Bible Corruptions
- Thread starter BlessedCreator
- Start date
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
You asked,
"How do you align your belief that the KJV is the only true/pure Bible, with the Bible?"
by: Strong in Him
There are many links in the chain using the Bible that show that the KJV is the pure Word of God. To mention all the links here in full detail would be like reading a thick printed book. Anyways, the book "New Age Bible versions" adds one link in the chain; It shows that the KJV is the pure Word by comparing itself with other counterfeit Modern Translations. By this comparison, we see a watering down of key doctrines like:
- The Trinity.
- The Deity of Christ.
- The Incarnation.
- The Blood Atonement.
- Holy Living.
Many who are against a "Perfect Word in the English" say something like: "But no key doctrines are affected or changed."
I beg to differ big time.
Here are a few key doctrines that have been changed (Which is only one link in the chain):
#1. Doctrine of The Trinity is Effected; For the Only Verse (1 John 5:7) That Point Blank Tells Us About the Trinity is Removed:
If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truth on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.
#2. Doctrine of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Removed and Altered:
Many of your Modern Translations fail this test. The KJV says that any spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and it is the spirit of the Antichrist. Modern Translations do not say this and thus they fail to pass this test by not admitting this truth. Why is admitting that Jesus is come in the flesh important? Because it is about the Incarnation. Can a person deny the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and be of God? Modern Translations water down the Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well. The King James correctly says "God was manifest in the flesh," and yet the watered down version bibles say "He was manifested in the flesh." Here again, many Modern Translations fail the test of how we check to see if a spirit is of the spirit of Antichrist or not by denying how God was manifest in the flesh (i.e. a denial of the Incarnation). How does this affect us? Well, if I wanted to show forth the truth to a person who denied the Incarnation, my battle would be severely crippled if I had a Modern Translation. Also, if Rick ran into a false spirit claiming to be Jesus, then Rick could test this spirit with the proper test from 1 John 4:3 in the KJV. But if Rick was a Modern Translations fan and he hated the KJV, he could potentially be deceived because he did not have the proper test.
#3. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed:
Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the Modern Translations and they have a hate on for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.
#4. The Doctrine To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Removed and Altered:
2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).
#5. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed:
Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.
#6. The Doctrine of Psalms 12:7 that the Lord will Preserve His Words Forever is Removed and Altered.
Psalms 12:6 says the words of the Lord are pure words, and in Psalms 12:7, the Psalmist says that the Lord will preserve them forever. It's kind of funny or odd that those who are against a perfect Bible existing in our world language today (i.e. the KJV) just so happen to favor Modern translations that remove and alter this very verse. Some do not even believe there is a perfect Bible out there. So who decides what words in the Bible are the true words of God? Do they decide? Now, some may say the perfect Word exists in the original languages. But Habakkuk 2:2 says write the words plainly so that he that reads it may run. So it's not going to be some gobbledygook language that nobody can understand (like biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek). In fact, all we have today are copies of the original languages. This is not the case with the KJV. Meaning, His Word is preserved forever. His Word moved with the times. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word does not exist perfectly in some dead language, but His Word exists in the English (Which is the world language of today).
#7. The Doctrine of Having Faith in His Blood in Romans 3:25 is Removed and Altered.
Modern Translations are not clear that we are to directly have faith in Christ's blood according to Romans 3:25. In the past, I have argued with other professing believers on another Christian forum who reject the blood atonement and or they reject that Christ's blood literally cleansed us from sin. If they had a real sword (KJV) instead of a butter knife (Modern Translation), they would have a better chance at discovering the truth on the Blood Atonement. For Romans 3:25 is not altered unlike certain Modern Translations.
If I was on an island, and I had no clue about Christianity, the odds of my understanding the Trinity is better if I had a King James bible vs. a Modern Translation bible that removes this valuable truth on knowing the Trinity. So this proves that Modern Translations are less helpful for me to understand the Trinity by using the Bible alone.
