How many Bibles do you know where it's readers claim that it is the very pure Word of God? Not too many if you ask me. One keeps coming up. The KJV. When a person examines the KJV, they will find that it is the best version to memorize. It has no copyright here in America. They will find that it's formation was unique and unlike any other after it.
a claim is not proof it is only a claim. each claim needs to have substance behind it to back it up. Anyone can claim any number of things and can even find a group of people to agree with them but popular vote is not sufficient substance to support a claim and would be irresponsible do to so. It seems most people you engage with do not take you seriously and typically your conversations end with people frustrated with you that you have no substance in your claims. if you want to be taken seriously you need substance and as it stands you have only given opinions and biases that lack substance. I tell you this as advice not as a demand but I share the same sentiment as others that I cannot take your claims seriously until you can provided sufficient substance.
Also, what is the world language today? It is English. For English has the most influence world wide. So it should not be hard to find God's Word if we narrow down how God used His Word in the past before. There are also no crazy things within the KJV like other translations, as well. I have also witnessed an almost pure hatred of the KJV by other self professing believers. They hate this Bible. I have been mocked and riduculed myself personally for defending the KJV. Why? Well, banks are not robbed because they have cotton candy within them (i.e. something of little value). Banks are robbed because they have high value within them (i.e. money). It's the same with the Bible. Nobody gets all bent out of shape when a person says they trust the ESV. But have a Christian defend the beauty and majesty of the KJV and watch out. Also, what appear to be contradictions in the KJV are merely misunderstandings by the reader. I have find sound solutions to supposed errors in the KJV. So yes. It is perfect. Yes, we see God's Word is preserved today in our world language with it's existence.
Although the most widely used language in the world is English this does not warrant the use of an authorized universal translation written in Elizabethan English. Elizabethan English itself is a dead language as it practically only exists in written form. Movies and theater are examples of historical pieces and do not alone give life to a language.
The 1611 KJV itself is difficult to read in it's original form. John 3:16 in the 1611 KJV is “¶ For God so loued þe world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.”
We can read it because we know it from memory but spelling has evolved and so has language. The fact that those who value the KJV also value the evolved spelling but do not value the evolved language is highly inconsistent and irresponsible if the KJV is going to be elevated above all other translations.
God's Pure Word is expressed through language but it is not cemented through language. We value "the Word" but the actual "words" used are fluid. This is the principles behind translation as languages evolve and how people think are intrinsically molded by how words are formed and mirror that of their mother tongue. Eastern languages are vastly different than Western and within those groups people form ideas differently. Hebrew is more an eastern language, extremely concrete and Greek is more a western language that is far more abstract, today ancient greek would be pushed more on the eastern thinking end. To use 1 language to be the "Pure Word of God" simply doesn't have and logical foundation and vastly misses the point; it frankly is counter-gospel.
the KJV uses the Textus Receptus (TR) as their based Greek text. The TR was put together by a Catholic named Erasmus in the early 16th century and it was originally put side to side with latin. Several versions later the 1550 TR was used for the KJV. The TR is really the first of many critical greek text and greek study to aid in translations not necessarily for written bibles but for understanding the original context of the text. It would be counter-intuitive to cast aside other aids for study the TR is about better study. They can be dangerous to use not because they are corrupted or mislead the reader away from the meanings of the text but because people who study them do not take proper time in their study and use these aids as a quick look up; they require serious study to use them properly and responsibly.
Strong's Exhaustive Concordance was as an index for the KJV and was not made as a commentary, it's definitions are how the KJV defines words. It was made so you can look up a word easily. There is no reason to reject Strongs and I find it unusual and inconsistent to reject it as it values the KJV as it's base text.
You are making an inconsequential comparison. We are not talking about inconsequential things here. We are talking about the Word of God. Also, by comparing the KJV with Modern Transaltions we see that changes are for the worse and not for the better. The devil's name is placed within Modern Translations (unlike the KJV) and many important doctrines, and truths are eliminated and watered down (Like the blood atonement, the deity of Christ, and holiness, etc.). What other Bible besides the KJV stands out as not having any blatant errors or huge problems within them? The short answer is none. So we are led to conclude that the KJV stands as superior above all other Bibles in it's purity.
most come to an opposite conclusion that it is the KJV with "blatant errors or huge problems" This is the issue when there are 2 parties that have opposing claims who is right? Simply declaring you are right does not make you right as the other side is saying the same thing. You need substance in your claims which you are grossly lacking and because of this no one is taking them seriously but rather quite the opposite they are taking them as foolish statements.
I do not use numbers as a part of my worship. Nor do I worship numbers. Actually the Bible commands you to count numbers as a part of wisdom (See
Revelation 13:18, and
Ecclesiastes 7:25,
Ecclesiastes 7:27). If you were to study Biblical Numerics properly, you would not want to uplift numbers to a level of idolatry. There is no bowing down to a set of numbers or getting those numbers to do something for you or anything silly like that. People pray to Mary hoping that she can help them. People bow down to statues of her. This is not biblical. But it is not in any way like Biblical Numerics. It is totally unrelated in any way. So your comparison is way off.
