Why is it so important to use the KJV only?

I don't think God has graciously provided us with the translations of
Watch Tower Bible ( Jehovah's Witness) and Mormon's Bible.
There are some limits and the degree of accuracy.
I told you that I wasn't born again by reading KJV.
Please try to compare between KJV and others in here:

1) Daniel 9:26
2) Isaiah 53:10
3) Acts 8:37
What was the answer by Philip when you read MV's?
Did Philip answered by action and by silence?
Could anyone defend Infants Baptism by admitting Acts 8:37 is the part of genuine Bible?

There are hundreds more.
Show me any verse where KJV is wrong spiritually and MV's show more spiritual lessons!

 

Did you miss the part where it was mentioned we should thank Him for what He has provided and accept the legitimate Bible versions? Here it is again:

No one is demeaning the KJV here. We only point out that it also has its flaws, just like all the other English translations available to us. No translation is absolutely perfect, whether it is in English, Spanish, Russian or any other language.

 

And according to some here, we do not even have any MSS which are completely without flaws. Therefore; it is impossible to have a perfect Bible whether it be in English, Spanish, Swahili, Greek or Hebrew. But you say we CAN by using Textual Critcism and comparing the available MSS to produce a Bible which is 95% pure? Rat poison is 95% food and 5% poison.

So tell me please. Exactly what do you place your trust in? Don't give me that line about trusting the Holy Spirit for you would not have known about Him were it not for a Bible of some kind. And since we CANNOT have a perfect Bible, how do you even know for sure there is a Holy Spirit?

You see? Ultimately it all comes down to faith doesn't it? My faith is in the KJV. It is completely and totally trustworthy and without error. The others are not. One must have a standard rule. I may not be able to explain apparent errors, but I know there are none. Similarly, I may not be able to explain the Godhead fully, but I know in Whom I have trusted.

Ya gotta take a stand somewhere.

 

Which one is without flaws and how did we get it?

All texts (TR, MajT, Eclectic text) are "restored texts." That is, they have been compiled by the process of textual criticism. They were not preserved intact.

My faith is in Christ. You gotta take a stand somewhere.

 

Please provide the manuscript and the reasons why you believe it is perfect.
To my knowledge there are no complete manuscripts that are fully similar to any other. Which ONE will you pick and why?

Lets follow this through, rat poison is 100% effective so a Bible that may have minor flaws remains effectual… particularly since we have God’s promise that it will remain so.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV

Rob

 

Why? Why wouldn't we compare it to the original languages? That would seem to be the better way to do it.

 

Nice job of nip and tuck there Pastor.

See the post you took quotes out of context from for rebuttal.

 

First, I am not sure that a show's title that glorifies immorality and depravity has any place, even as a reference on this board, or any other place in teh believer's life.

Second, in no place in the above post (or any other post that I have read from you) have you told us which text is without flaws and how you know it.

So rather than dodge, perhaps you could just answer the question.

 

AV1611Jim:So tell me please. Exactly what do you place your trust in?

Every valid version.

Don't give me that line about trusting the Holy Spirit for you would not have known about Him were it not for a Bible of some kind. And since we CANNOT have a perfect Bible, how do you even know for sure there is a Holy Spirit?

Every valid version is perfect for SOMEONE.

You see? Ultimately it all comes down to faith doesn't it? My faith is in the KJV. It is completely and totally trustworthy and without error.

Sorry, but its errors are proven & have been discussed ad nauseum.


The others are not.

More guesswork, no PROOF.

One must have a standard rule. I may not be able to explain apparent errors, but I know there are none.

You know there are none because you refuse to acknowledge their existence despite undeniable proof.


Similarly, I may not be able to explain the Godhead fully, but I know in Whom I have trusted.

There's a lot more to the Godhead than there is to a man-made translation of His word.

Ya gotta take a stand somewhere.

But quicksand isn't a very good place to stand. What ever gave you the idea that God is limited to just one version? Some British believed that in 1610, but were proven wrong. Some believe it in 2006, but have also been proven wrong.

 

Jim, why is it that you don't want to hear "that line about trusting the Holy Spirit?" Don't you care about how the Holy Spirit works in the lives of other believers? Or are you implying that the Holy Spirit cannot possibly be in communication with someone who disagrees with the errant KJVO stance?

Right there is much of your problem, Jim. Your faith is in a man-made translation of God's inerrant word. Yet, because the KJV and all other versions are man-made, they have errors. You have had ample opportunity to learn the truth here because some of the errors in the KJV have been pointed out to you and others time and time again. But you have your minds already made up and no amount of truth is going to make you change your minds. You don't want to be bothered with facts, you just want to go on believing a false doctrine.

We can all have faith in the Bible no matter which legitimate English translation we prefer. But your faith in only the KJV puts a limit on God's ability to preserve His word. You believe God has only enough power to preserve His word in a single version, while "freedom readers" do not believe God's power is so limited. We have faith God is powerful enough to preserve His word in various English Bible translations. God is more powerfule than you give Him credit for being, Jim. He can, and He has, preserved His word in various English Bible translations down through the years.

