The King James Bible

[preacher4truth]

thanks i understand. its basically not taking all the bible into consideration and picking and choosing and jumping all over the place.
i hate it when preachers do that. u can prove any doctrine like that. thats what i meant earlier when i said that verse and chapter numbers while great can cause us to just jump around and miss the context.

If you would like to read a good book that describes some of these inconsistencies, may I recommend to you The Potter's Freedom by, *gasp* Dr. James White?

I know you're not that much into reading, but you do read things here, and the above is an easy and enlightening read.

 

[John146]

For instance, one resident false teacher, john146 claims he is not elected by God. He also claims he is described in Ephesians 2:3, but not in Ephesians 1:4 by his own faulty hermeneutic.

That's not only an impossibility, but it is a severe example of failing to employ 2 Timothy 2:15. All of those mentioned in Ephesians 1:4 are the same class and group mentioned in Ephesians 2:3. No one got to skip the preceding and jump in with two feet into 2:3. This is what persons do when they loathe certain Biblical doctrines: they become inconsistent with their application and usage of Scripture in order to stay true to their errant beliefs. They have to or it all falls apart.

Therefore john146 skips context and jumps in where he wants, rejecting context and truth. There are more examples. We don't get to just pick and choose our teachings by cherry picking and not employing proper context as he and all other KJVO'ers do.

Here's what I said concerning election and Ephesians 1, 2:

Ephesians 1 emphasis is the spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Calvinist focus on the words chosen us instead of the words in him meaning in Christ. The passage of course, does not say God chose us to be in him. That's how Calvinists read it. The actual choice of God before the foundation of the world was that salvation and spiritual blessings were to be given through the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus Christ was present at the foundation of the world, but no Calvinist was placed into Jesus Christ until the new birth. Somehow a Calvinist fell out of Christ and into Adam at the fall of Adam, but fell out of Adam and back into Christ at salvation. I know, weird.

Before the foundation of the world God decreed that no one would become holy and without blame until he or she was placed into the Lord Jesus Christ. All people after the fall were by nature in Adam, children of wrath (Ephesians 2:3).

Predestination follows salvation. Once a man or woman is saved, they become predestined for the adoption which is the redemption of the body. That's not salvation but a heavenly blessing afforded to a son of God.

Let's not make this a Calvinist thread.

 

[Snoozy]

If you would like to read a good book that describes some of these inconsistencies, may I recommend to you The Potter's Freedom by, *gasp* Dr. James White?

I know you're not that much into reading, but you do read things here, and the above is an easy and enlightening read.

is this the same thing in audio? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=9951915235441

i can listen much better than read.

im pretty new to computers and intenret. only recently did i get on this.

 

[James37]

“And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” (Mark 13:37)

 

[Snoozy]

“And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” (Mark 13:37)

yeah watch the signs.... not watch numbers.

i dont know if ur serious with this stuff but i just dont see how this relates to anything. i dont wanna be mean ur hearts probably right with the Lord but i just dont see the point of these numbers

 

[Snoozy]

yeah that sermon audio is the same thing in audio nice. i will listen through it.

honest to goodness there is no telling how high the iq of james white is. that guy is a genius. maybe the Lord gave him a high iq to defend the faith. the Lord is using him for sure.

 

[preacher4truth]

is this the same thing in audio? https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?sid=9951915235441

i can listen much better than read.

im pretty new to computers and intenret. only recently did i get on this.

That was done in 1987 prior to the book.

 

[James37]

yeah watch the signs.... not watch numbers.

i dont know if ur serious with this stuff but i just dont see how this relates to anything. i dont wanna be mean ur hearts probably right with the Lord but i just dont see the point of these numbers

I guess you have never read Revelation 13:18 then.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Thanks for reading our posts. Do you have an alternative to the pure words of God? If not, you have no defense whatsoever. The only defense you have is, we don't have God's holy, pure words to live by. The God who gave us His words for all matters of faith and practice has failed to preserve them for us today.

