The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
God makes the first move of which we cannot take credit for. Then we have the free will to either have faith or not. Faith is what gives us access to God’s grace (Romans 5:1-2). We are justified by his grace (Romans 3:24), and we are justified by faith (Romans 3:28).
Everlasting living is when you don't have to worry about the sting of death like Enoch.
Luke 20 (KJV) - Then came to [him] certain (blueletterbible.org)
The above is about the afterlife.
If you also want to imply texts having dual meanings is not possible, then you have another issue as a KJV-onlyist.
The KJV just goes with the Masoretic text and its vowel pointing on this verse from Amos, but the New Testament interprets the verse differently.
Amos 9:11-12
King James Version
11 In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen, and close up the breaches thereof; and I will raise up his ruins, and I will build it as in the days of old:
12 That they may possess the remnant of Edom, and of all the heathen, which are called by my name, saith the Lord that doeth this.
Acts 15:17
King James Version
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
It is... women desire to have the authority that God gave Adam and desire that which belongs to the husband.
Unless of course it's a godly woman being led by the Holy Spirit who understands God's order that men are supposed to be the leaders.
This is something the devil has gained much ground in by having the women become rulers over men as well as the feminization of men.
That's what the devil does in inverts thing God created to be one way, the devil seeks to invert it to be the opposite of how God intended it to be.
John 17:2-3~ You granted Him authority over all people, so that He may give eternal life to all those You have given Him. Now this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom You have sent.
I am aware that there are alternate ways to say the same thing in Scripture. In this case your bring up, it’s not proof of the existence of variant readings whereby it means something else entirely different. One is merely making assumptions that this is so. You would need a series of verses or passages clearly referring to the art of Textual Criticism and it is just not there. Jesus was not asked about any textual variants. He simply quoted Scripture with authority. Neither did Jesus or the apostles believe that there were errors in the Scriptures and they had to piece them together in the hope that they would have maybe have them perfectly someday. Nowhere is it stated in Scripture that only the originals are inspired. We know that is false by the testimony of Scripture.
This just does not fit with reality, though. There are plenty of unbelieving wives I can point to in my own family and through history who were good and desire is for pleasing their husbands. That’s why the ESV is bogus.
You said:
No thanks to the ESV because it is encouraging them to think that it is a part of their nature to rebel against their husband.
You said:
And that’s why God said her desire would be to her husband and not contrary to her husband.
But you also have to ignore all the other false doctrines to make this kind of defense of the ESV better.
That’s why your defense here does not really work.
because the alexandrian mansucripts are what the vulgate was translated from. Of course the KJV is not going to be like the latin bible translated into English. You do need to be concerned because they are very different.
Mixing them up is not going to help.
So far there has not been any Bible in english that people have said they are going to rely on or that has been authorised by churches/a monarch or stood the test of time like the KJ or AV was.
everything else after that is catholic churches attempts to counter the KJV with an another english version or KJV updated and revised spinoffs
The KJV has ALREADY done the legwork of the translations from the original hebrew and greek for english readers. There is no need to do it all over again. They already diligently compared everything. the septugint was copied a lot and the alexandrians manuscripts were quite error laden..the Alexandrian library actually was burned to the ground but thankfully the eastern church already had lots of clean copies
there is just too many discrepensies mostly ommissions for them to be valid, like read I just think people cant accept it and believe the Bible ought to conform to their own grammar and syntax, if so theres plenty of paraphrased versions that can slang up the Bible. Just because KJV is not in american english I think people just get upset when they actually dont have any reason to be and then try and say theres errors in it. I think the words used will change over time. For example. in KJV God is always referred to as Lord, but if you were americanising the Bible you would probably use the word Chief.
I guess if gets people reading and studying Scriputre its all good. I mean catholic churches you would not dare question what the priest said and whether it was correct, in a language you wouldnt understand at all.
