King James Bible

Now... when will you develop the integrity to act on those words?

The Hebrew of 2 Chronicles 22:2 is ’ar·bā·‘îm (forty). The Septuagint says eíkosi (twenty). So the KJV and the NKJV correctly translate the Hebrew, but why the Hebrew says forty in contradiction to 2 Kings 8:26 is a mystery.

yea, no help, no hope. Anyway, KJB is no error in this matter. Thanks anyway

Bahahahahahahahahaha!

What colour is the sky in your world? Are you so brainwashed that you can't see the contradiction?

the application rings true to the analogy that the sure word of prophecy shed light and not the unsure one which critical text follows. The bottom line it's either a sure word of God we handle or not. That's anyone's choice.

Umm, those were explained on the seeming contradiction. Thanks

Thats a word salad.
Do ya mind clarifying?

Just kidding, the KJV is the holy preserved words of God in the English language.

What about the English-speaking world before the KJV? Are you saying they were without His holy preserved word?

I like the KJV also its well translated except for some really crucial forgeries. King James and those involved were trinitarians and altered some very valuable scriptures. They altered the nature of God which misleads people. It is a matter of eternal life so I would say its a issue of salvation. So who was ever responsible for the forgeries shame on them because it is obvious that it is meant to confuse which God is not the author of.

This is not only blatantly false but slanderous. Do you seriously believe that a Bible which has been around for over 400 years and held in high esteem by all Christians contains forgeries, and no one has raised this issue? If this were true it would not even be a Bible. So you are only on "Level 1" as far as knowing anything about this matter.

This is such a straw man argument that it is hardly worth addressing. Did you know that very soon after the completion of the Bible, it was already being translated in multiple languages, and that the Syriac Peshitta was already in circulation in the 2nd century? And all translations since 1611 were primarily based upon the KJV and/or the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts? And that even the Jewish Publication Society at the beginning used the King James Bible as their translation of the Tanakh because of its excellence? And that the Trinitarian Bible Society prints all kinds of translations which strictly correspond to the KJV?

KJV is a good translation, but KJV only is mistaken. I like the NKJV and use it often. NKJV is not 100% Perfect either, but good.

Also, the Latin Vulgate was used by Christians, especially Western Christians, far longer than the KJV, and far earlier in Church History (from the 4th Century onward, up until the present day) than the KJV. It is also a well respected translation, by a 4th Century Bible Scholar named Saint Jerome. Jerome had access to some Hebrew texts that are now lost and used them well.

Well, what about all those English speakers before the KJV? I'm not making an argument; I'm asking a question. One which you appear to want to dodge. Forget the fancy speeches and just answer the question, if you're capable of doing so.

What about the English speaking world 2,000 years ago? 2,500 years ago?

God was preserving his word from the beginning. That doesn’t mean it was always available to everyone. Throughout most of the OT, his word was only available to one nation.

Do you agree then that we do not have access to the holy word of God? Scripture? God gave man his word but did not perfectly preserve it?

God has certainly given us His Word. The Bible (all versions and all languages) is the biggest best seller of all time. We have His Word and we are called and commanded to study it. But did Jesus speak English or tell us He would give it to us in English alone? If so, why not in Tamil, Hindi, Malayalam, Spanish and a host of other languages? What makes English special?

No, we have it, and the best and earliest manuscripts and translations are mostly in Hebrew, Greek and Latin; if there is a doubt about a particular verse, either consult the original languages, or use Strong's Concordance, or ask Bible Scholars.

God never promised to preserve His Word in English alone, and in the 1611 KJV in particular.

God Bless.

So He was preserving His word from the beginning only to be revealed in the KJV of the Bible? Where is your scriptural support for this? I don't ever recall reading a passage that says: in 1611 A.D. I will reveal My perfect word to the English-speaking world in the KJV of the Bible; listen to it. Seems to me, something this critically important would get a mention.