Open Debate Challenge on My Defending the KJV as the Perfect Word for Today in English

[RedFan]

How is His election to salvation of His chosen people, inconsistent with His nature???. You have no answer because your question is invalid and inconsistent. What do you have against God, for suffering naked on the cross and dying a humiliating and painful death to save His elect. Do you think He is evil for saving His elect, do you reject Him because He didn't do it for everyone.

The problem is not with God's nature, but rather your assessment of it. The problem is with your position that "God has no choice" and "God has no alternative" because He is by nature just. You are judging "justice" in human terms. That doesn't work. Some examples of why it doesn't work might include:

1. If justice is His nature, and we all deserve to die for our sins, then His saving a single one of us in unjust as we humans reckon justice.

2. If justice is His nature, then imputing original sin inherited from Adam to condemn infants and children who committed no actual sin themselves is unjust as we humans reckon justice.

3. If justice is His nature, then punishing the innocent for the guilty -- namely, His sinless Son instead of sinful mankind -- is unjust as we humans reckon justice. (Regardless of whether His Son volunteered for the job.)

To get around these problems, you need to come around to the notion that God's "justice" is inscrutable in human terms. He HAS a choice. He CAN choose to save everyone, or no one, or any number in between. His "justice" does not disable Him from making ANY choice He wishes.

So the question you need to confront is, what is it about God’s justice that disables God from forgiving the offender’s sin (whatever it was) without having His Son nailed to the cross? Christ, we are told, paid the price for our sins―but the price owed to Whom? If it was owed to the Father, what restrained Him from simply canceling the debt? Don't answer "justice," because that doesn't work!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Is your religion entirely made up of conspiracy theories?

I know the Modern scholarship side loves to mindlessly make up conspiracy theories against the TR / KJV. They make up stuff up about Erasmus, and the origin of when the first believers who held to the KJV as the perfect Word of God. They make up stuff up about Cyprian’s quote involving the Comma. The list goes on and on. They say these things even when they have been disproven with the facts ten times over. So that’s rich that you scream conspiracy theories when we present our position in defending God’s Word.

Anyway, you are not qualified to analyze new data properly that even your side agrees with. For example: You are not truly open to receiving any new info that comes from Modern Scholarship that I already shared (like how the Modern Bible Movement primarily follows the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts). So you are on the fringe in this discussion and not even your own side would take you seriously. Your denial of this basic information is beyond conspiracy theory but it is a denial of basic facts you can just search the internet on. I shared quotes of this to you, and you still deny it. So you are not dealing with reality. So there is no point in us having any kind of rational discussion because you will not even admit your wrong even when others who are in your camp have no problem agreeing to that information and it is common knowledge (that I shared).

Side Note:

Also, notice how you love to keep slandering us with the your baseless conspiracy theories claim. As if you keep saying it enough it is true somehow. However, you are not really proving that anything I said was a conspiracy theory. That is just your false slander and empty claims. I can provide sources for everything I said. What you fail to grasp is that we are just believing the Bible that existed for hundreds of years long before the Westcott and Hort Modernists showed up in 1881 with their new Sham-Wow text.

 

[St. SteVen]

The problem is not with God's nature, but rather your assessment of it.

BINGO!
Great post, thanks.

[

 

[Grailhunter]

baseless conspiracy theories claim

All the readers have to do is look through our conversations and see that you live in the fantasy world of conspiracy theories.

 

[Grailhunter]

They make up stuff up about Erasmus, and the origin of when the first believers who held to the KJV as the perfect Word of God.

There were no first believers who held to the KJV! What do you got going on in your head?

I don’t think that I referenced Erasmus. He was a Catholic Priest but did he make a contribution to New Testament translations?

He tried to make some corrections to the Latin Vulgate. But modern translators are more interested in the older manuscripts. Did they have any interest in the Latin Vulgate?

Reproducing the errors of others would be no way to come up with an accurate translation of the scriptures.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

All the readers have to do is look through our conversations and see that you live in the fantasy world of conspiracy theories.

Actually, I can say the same for your belief because you denied basic information I shared with you from folks on your own side. So nice try, but no cigar. You are all talk and no show. Give posts numbers and actual words and not just empty talk.

 

[Grailhunter]

Actually, I can say the same for your belief because you denied basic information I shared with you from folks on your own side. So nice try, but no cigar. You are all talk and no show. Give posts numbers and actual words and not just empty talk.

