King James Bible

[robycop3]

Sorry – I’m back – not for long but couldn’t resist.

Biblical support? I mentioned this before but I feel this issue needs to be addressed again.

“Honest”? – BTW, What are you insinuating here Keith?

Keith - Do you have biblical support for bathrooms in your church? Give me scripture Keith for having bathrooms in your church – I’m easy to do business with. How about TV’s, computers, copiers, projectors, etc.?

Now let’s be practical – does having bathrooms violate scripture? There are principles which govern our everyday actions. One most know the book to be in order to properly apply the scriptures. What about bathrooms? Do they in anyway violate scripture? No – so one is safe having bathrooms in a church.

Now take our stand on the King James Bible – does it violate scripture? You folks have yet to prove it does not violate scripture. We believe it doesn’t so therefore we are safe.

Plus when we line up a KJV with all the modern versions we find the KJV:

1. To be more accurate
2. To be more precise
3. Contains no error or mixture of error
4. To be more Christ exalting
5. Easier to memorize
6. Easier to cross reference
7. More “majestic” sounding
8. Has a proven track record
9. More authoritative sounding
10. More attacked than the modern versions
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1

I open up a King James Bible to Prov 30:5 and I Tim. 3:16 (to name a few) and by faith assume it is talking about what I hold in my hands. I couldn’t, with a clear conscience, say the same about the modern versions. If you can then fine. I find the modern versions lacking.

So by process of elimination we take the King James Bible to be the one God choose to preserve his words foro us today. All we can do is compare a King James Bible with the modern versions – that is the issue is it not? Quit comparing the KJV with the older Bishops, Geneva, etc.. Compare it with the modern versions – that is the real test – the modern versions are what’s being used today not the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bishops, etc.

Your modern versions have some of God’s words and many other verses that are close but they are not as accurate, precise, Christ exalting, etc. as a simple King James Bible. yes, I know, in our opinion - that's fine.

I honestly told you folks a year ago on my first post that I could not take facts to prove to you the King James Bible was the inspired word of God any more than you could prove it wasn’t.
You couldn’t prove by facts that Christ died for your sins either – we take this great truth by faith - the just shall live by faith.

But…but…when we lay our KJV along side your versions it is pretty simple to see which one is superior in every way, at least in our eyes.

Actually, all you have is UNFOUNDED OPINION, which under the laws of this land, you are entitled to. And there's a BIG difference between things that might be found within a church sanctuary, (The early churches met in peoples' homes, so whatever kitchen/bathroom facilities they had were gimmes) and foundation of its existence.(tHE SCRIPTURES) When you mess with the Scriptures, you'd better have a VALID REASON, or God will not be amused. When you try to LIMIT GOD to just one version, you'd better have a good excuse. Man-made assertions just won't cut it.

You have your standards and we have ours. Our standard is a King James Bible. What is your standard by which you go by?


God bless

MY standard? God's word, in every version He enables me to read, including the KJV and the AV 1611.

And God Bless you & yours thru the holidays, and every other time as well.

 

[Ed Edwards]

That is funny fellows. You have well illustrated one of the KJVO arguments. Did you do that on purpose?

A.F.

Everything I do has a purpose.

Did you read the one where I said I was called by the Lord
to do what I do on this BB (Baptist Board)?

Speaking of purpose, Robycop3 said:

MY standard? God's word, in every version He enables me to read, including the KJV and the AV 1611.

Amen, Brother Robycop3 -- Preach it!

and Tee Hee - those are two different Bibles

 

[robycop3]

Mike Berzins:
Yes, the way the Lord's voice sounds is of utmost importance.

That aint the Lord's voice...it's a TRANSLATION, shaped by translators' opinions.


Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful. Part of the reason for this is the type of sound made by all the "eth"s; they convey a sense of strength.

Actually, the 'eths' are conveying a sense of ARCHAIC.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

IN EVERY VALID VERSION.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Please take especial notice that HE WON'T ALLOW IT TO BE DEBATED! Wonder why?

Most people can't deal with facts;
most pepple can't debate without becoming abusive
when logically cornered.

 

[robycop3]

God's not limited to speaking in Aramaic or Greek. He speaks in English today, in the King James Bible. I am sure the sounds of the words conveyed power just like the meanings of the words did, in whatever language the Lord spoke.

John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Not just the meanings of the words, but also the sound of them, identify the speaker as the Lord.

And He speaks in today's English in today's versions. You cannot even BEGIN to prove otherwise.

Praise God; He still speaks to us in older versions from which He spoke in the past...Anglo-Saxon manuscripts, Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, "Great Bible", Geneva, Bishop's, AV 1611, to name a few. And that's just in English alone! WHO CAN PLACE ANY LIMIT ON THE GREAT AND ALMIGHTY GOD in how He can choose to speak to us?

 

[robycop3]

The KJO does not believe other translations are the word of God. So from their perspective, they are not attacking God's word when they call another bible a perversion. But from the MVs position, stating this would be offensive.

