Striking picture; so who does this represent?I will give you a heads up as to who I am on CF. This should jog your memory.
KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I do love the King James; although I don't always go with all the ideas that are sometimes used about it.
It is concept art of Tauriel from the Hobbit movie. She is my favorite character in the Hobbit and third to Stryder and Arwen in Lord of the Rings from Tolkien's work as a whole.
There's a good book by James White on King James Onlyism.
I do appreciate the King James itself, if not all the ideas that are sometimes offered about it.
Eramus was a devout catholic, 1611 team used Vulgate and Rheims as sources, Vatican corruption?Great, then you don’t have a sword but you got a butter knife when you go into battle against a JW. I can speak boldly about the Trinity by faith because the one and only verse on the Trinity is in my Bible and it’s not in yours. For if a person was on an island and they did not know about the Trinity, the chances of them knowing about the Trinity is greater if they have 1 John 5:7 in their Bible.
But most today have fell for the trick of Rome. Roman Catholic’s do not mind you believing in the Trinity (because they believe in it), but they don’t want you to get your understanding ultimately from the Bible but they want you to get it from Mother church. They want the priest to tell you what the Bible says. That is why there are Catholic connections with the Westcott and Hort NT Greek text, and the Vatican supervised Nestle and Aland Greek NT Text (of which all English Modern bibles come from).
Rome has won if you fall for Textual Criticism because they have gotten you to trust the scholar (priest) instead of the Bible to get your belief in the Trinity. For no other verse in the Bible describes the Trinity point blank besides 1 John 5:7. Is the Bible your authority? Or is the church or scholar your authority? That’s what this is really about. Can you really point to a Bible verse that is a good explanation of the Trinity? My guess is if you are using a Modern Bible (NKJV deception bible not included) you will not be able to really show a description of the Trinity. All you have are inferences. This is what Rome wants. They want you to get away from Sola Scriptura or the Bible alone. In fact, here are 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Catholic Church.
Here is an NIV (Which favors the Critical Text that is influenced by Rome):
Source used:
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf
In the King James Bible, I don't see any clear influence like this by the KJB Translators's personal beliefs.
Besides, early Church Fathers & certain minuscules confirm 1 John 5:7:
200 AD Tertullian wrote "which three are one" based on the verse in his Against Praxeas, chapter 25.
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.
Source:
David Daniels
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I will give you a heads up as to who I am on CF. This should jog your memory. This way you know who you are conversing with and understand the comment argued ad nauseam.
Ah, right. You are the poster named: “Isilwen” at ChristianForums.com. Thank you for being upfront in who you are at the other forums. I remember you saying you were Episcopalian (of which I do not believe is biblical because it promotes the idea that the sacraments are for salvation). No offense, but your beliefs also fall under the classic liberal label (whether you like that label or not) in the fact you shared at the CF forums that you are pro-choice (i.e. you are in support of a person should have the legal right to murder a baby if they wish to), you believe in an old Earth, you support your daughter's sodomite behavior and would even attend her rainbow symbol promoted meetings with her (if she lived closer to you), etcetera. Through history, liberals have rejected the King James Bible as the inerrant Word of God even before Westcott and Hort Revisers began their movement or departure away from the Textus Receptus or King James Bible. The NIV in 1970's is when the Modern English Bible movement really started to take off when the New Age movement also just coincidentally started to boom. I remember you favoring the NIV at one time. However, what you may not know is that the newest version of the NIV upset even those in the Textual Critic Camp of believers because of all the transgender neutral pronouns enforced in it. So the NIV is a really liberal bible there that fits in with the whole liberal agenda. I don't have that problem with my settled King James Cambridge Edition Bible (circa. 1900).
As for the image of character that is from the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings mythos or books:
Well, I find the image (with it being so large) to be offensive. Looking at such an image on such a large scale actually makes me want to puke personally. It's upsetting to me because it pagan and it tied in with the promotion of the occult/magic/witchcraft. Note: Keep in mind that I used to love play Dungeons and Dragons, and I used to really enjoy the Lord of the Rings movies, etcetera. But when I rededicated my life back to Christ in following Him alone and not this world, and I wanted to just follow what His Word (the Bible) says, things started to change for me greatly.
I would encourage other Christians here to check out this article below on whether a Christian should indulge in the fantasy of the Hobbit/Lord of the Rings:
Lord of the Rings: Christian or Cultic?
