Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

Der Alte · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
But how can they truly know a dead language?
Is it not possible they may be in error?
They are human after all.
They technically are not writing for God but making educated guesses on a dead language.

I responded to this claim before but it was ignored. If this is true how did the KJV translators translate the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls? Read the translators' preface of the KJV. They do not claim to have divine influence. Or did the languages become extinct after 1611?
The Translators to the Reader
.....Neither Hebrew nor Greek were ever totally dead languages that nobody knew. Greek was the language of Greece 100s of years before the Bible was written and remains the language of Greece to the present time. It is absurd to assume that Greek speaking Greek citizens did/do not know the meaning of the words their forefathers wrote in the NT. The septuagint [LXX] was the Greek translation of the OT 225 BC by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who also knew Greek. See this article from Encyclopedia Britannica.
GREEK LANGUAGE - Online Information article about GREEK LANGUAGE
While Hebrew was not spoken as a daily language. The Hebrew OT did not disappear and the Jews never stopped reading it. Hebrew was always the language of the synagogue.
HEBREW LANGUAGE - JewishEncyclopedia.com
This week in history: Revival of the Hebrew language

Butch5 · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Because there was no standard in spelling/grammar yet and men had yet to perfect the printing process.

I'm sorry, I'm not following you. If the 1769 version was the inspired word of God why would they correct it. Shouldn't it have been without error?

afishamongmany · Feb 18, 2019

swordsman1 said:
What is the book by C. H. Roberts you are quoting from? Or are you just quoting something you read on a website? Please provide the source. Is it a peer reviewed study? What was said in the missing parts that you have clipped out? Does he provide historic evidence for his claims? Simply saying the practice of early Christians would be "similar" to Jewish habits (which did not include new divinely inspired writings) hardly constitutes proof that they destroyed all their old copies. Without firm evidence it is nothing more than speculation.

Who is Pickering? The source of your theory about the Eastern European climate destroying the old copies? If I can immediately spot holes in the argument, it clearly hasn't been well thought out.

Swordsman - I provided the source of all my quotes in my post #160. The link there is now out of date.
This link will give you a downloadable pdf of his thesis - http://www.standardbearers.net/uploads/The_Identity_of_the_New_Testament_Text_Dr_Wilbur_N_Pickering.pdf

Pickering's personal website is - Prunch
If you give them the time (several days) and concentration they merit, you'll find that his arguments are well though out and well communicated. They are also extensive and detailed so remember, time and concentration.
Go well
><>

Bible Highlighter · Feb 18, 2019

Butch5 said:
I'm sorry, I'm not following you. If the 1769 version was the inspired word of God why would they correct it. Shouldn't it have been without error?

It was not a correction. It was being updated for it's time. Again, the printing process had not been perfected and there was no standard in spelling yet.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 18, 2019

Der Alter said:
I responded to this claim before but it was ignored. If this is true how did the KJV translators translate the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scrolls? Read the translators' preface of the KJV. They do not claim to have divine influence. Or did the languages become extinct after 1611?
The Translators to the Reader
.....Neither Hebrew nor Greek were ever totally dead languages that nobody knew. Greek was the language of Greece 100s of years before the Bible was written and remains the language of Greece to the present time. It is absurd to assume that Greek speaking Greek citizens did/do not know the meaning of the words their forefathers wrote in the NT. The septuagint [LXX] was the Greek translation of the OT 225 BC by native Hebrew speaking Jewish scholars who also knew Greek. See this article from Encyclopedia Britannica.
GREEK LANGUAGE - Online Information article about GREEK LANGUAGE
While Hebrew was not spoken as a daily language. The Hebrew OT did not disappear and the Jews never stopped reading it. Hebrew was always the language of the synagogue.
HEBREW LANGUAGE - JewishEncyclopedia.com
This week in history: Revival of the Hebrew language

Right. I ignored it because we have never seen eyes to eye on any given topic using normal conversation. You post walls of Greek text and whenever I try to make dialogue, it goes nowhere. So thank you, but no thank you, my friend.

As for your claim: That is all that it is. There is no real proof that biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek have remained untouched by the passage of thousands of years. Even English has changed since the 1600's. So to say that the original languages of the Bible are unmarked or unchanged by time is pretty silly in my opinion (But you are free to believe as you wish).

Bible Highlighter · Feb 18, 2019

he-man said:
In what language was the original Bible written? Japanese, Russian, or wouldn't you rather think it was written in Hebrew and Chaldean.

Where did the Hebrews live? Semitic group? closely related to both Arabic and Aramaic long after the Babylonians. The Old Testament calls it the language of Canaan.

The Siloam inscription and the Moabite Stone. The earliest are the 19th - 18th century inscription of Sinai. The clearest is the Ahiram sarcophagus. Most of the books of the Bible were from Hagiographa and the latest prophets.

The Book of Kings is the most clear over a period of 1000 years. Why would you not rather see the Hebrew language?

Where do you think the historical Greek Biblical language originated from, Sanskrit? The Koine means the Greek that was common to the whole Mediterranean world, not merely the Greek of common people.

Russian? What?

As for oriental or asian languages: While the Bible did not originate in Chinese, the different strokes that make up the letters within the Chinese language is tied to the Bible.

Anyways, the Scriptures that make up the Holy Bible were preserved through five languages through out time.

1. Hebrew (Old Testament)
2. Aramaic (Parts of the Book of Daniel).
3. Greek (New Testament)
4. Latin (The Whole Bible).
5. English (The Whole Bible).

But so as to avoid confusion: Generally speaking, God communicated in this way through out time with mankind:

GreekOrthodox · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
While there is a form of Modern Greek in existence, I don't believe it is possible to speak and write biblical Greek because I feel the language has changed over the years and we do not know about all those changes. Granted, I am sure some parts of the language may not have changed, but there is always going to be some kind of changes with a language with the passage of time (Especially over a long period of time).

Also, I do not need to know a dead language (Which is impossible to know unless I had a time machine). I can easily compare my KJV vs. Modern Translations and I can compare the biblical evidence. Needless to say that the KJV is superior by way of comparison in my own native tongue (English). Nobody can pull a fast one on me (or pull the wool over my eyes) by saying that I don't know my own native tongue. English is a language that is still in existence on a widespread scale.

So in other words, since you don't know what you are talking about, you will discount everything else. Koine Greek and its later development of Byzantine Greek is still our liturgical language which I use at least a few hours a week. The Greeks were still speaking a modified version of Koine Greek into the 1500s. Heck, even modern Greek was influenced by Attic Greek which is what Homer and Aristotle wrote in. And by the way, 13 million do speak Greek, so just because you are unable to, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to speak a barbarian language.