If one were to believe, the bible (any bible) is a good book, but not any more the word of God than any other relgious book, and that person called the belief of believing the bible a "myth", surely you see that this represents an attack on the bible, to those that believe the bible. Likewise, when one calls the belief in the KJV only a myth, it represents an attack on the KJV, from the perspective of the KJO.

I attack the KJVO doctrine from the basis that it SIMPLY ISN'T TRUE. Why isn't it true? Because there's not one quark of evidence showing it to be true, with the LACK OF SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT being most telling. Every TRUE doctrine in the pantheon of Christian doctrines are either taken directly from Scripture, or are clearly implied from it. If we were to accept doctrines thus totally lacking in support, we might as well accept the "Da Vinci Code".

Want more people to believe KJVO? Then please PROVE IT'S TRUE! until then, we'll continue to treat it as a "foreign body" trying to infect Christianity.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Everything I do has a purpose.

Did you read the one where I said I was called by the Lord
to do what I do on this BB (Baptist Board)?

Of course I read it Ed. And I noted that even you can't tell which version is being quoted from. That well illustrates the KJVO argument about "confusion."

A.F.

 

[robycop3]

So is the practice of personally retranslating the scripture for your audience a biblical one? Did the Lord or any of the prophets or apostles ever say "a better translation would be...?" Please provide an example from the scriptures.

Acts 2, the first "pentecost".

 

[robycop3]

Could those who say there are errors in the KJV please point some of those errors out to me?

Easy!

Here's a couple, one from each Testament:

Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26. Please feel free to consult any unbiased hebrew expert.

I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . Fornication is evil, but how often is it done for love of money?

However, I won't toss my KJVs because of a few man-made booboos.

One of the most blatant KJVO mistakes is insisting that some MV is altering a passage when it replaces an archaic word/phrase with a modern one, when the modern term is as accurate, or maybe more accurate, than the 1611 phraseology. Ed Edwards just posted such an example with "corrupt/peddle/kapuleo" Another is "study/work diligently/spoudazo". None of those are wrong. The KJV men correctly defined these Greek words by the style of English in 1611, while later versions correctly defined them by the English of THEIR times.

it is GOD who causes/allows these changes in the language, and it's GOD who causes His word to updated to conform to His changes in the language. And it's GOD who has preserved the older versions for our use and comparison, and as PROOF that He both preserves and oversees His word.

 

[Keith M]

Yes, God does impart his truth into the life of the hearer through his words. Of course there is power in that. But there is also power in his very choice of words, and the way they sound when he puts them together in sentences. If you were present when the Lord was walking the earth and speaking, in whatever language it was in, you would find that it would sound much more majestic and powerful than the common language of the day.

This also applies to Elizabethan English. It is not the language God spoke when He spoke to mankind. God chose the words of the original autographs, but human beings chose the words for the translations of God's words. The KJV translators were mere men choosing words they felt conveyed the meaning of God's words. The same is true of modern Bible translators today - they choose the words they feel best convey the meaning of God's words.

"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", that is private translation.

Quite true. That is why we say the New World Translation of the Jehovah's Witnesses, the Joseph Smith Translation or the Inspired Version of the Mormons, and the Clear Word Translation of the Seventh Day Adventists are of "private interpretation" - they seek to make the Bible say what it has never said in support of their heretical teachings.

Yet when you apply this "private interpretation" to modern Bible versions, you are forgetting one very important truth - at one time the KJV was a "modern version" and many of its readings were different than preceding Bible versions. There were likely those who said the KJV was guilty of the same "private interpretation" you accuse the modern Bible versions of following. Remember, there is nothing new under the sun

That which has been is that which will be, And that which has been done is that which will be done. So there is nothing new under the sun. Ecclisiastes 1:9 NASB

 

[Keith M]

Sorry – I’m back – not for long but couldn’t resist.

Biblical support? I mentioned this before but I feel this issue needs to be addressed again.

“Honest”? – BTW, What are you insinuating here Keith?

Keith - Do you have biblical support for bathrooms in your church? Give me scripture Keith for having bathrooms in your church – I’m easy to do business with. How about TV’s, computers, copiers, projectors, etc.?

Now let’s be practical – does having bathrooms violate scripture? There are principles which govern our everyday actions. One most know the book to be in order to properly apply the scriptures. What about bathrooms? Do they in anyway violate scripture? No – so one is safe having bathrooms in a church.

Now take our stand on the King James Bible – does it violate scripture? You folks have yet to prove it does not violate scripture. We believe it doesn’t so therefore we are safe.

Plus when we line up a KJV with all the modern versions we find the KJV:

1. To be more accurate
2. To be more precise
3. Contains no error or mixture of error
4. To be more Christ exalting
5. Easier to memorize
6. Easier to cross reference
7. More “majestic” sounding
8. Has a proven track record
9. More authoritative sounding
10. More attacked than the modern versions
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1

I open up a King James Bible to Prov 30:5 and I Tim. 3:16 (to name a few) and by faith assume it is talking about what I hold in my hands. I couldn’t, with a clear conscience, say the same about the modern versions. If you can then fine. I find the modern versions lacking.

