What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bible?

[Agricola]

Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

I though you did a pretty good job of explaining why the NKJV is wrong yourself. If you can't see the differences in meaning, maybe you should take a remedial English course. The NKJV is a fake bible. If you want to use it, go right ahead. But don't try to claim it is the inerrant words of God. It clearly is not if you had actually READ the link I gave you.

I did not explain anything, I just asked a question, the rest of the text is lifted from the dialtruth ministries, which states that those verses are evil perverted verses, so I am asking ... WHY?????

Yet again no one has even attempted to tell my why.

 

[Praus]

Re: What about the "old fashioned" and even "archaic" language of the King James Bibl

wow you all know how to write some longgggg posts. I tried to read most of it. I like the KJV because it is the only version that does not have copywritten rights.

The Geneva Bible is really nice, no copyright. It was translated by Calvinists far away from England, so the king couldn't mess with their work.

Geneva Bible (Chapter by Chapter) OldeBible.com - Ye Olde Bible, eBible! <- read here

Also is was authorized by a King. Yes, a worldly king, however if you believe the Word the Lord said he sets up all the powers and this is the only version that he chose a king for this matter.

The KJV is not the only version authorized by a king, this excellent translation is out of copyright as well.

Great Bible (Chapter by Chapter) OldeBible.com - Ye Olde Bible, eBible! <- read here

Great Bible - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Great Bible was the first authorized edition of the Bible in English, authorized by King Henry VIII of England to be read aloud in the church services of the Church of England.

In fact, looking at the cover page, you can see how highly king Henry VIII thinks of the 1539 Great Bible. The heavens are opening above the king's head while he sits on his royal throne--it must a perfect Bible!





On a final note, the KJV is still under copyright in the UK, unlike the Geneva Bible and the Great Bible.

King James Version - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. However, in the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is a Royal prerogative and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[153]

Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[153] All provisions granting copyright in perpetuity were abolished by the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988, but under transitional arrangements (Schedule I, section 13(1)) these printing rights do not fully expire until 2039.

On a final, final note--here's a tidbit about English kings.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

 

[brandplucked]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

First of all, I do not believe your "quote" from Winston Churchill is accurate or true at all. I think you got it from this goofy article that some other Bible agnostic wrote and he just made it up. I cannot find this "quote" anywhere except from the same site and others who copied it.

Here is a good video teaching done at a recent Dean Burgon Society meeting discussing the true king James and this silly charge of him being a homo.

Video Dr. Phil Stringer - king James not a homo - 55 minutes quite good


The Real Story of King James - YouTube


King James loved his wife, wrote love poems to her all his life and they had eight children together. Strange behavior for a homo.

Secondly, king James himself had nothing to do with translating the King James Bible.

Thirdly, YOU yourself do not have nor do you believe yourself that ANY Bible in Any language IS the complete and infallible words of God, so you have made your own mind and personal preferences your "final authority" subject to change at any moment.

And finally, the King James Bible is right for saying "earring" and not "ring for her nose" in spite of what you or anyone else says about it. It is GOD who has honored and used this Book far, far more than any other in history and it is the only Bible honestly believed by thousands even today to be the infallible words of the living God.

All those on the other side of this issue are like you - unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language on this earth. You guys will NEVER show us a copy of what you believe or defend as the complete and inerrant words of God.

"earring" or "nose ring"?


Genesis 24:47 “earring upon her face” or “a nose ring on her nose”?

In the King James Holy Bible we read of the servant of Abraham traveling to a foreign land to find a virgin bride for Abraham’s son Isaac. The servant finds a young woman named Rebecca and he gives her “a golden EARRING and two bracelets for her hands” (24:20) Her brother Laban sees “the EARRING and bracelets upon his sister’s hands” (24:30) and the servant later testifies how the Lord God of his master Abraham had guided him and how he had “put the EARRING UPON HER FACE, and the bracelets upon her hands.” (Genesis 24:47)

"EARRING" is also the reading found in Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1534 - "And I put the earynge vpon hir face and the bracelettes apon hir hondes.", Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540 - "the man toke a golden earynge", Matthew's Bible 1549 - "he toke a golden earing", Bishops' Bible 1568 - "and I put the earring vpon her face", Webster's translation 1833, Brenton's Translation 1851, the Lesser Bible 1853, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Complete Apostle's Bible 2005 - "and I put on her the earrings" and the 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture.

However versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, Holman Standard, RSV, ESV and NET translations tell us that the unnamed servant of Abraham didn’t give Rebeccah an EARRING but rather A NOSE RING to put in her nose.

Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The previous Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both correct read "EARRING", but the St. Joseph New American bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 says: "Then I put this RING THROUGH HER NOSE". But then the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has now come out and it has gone back to the reading of "EARRINGS". -"And so, I hung the EARRINGS on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands."

The Amplified bible 1987 can't seem to make up its mind, so it gives us BOTH readings, saying: "And I put the EARRING OR NOSE RING on her face and the bracelets on her arms." (Hey, it was one or the other; I just can't remember right now ;-)

NKJV 1982 - “the man took a golden NOSE RING”...”So I put THE NOSE RING ON HER NOSE” - Genesis 24:22,47.

The Hebrew word for “face” (#639 aph) has many meanings and is variously translated by all versions as “face, anger, nostrils, nose, wrath and forehead.” The NKJV has translated this same word as “face” some 20 times, and the NIV, NASB as “face” 19 times.