Geez, I sound like the father from My Big Fat Greek Wedding... There are two kinds of people - Greeks, and everyone else who wish they was Greek.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 18, 2019

GreekOrthodox said:
So in other words, since you don't know what you are talking about, you will discount everything else. Koine Greek and its later development of Byzantine Greek is still our liturgical language which I use at least a few hours a week. The Greeks were still speaking a modified version of Koine Greek into the 1500s. Heck, even modern Greek was influenced by Attic Greek which is what Homer and Aristotle wrote in. And by the way, 13 million do speak Greek, so just because you are unable to, doesn't mean the rest of the world has to speak a barbarian language.

*Sigh* I am aware of the country of Greece. I know of someone who has visited there and they loved it. So I am not saying Modern Greek does not exist. What I am saying is that biblical Greek (i.e. Koine Greek) is not exactly the same as Modern Greek. I know this because I have this thing called the internet where I can research things such as this.

You cannot claim you know biblical Greek without flaw or without the apostle Paul correcting you on your spelling and grammar, friend.

Butch5 · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
It was not a correction. It was being updated for it's time. Again, the printing process had not been perfected and there was no standard in spelling yet.

But they changed it. If the 1679 version was inspired anything else isn't inspired.

The KJV doesn't match any text that we have. What do you suppose it was copied from.

Also, if it's inspired, how come the NT quotes from the OT don't match in quite a few places?

Bible Highlighter · Feb 18, 2019

Butch5 said:
But they changed it. If the 1679 version was inspired anything else isn't inspired.

Well, it is not a change but it is merely a revision based on the time period. Again, no perfection of printing process and no standard in spelling yet. In 1611, they did not have these things yet. So they are not errors but they are things that are dealing with that particular time period. Think of like this: If people understood things at a particular point in time using pictures, this is not an error but merely a different form of communication that says the same thing. While this is a crude example, hopefully it will help you to understand. So different spelling and the occasional typo because of bad printers was for that time period.

You said:
The KJV doesn't match any text that we have. What do you suppose it was copied from.

The KJV we read today is the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) or a form of it (See the KJV at Biblehub.com).
Sometimes the KJV will say 1611 but it does not resemble the exact version of the 1611, but it is still the same (in respect to Scripture).
For do you ever wonder why 1611 is in a KJV Bible when it is not exactly like the 1611? It is because it is not a different KJV. Then again, maybe you never looked at a KJV recently to know this.

You said:
Also, if it's inspired, how come the NT quotes from the OT don't match in quite a few places?

Yes, I am aware of this. The OT is saying it in a certain way, but the NT expounds upon it or perfects the OT saying.

Butch5 · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Well, it's 1769 and not 1679.
But I am sure that is a typo on your behalf.
Anyways, it is not a change but it is merely a revision based on the time period. Again, no perfection of printing process and no standard in spelling yet. In 1611, they did not have these things yet. So they are not errors but they are things that are dealing with that particular time period. Think of like this: If people understood things at a particular point in time using pictures, this is not an error but merely a different form of communication that says the same thing. While this is a crude example, hopefully it will help you to understand. So different spelling and the occasional typo because of bad printers was for that time period.

It seems to me that you're allowing some changes but not others. What's the deciding fact?

The KJV we read today is the KJV 1769 or a form of it.
Many times the KJV will say 1611 but it does not resemble the exact version of the 1611, but it is still the same.
For do you ever wonder why 1611 is in a KJV Bible when it is not exactly like the 1611? It is because it is not a different KJV. Then again, maybe you never looked at a KJV recently to know this.

I'm not buying this. If the KJV is inspired where is the text it was copied from? It doesn't exactly match any text we have.

Yes, I am aware of this. The OT is saying it in a certain way, but the NT expounds upon it or perfects the OT saying.

No, that's not it. It's different because the NT quotes are from a different OT text. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint. Here are just two passages.

Textus Receptus
Hebrews 10:5-6 ( KJV ) . 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Masoretic Text

Psalms 40:6 ( KJV ) 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Septuagint.
6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.

If the KJV is inspired why doesn't the Hebrews quote match the Masoretic text? Notice it matches the Septuagint which is what hte Apostles used

Textus Receptus
Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV ) 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Masoretic Text
Deuteronomy 32:43 ( KJV ) 43Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Septuagint
Deuteronomy 32:43 43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him

I think it's pretty clear here that Paul is quoting from a different text than we see in the KJV. I don't see how it can be inspired if Paul quotes from a different text.

Der Alte · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Right. I ignored it because we have never seen eyes to eye on any given topic using normal conversation. You post walls of Greek text and whenever I try to make dialogue, it goes nowhere. So thank you, but no thank you, my friend.
As for your claim: That is all that it is. There is no real proof that biblical Hebrew and biblical Greek have remained untouched by the passage of thousands of years. Even English has changed since the 1600's. So to say that the original languages of the Bible are unmarked or unchanged by time is pretty silly in my opinion (But you are free to believe as you wish).

Jason0047 said:
*Sigh* I am aware of the country of Greece. I know of someone who has visited there and they loved it. So I am not saying Modern Greek does not exist. What I am saying is that biblical Greek (i.e. Koine Greek) is not exactly the same as Modern Greek. I know this because I have this thing called the internet where I can research things such as this.
You cannot claim you know biblical Greek without flaw or without the apostle Paul correcting you on your spelling and grammar, friend.

No evidently you do not research anything, in the scholarly sense. What you appear to do is scour the internet searching for any site, by anyone, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions, whether they are qualified or not. I linked to two Hebrew and one Greek source and there is nothing you can say, and there is no credible source you can quote which will convince me that you know more about Biblical Hebrew and Greek than the sources I linked to..
.....You have not answered my question, if Biblical Hebrew and Greek are "dead languages" how were the KJV translators able to translate the original scrolls into English 1600+/- years after the Bible was written in these dead languages? The translators themselves, in the preface to the KJV, did not make the claim that their translation was perfect and/or that is alone was approved by God.
.....I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew or Greek although I studied both at the graduate level about 3 decades ago. I supervised Greek immigrant workers in Germany the year that Elvis and I were stationed there. I spoke German but they did not speak either German or English so I started learning their language so I could communicate with them. .....On top of all of this I have the prime Hebrew and Greek lexicons in my library if I want to know anything about a Hebrew or Greek word I can look it up in these two sources. These two sources are available online free for anyone who is interested in credible, verifiable scholarly sources. Let us look at the definition of one word. What I have highlighted in blue are the historical sources that the translators consulted in determining the meaning of the word. Real scholars don't sit around and make up definitions to suit their assumptions/presuppositions.

