Challenge redux - is the KJV doctrinally stronger?

Not all of them.... in fact, not even most of them. And many that are busy are pushing the easy believism brand of soul-winning which hardly qualifies as serving God.

Steve, the only things you post here that have anything like substance are cuts and pastes. Even those are completely refuted which regularly leaves you attacking people for no cause and completely unable to present a rational defense of your point of view.

Steve, we aren't the ones that believe that Gail Riplinger was telling the truth when she said God dictated her book to her and that Jesus gave her the acrostic algebra. If anyone gave her these things, it was most probably an unclean spirit which places you either directly or indirectly under the influence of the same.

No one here on our side of the debate is attacking the KJV. If anything it is KJVO's that routinely violate the integrity of the KJV by misquoting, misinterpretting, and misapplying its text.

 

Once again Scott you prove that you are not capable of telling or receiving the truth.You cannot refute thr truth.You and yours reject any final authority.You do not have a bible and I do. Deal with it.

 

Did anyone notice my post concerning John 8:58.

All the MVs quoted except the NWT translate ego eime as "I am".

If these MVs were not Trinitarian (and dishonest with the text) they had an opportunity here at John 8:58 to clearly demonstrate it as the NWT.


HankD

 

The new versions do not compare themselves with each other, because they're too busy comparing themselves with one Book--the King James Bible. This fact alone proves that there is something very special and unique about the KJV.

Why does everyone line up in opposition AGAINST the King James Bible? Why not attack one another? That's easy: Satan has no desire to divide his own kingdom (Mt. 12:26). His desire is to discredit the word of GOD, not himself; so he attacks only one Book, God's Book, the KJV.

Those who oppose the KJV are unsure of themselves, for they have no Final Authority; so they despise those of us who DO have an Authority. They're unstable, insecure, dishonest, and very inconsistent. They're all TERRIFIED of One Book, the KJV, and they'll stop short of nothing in their efforts to rid the Body of Christ of that Book.

I know the KJV is the word of God, because it's the standard which all others use for comparison.

 

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?

2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.

3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.

4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.

6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

7. The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?

8. The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)

9. No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.

10. The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!

 

Very well put.

 

Dear King James,

You are close.

Substitute TR for KJV in your posts and you have the truth.

HankD

 

Oh NO! KJV is the very words of GOD.

 

Stronger?
Luke 2:33

And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.


Here the new versions attack the Virgin Birth by telling us that Joseph was Christ's father:


NIV....... The child's father

NASB... His father

NRSV... the child's father

REB...... The child's father

NWT..... its father

NAB...... the child's father

 

KJV stronger?
Micah 5:2

But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


This is a prophecy of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the verse tells us that He had no beginning. As the Second Member of the Trinity, He is ETERNAL, or from everlasting, but not in most modern translations:


NIV....... from ancient times

NRSV... from ancient days

REB..... in ancient times

NWT.... from the days of time indefinite

NAB..... from ancient times (vs. 1)

 

KJV stronger?
Daniel 3:25

He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.


This is an excellent Old Testament verse which shows that Jesus Christ existed long before He was born in Bethlehem. Naturally, the new versions will pervert it with pagan foolishness:


NIV....... a son of the gods

NASB... a son of the gods

NRSV... a god

REB..... a god

LB........ a god

NWT.... a son of the gods

NAB..... a son of God (vs. 92

 

I side with HankD on this one. As for the NT Scriptures the Anglican Version is not the standard to compare versions with, the Textus Receptus is, I would opt for Scrivener's.

in 1Cor. 1:25 the pedobaptist high churchian Anglicans rendered "FOOLISHNESS of God". Why don't you King James etc. look up in your Strong's KJV concordance what God's word has to say about Foolishness, then come and tell me how God Almighty fits in the picture! When have you last preached or listened to a sermon in your KJV Only church where the attribute of the "foolishness of God" has been expounded powerfully. If you have never heard it expounded then you deny your own position on the KJV by not preaching the whole counsel of the book you call God's Word, the KJV. If you really were a man of the Book, the Anglican Version 1611, you would not be ashamed of preaching and expounding "the foolishness of God".


