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

[a-lily-of-peace]

I do not know who are "we", but its a scholarly consensus that its Yahshua.

The name of the OT "Joshua" is variously and intentionally changed against the name of Yahshua in our translations so that the name of Jesus stays unique.

You are right that both of them should be transliterated as "Jesus" or "Yahshua", if we want to be consistent.

The same goes with Judas and Jude. These are also the same name, but intentionally transliterated differently to differentiate between the traitor and the brother of James.

I’m talking about pronunciation, not translation. This name “יהושע” is pronounced as Yehoshua.

I don’t speak Hebrew so I am relying on the fact that Jewish men still use this name today:

Yehoshua (given name) - Wikipedia

 

[solid_core]

I’m talking about pronunciation, not translation. This name “יהושע” is pronounced as Yehoshua.

I don’t speak Hebrew so I am relying on the fact that Jewish men still use this name today:

Yehoshua (given name) - Wikipedia

Yes, its a pronounciation originated in the similar time as Jehovah. But we are talking about how it should be, not how todays Jews use it, no?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Yes, its a pronounciation originated in the similar time as Jehovah. But we are talking about how it should be, not how todays Jews use it, no?

Then yes, let’s look at the letters if you say they should be otherwise

י ye
הו ho ( hw / “how” with long o)
ש shu
ע a

now if you say there’s no o sound how do you indicate the waw should be recognised?

(edit because I really don’t speak Hebrew)

 

[solid_core]

Then yes, let’s look at the letters if you say they should be otherwise

י ye
הו ho ( hw / “how” with long o)
ש shu
ה ah

now if you say there’s no o sound how do you indicate the waw should be recognised?

I do not understand your question. Jewish names of today are not the point. Biblical Jehovah vs Jahveh was the point.

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

I do not understand your question. Jewish names of today are not the point. Biblical Jehovah vs Jahveh was the point.

I can get to the point that the names used to honour the name of God should be reflective of the name of God but my question is that if the name has the letter waw and we are trying to determine if the pronunciation is correct then I am asking how you get your pronunciation from those letters?

 

[a-lily-of-peace]

Also I fixed my post because like I said I really don’t speak Hebrew.

So really if you can pronounce those letters differently then I say please show me because it will increase my familiarity with something I have only very recently started learning.

Not in the spirit of dispute at all, in the sense that my first thought for the ending was not the letter it was because it isn’t my native language so I’m completely aware there are pronunciations of a letter I have never even heard of yet.

 

[robycop3]

Did you know that Muslims even use the Modern Bibles issue to try and win back Christians who were once Muslims? They say that God is not the author of confusion to have so many different Bibles that all say something slightly different in all of them. This is not just one story, but there are similar stories that has happened many times. The Muslims use Modern Translations as a weapon against Christians. Only one authority can stop them, though. The King James Bible.

This point alone should be enough of a reason to never again trust the Modern Translation movement, but I know it will not convince most here. All I can do is pray that folks keep an open mind at the biblical and logical case that I make for the KJV that is exhaustive. For what does it hurt you to hear?

Each branch of Islam has its own Q'ran. The Sunni, Shiites, Sufis, & Wahabis each have their own version, & have killed each other over it. While I have read only a Sunni edition long ago, I understand there are significant differences between versions, much more than there are between legitimate Bible versions.

Wave that fact in the face of any Moslem who tries to "preach' to you !

 

[robycop3]

As American English is my language, I simply say "Jesus", God", & Holy Spirit". He knows whom I'm speaking of or to.

 

[robycop3]

Still, no valid defense of the KJVO myth here. A good reason why not is THERE ISN'T ANY !

 

[ChetSinger]

We can add J 1:18

John 1:18:
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known. (NIV)

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)

The KJV also removed our rightousness:

R 4:24
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness--for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead (NIV)

But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead (KJV)

---

When we put all such places together, we can see a pattern and agenda of unbelieving people, watering down the deity of Christ etc, as @Bible Highlighter would put it. But in his KJV.

Wow, I didn't know that John 1:18 is another one that the KJV translators missed.

These verses have brought back to mind a family of Jehovah's Witnesses who once tried to evangelize me. Once they knew I was a Christian they actually suggested using the KJV to prove their theology (that Jesus was not God in the flesh, but the angel Michael). That suggestion puzzled me at the time. But now I've learned that the KJV has dropped multiple direct references to Christ's deity and is one of the weaker translations when defending against JW's.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bingo. When the KJV was translated they were unaware of the Granville Sharp rule. It's one of the clearest verses of all regarding the deity of Christ, and the KJV translators were unaware of it.

Btw, the NET gets it right, too. And here's the NET footnote regarding it:


As the footnote describes, the KJV translators missed the deity of Christ again in 2 Peter 1:1:


And again in Jude 4:

BH, I see nothing but pointless and even damaging factionalism in insisting on KJV-only beliefs among the brethren.

8,000 changes between the NT Greek words vs. the King James are made. There is even a book on it that documents this for you (the common man) whereby you can either buy it, and or get it at a library to check it out for yourself (Which is a book that you can check for yourself at the 1st page of this thread). So your barking up the wrong tree. When I say there is a watering down of doctrine, it is on a massive level. So the changes you suggest that appear to favor the Modern Translations is extremely minor by comparison. I already pointed out how certain doctrines were actually eliminated, as well. Folks in the OAO (Original Autographs Only) are also looking at the corrupt line of manuscripts. Think about the name “Vaticanus.” Is there a place that sounds similar to that to you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Each branch of Islam has its own Q'ran. The Sunni, Shiites, Sufis, & Wahabis each have their own version, & have killed each other over it. While I have read only a Sunni edition long ago, I understand there are significant differences between versions, much more than there are between legitimate Bible versions.