LOL

People can read through our conversions and find out a lot of things about you…..not only your fascination with conspiracy theories

 

[MatthewG]

I would encourage you to study this issue more. There are two major streams of Bibles. There is the Textus Receptus line, where we get the KJV, and there is the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus line, which are the primary two manuscripts that underly the Modern Bibles today. The Modern Bible Movement began with heretics Westcott and Hort. There are doctrinal changes between these two streams of Bibles.

#1. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 1).
#2. Changed Doctrines in Modern Bibles (Part 2).
#3. New Age Teachings in Modern Bibles
#4. Fourteen Changes in Modern Bibles that Favor the Catholic Church (See Page 21 of this PDF).

Also, the origin of the Modern Bible Movement is connected to heretics and deceptions.
This is not some kooky KJV-only conspiracy theories, but they are simply the facts that you can research yourself. Some in the Modern Bible Movement are aware of these facts and they simply do not care. Westcott and Hort were into spiritism. Westcott communed with dead saints (just like Catholics). Both of these men denied the infallibility of Scripture. Hort called the Textus Receptus villainous and vile. The Revised Version they came out with said it was the version set forth in 1611 AD. But it did not have the Comma in 1 John 5:7 among many other verses. So they lied. They also had a Unitarian on their Revised Version team named George Vance Smith who wrote a book about his celebration of the changed doctrines in favor of Unitarianism. It's called Texts and Margins of the Revised New Testament. Then there are the Catholic ideas promoted in Modern Bibles that do not appear in the KJV. Modern Textual Critics who are hailed as rockstars (like Metzger) was liberal in regard to the Bible. I could keep going, but you get the idea.

Side Note:

Nick Sayers (RevolutionDebates) YouTube Channel would be a good one to plug into if you truly want to get the facts right.

Thank you for sharing. I would plug,

.

I know you are just trying to a helpful citizen to the community. I already understand a lot about the differences of the bible, and recognize that English Standard Version is good enough for me, and so is a Youngs Literal Translation. While I could proceed to share my knowledge concerning what has been found out, it doesn't weigh anything concerning faithfulness toward God. Defending a certain translation doesn't mean very much concerning how God looks at the heart, and the faith of the person trusting in Yahweh, to get them through this life, and to put down their fleshly intentions and allow Christ to work in and through them in spiritual intentions concerning Yahwehs Will.

:)

 

[MatthewG]

Thank you for sharing. I would plug,

. I know you are just trying to a helpful citizen to the community. I already understand a lot about the differences of the bible, and recognize that English Standard Version is good enough for me, and so is a Youngs Literal Translation. While I could proceed to share my knowledge concerning what has been found out, it doesn't weigh anything concerning faithfulness toward God. Defending a certain translation doesn't mean very much concerning how God looks at the heart, and the faith of the person trusting in Yahweh, to get them through this life, and to put down their fleshly intentions and allow Christ to work in and through them in spiritual intentions concerning Yahwehs Will.

:)

On top of these matters, if "concerning" perclusions of just using a KJV. Anyone can make anyone believe everything they say, and cults form, and then you have case of abuse, family sexual relations, all types of horrible scary things, which definitely are not of the holy spirit of God.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There were no first believers who held to the KJV! What do you got going on in your head?

So there are no KJV-only believers? There had to be Christians at one point in time in history who started to hold to this belief. I believe it began in the mid to late 1600s when the KJV started to go mainstream. In the UK, the KJV became popular in the 1660s. In the United States it became the dominant Bible by the 1700s.

I don’t think that I referenced Erasmus.

You don’t have to. I was speaking in general to your side (Which is Modern Scholarship).

He was a Catholic Priest but did he make a contribution to New Testament translations?

He tried to make some corrections to the Latin Vulgate. But modern translators are more interested in the older manuscripts. Did they have any interest in the Latin Vulgate?

Erasmus lived during the time of the Reformation. He was said to be the egg that Luther hatched by Catholics. Erasmus was motivated by his scholarly desire to produce a more accurate and reliable text of the New Testament. This was a work that was not approved by the head Catholic Church or had any kind of oversight. In time, Erasmus’ work in Greek (an early form of the Textus Receptus) was later put on the forbidden index list by the Catholic Church.