The Hebrew word translated as “earring” is # 5141 neh-zem, and is used only 17 times and the KJB correctly translates it as “earring” 14 of the 17 times, and as “jewel” three times. It is never translated as “nose ring” in the KJB. The NKJV, NIV, NASB and ESV have translated it as both “earring” and “nose ring”, with the NKJV having “earring” 10 times, the NASB 7 times and the NIV as “earring” 6 times.

You have to admit, there is a difference when your wife or girlfriend wears earrings and when she might chose to wear a nose ring. So, does God’s infallible Book tell us that Rebecca wore an EARRING of gold on her face (***the ear is a part of the face) or “a NOSE RING IN HER NOSE”? If you do not believe in an infallible Bible, then you will never know.

Maybe it was as a couple of other weird versions put it. The English Jubilee bible 2000 says: "Then I put THE PENDANT OVER HER NOSE." or perhaps as the Ancient Roots Translinear Version of 2008 has it saying: “I set THE HOOP OVER HER NOSE, and the bracelets over her hands.” Now, that must have been a sight to see, huh?

***The ears are part of the human face.

American Heritage Dictionary - the face - The surface of the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the base of the chin and from ear to ear.

Webster’s New World English Dictionary, 4th Edition. the Face - the front of the head from the top of the forehead to the bottom of the chin, and from ear to ear; visage; countenance.

The Wordsmyth English Dictionary - the face -the part of the head that extends from the forehead to the chin and from ear to ear.

The UltraLingua English Dictionary - the face - The front of the head from the forehead to the chin and ear to ear

Because we Bible believers do believe that God has in fact given us an infallible Bible in the Authorized King James Holy Bible, we maintain that it was an earring and not a nose ring that Rebecca, the young bride to be, wore on that day.

Other Bible translations that agree with the KJB that it was an earring.

Wycliffe 1395 - “hangide eere ryngis to ourne (to adorn) hir face”

Tyndale 1534 (he translated part of the O.T. before being put to death) - “And I put the earynge vpon hir face”

Coverdale 1535 - “Then layed I the earinge vpon hir face”

The Great Bible (Cranmer) of 1540, and Matthew’s Bible (John Rogers) of 1549 - “And I put the earing vpon hyr face, and the bracelettes vpon hyr handes.”

Bishops’ Bible 1568 - “and I put the earring vpon her face, and the bracelettes vpon her handes.”

Webster’s 1833 translation, and the 1851 Brenton Translation - “and I put the ear-ring upon her face”

The Douay-Rheims - “So I put earrings on her to adorn her face”

Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “and I put the EARRINGS ON HER EARS and the bracelets on her hands.”

The so called Greek Septuagint has - “So I put on her the EARRINGS” (τὰ ἐνώτια) Verses 22, 30, 47.

And the Modern Greek translation reads the same having “I put the earrings on her face” - και περιεθεσα τα ενωτια εις το προσωπον αυτης

The 21st Century KJV 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version all read like the KJB.

The 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture - “and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.”

The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - “And so, I hung the earrings on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands.”

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - KJB Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[Agricola]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

I will not say your ignorance is outstanding and your intellect rivals that of an amoeba, as it is clearly you are just being good cult members and repeating everything your cult leaders tell you to. However I will level that charge at your cult leaders.

It is amazing how much you have to say in order to prove the King James is perfect and ear ring is the correct translation. However it is wrong.

Nose rings are used by many cultures as a symbol of betrothal. This was a common practice in middle eastern regions at the time. There are still Middle eastern peoples who still continue to use nose rings as betrothal symbols, but as the region has been converted to Islam the practice hardly remains, although there are a few Bedouin who do. Tribes that used to be present in the Middle East live in Africa today and they continue with the practice of using nose rings as marriage symbols. Then of course there is India and Pakistan, where the tradition is alive and well and is very popular.

It is impossible for you to prove it was an ear ring, if it was clear it was an ear ring then this disucssion would not be taking place.

Can you not see how much time satan is denying you by making you have to defend King James Onlyism? Look how hard you have to work to try and prove something, yet failing. Please give up this cult and its ridiculous claims over King James 1611.

 

[Agricola]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

Actually I couldn't give a monkeys if it was facer ing, nose ring, forehead ring or lip ring.

The only people who get worked up about this is the King James Onlyists. There cult binds them to it and they are duty bound to make a mountain out of the molehill.

Why is this, why is it insignificant words have to be defended at all costs?

Well its obvious really. As they claim that the King James 1611 is perfect in every letter and puncuation from God, then of course anything else which dosnt match EXACTLY has to be from satan to corrupt it.

If they even conceed the fact it COULD be nose ring, they then have to consider every other "corruption", further the fragile tower block they have built would come crashing down about them if even the most insignificant difference is accepted.

Therefore this is why they obsess about differences to the point where they even obsess about capital letters and punctuation. This is a sad state of affairs in deed, I am glad I am not bound to this or burdened by it.


It is theologically dangerous to have just one translation of Gods Word. It is the message that counts not the exact words of the message.

Spot the difference:

"Are you coming out tonight"?
"Can you come out later this evening"?

 

[Praus]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

First of all, I do not believe your "quote" from Winston Churchill is accurate or true at all. I think you got it from this goofy article that some other Bible agnostic wrote and he just made it up. I cannot find this "quote" anywhere except from the same site and others who copied it.

