Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Michiah-Imla]

Do you need a Bible to "hear the gospel"? Be doers of the word? Be clean? Be sanctified? Be blessed?

You sure need one to not be beaten:

“And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Fact is the Bible does not exist sir,

Not true. The Bible does exist. I can hold the King James Bible in my hands.

if it did then it would be perfect. No Version is perfect, and your choice is far from it.

It is perfect. It's just carnal reasoning of men will see flaws where there is none. I know. I have discovered answers or explanations behind the many supposed contradictions in the KJB over the years. So flaws are only in the eye of the beholder. A person can say the same thing about GOD in general, too. But they would be in error.

In fact as I have demonstrated because of your choice preference, you have come to believe Jesus is God. Are you aware that when Jesus returns, he will destroy all those who do not know God?

I do believe Jesus is God. It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word (Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture). Jesus (Seeing He is GOD) can exist in spirit within a believer's heart in addition to having a human body.

Ephesians 3:17

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith;
that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”​

So there is no contradiction.

I provided 160 reasons why Jesus is GOD on the forums here at ChristianityBoard.
You can check that out here.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Absolute nonsense! How do you think that illiterate people grew in the faith in the past and in the present? How many people today wish that they could own a Bible but cannot?

Do you need a Bible to "hear the gospel"? Be doers of the word? Be clean? Be sanctified? Be blessed?

You're living in some fantasy land.

In Paul's day they went to get the word read to them, because they did not have bibles..

I wonder if we are just spoiled.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I can't count how many times I have heard someone read the KJV from the pulpit, then say "now what this means" and translate it "on the fly" into modern English. In fact, I think many KJV people like the obfuscation of the KJV Englyshe so they can spin their own doctrine.

what gets me is the pastors you hear on the radio, and they all talk in king jimmy language or dialect.. Its like they all must have been trained to speak that way in college or something..

My wife and I watched a movie this weekend. It was called the bible series, Jeremiah. It was funny how Jeremiah spoke King Jimmy language when he would make his proclamations..

We got a laugh out of that

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Agapao versus phileo:

Well, let's take a closer look at how God uses these two words and see if there is really something to what they say or not.

John 3:16 "God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son..." The verb used here is form of 'agape', so we are told it always means a God-type unconditional love. OK, but what do we then do with these verses using the same verb?

John 3:19 "And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men LOVED darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil." Agapao

John 12:42-43 "they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue: For they LOVED the praise of men more than the praise of God." Agapao

Luke 6:32 "for sinners LOVE those that LOVE them." Agapao

2 Timothy 4:10 "For Demas hath forsaken me, having LOVED this present world..." Agapao

2 Peter 2:15 "Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam to son of Bosor, who LOVED the wages of unrighteousness." Agapao

1 John 2:15 "If any man LOVE the world, the love of the Father is not in him." Agapao

It should be abundantly clear that the scholar who insists the word 'agape' means an unconditional, God-type love has no idea what he is talking about.

Well, what about phileo then? Does it always mean a friendship type of love and not the love of God?

John 16:27 "For the Father himself LOVETH you, because ye have LOVED me, and have believed that I came out from God." Phileo

Revelation 3:19 "As many as I LOVE, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore and repent." Phileo

1 Corinthians 16:22 "If any man LOVE not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha." Phileo

Well, then do these two words actually mean the same thing? Let's compare some Scriptures.

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

John 5:20 "the Father LOVETH the Son" Phileo

John 10:17 "therefore doth my Father LOVE me" Agapao

Titus 2:4 "women to be sober, to LOVE their husbands..." Phileo

Ephesians 5:28 "So ought men to LOVE their wives..." Agapao

Hebrews 13:1 "Let brotherly LOVE continue" Phileo

1 Peter 2:17 "LOVE the brotherhood" Agapao


So as we can see things are not as you say, my friend.


Article Source used:
Another King James Bible Believer

Like I said, You will only see what you want to see

Jesus asked peter if he agape him

Peter said he phileo him

Ignore the difference here all you want. Peter did not respond to Jesus that he loved him the way Jesus asked him

You will not see that from ANY English text.

for those of us who get the deeper meaning of what transpired in those three questions. We will praise God he kept copies of the original text so we can gleem his truth in a deeper way we can not find from the english text.

That was just one example. I have so many many more. If the bible were properly translated into english with its full meaning it would be twice as large.. But them people would complain its not a word for word.

People always have something to complain about. You can never make them happy

 

[Truther]

Out of thine own mouth Truth! Do you not think it is better to know who God is, and obey Jesus in his recommendation to worship and serve Him exclusively?

Yes, absolutely.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Not actually sir, we were speaking about God's name in what is referred to as the New Testament.

You know I have always been puzzled why the translators rendered Yeshua Jesus, rather than Joshua, yet all seem to do it.

Jesus comes from Iesus (greek)

I have always wondered that myself.. You would think we would want to call him by his given name.. Not a made up transliterated one.

Christ comes from Christos.. another transliterated vs translated word.. which means the anointed one.

 

[Jim B]

@Jim B

I was in darkness until I bought a Bible.

It was the only thing that changed my life.