I don't suggest you worship numbers or the KJV but to hyper analyze the text to such levels is irresponsible and will inevitably cause many to spiral into idolatry levels. We see similar ideas with those who value the veneration of Mary. It is irresponsible even the the doctrine opposes worship of Mary many spiral into these idolatry levels with Mary because of the propped up values toward her. English words have no inherent power to them, not in the way they are spelt or the way they are formed together. Numerology is widely used by the occult and although I do not reject it as a whole, as we know God uses astrology to leave the wise men to Christ, the net value of the Numerology does not seek to glorify God it seeks to glorify a text which is irresponsible
Because you value them. I only trust them as far as the English supports it. If it does not match the context or the English, I throw out their interpretation or definition at Strong's. Strong's is not like an English Dictionary. They were not writing it from experience or while that language was still alive. They are making guesses and assumptions.
you seem to only value them as far the the KJV supports them which shows an irresponsible bias and is why your claims are not taken seriously. The fact that you went to such lengths to prove an inconsequential point by even including a screen capture shows me you do place some value on them and it goes beyond merely teaching me using tools I accept. You too accept them on a level, so long as you agree with them, but this is highly inconsistent based on your claims and because of this makes you seem irresponsible and turning a text into a pretext to suit what you want it to say. I cannot take you seriously if you don't take your own study seriously.
Not at all. Lucifer is an accurate description for Satan because he is a light bearer. He was adorned with jewels in his clothing. Jewels or gemstones reflect light. They are like little light bearers. Scriptures says Satan appears as an angel of light. So the name "Lucifer" is fitting indeed and the KJV got it right. The problem is when certain Modern translations say that he is the BRIGHT and morning star in Revelation (Which is a name given only for Jesus).
Lucifer is a latin word used to describe a figurative reference for Satan. it is accurate only in Latin but in English the word is a misnomer for Satan and would have to be translated from Latin to be accurate. The word does mean light bearer, such as someone who lead a group with a lit torch was called a lucifer, but it also was the term used to refer to the celestial object in the sky that can be seen during the morning. This is also what the Hebrew is referring to when it uses the word helel. The Hebrew is not referring to a light bearer it is referring to the celestial object in the sky. The Latin text translates this to "lucifer" which is a good translation as it was the term used for the same celestial object. The KJV uses the latin word which has cause mythology to seed from this term with absurd statements like it was his original name of Satan. The septuagint uses the word "Phosphoros" which is the term used for the morning star in greek and it means "Dawn-Bringer" The Greek's had two words for this celestial object, Hesperus and Phosphoros (evening star and morning star) and in Latin it is Vesper and Lucifer. The Latin text is identifying this celestial object correctly as "lucifer" and in the KJV is arguably is also identifying it correctly however it leans on the Latin to get its meaning.
Not true.
The CEV (Contemporary English Version) says, "the bright morning star."
The NCV (New Century Version) says, "morning star,... you were as bright as the rising sun!"
The NIRV (The New Internations Reader's Version) says, "you were the bright morning star."
The OBJ (Orthodox Jewish Bible) says, "Bright One of the Dawn..."
The text has a redundant description saying first "helel" and then "bensahar" or "son of Dawn", this redundancy is common in hebrew. helel concretely means something bright or shining and is an epithet used for celestial objects. so a translation of "Bright and morning Star" can be justified but doing so requires a compromise of translating bensahar. To be true to the text in a more literal way it would be "shining son of the morning" but the word helel has been commonly translated not as a mere epithet but as a proper noun which is why the KJV kept "lucifer" and added "O Lucifer". This may be justified as they wanted to emphasize it as a proper noun so they didn't even use English. However rather than Latin a better way to do this would have been to use a transliterated hebrew. This proper noun is also common in many translations emphasising this by saying "O [helel]" but no one keeps the Latin probably form the irresponsible folklore surrounding "lucifer" that modern translations unanimously seem to deemphasizes the folklore of "lucifer" and translate the context.
it is a good however to critically analyse translations to gauge their accuracy and I agree with you saying "bright and morning star" stretches the translations maybe too far but the context reveals who the text is talking about. The NT does speak of Jesus using similar language but there is no issue with this. these are descriptors and do not have to talk about the same thing or even suggest it.
There are two "day stars."
An English Dictionary says that one is venus and the other is the sun.
The devil is obviously venus and Jesus is paralleled with the sun.
For Jesus is the BRIGHT and morning star.
The sun is bright.
Jesus is paralleled with with the "morning star" (greek. phosphorus) 2 Peter 1:19. this reference is not for the sun it is for the celestial object that can be seen in the morning sky that is venus. Revelation 22:16 lists the adjectives out separately "Bright" "Morning" and "Star" so there is no controversy in how they are translated. You can't know this unless you study the greek and because you don't value this you miss these things and your claims become increasingly weak and under researched and pulls all your weight on an extreme bias which only makes your claims seem more weak and under researched. Again if you want to be taken seriously then you need to start being serious with your study.