Does "cannot find" mean cannot find on the internet? If so, that's because of copyright laws.

A History of the English-Speaking Peoples (The Birth of Britain / The New World / The Age of Revolution / The Great Democracies): Winston S. Churchill: 9780880294270: Amazon.com: Books

Here is a good video teaching done at a recent Dean Burgon Society meeting discussing the true king James and this silly charge of him being a homo.

Video Dr. Phil Stringer - king James not a homo - 55 minutes quite good

I'm obsessed with European history--but I don't have the chutzpah to recommend that any spends 55 mins of their life watching that--in fact, I'm going to watch Jesus Christ Superstar for the 10,000th time in a row instead.

King James loved his wife, wrote love poems to her all his life and they had eight children together. Strange behavior for a homo.

How about John Calvin? Did he write love poems to his wife? Martin Luther? Shakespeare wrote love sonnets and he used the Geneva Bible.

I have no idea, really, I don't have the expertise that comes from years of studying these "homo" to say if a "homo" writing love poems is "strange behavior [sic]".

Secondly, king James himself had nothing to do with translating the King James Bible.

The Reformed Reader introduction to the geneva bible for the historic Baptist faith.

"King James did not encourage a translation of the Bible in order to enlighten the common people. His sole intent was to deny them the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The marginal notes of the Geneva version were what made it so popular with the common people.'

James was offended by marginal notes like this--which teaches that disobedience to the king is lawful. What do the side notes in the 1611 KJV say for Exod 1:19? It's not what the Geneva Bible says, I'll tell you that.

Exod 1:19 And the midwives answered Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew * women are not as the women of Egypt: for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come at them.
Exod 1:19 * Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil.

Ex 1 GNV - The Second Book of Moses, called Exodus - Bible Gateway

Thirdly, YOU yourself do not have nor do you believe yourself that ANY Bible in Any language IS the complete and infallible words of God, so you have made your own mind and personal preferences your "final authority" subject to change at any moment.

Your "final authority" is the "interpret it any way you want" school of thought, not anything actually based on the Protestant Reformation.

"Four years after the last Geneva Bible was printed, the Thirty Years War (the last of the great religious wars of Europe) ground to a halt. Millions had died. Germany was so depopulated it took her two centuries to recover. The Reformation had survived. It didn't survive for long.

After several generations of English speakers grew up without the stabilizing influence of the Geneva marginal notes, the "interpret it any way you want" school of thought came into fashion. The "charismatic" movement was in full swing by 1730."

You have to admit, there is a difference when your wife or girlfriend wears earrings and when she might chose to wear a nose ring. ... If you do not believe in an infallible Bible, then you will never know.

On the topic of never knowing, I put a gay test in post #117--it doesn't have anything to do with writing love poems...

http://christianchat.com/bible-disc...-language-king-james-bible-6.html#post1210334

Lamsa’s 1933 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - “and I put the EARRINGS ON HER EARS and the bracelets on her hands.”

I grew up in one of Syrian churches and I treat Lamsa's translation with as much gravitas as the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses. You're seriously scraping at the bottom of the barrel here.

CRI Journal - CRJ0032A

Syriac language and Christianity is very rewarding to study and I'd recommend it for anyone with the time and interest and discernment. Before going that path make sure that you're really solid in what the NT says in the Greek.

and the 2001 Urim-Thummin Version all read like the KJB.

The 2008 Torah Transliteration Scripture - “and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands.”

The 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version - “And so, I hung the earrings on her, to adorn her face, and I put the bracelets on her hands.”

I disagree strongly that citing two Messianic and one Catholic translation are helpful to your case on a site called Christian Chat. I'm going to suggest the opposite, in fact: you are trying to make the KJV look bad by associating it with those Bibles.

I'm a Christian and I love the KJV (a Cambridge man). I would never engage in any such writing because I don't entertain whatever spirits are whispering into your ear.

 

[brandplucked]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

Hi Praus. Well, remain in the darkness of ignorance if you wish. But king James was no homo. You bible agnostic types will latch onto anything you can, no matter how imaginary or false in nature, to try to discredit the only Bible believed by thousands to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of God, so you can follow your own minds and personal preferences. Do you have an inerrant Bible in any language? Of course not. Maybe you should just go all the way and write your own bible version. Who knows? In these whacky daze, you just might sell a few copies and become famous. Happy trails.

 

[JHM]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

If you use the "Lord's Prayer" published in the "King Jimmy" you are praying to the Devil. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead and do it.

 

[Praus]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

Hi Praus. Well, remain in the darkness of ignorance if you wish. But king James was no homo. You bible agnostic types will latch onto anything you can, no matter how imaginary or false in nature, to try to discredit the only Bible believed by thousands to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of God, so you can follow your own minds and personal preferences. Do you have an inerrant Bible in any language? Of course not. Maybe you should just go all the way and write your own bible version. Who knows? In these whacky daze, you just might sell a few copies and become famous. Happy trails.

You missed the point completely. I don't think any scholars really care about the nature of King James' sexuality--not enough to watch a 55 minute video. Christians--we can judge by the fruits.

The issue really only arises for two reasons (1) actual promotion of the idea by homosexual people, like on the website for the Queen James "bible", or, (2) those of us who have, like I did, read lots of KJV-onlyist writing (lots! and lots!) where the topic of homosexuality keeps arising again and again and again like some obsession.