#2. Doctrine of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Removed and Altered:
Many of your Modern Translations fail this test. The KJV says that any spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God and it is the spirit of the Antichrist. Modern Translations do not say this and thus they fail to pass this test by not admitting this truth. Why is admitting that Jesus is come in the flesh important? Because it is about the Incarnation. Can a person deny the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and be of God? Modern Translations water down the Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well. The King James correctly says "God was manifest in the flesh," and yet the watered down version bibles say "He was manifested in the flesh." Here again, many Modern Translations fail the test of how we check to see if a spirit is of the spirit of Antichrist or not by denying how God was manifest in the flesh (i.e. a denial of the Incarnation). How does this affect us? Well, if I wanted to show forth the truth to a person who denied the Incarnation, my battle would be severely crippled if I had a Modern Translation. Also, if Rick ran into a false spirit claiming to be Jesus, then Rick could test this spirit with the proper test from 1 John 4:3 in the KJV. But if Rick was a Modern Translations fan and he hated the KJV, he could potentially be deceived because he did not have the proper test.
#3. The Doctrine of Fasting So As To Cast Out Persistent Demons is Removed:
Matthew 17:21 that tells us that casting out persistent or really strong devils is by prayer and fasting. Yet, Matthew 17:21 is oddly removed in Modern Translations. Mark 9:29 mentions that you can pray to remove these kinds of devils, but it does not mention fasting. So the key doctrine of fasting so as to cast out really strong demons is gone. So the enemy wins if a person only adheres to the Modern Translations and they have a hate on for the KJV. For if you ever encountered strong demonic activity like this before, you know that fasting does actually help greatly, and not just prayer alone.
#4. The Doctrine To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Removed and Altered:
2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).
#5. The Full Version of the Doctrine on Having "No Condemnation" According to Romans 8:1 is Removed:
Romans 8:1 says, "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Modern Translations leave out the part that says, "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." The KJV says, as a part of having no Condemnation: We have to (a) Be in Christ Jesus, AND: (b) Walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. The enemy wants Christians today to justify sin instead of battling against it. So the enemy will do everything he can to give a person a water down version on His holy Word to promote the idea that they do not need to worry about sin destroying their soul.
#6. The Doctrine of Psalms 12:7 that the Lord will Preserve His Words Forever is Removed and Altered.
Psalms 12:6 says the words of the Lord are pure words, and in Psalms 12:7, the Psalmist says that the Lord will preserve them forever. It's kind of funny or odd that those who are against a perfect Bible existing in our world language today (i.e. the KJV) just so happen to favor Modern translations that remove and alter this very verse. Some do not even believe there is a perfect Bible out there. So who decides what words in the Bible are the true words of God? Do they decide? Now, some may say the perfect Word exists in the original languages. But Habakkuk 2:2 says write the words plainly so that he that reads it may run. So it's not going to be some gobbledygook language that nobody can understand (like biblical Hebrew, and biblical Greek). In fact, all we have today are copies of the original languages. This is not the case with the KJV. Meaning, His Word is preserved forever. His Word moved with the times. For God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. His Word does not exist perfectly in some dead language, but His Word exists in the English (Which is the world language of today).
#7. The Doctrine of Having Faith in His Blood in Romans 3:25 is Removed and Altered.
Modern Translations are not clear that we are to directly have faith in Christ's blood according to Romans 3:25. In the past, I have argued with other professing believers on another Christian forum who reject the blood atonement and or they reject that Christ's blood literally cleansed us from sin. If they had a real sword (KJV) instead of a butter knife (Modern Translation), they would have a better chance at discovering the truth on the Blood Atonement. For Romans 3:25 is not altered unlike certain Modern Translations.
These are just a few of the red flags in Modern Translations.
But there are so many red flags in Modern Translations, it would make one think they were in a Russian airport.
They use Scripture to back up their belief. If you are open to the truth, then you will seek out what they have to say. If you are not open to the truth, you will just reject anything they have to say and not hear what they have to say with God's Word.
Not true. A certain poster here says the KJV is not perfect, and they are all too happy to point out errors within it. They have done so in this thread already several times.
Because they did not do the study to find out the truth that the KJV is the pure Word of God. They don't care. They are happy and comfortable where they are at.
I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English sometimes, but they are not my final word of authority. You need a final Word of authority. Not all Bibles say exactly the same thing.
