The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- 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.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
this is dangerous, in the places where the KJV got it wrong, or did not have a “Complete” interpretation of words or a passage, you would be led to a false understanding of whatever that was.
I believe most bibles can give us enough knowledge to properly understand the word. But God gave us teachers, and other forms of background to study (including origional text) to get a more complete understanding.
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
John 8:58 "Before Abraham was born, I am."
John 10:30 "I and the Father are one."
Titus 2:13 ... our great God and saviour, Jesus Christ
Isaiah 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: "I am the first and I am the last, and there is no God besides Me."
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
Is your Arianism refuted by a single verse? No. It is refuted by truth drawn together from several verses, each of which holds part of the overall truth: that Jesus is God incarnate, neither made nor created, eternally existent. If you want to argue your position further I invite you to start a thread on the subject.
Any ‘disciple’...I will add a few
here...would not have such a corrupt view of the Christ. Loons are ruining our churches.
And very late ones. We have several almost complete codexes from 4th century, today.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
If we took all of scripture. This would be just a minuscule amount of verses one could use to prove this point. There is no debate,.
If Jesus was not God in the flesh, I am still dead in my sin, Period.
Wrong. Ninety-five percent of all evidence SUPPORTS the text of the King James Authorized Version. The new versions are supported by the remaining five percent evidence.
The new "bibles" are supported by two very corrupt fourth century manuscripts, the "Vaticanus" and the "Siniaticus." These manuscripts are filled with many text alterations to meet the demands of Roman Catholic tradition. They also include the Apocrypha, which the Lord Jesus Christ EXCLUDED from the Old Testament in Luke 24:44. All new versions contain readings from these corrupt manuscripts, and all new versions use their tiny five percent evidence to attack the ninety-five percent majority text of the King James Bible.
Who told you that?
For example well known 1J5:7 is just in two late manuscripts that were influenced by Latin text.
The end of Revelation, the similar thing.
So in these examples, 99.99 percent of Greek manuscripts is against the James´ version.
Your heresy runs deep, and your ignorance of Scripture facilitates this. You have no clue what begotten means.
More heresy...It's now no longer a wonder as to why most of everything you teach is heresy.
Jesus isn't a created being.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Last edited:
Evidence? What evidence? Show it to us. I bet Steven Anderson in a video will be coming shortly.
What part of his assertion is wrong?
This is twisting the truth. I think you'll find that 95% of all evidence supports both the KJV and the modern translations, and that the differences amount to, at most, 5%.
Since the 1611 KJV contained the Apocrypha, once again your point is absolutely without merit.
I somehow like Steven Anderson, I cannot help myself
Doesn’t he hate gays and Jews? He’s a loon.
It is found in several Greek texts - Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, Elziever, Scrivener and Modern Greek Bible; it is quoted by several church fathers as Cyprian 250 AD, Athanasius 350 A.D., Priscillian -380 AD, Varimadum 380 A.D., Jerome 420 AD, Victor Vitensis 430 A.D., Fulgentius (late 5th century), Cassiodorus 580 A.D, and is found in many ancient versions of the Bible including the Old Latin, and is found in some copies of the Syriac, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonic ancient versions.
Although not found in most Greek manuscripts, the Johannine Comma is found in several. It is contained in 629 (fourteenth century), 61 (sixteenth century), 918 (sixteenth century), 2473 (seventeenth century), and 2318 (eighteenth century). It is also in the margins of 221 (tenth century), 635 (eleventh century), 88 (twelveth century), 429 (fourteenth century), and 636 (fifteenth century).
There are at least two Greek lectionaries (early didactic texts usually containing copious scriptural citations) in which the Comma appears (Lectionaries #60, dated to 1021 AD, and #173, dated to the 10th century).
It was part of the text of the Old Latin Bible that was translated in the second century, as it witnessed by some remaining copies that we have today. It is found in "r", a 5th century Old Latin manuscript, "q", a 5th to 7th century O.L. mss, and "l" another 5th century O.L. mss.
Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with him. I mean, what pastor doesn’t stand on his pulpit and point a finger at his flock he shepherds? Come on, really? This ain’t abnormal at all.
The Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers only and denied it as part of Scripture. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
Erasmus apparently put 1 John 5:7 in because of pressure from the Catholic church. Any text that used his as a source cannot be considered valid as a reference on this matter; that includes Stephanus, Beza, the Elzevirs, and Scrivener.
No manuscript produced after Erasmus can be considered valid, unless it can be proven beyond a shadow of doubt that the writer had no access to a printed edition.
Once again, try responding to the rest of my post instead of picking one thing and ignoring the rest.
I don't know if he "hates" them, but he denies the Holocaust, and that makes him dangerous.