A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me 3

[ChosenbyHim]

A Body Hast Thou Prepared Me 3

Video Description:

A Body Thou Hast Prepared Me 3. Author G. Jon Rov, of the book "Concealed From Christians for the Glory of God, The 1611 KJV" and Christian Rap Artist and Pastor of Prophecy Christian Ministries, The Prophet X, bring another exciting and revelation packed episode to you discussing chapter 16 of the book. This clear and concise teaching from the King James Bible that the KJV is the finished word of God.

 

[Dino246]

There is really no need for even a second thread promoting this hogwash, let alone a third.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

There is really no need for even a second thread promoting this hogwash, let alone a third.

Dino, it is the truth. Brother Jon does a great work in showing God's handiwork and blessing upon the greatest Book ever, the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Dino, you just do not have the spiritual eyes to behold the marvelous truths regarding God's finished Bible. How sad.

 

[Dino246]

Dino, it is the truth. Brother Jon does a great work in showing God's handiwork and blessing upon the greatest Book ever, the Authorized King James Holy Bible. Dino, you just do not have the spiritual eyes to behold the marvelous truths regarding God's finished Bible. How sad.

My statement stands: there is no need for additional threads on this topic. Your personal comments are both irrelevant and incorrect.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

My statement stands: there is no need for additional threads on this topic. Your personal comments are both irrelevant and incorrect.

No Dino, statement does not stand at all because you speak with no Authority. Let me ask you a question, Dino. Do you belive that the Holy Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God? And if you do, which Bible is it?

 

[Dino246]

No Dino, statement does not stand at all because you speak with no Authority. Let me ask you a question, Dino. Do you belive that the Holy Bible is the inerrant and infallible word of God? And if you do, which Bible is it?

I'm not getting into a round of KJV-only stupidity with you.

 

[JaumeJ]

Any subject contined in the Word bears repeating to new eyes. Those content on that subject, either comment or ignore.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I'm not getting into a round of KJV-only stupidity with you.

Dino, I can already tell that you have a very low view of Scripture. You do not tremble at the words of God. You ougt to be ashamed of yourself.

I suspect that you do not believe that there is any Perfect Bible on this Earth anywhere. Hence, you really have no final authority after all. You sit in judgment over the word of God. But I assure you Dino, the very Book (KJB) which you despise so much is going to judge you one day. Humble yourself before the mighty hand of God and Repent of your pride and your arrogance and haughtiness. And start to fear God and tremble at His words.

 

[wattie]

Is it the KJV only position that the copies of the original manuscripts have been preserved only thru the KJV ? That God has preserved His Word through the KJV and no other copy?

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Is it the KJV only position that the copies of the original manuscripts have been preserved only thru the KJV ? That God has preserved His Word through the KJV and no other copy?

Wattie, while there are certainly a number of groups that profess to be KJV Only, yet there are some variations and slight differences in some points of doctrine, from where I stand in my belief, this is my answer to your question:

I believe that the set of manuscripts which the King James Bible is based upon are the line of pure manuscripts. God has preserved His word through time, from Wycliffe’s translation, to the Tyndale New Testament, Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible unto the King James Bible. These are the very Bibles and Translations which God has preserved His word through, that is, in the English language. And so concerning your question, Wattie, that is my position. I should also mention though that I don’t use the term KJV Only much, but when a person asks me where I stand on the Bible version issue, I simply tell them that I am a King James Bible believing Christian.

 

[wattie]

Wattie, while there are certainly a number of groups that profess to be KJV Only, yet there are some variations and slight differences in some points of doctrine, from where I stand in my belief, this is my answer to your question:

I believe that the set of manuscripts which the King James Bible is based upon are the line of pure manuscripts. God has preserved His word through time, from Wycliffe’s translation, to the Tyndale New Testament, Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops Bible unto the King James Bible. These are the very Bibles and Translations which God has preserved His word through, that is, in the English language. And so concerning your question, Wattie, that is my position. I should also mention though that I don’t use the term KJV Only much, but when a person asks me where I stand on the Bible version issue, I simply tell them that I am a King James Bible believing Christian.

Thank you for the reply. I usually always use the KJV bible. I haven't looked well into the line of bibles most closely matching the original manuscripts. I've heard a lot but not read a lot myself about it.

I have read that King James ordered the Puritans translation of assembly and congregation for 'ecclessia' to be 'kept viz' and mainly used the word church instead.

But knowing context.. church becomes assembly or congregation anyway

 

[Sipsey]

[Christian Rap Artist and Pastor of Prophecy Christian Ministries, The Prophet X]

Im sorry, but your description of the source of what you proclaim as truth does nothing to entice me to spend time watching. I prefer a more straight forward approach to disseminate information.

Like Solomon says, “There is nothing “new” under the sun,” except a heart and life changed by God.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Thank you for the reply. I usually always use the KJV bible. I haven't looked well into the line of bibles most closely matching the original manuscripts. I've heard a lot but not read a lot myself about it.

Absolutely Wattie, you are welcome. The Bible version issue goes very deep. And when one begins to study more into the underlying manuscripts that the King James Bible is based upon and then compare it with the manuscripts which the modern versions are based on, then can one begin to see why there are numerous differences between the texts. It also explains why there are numerous deletions and omissions in the modern versions. One of the manuscripts, Vaticanus (B) is very corrupt. Some of the Scriptures which Vaticanus has omitted are the following:

Psalms 106-138; Mark 16:9-20; 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, and every Scripture after Hebrews 9:14.