πίνω (Hom.+) impf. ἔπινον; fut. πίομαι (W-S. 13, 6; 17; B-D-F §74, 2; 77; Rob. 354), 2 sg. πίεσαι (Ruth 2:9; B-D-F §87; Thackeray p. 218; 282; Rob. 340; Mlt-H. 198); 2 aor. ἔπιον (on ἔπιαν 1 Cor 10:4 D s. B-D-F §81, 3; Mlt-H. 208), impv. πίε, πιέτω, inf. πιεῖν (edd. contracted πεῖν [πῖν]; s. B-D-F §101 p. 48; §31, 2; W-S. §5, 23b; Rob. 72; 204; Mayser 365; Thackeray p. 63f; W-H., app. 170); perf. πέπωκα; plpf. 3 sg. πεπώκει 1 Km 30:12 (W-S. §13, 15; B-D-F §83, 1).
① to take in a liquid internally, drink, w. acc. of someth. that is drunk Mt 6:25; Mk 16:18; Lk 12:29. αἷμα (Num 23:24; 1 Ch 11:19 al.; 4 [6] Esdr [POxy 1010]): J 6:53f, 56 (cp. the imagery in Jos., Bell. 5, 344 ἐσθίειν … καὶ τὸ τῆς πόλεως αἷμα πίνειν). οἶνον Lk 1:15 (cp. Dt 29:5); 5:39; cp. Mt 26:29b; Ro 14:21 (Is 22:13) al. τί πίωμεν; what will we have to drink? Mt 6:31. φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν ὅσον ἄν βούλωνται MPol 7:2. ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν τὰ παρά τινος eat and drink what someone sets before one Lk 10:7. Foll. by ἀπό τινος drink (of) someth. (Ctesias: 688 Fgm. 1lβ p. 433 Jac. [Sotion Fgm. 17 in Παραδοξογράφοι W. p. 185] π. ἀπʼ αὐτῆς [a spring], resulting in confession of things perpetrated in secret; Ael. Aristid. 39, 4 K.=18 p. 409 D.; Jer 28:7; GrBar 4:6; Just., D. 140, 1) 22:18. μηδεὶς φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας D 9:5. Foll. by ἔκ τινος (of) someth. (Gen 9:21; TestJos 19:5; GrBar 5:2; Syntipas p. 43, 15 ἐκ τοῦ δηλητηρίου πίομαι) Mt 26:29a; Mk 14:25a; J 4:13f. Foll. by acc. of the vessel fr. which one drinks, in which case the vessel and its contents are identified (ποτήριον a) ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν 1 Cor 10:21; cp. 11:26f. The vessel can also be introduced by ἐκ (Hipponax [VI B.C.] 16 and 17 D.2; Aristoph., Equ. 1289; Pla., Rep. 417a; X., An. 6, 1, 4 ἐκ ποτηρίων; SIG 1168, 80) ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω (s. 2 Km 12:3) 1 Cor 11:28; cp. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23. Likew. ἐξ αὐτοῦ (=ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος.—Paus. Attic. κ, 56 κρήνη, ἐξ ἧς ἔπινον; Num 21:22; Philo, Deus Imm. 155) from it J 4:12. ἐκ πέτρας 1 Cor 10:4b.—On the acc. κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει 11:29b cp. κρίμα 4b.—Abs. Mt 27:34b. W. ἐσθίειν 11:18f; Lk 5:33; 12:19 (Phoenix Col. 1, 9 [Coll. Alex. p. 231]), 45 al.; cp 17:8 (on the protocol in 17:7 cp. ViAesopi G 61 P.). ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν 1 Cl 3:1 (cp. Dt. 32:15); I Tr 9:1. οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ φαγεῖν οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ πεῖν (=πιεῖν) AcPl Ox 6, 7f (=Aa 1, 241, 12f). τρώγειν καὶ π. Mt 24:38; cp. 1 Cor 15:32. ἐσθίειν καὶ π. μετά τινος eat and drink w. someone Mt 24:49; Mk 2:16 v.l.; Lk 5:30. δοῦναί τινι πιεῖν (τι) give someone someth. to drink (numerous exx. of δοῦναι πιεῖν in AKnox and WHeadlam, Herodas 1922 p. 55f; Jos., Ant. 2, 64) Mt 27:34a; Mk 15:23 v.l.; J 4:7 (δὸς πεῖν as POxy 1088, 55 [I A.D.] and Cyranides p. 49, 16. Cp. Lamellae Aur. Orphicae ed. AOlivieri 1915 p. 12 σοι δώσουσι πιεῖν θείης ἀπὸ κρήνης [IV/III B.C.]), vs. 10. πῶς παρʼ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς, how can you ask me for a drink? vs. 9.—In imagery, of the earth: γῆ ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν ὑετόν Hb 6:7 (this figure and corresp. exprs. Trag. et al.; cp. Hdt. 3, 117; 4, 198; Anacreontea 21, 1; Dt 11:11; SibOr 3, 696). In J, Jesus calls those who are thirsty to him, that they may drink the water he gives them and never thirst again (cp. Lucian, Dial. Deor. 4, 5 πίνειν τῆς ἀθανασίας) J 4:14; 7:37.
② In an idiom πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον w. added words that make the sense clear drink the cup=submit to a severe trial, or death (ποτήριον b) Mt 20:22f; Mk 10:38f; J 18:11; cp. Mt 26:42; ApcPt Rainer 16 (for the fig. use cp. Herodas 1, 25 π. ἐκ καινῆς=from the new cup. Then, as Mt 20:22f; Mk 10:38f of those who suffer the same fate: Aristoph., Eq. 1289 οὔποτʼ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ μεθʼ ἡμῶν πίεται ποτηρίου=he will never drink from the same cup as we do; Libanius, Ep. 355, 4 F. μνήμη τῶν ἐκ ταὐτοῦ κρατῆρος πεπωκότων). Sim. πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ Rv 14:10; cp. 18:3 (on the rdg. s. RBorger, TRu 52, ’87, 50f; θυμός 1; 2; cp. w. acc. τρώγειν καὶ π. τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 12]).—B. 331. DELG s.v. πίνω. M-M. EDNT. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 814). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

kiwimac · Feb 18, 2019

Jason0047 said:
Again, you are acting like you know Greek, when you don't. Nobody does. So what you see as error is merely an illusion on your part. If you think there is an error in the English, I can help you. But you are talking Greek. It's Greek to me. I don't know Greek. Neither do you. It's gobbley-gook non-sense. You cannot know a dead language because you did not grow up in BIble times to know that language.