Erasmus compiled Greek manuscripts to create a Greek and Latin Parallel Textus Receptus editions because he learned of the corruptions in the Latin Vulgate. He learned of these corruptions part by Lorenzo Valla. When Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453, many Greek scholars fled westward, bringing with them numerous ancient manuscripts. These manuscripts included classical Greek texts as well as important Biblical manuscripts. Manuscripts entered places like Italy, Switzerland, and Paris, France, where Erasmus had traveled. In Venice Italy, Erasmus was a proof reader in Greek for the famous printer known as Aldus Manutius (also known as Aldine Manutius). Aldi’s was a prominent Venetian printer, publisher, and scholar.

Aldus Manutius was renowned for his work in publishing classical Greek and Latin texts, making them more widely available to scholars throughout Europe. He founded the Aldine Press, which became famous for its high-quality editions of Greek and Roman classics. Erasmus’ collaboration with Aldus was significant for the knowledge, experience, and connections Erasmus gained. These later enabled him to produce some of the most important scholarly works of the Renaissance.

Erasmus was the first to gather Greek manuscripts and compile them so that they could be printed in a book for the first time in Greek paralleled with Latin (because Latin was the scholar language at the time).

Erasmus’ work was filtered by Stephanus, and Beza Greek editions of the Textus Receptus. It was Beza’s 5th edition (1598) that the KJV primarily follows. There are only 20 translatable differences between the Beza and the KJV.

Greek speaking people looked at Erasmus was one of the top Greek scholars of their day. So regular Greek people were impressed by him.

Reproducing the errors of others would be no way to come up with an accurate translation of the scriptures.

You are not even aware of the history of the Textus Receptus and the KJV in any kind of real depth. You are not aware of the origins of the Modern Bible Movement started by Westcott and Hort and their heretical beliefs recorded by their sons. So you are speaking about things you really don’t understand.

 

[Grailhunter]

So there are no KJV-only believers? There had to be Christians at one point in time in history who started to hold to this belief. I believe it began in the mid to late 1600s when the KJV started to go mainstream. In the UK, the KJV became popular in the 1660s. In the United States it became the dominant Bible by the 1700s.

Well I guess you misspoke because you said....They make up stuff up about Erasmus, and the origin of when the first believers who held to the KJV as the perfect Word of God. There is nothing about the KJV that is original or about the first believers.

And you need to look up the history of the KJV and when it was first released. At that time the Geneva Bible was very popular and many considered the KJV a corruption from a queer king.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Well I guess you misspoke because you said....They make up stuff up about Erasmus, and the origin of when the first believers who held to the KJV as the perfect Word of God. There is nothing about the KJV that is original or about the first believers.

There are church statements of faith that talk about the Bible being preserved in English perfectly. Learn more at the following article link.

Another King James Bible Believer

The King James Bible.

brandplucked.com

KJV loyalists burned down the Cambridge warehouse in 1762, and they also burned the Oxford warehouse down in 1769. These were the years they did the KJV updates and so the KJV loyalists did not want the Word of God being changed.

See this article here:

The 1611 King James Bible

The 1611 King James Bible The English King James Bible is the best selling book in history, by an extremely wide margin. With multiple billions of copies in print, no other book can claim even one billion copies in print. Even more impressive, the King James Bible remains one of the most...

greatsite.com

As for your claim that the KJV is not original:

The KJV is original in that it has 47 translators with many of them being the best scholars that ever existed before them and after. If you ever researched the credentials of these translators, you would realize that these men were legends (See the author named Laurence M. Vance). The KJV, King James, and its translators were almost destroyed by a super bomb by the Catholics (i.e., the gun powder plot). The KJV caused the three greatest revivals in human history. The KJV is the most printed book in the world. The KJV was in public schools for approximately 150 years here in America. The KJV was regarded by English speaking countries as THE Bible for hundreds of years.

And you need to look up the history of the KJV and when it was first released. At that time the Geneva Bible was very popular and many considered the KJV a corruption from a queer king.

The KJV was first published in 1611. The last of the printing errors were fixed by two of the remaining living KJV translators in the 1638 KJV edition. The Apocrypha was not common in the KJV by the 1640s. But the KJV did not become popular or mainstream in the UK until 1660s.

As for your claim that King James was basically a sodomite:
Well, this false lie has been debunked in many ways over the years. Only those who care about the truth will listen to it. You cannot even get your facts right on what Modern scholars believe (like their belief that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are the primary manuscripts that they follow for the Nestle and Aland).

