KJV Only...which one!

[Bible Highlighter]

None of them were valid!

Sure they are valid. I have already listed examples of how they are valid with different scenarios. Your not wanting to accept that does not change the truth of such a thing.

 

[farouk]

We refuse to accept the Hebrew and Greek if it conflicts with the English

So in practical terms the English does supposedly "correct" the Hebrew and Greek.....

I do actually appreciate the King James very much and the Received Text, but I would never want to imply that the English overrules the originals.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Wrong. I can still see the Trinity in a modern version.

No. What you see are inferences of a Trinity in a Modern Bible and not any actual direct teaching of the Trinity like 1 John 5:7. That’s the whole point. A person who denies the Trinity is not going to want to look at the KJB verses that defends the Trinity. That’s the whole point. The Bible is not about just catering to us. The Bible is for us to evangelize others. For evangelism in telling the Trinity to another person, they will know of the truth of the Trinity by 1 John 5:7 and the word “Godhead” appearing three times. See, this is where Rome wins and you don’t even know it. They have gotten you to believe in the Trinity not by what the Bible says but by the scholar or pastor (priest) says. Rome hates Sola Scriptura (of which I prefer to call: “the Bible Alone + the Anointing to Understand It.”).

I happen to think your position is silly. You say that God preserves His word in the language of today, well, I don't speak 1600s British English. I speak 2022 American English. There is a difference between the two. So, your argument falls apart there. It also falls apart when you make the false equivalency of the KJV against modern versions. You cannot compare the two because the KJV is not the source material, itself being a translation.

I can understand how this may be the case. If somebody told me that the Elizabethan English was God’s chosen language for the Bible out of the blue and I did not know the superiority of the reasons why I would think they would be nuts, too. But I came to believe the way I do because I carefully compared the KJB vs. Modern English Bibles and the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles. But if one is already biased before they go into doing this kind of comparison,, then they of course will never see it.

Also, God lead me to the NKJV. So, His leading far outweighs your opinion.

But are you continuing to pray on it and comparing Scripture with Scripture on the topic? I don’t think so. You did a quick one time prayer and you did not keep praying about it and keep seeking the truth on it.

Besides… which NKJV did God lead you to? Not all of the NKJV Editions say the same thing.

Check out this video to learn more:

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So in practical terms the English does supposedly "correct" the Hebrew and Greek.....

I do actually appreciate the King James very much and the Received Text, but I would never want to imply that the English overrules the originals.

No. It does not correct it, …. It merely enhances what the original languages say. They are saying the same thing but… if you know anything about language translations sometimes words can be lost in translation or sometimes words need to be added to convey the same meaning or so as not to cause confusion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Yes, extremes Kjvo has asserted that is the truth!

But they are not the standard. The Bible is the standard, and truth is the standard. There are different kinds of TRO’s even. Thus there are different kinds of KJVO’s. One cannot pigeon hole the whole group into one category seeing they favor the King James Bible as a trustworthy and faithful translation vs. the Modern Bibles (Which are corrupt).

 

[Naomanos]

The Bible is for us to evangelize others. For evangelism in telling the Trinity to another person, they will know of the truth of the Trinity by 1 John 5:7 and the word “Godhead” appearing three times.

And yet, I have evangelized others without using a KJ Bible. I was able to show them without a doubt about the trinity. So, your argument doesn't hold and falls flat.

But I came to believe the way I do because I carefully compared the KJB vs. Modern English Bibles and the changes are for the worse and not for the better in Modern Bibles.

False equivalency. So, your premise is flawed from the start. You7 cannot compare the KJ to modern Bibles as the KJ is not source material and is itself a translation.

But if one is already biased before they go into doing this kind of comparison,, then they of course will never see it.

I didn't have a bias and still do not. I just realize that you cannot compare them because the KJ is not source material and cannot be used for comparisons. No, bias, just so good old common sense.

You did a quick one time prayer and you did not keep praying about it and keep seeking the truth on it.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? I realize that God doing something that doesn't affirm your narrative is a problem for you, but don't assume to know how long I prayed.

Besides… which NKJV did God lead you to? Not all of the NKJV Editions say the same thing.

It's irrelevant as you do not seem to trust God and that is a bad place to be in.

Check out this video to learn more:

You have posted this video more than once and assume that I haven't. I simply disagree with it because God has authority above and beyond your video and I don't agree with the video at all.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And yet, I have evangelized others without using a KJ Bible. I was able to show them without a doubt about the trinity. So, your argument doesn't hold and falls flat.

That’s not the point. The point is…. What Bible more clearly teaches the Trinity and which Bibles eliminate these truths so as to favor Anti-Trinitarians. Then again… your position is illogical because God told you to favor the NKJV which has 1 John 5:7 in it. So you are only arguing against yourself here.

False equivalency. So, your premise is flawed from the start. You7 cannot compare the KJ to modern Bibles as the KJ is not source material and is itself a translation.

