTE] Are you sure that you have the pure word of God? [/QUOTE]

Hmmm...So you are SURE you have the PURE word of God, and that is why you use the MOST FAITHFULL

hmmm....It sure seems a contradicction to me.

You are SURE you DO have the PURE word of God...and then you do not pick up THAT PURE WORD OF GOD, but you pick up the MOST FAITHFULL...MOST FAITHFULL, the CLOSEST to the PURE, but NOT THE PURE....

You have said enough, I do now understand your position

 

newlady3203 writes:
&gt;&gt;One of the members of the NIV translation
&gt;&gt;committee is a self-confessed homosexual.

If you subscribe to KJV-Onlyism, I would strongly suggest that you do not use this as an argument for the KJV.

 

Of course the same question I have asked is still not answered. If you subscribe to KJV-Onlyism, what is the indisputable Scripture that supports your rejection of all other translations?

Don't any of you who extol the KJV want to address this question?

 

quote: [/QUOTE] What part of YES didn't you understand?

Can't imagine why. I said yes to both questions. What part of yes is so hard for you to comprehend?

Doubtful. You don't even get the word yes

 

I have never looked into this, but is there only 55 Greek texts with Matthew 5:22 in it?

Neal

 

Alcott, when was your Bible published? How many people were murdered were murdered to translate the Bible you read from?

How many people checked and rechecked the other translations. Thee, thou, thy, thine, etc. are not difficult world to figure out.

The Bible clearly states that it is so easy that even a child can understand it. The King James Bible was put through the Flesch-Kincaid grade level program. The average grade level of the King James Bible, in it entirety is 5.63.

Salvation, as I read in the other postings, does not depend on what you read. Salvation is simply accepting and and believing that Jesus Christ died on the cross at Calvary to pay for all our sins, past, present and future. What a wonderful God we have. It is accepting and believing that He died and rose again. It is admitting that you are a sinner and asking the Lord to forgive you of those sins. It is asking the Lord to save you.

There are things that we should be desiring to do after we are saved. All those things are clearly spelled out in the Bible.

I will do some research on the Bible you read, Alcott. I am sure I will find something out there on it.

I just know what I believe and will be a christian with a "back bone", willing to stand firmly on that belief no matter what.

 

Newlady, This is not the road you want to go down. The people in charge of the KJV translation effort persecuted Baptists, Puritans, and others for, among other things, refusing to except the "new" translation (KJV) to replace their favored translation (Geneva Bible). The same men who were in charge of the translation committee judged the Baptists of that day as heretics.

If you must persist in this idea that many died to give us the KJV then please list some of them. But please identify how they specifically died to bring us the KJV rather than English translations or religious freedom in general.

There are two parts to this "knowing what you believe" and "knowing why you believe it." Someone has fed you KJVO non-sense. Be a Berean and search it out for yourself. Start with scripture and see if KJVOnlyism is there then go on to research the issue from a historical/factual/evidential standpoint... if you are willing to review both sides honestly, you will find that KJVOnlyism is not proven there either.

If you want to believe the KJV is a superior version or even the best version then by all means use it with confidence... but don't ignore facts that disprove KJVOnlyism. You don't honor the KJV much less God's Word by denying the truth or following after the vain fables of men.

 

newlady3203 said:

How many people were murdered were murdered to translate the Bible you read from?

Exactly the same number of KJV translators who were murdered: zero.

How many people checked and rechecked the other translations. Thee, thou, thy, thine, etc. are not difficult world to figure out.

All of the modern Bible translations were done by committee, and were at least as well organized as the KJV's committee.

The average grade level of the King James Bible, in it entirety is 5.63.

Codswallop.

I doubt anyone has ever tested the KJV "in its entirety" as to its readability, unless they just threw the whole kit and caboodle into Word's grammar checker, which is about as unscientific an approach as exists.

 

Who cares?

I have checked and rechecked many translations. These pronouns are not the common language. They are not the way we speak.

The Bible that states that even a child can understand it is written in Greek. So why did you dumb it down by putting it in English. It is a common repeated falsehood to say that the KJV is a 5th or 6th grade reading level. The Flesh Kincaid was discussed thoroughly and this information was shown to be inaccurate. FK counts word and sentence length. It does not take into account vocabulary, structure, etc.

there are many of us who share this sentiment. We simply understand that God never made the KJV one of these issues and since he didn't, you should not either.

 

12 hour notice. Wrap it up.

 

What a farce!How many 6 & 7 year olds can read Greek,that are non-native Greeks.How many average 6-7 yaer olds do you know that can read Koine Greek??

She didn't! If it were in Greek still,many would need an interpreter;hobbyhorse argument.

According to WHO'S standards? Certainly not yours.

Since when are you her standard? The Bible(KJB) should be her standard,not you're opinion!

 

What a farce!How many 6 & 7 year olds can read Greek,that are non-native Greeks.How many average 6-7 yaer olds do you know that can read Koine Greek??</font>[/QUOTE]Exactly my point. You are admitting that language is a barrier to the clear understanding of the text. My point was that when someone claims that the Bible claims to be able to be understood by a child, that claim from the Bible was made in Greek. Where is the Holy Spirit?? Can he not guide you into all truth in Greek??

According to everyone without the necessity to support a particular version. You are dreaming if you think the KJV can be readily and easily understood by teh 5 and 6th graders today.

This is what I said, which you should know if you read. But notice how you add (KJB -- which doesn't exist; it is the KJV). The KJV is not the only Word of God. If the Bible were truly your standard, you would acknowledge that. Your refusal to acknowledge it shows that the Bible is not your only standard. The Bible did not make the standard the KJV and when you or anyone else attacks God's word in modern translations, you are adding to the standard of what God said. That is wrong.

 

Hi all, I've taken some time off from these forums, but I felt like taking a peek back in. I see not much has changed. I figured this thread was as good as any to make my first returning post in.

Pioneer, you posted some great verses, but your questions and the thrust of your argument make me wonder: Did Christians have "the pure word of God" in 1605? In 1605, those verses didn't even exist word-for-word as you provided them, since the KJV hadn't been produced yet. If a person's "eternal destiny is at stake", you are implying that no one before 1611 could be saved. This is the only logical conclusion KJV-onlyism takes you to. If, on the other hand, people in 1605 *could* be saved and have faith in Christ *despite* not having a word-for-word perfect Bible, then a word-for-word perfect Bible is not required, not even part of the equation. God's word existed in a form *other* than the KJV in 1605, and thus KJV-onlyism is proven false. A Bible can be God's word and still deviate from the exact words of the KJV. There is no logical alternative.

Ah, that felt good, I haven't done that in a while.

 

Hey BrianT,

Welcome back. Yes, I did notice you missing. I would have filed a report with my local police department, but I forgot.

Jason

 

BrianT, glad to have you back. I was going to shoot you an e-mail and see how you are. I am the poster formerly known as PreachtheWord.

Anyhow, read the rules well. Please don't hijack KJVO threads by inserting logic and truth. Thanks.

 

PTW, you are a bad, bad boy...