30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today (Update: KJVO Posters Only)

[Isilwen]

History accounts that the Catholic church instigated these wars or attacks against other Christians. I believe those believers who fought back were not acting in accordance to New Covenant teaching. Those who adhered to Jesus' teaching on New Covenant Non-Resistance simply became martyrs at the hands of the Catholic church. Not very nice. Scripture actually speaks of this martydom. So yeah, the Catholic church here was in the wrong.

I will say it again and no more, there was killing from both sides. Neither side is innocent.

 

[Strong in Him]

Simply not true. Go back to the beginning of this thread and look at my 30 points more closely. But are you gonna do that? My guess is.... “no.”

Just like you're never going to compare the NIV and KJV with the Greek, in case it clearly shows that the KJV is wrong.

 

[Isilwen]

My point before still stands. If folks believe our Bible came from Catholics, and they do not agree with the bad fruits of Catholicism, how can they say that the Word of God (the Bible) is a good tree? Jesus said a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit. Psalms 12:6 says the words of the Lord are pure words. I believe my Bible (the KJV) is pure. My Bible is a good tree that has not been formed primarily by any religion that I disagree with.

You're missing my point.

It is the Catholics that compiled the Bible. They didn't write it, they compiled it. There is a difference.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure we can.
God's Spirit draws someone to Jesus, Jesus saves, forgives their sin and reconciles them to the Father and the Spirit causes them to be born again. All 3 members of the Trinity are involved in salvation.We do not force anyone to believe; we cannot.

But that's not making disciples.
Making disciples = teaching about prayer, different forms of prayer and persevering in prayer even if you don't think you're getting answers. It involves encouraging someone to read Scripture and not give up because they don't feel like it, or because they think they are too busy. It involves teaching about Christian commitment, serving God, holding firm to the words of Jesus even when the world tries to tell us something different, or mocks us for doing so. Discipleship is about letting your light shine, bearing fruit, being the salt of the earth and shining as stars in a depraved world. The Christian life is a journey; discipleship is how to keep going on that journey and follow our Lord.
Conversion, which is the work of God, takes an instant; discipleship is lifelong, and disciples are indeed made.

Again, you don't make disciples. God does. So your argument here fails.
1 Corinthians 3 proves this fact.

But not in the same sense that Jesus is.
He is God the Son; we aren't.

In John 3:16, the apostle John did not say the same words as Peter did.

Peter said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16).

It is still more appropriate to say “begotten” and not only because believers are called sons of God, and angels are called sons of God.

No, that's your interpretation.

If we were talking about one verse here only, I could maybe concede this point, but the sheer number of changes in God's word for the worse and not for the better tells us otherwise. Only a person NOT wanting to see these changes will of course think and speak as you do. My suggestion is to pray about it more. Ask God to show you the truth again on this topic and then honestly look at both sides without any bias to your position. Ask yourself: “Why do I believe the way that I do”

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just like you're never going to compare the NIV and KJV with the Greek, in case it clearly shows that the KJV is wrong.

Problem. You don't speak Biblical Greek or write it. Even if you did based on today's understanding that is just called “guessing” as to what a dead language says. You did not grow up in Biblical Greek times and lived in that world to truly know that language. I know. I tried studying Portuguese with a book. My wife was constantly correcting me and saying this region says this, etc. etc.

There was a lot in the book that she knew by firsthand experience that was not in the book. This is what folks are doing today. They are reading books and acting like they lived in that culture knowing that language intimately. One cannot truly learn a language this way with 100% certainty.

You are ony guessing as to what a dead language says.
Unless you have a time machine and can prove your Greek correct, I simpy would not agree with what you believe scholars say.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're missing my point.

It is the Catholics that compiled the Bible. They didn't write it, they compiled it. There is a difference.

No. The Catholics compiled their own version of the Bible, but they did not compile or preserve the perfect and pure Word of God (the KJV) that we have today in our hands.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Just like you're never going to compare the NIV and KJV with the Greek, in case it clearly shows that the KJV is wrong.

Another problem is that you or the scholar gets to decide what these original languages says (even when you did not grow up and know these language intimately for you to truly know them with 100% certainty). You are forming your own Word of God by your own interpretation on the Biblical Greek, and or Biblical Hebrew. I just believe my Bible in a language that cannot be altered in such a way so easily. The English language (even 1600's English) is tied to secular dictionaries that I cannot change so as to offer a gross misintrepreation on the text without it raising any red flags to others.

