Man, The Cross , and The KJV
- Thread starter ChosenbyHim
- Start date
-
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.
I finally figured it out!
I don't believe that motorized vehicles are a good way to travel. First of all, they're dead. They are just mechanical devices invented by man. They can be exceedingly dangerous, require servicing all the time, can break down with no notice, and are, basically, dead. My grandparents and generations before them always used horses to travel around and to do some real work. They were always available and never broke down and became unusable. I have never used anything else.
BTW, I also use the King James Bible, 1611 version. It is, as we know, far superior to any modern translation. The latter are corrupt, even though modern scholars have devoted years of research and study to produce them. The King James is the only pure translation!
I don't believe that motorized vehicles are a good way to travel. First of all, they're dead. They are just mechanical devices invented by man. They can be exceedingly dangerous, require servicing all the time, can break down with no notice, and are, basically, dead. My grandparents and generations before them always used horses to travel around and to do some real work. They were always available and never broke down and became unusable. I have never used anything else.
BTW, I also use the King James Bible, 1611 version. It is, as we know, far superior to any modern translation. The latter are corrupt, even though modern scholars have devoted years of research and study to produce them. The King James is the only pure translation!
I am, of course, being sarcastic, but I'm using the same logic as the KJVOs.
Their idea is that the Bible is the one that their grandparents, great-grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. used so it must be the one true version. Of course, throwing out excellent modern Biblical scholarship is a requirement in their minds.
Their idea is that the Bible is the one that their grandparents, great-grandparents, great-grandparents, etc. used so it must be the one true version. Of course, throwing out excellent modern Biblical scholarship is a requirement in their minds.
-
1
- Show all
Lucy, what in the world are you talking about, ma'am??
While I understand how my stand for the blessed King James Holy Bible, would be offensive to many modern Christians since they do not believe that a perfect Bible actually exists today.
But when you say how hurtful, and hateful and unChristian, what exactly do you mean?
How is it "hateful, hurtful and unchristian" to simply believe and trust that we have God's inerrant and perfect word with us today?
While I understand how my stand for the blessed King James Holy Bible, would be offensive to many modern Christians since they do not believe that a perfect Bible actually exists today.
But when you say how hurtful, and hateful and unChristian, what exactly do you mean?
How is it "hateful, hurtful and unchristian" to simply believe and trust that we have God's inerrant and perfect word with us today?
No, what is foolish, unreasonable and illogical is to think that a Christian has to go back to the "Original" Greek and the "Original" Hebrew in order to find out and really know what God has said in His word.
Says who??? Alexandrian "Scholars" such as James White???
The Holy Scripture does not support your statement is here. But rather The Scripture teaches that a translation is always superior.
We have not had the original autographs for thousands of years now, but a copy of that original text is found in the blessed King James Holy Bible today.
I believe that chose to make a new translation under the providential working of God. God allowed His word to go through a process of purification, growth and maturity and ultimate perfection. Notice that it says in Psalm 12:6 that the pure words of the Lord are purified seven times:
(Psalms 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.
The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.
Furthermore, check out the following from the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible."
These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
(Psalms 12:6) The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.
The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.
Furthermore, check out the following from the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible."
These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."
Because it makes sense that the all powerful God whom we love and serve is faithful and pwerful enough to keep His promise which He gave in psalm 12:6-7, that's how.
Now answer my question now, would you?
How does a sane, sound, rational Christian come up with the idea that there is no perfect, finished, inerrant Bible today???
Now answer my question now, would you?
How does a sane, sound, rational Christian come up with the idea that there is no perfect, finished, inerrant Bible today???
My "Circular" reasoning is far better than yours, Dino. Because at least my reasoning leads me to the confidence that I do have a perfect and finished Bible for today. Whereas on the contrary, your reasoning leaves you full of doubt. Since in your mind, you don't believe that there is a perfect, finished, infallible Bible anywhere on this planet.