Strangely I remember doing Koine Greek at Seminary.

prodromos · Feb 19, 2019

Jason0047 said:
But how can they truly know a dead language?

Is it not possible they may be in error?

They are human after all.

They technically are not writing for God but making educated guesses on a dead language.

My goodness, what pride and hubris there must be for someone with exactly zero qualifications to make such a subjective claim.
Koine Greek is the language of the Liturgy. We still read the Bible in the same Koine Greek, when new hymns are written it is in Koine Greek. We still chant the Psalms in the Greek of the Septuagint. There is unbroken continuity throughout the life of the Orthodox Church. No meaning has been lost as the common tongue has gradually changed over the centuries.
Even for those outside the Church, there are vast resources for the study of Greek in all its dialects and developments. Your opinion as to how well some may come to know the Greek language has no value at all.

Strong in Him · Feb 19, 2019

Jason0047 said:
You actually have things backwards. The verses were removed and not added later.

How so?

First, just because a manuscript is older does not mean it is better and more reliable. Corruption of a manuscript can happen at any point in time within history.

Including the KJV, yes; exactly.
All I know about that is that some on this forum have said that certain words/verses have been found not to have been in the oldest surviving manuscripts. They don't appear in newer translations - because the translators know that those discoveries were made. They DO appear in the KJV, which was produced a lot later than the oldest surviving manuscripts. Yet your claim is that the KJV is right to include words that apparently were never there, and to vilify and pour scorn on the newer translations which are correct.

Jason0047 said:
Second, what is more reliable is OBSERVABLE SCIENCE and not Historical Science. Historical Science (or Historical evidence) is any claims in the past by men that cannot be tested or verified or repeated like observable evidence can. Here is a video example to help you to see what I am talking about.

I don't know what you mean by that.
But again, you are using a video clip to "prove" your point. Yet if others quote language, and other, experts, and words in the Greek, you doubt their words and say that experts are all guessing.

Jason0047 said:
But you are not putting yourself in the mind of your enemy in how he may operate.

I've no intention of putting myself "in the mind of the enemy".
Scripture tells us to resist the devil, 1 Peter 5:9, to stand firm against him, Ephesians 6:12-13, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, Romans 12:1 and to pray that God will deliver us from the evil one, Matthew 6:13, who is a liar and murderer from the beginning, John 8:44. Nowhere are we told to try and think as the devil does.

Jason0047 said:
I started off believing that the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God when I accepted Christ as my Savior back in 1992. Then a scholar said that there was an error in the KJV. It was a supposed contradiction. For a split second, it made me have doubt in God's Word. Did God truly fail to keep His Word perfectly for us today? For me this was important because God revealed to me that His Word was true in many ways.

God's word is true, dependable and so on.
Reading, and learning, the Bible, God's word, is how we grow in our faith, resist the attacks of the evil one, defend the faith against non Christians. God is faithful and keeps his word and his promises.

Having translations that may use different words, or translate verses differently, or even incorrectly, does not change that. Because we are blessed to have so many resources, we can study, compare the translations, discuss and learn from the ideas or meanings. The truth of the Gospel is the same.
No one has ever taught that Romans 6:23 is wrong, for example, and that the wages of sin is suffering, mental health problems or confusion, for example. No one has ever said that God was a trinity once, but now that we have produced a new version of the Bible, we know that he is different now. No one translating the Bible has omitted the resurrection, final judgement, atoning death of Jesus, for example - nor that God is always with us and, by his Spirit, can live IN us.

Jason0047 said:
But in that brief moment, a man made me doubt my faith for like a half of a second.

Faith in the perfect, unchanging God; or faith in a man made translation of his word?

Jason0047 said:
So yes, the enemy wants you to get you to doubt God's Word altogether.

I'm sure he does. He wants me not to read it as well, but I do - just not in the KJV.

Jason0047 said:
I can only imagine others whose faith was not strong in cases like that. They may have lost their faith in God because God failed to give us a Holy Word for us to 100% trust in.

Many, MANY people affirm the truth and reliability of Scripture, God's word; without having read the KJV.
Or are you saying that someone who was brought up on the NIV/Good News Bible/ESV etc, became a Christian while using it and reads it often, while using maybe the NRSV or Amplified Bibles for study, and has never, or hardly ever, used or even glanced at the KJV - is not saved or really a Christian?
Are you saying that Christians, such as myself, who read, learn and study the NIV, actually DOUBT God's word, are lacking in the faith and don't know God as well as those who read the KJV?

Jason0047 said:
What you cannot accept is that the Bible teaches that what we received is the Word of God and not the words of men.

Of course we've received the word of God. As I said, no man has ever re-written the Gospel, or changed it to make it more accessible to those in the 21st century. It is the same as it always was - the wages of sin are still death and salvation is through Christ alone.
We had the words of God long before King James was even thought of.
People were reading, accepting, believing in, being saved and blessed by and learning and studying God's word LONG before 1611. As I said, Jesus taught the words of God; the very words God gave him to speak and he had heard God say. He certainly didn't say "wait 1611 years and then you will receive my Father's word", or "I can't tell you that, a perfect version of my Father's word has not yet been made".

Jason0047 said:
You are observing things from a human persepective and not as if you were trapped and lost on some island.

I am not trapped and lost on some island though; I am in a country with many Christian resources and study aids - so why would I start thinking like someone who was trapped on an island?

Jason0047 said:
If you were lost at sea on some island, and you did not have any knowledge of Christianity, the chances of you understanding the Trinity are better if you have a KJV Bible

If I went to sea, I would take my NIV Bible with me.
There are many other verses which indicate the Trinity other than those from 1 John - like Genesis 1, Matthew 28:20, Isaiah 6 - or the fact that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, yet there is clearly only ONE God.
Trying to make out the the KJV is the only Bible that references, or teaches, the trinity, is incorrect.

Besides, someone with no knowledge of the Christian faith would first learn, and be taught, about God's love, our sin, Jesus' death and the Holy Spirit who can live in us - no one goes up to a non Christian and teaches the Trinity.

Jason0047 said:
I get it, you are on the other side of the camp. You are deep in the Modern Translation / Original Languages movement.

No I'm not.
I'm in the "you can read the Bible in any translation you like. I'm sure the KJV is very useful and precious to you; I don't read it, yet I am still saved and belong to God" movement.
I'm in the "I read and study God's word, but worship HIM and not a book" movement.
I don't rush out to buy every new translation of the Bible that comes out, but I may read and use them for study.