So by process of elimination we take the King James Bible to be the one God choose to preserve his words foro us today. All we can do is compare a King James Bible with the modern versions – that is the issue is it not? Quit comparing the KJV with the older Bishops, Geneva, etc.. Compare it with the modern versions – that is the real test – the modern versions are what’s being used today not the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bishops, etc.

Your modern versions have some of God’s words and many other verses that are close but they are not as accurate, precise, Christ exalting, etc. as a simple King James Bible. yes, I know, in our opinion - that's fine.

I honestly told you folks a year ago on my first post that I could not take facts to prove to you the King James Bible was the inspired word of God any more than you could prove it wasn’t.
You couldn’t prove by facts that Christ died for your sins either – we take this great truth by faith - the just shall live by faith.

But…but…when we lay our KJV along side your versions it is pretty simple to see which one is superior in every way, at least in our eyes.

Actually, all you have is UNFOUNDED OPINION, which under the laws of this land, you are entitled to. And there's a BIG difference between things that might be found within a church sanctuary, (The early churches met in peoples' homes, so whatever kitchen/bathroom facilities they had were gimmes) and foundation of its existence.(tHE SCRIPTURES) When you mess with the Scriptures, you'd better have a VALID REASON, or God will not be amused. When you try to LIMIT GOD to just one version, you'd better have a good excuse. Man-made assertions just won't cut it.

He really did say that, didn't he Cranston? That is why my ignore list is becoming fuller as time goes on. I find myself often adding those who have absolutely nothing meaningful to contribute. And I find that several on my ignore lists are members of the KJVO camp. I wonder why????

 

[peperoni123]

Please take especial notice that HE WON'T ALLOW IT TO BE DEBATED! Wonder why?

Click on this link to find out the reason he won't debate it. http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4868

 

[tinytim]

See, the word "debate" there means to quarrel and strife... not to discuss a theological concept.

Get another translation and look it up, or look it up in Strongs.

He won't allow debate because he will be proven wrong.
You can debate without quarreling.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Click on this link to find out the reason he won't debate it. http://www.teens-4-christ.org/board/index.php?showtopic=4868

Ah yes, the old Romans 1:29 point against those who have
better points than one has.

That argument hinges on one word here:

Rom 1:29 (KJV1769 with Strong's numbers):
Being filled4137 with all3956 unrighteousness,93 fornication,4202
wickedness,4189 covetousness,4124 maliciousness;2549 full3324
of envy,5355 murder,5408 debate,2054 deceit,1388
malignity;2550 whisperers,5588

From Strongs:
G2054
ἔρις
eris
er'-is
Of uncertain affinity; a quarrel, that is, (by implication)
wrangling: - contention, debate, strife, variance.


Another bait & switch deception.
He gets you hooked with the bait of
debate = a gentlemanly formal discussion
and then reel in you mind with
debate = quarrel, wrangling, contention, strife, variance.
Sorry, another misuse of the scripture forcing the
scripture show something that the author never
intended.

 

[Ed Edwards]

See, the word "debate" there means to quarrel and strife... not to discuss a theological concept.

Get another translation and look it up, or look it up in Strongs.

He won't allow debate because he will be proven wrong.
You can debate without quarreling.

Amen, Brother Tinytim la Grande -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Sorry Brother tt but I cross posted with you.

 

[tinytim]

2 great minds...
Well yours.

I am just along for the ride.

 

[Ed Edwards]

2 great minds...
Well yours.

I am just along for the ride.

Amen, Bro. Tinytim! :thumbs:

A note about the Spanish term 'grande':
I thought at first it means GREAT.
But last week I bought a shirt that said:

LARGE/GRANDE

So I suspect 'grande' might not mean
GREAT but instead means LARGE.

Either Way, 'grande' seems to apply to Bro. Tinytim!!!

Meanwhile, on subject:

1 Corinthians 14:18 (KJV1611 Editon):
I thanke my God, I speake with tongues more then you all.

I think my God, I use more KJVs than you all.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Oh, my, think I'm gonna log out before the hugging starts . . . :BangHead:

 

[Ed Edwards]

:type:

Kume bye Yah My Lord
Kume bye Yah!

:1_grouphug:

 

[Ed Edwards]

I found one of my wrong Doctrine due to misreading
the ancient KJV with today's dictionary. It
was hiding in the wrong place:

----------------------------------------------------
Rev 20:4-5 (KJV1611 Edition):
And I saw thrones, and they sate vpon them, and iudgement
was giuen vnto them: & I saw the soules of them that were
beheaded for the witnesse of Iesus, and for the word of God,
and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image,
neither had receiued his marke vpon their foreheads,
or in their hands; and they liued and reigned with
Christ a thousand yeeres.
5 But the rest of the dead liued not againe vntill
the thousand yeeres were finished. This is the first resurrection.

The wrong doctrine:
FIRST = ONE AND ONLY ONE
so there is one and only resurrection of the two groups
shown in Revelation 20:4.

The correct doctrine:
FIRST means the groups that come before the latter groups.
(the ampersand '&' here shows two seperate sets of people)