Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?

[Praus]

can't believe your blatantly saying the word of God is wrong ?

I wrote many posts about the KJV-only issue, none of which say the word of God is wrong. If you care such a great deal then why don't you comment on KJV-onlyist Bible burning?

It's right here in this thread, for some reason you ignore it and drag things over from other threads.

I look forward to your insightful analysis, or perhaps you can join brother ChosenByHim and burn some NIV Bibles.

But the burning of those NIVs is justifiable. The NIV is an abomination.

The KJV translators on the topic of Bible burning of medieval and early modern Catholics:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (1769)
"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men--that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility--had not their hand? The Romanists therefore, in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less than despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express."

Matt 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

KJV-onlyism is the same as medieval European Catholicism: same methods, different target.

[video=youtube;r5T2aqbyxuA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5T2aqbyxuA[/video]

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Wrong TannarDarr.

There is a true Bible. It is God's perfect, pure, preserved and inerrant word. And that is the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

You need to study this issue more.

God promised to preserve His words:


Psalm 12:6-7 KJV
The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. [7] Thou shalt keep them, O Lord , thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

No your wrong.

The Only inspired word is the word in the origional manuscripts penned by the origional authors. All others are just copies. And translations, each translation is made with the tranlators biases involeved.

If the english text was actually translated in its entirety to true form. the bible would be twice as big as the kjv or any other version.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

No your wrong.

The Only inspired word is the word in the origional manuscripts penned by the origional authors. All others are just copies.

Eternally-gratefull,

Where in the Bible is there a command to preach the original manuscripts?

Also, where does it say that only the original manuscripts are inspired?

Could you please provide chapter and verse?

 

[brandplucked]

In regards to Praus's post about "a house" or "an house".

As Bugs Bunny would say: " What a maroon!" Try learning something about the English language and the use of the indefinite article before vowel sounds.

 

[Praus]

so what is the " true bible " sir? if it isn't the king james bible

In regards to Praus's post about "a house" or "an house".

As Bugs Bunny would say: " What a maroon!" Try learning something about the English language and the use of the indefinite article before vowel sounds.

So which is correct: "a house" or "an house"? The KJV translators wrote it both ways for a reason I assume, but it's not clear to me.

If you know the answer you must tell us because brother ChosenByHim assures us that you'll be answering for it at the Judgement Seat of Christ if you withhold this valuable information!

Now is it wrong once you learn about the Bible Version Issue to continue to use the new versions and to defend them? Yes it is wrong. And those Christians who know about the real issue and continue to persist in their error will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.

Prov 6:16-17 ¶ These six [things] doth YHVH hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him: A proud look, ...(KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

A maroon is a runaway slave by the way--I love my Master and Savior and Messiah, Jesus Christ. I'm not leaving and I have nowhere to go anyway.

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Master Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Exod 21:5-6 And if the slave shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free: Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever. (KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

1 Pet 2:16 As free, and not using [your] liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the slaves of God. (KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

Rom 1:1 ¶ Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

James 1:1 ¶ James, a slave of God and of the Master Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. (KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

2 Pet 1:1 ¶ Shimˁown Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ: (KJV Lamb's Bread Edition)

 

[ChosenbyHim]

No your wrong.

The Only inspired word is the word in the origional manuscripts penned by the origional authors.

Eternally-gratefull, I see that you still have not answered my two questions. And I know why. It is simply because you know that there is no Scripture supporting what you stated about the original manuscripts.

Therefore, you are wrong sir.

Inspiration did not stop at the Original Autographs. But Inspiration continued on. Inspiration was and is kept through preservation down through the centuries.

What good would it be to give the words of Scripture by inspiration if those very words were not going to be kept through preservation?

Seriously consider your position Eternally-grateful. When Paul told Timothy in 2 Timothy 3:15 that from a child he had known the holy Scriptures, Paul was not referring to the original manuscripts. Paul was referring to a copy that Timothy had.

So not only are you wrong but your statement about the Original manuscripts is unbiblical.

 

[Nautilus]

Chosenneither you nor brandplucked answered the question of why God waited until 1611 in england to finally give us an infallible copy of His Word. Where is the answer for that?