Jason0047 said:
You have no reason to believe me and you are only going off your own experience.

No.
I question your whole argument because it is illogical.
1.The KJV was NOT the first copy of God's word ever to be produced; it wasn't even the first to be translated into English. Jesus had, used and quoted the word of God, yet did not have the KJV.
2. Even if it had been, the 1611 KJV was the one authorised by King James - it was called that because HE asked for it to be made. You have rejected that version as imperfect; that doesn't make sense.
3. You say that the modern versions are tainted, "garbage" and have "the name of the devil in them" - yet you use them. If they are corrupted and NOT the word of God; reject them. If you need to use them because you don't understand, or need help with, the language of the KJV, then it is not perfect - being written in language that you don't understand. It doesn't make sense to criticise and vilify the newer translations and then admit that you use them - the things that are from the devil - to make sense of God's word.
4. People can learn about God, be saved, baptised, born again, blessed, love God and serve him without reading something that is, apparently, the only word of God. I am a Christian, just as much as you are - we are equal in God's eyes. It makes no sense to state that there is only one version of God's word, yet admit that God can still save, bless and heal through something which is of the devil.

Jason0047 said:
The devil does not want you to study to show yourself approved unto God. But this is what 2 Timothy 2:15 says (Which does not even exist in your Modern Translation).

It does, and I do.

Jason0047 said:
If you had no KJV, this truth would be foreign to you.

No, because it's in other Bibles.

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth.

- NIV

Work hard so God can say to you, “Well done.” Be a good workman, one who does not need to be ashamed when God examines your work. Know what his Word says and means.

- Living Bible

Study and do your best to present yourself to God approved, a workman [tested by trial] who has no reason to be ashamed, accurately handling and skillfully teaching the word of truth.

- Amplified Bible

be diligent to present thyself approved to God -- a workman irreproachable, rightly dividing the word of the truth;

- Young's literal translation

Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, dividing the word of truth aright.

- 1599 Geneva Bible.

Do your best to present yourself to God as a tried-and-true worker who isn’t ashamed to teach the word of truth correctly

- God's word translation

I would guess you are focusing on the word "study". That word appears in at least 2 other translations, including the Amplified, which I have and sometimes use.
In any case, you are clearly wrong to say that 2 Timothy 2:15 is not in modern Bibles.

Jason0047 said:
If you were on an island and you had an NIV, there would be no true 1 John 5:7, 2 Timothy 2:15, Romans 8:1, etc.

Yes, there would.

Jason0047 said:
Thus, the faith is different.

The WORDS may be different; the truth, and the faith, is the same.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever - always has been, always will be.
Using the words "work hard" instead of "study", or whatever other examples you have come up with, will never change that truth.

Jason0047 said:
You argue against this because it does matter.

No.
I am arguing a) to challenge your argument, which is illogical and b) because there is an unspoken suggestion that those who use modern translations of Scripture - "garbage" tainted by the devil - are lesser Christians/not true Christians at all. Not only is THIS illogical, and ridiculous; it's against forum rules. Indeed, the forum rules sate that if you want to be accepted on here as a Christian you have to believe in, and accept, the Nicene creed - NOT that you have to read the KJV.

Jason0047 said:
This is a spiritual matter. It is a matter of our faith.

It's not a matter of my faith.
My faith is in Jesus - THE Word, the true, unchanging, perfect one.

Jason0047 said:
The faith that is produced from the KJV is different from the faith produced in the Modern Translations.

a) No it isn't.
b) So you ARE saying that KJV readers are better Christians than anyone else.
c) There is ONE faith; ONE Gospel - I have the same faith as you.

Jason0047 said:
Sure, the milk of the Word may be the same, but the meat of the Word is different.

Nope.
There is only one Gospel, and it is the same now as it has always been.

Jason0047 said:
Anyways, I say this all in love by what I know by what I experienced.

I have no doubt that the KJV is, and has been, enormously important to you in your faith and Christian walk. I can see your passion for it.
But you are wrong to suggest that NIV readers, for example, are less committed to God, less passionate about his word, and have lesser, or a different, faith. Maybe your passion for the KJV blinds you to this, to the way God works, blesses and saves people. Maybe you will be shocked to see NIV/Good News Bible readers in heaven. But that's how it is. Someone may never read the KJV in their life, and still be just as much a Christian and child of God as you are. I stopped reading it years ago, yet have grown in my faith since then.

Jason0047 said:
May the Lord Jesus Christ bless you (even if you still disagree).

May the Lord bless you too.

Jason0047 said:
But just know, that I would die for my faith in the KJV.

I would die for my faith in the LORD, which is what we are called to do.

Jason0047 said:
I would die in defending the truth on this topic because it is a matter of faith.

God is truth.
Jesus is THE Word and THE truth, John 1:1; John 14:6.
The Spirit is the Spirit of truth, John 16:13.
I would die defending my faith in GOD. Believing that the KJV is the only Bible is not the Gospel, not taught by Jesus, not part of the Christian faith. It is about preference; not belief.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 19, 2019

Butch5 said:
It seems to me that you're allowing some changes but not others. What's the deciding fact?

I'm not buying this. If the KJV is inspired where is the text it was copied from? It doesn't exactly match any text we have.

No, that's not it. It's different because the NT quotes are from a different OT text. The NT writers primarily quoted from the Septuagint. Here are just two passages.

Textus Receptus
Hebrews 10:5-6 ( KJV ) . 5Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 6In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

Masoretic Text

Psalms 40:6 ( KJV ) 6 Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire; mine ears hast thou opened: burnt offering and sin offering hast thou not required.

Septuagint.
6 Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not; but a body hast thou prepared me: whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin thou didst not require.

If the KJV is inspired why doesn't the Hebrews quote match the Masoretic text? Notice it matches the Septuagint which is what hte Apostles used

Textus Receptus
Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV ) 6And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

Masoretic Text
Deuteronomy 32:43 ( KJV ) 43Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Septuagint
Deuteronomy 32:43 43 Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him

I think it's pretty clear here that Paul is quoting from a different text than we see in the KJV. I don't see how it can be inspired if Paul quotes from a different text.

Exact quotes does not prove that the LXX is superior. On the contrary, it is pretty obvious that the LXX was not quoted by Jesus because he mentions jots and tittles (Which is a form of Hebrew writing and not Greek).