Harald

 

The blessed virgin Mary made this same "wicked error" in Luke 2:48 (KJV): And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.

It tells us that he must be about his Father's business, but that Jesus continued in subjection to "them" meaning that he remained in a parent-child relationship with them both.

In Luke 2:41, the KJV undermines the virgin birth of Christ by telling us that his parents (Mary and Joseph) when to Jerusalem. What a sham for this version to lead us to believe that Jesus had earthly parents, when in fact it is a dastardly attack on the virgin birth.

Moral of the story: Failure to think leads to posts that are easily shown to compromise the KJV.


NIV....... The child's father

NASB... His father

NRSV... the child's father

REB...... The child's father

NWT..... its father

NAB...... the child's father [/QB][/QUOTE]

 

you and the devil agree again larry. Boy you are on a roll!

 

Well thought out ...

But did you want to address Mary's wicked error that Luke commits as well?? If calling Joseph, Jesus's father is such a wicked denial of the virgin birth, why did Mary do it as recorded in the KJV? Why did Luke say that Jesus had parents, meaning Mary and Joseph??

Your argument condemns the KJV.

 

Who has "trouble with basic English?" I ask this guy to answer a simple binary question with no runaround, and see his answer above.

Now, if you're not a coward, answer: Do readers who prefer MV's have the Holy Spirit, or do they have an unclean spirit?

 

Herein lies the problem. In this verse, the KJV is "doctrinally stronger" on the subject of Jesus appearing in this case than some of the others. What is at issue is what was written in Hebrew. The Hebrew reads "a god son", god referring not to God the Hebrew God, but to a non-Hebrew god in a polytheistic system. So in this example, the KJV changes the meaning of the original Hebrew, which, IMO is equivalent to adding to scripture, a heretical act if you read it to mean that Jesus was in the fire with them.

"Doctrinally stronger" is by no means a case for translationally accurate.

 

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, then what is it?
It is the Greek and Hebrew texts that the KJV translators used as their source.

It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it's duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
It was protected by copyright when it was first published. The copyright has since expired. All copyrights expire. There are several biblical versions out today that have no copyright.

The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn't.
I guess the fruit is in the eye of the beholder.

The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God's word (Rev. 3:8).
The KJV was not well received by the 1611 audience, For starters, the Elizabethen language had already fallen out of favor in the general populus.

The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we'd know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
That's speculative, IMO.

All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn't it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26. It seems to me that it's the other way around, that KJV onlyists comtinually compare the KJV to other translations, both pre- and post- 1611.


The KJV translators believed they were handling the very words of God (I Ths. 2:13). Just read the King James Dedicatory and compare it to the prefaces in the modern versions. Immediately, you will see a world of difference in the approach and attitude of the translators. Which group would YOU pick for translating a book?
There's no arguement that their effort was an honest one. However, an honest effort is not an arguement for translational exclusivity.

The KJV is supported by far more evidence. Of over 5,300 pieces of manuscript evidence, ninety-five percent supports the King James Bible! The changes in the new versions are based on the remaining five percent of manuscripts, most of which are from Alexandria, Egypt. (There are only two lines of Bibles: the Devil's line from Alexandria, and the Lord's line from Antioch. We'll deal with this later.)
Assumig it was true, it still does not explain errors in translation that we know of now, that they did not know of then.

No one has ever proven that the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
I did, but my posts have generally gone ignored.

The KJV exalts the Lord Jesus Christ. The true scriptures should testify of Jesus Christ (John 5:39). There is no book on this planet which exalts Christ higher than the King James Bible. In numerous places the new perversions attack the Deity of Christ, the Blood Atonement, the Resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, and the Second Coming. The true scriptures will TESTIFY of Jesus Christ, not ATTACK Him!
True translations should simply translate the original to the currently used language. For them to do anything more may result in a biased translation.