I have read that King James ordered the Puritans translation of assembly and congregation for 'ecclessia' to be 'kept viz' and mainly used the word church instead.

From what I have also read, Wattie, It would appear that King James did give the Translators instructions in their translating of the Text that would ensure that the English translation which would later come to be known as the Authorized Version, aka King James Version, would conform to the Ecclesiology of the Church of England as well as to the Episcopal structure of church governance and leadership within the Church. And of course, this episcopal structure also included Ordained ‘Clergy.’ And even though this very well could be the case regarding King James, nevertheless, the Lord’s hand was upon the translation process of the King James Holy Bible. I say this with full confidence because just as I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Author and Finisher of our Faith. Likewise, I also believe that He as well as the Holy Ghost is the Author and Finisher of the Holy Bible. For faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Therefore, God’s hand was upon the translation process of the English Bible, which also would mean that even if King James had an intent to conform Scripture to the Ecclesiology of the Church of England, God would surely know that motive of His. Truth be told, the finished Bible, which is the blessed King James Holy Bible, is The Authority of God and is the Source of Doctrine which a Church MUST conform its doctrine and practices to. And not the other way around. And when I read of the structure and ecclesiology of the Church of England, I see that it is not Biblical.

It should also be noted that there is still Roman Catholic influence in Anglican churches even to this day. And there is also reformed doctrine and theology in the Anglican churches. These are some of the reasons why I know that the King James Bible does not conform to the Anglican church, and it certainly does not conform to Anglican doctrine. For The King James Bible does not teach Calvinism or reformed doctrine. But rather it teaches BOTH the Sovereignty and power of Almighty God As well as the responsibility and free will of mankind.

Another example would be the 39 articles of Religion, which are the defining statements of the doctrines and practices of the Church of England. And while the 39 articles do reject a lot of the Roman Catholic practices and teachings, nevertheless, many of the practices which the Church of England replace them with are not very Scriptural. For instance, Sacramental Union (the view that the bread and wine become unified with the blood and body of Christ, and that the Presence of both the body and blood Of Christ is in the Eucharist) which the Church of England practices, while it differs from the Catholic ‘transubstantiation’, nevertheless, the Sacramental Union view of the Anglican church also is not Biblical. The Holy Scripture teaches that the Lord’s supper is memorial in nature, and that the bread and wine are simply symbolic. The bread symbolically represents the Body of Jesus Christ and the Wine symbolically represents the Blood of Jesus Christ. This is the Scriptural view of the Lord’s supper. And finally one more example would be the “Archbishop” doctrine which the Church of England also holds to. The arch bishop view is not Scriptural, but rather It is a view that actually is similar to that of the Roman Catholic church. Where the Catholic church has their Pope, the Church of England has their Arch Bishop. Both the Papacy (the Office of Pope, held by Roman Catholicism) and the Arch bishop position (held by the Anglican churches) are both Unbiblical. Both of those offices are not mentioned anywhere in the Holy Scripture.

The Holy Scripture teaches Local Church Autonomy (Acts 14, Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3). We do not find any example of a bishop or pastor in Scripture having authority and overseeing multiple churches across different regions. Even today, the Church of England is said to be ruled by 108 bishops. Again, we simply do not see this anywhere in Scripture.

Now The Scripture does teach that there is a Universal Body of Christ, but Christ Jesus alone is its head and not a group of a hundred bishops. The King James Holy Bible teaches both the Universal Church (Body of Christ) and the Local Church also.

Hence. it should be noted that when additional layers of leadership were added to the church over time, down through the centuries, these additional layers of leadership were no where to be found in Scripture. Hence, both the Catholic church and the Anglican church are both guilty of adding positions and offices according to their own tradition. In other words, they started modeling and structuring their churches outside of the parameters and Authority of Scripture. Once again, the King James Bible teaches that Elders, Bishops and Deacons serve in and lead Local Churches. Therefore we can know and trust that God made sure that when the King James Holy Bible was being translated, that no denominational or even ecclesiastical bias was put in.

But knowing context.. church becomes assembly or congregation anyway

Indeed, a Church is basically the saints of God assembling and congregating together.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

[Christian Rap Artist and Pastor of Prophecy Christian Ministries, The Prophet X]

Im sorry, but your description of the source of what you proclaim as truth does nothing to entice me to spend time watching. I prefer a more straight forward approach to disseminate information.

Like Solomon says, “There is nothing “new” under the sun,” except a heart and life changed by God.

Sipsey, whether you watch the video or not, is up to you. But don't attempt to answer a matter before you hear it. Otherwise, you are violating Proverbs 18:13.

 

[Sipsey]

Sipsey, whether you watch the video or not, is up to you. But don't attempt to answer a matter before you hear it. Otherwise, you are violating Proverbs 18:13.

I really didn’t see a question to reply to, just an invitation to watch a video. I have studied the KJV for many years. I have studied how it came about and its translators and underlying manuscripts. Ive also spent a few years studying the Koine and a little of the Hebrew with a good friend and teacher.

The big issue is what we do with what we know. There is sufficient truth in several translations to point one towards God. Scripture is wonderful and when it takes root in ones life it changes one and points to a living God. It is great to go from enemy to reconciliation.