Your post angered me so much that I had to pause before posting something I might have regretted. It’s hard for me to imagine a person with your attitude.

Why don’t you post some scripture to support your baloney?

Because your babbling has no scriptural backing, that’s why!

God inspired the apostles to teach the scriptures and write them down so that all men could be reached however way their circumstances allowed. But without SOMEONE having the scriptures after the passing of the apostles there was no way anyone would be saved. This is why his word is preserved to this day. And with the Bible so readily available these days it’s sad that your attitude persists in many people.

I have quenched your darts by the faith that gives me peace through my trustworthy Bible (Ephesians 6:16).

Now why don’t you try to edify the brethren instead of beating up on those you see as beneath you because they love an old fashioned translation of the holy scriptures.

If you think I will engage you in some kind of meaningful discussion you are wrong.

Now why don’t you try to edify others instead of beating up on those you see as beneath you because they use a modern translation?

 

[Jim B]

And my passionate defense of the KJB led to the topic being banned because they seen it as divisive. But I see it as a suppression of freedom of speech.

Anyways, peace, and blessings be unto you in the Lord (even if we disagree).

If I said what I really wanted to say about your posts I would probably be banned. Commenting that KVOs are banned from another forum because of a suppression of freedom of speech is a joke. Here is what was written: We have decided that it is best to ban promotion of King James Version Only (KJVO) and King James Bible Only. King James Version preference is fine. As a Christian site that has people from many different denominations with different or authorized versions of the Bible we will consider any promotion of KJVO as goading/flaming." Goading/flaming! Get it?

 

[Jim B]

You sure need one to not be beaten:

“And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)

Would you translate this into English?

 

[Jim B]

Not true. The Bible does exist. I can hold the King James Bible in my hands.



It is perfect. It's just carnal reasoning of men will see flaws where there is none. I know. I have discovered answers or explanations behind the many supposed contradictions in the KJB over the years. So flaws are only in the eye of the beholder. A person can say the same thing about GOD in general, too. But they would be in error.



I do believe Jesus is God. It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word (Despite the overwhelming testimony of Scripture). Jesus (Seeing He is GOD) can exist in spirit within a believer's heart in addition to having a human body.

Ephesians 3:17

“That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith;
that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,”​

So there is no contradiction.

I provided 160 reasons why Jesus is GOD on the forums here at ChristianityBoard.
You can check that out here.

"It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. It demonstrates that you are unable to think clearly and can't "love your neighbor as yourself". Is this blatant nonsense what you glean from your beloved (and flawed) King James version?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

In Paul's day they went to get the word read to them, because they did not have bibles..

I wonder if we are just spoiled.

To whom much is given... much is required.
It does not negate that the Holy Bible we have (that many of the early believers did not have a complete set of Scriptures like us) does not mean we can disregard them. They are still the Holy Scriptures unless you want to say that it is not. Liberals generally reject the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness (See: 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"It's odd that liberals love to deny that Jesus is God and they also deny a perfect Word" is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. It demonstrates that you are unable to think clearly and can't "love your neighbor as yourself". Is this blatant nonsense what you glean from your beloved (and flawed) King James version?

Sorry, friend. It's not natural to read a post that is not properly quoted. To help you out: Here is a video help tutorial from another forum that uses the same interface here at ChristianityBoard.com. Hopefully it will help you with learning how to quote others, friend.

 

[Davy]

Jim, of course Jesus is the truth.

But the written word is the truth as well.

Otherwise are you suggesting that we don’t need the Bible?

Just our own ideas about what the truth is with only knowing the Saviour’s name?

That's pretty much what the Roman Catholic system dictates, that sola scriptura is a myth, and that the Roman Catholic priesthood should be in control. That's what this battle is really about today against the KJV Bible, AND... against the Church of England and the Protestant Faith.

Fact is, those in Christ DO NOT NEED ANY POPE, NOR PRIEST. At Jesus' death and resurrection the veil of the temple was TORN IN TWO, ENDING THE NEED for us to have ANY OTHER MEDIATOR to The Father than Christ Jesus Himself.

1 Tim 2:5
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;
KJV

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If I said what I really wanted to say about your posts I would probably be banned. Commenting that KVOs are banned from another forum because of a suppression of freedom of speech is a joke. Here is what was written: We have decided that it is best to ban promotion of King James Version Only (KJVO) and King James Bible Only. King James Version preference is fine. As a Christian site that has people from many different denominations with different or authorized versions of the Bible we will consider any promotion of KJVO as goading/flaming." Goading/flaming! Get it?