In other words, God's Word should change me, and I should not change God's Word.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

You're missing my point.

It is the Catholics that compiled the Bible. They didn't write it, they compiled it. There is a difference.

Here in America in the past: The Catholics wanted to place their Catholic Bibles in schools, but at the time, the King James Bible was the accepted Bible in school (of which they did not like). Riots broke out in certain cities over this. That right there should speak volumes.

 

[Isilwen]

No. The Catholics compiled their own version of the Bible, but they did not compile or preserve the perfect and pure Word of God (the KJV) that we have today in our hands.

They did compile what you have in your hands today. They compiled the canon of scripture. The books that go into the Bible that you read from.

That is my point.

 

[Strong in Him]

Problem. You don't speak Biblical Greek or write it.

How do you know?

Even if you did based on today's understanding that is just called “guessing” as to what a dead language says.

I would imagine that translation is only "guessing" if it does not agree with what you want it to say.
If it could be proved that the KJV agreed perfectly with the Greek, you would not be saying that - at all. You'd be shouting it from the rooftops and rubbing my nose in it at every opportunity.

You did not grow up in Biblical Greek times and lived in that world to truly know that language.

There are people, even on these forums, who understand, and have studied, Koine Greek.
If one of them was a KJV only person, I've no doubt you'd listen to them.

You are ony guessing as to what a dead language says.

No, I have Koine Greek dictionary and trust those who have studied, and translated, the Greek.
You won't trust them, because they might prove that in some cases the KJV has got it wrong - so you just bad mouth the language itself by calling it a dead language.

Guess what? KJV English is dead too.

Unless you have a time machine and can prove your Greek correct, I simpy would not agree with what you believe scholars say.

No, of course you won't.
The only scholars you'll believe are those who say, "on this point, the KJV is more accurate/a better translation" or who teach that generally it is the best thing ever.

The NT was written in GREEK, not KJV English.
Scholars translated the KJV from the Greek - i.e from a "dead" language. But there's no way you would tell them that they were only guessing; that they needed a time machine to go back and prove what the Greek said.
So isn't it slightly daft to insist that no one can understand what a dead language says, when you, yourself, read a Bible that was translated, by scholars, from a dead language?

 

[Strong in Him]

Again, you don't make disciples. God does. So your argument here fails.
1 Corinthians 3 proves this fact.

No, you're mixing up disciples and converts.
God causes the seed of his word to take root and grow in their lives - he has told us to go and disciple people.
That is what happens week by week (in normal times) when Christians go to church and Bible study groups.
That is what happened in the early church; Paul preached the Gospel, people believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit, Paul taught them the faith, founded churches and took people on his missionary journeys with him.

My interlinear Greek has the words "make disciples" in Matthew 28:19.

 

[QvQ]

No, you're mixing up disciples and converts.
God causes the seed of his word to take root and grow in their lives - he has told us to go and disciple people.
That is what happens week by week (in normal times) when Christians go to church and Bible study groups.
That is what happened in the early church; Paul preached the Gospel, people believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit, Paul taught them the faith, founded churches and took people on his missionary journeys with him.

My interlinear Greek has the words "make disciples" in Matthew 28:19.

When I was 12 or so, I read a book where the bad guys raped a woman and she died. I looked up the word "rape." The definition was "forced intercourse." I looked up "intercourse." The definition was "communication." I thought those bad guys talked that poor woman to death.
Anyone who has tried to decipher "chinglese" translations of Chinese/English instructions accompanying goods from China know that words such as "make" may be an exact translation but not exactly what the manufacturer meant.

 

[Strong in Him]

When I was 12 or so, I read a book where the bad guys raped a woman to death. I looked up the word "rape." The definition was "forced intercourse." I looked up "intercourse." The definition was "communication." I thought those bad guys talked that poor woman to death.
Anyone who has tried to decipher "chinglese" translations of Chinese/English instructions accompanying goods from China know that words such as "make" may be an exact translation but not exactly what the manufacturer meant.

The point is that Bible Highlighter is saying that we cannot MAKE, or force, someone believe - so the Bibles which quote Jesus telling us to make disciples, are wrong. He is claiming that the newer versions have changed the Great Commission, implying that the salvation of non believers is totally down to us.
Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect, which is saying that salvation is from God.

