Do you believe everything the Bible says?

That’s great. I was just about to quote Ephesians 4:11-16 until I saw you already pointed it out.

So how do we reach this point? Is it possible?

1 Corinthians 1
10Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

Your false dichotomy is your problem. I'm just as confident as you, but my confidence is rooted in the character of God, not in my self-made belief in the reliability of my chosen translation.

Taking all the Bible literally? No.

The KJV defines itself in the first mention. And when you see five different definitions, which do you go with? The one that sounds best to you?

God's character is displayed through his word. If his word is not pure, holy...every word, then God's character is flawed. A faithful witness cannot lie.

Wrong. Take some training in logic and you will see your error... maybe.

These are your answers to what I wrote earlier...

a) The King James Bible is a translation only.
b) it is impossible to perfectly translate the source languages of Scripture into English. There are too many differences in word meaning, verb tenses, idioms, etc. If I say "it's raining cats and dogs", I would be deemed insane by people who didn't understand the idiom.
c) The King James Bible is written in archaic Englyshe to a society that no longer exists.

1: Correct
2: How do you determine what are the "correct English words"? Often words can have different meanings depending on context.
3: What difference does it make if you and others use the KJV every day? I repeat: the King James Bible is written in archaic Englyshe to a society that no longer exists." Obviously you're not living in early 17th Century England (nor is anyone).

Okay who voted no? Lol

God's character is not displayed through his word? If God's word contains errors, what does that say about his character? A faithful witness cannot lie.

2. Can you give an example from the KJV?
3. It does not matter, the KJV contains the pure, correct words for English. The current version of English is so watered down and not correct, slang at best. We need the correct words.

My, you're just....

You don't seem to realize you gleaned your understanding of the character of God from a translation of the Bible.

If you are anti-KJB that may explain your behavior.

Take some training in logic and you might see your error.

Anti-KJB? Lol… what idiocy!

No, but I do stand firmly against stupidity and ignorance. Most KJV-only arguments fall into one or both of those categories.

Your demeanor makes you appear to stand against the very teachings in the Bible when you example deep arrogance, fallen sarcasm, aggression and immaturity.

Your behavior is aggregious.

I've always wondered about the usage of the term "God forbid" that's found in the KJV, in Romans. To my knowledge, it doesn't exist in any of the manuscripts... there is no form of God, Lord, YHWH, etc., etc.
IOW, the word for "God", used in the KJV is wholly made up... can anyone shed light on this?

It'll happen when it's time. The only thing that "Theology" can produce is confusion, so neither MAN, or the Visible Churches will ever produce unity.

Back in 1973, I watched God bring all sorts of Churches together in a remarkable (but rather shallow) unity during the Charismatic outpouring which rolled on from about 1964 to 1979. I was in it from '72 through 78 or so. MANY PEOPLE were effected, and changed by it. ANd many denominations were changed. when the Charismatics started flowing back into the Assemblies of God denomination, it changed from a strongly legalistic, "Clothes-line holy", narrow minded, judgmental, bunch into a much more loving system, still maintaining it's strong missionary programs.

So when God decides it's TIME for the Churches to all see that same thing in Him - they will.

Your spelling is egregious.

Given that you are new here and know nothing about me and nothing about the history of my interactions on this subject, I will overlook your inappropriate judgmental comments.

It’s idiomatic. The translators used an English idiom that roughly captured the tone of the original.

“Not correct” by whose standard?

Look at the meaning of the words in a concordance.