You said:
Then you haven't been reading this thread carefully enough.
Another poster here clearly has a hate on for the KJV.
Please carefully re-read through this thread and you will discover a poster who appears to really hate the KJV in this very thread. He cannot stop attacking anything to do with the KJV. I don't need to name the person. It is kind of obvious who has an extreme hate on for the KJV. Oh, and another poster (who posted in this thread) told me another thread that the KJV is from the pits of hell. So no. You cannot see that there is a hatred for the KJV because you don't want to see it.
You said:
There is a reason for that.
This is because it is a spiritual matter.
Stop and think for a moment. Do you honestly think the devil is not out to attack and water down God's Word? He already did so in the Garden with Eve. Why do you think he has not continued to do so today? What verse or passage tells you this?
You said:
Because God is not the author of confusion. Not all Bibles say the same thing, and there can be only one Word of God. God is perfect in all He does. He is precise in all He does. Jesus said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,905
- 7,990
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Sorry, but I don't want links.
I want a verse which says that the KJV ALONE is the word of God.
There isn't one.
"The word of the Lord came to Elijah", 1 Kings 19:9
"The word of the Lord came to me (Ezekiel)", Ezekiel 6:1
"This is the word that came to Jeremiah from the Lord", Jeremiah 18:1
Was this word from the Lord the KJV? Obviously not.
Jesus spoke the words that the Father gave him; were these words the KJV?
The early church preached the Good News and told how Jesus' coming and death had been prophesied by OT prophets. They did not preach, nor quote from, the KJV.
There is nothing in the Bible which says that the word of God is the KJV, or that only the KJV should be used or read.
If there is someone who hates the KJV - as opposed to "appearing" to hate it, that is between them and God.
I am not going to read the whole thread; there are more edifying things for me to be reading - like the Bible, for instance. So maybe I am wrong and someone/people do hate the KJV; but my guess is that what most people hate is your blind insistence that the KJV is perfect and the only translation which is God's word. The implication clearly is that those who don't read God's true and perfect word, i.e the KJV, but other translations, are either substandard Christians, or not very bright for reading translations that are "corrupt".
Nonsense.
The way that the devil attacks and waters down God's word is by telling people:
a) that they don't need to read it; it is out of date and irrelevant to them.
b) that every single word is literally true and to be applied to them today; if someone has doubts or questions or is tying themselves in knots trying to apply something to their lives, they are at fault for doubting, not obeying and not doing the word.
c) that their preferred translation of the Bible is the best, or the only one, and those not using it are, in some way, deficient in faith.
d) he loves to get Christians arguing about words and concepts, and doesn't mind at all if Christians have opposing views and each use the Bible to back them up. This way he can sow the idea that "my understanding of Scripture is better than yours", cause division in the church and/or mistrust of the Bible.
They speak of the same God - Father, Son and Holy Spirit - and Lord Jesus Christ, the same Gospel, the same need to be born again, John 3:3 and receive eternal life, John 3:36. They tell of how THE Word of God became flesh and lived among us, John 1:14. They all record that Jesus is the giver of eternal life, the only way to the Father, John 14:6,the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, John 1:29, and who was chosen from the beginning of the world to do this 1 Peter 1:19-20. They all say that Jesus lived, taught, died, was raised to life, ascended to the Father and sent his Holy Spirit. They say that the Spirit is a deposit which guarantees our inheritance, 2 Corinthians 1:22, 2 Corinthians 5:5, Ephesians 1:14. And that it is the Spirit who makes us God's children, John 1:12, Romans 8:16-17. They all urge us to believe in Jesus, remain united to the vine, be salt and light in the world, preach the Gospel and live as children of the light.
They all say that Jesus will return one day.
What extra doctrine does the KJV have that is central to the Christian faith and yet not mentioned in the newer translations?
I never said otherwise.
What has that verse - which you have taken out of context - got to do with your belief that only the KJV is the word of God?
You have even said that you occasionally use newer translations! Seriously? You lecture us about the KJV being the perfect word of God, unlike other Bibles which are "corrupt", but then say that you need to use "corrupt" versions to help you to understand what is perfect?