Wave that fact in the face of any Moslem who tries to "preach' to you !

You speak of things you know not of. In the story, the man who became a Christian and was worried about what was the Word of God and going back to the Muslim religion did not find comfort in a sea of babel Bibles that offered only confusion (with words that do not all say the same thing), but he found comfort in the King James Bible and was able to stand spiritually and not go back to the Muslim religion.

But if the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I do actually use “Jehovah” though with the J as the I/Y sound, not the current English J.

And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them. (Exodus 6:3, KJV)

And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen. (Genesis 22:14, KJV)

Now, seeing those two near each other, it gives me even more questions, of which only one is why put [LORD] even there?

Maybe the difference is in the revealing in light of Exodus 3:14.

Concealed mysteries abound in God's Word for His glory.
We can only ask and then seek.
One thing that always amazes me in the book of Exodus is
“Exodus chapter 33.”

We have 33 vertebrae in our backbone.
Yet, this was the chapter that the Lord showed his back to Moses for us to read about.

 

[robycop3]

You speak of things you know not of. In the story, the man who became a Christian and was worried about what was the Word of God and going back to the Muslim religion did not find comfort in a sea of babel Bibles that offered only confusion (with words that do not all say the same thing), but he found comfort in the King James Bible and was able to stand spiritually and not go back to the Muslim religion.

But if the foundations be destroyed, what shall the righteous do?

I likely know a LOT more about Moslems than you do. And I know, from a Sunni Moslem neighbor, about the different Q'ran editions.

I know that Moslems do as you KJVOs do - tell tall tales to try to get people to see things their way. And, same as Islam, the KJVO myth has no truth to rely on.

 

[robycop3]

Concealed mysteries abound in God's Word for His glory.
We can only ask and then seek.
One thing that always amazes me in the book of Exodus is
“Exodus chapter 33.”

We have 33 vertebrae in our backbone.
Yet, this was the chapter that the Lord showed his back to Moses for us to read about.

Pure coincidence.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I likely know a LOT more about Moslems than you do. And I know, from a Sunni Moslem neighbor, about the different Q'ran editions.

I know that Moslems do as you KJVOs do - tell tall tales to try to get people to see things their way. And, same as Islam, the KJVO myth has no truth to rely on.

So your saying the story did not happen? Or it was just a lucky coincidence? In either case, I know nothing I will say will convince you. Only God can convince you of the truth if you are open to it. But it doesn't sound like you are open to it, so there is no purpose in continuing this discourse.

May God bless you.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Pure coincidence.

A tree cannot bring forth good fruit and a bad tree cannot bring forth bad fruit.

Certainly the Queen James Bible, and the New World Translation do not bring forth good fruit. Today, one statistic showed that 8% of Christians think Jesus sinned. Did they get this idea from reading the King James or a Modern Translation? It was from a Modern Translation. I will talk more about this in my opening argument of this thread.

Side Note:

What really is freaky is that I ran into a Christian here on the forums who thinks Jesus sinned not too long ago.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Pure coincidence.

Also, I do recognize that you have valuable knowledge because of your age. You have seen a lot. Learned a lot. I would like to ask you as an elder. You don't have to answer. But I would appreciate knowing because it is not something I could find on the internet. What decade did Protestant churches not lock the doors of their church generally? The 60's or the 50's? Earlier? I say this because it was a different time back then. A more innocent time compared to today.

Anyways, I hope all is well with you at home;
May you continue to stay safe and trust in the Lord and His Word.

 

[Sam81]

8,000 changes between the NT Greek words vs. the King James are made. There is even a book on it that documents this for you (the common man) whereby you can either buy it, and or get it at a library to check it out for yourself (Which is a book that you can check for yourself at the 1st page of this thread). So your barking up the wrong tree. When I say there is a watering down of doctrine, it is on a massive level. So the changes you suggest that appear to favor the Modern Translations is extremely minor by comparison. I already pointed out how certain doctrines were actually eliminated, as well. Folks in the OAO (Original Autographs Only) are also looking at the corrupt line of manuscripts. Think about the name “Vaticanus.” Is there a place that sounds similar to that to you?

Extremely Minor by comparison? But the point is, that they are there! If the KJV is truly perfect, such mistakes should not be there! It should not detract from the deity of Christ as it does!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Extremely Minor by comparison? But the point is, that they are there! If the KJV is truly perfect, such mistakes should not be there! It should not detract from the deity of Christ as it does!

It's not a mistake. Error is only in the eye of the beholder who is looking to see one. The overwhelming condemning evidence against the Modern Translations shows that they cannot be trusted. Devil's name is placed in them, they take away doctrine, etc.

They also water down doctrine on a massive scale. The Deity of Christ, Incarnation, Blood Atonement, Holy Living, Salvation are all attacked in an extreme way. So your looking at a small spec (that is not even a problem because it is from a corrupt Vatican line of manuscripts) by of a mountain of evidence that condemns those very documents.

One is not even trusting God's Word by this method. They have a sea of babel bibles that they consult and yet they also look to OAO (the original autographs only) for the pure Word. Problem. They get to decide and pick and choose and be an authority over what God's Word says because again, they are tackling even more confusion of a dead language. They cannot just simply read and believe their Bible plainly like with the KJV. They cannot believe Psalms 12:7 in that God preserved His Word for today (Which is suspiciously altered to say something different in Modern Translations). OAO leads to doubt, and not faith.