Usually when folks make this baseless claim against King James, it just shows us how uneducated they are on this topic. Most often, they are not even aware of the real answers that debunks this kind of nonsense. They are not even familiar with his life at all. They just have an axe grind against the KJV and they don’t really care.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Thank you for sharing. I would plug,

.

I know you are just trying to a helpful citizen to the community. I already understand a lot about the differences of the bible, and recognize that English Standard Version is good enough for me, and so is a Youngs Literal Translation. While I could proceed to share my knowledge concerning what has been found out, it doesn't weigh anything concerning faithfulness toward God. Defending a certain translation doesn't mean very much concerning how God looks at the heart, and the faith of the person trusting in Yahweh, to get them through this life, and to put down their fleshly intentions and allow Christ to work in and through them in spiritual intentions concerning Yahwehs Will.

:)

Modern Bibles do not even all agree with each other. So why pick the ESV? It has doctrinal problems. Titus 3:10 in the ESV is telling you to reject Jesus. We know from the Bible that Jesus was divisive. Yet, Titus 3:10 in the ESV is telling you to have nothing to do with a divisive person. ESV says in Genesis 3:16 that the woman’s desire will be contrary to her husband, which promotes a rebellious wife (When this is not taught in the KJV). The ESV removes the word “fornication” (many times meaning sex before marriage). No surprise that many Christians in this day and age think sex before marriage is okay. The ESV says there is a magic stone. This is silly. This is the promotion of the new age (See: Proverbs 17:8). The ESV waters down the Omnipresence of Jesus Christ in John 3:13 by removing certain words. The ESV waters down the deity of Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:16 in the ESV removes the words, “of God” in the phrase “the love of God” in context to how He (Jesus) will lay down our life for us. The ESV waters down the blood atonement in Colossians 1:14.

Then there are all of the intentional changes between the ESV editions, as well. These are not changes due to fixing printing errors like the KJV. These are intentional changes that say things differently. So which ESV edition do you go with?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

On top of these matters, if "concerning" perclusions of just using a KJV. Anyone can make anyone believe everything they say, and cults form, and then you have case of abuse, family sexual relations, all types of horrible scary things, which definitely are not of the holy spirit of God.

Actually Jim Jones hated the KJV. So did other cultists.

As for the difficulty of the KJV in its wording:

Well, only the stupid would fall for this kind of thing. Anyone can tell by the thees and thous that it is not Modern English and that they would have to study to shew themselves approved unto God.

I am also not against using a dictionary or even a Modern Translation if it aids in my understanding the archaic wording in the King James Bible. The problem is in trusting the Modern Bibles as one’s authority because they teach false doctrines, and they are attached to heretics.

 

[Grailhunter]

There are church statements of faith that talk about the Bible being preserved in English perfectly. Learn more at the following article link.

Ya somebody liked the KJV, but liked does not mean it is accurate. The KJV owes it longevity to the fact that people did not know any better. Once the scholars stated looking at the older manuscripts they realized how modified the newer manuscript were. And the KJV incorporated the errors of past works and they did not have the older manuscripts to look at.

 

[MatthewG]

Modern Bibles do not even all agree with each other. So why pick the ESV? It has doctrinal problems. Titus 3:10 in the ESV is telling you to reject Jesus. We know from the Bible that Jesus was divisive. Yet, Titus 3:10 in the ESV is telling you to have nothing to do with a divisive person. ESV says in Genesis 3:16 that the woman’s desire will be contrary to her husband, which promotes a rebellious wife (When this is not taught in the KJV). The ESV removes the word “fornication” (many times meaning sex before marriage). No surprise that many Christians in this day and age think sex before marriage is okay. The ESV says there is a magic stone. This is silly. This is the promotion of the new age (See: Proverbs 17:8). The ESV waters down the Omnipresence of Jesus Christ in John 3:13 by removing certain words. The ESV waters down the deity of Jesus Christ. 1 John 3:16 in the ESV removes the words, “of God” in the phrase “the love of God” in context to how He (Jesus) will lay down our life for us. The ESV waters down the blood atonement in Colossians 1:14.

Then there are all of the intentional changes between the ESV editions, as well. These are not changes due to fixing printing errors like the KJV. These are intentional changes that say things differently. So which ESV edition do you go with?

Actually Jim Jones hated the KJV. So did other cultists.

As for the difficulty of the KJV in its wording:

Well, only the stupid would fall for this kind of thing. Anyone can tell by the thees and thous that it is not Modern English and that they would have to study to shew themselves approved unto God.