Bible Highlighter · Feb 19, 2019

prodromos said:
My goodness, what pride and hubris there must be for someone with exactly zero qualifications to make such a subjective claim.
Koine Greek is the language of the Liturgy. We still read the Bible in the same Koine Greek, when new hymns are written it is in Koine Greek. We still chant the Psalms in the Greek of the Septuagint. There is unbroken continuity throughout the life of the Orthodox Church. No meaning has been lost as the common tongue has gradually changed over the centuries.
Even for those outside the Church, there are vast resources for the study of Greek in all its dialects and developments. Your opinion as to how well some may come to know the Greek language has no value at all.

Even if it is true that Koine Greek was uncorrupted by time in your church (of which I am very skeptical of but not discounting altogether), the fact of the matter is do you have the right manuscripts? My guess is that you are not in favor of the Textus Receptus line of manuscripts (of which is where we get our KJV) but you are in favor of the manuscripts that Wescott and Hort used to make the Critical Greek NT text (of which is where we see all the Modern Translations come from). But you have to understand these two men. They held to great heretical beliefs. So it should be no wonder that they would favor an inferior text that waters down that Jesus is God, the Trinity, the blood atonement, holiness, the faith, salvation, etc.

Granted, I know the Orthodox church is not like these two men, but is it tradition that leads you to think that the texts you have are superior?
Or is it based from a position of faith and trust in what God's Word actually says all on it's own outside of what your church says? For I guarantee you that no church today is truly following exactly what the NT teaches. Many seek to add things to what God's Word says. Traditions of men were generally something that Jesus condemned. In only one instance was this word "tradition" looked upon favorably and it was in reference to what would become Scripture and not some additional oral tradition or some outside book labeled "traditions" outside of God's Word.

In any event, whether you agree or disagree, may the Lord Jesus Christ bless you today.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 19, 2019

kiwimac said:
Strangely I remember doing Koine Greek at Seminary.

But was the apostle Paul present to correct students on that their Koine Greek was correct as it was in Bible times? Surely not. I find it hard to believe that the passage of time has not corrupted or influenced a change in what folks think is Koine Greek. I believe the scholars understanding on Koine Greek is not the same as it was back in the day. Sure, I bet they have gotten a lot right, but I am sure there is a lot they get wrong, too. For we have no way of knowing if they got the language right. The Greek Orthodox church claims that Koine Greek has been uncorrupted by time, but I only have their word on that fact. I do not have any real proof of this. I would need a time machine to confirm it. Life teaches us that languages change through out time. While it is certainly possible that there may be an exception to the rule on this, the problem I run into a lot is that folks say that the Bible does not really say what it means in the English and that they favor some kind of Greek language instead. But they fail to understand that the English comes from the Greek and they should not say two different things.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 19, 2019

Der Alter said:
No evidently you do not research anything, in the scholarly sense. What you appear to do is scour the internet searching for any site, by anyone, which supports your assumptions/presuppositions, whether they are qualified or not. I linked to two Hebrew and one Greek source and there is nothing you can say, and there is no credible source you can quote which will convince me that you know more about Biblical Hebrew and Greek than the sources I linked to..
.....You have not answered my question, if Biblical Hebrew and Greek are "dead languages" how were the KJV translators able to translate the original scrolls into English 1600+/- years after the Bible was written in these dead languages? The translators themselves, in the preface to the KJV, did not make the claim that their translation was perfect and/or that is alone was approved by God.
.....I do not claim to be an expert in Hebrew or Greek although I studied both at the graduate level about 3 decades ago. I supervised Greek immigrant workers in Germany the year that Elvis and I were stationed there. I spoke German but they did not speak either German or English so I started learning their language so I could communicate with them. .....On top of all of this I have the prime Hebrew and Greek lexicons in my library if I want to know anything about a Hebrew or Greek word I can look it up in these two sources. These two sources are available online free for anyone who is interested in credible, verifiable scholarly sources. Let us look at the definition of one word. What I have highlighted in blue are the historical sources that the translators consulted in determining the meaning of the word. Real scholars don't sit around and make up definitions to suit their assumptions/presuppositions.