Upvote
0
That passage was never in the original. It appears in no Greek manuscript before the 14th century.
And the doctrine of the Trinity was written down long before that verse was added to the Bible.
This is an obvious falsehood.
1 John 4:2-3 (ESV): By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already.
1 John 4:2-3 (NIV): This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
1 John 4:2-3 (KJV): Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
These verses are all saying the same thing. Since you are not being truthful, there's no point responding to your other statements.
Upvote
0
I suggest you take a look at the material being translated before you say a modern version blew it.
And I see no reply to the KJV goofs I posted, especially the one about Rev. 16:5.
And I see no replies to the fact that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, which automatically makes the KJVO myth false.
Upvote
0
it is NOT perfect. I have a CE & it has the same goofs & booboos found in other KJV editions.
Upvote
0
Yes, YOU did, in your post # 121 above. And there's no such thing as a "KJB" Bible version.
So, we should disregard the KJV's many goofs & booboos ? I have posted both an addition and an omission of God's word in the KJV.
Upvote
0
Isilwen
Well-Known Member
- Oct 13, 2019
- 3,741
- 2,788
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Episcopalian
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Democrat
This is where the KJVO stance fails.
The KJV is a version of the Bible as well, just as modern Bibles are. The only thing you can compare a version with is the original writings to see if it stands up. The KJVO crowd fails, because the stance requires the belief that the KJV is the standard that all Bibles should live up to, when it's not. Not even the men who penned it said that the KJV was the standard by which all Bibles should be judged.
That was me and you have misquoted me.
I didn't say that the KJV is from the pits of hell, I said that KJVO is from the pits of hell. There is a huge difference between saying the KJV is from the pits of hell and the stance that the KJV is the only true version of the Bible is from the pits from hell.
I don't hate the KJV, I just don't use it. It is not in the English that I speak and it's distracting. I even have two copies in my possession. The English written in the KJV is not the English of today.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, that's the problem with the over use of acronyms these days without a definition given in parentheses.
It leads to confusion or a lack of clarity in one's communications.
For have you ever misunderstood a person before because they were using an unfamiliar acronym?
Besides, there really is not much difference between the KJV and KJVO.
For how can KJVO (KJV Onlyism) be any different than KJV (the King James Bible)?
I see them as almost the same thing. If you don't have a problem with the source (the KJV), then there should not be a problem with KJVO because they are merely following strictly what the KJV says as their one and only source.
It would be like criticizing a group of people who are for drinking "pure water only." Is there anything wrong with wanting to have only pure water? Only if a person is against drinking pure water or not drinking it as much, and they believe you must also drink impure water would they have a problem with the people who are for "drinking pure water only."
It would be like a cure for the Coronavirus coming out. If somebody found the cure, and they were promoting it, and there was no side effects, would the people who promote strongly this vaccine be wrong? Only if the vaccine was bad would it be wrong for them to promote it. If the vaccine worked and had no ill side effects, then it would not be wrong for a person to push the vaccine alone as the way to get things back to normal.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
No. The verse was written by John. Stop thinking about past documents written by religious men after the Scriptures were completed. Think about the here and now. Think about the fruits of a Bible and how it is more effective. Again, one more time. If I was on an island, and did not know about Christianity, my odds are better in knowing about the Trinity are better if 1 John 5:7 was in my Bible. So if a KJV washed up to shore, my odds are better in knowing about the Trinity. That's better fruit. You cannot change or alter this truth. But you are free to believe religious men who wrote some historical document in the past (Which could be biased to men who were secretly set out to attack God's Word). I believe the fruit in the here and now.
You said:
Your not reading it correctly.
1 John 4:2-3 (NIV): This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.
Yes. The Modern Translations get verse 2 correct, but they get verse 3 wrong. Notice how in verse 3, it simply says that the spirit does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. It does not say, "And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: "
So again, why the Modern Versions will admit that a spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God in verse 2, they deny verse 3 (Which is still a part of the test). Modern Translations just say that every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is a far different than what the KJV says.
For example: There is a popular book and movie out there called "Heaven is for real." Many Christians believe this account. Why? Because they don't have 1 John 4:3 as their proper testing method in their Bible. They are not using the King James.