Seriously, speaking as a heterosexual and a passionate fan of the KJV--the text, the biographies of the translators, the Reformation in England--I love all of that--but I can't relate to any of the KJV-onlyists arguments...about anything.

And I start to think that one very important and very satanic cause of KJV-onlyism is actually promotion by closeted homosexuals who hate Christianity, hate Christians, and are literally trying to dissuade Christians from understanding Jesus Christ by compelling them to use a Bible that it's difficult for them to understand.

--

In either case, we, as Christians, do certainly consider if James was busy persecuting Christians for their beliefs. It doesn't mean that we should or should not use the KJV, it means it's a good idea to be aware of the issue and let the Holy Spirit guide us.

For our non-American brethren, William Bradford was a signatory to the Mayflower Compact of 1620. This is about the Separatists (radical Puritans, not normal Puritans) versus James' Church of England.

http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/Bradford_Passage_Religion.pdf

From the journal of William Bradford
Describing the Pilgrims’ Separatist religious beliefs:
"The one side [the Reformers] laboured to have ye right worship of God & discipline of Christ established in ye church, according to ye simplicitie of ye gospell, without the mixture of mens inventions, and to have & to be ruled by ye laws of Gods word, dispensed in those offices, & by those officers of Pastors, Teachers, & Elders, &c. according to ye Scripturs. The other partie [the Church of England], though under many colours & pretences, endevored to have ye episcopall dignitie (affter ye popish maner) with their large power & jurisdiction still retained; with all those courts, cannons, & ceremonies, togeather with all such livings, revenues, & subordinate officers, with other such means as formerly upheld their antichristian greatnes, and enabled them with lordly & tyranous power to persecute ye poore servants of God."

If anyone wants to take sides on Geneva Bible vs. KJV issue, first they should consider Protestantism versus Anglicanism in general. That's the real issue between the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible--not some "authorization" from God.

--

See, your writing still retains that satanic overtone--"you just might sell a few copies and become famous". Nobody who thinks like a Christian would write like that--you're trying to appeal to values that I don't have because they are inconsistent with the Blood of the Lamb.

Heb 13:5 [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

My very life depends on my continuing sobriety, and the Holy Spirit has made very clear to me that I need to live in God's word--with potentially bad consequences if I don't. Fortunately, my lifestyle is now one that gives thrice-happiness.

"Happie is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrise happie that meditateth in it day and night." --KJV 1611 THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.

Money, He already gives me that. Fame? I live in Los Angeles--I would need a team of security people 24 hours a day--sounds like a horrible life to me--I want to spend my time with my Bible teachers on Skype--fame would only work against that.

--

So what game does the KJV-onlyist play? The oldest and most satanic one:

"Do you have an inerrant Bible in any language?"

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, (KJV)

And again:

"Do you have an inerrant Bible in any language?"

Matt 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, ... (KJV)

And again:

"you just might sell a few copies and become famous"

Matt 4:8-9 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.

The problem for the KJV-onlyist, is that we have the Old Testament and the New Testament, and Eve didn't.

Matt 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. (KJV)

Matt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. (KJV)

--

I continue to recommend the KJV Pure Cambridge Edition as an excellent study Bible and free download, (www.bibleprotector.com), but that doesn't mean that's is necessarily the "perfect translation".

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

If you use the "Lord's Prayer" published in the "King Jimmy" you are praying to the Devil. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead and do it.

"King Jimmy"?

Be very careful how you treat God's holy and perfect word.

Its the King James Bible. Also known as the Authorized Version. So I along with the other Bible believers would appreciate it if you would not refer to it as the "king Jimmy." You need to show reverence for the word of God.


Proverbs 13:13 KJV
Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded.


And another thing, the King James Bible has the True Lord's prayer.

It is the NIV along with the other modern versions that turns the Lord's prayer into the Devils' prayer.

The very shortened prayer that can be found in the NIV and most of the other modern versions in Luke 11:2-4, is the one that was created by Marcion back in the 3rd century. It was Marcion; a well known heretic in his day that created this shortened prayer that is found in many of the modern versions today.

And it is a fact that Marcion only had the book of Luke and possibly some of the Pauline epistles as well.

Madame Blavatsky who was an occultist openly admitted that occultists use Marcion's shortened prayer to pray to Lucifer.

So again, the King James Bible has the true Lord's Prayer.

And the modern versions do not. Since they turn it into the Devil's prayer in Luke 11:2-4.

 

[Praus]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

You bible agnostic types will latch onto anything you can, no matter how imaginary or false in nature, to try to discredit the only Bible believed by thousands to be the complete, inspired and infallible words of God, so you can follow your own minds and personal preferences.

Honestly, I think you don't really understand the nature of Christianity--"you can follow your own minds and personal preferences".

And one of the reasons is revealed in this essay: Servants/Slaves - Another King James Bible Believer

"Even some Greek scholars tell us that the word doulos can have multiple meanings. Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us on page 156 that the word doulos can mean either 1. a slave, and bondman, or 2. A servant, and attendant of a king. ... The voluntary notion is not conspicuous here;"


With Jesus Christ, we are both servant and bought slave, because He is both our Lord and the Prince of Kings.

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

Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (KJV PCE)


We are the slaves of Jesus Christ, because we are bought with a price. Jesus Christ is Savior, Master, Lord, King, and Messiah.