Yeah, ya gotta take a stand somewhere, and standing against a faith which questions the power of God is where many of us take that stand!

Thank You, God, for preserving Your word for all of us. Thank You for delivering your preserved word in various translations that have been understandable for every generation. And thank You for continuing to preserve Your word as new English Bible translationns are published to keep up with changes in language. Thank You for making Your word as fresh and meaningful in 1611 and in 2006 as when it was written.

 

This is an unfair accusation, IMHO. No one that I know on the KJVO debate questions the power of God. They may interpret the power of God in a different sense. In their mindset they firmly believe in the power of God to preserve His word and empower its hearers 400 year later to properly comprehend and understand it.

I think is unfair to question anyone's faith in the power of God in this debate.

 

I'll respect your position, Roger, even though I don't agree...

 

(Side note) See, it is possible to disagree agreeably .

BTW - Nollaig Shona agus Beanneacht (Happy Christmas and blessings) to all here.

 

Sorta ignoring the elephant in the living room there, Roger.

Hard-core KJVO's claim God has preserved His word through the KJV, and the KJV only. They also insinuate that a power other than God is behind all other translations by their simple ommission in that stated belief.

As for me, meh. I keep my faith in God and God alone. I tend to use the NKJV for the most part, but am known to use the KJV, NIV, NASB, and others from time to time. And I can do so without fear of losing my faith in God and His word.

While I understand Jim's stance, I also see the short-sightedness of it (as I have written above). And all the poppycock being tossed about without anything to back it up is just silly.

 

First of all, being a believer doesn't have to do with what version of the Bible you use, but on God alone. I think you know that.

Also, the word "love" has many different meanings and each of those meanings has perhaps different nuances.

So, given the criteria you presented as a test of salvation, I can't know for certain if you are a believer.

However, if the Spirit of Christ dwells within you then choose the version of the Bible of His leading whatever it might be and you will be safe.​

HankD ​

 

Some of my friends are KJVO, not because they believe KJV is perfect and inerrant, but because they find KJV is spiritually superior to any MV's in almost all the verses, and because they don't want to waste much time in reading worse ones but read the Bible which is spiritually sound and correct, despite some inconveniences with archaic language of KJV.

In the post above, I suggested any one can post any verses where KJV is spiritually wrong while MV's are providing better spiritual interpretation.
Can anyone show us 2 verses where MV's are better or more accurate than MV's ?

I have already suggested many verses where KJV makes more sense or accurate, or giving more spiritual lessons than MV's, and if needed I can show you more verses.

 

How do you distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate ?

If any Bible translate homosexualists or sodomites into some bad people, while Watch Tower Bible translate them as homosexualists and sodomites as the original texts, which one is legitimate and which one is illegitimate ?

Do we have any procedure where we can screen out the legitimates?

 

Sure, how about whole books of the Bible?

My 1611 First Edition AV King James (facsimile of course) contains the book Bel and the Dragon.

My NKJV does not.

BTW, the Church of England who holds ownership in perpetuity of the King James Version of the Bible, still (and officially) promotes the Apocrypha:

So, while they say that they don't "establish" any doctrine they do serve as an "example of life and instruction in manners", therefore you may pray for the dead according to this admonishment.

Does this apply to the "poison" Apocrypha which was included in (and is still officially promoted by the owners in perpetuity) of the first and subsequent several editions of the 1611AV?


HankD

 

Let's see, Eliyahu...Wherever 'sodomite(s)' appears in the KJV, the Hebrew word is 'qadesh', which means 'male temple prostitute, which, given the methods of idol worship in ancient times, implies they're homosexuals.( This was especially so among the Sumerians, & wasa feature in the religion established by Nimrod & Semiramis. However, the word 'homosexual' wasn't coined til 1892, so we can't fault the AV translators for using other words. The word 'sodomy' came from the Old French; the British quickly invented 'sodomite' for 'homosexual', although it originally meant someone who practices a certain form of sexual intercourse, as the term is used today.

However, 'lesbian' in its present English meaning first appears in literature in 1591. It came about from the island's most well-known ancient inhabitant, Sappho, who wrote poems about having sex with both men & other women. The Scriptures contain no specific word for a female HS, so the AV men had no occasion to use 'lesbian'.

However, later translators had 'homosexual' available to use, and, given the current usage of 'sodomy/sodomite' HS is the more appropriate word.


Given the Hebrew, we cannot discount the rendering 'male shrine/temple prostitute' for 'qadesh' . Is that legit enuff?

 

You should know what is meant by legitimate Bible version as long as you have been participating here at BB, Eliyahu. Legitimate Bible versions are the mainstream Bible versions translated by folks who really want to pass on God's word. Non-legitimate Bible versions are those "translated" so that certain errant groups can finally have a Bible that agrees with heretical teachings. Some such versions are the Clear Word Translation used by Seventh Day Adventists, the New World Translation used by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the Inspired Version also known as the Joseph Smith Translation used by the Mormons. These are not legitimate Bible versions because they were translated with an intent rather than the intent of spreading God's word. These versions were "translated" with a specific agenda in mind - to make the Bible agree with errant teachings it had never supported before.