Goading and flaming is attacking the person. There are many topics that lead to goading and flaming and KJB Only is one of them. We might as well not talk about the Bible at all because it can lead to heated discussions. But I don't think GOD intended us to not talk about the Bible because it can lead people to get hot under the collar. It is the person who needs to work on themselves if they attack others and make it personal. We have to love our enemies. The attack should be in regards to what we believe is the false belief. There is nothing wrong with correcting a false belief. To my memory: I do no recall goading or flaming any specific individuals with any hate or malice when I discussed the KJB Only discussion at Christian forums (the previous forums I used to talked on a lot). I always strived to speak of the belief and not the individuals. I strived to talk in love and respect and yet hate the false belief. Now, if we are talking about a false belief attached to a specific group of people like say “Liberals”.... it's not wrong to condemn such a group of people because they are being liberal with what the Bible says. Liberals are attached with Liberalism as Calvinism is attached to Calvinists. But do I hate liberals? No. I love the soul, and hate the false belief. But will I try to lay claim that a person is a liberal? No. But I sometimes will ask if they are liberal. Sometimes liberals will not admit that they are liberal and other times they will admit that they are. I have yet to meet a Liberal who accepts the King James Bible as the pure Word of God. So Liberalism and rejecting a perfect Bible go hand in hand in my experience (but this is not always the case). There are many who are conservative, too.

Peace and blessings from the Lord Jesus Christ be unto you and your family (even if we disagree).

 

[Davy]

I found this information on Google:

“Yeshua is the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Joshua.” Iesous is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew name, and its English spelling is “Jesus.” Thus, the names “Joshua” and “Jesus” are essentially the same; both are English pronunciations of the Hebrew and Greek names for our Lord. (For examples of how the two names are interchangeable, see Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8 in the KJV. In both cases, the word Jesus refers to the Old Testament character Joshua.)”

“Changing the language of a word does not affect the meaning of the word. We call a bound and covered set of pages a “book.” In German, it becomes a buch. In Spanish, it is a libro; in French, a livre. The language changes, but the object itself does not. As Shakespeare said, “That which we call a rose / By any other name would smell as sweet” (Romeo and Juliet, II:i).”

Meaning of Christ's name actually goes back further in the Hebrew. His Hebrew name Yehoshua (Joshua) is derived from The Father's name Yehovah. So basically, when we say JESUS, or Iesous, or Yeshua, or Joshua, we are ALSO saying The Father's name at the same time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Like I said, You will only see what you want to see

Jesus asked peter if he agape him

Peter said he phileo him

Ignore the difference here all you want. Peter did not respond to Jesus that he loved him the way Jesus asked him

You will not see that from ANY English text.

for those of us who get the deeper meaning of what transpired in those three questions. We will praise God he kept copies of the original text so we can gleem his truth in a deeper way we can not find from the english text.

That was just one example. I have so many many more. If the bible were properly translated into english with its full meaning it would be twice as large.. But them people would complain its not a word for word.

People always have something to complain about. You can never make them happy

I believe I gave a sufficient reason that the “agapao versus phileo” excuse used by Originals Onlyists is simply not correct. No doubt, I am not surprised that Originals Onlyists will not see what I have shown. So yes. I would say that one is seeing what they want to see.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[Jim B]

Sorry, friend. It's not natural to read a post that is not properly quoted. To help you out: Here is a video help tutorial from another forum that uses the same interface here at ChristianityBoard.com. Hopefully it will help you with learning how to quote others, friend.

If you think that I would watch any video that you recommend you are delusional. I don't need instruction from you, as I don't consider you qualified to instruct anyone. I am in the top 1% of general intelligence and, before I retired, I was a computer programmer. The slightest mistake was flagged as an error. Unlike yourself, I know what I write.

Finally, if you refer anyone to YouTube for instruction you are citing one of the worst sources of accurate information that exists. Another, of course, being the King James Bible, which allows you and others to spin false doctrine.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

I am in the top 1% of general intelligence

You’re soo intelligent that a book with a handful of outdated words confuses you.

I’ll quote a modern Bible so your comprehension isn’t hindered:

“Let no one deceive himself. If anyone among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,”” (1 Corinthians 3:18-19 ESV)

 

[Davy]

Now there's ... a greatly needed topic many Christian brethren need to learn about, the origin of the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal'.

Their origins as 'political' terms began in Europe because of the French Revolution of the 1780s.

The political term Liberal originates from the French Revolution watchwords, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity", and those philosophers associated with stirring up the people, like Spinoza, Voltaire, Rousseau, and the leftists Jacobins . But it's actual strongest application example was the Libertine. One who believes in living the life of a libertine is against all... authority, hating government even, and very close to supporting anarchy. Such a mindset aligns closely to the old movie Rebel Without A Cause. (i.e., "What are you rebelling against son?" And the rebel answers, "Whadda ya got?") It shouldn't be difficult where that kind of mentality originates from, since we all know who created the very first rebellion against God.

The political term Conservative in contrast at the same time of the French Revolution began to be used in Britain in opposition to the French Liberal or Libertine, and their watchwords of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" (actual watchwords of the Masonic Lodge).

In the documented evidence discovered of the Bavarian Illuminati order in the 1780's, the same era of the French Revolution, that documentation revealed a connection to the Illuminati organization started by the orthodox Jew Adam Weishaupt with the goal to destroy Christianity and the royal monarchy and governments of Europe (see the 1798 book Proofs Of a Conspiracy by British naturalist John Robison).

The Liberal-Socialist philosophy was also imparted to American politics through philosophers like John Locke and Thomas Paine.

In many ways, that is part of this on-going battle between Liberals who support the continuous Bible revisions and bogus manuscripts, vs. Conservatives who still support usage of the earlier translations like KJV Bible.