Exod 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. (KJV PCE)

1 Cor 7:22-23 For he that is called in the Lord, [being] a servant, is the Lord’s freeman: likewise also he that is called, [being] free, is Christ’s servant. Ye are bought with a price; be not ye the servants of men. (KJV PCE)


The voluntary notion is very conspicuous throughout the New Testament. Simon Peter (and Exodus 21) explains this much better than I ever could.

Exod 21:5-6 And if the servant 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 PCE)

John 6:66-69 ¶ From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. (KJV PCE)

--

The following sentence certainly seems inspired ...

"Happie is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrise happie that meditateth in it day and night." --KJV 1611 THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.

it is the TEXT of the words of God in the King James Bible that is infallible, not the Preface,

"I can distinguish between inane paper and the omnipotent Word of God." --Adversus execrabilem Antichristi Bullam, Martin Luther, 1520

2 Petrus 1 Simon Petrus, ein Knecht und Apostel Jesu Christi, denen, die mit uns ebendenselben teuren Glauben überkommen haben in der Gerechtigkeit, die unser Gott gibt und der Heiland Jesus Christus: (Luther Bibel 1545)

 

[JHM]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

Wrong Mr "ChosenbyHim". The only correct versions of the "Lord's Prayer" that I have seen are to be found in : 1) the Jerusalem Bible 2) the New Revised Standard Version. All ofthe others that I have seen are incorrect for reasons that I will explain later. Have to go to work now.

 

[jimmydiggs]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

"King Jimmy"?

King Jimmmy Jim Jim Jimmersonthyton.

 

[Married_Richenbrachen]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

If you use the "Lord's Prayer" published in the "King Jimmy" you are praying to the Devil. But if that's what you want to do, go ahead and do it.

How so?

Matthew 6:9 - 13 Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

Wrong Mr "ChosenbyHim". The only correct versions of the "Lord's Prayer" that I have seen are to be found in : 1) the Jerusalem Bible 2) the New Revised Standard Version. All ofthe others that I have seen are incorrect for reasons that I will explain later. Have to go to work now.

No, the correct prayer is in the Authorized Version:


2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.
3 Give us day by day our daily bread.
4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil. - Luke 11:2-4 (KJV)



The highlighted sections in the passage of the Authorized Version is what the modern versions omit, including the NRSV:



2 He said to them, “When you pray, say:

Father,[a] hallowed be your name.
Your kingdom come.
3 Give us each day our daily bread.[c]
4 And forgive us our sins,
for we ourselves forgive everyone indebted to us.
And do not bring us to the time of trial.”[d] - Luke 11:2-4 (NRSV)


I have not looked at the Jerusalem Bible yet, so I can't comment on that one as I am not sure if it also omits those phrases that the NRSV does. The only thing that I am aware of regarding the Jerusalem bible is that it is a Catholic bible. As it is said to be mainly translated by Roman Catholic scholars.

 

[brandplucked]

The Lord's Prayer - Is your bible a Vatican Version?

Matthew 6:13 & Luke 11:2-4 - The Lord's Prayer - Is your Bible a Vatican Version?


Matthew 6:13 "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER. AMEN."


One of the most notable differences between the Catholic bible versions and the Protestant Reformation Bibles has been the ending of what is commonly referred to as the Lord's Prayer. If the Bible critics and "No Bible is the inerrant words of God" crowd can get rid of these words from the Holy Scriptures by means of their so called "science" of Textual Criticism, then no verse or reading is safe and sure.

These last words: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" are found in the vast Majority of all Greek texts, as well as in four copies of the Old Latin (k, f, g, and q), which point to a Bible text that predates anything we have in the Greek copies. All these words are also found in the ancient Syriac Peshitta, Harkelian, Curetonian, and Palestinian, as well as the Coptic Boharic and Sahidic, the Georgian, Armenian, Gothic, Slavonian, and Ethiopian ancient versions.

In fact, of over 1000 Greek manuscripts that contain this section of Matthew's gospel, these words are found in all but 10 manuscripts. Dean Burgon mentions emphatically the 100 to one ratio in favor of the King James reading. At the bottom of this article you will find listed the manuscript evidence for this God inspired reading.

Several early church writings bear witness to these inspired words - "Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Didache (100 AD)

"...but deliver us from evil. FOR THINE IS THE KINGDOM, AND THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER." Tatian (140 AD), Diatessaron

"Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil, FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Chrysostom (347 - 407 AD), Concerning the Statutes, Homily 17 & Homily 19 on Matthew

"...FOR THINE IS THE POWER, AND THE GLORY, FOR EVER AND EVER. AMEN." Constitutions of the Holy Apostles (200 - 400 AD), 3.2, 7.2

The modern English versions present a confused picture even among themselves as to the authenticity of these words. Such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, Darby, CEV, and the 2003 ISV omit these precious words, as do all Catholic versions.
However the NASB, and the 2003 Holman Christian Standard, include the words but place them [in brackets], indicating doubt as to their authenticity.

Even a big name modern day Bible agnostic like John MacArthur (who himself does not really believe that ANY Bible IS the inerrant words of God) comments on these words: "The doxology is simply this; “For Thine is the kingdom, the power, the glory forever, Amen.” That’s a doxology. You just say it, you just think it, you just offer it to God, you don’t dissect it. And by the way, there’s manuscript evidence that Jesus didn’t even say this, that’s why it’s not included in some of your versions of the Bible. We don’t know whether He said it or not. Some manuscripts have it, some don’t."

