Featured Is the King James Bible the Word of God?

I believe the Word of God is preserved in many of the translations...in the Spirit of what was to be translated, not necessarily in the "word for word" of it that most who hold to such a theory believe. It's impossible to have a word for word translations, though they, through their poor exegesis of certain verses, would have one believe that it is indeed possible. Yes, every word of God is pure, and not one jot or tittle will pass away, but nowhere does it say that there will be a word-for-word translation of the same. They like to point to a verse about the word being purified 7x...and use numerology to say that this is the KJV...UGH! How stupid can people be? I know of NO translation that demeans the Gospel of Christ, the Sovereignty of God or elevates man above God.

 

Better vocabulary? I doubt it. But the KJV is as much God's word as any other fairly-accurate translation.

 

Please post the passages....I'd like to see them. I used to use the NIV and don't recall any such passages.

 

You are taking one verse out of the whole passage and trying to make it say exactly what the KJV says...read it in context in the NIV, the preceeding verses...UGH...it doesn't take away from Christ being God....I hate when KJV people try to misrepresent other versions like this...Dishonest to the core, and it really injures what the Spirit of God can do in people's lives.

 

They don't have the same underlying texts...so why compare apples and oranges. Dishonest on your part.

 

HORSE FEATHERS !
God created all languages, & He expresses Himself in whatever language(s) He has given to His audience(s) for the occasion. A prime example is Acts 2:1-12 when Peter, speaking in his own language, was heard by his audience in whatever language each one used.

 

@AVL1984,
Many of the so called modern translations are dishonest. And easily proven.

 

Horse feathers? Good grief, how old are you?

The post was just a bit of “Tomfoolery” … and I prefer “balderdash” or “stuff and nonsense”. I once had an entire sheet of approved alternatives.

 

Who is to say they both aren't? I don't limit God...why do you? Remember, these aren't word-for-word underlying texts...there were, and have been, scribal errors, omissions, corrections, and additions. Still, they don't affect the underlying doctrines and purpose of God. The only ones that were perfect, which "onlies" like to deny, are the originals, which we no longer have. "Onlies" are the ones causing the confusion by trying to negate the Alexandrian underlying texts as "ungodly." Prove it. They can't. Nowhere do they negate God's holiness, love, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. The doctrines aren't affected. You're always welcome to your opinion no matter how ludicrous and divisive it is.

 

Bologna! If it's so easily proven...do so. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

 

Do you really care what the word of God actually is to say?

The Text of the Gospels: "Some Manuscripts Say . . ." - The Problem with Footnotes

 

Well, I don't doubt it! Haha

The quality and depth of the vocabulary is far beyond anything in our modern and simplistic version of English. I get more out of a verse from the KJV than I get our of an NIV verse.

My wife loves to use the NIV, and whenever there's a question about an unclear NIV verse I pull up the KJV and it's crystal clear. My children study with the KJV for that specific reason.

 

I honestly didn't expect you to answer...and I was right. Thanks. It just helps to prove my point. A typical stall tactic of the "onlies." Sad, really...very sad.