The Holy King James Bible is our authority and guiding principle.

[rockytopva]

I visited a church last night that boasts, "The Holy King James Bible is our authority and guiding principle." In which I will reply, "Thank God for that!" The KJV is all I ever read and anything else is equivalent to speaking in unknown language!

Security Check Required

 

[Yeshua1]

I visited a church last night that boasts, "The Holy King James Bible is our authority and guiding principle." In which I will reply, "Thank God for that!" The KJV is all I ever read and anything else is equivalent to speaking in unknown language!

Security Check Required

The cult of the KKJVO

 

[rockytopva]

The cult of the KKJVO

I taught Sunday school for a Freewill Baptist church as a teenager. When I left they threw a going away party and presented me with a KJV Open Bible. I bought a Strongs Concordance with it and read the bible through seven times. I simply am not familiar with any other version and do not enjoy them being quoted. If this is a cult it is a rather large one!

 

[rockytopva]

It’s clear that after more than 400 years, the King James Bible has more than proven its staying power. “[For] reading in worship services, it's much more majestic than most of the modern translations,” says Meyers. “It’s had a very powerful influence on our language and our literature, to this very day.”

https://www.history.com/news/king-james-bible-most-popular

 

[Yeshua1]

I taught Sunday school for a Freewill Baptist church as a teenager. When I left they threw a going away party and presented me with a KJV Open Bible. I bought a Strongs Concordance with it and read the bible through seven times. I simply am not familiar with any other version and do not enjoy them being quoted. If this is a cult it is a rather large one!

If you like the Kjv best, you are preferred, but if you see it as Only valid one to use, are in KJVO!

 

[rockytopva]

If you like the Kjv best, you are preferred, but if you see it as Only valid one to use, are in KJVO!

I also believe the KJV has its inaccuracies, such as in interpreting the Greek Phileo and Charis. But it is still my interpretation of choice. I like having the Strongs dictionary close by as I read.

 

[Yeshua1]

I also believe the KJV has its inaccuracies, such as in interpreting the Greek Phileo and Charis. But it is still my interpretation of choice. I like having the Strongs dictionary close by as I read.

Good, as you are KJVP!

 

[rockytopva]

Good, as you are KJVP!

My favorite bible resource was from an American Methodist scholar, James Strong, and his work which would form the Strongs Exhaustive Concordance. I do not blame him for creating the American Standard Version, 1901, but I do not believe it unseated the KJV.

 

[Scarlett O.]

It’s clear that after more than 400 years, the King James Bible has more than proven its staying power. “[For] reading in worship services, it's much more majestic than most of the modern translations,” says Meyers. “It’s had a very powerful influence on our language and our literature, to this very day.”

https://www.history.com/news/king-james-bible-most-popular

Wait. There hasn't been the same Bible for 400 years. There are two King James Bibles - the 1611 and the 1769. One of them is right. One of them is wrong.

Which do you use? Probably the 1769. Now don't get me wrong. I have a 1769 King James and read it along with the NIV, ESV, NASB, and a couple more.

Which is right in these instances? I am NOT trying to put a blight on the King James - I don't believe in that. I am just trying to get you to see there is no perfect Bible that man has translated.

Joshua 3:11 -

• 1769 - "Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan."
• 1611 - "Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
• Is it the Ark passing before those people or the Ark and the Lord? These two Bibles say different things.

Ezekiel 24:7 - [This is in reference to Jerusalem who would not "cover the blood" [metaphorically speaking] of their great murderous sins.] "Uncovered blood" required God's judgment. They would not repent. God would judge. Read verses 6-8 for the full understanding.]

• 1769 - "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;..."
• 1611 - "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:”
• Did Jerusalem, this "bloody city" as God calls her, metaphorically make an attempt to "cover the blood" of their sinful murders as was prescribed? In other words, did they repent or not? These two Bible contradict each other.

I like the King James. I read it. It is not perfect. Nor has it been the same Bible since 1611.

 

[rockytopva]

Wait. There hasn't been the same Bible for 400 years. There are two King James Bibles - the 1611 and the 1769. One of them is right. One of them is wrong.

Which do you use? Probably the 1769. Now don't get me wrong. I have a 1769 King James and read it along with the NIV, ESV, NASB, and a couple more.

Which is right in these instances? I am NOT trying to put a blight on the King James - I don't believe in that. I am just trying to get you to see there is no perfect Bible that man has translated.

Joshua 3:11 -

• 1769 - "Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan."
• 1611 - "Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
• Is it the Ark passing before those people or the Ark and the Lord? These two Bibles say different things.

Ezekiel 24:7 - [This is in reference to Jerusalem who would not "cover the blood" [metaphorically speaking] of their great murderous sins.] "Uncovered blood" required God's judgment. They would not repent. God would judge. Read verses 6-8 for the full understanding.]

• 1769 - "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;..."
• 1611 - "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:”
• Did Jerusalem, this "bloody city" as God calls her, metaphorically make an attempt to "cover the blood" of their sinful murders as was prescribed? In other words, did they repent or not? These two Bible contradict each other.

I like the King James. I read it. It is not perfect. Nor has it been the same Bible since 1611.

I agree!

 

[rockytopva]

I would say that churches are like translations. Some are very close, and some are way off.

 

[Logos1560]

There hasn't been the same Bible for 400 years. There are two King James Bibles - the 1611 and the 1769. One of them is right. One of them is wrong.

It is true that there has not been one KJV text that has remained the same in all editions.
There are more than two editions of the KJV. There would likely be over 200 varying editions of the KJV between 1611 and today.

