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

[QvQ]

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 consumption of the age.

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

"Making" is "putting together." In this context it would mean "assembling" into the group, like assembling firewood, i.e. making a pile. However the verb "make" as in "make firewood" means to forcibly create the same. I hold to my original "make disciples" is to imply force or creation which Christians ought not do the one and cannot do the other.

 

[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.

Matthew 28:19-20 from the Aramaic bible. It seems more forceful than the Greek ...

Go therefore, and convert all nations; baptize them in the Name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit;
and teach them to obey everything I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always to the end of the world. Amen

 

[Der Alte]

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.

Did the translators of the KJV, in England, in 1611, more than 1600 years after the Bible was written, grow up and know these language intimately for them to truly know them with 100% certainty? Or did they form their own Word of God by their own interpretation on the Biblical Greek, and or Biblical Hebrew? How do you know?

 

[QvQ]

Here is an excerpt from a Greek translator:.
The Greek word translated as Teach and make disciples is mathēteusate μαθητεύσατε.
This word is a verb and means to disciple or to instruct. To disciple someone is to teach them. Jesus spent 3 years teaching his disciples. There is no “to make” in the Greek in this verse and there is no noun disciple. “To make disciples” simply does not exist in the Greek.

 

[robycop3]

He lost his voice.

“As the TV cameras captured the moment, Dr. Wilkins opened his mouth to answer� and nothing came out! No sound! Wilkins kept trying to clear his throat, but he couldn't respond. Ankerberg and the other new version scholars were visibly startled. Finally, an embarrassed and frightened Wilkins was able to screech out in a cracking, almost inaudible manner, "I... I've... lost... my voice!"

A shocked John Ankerberg ordered the cameras to stop and back up, whereupon Dr. Joseph Chambers, a King James only advocate, politely protested. "The cameras should record exactly what happened here," Chambers insisted.”​

Whether his voice came back later is irrelevant. He lost his voice and he was in shock about it, and it did not seem like it was a glass of water incident like you are making it out to be.

God ‘cut off’ modern scribes power to speak. These include:

(1) KENNETH TAYLOR: The Living Bible

‘Mysteriously half way through the paraphrase Taylor lost his voice and still speaks in a hoarse whisper. A psychiatrist who examined him suggested that the voice failure was Taylor’s psychological self-punishment for tampering with what he believed to be the Word of God.’ Time Magazine, July 1972.

- Even the Introduction to the Catholic edition warns in Words About the Word, p 89: ‘This translation cannot be used as a basis for doctrinal or traditional disputes. . . People from various doctrinal traditions may . . . be chagrined at the particular translations found within this volume’.

- Even ‘new Bible’ supporter D.A.Carson says: ‘I distrust its looseness and dislike its theological slanting of the evidence.’ (KJV Debate, p.84)

(2) PHILIP SCHAFF: American Standard Version and NASV.

Schaff’s son writes: ‘Even as early as 1854, his voice was so affected that he could not speak in public so as to be heard.’ By 1892, ‘the power of articulated speech had gone.’ (The Life of Philip Schaff, David Schaff, 1897, pp 171, 446).

This loss of speech followed his work with Westcott and Hort on the Revised Version Committee and ASV. In 1893 (39 yr later), he was still ‘deprived of thepower of speech’.

(3) TREGELLES: New Greek Text (1857-72 edition).

This preceded and strongly influenced the Westcott and Hort revision. David Schaff writes of Tregelles: ‘He was scarcely able to speak audibly’. (p.246)

(4) WESTCOTT: New Greek Text gave rise to RV, RSV, NIV, NASB, GNB, LB . . ..

Westcott’s biographer cites that in 1858 “he was quite inaudible” and by 1870 “His voice reached few and was understood by still fewer.” Life of Westcott, Vol 1, p 198,272

(5) J.B.PHILLIPS: New Testament in Modern English.

Zacharias lost his power of speech, because ‘thou believest not my words.’ Luke 1:20.

J B Phillips tells in his own autobiography, ‘I was still doing a fair measure of speaking in schools and churches until the late summer of 1961. And then quite suddenly my speaking, writing and communication powers stopped. I was not in panic but I was certainly alarmed, and when a few weeks rest brought no improvement I cancelled all speaking engagements for the rest of the year (age 55). ’ (The Price of Success, p163-196).
​

So this is not just once incident we are talking about here, this is a series of incidents. Also, if God's Word is true in Revelation 22:18-19, then who has this happened to in history? I will tell you. The account is right above that you prefer not to see.

