Man, The Cross , and The KJV

Really? Which chapters and verses?

The word is "copyright", and the KJV had the 17th century equivalent.

No they don't, but you're welcome to try to identify a doctrine that is absent from any modern Christian translation.

Nothing but biased propaganda.

Wrong, Angela.

The Textus Receptus is not corrupted by the deletions, omissions, additions of the Minority Text. The Siniaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts are the manuscripts which are loaded with deletions, omissions, errors and corruption. You need to check the source you get your information from, ma’am.



Angela, antiquity and the age of a particular manuscript is no guaranteed indicator of reliability. Even you should know this, ma’am. Origen had even testified that there was already corruption in a number of manuscripts by the third century. And where did the corruption originate? Alexandria.




Well you ought to be ashamed of yourself, Angela. For not even putting in any effort to work on understanding the blessed King James Holy Bible. If I can understand the King James Bible, and I grew up as a child in SLD, Special Ed. In other words, I was very slow at learning at first during a good portion of my childhood and even after I was transferred out of special ed. And so you have absolutely no excuse Angela. A grown, elderly lady with your education should not be making excuses for why you have not ever read the absolutely perfect, infallible and inerrant word of the living God.




Oh how sad. That you still choose to reject the true and living word of God. You need to repent of your pride, Angela. You really do.


I think it is really neat that you speak and understand those different languages, Angela. But If you have the education and intelligence to learn those very languages, then why not put in the effort and have the determination to read God’s true and living word, the blessed King James Holy Bible?





Well, I know for a fact you definitely have never found a mistake in the King James Holy Bible, because that is the only Bible that is inerrant and perfect.




How Sad Angela, that your so called education in the languages of Greek and Hebrew has puffed you up to where you think you can now sit in judgment over the true and living word of God.




Angela, it is not necessary to do all that studying in the Hebrew and Greek, when God has perfected and finished His word in the English Language. As a matter of fact, the King James Bible is superior to the Hebrew and to the Greek.




Could you name these manuscripts which you are calling “late” and “corrupted”?




You would get much more out of reading the King James Bible, which is God’s finished Bible.




Okay, and why don’t you also read the King James Holy Bible?


If you can read those other foreign languages, then Bible English should not be as hard for you to read as you claim it to be.





Angela, the King James Bible is perfect. God’s word Is one with His character and nature. And since God is perfect, then His holy word must also be perfect.




Angela, if you really love the Bible as you say you do, then why don’t you step out of your comfort zone and learn and study and read the King James Bible? I ask you this, because the KJB is God’s finished and completed Bible.





You are wrong again, Angela. There is a Perfect Translation. And you already know which one it is, because I and other Bible believing Christians have told you about it, and I believe that the Holy Ghost has been testifying also about the King James Bible and how it is the One True and finished word of God.




Angela, the one who is blind is you, ma'am. You cannot even see the error of your faulty reasoning. My eyes have been opened to God’s finished Bible, and I am so thankful that the Lord hath opened my eyes to receive the glorious Truth that the King James Holy Bible is His very word indeed.





I am simply honouring the Father, the Word and the Holy Ghost by honouring their perfect word. Remember what I stated in my other recent threads, Angela. Jesus Christ is one with His word, the Holy Scripture. What is true for Jesus is also true for His word, the Holy Scripture. Jesus Christ and the King James Bible posses the very same attributes, and they are one in unity. Hallelujah!!

Wrong again, Angela. The modern versions do attack important Bible doctrines, such as the Blood, the deity of Jesus Christ, the Doctrine of Salvation and the modern translations also attack Jesus’ character and even try to turn Jesus into a sinner, by removing the phrase “without a cause” in Matthew 5:22. You see, Angela, there were times when Jesus got angry, but He had a righteous cause for being angry.


Too late, Angela, I already did, ma’am. Whether you read my response or not, I am sure there will be someone reading this response of mine. You really need to repent of your pride, Angela. Otherwise, you will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ, ma’am. I say this with love, concern and care, ma’am. Perhaps you do not want to read the King James Bible because you are scared. Perhaps you do understand the absolute power that that blessed holy Book has. After all, the King James Holy Bible, which is God's inerrant and perfect word, can read and discern our very thoughts and intents of our heart (Hebrews 4:12). Absolutely amazing!

There is a Perfect Translation of the Scriptures, and we have access to it today. Praise God!

In the Scriptures, every translation which God performed in a man always resulted in a perfect and superior condition. Like Enoch. When Enoch was translated (Heb. 11:5), he went directly up to be with the Lord. You want to tell me that that was not a perfect translation???

I also can assure you that Enoch's translation led him into a superior state of being as well. Hence, in addition to the King James Holy Bible translation being perfect, we also can know that it is even superior to the original autographs.

If you believe God, then I encourage you to also believe His word. If you trust God (Jesus Christ), then I exhort you to also trust His holy word. For His word is one with Him. You cannot separate the Holy Scripture from Jesus Christ. What is true of Jesus is also true of His word. What is true of the Holy Bible is also true of Jesus Christ.

Then why don't you come out and tell me which Bible you believe is the perfectly preserved and infallible word of God?

If you believe God is powerful enough to save your soul from sin, death and hell, then you also should believe that He is powerful enough to preserve a perfect and infallible translation of His pure word.

