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

[QvQ]

HORSE FEATHERS ! MVs have BETTER translations of them. For instance, the KJV poorly renders Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL", then the CORRECT translation would be "Thou shalt not MURDER". "Kill" means to end the life of any living thing, plant or animal. To follow the KJV's version of that command would mean we couldn't eat, as we kill something with every bite
Romans 10:17 is in every valid Bible version.
COMPLETE ABSURDITY ! Nowhere in Scripture is the KJV even hinted at !
It's not a bit superior; in fact, it's INFERIOR, due to archaic language, & the many goofs & booboos it contains.

So much for your "30 Points ". They've been shown to be rubbish. (No insult to you, personally, meant !)[/QUOTE]
Thou Shalt Not Kill. I considered that long and careful because the first idea I had was the word is murder. Killing another human can never be undone. There can be no atonement or restitution. Perhaps it is necessary in self defense but it is always to be deeply regretted. I will hold with the words, Thou Shalt Not Kill. It is that serious. Thou Shalt Not and in God's final judgement perhaps there are defenses but the real defense is the greatest regret. Anyone who kills for any reason without regret does not have a conscience.
Consider hitting a child who is on a bicycle. That child is killed. The driver will regret that for eternity. That commandment is a warning from God that killing another human in any circumstance is a terrible tragedy. "God may forgive you but could you forgive yourself?"
KJV is Superior due to the language. Poetry is the best possible words in the best possible order. The KJV is a pure delight of English prose poetry

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The NIV proclaims Jesus and teaches and explains the Gospel every bit as much as the KJV does.
I have been saved and blessed big time through the NIV.



Unless you show us the Greek so we can see what was written, I refuse to believe they are changes. Differences from the KJV, yes - but then your firm belief is that the KJV is perfect and you won't consider, even for a moment, that you could be wrong.
Show us the Greek and we'll be able to see where any changes have occurred.



I care about Jesus not sinning - because he didn't. I care about the Trinity. I care about the incarnation. All these are taught in the NIV.
I don't care for people who tell me that I am reading a horrible, corrupt version of God's word - even though I am saved just as much as you are.

There are so many red flags in the NIV, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.

NIV states,
"as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” --" (Mark 1:2).

Is that the right answer?

The NIV shows a lack of its own inerrancy in Mark 1:2 here.

Mark 1:2 is quoting from both Isaiah AND Malachi!!!!

The King James correctly says, "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mark 1:2).

The NIV says, “in Isaiah the prophet” and then it quotes from both Malachi, and Isaiah.
Note: The words in green lettering is from Malachi, and the words in purple are from Isaiah.

 

[Strong in Him]

No. The KJV English is not dead. It lives in the hearts of cherished believers today who hold to the KJV as the perfect Word of God.

But nobody speaks it.
Even if you speak it, you don't write it on these forums - and I somehow doubt that you go into a supermarket and say, "Prithee, wilst thou showeth me whereby I might find the eggs?" Or say "Mary, wilst thou not share with me whither thou goest?"
You're more likely to say "where are the eggs kept, mate?" and "Mary, where are you off to?" - today's English.

 

[Strong in Him]

There are so many red flags in the NIV, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.

Nonsense.

NIV states,
"as it is written in Isaiah the prophet: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way” --" (Mark 1:2).

Is that the right answer?

The NIV shows a lack of its own inerrancy in Mark 1:2 here.

Mark 1:2 is quoting from both Isaiah AND Malachi!!!!

The King James correctly says, "As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee." (Mark 1:2).

So that is a red flag??
That affects the fact of John the Baptist's coming - how?
It affects my salvation - how?

Well it's not a red flag then.

The NIV says, “in Isaiah the prophet” and then it quotes from both Malachi, and Isaiah.
Note: The words in green lettering is from Malachi, and the words in purple are from Isaiah.

So?
Doesn't change the facts, or the truth of the Gospel.

 

[JSRG]

The question of why it would only call out Isaiah even if it's from both Isaiah and Malachi is answered here, for the record. (this also applies to other cases in the New Testament where this sort of thing occurs)

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Nonsense.



So that is a red flag??
That affects the fact of John the Baptist's coming - how?
It affects my salvation - how?

Well it's not a red flag then.



So?
Doesn't change the facts, or the truth of the Gospel.

It can affect salvation in the fact that a person may no longer believe the gospel anymore because God's Word can no longer be trusted because it has errors or mistakes in it.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The question of why it would only call out Isaiah even if it's from both Isaiah and Malachi is answered here, for the record. (this also applies to other cases in the New Testament where this sort of thing occurs)

The article is in error. Matthew 27:9-10 is referring to Jeremiah 32:6-10.

 

[JSRG]

Actually, I want to go into a little more detail on the point I drew up.

So the complaint is that Mark 1:2-3 in the KJV simply says "the prophets" whereas the NIV writes "Isaiah the prophet." The latter is alleged to be a problem, as it isn't just Isaiah that's being quoted, and thus supposedly the NIV is in error whereas the KJV got it right.

