KJV Only...which one!

[JesusFan1]

Oh I do. However, this isn't a court of law.


And yet I did get an answer from God. He lead me to the NKJV. God Himself said that the NKJV is just fine by His leading. No need to look at the other side, when God Himself says it's okay.

If you have an issue with it I suggest you pray about it yourself.

The 1611 Kjv team NEVER claimed that their finished bible was either perfect or inspired, or only English translation!

 

[JesusFan1]

I know that the KJV is the best translation available and completely trust worthy.

Who do you trust? What version do you trust?

Do you even have a Bible with your attitude?

Satan’s task is so much easier with a generation without a perfect trustworthy Bible.

I trust my Hebrew and Greek text over any English translation!

 

[Naomanos]

The 1611 Kjv team NEVER claimed that their finished bible was either perfect or inspired, or only English translation!

Oh, I know.

 

[JesusFan1]

Thank you. May the Lord Jesus get all the glory.



Well, in some cases I can see this passage as referring to die hard Modern Scholars who hate the King James Bible and will do anything at any cost to attack the KJB and make people to not trust in it. Rick Norris is one person who comes to mind who will do anything to get people away from believing in the King James Bible. I don't think your average Christian who has been hoodwinked by Modern Scholarship is even aware of the magnitude of this issue by carefully weighing in the evidence. Most Modern Scholarship Christians are okay with a person reading and studying the KJB and believing in it. They just do not like the idea of a perfectly preserved Word of God to be under authority to it entirely (for themselves personally). Most are not like a Rick Norris who has actually destroyed the faith of a few who once believed in a perfect Bible (the KJB). For what Rick Norris is really doing is destroying a Christian's faith in Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25, etcetera. What Rick Norris is doing is metaphorically burning God's words in the KJB that was sown in their heart, and he has gotten them to receive his words into their heart whereby they cannot trust the Bible anymore plainly in what it says. They have to go to Rick Norris and other scholars to get the Word of God. They have to bend the knee and kiss the rings of scholars vs. giving God's Word all the glory.



A recall a fellow KJB Only Christian saying it was 10%, but I personally do not know the exact percentage seeing I am not a copyright lawyer.

Thank you for the kind words.

May the Lord's good ways shine upon you and your family in the Lord.

Rick Norris loves the Kjv and been using it and teaching from it for decades, why do you slander him here?

 

[JesusFan1]

Oh, I know.

Too bad those into Kjvo failed to heed the 1611 preface!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Easter was a mistake, as it was the Jewish Passover!

Is the KJV wrong for rendering "Pascha" as the English word "Easter" in Acts of the Apostles 12:4?

No. Although "Pascha" was originally a Hebrew word ("פּסח (pesach)"), Greek, being the language of a predominantly Christian nation, had appropriated the Jewish word and gave it the Christian meaning of "Easter". That is why in modern Greek, the primary meaning of "Πάσχα" is Easter and Passover is actually the secondary meaning when "Πάσχα" is qualified as the "εβραϊκό Πάσχα (Hebrew Pascha)" or the "Πάσχα των ιουδαίων (Pascha of the Jews)". Many other languages of Christendom are like modern Greek in making Easter the primary meaning of the transliteration of "Pascha":

See the entire article here:
“Easter” or “Passover” in Acts 12:4? - King James Version Today

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Indeed, as Kjvo basically sees the translation same exact way Muslims do the Koran. but NO translation was inspired nor perfect!

This is why evangelism is being hindered with the Muslims because Christians today do not believe in a perfect Bible. Take for example Egypt. In Egypt where Egyptian preachers report that they are always asked by the locals, "Why do you have so many different versions of the Bible?" It does not matter how "intelligent" sounding their answer is, no amount of "scholarship" will help them here. These Egyptian people are not getting saved for one reason, that is, in their own words: "Bible translations contradict each other, how can we believe the Bible? The Koran always says the same thing."

The translation of the words that said, “King of the Jews” was not perfect?
The translations of the languages by God at Pentecost was not perfect?

In Acts, we learn about how Paul spoke in Hebrew, and his words are translated for us into the reader's language (i.e. in this case for us it is the English).

Acts of the Apostles 21:40
“And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying”

“Men, brethren, and fathers, hear ye my defence which I make now unto you.
(And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)” (Acts of the Apostles 22:1-2).

In the originals, this would have been written in Greek but it was originally spoken in Hebrew. So this proves that a translation can be perfect if you hold to the originals as being perfect.

 

[CadyandZoe]

By saying this, it simply means you are simply either never heard before (or you simply refuse to accept the truth) on the following three things:

#1. You are not aware of the doctrinal differences between the KJB vs. Modern Bibles.
#2. You are not aware of the corruptions in Modern bibles (major blatant mistakes, the devil's name is placed in Modern bibles where they don't belong, and how some Modern bibles make Jesus appear to sin).
#3. You are not aware of the history of the dark origins of Modern bibles vs. the wholesome origin of the KJB.
​

I am fully aware of the claims you have outlined. I simply disagree with your claims. They aren't true. Such claims are based on a book that was published in the mid to late eighties by a woman who didn't know anything about languages, text types, or the issues surrounding translations. Supposed doctrinal differences are based on misunderstanding and suspicion, not on actual fact.