Try reading Jeremiah 36:28-32. Was the copy any less authoritative than the original?

I didn't have a bias and still do not. I just realize that you cannot compare them because the KJ is not source material and cannot be used for comparisons. No, bias, just so good old common sense.

But there are no originals today or original source materials. They are gone. The originals do not exist. What you have are copies and copies of copies even for the original languages. Not all manuscripts agree with each other. Unless you look to one faithful line… then that would be different. But you don’t do that, though.

You know what they say about assumptions, right? I realize that God doing something that doesn't affirm your narrative is a problem for you, but don't assume to know how long I prayed.

I am not talking about how long you have prayed. I am talking about whether you are continuing to pray about it today and if God has shown you more and more each day.

1 Thessalonians 5:17
“pray without ceasing,”

See… for me… God has shown me 101 reasons for the King James Bible being the Word of God. This was also through continual prayer. I continue to pray on this topic, and I don’t stop. Therein is the difference between us. You think you put your quarter in the vending machine and you got your Coke. That’s not how it always works when we pray with God. Sometimes we need to keep praying and never stop. That’s what I am talking about.

It's irrelevant as you do not seem to trust God and that is a bad place to be in.

No. It’s not irrelevant because not all NKJV Editions say the same thing. The 2013 NKJV Edition does not say the same thing as the NKJV 1982 Edition says. So your NKJV is not saying the same thing as your other NKJV.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You have posted this video more than once and assume that I haven't. I simply disagree with it because God has authority above and beyond your video and I don't agree with the video at all.

So you have watched the video in it’s entirety?
If so, I don’t get that impression.
If you did watch the whole thing, were you listening to the points he was making?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

English translation are very good to use, but the best books to be getting into as the supreme and final authority will be to get back in the original Biblical Hebrew and Greek texts themselves!

“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” (Acts 2:8-11)

According to you all these people who heard these things would have gotten a better understanding if they heard the wonderful works of God in the Hebrew or Greek language…

[eyes rolling]

 

[Bible Highlighter]

And yet, I have evangelized others without using a KJ Bible. I was able to show them without a doubt about the trinity. So, your argument doesn't hold and falls flat.

The problem is that you make your mindset and experience the standard when in reality that is not how other people see it. This is your flaw. You are not putting yourself in the shoes of others. Take for example if Rick woke up on an island (Knowing nothing about the Trinity), and he did not have a King James Bible, the chances of him knowing about the Trinity is less likely seeing he does not have a church pastor or scholar, or another Christian telling himself about the Trinity from Scripture. But if he were have a King James Bible and read 1 John 5:7, he would believe that verse and be closer to understanding the Trinity without having that verse. See, you take for granted that you were taught the Trinity by other Christians. But what good is that if we cannot confirm that truth for ourselves with a clear and direct verse? Again, you fail to take into consideration Anti-Trinitarians who favor Modern Bibles and will agree with you that 1 John 5:7 should not be in the BIble (Which is the one and only verse that directly teaches the Trinity). You are not putting yourself in the other guy’s shoes and seeing the problem.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

“And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.” (Acts 2:8-11)

According to you all these people who heard these things would have gotten a better understanding if they heard the wonderful works of God in the Hebrew or Greek language…

[eyes rolling]

If I could like your post again… I would do so, brother.
Well said.

 

[Naomanos]

Then again… your position is illogical because God told you to favor the NKJV which has 1 John 5:7 in it. So you are only arguing against yourself here.

Hardly illogical. I had another Bible before I had the NKJV. Again with the assumptions.

Try reading Jeremiah 36:28-32. Was the copy any less authoritative than the original?

I have no clue. I don't read the original languages and that was not my point. You missed the point of what I said.

But there are no originals today or original source materials. They are gone. The originals do not exist. What you have are copies and copies of copies even for the original languages. Not all manuscripts agree with each other. Unless you look to one faithful line… then that would be different. But you don’t do that, though.

I actually don't look at the original languages. My point which you missed is that the KJ Bible is itself a translation. You cannot compare the KJ Bible with anything except for itself, because the KJ Bible is not the source material. Maybe now you will understand it.

I am not talking about how long you have prayed. I am talking about whether you are continuing to pray about it today and if God has shown you more and more each day.

As I have explained to you before. I do not need to continue praying about this topic, God answered me, so why would I continue to pray when God has spoken and lead me to the NKJV? I wouldn't. When God answers a prayer, I listen the first time.

Again, it shows that God going against your narrative is an issue for you and that you have no faith in God. This is not my issue, but your issue.

See… for me… God has shown me 101 reasons for the King James Bible being the Word of God. This was also through continual prayer. I continue to pray on this topic, and I don’t stop. Therein is the difference between us. You think you put your quarter in the vending machine and you got your Coke. That’s not how it always works when we pray with God. Sometimes we need to keep praying and never stop. That’s what I am talking about.