Irritating I know.

So, for the THIRD time, what is your basis for believing the KJV is God's only preserved word?

What caused you to take this stand?

 

[John146]

So, for the THIRD time, what is your basis for believing the KJV is God's only preserved word?

What caused you to take this stand?

First, I've never found it to contain any untruth. All so called untruths have been debunked. No one has ever proven that it's not God's preserved word.

Second, manuscript evidence. Ninety five percent of all manuscript evidence support the KJV, while only five percent support the new versions. Antioch vs Alexandria and the corrupt text of Westcott and Hort.

Third, the fullness of times and the fruit it produced. The KJV was translated at the precise time in history to spur the greatest revival the world has ever seen. The greatest preachers of the past four centuries have been King James Bible believers. Satan countered with the a new updated version which has created our Laodicea Age.

Fourth, I believe God at His promise to preserve His words for all generations.

There's a start...

 

[Willie-T]

I guess you have never read Revelation 13:18 then.

Since we all pretty well agree that verse says Nero's name/number was 666, what do you do with the Caesars before him and after him? Their name/numbers would have changed. Seems that would have made Nero relatively insignificant in the eons of the Beast's (666) persecution of Christ and his Church since he only lived for a total of 30 years, 15 of those as the Caesar.

I think we have to admit that 666 stands for a whole lot more than just that one little man.

 

[trofimus]

No one has ever proven that it's not God's preserved word.

What do you mean by preservation? The specific text of the KJV is not to be found continously anywhere else in the church history.

So it would be not so much about a "preservation", rather about a "new inspiration".

 

[James37]

Since we all pretty well agree that verse says Nero's name/number was 666, what do you do with the Caesars before him and after him? Their name/numbers would have changed. Seems that would have made Nero relatively insignificant in the eons of the Beast's (666) persecution of Christ and his Church since he only lived for a total of 30 years, 15 of those as the Caesar.

I think we have to admit that 666 stands for a whole lot more than just that one little man.

“And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” Mark 13:37

“I say unto you” 66[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this phrase in the NT. (listen to your Bible)

“I say unto” 147 (3 x 7 x 7) verses in the Bible.

“what I” 21 (3 x 7) verse in the Bible that contains this phrase.

“I say” 73[SUP]rd[/SUP] verse in the NT that contains this phrase.

“I say” 74[SUP]th[/SUP] (37 x 2) occurrence of this word in the NT (2[SUP]nd[/SUP] occurrence in verse)

“I say unto” 70[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this phrase in the NT (1[SUP]st[/SUP] occurrence in verse)

“all” 161 (7 x 23) occurrence of this word in the NT.

“all” 3701 (prime number) verse that contains this word in Bible. (case)

“all” 4676 (7 x 668) occurrence of this word in the Bible (any case)

“Watch” any case occurs 61 times in Bible (I posted earlier about the centered hexagonal number sequence that this number is part of and this sequence is in the creation)

“Watch” case sensitive occurs 7 times in the KJB

“Watch” this is the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this in the Bible (case)

Notice that this verse is bracketed by “I say uno you” 66 and “Watch” 6 (666 = 37 x 18)
The riches of the King James Bible!

 

[Dino246]

Thanks for reading our posts. Do you have an alternative to the pure words of God? If not, you have no defense whatsoever. The only defense you have is, we don't have God's holy, pure words to live by. The God who gave us His words for all matters of faith and practice has failed to preserve them for us today.

Irritating I know.

I'm surprised that you responded; thanks. I have a question for you: have you learned anything from these discussions? Judging from some of your recent posts, I would have to conclude that you haven't. You continue to post profoundly ignorant assertions, such as the one regarding footnotes. Further, you post assertions that have been soundly refuted as though they are new evidence. That is what I find irritating; it's like playing Whack-a-Mole. In over a year of interaction, I have not seen a single instance where you have acknowledged the poverty of an argument or admitted a demonstrated error of fact.

