-
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 can preserve His perfect word without it being in a single text or a set of a few manuscripts. It actually makes more sense, and would be more effective, if it was preserved in a majority text. More manuscripts, more readers, more truth dispensed over a wider area.
KJV onlyists argue that without having a single preserved authority, the body of Christ has no ground, no certainty. I would agree with this. But my question would be: What about all those other manuscripts? Are they all corrupted if they don't agree with the TR? How much certainty can we have if we ignore 90% of the evidence?
The objective is to get as close as possible to the autographs. KJV onlyism put an obstacle in the path. To me this is despicable. They put a halt to all inquiry and set themselves up as the guardians of truth. It's not really that different from when Catholics only allowed the Bible to be in Latin. This gave them ultimate power and those who bucked the system earned themselves a violent death for their trouble.
KJV onlyists argue that without having a single preserved authority, the body of Christ has no ground, no certainty. I would agree with this. But my question would be: What about all those other manuscripts? Are they all corrupted if they don't agree with the TR? How much certainty can we have if we ignore 90% of the evidence?
The objective is to get as close as possible to the autographs. KJV onlyism put an obstacle in the path. To me this is despicable. They put a halt to all inquiry and set themselves up as the guardians of truth. It's not really that different from when Catholics only allowed the Bible to be in Latin. This gave them ultimate power and those who bucked the system earned themselves a violent death for their trouble.
Of course the bible doesn't mention 1611. It's that your case against the KJV? Did God promise to preserve his word? Where is it? Where is God's completed, perfect, holy word?
Inspiration without preservation is useless for future generations.
1. Contains no errors
2. Perfect time in history
3. Fulfillment of God's promise
4. Manuscript evidence
5. The fruit it has produced
6. No copyright
7. It exalts the Lord Jesus Christ
1. Not true
2. Why? How?
3. What promise?
4. What manuscript evidence?
5. What fruit?
6 has nothing to do with anything
7 no more than any other English bible
Nope, God's word as preserved in the KJV has proven itself over and over. I have been shown all sides of the debate, and I cannot deny the evidence.
From a friend...
#2 The King James Bible was not translated during the apostate and lukewarm Laodicean church period, like the new translations. The Laodicean period is the last church period before the Second Coming of Christ. It is the last of the seven church periods in Revelation chapters two and three. One can clearly see that we are living in the Laodicean period today by simply comparing modern churches to the church of Revelation 3:14-22. This lukewarm period began toward the end of the 1800's and will continue until Christ returns. The new versions fit well into the lukewarm churches, because they are lukewarm "bibles."
The Authorized Version, however, was translated LONG BEFORE the Laodicean churches appeared. It was translated during the Philadelphia church period, which is the best church period of all. It was this church that the Lord Jesus COMMENDED for KEEPING HIS WORD( Rev. 3:8-10)!
In 1611, when the King James Bible was completed, the scourge of lukewarm Laodicea had not yet swept over the world. There was no "scientific" crowd around in 1611 to put pressure on the translators. There was no civil rights movement going on at this time to influence the work of these men. The women were not screaming for "equal rights," and the humanists and socialists had not yet taken control. The massive army of liberal and modernistic preachers had not yet been assembled. The open public denial of God's word and the Deity of Christ was practically unheard of among ministers. It wasn't until the twentieth century that professing Christianity became flooded with lukewarm preachers who would be willing to compromise the word of God for self gain.
The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did - the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene! Think about that.
No, it's not a case against the KJV per se, but against the ridiculous idea that it's the one and only source of His inspired word. But it's not the only case; see my post above #242. God can preserve His word without relying on a single volume. It's much more likely that it's been preserved in the majority of manuscripts, not just a few. And when you ignore 90% of all the other evidence and call it corrupted you impede the truth, not help it.
I've learned from experience that you won't be swayed by reason or evidence because your belief is irrational and delusional. You'll just have to figure it out on your own.
Either one is the word of God or none. There can't be more than one since they contain different words and even different truths.
It might be the KJV ushered in the Laodicea era. If one was to believe the letters to the churches are eras, which there is no evidence to support.
Also you think 1600 was the era of Philadelphia... With all the divisions and fighting and even one church persecuting another?
Also you think the Anglican Presbyterian church is the church That is the Philadelphia church?
What great missionary work occured during the so called Laodicea church age? That seems a contradiction. We are luke warm but doing great mission work???
None, zip, nada during the new version Laodicea age. That's my point. The greatest world wide revival occurred between 1700-1900 including the greatest preachers we've ever had. They never compromised the word for gain like we see today.
The letters to the churches in the book of the Revelation are letters first and foremost written directly to those churches at that time. Second they are wise warnings to all churches through out the ages. There is nothing in the text to indicate that they are representative of "church ages". I dont even know where that comes from. Other than some one adding to the text, which is gravely warned against.
The word of God is as Jesus said Spirit and Truth and also as written in the Gospel according to John, Jesus himself. There is no book that is the word of God. The book is a record of the word of God, and He by his Spirit breaths those words when they are spoken from the record of his words.
The word of God is as Jesus said Spirit and Truth and also as written in the Gospel according to John, Jesus himself. There is no book that is the word of God. The book is a record of the word of God, and He by his Spirit breaths those words when they are spoken from the record of his words.
If "church ages," are true, there goes the idea that Christ's return is imminent.
TR onlyists and the critical texters are two sides of the same coin really. They each hold a magical belief that truth is found in their small collection of manuscripts and ignore everything else. This is very convenient and probably comforting; but it's an illusionary comfort.