πίνω (Hom.+) impf. ἔπινον; fut. πίομαι (W-S. 13, 6; 17; B-D-F §74, 2; 77; Rob. 354), 2 sg. πίεσαι (Ruth 2:9; B-D-F §87; Thackeray p. 218; 282; Rob. 340; Mlt-H. 198); 2 aor. ἔπιον (on ἔπιαν 1 Cor 10:4 D s. B-D-F §81, 3; Mlt-H. 208), impv. πίε, πιέτω, inf. πιεῖν (edd. contracted πεῖν [πῖν]; s. B-D-F §101 p. 48; §31, 2; W-S. §5, 23b; Rob. 72; 204; Mayser 365; Thackeray p. 63f; W-H., app. 170); perf. πέπωκα; plpf. 3 sg. πεπώκει 1 Km 30:12 (W-S. §13, 15; B-D-F §83, 1).
① to take in a liquid internally, drink, w. acc. of someth. that is drunk Mt 6:25; Mk 16:18; Lk 12:29. αἷμα (Num 23:24; 1 Ch 11:19 al.; 4 [6] Esdr [POxy 1010]): J 6:53f, 56 (cp. the imagery in Jos., Bell. 5, 344 ἐσθίειν … καὶ τὸ τῆς πόλεως αἷμα πίνειν). οἶνον Lk 1:15 (cp. Dt 29:5); 5:39; cp. Mt 26:29b; Ro 14:21 (Is 22:13) al. τί πίωμεν; what will we have to drink? Mt 6:31. φαγεῖν καὶ πιεῖν ὅσον ἄν βούλωνται MPol 7:2. ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν τὰ παρά τινος eat and drink what someone sets before one Lk 10:7. Foll. by ἀπό τινος drink (of) someth. (Ctesias: 688 Fgm. 1lβ p. 433 Jac. [Sotion Fgm. 17 in Παραδοξογράφοι W. p. 185] π. ἀπʼ αὐτῆς [a spring], resulting in confession of things perpetrated in secret; Ael. Aristid. 39, 4 K.=18 p. 409 D.; Jer 28:7; GrBar 4:6; Just., D. 140, 1) 22:18. μηδεὶς φαγέτω μηδὲ πιέτω ἀπὸ τῆς εὐχαριστίας D 9:5. Foll. by ἔκ τινος (of) someth. (Gen 9:21; TestJos 19:5; GrBar 5:2; Syntipas p. 43, 15 ἐκ τοῦ δηλητηρίου πίομαι) Mt 26:29a; Mk 14:25a; J 4:13f. Foll. by acc. of the vessel fr. which one drinks, in which case the vessel and its contents are identified (ποτήριον a) ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν 1 Cor 10:21; cp. 11:26f. The vessel can also be introduced by ἐκ (Hipponax [VI B.C.] 16 and 17 D.2; Aristoph., Equ. 1289; Pla., Rep. 417a; X., An. 6, 1, 4 ἐκ ποτηρίων; SIG 1168, 80) ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω (s. 2 Km 12:3) 1 Cor 11:28; cp. Mt 26:27; Mk 14:23. Likew. ἐξ αὐτοῦ (=ἐκ τοῦ φρέατος.—Paus. Attic. κ, 56 κρήνη, ἐξ ἧς ἔπινον; Num 21:22; Philo, Deus Imm. 155) from it J 4:12. ἐκ πέτρας 1 Cor 10:4b.—On the acc. κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει 11:29b cp. κρίμα 4b.—Abs. Mt 27:34b. W. ἐσθίειν 11:18f; Lk 5:33; 12:19 (Phoenix Col. 1, 9 [Coll. Alex. p. 231]), 45 al.; cp 17:8 (on the protocol in 17:7 cp. ViAesopi G 61 P.). ἔφαγεν καὶ ἔπιεν 1 Cl 3:1 (cp. Dt. 32:15); I Tr 9:1. οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ φαγεῖν οὔτε ἐπὶ τὸ πεῖν (=πιεῖν) AcPl Ox 6, 7f (=Aa 1, 241, 12f). τρώγειν καὶ π. Mt 24:38; cp. 1 Cor 15:32. ἐσθίειν καὶ π. μετά τινος eat and drink w. someone Mt 24:49; Mk 2:16 v.l.; Lk 5:30. δοῦναί τινι πιεῖν (τι) give someone someth. to drink (numerous exx. of δοῦναι πιεῖν in AKnox and WHeadlam, Herodas 1922 p. 55f; Jos., Ant. 2, 64) Mt 27:34a; Mk 15:23 v.l.; J 4:7 (δὸς πεῖν as POxy 1088, 55 [I A.D.] and Cyranides p. 49, 16. Cp. Lamellae Aur. Orphicae ed. AOlivieri 1915 p. 12 σοι δώσουσι πιεῖν θείης ἀπὸ κρήνης [IV/III B.C.]), vs. 10. πῶς παρʼ ἐμοῦ πεῖν αἰτεῖς, how can you ask me for a drink? vs. 9.—In imagery, of the earth: γῆ ἡ πιοῦσα τὸν ὑετόν Hb 6:7 (this figure and corresp. exprs. Trag. et al.; cp. Hdt. 3, 117; 4, 198; Anacreontea 21, 1; Dt 11:11; SibOr 3, 696). In J, Jesus calls those who are thirsty to him, that they may drink the water he gives them and never thirst again (cp. Lucian, Dial. Deor. 4, 5 πίνειν τῆς ἀθανασίας) J 4:14; 7:37.
② In an idiom πιεῖν τὸ ποτήριον w. added words that make the sense clear drink the cup=submit to a severe trial, or death (ποτήριον b) Mt 20:22f; Mk 10:38f; J 18:11; cp. Mt 26:42; ApcPt Rainer 16 (for the fig. use cp. Herodas 1, 25 π. ἐκ καινῆς=from the new cup. Then, as Mt 20:22f; Mk 10:38f of those who suffer the same fate: Aristoph., Eq. 1289 οὔποτʼ ἐκ ταὐτοῦ μεθʼ ἡμῶν πίεται ποτηρίου=he will never drink from the same cup as we do; Libanius, Ep. 355, 4 F. μνήμη τῶν ἐκ ταὐτοῦ κρατῆρος πεπωκότων). Sim. πίεται ἐκ τοῦ οἴνου τοῦ θυμοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ Rv 14:10; cp. 18:3 (on the rdg. s. RBorger, TRu 52, ’87, 50f; θυμός 1; 2; cp. w. acc. τρώγειν καὶ π. τὸν λόγον τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας ἄρτον Iren. 4, 38, 1 [Harv. II 293, 12]).—B. 331. DELG s.v. πίνω. M-M. EDNT. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 814). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Right, and I will not take your suggestion in researching these things in the scholarly sense because the path of the scholars is not the way of the Bible. Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are those who TRAN-scribed the Law or the Scriptures. The scribes of our day are the scholars. Jesus told me to beware of them and not to just blindly accept whatever they say. 2 Timothy 2:15 says we are to study to show ourselves approved unto God. It does not say for me to trust scholars blindly in what they say. Then again, 2 Timothy 2:15 does not exist in it's correct form in your preferred Modern Translation.

Bible Highlighter · Feb 19, 2019

Strong in Him said:
Including the KJV, yes; exactly.
All I know about that is that some on this forum have said that certain words/verses have been found not to have been in the oldest surviving manuscripts. They don't appear in newer translations - because the translators know that those discoveries were made. They DO appear in the KJV, which was produced a lot later than the oldest surviving manuscripts. Yet your claim is that the KJV is right to include words that apparently were never there, and to vilify and pour scorn on the newer translations which are correct.

I don't know what you mean by that.
But again, you are using a video clip to "prove" your point. Yet if others quote language, and other, experts, and words in the Greek, you doubt their words and say that experts are all guessing.

I've no intention of putting myself "in the mind of the enemy".
Scripture tells us to resist the devil, 1 Peter 5:9, to stand firm against him, Ephesians 6:12-13, to be transformed by the renewing of our minds, Romans 12:1 and to pray that God will deliver us from the evil one, Matthew 6:13, who is a liar and murderer from the beginning, John 8:44. Nowhere are we told to try and think as the devil does.

God's word is true, dependable and so on.
Reading, and learning, the Bible, God's word, is how we grow in our faith, resist the attacks of the evil one, defend the faith against non Christians. God is faithful and keeps his word and his promises.

Having translations that may use different words, or translate verses differently, or even incorrectly, does not change that. Because we are blessed to have so many resources, we can study, compare the translations, discuss and learn from the ideas or meanings. The truth of the Gospel is the same.
No one has ever taught that Romans 6:23 is wrong, for example, and that the wages of sin is suffering, mental health problems or confusion, for example. No one has ever said that God was a trinity once, but now that we have produced a new version of the Bible, we know that he is different now. No one translating the Bible has omitted the resurrection, final judgement, atoning death of Jesus, for example - nor that God is always with us and, by his Spirit, can live IN us.

Faith in the perfect, unchanging God; or faith in a man made translation of his word?