The "pure words of God" exist in Scripture. Scripture is not limited to the KJV. You are certainly free to believe that it is, but you have not been able to present any evidence to support your view. I simply do not share your perspective, so I have no obligation to provide an alternative.

I would also question your interpretation of the word "pure". It appears that you are using it to mean "exact". I take it to mean "unmixed". My view allows for the significant challenges involved in translation and in the examination of manuscript evidence. Yours requires you to accept as Scripture words that are demonstrably not Scripture, such as "unknown" in the KJV of 1 Cor. 14:2, and to accept blindly the work of scholars from 400 years ago who simply did not know certain facts that have since been uncovered, such as the Granville Sharp rule.

 

[Willie-T]

“And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch.” Mark 13:37

“I say unto you” 66[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this phrase in the NT. (listen to your Bible)

“I say unto” 147 (3 x 7 x 7) verses in the Bible.

“what I” 21 (3 x 7) verse in the Bible that contains this phrase.

“I say” 73[SUP]rd[/SUP] verse in the NT that contains this phrase.

“I say” 74[SUP]th[/SUP] (37 x 2) occurrence of this word in the NT (2[SUP]nd[/SUP] occurrence in verse)

“I say unto” 70[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this phrase in the NT (1[SUP]st[/SUP] occurrence in verse)

“all” 161 (7 x 23) occurrence of this word in the NT.

“all” 3701 (prime number) verse that contains this word in Bible. (case)

“all” 4676 (7 x 668) occurrence of this word in the Bible (any case)

“Watch” any case occurs 61 times in Bible (I posted earlier about the centered hexagonal number sequence that this number is part of and this sequence is in the creation)
“Watch” case sensitive occurs 7 times in the KJB
“Watch” this is the 6[SUP]th[/SUP] occurrence of this in the Bible (case)
Notice that this verse is bracketed by “I say uno you” 66 and “Watch” 6 (666 = 37 x 18)
The riches of the King James Bible!

So, dismissing all that blithering mumbo-jumbo mumbling that means nothing, Who or What is 666?

 

[Dino246]

Second, manuscript evidence. Ninety five percent of all manuscript evidence support the KJV, while only five percent support the new versions. Antioch vs Alexandria and the corrupt text of Westcott and Hort.

There's a start...

Evidence for this assertion, please. I suspect it is a rather egregious misquotation of a very biased source.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Second, manuscript evidence. Ninety five percent of all manuscript evidence support the KJV, while only five percent support the new versions. Antioch vs Alexandria and the corrupt text of Westcott and Hort.

Where's the proof 95% of all mss evidence support the KJV?
Where's the proof the W&H texts are corrupt?

Provide your unbiased evidence.

 

[trofimus]

Where's the proof 95% of all mss evidence support the KJV?
Where's the proof the W&H texts are corrupt?

Provide your unbiased evidence.

95% NT text has certain reading. There are variations, but these are not viable.

So maybe John456 got 95% from this? Not sure. But it would be 95% also for Nestlé Aland...


Only 5% of text is not certain. And these 5% are the "problem" for textual criticism, TR vs MT vs NA...

 

[Huckleberry]

I am not smart enough to understand the King Jimmy... I simply do don't understand it... I am a pretty intelligent woman with a degree from University. Now this being the most important book in life, should I read what I do not understand, or read what I can understand?

So the Word of God should be dumbed down to your intellect?

 

[hornetguy]

So the Word of God should be dumbed down to your intellect?

I think she's saying she prefers reading it in current day English.

I'm not sure there's any dumbing-down necessary for that.

I can read and understand most of KJV-glish, but it 's much easer to understand it in the 20th century English that we all speak. I can read it without having to see a word, and go..."now let's see, what does forsooth/peradventure/shew/whatevereth mean?"

NASB is arguably a more accurate translation, and it's in modern English, to boot....