Last edited:
Actually, I am a moderate. I like things from both sides of the coin. Both conservative and liberal. So, I do not consider myself a liberal.
As for the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit, you couldn't be more wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.
Edit: I removed the last sentence as it was a little mean.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Already refuted by Will Kinney in this article here:
https://brandplucked.webs.com/priceskjonlyismsect.htm
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
False propaganda.
Another King James Bible Believer
What About Erasmus?
But even still... the KJB translators used other sources like the Syriac Peshitta and the Old Latin Bible (not Jerome's Latin Vulgate Bible). The KJB translators also used various papyri, as well.
You said:
Again, not true. Check out this article here:
Another King James Bible Believer
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Refuted here:
Problems with the book"The King James Only Controversy..."
Mr. White responds and the author of AV1611 responds back:
Last edited:
Not refuted, as truth and facts are not in the side of the Kjvo!
No biblical nor textual evidence supports Kjvo
There is NO textual nor biblical evidence EVER that would support ANY translation being perfect or inspired!
The 1611 team used Vulgate, used Eramus, used Rheims, and included the apocrapha in their first edition, any vatican influence?
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Why I Believe the King James Bible to be the Preserved Word of God
Pastor A. W. Weckeman Sept. 2002
There are two ways of approaching the subject of preservation regarding the Scriptures:
First, from a technical perspective, the science of textual criticism. The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a pure Bible.
Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to restore or reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age, assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).
As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends their own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.
Then there are translation disputes, disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean; reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises, how do we determine the precise Word (meaning) which the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?
When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than educated guesswork, an intellectual exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
False doctrine originates with the acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… (Gen.3:4). The beginning of the end came when Satan interjected a false thought into Eve’s mind. A bold lie that sounded logical, even though it was contrary to what God had said, tragically, Eve accepted it. Why was Eve so easily deceived?
It has been wisely stated that the heart of every problem is a problem in the heart. Eve was beguiled because she questioned what God had said. So then, so now, And the serpent said unto the “biblical scholar,” God hath not preserved His Word. The clever lie that God’s words perished along with the papyri or vellum on which they were written initially has been broadly propagated and widely accepted, even though it is contrary to what God has said. Papyri and vellum are physical, material, temporal. God’s Word is spiritual (John 6:63) eternal (1 Peter 1:21). The students of the school of modern textual criticism have little, if any, faith in God’s ability to preserve His own words. In effect, their position accuses God of negligence.
The false doctrine of non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a theory constructed upon a flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. A method strikingly similar to “Darwin’s theory of evolution” also founded on a lie. Textual criticism and evolution are similar in that both utilize man’s wisdom to refute God’s Word; both replace certainty with uncertainty. The common goal is the destruction of absolutes (one of the primary objectives of secular humanism).
Source:
Articles :: Why I Believe the King James Bible to be the Preserved Word of God - Perfecting of the Saints
Pastor A. W. Weckeman Sept. 2002
There are two ways of approaching the subject of preservation regarding the Scriptures:
First, from a technical perspective, the science of textual criticism. The textual critic approaches the Bible as he would any other literary work of antiquity in which the original autographs are no longer available. The premise is that since the original copies have long since perished and that which has survived consists of questionable, conflicting copies, it is, therefore, impossible to have a pure Bible.
Textual criticism is then the science by which biblical scholars seek to restore or reconstruct the indefinite (lost) text of the Bible as close as possible to its original form by a detailed analysis of the various manuscripts. The standard criterion of reliability is age, assuming the older the manuscript, the closer it must be to the original. Unfortunately, this approach fails to consider that most Bible corruption took place in the first few centuries (2 Cor.2:17, 2 Peter 3:16).
As with any branch of academia, there are different schools of thought among textual critics. Disagreements abound and take many forms. Each group of scholars defends their own set of criteria and presuppositions for evaluating the superiority of one text type over another (textual disputes) or one family of manuscripts over another.
Then there are translation disputes, disagreements over how to understand and translate the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek texts (original languages of the Bible) into English. For example, the Greek word “logismos,” found in 2 Corinthians 10:5, can mean; reasoning, imagination, or thought. According to Greek, any one of these three definitions would be correct. The question then arises, how do we determine the precise Word (meaning) which the Holy Spirit initially intended? Who gets to make the determination, and on what basis, by what authority?
