This comment simply displays ignorance on your part. A true believer would never say such a thing.King James created his Bible to serve his own political ends. I would avoid it for that reason alone.
This comment simply displays ignorance on your part. A true believer would never say such a thing.King James created his Bible to serve his own political ends. I would avoid it for that reason alone.
Okay??? So you won't just simply answer the question? Why the need for all the tap dancing if it's such a strong position?
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky here, but I'm just trying to have a straight forward conversation about this topic. Again, I get the argument for it, but I disagree with many of the assumptions made and conclusions reached when diving into the finer details of the "KJV Only" case.
I understand you don't want to be offensive or blatantly aggressive with your position, but you said that God will hold us accountable for not using the KJV exclusively, yet when I asked straight up you kind of side stepped it, now jump into why you think other versions are corrupt. Look I get it, but the thing is even before we get to that point there are some glaring problems with holding up a particular version of His word as "above" all things. First and foremost being that His word itself doesn't tell us of some perfected version (coming in 1611) that invalidates everything else around it. That's why I ask you very specifically what you believe, because there are many that take this you make this almost mythical standard about it being "god's prefect word in every conceivable way, without error and perfected to every degree". Which for the record, I agree with, but present it in way that opens a whole world of unnecessary and pointless debate distracting from the TRUTH. Even worse in my eyes, is it splits the body from the jump before a word is said forb NO good reason.
Listen I am not trying to just fight with you guys for fun, or because I'm board, I want to sharpen myself as well as learn, to come together to draw closer to Him. I get how this view is appealing, and the way it's presented is convincing, but there is a deception to it if you see it or not. It's honestly what they leave out when making this case that I find deceitful. They only lay out the details and slant towards their view while never saying a thing about how or why any of these things were different in other versions. This is where KJV onlyism lost me, was when you start researching why and how these verses were changed or worded differently. While not every single case in every version "makes sense" (I say this because I haven't researched it nearly that much and wouldn't even make such a sweeping claim anyway), but everyone I have researched was explained to my satisfaction, and made sense in a very non-nefarious way. I don't see the devil behind it changing His word. I don't even believe that he could prevail against His word.
I just see too many problem with this view for it to be truth and I don't think we should make it a thing to divide over. I defiantly don't believe God will punish us for using other Bibles than the KJV.
Okay??? So you won't just simply answer the question? Why the need for all the tap dancing if it's such a strong position?
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky here, but I'm just trying to have a straight forward conversation about this topic. Again, I get the argument for it, but I disagree with many of the assumptions made and conclusions reached when diving into the finer details of the "KJV Only" case.
I understand you don't want to be offensive or blatantly aggressive with your position, but you said that God will hold us accountable for not using the KJV exclusively, yet when I asked straight up you kind of side stepped it, now jump into why you think other versions are corrupt. Look I get it, but the thing is even before we get to that point there are some glaring problems with holding up a particular version of His word as "above" all things. First and foremost being that His word itself doesn't tell us of some perfected version (coming in 1611) that invalidates everything else around it. That's why I ask you very specifically what you believe, because there are many that take this you make this almost mythical standard about it being "god's prefect word in every conceivable way, without error and perfected to every degree". Which for the record, I agree with, but present it in way that opens a whole world of unnecessary and pointless debate distracting from the TRUTH. Even worse in my eyes, is it splits the body from the jump before a word is said forb NO good reason.
Listen I am not trying to just fight with you guys for fun, or because I'm board, I want to sharpen myself as well as learn, to come together to draw closer to Him. I get how this view is appealing, and the way it's presented is convincing, but there is a deception to it if you see it or not. It's honestly what they leave out when making this case that I find deceitful. They only lay out the details and slant towards their view while never saying a thing about how or why any of these things were different in other versions. This is where KJV onlyism lost me, was when you start researching why and how these verses were changed or worded differently. While not every single case in every version "makes sense" (I say this because I haven't researched it nearly that much and wouldn't even make such a sweeping claim anyway), but everyone I have researched was explained to my satisfaction, and made sense in a very non-nefarious way. I don't see the devil behind it changing His word. I don't even believe that he could prevail against His word.