Thats why they were so hardline about banning the KJV. But see, all the other versions coming out after that there was never an authorised by the Pope bible. I dont see people say they should only read Dhouey rheims.
anyway the Good News Bible was put out by the American Bible Society in a sort of simplified English so people ought to be happy with it, (it was requested by African believers) cant expect everyone to get their tongue around archaic english. Children have been reading paraphrase and beginner bibles for a long time though...but if you want meat, rather than milk, go for KJV.
A believer shouldnt need to copy and paste twenty different versions of the Bible together to make one up for themselves. but, if Frankenstein type faith is what you want or 'Cafeteria Christian' then go to any Bible bookstore theres so many to choose from.
In the end we stick with what works right. I was in a book club where I chose the book to read, it was Jules Verne 20000 Leagues under the sea. I thought great, but it turned out in my book club everyone had a different version and they were not all the same, so it was very hard to be on the same page! I wanted to discuss the story, but bit hard when some had abridged edtions that missed out things, and translations were all different. Which one was right? Maybe it made it more fun...or just more hard work. And what was the original anyway, the original was written in French, which we couldnt read.
Thats why they were so hardline about banning the KJV. But see, all the other versions coming out after that there was never an authorised by the Pope bible. I dont see people say they should only read Dhouey rheims.
anyway the Good News Bible was put out by the American Bible Society in a sort of simplified English so people ought to be happy with it, (it was requested by African believers) cant expect everyone to get their tongue around archaic english. Children have been reading paraphrase and beginner bibles for a long time though...but if you want meat, rather than milk, go for KJV.
A believer shouldnt need to copy and paste twenty different versions of the Bible together to make one up for themselves. but, if Frankenstein type faith is what you want or 'Cafeteria Christian' then go to any Bible bookstore theres so many to choose from.
In the end we stick with what works right. I was in a book club where I chose the book to read, it was Jules Verne 20000 Leagues under the sea. I thought great, but it turned out in my book club everyone had a different version and they were not all the same, so it was very hard to be on the same page! I wanted to discuss the story, but bit hard when some had abridged edtions that missed out things, and translations were all different. Which one was right? Maybe it made it more fun...or just more hard work. And what was the original anyway, the original was written in French, which we couldnt read.
Since BOTH the epistles and the Gospels are in fact the Word of God, you are seriously mistaken. "Seem to contradict" is not the same as actually contradict. One fundamental truth about God is that He never contradicts Himself. That does not mean that He cannot further develop what is in the Gospels.
The contradictions have much to with mistranslation, and the desire to believe what is not so. For faith unique rather faith alone is what Paul talks about all of the time. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Someone who doesn't have trust/faith humbles not himself.
The contradictions have much to do with mistranslation, and the desire to believe what is not so. For faith unique rather than faith alone is what Paul talks about all of the time. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. A someone who doesn't have trust/faith humbles not himself.
Umm, so far, I haven't seen posted here a legit error in KJB. Not one is presented here has been done so far.
Presidente's offer of "logos" for the "word" does not satisfy or justify his objection. We all know one Greek word can be translated in many ways. Say for example for the Greek word “eis”. It could be translated so far as “for”, “into”,“unto”, “to”, “on”, “toward”, “against”,“among” and many others. So, insisting “logos” could only mean “word” is incorrect. Logos is the same as preaching as per Whiner in his Greek rule especially when it is in genitive. Thayers, Strong, and many others correctly agreed to this. I think, this is basic, and saying a Greek word means only one meaning is not true at all.
Yes, precious friend, originals are not meant here, it refers to the copies of originals and even translations.
So if someone could show you an error in translation, you would accept that the KJV is not an inspired translation?
When studying this, don't forget to include all the occult activity that the founding fathers were involved with, primary thru the masonic connection.
Lots of those guys claim to be Christian buy their order actually believes satan is the creator and God is jealous and goes around telling everyone that He is the Creator. (Albert Pyke - Morals and Dogma tells all about the masonic occult stuff they believe)