 

[Trax]

Let's look at this again:
Exo 20:25 And if thou wilt make me an altar of stone, thou shalt not build it of hewn stone:
for if thou lift up thy tool upon it, thou hast polluted it.

When man starts tampering with God's word, he pollutes it. That is why it is highly
important that the Bible you read from be "God authorized and God inspired."
People ask, "what's the difference?" Well, what's the difference between drinking
clean water and drinking polluted water? Everyone of you would make a big out of
drinking clean water. You would protect your physical body, but the mind, is treated
like a garbage can, where anything goes. Why treat the body better than the mind?
Drink enough polluted water and you get sick and/or die. You may even go blind.

Now take a step back and remember all the threads on these forums. How many times
have you seen threads discussing:
1. Who is Jesus
2. Grace/Law
3. Being saved
4. Trinity
and so on.....

This is happens when people go through life drinking polluted water. They don't even know
who Jesus is. They don't even know correct doctrine anymore. If a Bible version is man made,
then its polluted and it will go into your mind, if you read and study it. Jesus gives living water.
Man gives polluted water. Believing the water is pollution free, don't make it so.
You need to know just what you injest, because over time, it will take its toil.
And the common diseases that come from years of drinking polluted water are:
1. Don't know who Jesus really is
2. A build up of false doctrine
3. Spiritual blindness

The biggest problem facing the body of Christ isn't all the false doctrine and beliefs, but the
cause of the ailments. Its what you drink and eat.

 

[Praus]

Inspiration did not stop at the Original Autographs. But Inspiration continued on. Inspiration was and is kept through preservation down through the centuries.

Brother ChosenByHim, that's exactly what we've been saying: "inspiration continued on". It's plain to see in the 2011 NIV.

All of the following are very good to excellent translations, the KJV is the hardest to understand, harder than the 1599 Geneva Bible.

Geneva Bible
Job 9:33 Neither is there any umpire that might lay his hand upon us both. (GNV)

King James Bible
Job 9:33 Neither is there any daysman betwixt us, [that] might lay his hand upon us both. (KJV/PCE)

New King James Bible
Job 9:33 Nor is there any mediator between us, [Who] may lay his hand on us both. (NKJV)

New American Standard Bible
Job 9:33 “There is no umpire between us, Who may lay his hand upon us both. (NASB)

English Standard Version
Job 9:33 There is no arbiter between us, who might lay his hand on us both. (ESV)

New International Version
Job 9:33 If only there were someone to mediate between us, someone to bring us together, (NIV)

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Job 9:33 There is no one to judge between us, to lay his hand on both of us. (HCSB)

Lexham English Bible
Job 9:33 There is no arbiter between us [that] he might lay his hand on both of us. (LEB)

NET Bible
Job 9:33 Nor is there an arbiter between us, who might lay his hand on us both, (NET)

 

[brandplucked]

So which is correct: "a house" or "an house"? The KJV translators wrote it both ways for a reason I assume, but it's not clear to me.

It is not only the KJB that has both "a house" and "an house" but so also do Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, and Youngs literal. English has been changing over the years, not only in how words are spelled but in some cases, how they are pronounced. If a word starts with a vowel sound, then we use "the" pronounced like Thee, like thee apple, thee orange, thee evil, and if it begins with a consonant sound we say the like Thuh, like thuh grape, thuh boy, thuh truth. In the case of words beginning with "h" English has been changing over the centuries. Even today some of this remains. We say Thee hour, and Thee horoscope, but we now say thuh horse,and thuh harness. It depends on whether or not the "h" word begins with a vowel sound or a consonant sound. In older English the "h" words were in transition and pronounced both ways. So a lot of times when the KJB and older bibles have either "a house" or "an house", both were correct and they changed depending on the sounds of the words in the context.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

 

[brandplucked]

Chosenneither you nor brandplucked answered the question of why God waited until 1611 in england to finally give us an infallible copy of His Word. Where is the answer for that?