I just see too many problem with this view for it to be truth and I don't think we should make it a thing to divide over. I defiantly don't believe God will punish us for using other Bibles than the KJV.
Comparing the Textus Receptus of Stephanus with the Critical Text of Westcott/Hort/Nestle etc will make this even clearer.Sample of Corruption in Ephesians 3:9
First and foremost being that His word itself doesn't tell us of some perfected version (coming in 1611) that invalidates everything else around it.
Okay??? So you won't just simply answer the question? Why the need for all the tap dancing if it's such a strong position?
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky here, but I'm just trying to have a straight forward conversation about this topic. Again, I get the argument for it, but I disagree with many of the assumptions made and conclusions reached when diving into the finer details of the "KJV Only" case.
I understand you don't want to be offensive or blatantly aggressive with your position, but you said that God will hold us accountable for not using the KJV exclusively, yet when I asked straight up you kind of side stepped it, now jump into why you think other versions are corrupt. Look I get it, but the thing is even before we get to that point there are some glaring problems with holding up a particular version of His word as "above" all things. First and foremost being that His word itself doesn't tell us of some perfected version (coming in 1611) that invalidates everything else around it. That's why I ask you very specifically what you believe, because there are many that take this you make this almost mythical standard about it being "god's prefect word in every conceivable way, without error and perfected to every degree". Which for the record, I agree with, but present it in way that opens a whole world of unnecessary and pointless debate distracting from the TRUTH. Even worse in my eyes, is it splits the body from the jump before a word is said forb NO good reason.
Listen I am not trying to just fight with you guys for fun, or because I'm board, I want to sharpen myself as well as learn, to come together to draw closer to Him. I get how this view is appealing, and the way it's presented is convincing, but there is a deception to it if you see it or not. It's honestly what they leave out when making this case that I find deceitful. They only lay out the details and slant towards their view while never saying a thing about how or why any of these things were different in other versions. This is where KJV onlyism lost me, was when you start researching why and how these verses were changed or worded differently. While not every single case in every version "makes sense" (I say this because I haven't researched it nearly that much and wouldn't even make such a sweeping claim anyway), but everyone I have researched was explained to my satisfaction, and made sense in a very non-nefarious way. I don't see the devil behind it changing His word. I don't even believe that he could prevail against His word.
I just see too many problem with this view for it to be truth and I don't think we should make it a thing to divide over. I defiantly don't believe God will punish us for using other Bibles than the KJV.

Who died and made you the Forum police?View attachment 259765
@Dino246
First, poster “John146“ just refuted your claim with Scripture.
Second, you gave the “boring” rep in response.
How on Earth can you see this as boring?
He posted Scripture!
Any discussion of Scripture should never be boring, even if you disagree.
This is why I am flabbergasted by such responses by you.
The Bible says that the entrance of God’s words brings light (Psalms 119:130).
In fact, God’s words taste sweeter than honey (Psalms 119:103).
Doesn’t seem like you agree with what the Bible plainly teaches (unless you care to explain).
Okay??? So you won't just simply answer the question? Why the need for all the tap dancing if it's such a strong position?
I'm not trying to be rude or snarky here, but I'm just trying to have a straight forward conversation about this topic. Again, I get the argument for it, but I disagree with many of the assumptions made and conclusions reached when diving into the finer details of the "KJV Only" case.
I understand you don't want to be offensive or blatantly aggressive with your position, but you said that God will hold us accountable for not using the KJV exclusively, yet when I asked straight up you kind of side stepped it, now jump into why you think other versions are corrupt. Look I get it, but the thing is even before we get to that point there are some glaring problems with holding up a particular version of His word as "above" all things. First and foremost being that His word itself doesn't tell us of some perfected version (coming in 1611) that invalidates everything else around it. That's why I ask you very specifically what you believe, because there are many that take this you make this almost mythical standard about it being "god's prefect word in every conceivable way, without error and perfected to every degree". Which for the record, I agree with, but present it in way that opens a whole world of unnecessary and pointless debate distracting from the TRUTH. Even worse in my eyes, is it splits the body from the jump before a word is said forb NO good reason.