I am also not against using a dictionary or even a Modern Translation if it aids in my understanding the archaic wording in the King James Bible. The problem is in trusting the Modern Bibles as one’s authority because they teach false doctrines, and they are attached to heretics.

It’s really draining to talk about. Why not just make a YouTube video about your concerns and leave all the debating out. Perhaps it’s my laziness, to go over things that don’t promote faith, or anything like that. Sure there are translations that are horrible, but what matters is the heart of the individual that has such a text.

Can they provide the spirit of the message, or are they just presenting the message and not abiding in the spirit. Causing hatred, not loving their neighbor, etc…

Again, just having a “defining stance” “preferred Bible” doesn’t make you more faithful or nonfaithful towards God. That’s a personal thing; in the face of many many people.

 

[MatthewG]

Ya somebody liked the KJV, but liked does not mean it is accurate. The KJV owes it longevity to the fact that people did not know any better. Once the scholars stated looking at the older manuscripts they realized how modified the newer manuscript were. And the KJV incorporated the errors of past works and they did not have the older manuscripts to look at.

Last time I check some places namely “hell” are suppose to be Ghenna. There are other words here and there, but hell who would know unless they are teachers to put out the differences. Even so, when ya know that you can teach that even with a Kiv but if you don’t know… I don’t mind the Kjv, it’s 12 th grade reading. But none of our bibles are word perfect, we just got copies of copies, of copies.

Word studies do help though, especially regarding Hebrew and Greek.

 

[Christian Soldier]

Dude, I posted his words. I did not add to his words.

But you call him a liar. And even here, you cannot prove me wrong. You just attack in pride.. Blah Blah Blah.

Yawn.

For a christian soldier, your not very tough.

You claim i added to his words. yet I posted his words. You are not even posting his words. or for whatever it matters, showing me what words I added. you just slinging insults and accusations that are missing its mark. As the old saying goes. you can;t hit the side of a barn with your silly insults and false accusations.

Your not defending the gospel. Your defending yourself.. lets get to the heart of the matter man.

You just proved my point I made about you being proud. looking to self. Not God.

God does not need you to protect him, and while you think you are protecting him, you actually accusing HIM.

No.

It said he died for the world. I just take it as he meant it.

Now you. You say that he just died for the elect.. So if anyone is adding or changing the word it would be you.

In fact. Jesus said he died for the world so WHOEVER believes

You claim he died for the elect so THEY may believe.

So again, You fired, and you missed.

Again, Fire and miss

\Yes, He did for the world so WHOSOEVER believes.

It does not say everyone he died for will believe
it says he died for the world so that whoever inb that world believes.

Nice try. but fail

No, he did not say this, He said he Love Jacob (the nation of Israel) but hated Esau (the nation of edom)

Like most people. You take verses out of context. and do not go back and see what Paul was quoting and why.

Paul quoted malachi,

Mal 1:
“I have loved you,” says the Lord.
“Yet you say, ‘In what way have You loved us?’
Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?”
Says the Lord.
“Yet Jacob I have loved;
3 But Esau I have hated,
And laid waste his mountains and his heritage
For the jackals of the wilderness.”
4 Even though Edom has said,
“We have been impoverished,
But we will return and build the desolate places,”
Thus says the Lord of hosts:
“They may build, but I will throw down;
They shall be called the Territory of Wickedness,
And the people against whom the Lord will have indignation forever.

Paul did not say God hated a baby before he was born, He said He loved Jacob, and he has, and still does today. But he hated Edom, and still does today. He punished them and wiped them out. and they will never come back again, But Jacob, Paul later says they will all be saved, because God keeps his promises..

Yes he does.

why?

He who believes is not condemned HE WHO DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY.

Private opinion. Now your pulling the catholic trick.. lol, You running out of ammo that you have to pull from your catholic heritage?

You fired yet again, and missed.

God did not say this.

Again, YOUR adding to the word.

Swing and A MISS

Dude, YOU REJECTED THE CONTEXT, PAUL QUOTED ANOTHER AUTHOR. YOU IGNORE THAT AUTHOR. YOU HAVE TO GO TO THAT AUTHOR. READ THOSE WORDS IN CONTEXT. THEN INTERPRET IT IN THAT CONTEXT.