Believe me, I have been aware of these claims since they first arrived and they are as false today as they were back then. ​

 

[CadyandZoe]

Indeed, as Kjvo basically sees the translation same exact way Muslims do the Koran. but NO translation was inspired nor perfect!

Yes, I agree.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, we slaying that the Nas and esv and Nkjv has as much authority as the Kjv!

This is simply not so. Modern Bibles teach false doctrines, and they put the devil's name in the Bible where it does not belong, and they make it appear like Jesus sins (When this is not the case for the KJB). See my post #170 for further details on these points.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I am fully aware of the claims you have outlined. I simply disagree with your claims. They aren't true. Such claims are based on a book that was published in the mid to late eighties by a woman who didn't know anything about languages, text types, or the issues surrounding translations. Supposed doctrinal differences are based on misunderstanding and suspicion, not on actual fact.

Believe me, I have been aware of these claims since they first arrived and they are as false today as they were back then. ​

But you cannot just say these claims are not true without actually refuting those claims on some level. That would just make it appear like you are just shaking your head in disagreement without actually being fully aware of the nuances of each of the evidences presented. For we can go back and forth and expressing our opinion, but if we do not actually discuss the actual evidence, then it is pointless to have this kind of discussion.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But he really did not warn you because the information was already posted in this forum. I have nothing to hide or to trick you with. You are free to believe the evidence (both from the Bible and history) I present or not. Ultimately, my goal is to get you to believe the Bible. My goal is to get you to believe Psalms 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5-6, Matthew 24:35, 1 Peter 1:23-25, and Jeremiah 36:28, and Jeremiah 36:32.

Your information is uncoordinated and misunderstood. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Oh I do. However, this isn't a court of law.

But the concept and principle is the same that should be applied in all areas of judgment so as to show that we are not being biased or partial to our own false way of thinking without taking into consideration the other side of the case.

And yet I did get an answer from God. He lead me to the NKJV. God Himself said that the NKJV is just fine by His leading. No need to look at the other side, when God Himself says it's okay.

There are those who pray in other false religions to confirm that their religion is true or the false things within their religion are true. So prayer alone is not really the standard or stick of measurement of absolute truth. A believer needs to weigh in other reasonable things involving the faith like believing evidences or good reasons that back up the Bible, etcetera. The same is true for this topic. There are evidences in both the Bible itself, and history that shows the KJB is the pure Word of God while Modern Bibles are corrupt. My post #170 confirms this.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I forgot to add one extra point involving how the Vatican supervised (influenced) the Nestle and Aland Critical NT Greek Text (Which is the textual basis or standard today for all Modern English Translations).

This point is that there are 14 points in Scripture where we can see the Vatican (the Roman Catholic Church) influence Scripture. Simply check out page 21 in this PDF document here:

http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf

Again, none of this matters to your argument that the KJV is superintended by God. If you want to withdraw that claim, we can continue. Your statement above doesn't actually address the issue. Who cares whether the Vatican had something to do with the Neste and Aland Critical Text? What does that prove? Not a thing.

 

[CadyandZoe]

See my recent post #170.
Carefully examine and weigh in the evidence.
If not, you are simply seeing what you want to see.

I read Your statement above as an admission that you doubt your own beliefs on this matter. Otherwise you wouldn't resort to manipulation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Your information is uncoordinated and misunderstood. You don't know what you are talking about.

I believe this is merely an uninformed opinion about the facts I have presented. Please go back and carefully weigh in all of the evidence as presented in post #170. For have you watched the two documentaries? Have you checked out my post involving the Vatican influence on Modern Bibles? Have you looked at the changed verses that favors the Vatican or the Roman Catholic church? Have you looked at my post and carefully checked out the changed doctrines? Did you see the verses that made Jesus appear to sin in Modern Bibles?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I read Your statement above as an admission that you doubt your own beliefs on this matter. Otherwise you wouldn't resort to manipulation.

Looking at evidences is not manipulation but it is merely examining the other side of the case or position to see if it is true or not. You simply do not appear to be doing that. If so, then we can simply move on from our current discussion if you are unwilling to examine the evidence fairly.

 

[Enoch111]

No, we slaying that the Nas and esv and Nkjv has as much authority as the Kjv!

How can corrupted bibles have the same authority as uncorrupted bibles?

 

[Naomanos]

So prayer alone is not really the standard or stick of measurement of absolute truth.

So then what you're saying is that you don't trust God.

 

[CadyandZoe]

But you cannot just say these claims are not true without actually refuting those claims on some level. That would just make it appear like you are just shaking your head in disagreement without actually being fully aware of the nuances of each of the evidences presented. For we can go back and forth and expressing our opinion, but if we do not actually discuss the actual evidence, then it is pointless to have this kind of discussion.

The onus of proof is on those who make claims, not on those who deny them. You have no real evidence.