Source:
Bible Corrector Loses Voice on Ankerberg Show
And a Google search.

This was simply another case of some KJVOs trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.

That coulda happened to anybody, trying to speak under hot TV cameras, especially if one hadn't spoken for awhile. Nothing supernatural or miraculous about it.

You read rabid KJVO advocate Texe Marrs' account, which, as are all pro-KJVO articles, heavily biased & mostly false. Here's the REAL account of what happened, along with intel on how to see the whole show in question for yourself :
The View from Marrs: Did Dr. Don Wilkins Really Lose His Voice on a Taping of The John Ankerberg Show on the New Translations? | John Ankerberg Show

 

[QvQ]

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.

Thank You, I love KJV, the language, the poetry, precision and cadence but I will take a look at the two Bibles you mentioned.

 

[Strong in Him]

Here is an excerpt from a Greek translator:.
The Greek word translated as Teach and make disciples is mathēteusate μαθητεύσατε.
This word is a verb and means to disciple or to instruct. To disciple someone is to teach them. Jesus spent 3 years teaching his disciples. There is no “to make” in the Greek in this verse and there is no noun disciple. “To make disciples” simply does not exist in the Greek.

As I suspected, the Greek says; disciple them. The meaning, to me, is, show them how to become disciples, make disciples of them.
Much as we might say "I'll make an artist out of you yet". Which means "I'll show/teach you how to become an artist, even if it's hard work and it takes you months to learn", and not "I'll MAKE you become an artist"; implication, whether you want to or not.

No one can do that with salvation; it's all from God.

 

[JSRG]

God's Word existed before Westcott and Hort's discovery on two Alexandrian documents found via by Catholic sources.

Are you referring to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus? People have already pointed out to you that Sinaiticus was from an Eastern Orthodox monastery. You even acknowledged this, if I recall correctly. Why are you still claiming it's Catholic even after admitting it isn't?

Actually in the real world history, Catholics tried to take out King James with a superbomb. This was to no doubt stop in part due to him creating a Bible to be in the hands of the common man. But believe what you will. I know nothing will convince you.

As has again already been pointed out to you, an assassination of James would have done nothing to stop the Bible from being in the hands of the common man because it was already in their hands. The Bible was already in English and was already available--I believe in Scotland they even passed a law requiring people to purchase the Geneva Bible if they had the money.

The assassination was done because the conspirators wanted policies more favorable to Catholics and thought that getting rid of James might accomplish that. It had nothing to do with, as you claim, trying to stop the Bible from getting into the hands of the common man because the common man already had it. If you are asserting that was still the goal despite it making no sense, then show some support for this idea, e.g. quoting statements by the conspirators demonstrating that the KJV was actually in view in any way.

Now, it is possible that had they succeeded in their plan, plans for the KJV would be cancelled. Maybe; it would depend on if the next monarch chose to cancel it or not. But that wasn't their goal, and would have simply been an incidental effect. And it would have, again, not prevented the Bible from being in the hands of the common man because the common man already had it. Even if everything worked out perfectly for them, and the bomb somehow set off a chain of events that led to England returning to Catholicism, England would've most likely just adopted the Douay-Rheims Bible, the English translation done by Catholics that came out before the KJV did.

 

[JSRG]

Well the Catholics killed the waldensons around 400 ad because they had copies of the Bible the vatican didn't want common man to have a Bible. They are an apostate church.

It would be quite incredible for them to kill the Waldensians in 400 AD considering the Waldensians were founded in the 12th century.

To be fair, the Waldensians were persecuted pretty hard after they were founded, but it was because they were deemed heretics for rejecting various Catholic beliefs, not due to them having copies of the Bible.

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.

George Lamas's translation? If these reviews in scholarly journals are any indication, it's not a good translation at all, and especially falls short of its claims of being a translation from the "Ancient Eastern Text."

 

[Jipsah]

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.

Nah, according to my grandmother, God rest her, the Korean translation of the Bible is the only true one, as the others are written in the ghastly languages that foreigners speak.

 

[QvQ]

Frankly I prefer Shakespeare to the modern "make disciples." I mean, what do you want to do today?" "Lets go make disciples." "Making disciples is so much fun" "I told you to make disciples."
That is ambiguous, ungrammatical and how did that get past the editors?

 

[Radagast]

I’m not comfortable with the way the Tetragrammaton is translated.