I said this before Dino, and I will certainly say it again. I know enough to be able to tell and discern that you hold a very low view of Scripture. And because of that, you ought to be ashamed of yourself, sir.

It is about Jesus Christ. And it is also about His finished Bible, the KJB.




What King James Bible believing Christians like me and others show from Psalm 138:2 is the absolute major importance that God places upon His own word. For Him to magnify it above all His name, says a lot.






We do not twist the word, but rather, we simply Honour the word, because we honour Christ. Jesus even placed heavy importance upon His very words. Which is why He said that if a man love Him, that He would keep His words. And that if we abide in Him and His words abide in us, that we shall ask what we will and that it shall be done unto us.


In conclusion, brother, if we love Jesus Christ, we will love His word. If we honour and reverence Jesus Christ, we surely will honour and reverence His word also. You and Dino should really go to Psalm 119 in the KJB and meditate in that very psalm for days to see how much gravity, major importance and honour which God doth place toward His word, the Holy Scriptures. When you read what David writes by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, we see perfect worship of God and absolute love and revering for His holy word. It is absolutely beautiful to behold. David even says at one point that his heart Stands in Awe of God’s word (Psalm 119:161). What about you, sir? Do you stand in awe of God’s holy word??? Do you believe that God’s word is perfect and inerrant???

Your argument is fallacious. That God theoretically can "preserve a perfect and infallible translation of His pure word" is no proof that He has done so.

Whoops! lost my temper!

Yes, the greatest like none before or ever again. The time or reformation. When Satan (Revelation 20) fell no longer able to deceive all the nations in so much that a person must have the right colored flesh . Satan will never to rise and deceive all the nations in that way forever more. Today still feeling the effects of that finished work of living water.

One thing I have been looking at is the sign of the cross. How it is used as parable. It would seem to be one part of the three day demonstration. The garden the opening demonstration has a different kind of gospel meaning that comes together with the cross . I would say more private as a sign of the two working as one. The disciples were put to sleep

They had no part in prayer as work of God strengthening a person to do the good pleasure of His will .

God will not share that glory with corrupted, dying mankind. He gave them a wake up call. Rise go . . part two of the demonstration. You could say the witness of men ."the cross" . In that we we know His witness is greater as the tool of faith . As the two worked together "thy will be done".

By reason of sufferings the Son of man, Jesus bore the wage of sin as the father poured out the unseen wrath, again the Son crying out for strength to finish the work of two mutually working as one. The Father poured out spirit life. ..

The cross would attribute the sufferings to the hands of dead men the witness of men . The tomb would seem to end the three day demonstration.

Satan attributes nothing. Put him a sleep also. Unlike the Catholics' Mel Gipson version "Passion" he is walking around in the background making evil eyes at the Queen of heaven .

Do you have a factual basis for saying this? Modern versions have been created because nobody, including yourself, thinks/reads/writes in 17th Century English. It is an archaic language in which the vocabulary and meanings no longer mean what they meant 400+ years ago. Because of that, many people translate the text ad hoc to mean what they want it to mean. They set themselves apart as those who have some knowledge that is denied the rest of us; most of the time it's incorrect.

It's too bad that you lack an understanding of a) the art and science of translation, b) the dissimilarities in the thinking/reading/writing of the earliest text sources, the English of 400 years ago, and the English of today. Most modern translations are far better than the antiquated, confusing, "Englyshe" of the King James Version.

Am I missing something? Is there a copy of the KJV of the Bible that is on display in heaven somewhere?

People continually find something to deflect from the simplicity that is in Christ.

OK. Here is just one example of many. Luke 11: 34-36. Compare carefully the wording in the NIV, and the text hints that if your eyesight is "bad" you will not be able to see clearly. The KJ uses such wording as "single" ( meaning not double minded) and compares it's opposite to being EVIL, not bad eyesight. Or, important wording left out as in Matthew 17: 19-21. in which Jesus reveals that some deliverance from demons require prayer AND FASTING ,of which the NIV leaves out.

Fallacious reasoning. Difference does not prove anything. It is equally valid to claim that the KJV has words added.

Matthew 17:19-21, "Then the disciples came to Jesus privately and said, “Why couldn’t we cast it out?” He told them, “It was because of your little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.” (NET)

Here is the translator's note regarding verse 21, " Many significant mss (א* B Θ 0281 33 579 892* e ff1 sys,c sa) do not include 17:21 “But this kind does not go out except by prayer and fasting.” The verse is included in א2 C D L W Γ Δ ƒ1, 13 565 579 700 1241 1424 M al lat sy(p),h, but is almost certainly not original. As Metzger notes, “Since there is no satisfactory reason why the passage, if originally present in Matthew, should have been omitted in a wide variety of witnesses, and since copyists frequently inserted material derived from another Gospel, it appears that most manuscripts have been assimilated to the parallel in Mk 9.29” (TCGNT 35). The present translation follows NA28 in omitting the verse number as well, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations." This should give anyone an idea of how translators make decisions based on their knowledge of the various source language documents.

This is one of the dumbest things I have seen anyone say.

A translation is ALWAYS inferior to the original text it was translated from.

I agree, and I try not to say something is dumb but that really tops it off. How can anyone possibly say such a thing?