Today's varying KJV editions are not actually identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 and a typical post-1900 present edition of the KJV.

Even all post-1900 editions of the KJV are not identical with each other. There would be twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. In 2011, Cambridge University Press was printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

The KJV is all I ever read and anything else is equivalent to speaking in unknown language!

Reading the NKJV would not be equivalent to speaking in an unknown language.

Some of the archaic language in the KJV may be like an unknown language to some present-day readers.

 

[AustinC]

I visited a church last night that boasts, "The Holy King James Bible is our authority and guiding principle." In which I will reply, "Thank God for that!" The KJV is all I ever read and anything else is equivalent to speaking in unknown language!

Security Check Required

I have a friend who tried explaining that the original writings are in Greek. A KJV only person said that the KJV was still better.
Shake my head, ignorance is inbred...

 

[37818]

Wait. There hasn't been the same Bible for 400 years. There are two King James Bibles - the 1611 and the 1769. One of them is right. One of them is wrong.

Which do you use? Probably the 1769. Now don't get me wrong. I have a 1769 King James and read it along with the NIV, ESV, NASB, and a couple more.

Which is right in these instances? I am NOT trying to put a blight on the King James - I don't believe in that. I am just trying to get you to see there is no perfect Bible that man has translated.

Joshua 3:11 -

• 1769 - "Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan."
• 1611 - "Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
• Is it the Ark passing before those people or the Ark and the Lord? These two Bibles say different things.

Ezekiel 24:7 - [This is in reference to Jerusalem who would not "cover the blood" [metaphorically speaking] of their great murderous sins.] "Uncovered blood" required God's judgment. They would not repent. God would judge. Read verses 6-8 for the full understanding.]

• 1769 - "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;..."
• 1611 - "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:”
• Did Jerusalem, this "bloody city" as God calls her, metaphorically make an attempt to "cover the blood" of their sinful murders as was prescribed? In other words, did they repent or not? These two Bible contradict each other.

I like the King James. I read it. It is not perfect. Nor has it been the same Bible since 1611.

It is a problem of language. Joshua 3:11, changing the use of the word "even" for "of." In the case of Ezekiel 24:7, the blood was placed on top of the rock. The rock upon the ground versus, the blood on the rock, not upon the round. Yes, the latter can be regarded as more accurate. Today some worst things are being done in translations.

 

[rockytopva]

I have a friend who tried explaining that the original writings are in Greek. A KJV only person said that the KJV was still better.
Shake my head, ignorance is inbred...

For me the KJV is still better and I prefer hearing it read.

 

[Yeshua1]

Wait. There hasn't been the same Bible for 400 years. There are two King James Bibles - the 1611 and the 1769. One of them is right. One of them is wrong.

Which do you use? Probably the 1769. Now don't get me wrong. I have a 1769 King James and read it along with the NIV, ESV, NASB, and a couple more.

Which is right in these instances? I am NOT trying to put a blight on the King James - I don't believe in that. I am just trying to get you to see there is no perfect Bible that man has translated.

Joshua 3:11 -

• 1769 - "Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth passeth over before you into Jordan."
• 1611 - "Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, passeth ouer before you, into Iordan.
• Is it the Ark passing before those people or the Ark and the Lord? These two Bibles say different things.

Ezekiel 24:7 - [This is in reference to Jerusalem who would not "cover the blood" [metaphorically speaking] of their great murderous sins.] "Uncovered blood" required God's judgment. They would not repent. God would judge. Read verses 6-8 for the full understanding.]

• 1769 - "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;..."
• 1611 - "For her blood is in the middest of her: she set it vpon the toppe of a rocke, she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust:”
• Did Jerusalem, this "bloody city" as God calls her, metaphorically make an attempt to "cover the blood" of their sinful murders as was prescribed? In other words, did they repent or not? These two Bible contradict each other.

I like the King James. I read it. It is not perfect. Nor has it been the same Bible since 1611.

There have been many more different editions than just those 2, and each one was a little bit different!

 

[Yeshua1]

It is true that there has not been one KJV text that has remained the same in all editions.
There are more than two editions of the KJV. There would likely be over 200 varying editions of the KJV between 1611 and today.

Today's varying KJV editions are not actually identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. There would be as many as 400 differences between the 1769 and a typical post-1900 present edition of the KJV.

Even all post-1900 editions of the KJV are not identical with each other. There would be twenty or more varying editions of the KJV in print today. In 2011, Cambridge University Press was printing at least six varying editions of the KJV.

Some KJVO would see the Kjv able to correct the Hebrew an Greek texts errors even, so which Kjv could do that?

 

[rockytopva]

It is a problem of language. Joshua 3:11, changing the use of the word "even" for "of." In the case of Ezekiel 24:7, the blood was placed on top of the rock. The rock upon the ground versus, the blood on the rock, not upon the round. Yes, the latter can be regarded as more accurate. Today some worst things are being done in translations.

Agree....

But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. - Acts 1:8 (KJV)

But when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, you will receive power to testify about me with great effect, to the people in Jerusalem, throughout Judea, in Samaria, and to the ends of the earth, about my death and resurrection. - Acts 1:8 (TLB)

The TLB limits the power only to testify.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have a friend who tried explaining that the original writings are in Greek. A KJV only person said that the KJV was still better.
Shake my head, ignorance is inbred...

Even worse is the claim that some of them make that any errors in original language texts can be corrected by the Kjv itself, but which version?