Here's the problem. Look over to Matthew 27:9-10. Here we have the same thing occur in the NIV, in that two prophets are quoted (Zechariah and Jeremiah), but only one is cited (Jeremiah). But the KJV does this too. Matthew 27:9-10 does not say "the prophets" in the KJV but lists only one prophet. So if the NIV is guilty for doing this in Mark 1:2-3, then the KJV is guilty for doing this in Matthew 27:9-10.

So using this to argue for the perfection of the KJV compared to the NIV falls short, as it backfires and creates an error in the KJV.

Though neither is an error anyway, as noted:

"Z. H. Chages in The Student's Guide to the Talmud [172ff] relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name. The rabbis "adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions."

Thus for example Malachi and Ezra are said to be the "same person" (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (Mal. 2:2, Ez. 10:2). Chages gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities.

The purpose of this collapsing down of identifies was to enact a principle of praising the righteous and pious, and honoring those due such praise. Thus when Mark attributes the words of Malachi to Isaiah, he is enacting this principle by essentially melding the two prophets and giving attribution to the one who is the most deserving of honor and praise."

So bottom line:
1) Citing only "Isaiah the prophet" even though two prophets are quoted is not an error, but a valid Jewish exegetical practice.
2) Even if it was an error, it actually disproves the perfection of the KJV because the KJV makes this "error" elsewhere.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The question of why it would only call out Isaiah even if it's from both Isaiah and Malachi is answered here, for the record. (this also applies to other cases in the New Testament where this sort of thing occurs)

Besides, even if what you said was true, the KJV is still more accurately rendering this verse than the NIV. It's more precise.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Actually, I want to go into a little more detail on the point I drew up.

So the complaint is that Mark 1:2-3 in the KJV simply says "the prophets" whereas the NIV writes "Isaiah the prophet." The latter is alleged to be a problem, as it isn't just Isaiah that's being quoted, and thus supposedly the NIV is in error whereas the KJV got it right.

Here's the problem. Look over to Matthew 27:9-10. Here we have the same thing occur in the NIV, in that two prophets are quoted (Zechariah and Jeremiah), but only one is cited (Jeremiah). But the KJV does this too. Matthew 27:9-10 does not say "the prophets" in the KJV but lists only one prophet. So if the NIV is guilty for doing this in Mark 1:2-3, then the KJV is guilty for doing this in Matthew 27:9-10.

So using this to argue for the perfection of the KJV compared to the NIV falls short, as it backfires and creates an error in the KJV.

Though neither is an error anyway, as noted:

"Z. H. Chages in The Student's Guide to the Talmud [172ff] relates a practice of the rabbis of quoting various persons under one and the same name. The rabbis "adopted as one of their methods that of calling different personages by one and the same name if they found them akin in any feature of their characters or activities or if they found a similarity between any of their actions."

Thus for example Malachi and Ezra are said to be the "same person" (Meg. 15a) because they both say similar things (Mal. 2:2, Ez. 10:2). Chages gives examples of as many as three people being treated as one person because of such similarities.

The purpose of this collapsing down of identifies was to enact a principle of praising the righteous and pious, and honoring those due such praise. Thus when Mark attributes the words of Malachi to Isaiah, he is enacting this principle by essentially melding the two prophets and giving attribution to the one who is the most deserving of honor and praise."

So bottom line:
1) Citing only "Isaiah the prophet" even though two prophets are quoted is not an error, but a valid Jewish exegetical practice.
2) Even if it was an error, it actually disproves the perfection of the KJV because the KJV makes this "error" elsewhere.

Again, the KJV does not do what you propose. Matthew 27:9-10 is drawing from Jeremiah 32:6-10. Also, are you just randomly copying and pasting in the hope that you are right? Or did you write the article?

 

[JSRG]

Again, the KJV does not do what you propose. Matthew 27:9-10 is drawing from Jeremiah 32:6-10. Also, are you just randomly copying and pasting in the hope that you are right?

No, Matthew 27:9-10 is drawing from both Jeremiah and Zechariah. Where in Jeremiah does it say there were thirty pieces? That is only in Zechariah.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Besides, that is not the only problem with the NIV. There are tons of gross errors in the NIV.

In 1 Timothy 3:16: - The doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Incarnation are attacked.

KJV - “God was manifest in the flesh,”
NIV - “He appeared in the flesh,”​

If I was looking to defend the deity of Christ against someone who denied Jesus was God, this verse could not be used if I had a Modern Translation. Thus my battle in defending the truth would be hindered.

Philippians 2:7: - The doctrine of the deity of Christ is attacked by making Jesus to appear entirely powerless during His earthly ministry.

