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.
I can say the same for the Greek and Hebrew Lexicons or the Modern Translations position; For it has no substance or claim to back it up as being the true position to have. Care to take a shot to defend such a position? What substance does this position have vs. the KJVO position?
Surely nothing.
But I did give you substance or reasons to support the KJV in being perfect and that it is God’s preserved Word for today. You just simply disregard them because to you they are not reasons or substance. It does not mean those reasons are not valid or substantial.
#1. The KJV says that the Word of God is perfect and that it will be preserved for all generations. So if taken literally, this means that there is a Word of God that perfectly exists for our generation today. Seeing how God had used a world language once before like Greek to preserve His perfect Word, it is logical to assume God would do so again for our day.
#2. The KJV is the easiest to memorize.
#3. The KJV had a translations team that peer reviewed each other's work.
#4. The KJV stands out above every other translation in the fact that it is based upon the Textus Receptus where all the Modern Translations are primarily based upon the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts that occultists Wescott and Hort used to build their Critical Text.
#5. The KJV was the Bible used for over 400 years before the Modern Translations even came onto the scene.
And here are more reasons:
How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God by James Melton
Reasons why the KJV is the best English translation of the Bible
You said:
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.
You are acting like nobody can understand 1600’s English. It is not all that different to understand vs. our current English. We can at least read the majority of it and any word or words we don’t understand we can use an English dictionary that does not have a religious agenda attached to it. Also, as I said before: Jesus also spoke in parables. I believe God does this because He wants us to study certain phrases within His Word. How so? Well, if you're a KJV reader, you would know the importance of God wanting us to study His Word. For in 2 Timothy 2, it says,
“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15).
But in your fancy new Modern Translation, you will not get such command.
You said:
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.”
I believe the 1769 is the divinely inspired pure Word of God for our day currently because the printing process did not advance enough yet and neither was their a standardization of spelling, either.
You said:
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.
The Anti-KJVO-ist:
You said:
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.
There is a vast difference between God choosing one particular language to preserve His perfect Word vs. spreading the gospel message in many languages for people to be saved.
One is to deepen a person’s walk with God and the other is a means of salvation. Remember, Jesus Himself said, to whom much is given, much is required.
You said:
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.
Actually, all you have to do is compare old Catholic Bibles with Modern Translations to see that they are similar. Catholic Bibles do not follow the Textus Receptus. Just look at a KJV Bible and compare it with old Catholic Bibles. They are not a like.
As for Erasmus:
Please read this article here:
Refuting the charge that Erasmus was a Catholic Humanist- Will Kinney
You said:
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.
Not at all. Many times even when you explain something to somebody and it makes sense to you, and yet the other person may see it as ridiculous and they think you have no evidence (Because they are simply unwilling to see it).
You said:
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.
You said:
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
That is your assumption. So far I have not had any temptations to worship numbers and nor would I ever care to indulge such an idea. Numbers only have an ascribed meaning based on what the Bible says. You are free to ignore Revelation 13:18, Ecclesiastes 7:25, Ecclesiastes 7:27 that tells you to count numbers as a part of wisdom and you are free to ignore the meaning behind numbers like the number 40 in the fact that it means a trial (Like with Noah’s trial in the Ark during the storm and Jesus’s trial in the wilderness) but that is your choice to ignore truth (and it has nothing to do with something that can lead to idolatry).
Also, astrology is not the same as numerology. They are similar but not the same; Oh, and no. I do not believe in using pagan constellations and connecting them with the Bible. That is obviously wrong. Numbers are not evil in themselves. Pagan constellations come from pagans. Numbers are a part of life and they exist in God’s Word. But they should only be used within the confines of how God wants us to use them. It is not evil to be a Math teacher anymore than it is to recognize certain numbers have meaning attached to them in the Bible. To say this is Numerology or that it leads to such a thing is just silly.
You said:
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.
The veneration of Mary in the Catholic church is the worship of another god and it usually involves idolatry. Marian devotions (Which includes an idol image sometimes) is a part of the veneration of Mary). Also, if you approve of your church kissing or bowing down to a statue of Mary, then you are in bed with idolatry even if you do not indulge in idolatry directly yourself. Idolatry is: (a) Creating an image in Heaven and or Earth (b) bowing down to it (According to Exodus 20). Anyone who is a part of the Catholic church cannot just ignore that they do this.
Veneration of Mary in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
Marian devotions - Wikipedia
The Catholic church says that they are not worshiping Mary when they bow down to a statue of her, and thus it is not idolatry for them, but Scripture defines idolatry as creating an image and then bowing down to that image in Exodus 20.
But again, your comparison to Christians who study Biblical Numerics is in no way related. Yes, pagan numerology is wrong. That is seeking to get divine fortune from numbers or to predict the future in some way by the use of numbers. But that is not the same thing as Biblical Numerics whereby you simply recognize God’s command telling you to count numbers as a part of wisdom. It is no different than say a Metaphor. Metaphors are picture of symbol of something else. It is the same with the numbers in the Bible.
You said:
English words have no inherent power to them, not in the way they are spelt or the way they are formed together.
God created many languages at the Tower of Babel. They are all special because they come from God. Yes, there are languages that formed later after the Tower of Babel, but I believe God influenced their creation, as well. How so? Because we can see how certain words talk about God.
For example: The English word "good" is a derivative of the word "god". The word "evil" spelled backwards says "live". The word "flesh" is called "self" spelled backwards without the "h". The word "tentative" means provisional; Which is a derivative of the word "tent". For a tent is a temporary or provisional dwelling place that was used by many of the early men of faith.
The influence of the Bible can even be seen in everyday common phrases.
1. "A Law unto themselves" (Romans 2:14),
2. "A drop in a bucket" (Isaiah 40:15),
3. "A leopard cannot change it's spots" (Jeremiah 13:23),
4. "I have escaped by the skin of my teeth" (Job 19:20).
Also see:
Famous or well-known sayings / proverbs from the Bible
Even the writing of the Chinese language is tied to the Bible...
http://students.washington.edu/cbsf/cool/Chinese.swf
You said:
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.
You are making false assumptions that are simply not true. I use Lexicons and Modern Translations sort of like how one sifts through dirt to get to the gold that is in the KJV and the original languages. The English confirms what is in the original languages because the English translation we have in our Bible comes from the original languages. You think that the original languages sometimes say something else entirely than what the English says. I believe this is wrong. The English does not conflict with the original languages.
You said:
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.
A bearer is defined as: a person or thing that carries, upholds, or brings:
Stars bring light or bear light. But God created all light before the stars came into being. Also, as I said before, the Bible describes Satan as wearing gemstones as a part of his origin. Gemstones hold and reflect light. So again, Lucifer is a fitting name for Satan. It is not a mistranslation or mistake as you would like it to be.
You said:
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.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.
No. A translator is not justified in putting the word “bright” in Isaiah 14:12 to describe Satan because “Bright and morning star” is a unique name to Jesus in Revelation. The bright and morning star is the sun. The sun is represented as Christ. The devil is not the sun but he is in reference to the star “venus.” Jesus is even referred to as the sun of righteousness in Scripture. Nowhere is Jesus referred to as the star “venus.” The “day star” is in reference to the sun and not “venus” because the biggest “star” that we see during the day is the sun and not venus. Jesus is not a little shining light... Jesus is a very BIG shining light.