You do realise that, when the New Testament quotes passages containing the Tetragrammaton, it has "Lord"?

 

[Radagast]

I agree with you. Whereas the KJV just has "teach all people", or words to that effect

The only problem is that μαθητεύσατε does not mean "teach." There is a Greek word for "teach" (διδάξατε), which is not used here, but is used (in a different tense) in the next verse.

The best translation of the word that is used is indeed "make disciples."

 

[Radagast]

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.

Sometimes the Greek word is only there to make up for the fact that punctuation hadn't been invented yet; sometimes the Greek word needs to be translated with multiple English words; sometimes the Greek word is not needed in English; sometimes there is something implicit in the Greek grammar that needs to be explicit in English.

 

[Strong in Him]

Sometimes the Greek word is only there to make up for the fact that punctuation hadn't been invented yet; sometimes the Greek word needs to be translated with multiple English words; sometimes the Greek word is not needed in English; sometimes there is something implicit in the Greek grammar that needs to be explicit in English.

Yes, I was thinking that as I wrote my post and wondered if I should have been clearer.
I get that, but my point to Bible Highlighter was that we should look at the Greek to determine whether of not a word/phrase appears, rather than just assuming that because it does/doesn't appear in some of the modern versions, that they are corrupt and have deliberately changed the text.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, I was thinking that as I wrote my post and wondered if I should have been clearer.
I get that, but my point to Bible Highlighter was that we should look at the Greek to determine whether of not a word/phrase appears, rather than just assuming that because it does/doesn't appear in some of the modern versions, that they are corrupt and have deliberately changed the text.

True.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

You do realise that, when the New Testament quotes passages containing the Tetragrammaton, it has "Lord"?

Yes, and I’m still not comfortable with it being used as a direct translation for where the Tetragrammaton is written instead of “Adonai.”

After reading that dispute about whether it’s right to include “and shalt be” I’m even less comfortable because if you read “O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be” and you consider the way the Tetragrammaton is understood, you can even read that as a direct reference to the name, and so that has a “rightness” to it that simply “which art and wast” wouldn’t, even without manuscript evidence.

This isn’t me claiming to know with certainty whether something was added or something was removed, only that those three tenses of the word “to be” are used together in reference to the Tetragrammaton and if I only knew the Tetragrammaton translated as “Lord” then I also would have nothing but archaeological evidence to guide me on that.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, and I’m still not comfortable with it being used as a direct translation for where the Tetragrammaton is written instead of “Adonai.”

Well, then your argument is with the authors of Scripture, not with me, because the New Testament does indeed render the Tetragrammaton as "Lord."

In the Old Testament, using LORD in caps for the Tetragrammaton works for me.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Well, then your argument is with the authors of Scripture, not with me, because the New Testament does indeed render the Tetragrammaton as "Lord."

In the Old Testament, using LORD in caps for the Tetragrammaton works for me.

I’m happy to not argue with you or with them, because even if the apostles spoke Adonai and wrote kyrios they could still read the Tetragrammaton, so when Paul advises that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work I see no reason to assume he didn’t mean as it was written.

 

[robycop3]

I honestly don't think anything will convince you. You have chosen your side of the battle long before the evidence was laid forth. If you actually looked at my points, I don't think you were in any way open to them but you were more for proving how they are not true. Evidence needs to be weighed in the balance. The bereans were more noble because they searched out the Scriptures to see whether those things be so or not. We have to be good detectives and not biased or bad detectives. But I know my words are wasted here. Nothing I will say will convince you. Only God can convince you of this truth (if you are open to hearing it). Right now, it does not look like you want to be under a final Word of authority. That's your choice. You have chosen your side. I have chosen my side and it is the pure Word of God. I can have confidence in God's Word and not have any doubts about His Word being true (Which cannot be said for your position).

If the Bereans were still here searching the Scriptures, they wouldn't find one word supporting the KJVO myth.

I showed you ABSOLUTE PROOF that the AV makers believed Ps. 12:7 is about PEOPLE ! I hope you have a copy of the AV 1611 so you can see that proof for yourself.

And the KJV is NOT God's PURE word. it has human goofs & booboos in it, and you can't refute any of them.

Again, you've chosen to believe the quax & mountebanks who publish pro-KJVO material, without checking out the VERACITY of their claims.

You should realize that, since you've been shown irrefutable proof the KJV isn't perfect, every time you speak in favor of the KJVO myth, you're TELLING A LIE, & GOD said all liars will have their part in the LOF.