Agnostic = One who does not know for sure.


See - "John MacArthur - pastor with no infallible Bible" -
John MacArthur - Another King James Bible Believer


Other modern versions, which are still based primarily on the UBS, Westcott-Hort texts which omit hundreds and hundreds of words from the New Testament, have gone back to including these words without brackets. Among these are the New Life Bible (Lockman foundation 1969), World English Bible, the Hebrew Names Version, and the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible.

The 2002 version called The Message includes the words but paraphrases them to such a degree that they are virtually unrecognizable. It says: "Keep us safe from ourselves and the Devil. You're in charge! You can do anything you want! You're ablaze in beauty! Yes. Yes. Yes."

The confusion is seen in the two most recent "evangelical" versions to come out. The 2003 International Standard Version omits all these words, while the 2003 Holman Standard contains them.

Even the footnotes found in the modern versions that omit these words give conflicting evidence. The RSV omits the words as does the NIV, ESV and Daniel Wallace's NET version, but the RSV footnotes that the reading is found in "Other authorities, some ancient", whereas the NIV footnote is completely false and presents a distorted view of the evidence. The NIV footnotes tells us: "Some late manuscripts include the verse". The ESV footnotes: "Some manuscripts add". SOME?! Is the ratio of 100 to 1 fairly considered as "SOME"? As for "late manuscripts", they apparently do not want you to know the reading is found in copies of SEVERAL ancient Bible versions that predate the very few manuscripts that omit these words. This is not scholarship but sleight of hand.


By the way, here is Undeniable Proof that the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. versions are in fact the new "Catholic" bibles and not Reformation bibles.

See Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer

The ancient Syriac Peshitta reads: "And bring us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever: Amen."

These words are also found in the following English Bible translations: Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, The Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, John Wesley's translation of 1755, the Worsley bible 1770, Webster's 1833, Young's 1898, the NKJV 1982, the KJV 21st Century 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, the Hebrew Names Version, World English Bible, the New Berkelely Version 1969, the 1987 Amplified Version all read: " For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." and Green's Modern KJV.

The list of foreign language Bibles that include the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen" is quite impressive. Among them are: John Calvin's Latin translation, the Africaans Bible 1953, the Albanian, Armenian, Basque, Bulgarian, Czech BKR, Chinese Traditional Union Version, Croatian, Danish, Dutch Staten Vertaling, Finnish bible of 1776 and 1938, French Louis Segond 1910, French Martin 1744, French Oservald 1996, the Gaelic, the Greek Orthodox Bible, Hungarian Karoli, Lithuanian, Luther's German 1545, German Schlachter Bibles of 1951 and 2000, the Modern Greek N.T. used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world, Gypsy Rhomanese, Hatian Creole, the Modern Hebrew Bible that includes the New Testament, Hungarian, Icelandic, the Italian Diodati 1649, the New Diodati 1991, Korean, Latvian, Maori bible, Norwegian Det Norsk 1930, Polish Bible Gdanska, Portuguese Almeida, Romanian Cornilescu, the Russian Synodal and Zhuromsky translations, the Shuar translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, La Nueva Biblia de los Hispanos 2005 (Lockman), Swahili N.T., Tagalog Ang Dating bible, Turkish, Ukranian, Uma N.T., and Vietnamese N.T. 1934.

The New Testament from Aramaic, copyright 1940 reads like the King James Bible saying: "Because thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever and ever. Amen."

But in the USA we have such versions that omit these words as the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, NET and the New Living Translation. Why? Because they are "Catholic" bibles put together by the United Bible Society which is a joint effort between Catholic and Evangelical scholars, none of whom believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and 100% historically true words of God. Again, see the proof of this charge in the link above.

Bible "scholars" are all over the board. What one affirms another just as confidently denies. Some argue for the legitimacy of these words and others, in spite of the MASSIVE evidence in favor of these inspired words, deny they are part of Scripture.

John Calvin includes all these words in his Latin translation and then comments: "For thine is the kingdom"- It is surprising that this clause, which agrees so well with the rest of the prayer, has been left out by the Latins for it was not added merely for the purpose of kindling our hearts to seek the glory of God, and of reminding us what ought to be the object of our prayers; but likewise to teach us, that our prayers, which are here dictated to us, are founded on God alone, that we may not rely on our own merits."

Adam Clarke also says regarding the Doxology - "It should not, in my opinion, be left out of the text"

Barnes' Notes on the New Testament includes all these words with no hint that they are spurious and he expounds upon them in great detail.

David Guzik's Commentary on the Bible concludes - "we should regard it as Jesus truly said it."

Matthew Henry says - "Observe, how full this doxology is, The kingdom, and the power, and the glory, it is all thine." and then proceeds to expound upon them in great detail.

John Wesley believed these words form part of inspired Scripture and he both expounded upon them in his commentary and included them in his own translation made in 1755 - "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen." (Wesley translation 1755)

Octavius Winslow comments on these words in Matthew 6:13 - “We see no just reason, however, to question its integrity. Found as it is in the Syriac copy, the most ancient version of the New Testament--standing as it does in close harmony with the very first petition of the prayer--and maintaining a strict analogy with the whole tenor of God's Word, we feel no difficulty in accepting it as genuine.”