For various men have died and said they have seen Jesus. These men probably read from a Modern Translation or they prefer them. Why? Because 1 John 4:3 in a Modern Translation uses language that gives them a loophole. They talked to a spirit that acknowledges Jesus, but they did not talk with a spirit that acknowledges Jesus has come in the flesh.
This is why 1 John 4:3 is such a serious problem in Modern Translations.
I will give you one more.
This is yet another doctrine that is changed by Modern Translations.
So yeah, if folks want these kind of distortions in their bibles, then by all means.... they are free to partake of them. But there is going to be problems if they do.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
No, it really wasn't. If it had been, it would have appeared in Greek manuscripts.
If you were on an island, and did not know about Christianity, your odds are better of knowing about the Trinity if you have the complete works of St. Augustine. That doesn't make those works Scripture.
That's already implicit in verse 2. Yes, it seems that somebody added words to verse 3 before the KJV was translated, but those words don't affect the meaning at all.
The word of God says:
אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבֹונֵךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵךְ בְּעֶצֶב תֵּֽלְדִי בָנִים וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ׃ ס
The translation of tĕshuwqah 'iysh mashal has been debated. Options are:
CSB: "... Your desire will be for your husband, yet he will rule over you."
NKJV: "... Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you."
ESV: "... Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."
An interesting discussion can be had as to which translation is best, but someone who thinks that the ESV is "promoting rebellious wives" is clearly unable to understand the English, let alone the Hebrew.
The ESV is different from most other translations here, but it is guided by the fact that the same words tĕshuwqah mashal can be found in Genesis 4:7:
CSB: "... sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it."
NKJV: "sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it."
ESV: "...sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it."
Last edited:
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Well, I did my best to explain things, and your still not getting it (Which tells me that you simply do not want to see the truth on this matter). So to continue to go back and forth on this is pointless.
Believe as you wish in thinking there is no perfect Bible in the English.
I believe that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living and that He has preserved His words forever, and that He has written those words plainly so that he that reads it may run.
Upvote
0
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,905
- 7,990
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
No; they're not.
KJVO - King James Version ONLY. I.e, there is no other Bible that we recognise as the word of God. The KJV ALONE can teach the Christian faith and truth.
That is far from true; thousands of people may have been saved through reading the Good News Bible, NIV, Living Bible, or other versions.
I don't read the KJV and I believe in the Trinity. Yet you, or the OP, would have us believe that we have no knowledge of the Trinity apart from the KJV. Same with some of the other dictrines that you listed.
And saying that other Bibles are not the word of God and are corrupt. It has even been said that the KJV is perfect, or close to perfection.
Not at all.
Water that's obviously dirty or contaminated will do no one any good - though some in other countries are forced to drink it to stay alive.
But that is not a good comparison - you would have to prove that all other Bible translations, inspired by the Holy Spirit, are the equivalent of dirty water and very dangerous for ones spiritual health.
People were reading, learning and studying the word of God long before the KJV was published. In 1615, the KJV would have been a "newer translation"; possibly earning as much scorn as the NIV, for example, earns now.
But the newer versions still are, and contain, the word of God - someone can still be saved from sin, receive eternal life and the Holy Spirit and defeat the devil through them. They are not "contaminated water", nor are they an "ineffective vaccine."
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
- Jul 22, 2014
- 41,508
- 7,861
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
*Sigh* I said that KJVO is King James Only as a position, and KJV is the King James Bible.
But in my view, they are not much different because if one does not have a problem with the KJV, then you cannot fault others for strictly adhering to a bible that should have no problem with. Many say the KJV is a fine translation but they don't think that a person should stick with only one translation alone as their authority or they believe in looking to the original languages, etc.; Yet, if they did not have a problem with the KJV, then they should not have a problem with KJVO.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
- Mar 4, 2005
- 27,905
- 7,990
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
God DOES keep his words.
Newsflash: his words were not written in English, and were being kept, trusted and obeyed long before the KJV came along.
NOTHING can destroy God's promise, as this poster claims.
Do they really think that human beings have the power to overpower/destroy God's words?
Upvote
0
Similar threads