Some things do not need continual prayer. I prayed to ask for the Bible version He wanted me to get and He lead me to the NKJV. He answered my prayer. That was literally the only question I asked Him in prayer. There is no need to continue praying as I have faith in God. You apparently do not. I asked, God answered and I listened. As I said above, this is not my issue, this is your issue.

No. It’s not irrelevant because not all NKJV Editions say the same thing. The 2013 NKJV Edition does not say the same thing as the NKJV 1982 Edition says. So your NKJV is not saying the same thing as your other NKJV.

It is indeed irrelevant as God lead me to the NKJV that I purchased. Your opinion on the matter matters not since God answered me unless you believe yourself to be greater than God?

 

[Naomanos]

So you have watched the video in it’s entirety?
If so, I don’t get that impression.
If you did watch the whole thing, were you listening to the points he was making?

I did and yes. Wasn't impressed and I disagree with the video!

Just because you post something doesn't mean that we should just agree with it because it is something you posted.

 

[Naomanos]

Take for example if Rick woke up on an island (Knowing nothing about the Trinity), and he did not have a King James Bible, the chances of him knowing about the Trinity is less likely seeing he does not have a church pastor or scholar, or another Christian telling himself about the Trinity from Scripture.

This old chestnut?

Maybe it is not I who is not putting myself in someone else's shoes.

You are removing one huge part of the equation. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals things to us as well when we read the Bible. So in your fake story, you are leaving out the Holy Spirit.

I am really starting to see that your faith in God is lacking.

 

[CadyandZoe]

And you assume the Textus Receptus and the King James Bible is not the Bible and you favor the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts, and you favor Westcott, Hort, Nestle, Aland, and the Vatican’s involvement.

You're putting words in my mouth. Sounds like you don't have a proper answer to my objections.

So now do you want me to attack the KJV? Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it.

The TR was influenced by the Vatican in at least two ways. First, the Greek word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklasias) literally means "assembly" and thisword was most often used with reference to a political body. The New Testament writers, on the other hand, adopted the term in order to indicate the assembly of all believers. The KJV translates ecclesia as "Church", which is incorrect. Obviously Eusibeus was under pressure from the Catholic Church to change it.

According to Eusibeus, 1 John 5:7 was not original to the New Testament. But the Roman Catholic church pressured him to add it against his better judgment.

 

[JesusFan1]

We refuse to accept the Hebrew and Greek if it conflicts with the English because they are supposed to say the same thing because it was translated from those languages into English. People today are simply wanting to correct the Word of God and trying to hide behind the original languages card excuse. They can teach false doctrine and nobody would be the wiser because nobody really knows these dead languages today. All meaning of these original languages stems from recent Biblical Hebrew/Greek to English dictionaries. There is also no apostle Paul or Moses around to correct a person on these languages, either. I say this because you cannot go up to Chinese people and correct one of their great literary works by simply reading a Chinese to English dictionary. There are things that you are not going to get from studying a book but you need to know that language in speaking, and writing it by first hand experience with a culture that is alive. That’s what’s dumb about Modern Textual Criticism.

The 1611 translators TOTALLY disagreed with you on this, as to them, and ALL valid translators of the scriptures, the Hebrew and Greek texts have final authority!

 

[JesusFan1]

This old chestnut?

Maybe it is not I who is not putting myself in someone else's shoes.

You are removing one huge part of the equation. The Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit reveals things to us as well when we read the Bible. So in your fake story, you are leaving out the Holy Spirit.

I am really starting to see that your faith in God is lacking.

I can easily see the Trinity taught to us in my nas/Esv/Nkjv!

 

[JesusFan1]

You're putting words in my mouth. Sounds like you don't have a proper answer to my objections.

So now do you want me to attack the KJV? Well, put this in your pipe and smoke it.

The TR was influenced by the Vatican in at least two ways. First, the Greek word ἐκκλησίαν (ekklasias) literally means "assembly" and thisword was most often used with reference to a political body. The New Testament writers, on the other hand, adopted the term in order to indicate the assembly of all believers. The KJV translates ecclesia as "Church", which is incorrect. Obviously Eusibeus was under pressure from the Catholic Church to change it.

According to Eusibeus, 1 John 5:7 was not original to the New Testament. But the Roman Catholic church pressured him to add it against his better judgment.

The only source for that was from a Latin source, and from the scribal marginal notes!

 

[Naomanos]

I can easily see the Trinity taught to us in my nas/Esv/Nkjv!

I can as well. My point was that even if it is only alluded to, the Holy Spirit is there to enlighten what needs to be learned.

 

[JesusFan1]

I can as well. My point was that even if it is only alluded to, the Holy Spirit is there to enlighten what needs to be learned.

Some Kjv even hold that unless the person was saved when the Kjv was used on them, not a valid salvation, and some of them also said that the Logos in John was the Kjv being prophesied about coming!