 

[QvQ]

The point is that Bible Highlighter is saying that we cannot MAKE, or force, someone believe - so the Bibles which quote Jesus telling us to make disciples, are wrong. He is claiming that the newer versions have changed the Great Commission, implying that the salvation of non believers is totally down to us.
Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect, which is saying that salvation is from God.

My point is that the King James Version was not translated word by word. The King James "writers/translators" had a long tradition and history of what exactly those words meant. The meaning of the words was based not on dictionary substitutions but on the Oral Traditions, sermons, writings, preaching and teachings. They had a command of the language so that the word "make" and "force," although synonymous in some contexts are not synonymous when the context is to "create." Make" can mean "create" or "force" although either would change the entire contextual meaning dramatically.
I agree with you. Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect, which is saying that salvation is from God.








"

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

My point is that the King James Version was not translated word by word. The King James "writers/translators" had a long tradition and history of what exactly those words meant. The meaning of the words was based not only on a dictionary substitutions but on the Oral Traditions, sermons, writings, preaching and teachings. They had a command of the language so that the word "make" and "force," although synonymous in some contexts are not synonymous when the context is to "create." Make" can mean "create" or "force" although either would change the entire contextual meaning dramatically.
I agree with you. Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect, which is saying that salvation is from God."

Probably the only advantage to KJV is the Stronge’s concordance that makes looking up Hebrew and Greek words easy to pattern, I agree. However the Greek letters and especially the Hebrew pictography are more precise to understanding than a detour thru English.

 

[QvQ]

Make disciples, when "make" is "create" or "force" perhaps that may have a different nuance or meaning in Greek. However, I read English and the difference between Teach and Make is such that to do a dictionary substitution of the two words is to change the contextual meaning dramatically. Nowhere in the Any Bible does it state to force or create conversions until the "make" mistake. The KJV is correct both in translation, tradition and in Spirit.
Now, to pass down the anathema of "force" disciples, that is a corruption. Christians now agree and understand that the Gospel is to be taught and preached but how about down the ages? That one word gives rise to a host of unChristian possibilities.
Read it in Greek if you like. I read English and "make disciples" is wrong

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The bibles I use to get the best English translation that I can are Holy Bible from the ancient eastern text ~ Goerge Lamas translation and New Testament the expanded version ~ Kenneth S Wuest translating from the Greek.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Having gone on your way therefore, teach all the nations, making them your pupils, baptizing them into the Name of the Father, of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to be attending to carefully, holding firmly to, and observing all, whatever things I enjoined upon you. And behold, as for Myself, with you I am all of the days until the consummation of the age.

I assume the baptizing and teaching of Father, Son and Holy Spirit refer to the same thing.

 

[Strong in Him]

My point is that the King James Version was not translated word by word. The King James "writers/translators" had a long tradition and history of what exactly those words meant. The meaning of the words was based not on dictionary substitutions but on the Oral Traditions, sermons, writings, preaching and teachings. They had a command of the language so that the word "make" and "force," although synonymous in some contexts are not synonymous when the context is to "create." Make" can mean "create" or "force" although either would change the entire contextual meaning dramatically.
I agree with you. Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect, which is saying that salvation is from God.
"

Salvation is from God.
"Make disciples" does not mean "force people to believe" - which is what Bible Highlighter was saying. He was claiming that newer translations of the Bible have changed the Great Commission, making it sound as though we are to go around dragging people into the Kingdom and beating them into submission.

 

[Strong in Him]

Make disciples, when "make" is "create" or "force" perhaps that may have a different nuance or meaning in Greek. However, I read English and the difference between Teach and Make is such that to do a dictionary substitution of the two words is to change the contextual meaning dramatically. Nowhere in the Any Bible does it state to force or create conversions until the "make" mistake. The KJV is correct both in translation, tradition and in Spirit.
Now, to pass down the anathema of "force" disciples, that is a corruption. Christians now agree and understand that the Gospel is to be taught and preached but how about down the ages? That one word gives rise to a host of unChristian possibilities.
Read it in Greek if you like. I read English and "make disciples" is wrong

I don't read it in Greek; I refer to my interlinear Greek NT so that I can see what was written. If something is in the Greek, it shouldn't be left out; if it's not in the Greek it shouldn't be added.