Hi Nautilus. You are forgetting the huge white elephant standing in the middle of the room, and this is that YOU and so many others today do not believe that God has EVER given us an infallible copy of a complete (66 books in a single volume) word of God type Bible. The originals never did make up an entire Bible, and they certainly do not exist today. And you don't believe that ANY Bible IS the infallible words of God NOW.

I have addressed your point in the article "Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?".

KJB only "blow up"? - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

 

[Sanashankar]

The same concept holds true in Koine Greek. The words for "World", "all", "everyone", "Everything" and the like are used in non universal terms.

So too with nonuniversal terms. You don't even have an argument, regardless of what you think the greek word for eternity means.

There is a reason the word is translated the way it is. That's what it means. This is why I question your mastery of the English language. You seem to not be able to understand the translation. Yet you insist you know Koine Greek so well. All you've done is heard what a heretical preacher/teacher said about the word.

Feeling good?? i should say...u have a very good christian attitude. you dont know anything but to humiliate and insult others in the name of God.

The New Testament in Modern Speech, by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e., "of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify "during," but "belong to" the aeons or ages."

The Interpreter’s Dictionry of the Bible (vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life," then "age," "lifetime."

Elliot’s Commentary on the Whole Bible (Matt. 25:46(. Everlasting punishment--life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word, aionios—it must be admitted that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25).

Hasting’s Dictionary of the New Testament (Vol. I, p. 542, art. Christ and the Gospels): Eternity. There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. (Vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlasting—nonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering of aionios which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun aion from which it comes. (p. 370):

The chronoios aioniois moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the pro chronon aionion of II Tim. 1:9; Titus. 1:2. (Note: pro chronon aionion means "BEFORE times eonian." Since this Scripture tells us that there was time "before" eonian, eionian cannot possibly mean eternal, for nothing can be "before" eternity.)

The large Catholic Bible dictionary, The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible (p. 693): ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gen. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as ‘forever,’ means in itself no more than ‘for an indefinitely long period." Thus me olam does not mean ‘from eternity’ but ‘of old’ Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam. (Note: even the Catholic translators of The Jerusalem Bible and The New American Bible have failed to heed the scholarship of their own Catholic authorities.)

Dr. R. F. Weymouth, a translator who was adept in Greek, states in The New Testament in Modern Speech (p. 657), Eternal, Greek aeonion, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed does not signify, "during" but "belonging to" the aeons or ages.

Dr. Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament (Vol. IV, p. 59). The adjective aionios in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting.’ Anionios means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.

Dr. F. W. Farrar, author of The Life of Christ and The Life and Word of St. Paul, as well as books about Greek grammar and syntax, writes in The Eternal Hope (p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are ‘endless’ does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant ‘endless;’ and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd."

Professor Knappe of Halle wrote, "The Hebrew was destitute of any single word to express endless duration. The pure idea of eternity is NOT FOUND IN ANY OF THE ANCIENT LANGUAGES." (CAPS emphasis are mine).

An Alphabetical Analysis by Charles H. Welch (Editor of The Berean Expositor and a man well versed in Greek), (Vol. 1, p. 279), "Eternity is not a Biblical theme." (Vol. 1, p. 52), "What we have to learn is that the Bible does not speak of eternity. It is not written to tell us of eternity. Such a consideration is entirely outside the scope of revelation."

Time and Eternity by G. T. Stevenson, (p. 63), "Since, as we have seen, the noun aion refers to a period of time it appears, very improbable that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show that such a concept was expressed by this term."




You think all these scholars were fools, heretical and those who doesnt know your english or Greek language like me? Stop proving others wrong and start learning.

 

[Praus]

In regards to Praus's post about "a house" or "an house".

As Bugs Bunny would say: " What a maroon!" Try learning something about the English language and the use of the indefinite article before vowel sounds.

So which is correct: "a house" or "an house"? The KJV translators wrote it both ways for a reason I assume, but it's not clear to me.