Your blind following odf the fatalistic view of romans 9 has distorted your thinking, I challenge you to remove the spec from your eyes. (or is it a log?) and study romans 9 with an open heart.

lol.. Well you have not proven one lie yet. so if there are more you think you have caught me on. I guess feel free so I can destroy those lies also.

lol, The world is what it means, the world.. God calls the worlds system the domain of satan, the enemy of God.

Jesus died for that world. so whoever believes can come out of that world.

Jesus also said, he was not sent to judge the world. He came so that world MIGHT be saved.


Your definition falls flat. and is found no where in scripture. and again, makes God out to be a respecter of person.

But you like to pump your chest.. so I doubt you will repent of your pride anytime soon.



Actually Jesus was speaking to nicodemus,

You see, Jesus was wondering, why nicodemus, A teacher of the law. could not understand what it meant to be born again.

so Jesus gave an example.

John 3: 14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15 that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.

You see, Just like you failed to do in Romans 9, You fail to do here. Jesus tried to help you. if you would just open up

the serpent in the wilderness, what happened?

Israel was getting bit and killed by snakes. it was a death sentence. and they cried out. So God told Moses to make a serpent, and raise it on a pole. so that whoever LOOKED at it, would life, buit whoever did not look at it. they would continue to die and eventually they would die.

That serpent was not just placed their for the elect. it was placed there for everyone in who could see it.. It was capable of saving everyone, But they had to trust God. (have faith) those who did lived, (not condemned) those who did not died (were condemned already)

Jesus made it clear. Just like this happened (the serpent was a type of Christ) the son of man must be lifted up. that WHOEVER believes in him, will not perish. they will not doe. their condemnation will be lifted. and they will live. As Jesus said, He died for the world (his death, like the serpent was there for everyone, anyone on this earth can look in faith and they will live) But it does not mean everyone will live.

Just like many of the children of Israel died because in unbelief they refused to look at the serpent. so to will many be eternally condemned, because in unbelief, they refuse to look to the cross.

It does not mean the cross was not for them, it was. They rejected it.

God is glorified, because he gave them an out, they rejected him, he did not reject them.

But you glorify God saying God did NOT die for them, or give them an out.

so yeah. Repent my friend.. Repent.





Um no he did not. Read above,

No. I hate no one, But I hate the false word that makes God out to not be a keeper of his word. and worse yet, a respecter of persons.

stop firing at a barn, you keep missing, and are really making yourself look bad.. repent.

So you refuse to acknowledge the fact that you're a liar. I showed you where you added your words over Gods Word, and now you're denying the in your face evidence and pretending you never did it.

I don't know what to say to a person who is in denial of the damning in your face evidence. You can deny the truth until you turn blue in the face, but there'll be no denying the truth when you stand before God to be judged.

We both know that anyone can add whatever words they like to Gods Word, in order to avoid facing the truth of what God said. They trash Gods Word and insert their word and create false doctrines and false religions, this has been going on from the beginning. But God has appointed a day when they will all be cast into the lake of fire, so they can brag about their wisdom and mock Gods elect all they like, but their fate is sealed.

Anyway, I have shown you scriptures which refute and expose your opinion as false, but I guess nobody can show a blind man anything. You're not willing to own your lies, or consider the possibility that you may be mistaken so all I can do is pray for you.

 

[Grailhunter]

Last time I check some places namely “hell” are suppose to be Ghenna. There are other words here and there, but hell who would know unless they are teachers to put out the differences. Even so, when ya know that you can teach that even with a Kiv but if you don’t know… I don’t mind the Kjv, it’s 12 th grade reading. But none of our bibles are word perfect, we just got copies of copies, of copies.

Word studies do help though, especially regarding Hebrew and Greek.

Hell is an interesting topic....it is very real. But you are right nothing is perfect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Ya somebody liked the KJV, but liked does not mean it is accurate. The KJV owes it longevity to the fact that people did not know any better. Once the scholars stated looking at the older manuscripts they realized how modified the newer manuscript were. And the KJV incorporated the errors of past works and they did not have the older manuscripts to look at.

But God’s Word teaches the purity and preservation of His Word. Jesus said that His words would not pass away. Yet, you are saying that the church did not have the precise words of God for hundreds of years and believers who trusted the KJV during these many years were deceived. The Modern scholars use man made theories to try and reconstruct the precise words of God but we know they will never do it. There is too much money to be made to come up with a settled text. They have regulated the preservation of God’s word to men‘s theories, and they eliminated the super natural element that it is God who ultimately preserves His Word.