KJV - “But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:”
NIV - “rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.” (NLT says, “he gave up his divine privileges;”).​

Jesus did not make himself nothing. He was referred to Himself as God and accepted worship as God, etc. This is false to think that Jesus gave up His divine powers as God. I talked with Christians who falsely thought that Jesus did not have any divine power during His earthly ministry. This is because they were influenced wrongfully by a Modern Translation.

Romans 3:25: - Having faith in his blood is attacked.

KJV tells me to have faith in His blood directly - “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;”
NIV just tells me to have faith in general in regards to Christ shedding his blood - “God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood--to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--”​

I have talked with other Christians who denied the blood atonement. If they favored Modern Translations and hated the KJV, they would throw this verse back in my face in unbelief.

Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg of the problems with the NIV. Even Modern Translation Proponents have admitted many times on the internet that the NIV is a very bad translation. It uses gender neutral language. How is that helpful in today's day and age with gender neutral bathrooms?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, Matthew 27:9-10 is drawing from both Jeremiah and Zechariah. Where in Jeremiah does it say there were thirty pieces? That is only in Zechariah.

No. Zechariah doesn't refer to the "children of Israel" and the "field". In fact, only Jeremiah refers to the "field". Jeremiah 32:6-10 tells us about how Jeremiah was commanded by the LORD to purchase a field with 17 shekels of silver.

 

[robycop3]

Not all bibles say the same thing. God is not the author of confusion.
There has to be one nailed down perfect Word of God that we can know today that is not overly complicated like with trying to know a dead language that nobody can truly know with 100% certainty. For example: A man named Rick could put a gun to Bob's head and say, “I want you to perfectly translate John 1:1-7 from the Greek into English next month without flaw or your dead.” However, such a request would be unfair because Bob cannot perfectly do so because he did not grow up speaking and writing Greek perfectly in that culture. That culture or world is gone. So to do so perfectly would be impossible.

The goofs & booboos in the KJV I've pointed out are NOT matters of semantics or minor nuances. They're outright mistranslations, or ADDITIONS & SUBTRACTIONS to/from God's word.

 

[robycop3]

It can affect salvation in the fact that a person may no longer believe the gospel anymore because God's Word can no longer be trusted because it has errors or mistakes in it.

Sir, are you even going to TRY to address the obvious KJV goofs & booboos I cited in my previous post ?????????????????

 

[Isilwen]

Sir, are you even going to TRY to address the obvious KJV goofs & booboos I cited in my previous post ?????????????????

I've given up trying to get him to listen. He is fully entrenched in the KJVO way of thinking.

Meanwhile I just put some tabs into the NIV Life Application Bible I purchased a couple of months ago.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sir, are you even going to TRY to address the obvious KJV goofs & booboos I cited in my previous post ?????????????????

This thread topic is not primarily dealing with resolving Bible difficulties in the KJV.
I resolved supposed contradictions in the KJV in another thread (Which is the intended purpose of that thread). You can create another thread if you like. The purpose of this thread is not to address bible difficulties in the KJV but to post your reasons with Scripture to back up your position. So far, folks are only referring to scholars or best manuscripts, blah, blah, etc.
Most of my points out of the 30 I have listed are based on Scripture. Can you see your position in the Bible? Do we see men of God or the apostles looking to some old and dead ancient language in order to decipher or decode God's Word in order to understand it? I don't. Your position is unbiblical.

Yes, I know it does not seem fair that I can point out problems in the Modern Translations by comparison to the KJV. But bible difficulties is not the only point I have in defense for the King James Bible being the Word of God. I don't want this thread to be solely based upon an attack against the KJV, but I want it to be based on your proving your position to the contrary. Do we see the OAO position in the Bible? I don't see it.

The purpose of this thread is to examine my 30 points primarily and or state why you think the KJV is not the pure Word of God (without having to resort to what you believe are contradictions which can be explained with a rational response).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I've given up trying to get him to listen. He is fully entrenched in the KJVO way of thinking.

Meanwhile I just put some tabs into the NIV Life Application Bible I purchased a couple of months ago.

I can say the same, but the proof is in the pudding. The evidence in favor against the NIV is staggering. Even Modern Translations Proponents in your own camp will admit to that the NIV is a horrible translation and they will agree with me on certain verses and their corrupt nature. It is only silly that folks are arguing for the NIV when it is clearly a corrupt translation by both sides.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The goofs & booboos in the KJV I've pointed out are NOT matters of semantics or minor nuances. They're outright mistranslations, or ADDITIONS & SUBTRACTIONS to/from God's word.

People can see error where none exists. The goofs are only in your own mind.
Besides discussing bible difficulties would be a topic for another thread.

 

[Isilwen]

I can say the same, but the proof is in the pudding. The evidence in favor against the NIV is staggering. Even Modern Translations Proponents in your own camp will admit to that the NIV is a horrible translation and they will agree with me on certain verses and their corrupt nature. It is only silly that folks are arguing for the NIV when it is clearly a corrupt translation by both sides.