It is not only the KJB that has both "a house" and "an house" but so also do Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops' Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, and Youngs literal. English has been changing over the years, not only in how words are spelled but in some cases, how they are pronounced. If a word starts with a vowel sound, then we use "the" pronounced like Thee, like thee apple, thee orange, thee evil, and if it begins with a consonant sound we say the like Thuh, like thuh grape, thuh boy, thuh truth. In the case of words beginning with "h" English has been changing over the centuries. Even today some of this remains. We say Thee hour, and Thee horoscope, but we now say thuh horse,and thuh harness. It depends on whether or not the "h" word begins with a vowel sound or a consonant sound. In older English the "h" words were in transition and pronounced both ways. So a lot of times when the KJB and older bibles have either "a house" or "an house", both were correct and they changed depending on the sounds of the words in the context.

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

Were correct, but no longer correct in the English language. The letter "h" in house has an audible consonant sound so "a house" is correct and "an house" is incorrect.

Purdue OWL: Articles: A versus An

Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. (KJV Pure Cambridge Edition)

2 Cor 5:1 ... we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (KJV Pure Cambridge Edition)

Is this an acceptable spelling reform, like vnicorne to unicorn? What would Bugs Bunny say?

2 Cor 5:1 ... we have a building of God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. (KJV Reformed Cambridge Edition)

 

[Sanashankar]

There is a reason the word is translated the way it is. That's what it means. This is why I question your mastery of the English language. You seem to not be able to understand the translation. Yet you insist you know Koine Greek so well. All you've done is heard what a heretical preacher/teacher said about the word.

Yes there is a reason, to deceive the whole world. To portray true loving God as some terrorist who kills all the families including children, who does not accept his Son.

You are dead wrong when u say eternity is the rite word because this verse is not the truth

Re 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.

forever??????dont u know that jesus christ will submit everything to God, including himself??????

1C 15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.

 

[Nautilus]

Hi Nautilus. You are forgetting the huge white elephant standing in the middle of the room, and this is that YOU and so many others today do not believe that God has EVER given us an infallible copy of a complete (66 books in a single volume) word of God type Bible. The originals never did make up an entire Bible, and they certainly do not exist today. And you don't believe that ANY Bible IS the infallible words of God NOW.

I have addressed your point in the article "Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Bible?".

KJB only "blow up"? - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Luke 8:8

that doesnt actually answer my question at all though. You never sais why He waited till 1611. Seems like His word would be important enough to get out there asap...not 1600 years later.

 

[Praus]

that doesnt actually answer my question at all though. You never sais why He waited till 1611. Seems like His word would be important enough to get out there asap...not 1600 years later.

It didn't go out in 1611. There were printing errors in the 1611 version, which means that only "infallible" word of God were the exact set of handwritten papers that were delivered to the King's Printer Robert Barker.

Robert Barker (printer) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not clear if all of the printing errors in the 1611 KJV were corrected by subsequent printings.

Interesting KJV facts:

Queen's Printer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The holder of the letters patent has the nearly exclusive right of printing, publishing and importing the King James Bible and Book of Common Prayer within the United Kingdom's jurisdiction."

"... separate sets of letters patent grant the Oxford University Press and Cambridge University Press the right to print and distribute the King James Bible and Book of Common Prayer regardless of who holds the office of Queen's Printer."

 

[Wall]

Yeah, the ole King James. The rest of those books they call a bible are written with a denomination slant to fit there doctines. Lotta truths are lost in those other books. Wax old and obsolete are not even close to the same word meaning and yet that's as far as they would go in hiding the truth.

 

[DragonSlayer]

NO SCRIPTURE IS NOT!

The message in the Scripture is. THE MESSAGE THE TEACHINGS not the scripture.

Hi! There's absolutely no difference between the Scripture and the Message or the Teachings !
It's the same !
Jesus Himself is called The Word !

 

[Quickfire]

is the pope a catholic

 

[brandplucked]

that doesnt actually answer my question at all though. You never sais why He waited till 1611. Seems like His word would be important enough to get out there asap...not 1600 years later.

Nautilus, YOU don't believe God has EVER managed to put together a perfect and infallible Bible. Let's keep that fact firmly before our minds. You don't have an infallible Bible you can show us or believe in yourself NOW, let alone one from 150 A.D. or 1500 A.D. or 1611 A.D. or 2013 A.D.