I'm sure he does. He wants me not to read it as well, but I do - just not in the KJV.

Many, MANY people affirm the truth and reliability of Scripture, God's word; without having read the KJV.
Or are you saying that someone who was brought up on the NIV/Good News Bible/ESV etc, became a Christian while using it and reads it often, while using maybe the NRSV or Amplified Bibles for study, and has never, or hardly ever, used or even glanced at the KJV - is not saved or really a Christian?
Are you saying that Christians, such as myself, who read, learn and study the NIV, actually DOUBT God's word, are lacking in the faith and don't know God as well as those who read the KJV?

Of course we've received the word of God. As I said, no man has ever re-written the Gospel, or changed it to make it more accessible to those in the 21st century. It is the same as it always was - the wages of sin are still death and salvation is through Christ alone.
We had the words of God long before King James was even thought of.
People were reading, accepting, believing in, being saved and blessed by and learning and studying God's word LONG before 1611. As I said, Jesus taught the words of God; the very words God gave him to speak and he had heard God say. He certainly didn't say "wait 1611 years and then you will receive my Father's word", or "I can't tell you that, a perfect version of my Father's word has not yet been made".

I am not trapped and lost on some island though; I am in a country with many Christian resources and study aids - so why would I start thinking like someone who was trapped on an island?

If I went to sea, I would take my NIV Bible with me.
There are many other verses which indicate the Trinity other than those from 1 John - like Genesis 1, Matthew 28:20, Isaiah 6 - or the fact that the Father is God, Jesus is God, the Spirit is God, yet there is clearly only ONE God.
Trying to make out the the KJV is the only Bible that references, or teaches, the trinity, is incorrect.

Besides, someone with no knowledge of the Christian faith would first learn, and be taught, about God's love, our sin, Jesus' death and the Holy Spirit who can live in us - no one goes up to a non Christian and teaches the Trinity.

No I'm not.
I'm in the "you can read the Bible in any translation you like. I'm sure the KJV is very useful and precious to you; I don't read it, yet I am still saved and belong to God" movement.
I'm in the "I read and study God's word, but worship HIM and not a book" movement.
I don't rush out to buy every new translation of the Bible that comes out, but I may read and use them for study.

No.
I question your whole argument because it is illogical.
1.The KJV was NOT the first copy of God's word ever to be produced; it wasn't even the first to be translated into English. Jesus had, used and quoted the word of God, yet did not have the KJV.
2. Even if it had been, the 1611 KJV was the one authorised by King James - it was called that because HE asked for it to be made. You have rejected that version as imperfect; that doesn't make sense.
3. You say that the modern versions are tainted, "garbage" and have "the name of the devil in them" - yet you use them. If they are corrupted and NOT the word of God; reject them. If you need to use them because you don't understand, or need help with, the language of the KJV, then it is not perfect - being written in language that you don't understand. It doesn't make sense to criticise and vilify the newer translations and then admit that you use them - the things that are from the devil - to make sense of God's word.
4. People can learn about God, be saved, baptised, born again, blessed, love God and serve him without reading something that is, apparently, the only word of God. I am a Christian, just as much as you are - we are equal in God's eyes. It makes no sense to state that there is only one version of God's word, yet admit that God can still save, bless and heal through something which is of the devil.

It does, and I do.

No, because it's in other Bibles.
- NIV
- Living Bible
- Amplified Bible
- Young's literal translation
- 1599 Geneva Bible.
- God's word translation

I would guess you are focusing on the word "study". That word appears in at least 2 other translations, including the Amplified, which I have and sometimes use.
In any case, you are clearly wrong to say that 2 Timothy 2:15 is not in modern Bibles.

Yes, there would.

The WORDS may be different; the truth, and the faith, is the same.
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever - always has been, always will be.
Using the words "work hard" instead of "study", or whatever other examples you have come up with, will never change that truth.

No.
I am arguing a) to challenge your argument, which is illogical and b) because there is an unspoken suggestion that those who use modern translations of Scripture - "garbage" tainted by the devil - are lesser Christians/not true Christians at all. Not only is THIS illogical, and ridiculous; it's against forum rules. Indeed, the forum rules sate that if you want to be accepted on here as a Christian you have to believe in, and accept, the Nicene creed - NOT that you have to read the KJV.

It's not a matter of my faith.
My faith is in Jesus - THE Word, the true, unchanging, perfect one.

a) No it isn't.
b) So you ARE saying that KJV readers are better Christians than anyone else.
c) There is ONE faith; ONE Gospel - I have the same faith as you.

Nope.
There is only one Gospel, and it is the same now as it has always been.

I have no doubt that the KJV is, and has been, enormously important to you in your faith and Christian walk. I can see your passion for it.
But you are wrong to suggest that NIV readers, for example, are less committed to God, less passionate about his word, and have lesser, or a different, faith. Maybe your passion for the KJV blinds you to this, to the way God works, blesses and saves people. Maybe you will be shocked to see NIV/Good News Bible readers in heaven. But that's how it is. Someone may never read the KJV in their life, and still be just as much a Christian and child of God as you are. I stopped reading it years ago, yet have grown in my faith since then.

May the Lord bless you too.

I would die for my faith in the LORD, which is what we are called to do.

God is truth.
Jesus is THE Word and THE truth, John 1:1; John 14:6.
The Spirit is the Spirit of truth, John 16:13.
I would die defending my faith in GOD. Believing that the KJV is the only Bible is not the Gospel, not taught by Jesus, not part of the Christian faith. It is about preference; not belief.

As for being aware of the devil's ways (or how he operates):

The Bible says,

"...for we are not ignorant of his wiles and intentions."
(2 Corinthians 2:11) (AMPC).

" for we are not ignorant of his devices." (2 Corinthians 2:11) (KJV).

Granted, I think it is wrong to do a whole series of sermons on the enemy, etc.; I ran into a church that did this (via by looking at their website), and needless to say I did not attend because of it. Something like that gives glory to the enemy and makes him to be greater than he actually is. We are commanded to think primarily on that which is good (godly) (See: Philippians 4:8).

Anyways, no offense brother, but seeing you are resistant to about most of what I have said, and you are not willing to budge in any way in your thinking, there is no real point to continue this conversation at this time. I cannot convince you of the truth that I have learned. Only God can do that.

Peace be unto you in the Lord.

Reasons why I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired perfect Word of God.

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Newbie

Oldbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Psalti Chrysostom

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Newbie

This is me about 1 yr. old.

Bishop of the See of Aotearoa ROCCNZ;Theologian

Senior Veteran

Great is thy faithfulness

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Similar threads