A.W. Pink expounds upon the passage and includes the Doxology as inspired Scripture. He states: “"For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." Thus the family prayer closes with a doxology or an ascription of that glory which is due unto God, thereby teaching us that prayer and praise should always go together. It is to be carefully noted that this doxology of the Divine perfections is made use of as a plea to enforce the preceding petitions: "deliver us from evil for Thine is the kingdom," etc....The concluding "Amen" expresses both a fervent desire, "so be it," and an avowal to faith, "it shall be so."

Some Bible critics I have run into try to tell us that the Doxology found in Matthew 6:13 should be omitted because it is not found in a similar prayer recorded in Luke 11:1-4. These critics fail to notice the obvious. The context of Luke chapter 11 is very different from the context of Matthew chapter 6. In Matthew the Lord is giving the sermon on the mount to a great multitude. In Luke it is the disciples who come to our Lord at a different time and request that He teach them how to pray.

There are also some very serious textual changes found in the prayer pattern found in Luke 11:2-4. In the King James Holy Bible we read: "And it came to pass, that, as he was praying in a certain place, when he ceased, one of his disciples said unto him, Lord, teach us to pray, as John also taught his disciples. And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, OUR Father, WHICH ART IN HEAVEN, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. THY WILL BE DONE, AS IN HEAVEN, SO IN EARTH. Give us day by day our daily bread. And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; BUT DELIVER US FROM EVIL."

All the capital lettered words have been omitted in such versions as the NIV, RSV, NASB, ESV. and the brand new ISV (International Standard Version).

Every one of these omitted words are found in the vast Majority of all Greek manuscripts and in the previous Reformation Bibles like Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible. They are also found in John Calvin's Latin translation, the NKJV 1982, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, Luther's German Bible 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000, the Italian Diodati 1649, the Nuova Riveduta of 2006 and the Nuova Diodati of 1991 - "Ed egli disse loro: «Quando pregate, dite: "Padre nostro che sei nei cieli, sia santificato il tuo nome, venga il tuo regno, sia fatta la tua volontà sulla terra, come nel cielo. 3 Dacci di giorno in giorno il nostro pane necessario. 4 E perdona i nostri peccati, perché anche noi perdoniamo ad ogni nostro debitore; e non esporci alla tentazione, ma liberaci dal maligno."

All the words are also found in the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras of 1569 and the Reina Valera of 1602 to 1995 - "Padre nuestro que estás en los cielos, santificado sea tu nombre. Venga tu Reino. Hágase tu voluntad, como en el cielo, así también en la tierra. El pan nuestro de cada día, dánoslo hoy. Perdónanos nuestros pecados, porque también nosotros perdonamos a todos los que nos deben. Y no nos metas en tentación, mas líbranos del mal.” and the Reina Valera Gómez of 2010, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada - "E ele lhes disse: Quando orardes, dizei: Pai nosso, que ests nos cus, santificado seja o teu nome; venha o teu reino; seja feita a tua vontade, assim na terra, como no cu. D-nos cada dia o nosso po cotidiano; E perdoa-nos os nossos pecados, pois tambm ns perdoamos a qualquer que nos deve, e no nos conduzas em tentao, mas livra-nos do mal."

They are also in the French Martin of 1744, the French Ostervald of 1996 and the French Louis Segond of 2007 - "Et il leur dit: Quand vous priez, dites: Notre Père qui es aux cieux; ton nom soit sanctifié; ton règne vienne; ta volonté soit faite sur la terre comme au ciel; Donne-nous chaque jour notre pain quotidien; Pardonne-nous nos péchés; car nous pardonnons aussi à tous ceux qui nous ont offensés; et ne nous induis point en tentation; mais délivre-nous du malin."

This was the text of the Reformation Bibles. BUT Guess which bible versions omit all these words and read just like the ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV. You got it; the Catholic bibles omit the exact same words, including the Catholic Rheims of 1582, the Douay 1950, the St. Joseph NAB of 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible of 1985! Just another coinkidink, huh? So you'll know that I am not making this stuff up, you can check out the 1582 Catholic Rheims bible for yourself, along with Tyndale, Cranmer Bible and the Geneva bible at this site here:

English Hexapla 1841. Greek New Testament according to Scholtz with 6 ancient English translations: Wiclif 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, Geneva 1557, Rheims 1582, Authorised 1611


Then check your ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, NET etc. to see how they read when compared to the Catholic versions. It's right there in front of you in black and white print. So all this "scholar-speak" about "We now have older and better manuscripts" (Vaticanus) and their constant droning on about "the latest in manuscript discoveries" and "The KJV translators didn't have access to these older readings" etc. is just a bunch of Baloney! Get yourself the real Bible - the Authorized King James Holy Bible that you can hold in your hands (unlike those phantom "originals only") read and believe that every word is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of the living God.

The NIV, NASB, ISV, ESV, NET and the modern Catholic versions omit all these capitalized words primarily on the basis of 4 manuscripts, yet among these four so called "oldest and best" out of the 45 Greek words found within just three verses, no two of them agree with each other in 32 out of the 45 words found here! And the new version Critical Text scholars call this a "science"!