When you consider all the complexities and variables of textual criticism, not to mention the differences between the Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and English languages, it should be apparent that without supernatural intervention, it would be impossible to reconstruct the original text of the Scriptures, even if it had been lost. In reality, textual criticism is no more than educated guesswork, an intellectual exercise in futility and unbelief. The Bible sums up the science of textual criticism in 2 Tim.3:7 “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
False doctrine originates with the acceptance of a false premise; deception is born out of failure to recognize truth, “And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die… (Gen.3:4). The beginning of the end came when Satan interjected a false thought into Eve’s mind. A bold lie that sounded logical, even though it was contrary to what God had said, tragically, Eve accepted it. Why was Eve so easily deceived?
It has been wisely stated that the heart of every problem is a problem in the heart. Eve was beguiled because she questioned what God had said. So then, so now, And the serpent said unto the “biblical scholar,” God hath not preserved His Word. The clever lie that God’s words perished along with the papyri or vellum on which they were written initially has been broadly propagated and widely accepted, even though it is contrary to what God has said. Papyri and vellum are physical, material, temporal. God’s Word is spiritual (John 6:63) eternal (1 Peter 1:21). The students of the school of modern textual criticism have little, if any, faith in God’s ability to preserve His own words. In effect, their position accuses God of negligence.
The false doctrine of non-preservation is a doctrine that lacks any basis in the Word of God other than “Yea, hath God said…” (Gen.3:1). It is, in fact, nothing more than a theory constructed upon a flawed foundation that assumes inspiration was limited to the original autographs. A method strikingly similar to “Darwin’s theory of evolution” also founded on a lie. Textual criticism and evolution are similar in that both utilize man’s wisdom to refute God’s Word; both replace certainty with uncertainty. The common goal is the destruction of absolutes (one of the primary objectives of secular humanism).
Source:
Articles :: Why I Believe the King James Bible to be the Preserved Word of God - Perfecting of the Saints
Last edited:
We had the prefect and inspired originals, and have infallible translations , as NO need for them to be perfect nor inspired to be valid!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
On the surface, this argument sounds so scholarly and educated. The trouble is, THE ORIGINAL WRITINGS NO LONGER EXIST.
If it’s true that only the originals were inspired, and they have been lost, then we have no Bible that we can be sure is God’s word. What would be the point in inspiring them, making them infallible, in the first place only for them to get destroyed? I believe in a God who is able not only to inspire but to preserve His word for us today. You say, fallen man has corrupted things, it was inevitable. Well fallen man was the one to put those words down in the first place! Remember what the writer of the first 5 books of the Bible did? Moses killed a man! What about the man who penned the Psalms? David was an adulterer and a murderer! Peter denied the Lord! Saul persecuted the church, putting believers to death! Yet He used those imperfect people to pen His perfect words originally no problem, you say. But He couldn’t use imperfect men to preserve them? Sorry, I don’t believe that. I believe in the Mighty God, maker of heaven and earth, who can do anything He wants in his power and sovereignty. I believe in a God who can and did keep and preserve His words to all generations from the corruption of man.
Think about this: why would God give Moses, David, Isaiah, Peter, Paul, etc. the perfect Bible, who actually talked with the Lord Himself, but not us, who are separated by Christ’s earthly ministry by 2,000 years? If anyone needs God’s pure word, it’s the Church in these wicked days! If he can preserve the Christian who comes to salvation in this earth for heaven from the corruption of the world, why could He not preserve the Scriptures from corruption?
The reason for that is usually they wore out from so much use. Copies had to be made. And this is where people assume that “mistakes” slipped in, in the copying process, as ancient men sloppily did their work. The fact is, the scribes who did this were masters in their craft. They had to find the middle letter of one page and match it to the middle letter of the one they were copying, that is how meticulous they were. If it didn’t match, the whole page was scrapped and they had to start over. For them it wasn’t just word-perfect, it was letter-perfect! Why the extreme procedures? Because they knew how important their task was.
Again, this goes back to the issue of unbelief. Do you believe God when He says He has preserved His word? Or are those verses just more man-made, “iffy” talk to you? At some point you either accept it as it is for what it says or you don’t. If it is true that He preserved His word, the originals carry no significance whatsoever if the perfect words are handed down the generations by means of copying.
Our entire Christian faith stands on the authority of one book called the Bible. Everything we believe, every doctrine we embrace, every aspect of our lives is to be governed by it.
Article Source:
The King James Bible is the Perfect Word of God - Her High Calling
Similar threads