Listen I am not trying to just fight with you guys for fun, or because I'm board, I want to sharpen myself as well as learn, to come together to draw closer to Him. I get how this view is appealing, and the way it's presented is convincing, but there is a deception to it if you see it or not. It's honestly what they leave out when making this case that I find deceitful. They only lay out the details and slant towards their view while never saying a thing about how or why any of these things were different in other versions. This is where KJV onlyism lost me, was when you start researching why and how these verses were changed or worded differently. While not every single case in every version "makes sense" (I say this because I haven't researched it nearly that much and wouldn't even make such a sweeping claim anyway), but everyone I have researched was explained to my satisfaction, and made sense in a very non-nefarious way. I don't see the devil behind it changing His word. I don't even believe that he could prevail against His word.
I just see too many problem with this view for it to be truth and I don't think we should make it a thing to divide over. I defiantly don't believe God will punish us for using other Bibles than the KJV.
One of the main issues I have with KJV onlyism is the idea that the manuscripts on which modern Bibles are based are corrupted. In my opinion they're of an inferior quality but not corrupted; it's still the word of God. That's why I reject KJVO.
On the flipside, I don't really appreciate how these inferior manuscripts are always presented as "the best." This just simply is not the case.
Heb 6:13Actually, there are clues that the 1611 King James Bible is the Word of God.
#1. The Bible talks about how there will be a Book of the LORD during the Tribulation period (Isaiah 34:16).
#2. Adding the verse numbers for the 3 verses that talk about how man shall not live by bread alone adds up to 1611.
#3. The 1611th mention of LORD (capitalized) first appears in the 1611 King James Bible. This is important because the 1611th mention of LORD just so happens to fall in the 16th chapter of Deuteronomy, 11th verse (Deuteronomy 16:11).
#4. Acts 16:11 also points to England and the mountain on the way is exactly 1,611 feet tall.
#5. The King James Bible is a unique book in history, unlike any other book. It is the most printed book in the world (with billions of copies). It was a part of the Great Awakening in history leading to many revivals.
#6. It was not originally created with a copyright and received one a hundred years later.
#7. It was almost destroyed by Catholics with a super bomb (a.k.a., the gunpowder plot).
#8. Many in the English-speaking world still speak like the King James Bible and do not even know it. There are 200 plus idioms contained within its pages that influenced multitudes in history.
#9. 47 of the best scholars gathered together in one place unlike ever before or after. There were translators who knew the languages far better than anyone today.
#10. Personal Pronouns (Which do not appear in Modern Bibles). So if you are reading a Modern Bible in John 3, you cannot distinguish between when Jesus is referring to Nicodemus and speaking to everyone.
#11. Purity of Doctrine.
#12. The Many Deceptions in Textual Criticism (Which is the popular alternative position).
I will provide some videos for you to check out for some of the claims above.
I understand you don't want to be offensive or blatantly aggressive with your position
You have admitted that the KJV has mistakes...You got your answer, but did not like it. So once again, when someone deliberately
chooses the corrupt over the pure, God holds them accountable.
OH, about 1790 posts ago, give or take a few.At what point does a spirited defense morph into arrogance? Asking for a friend.
Do you seriously think that God preserved His written Word for over 3,500 years so that at the end thousands of omissions and additions could be made with impunity? Yes. there is a "holy grail" and the traditional Hebrew and Greek printed texts fairly present the true Word of God. Both the doctrines of divine inspiration and divine preservation of the Scripture apply as noted below:There is no holy grail, against which every other must be compared
That makes no difference since those are in fact minor flaws. So let's focus on the serious corruptions in the modern versions (which you have conveniently ignored).You have admitted that the KJV has mistakes...
I just see too many problem with this view for it to be truth and I don't think we should make it a thing to divide over. I defiantly don't believe God will punish us for using other Bibles than the KJV.