The Modern Greek New Testament used throughout the Greek Orthodox churches all over the world reads exactly like the King James Bible and the Reformation Bibles in both Matthew 6:13 and in Luke 11:2-4. Here is the Modern Greek reading for Luke 11:2-4 -Verse 2. - Ειπε δε προς αυτους· Οταν προσευχησθε, λεγετε· Πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις, αγιασθητω το ονομα σου, ελθετω η βασιλεια σου, γενηθητω το θελημα σου ως εν ουρανω, και επι της γης· Verse 3. - τον αρτον ημων τον επιουσιον διδε εις ημας καθ' ημεραν· Verse 4. και συγχωρησον εις ημας τας αμαρτιας ημων, διοτι και ημεις συγχωρουμεν εις παντα αμαρτανοντα εις ημας· και μη φερης ημας εις πειρασμον, αλλ' ελευθερωσον ημας απο του πονηρου.

The Lord Jesus Christ either said all these words and they are inspired Scripture and belong in the Bible, or they are not and should be omitted. Remember, He emphatically stated "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but My words shall not pass away." So how about it? Are you a Bible believer or, like so many Christians today, a Bible agnostic who says: "We don’t know whether He said it or not."?

Here is a site where you can see the ancient Gothic Version of the four gospels done in the year 360 A.D. by Ufilas. You can clearly see that Matthew 6:13 includes the words "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." -
The Gothic and Anglo-Saxon Gospels in parallel columns, with the versions of ... - Google Books


For a much fuller explanation of why modern "Evangelical" versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are in fact the new "Catholic" bible versions, see Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are Catholic bibles here -

Real Catholic bibles - Another King James Bible Believer


The King James Bible is right and it's critics are wrong, as always.


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15


Will Kinney


For a very well done article with lots of research about the Doxology in Matthew 6 please see the article here at KJV Today


Is the Doxology of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13 a late addition? - King James Version Today


Return to Articles - KJB Articles - Another King James Bible Believer

 

[LT]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

you're still running from my question?

How can this be made practical? Where is the profit? What is the doctrine in the KJV that is not found in other versions? How can I apply that doctrine to my walk with God?

 

[brandplucked]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

you're still running from my question?

How can this be made practical? Where is the profit? What is the doctrine in the KJV that is not found in other versions? How can I apply that doctrine to my walk with God?

Hi Lt. The FACT that you yourself do not believe that ANY Bible IS the infallible words of God will necessarily weaken if not eventually destroy your faith in Christ. It is like a cancer that will spread itself more and more. At what point does God start to tell you the truth? Does God have Alzheimer's disease and really doesn't know and can't remember what He might have said or what He meant when He said it? What parts are true and what parts are not? Belief in the Bible is about as practical and fundamental as it gets. Otherwise you are off into mysticism and your own personal and highly subjective experiences and have no sure foundation on which to build.

Apparently you did not bother to actually READ any of the articles I gave you where your fake, Vatican Version ESV teaches false doctrine and others too.

Here is what your Vatican Version ESV is really like -

The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer

And here are some false doctrines. The ESV goes along with most of these, except for the one about "deceiving" God.

Fake Bible Versions DO teach and pervert several biblical doctrines, and the infallibility of the Bible (any bible in any language) is a huge doctrine that most Christians do not believe anymore.


Here are just a few of the perverted doctrines.

#1. Can God be deceived? The NASB says that the children of Israel deceived God. Not just "tried to deceive" or "thought they had deceived" but deceived Him.

Eze14:9; Ps 78:36deceive - Another King James Bible Believer

#2. Did the Son of God have an "origin from ancient times" or "his goings forth are from everlasting"? Did He have a beginning or is He eternal?

Micah 5:2,Heb2:11 origin - Another King James Bible Believer

#3. Who controls the world, God or Satan?

Several modern fake bibles teach it is Satan -

Satan or God controls? - Another King James Bible Believer

#4. Is your righteousness before God the fine linen of the righteousness of Christ, or your "righteous deeds" as several fake bibles and the modern Catholic versions teach?

Rev. 19:8 fine linen - Another King James Bible Believer

#5.Can man "speed up" the coming of the day of God's judgment, or is it already marked by God on the calendar to the day and month?

2Peter3:12hastingunto - Another King James Bible Believer

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

"But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant." 1 Corinthians 14:38

 

[LT]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

I do read some of your posts. i find them ridiculously petty. You have created an issue that is not found in Scripture, and have created a solution for the problem that is not supported by Scripture.

Answer my questions.
I know you cannot answer them, because you have no truth. You are a dissenter. Your purpose on this forum is to cause confusion and start arguments.

Answer me at least this one question: Who is your Lord?

 

[Praus]

Re: What about the &quot;old fashioned&quot; and even &quot;archaic&quot; language of the King James Bibl

I do read some of your posts. i find them ridiculously petty. You have created an issue that is not found in Scripture, and have created a solution for the problem that is not supported by Scripture.

Answer my questions.
I know you cannot answer them, because you have no truth. You are a dissenter. Your purpose on this forum is to cause confusion and start arguments.

Matt 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Answer me at least this one question: Who is your Lord?

Exactly.

1 John 4:1-3 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world. Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that [spirit] of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

And I start to think that one very important and very satanic cause of KJV-onlyism is actually promotion by closeted homosexuals who hate Christianity, hate Christians, and are literally trying to dissuade Christians from understanding Jesus Christ by compelling them to use a Bible that it's difficult for them to understand.

Right there on his homepage, notice it doesn't say that the KJV is the words of Jesus Christ.

Home - Another King James Bible Believer

"pure words of the living God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ."

Yet right here are some of the words of Jesus Christ, who came in the flesh, in the King James Bible:

Matt 4:10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

How could someone who is so exacting about textual analysis write such a confusing statement of faith?