• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Is KJV the preserved word of God ?

Discussion in 'Fundamentalist Christians' started by Chinchilla, Jul 24, 2018.

  1. Chinchilla

    Chinchilla Well-Known Member

    +1,033
    Poland
    Christian
    Private
    KJV seem to have contradictions
    Arguments this author makes in this video :


    1) Genealogy in Genesis 11 is corrupted and missing 600-650 years
    2)There would be not enought time for people to multiply from 8 people untill the tower of Babel event .
    3) KJV is missing words in Isaiah 61:1 which Jesus quote in Luke 4:18
    4) Amount of people in Exodus 1:5 and Genesis 46:27 is different than in Acts 7:14
    5) Israel was not in Egypt under bondage for 430 years .



    Anybody can refute such arguments ?
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2018
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. dqhall

    dqhall Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,783
    United States
    Christian
    Single
    Archaeologists found that some of the towns listed as conquered by Joshua during Israel's conquest were not even founded or were unoccupied at the times historians estimated the conquest occurred.

    I gave up trying to prove the entire Bible is true, but have realized parts of the Bible are true and parts of the Bible are the word of God. Archaeologists and historians have been able to prove parts of 2 Kings are accurate such as the invasion by the Assyrians and the Babylonian conquest.

    Without the Bible, it would have been difficult for me to consider God can work miracles or that sexually immoral behavior is wrong. I found the Gospels were accurate enough for me to change my lifestyle for the better. I have listened to people testify how they were totally useless until they put God in control of their lives.
     
  3. Glaucus

    Glaucus The Lay Monk

    +1,339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Sure. It totally makes sense that we were effectively without the True Bible for 1,600 years, and the KJV Translators were joking when they said (in the Translators to the Readers, which has conveniently been cut from modern KJVs along with the Apocrypha) that they hoped for future and better translations because theirs wasn't perfect.
     
    • Useful Useful x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  4. TheMusicGoesOn

    TheMusicGoesOn New Member

    1
    +0
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The Bible is the Word of God. King James was human, and instructed his 'editors' to add or subtract words, phrases, or verses where it did not fit into his doctrine and beliefs. Thee's, thou's, and the host of Old English verbiage are not 'religious speak', simply the way they wrote and spoke when it was published.
     
  5. Virgil the Roman

    Virgil the Roman Young Fogey & Monarchist-Distributist . . .

    +1,216
    United States
    Traditional. Cath.
    Private
    US-American-Solidarity
    While quite beautiful, the KJV does contain a plethora of errors; some typographical, others a bit more.
     
  6. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    Good grief Charlie Brown.

    Not another one of these.

    Subscribing for the fun.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  7. Chinchilla

    Chinchilla Well-Known Member

    +1,033
    Poland
    Christian
    Private
    So which translation should we use for OT if not KJV ? LXX ?

    Replace KJV's OT with LXX but still use the majority text for NT as seen in KJV ?
     
  8. Heavenhome

    Heavenhome Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,861
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    I am more than happy to stay with the King James Bible and to me it is the word of God, that I think we have been blessed with. I do not believe that God would have us have it for over 400 years, if it were not His word.

    Please,please,please I don't want any posts arguing the fors and againsts the KJV. It has been done so often. I have given my opinion and I have no desire to argue. I have done enough research to be more than satisfied with believing it to be Gods precious word.

    ***Just an aside.***

    Why is there such an obsession to discredit the King James bible? I know there are some KJV onlyists here, (me included) but most of the bringing up about it is done by those who don't use it.
    It is not up to me to tell people what to use, there's loads of information available on versions for people to work out for themselves.

    What I really object to is the putting down or unacceptance of people who do not agree with another.:(

    Soooo after all that the King James is the only bible for me as the preserved word of God:ebil:
     
  9. Stringfellow_Hawke

    Stringfellow_Hawke Active Member

    477
    +717
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican

    This is my stance. More less. I do refer to the NIV and/or NLT for clarification sometimes. I have no problem with someone using a different translation.
     
  10. Stringfellow_Hawke

    Stringfellow_Hawke Active Member

    477
    +717
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    US-Republican
    As a matter of fact, the first time I read the Bible from cover to cover I used both the KJV and the NIV (1984) study Bible together. Took me just over 2 years.
     
  11. Chinchilla

    Chinchilla Well-Known Member

    +1,033
    Poland
    Christian
    Private
    It does not help me I need to have these arguments disproven .

    2 Peter 1:19 King James Version (KJV)
    19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:


    If the Prophecy of Isaiah 61:1 which I used multiple times to preach the gospel is wrong then KJV is not the correct translation.
    I did not witness Jesus alive , I need to have a valid testimony .

    I need to have a correct translation which I can rely on and not be guessing .
     
  12. Glaucus

    Glaucus The Lay Monk

    +1,339
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    The Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible - an English Bible older than the KJV - must therefore be better than the KJV because God has kept it around so long, all the Apocrypha included. It serves just as many Christians as the KJV, just not the kind a KJV onlyist would agree with. Such flawed logic: "it's old, it must be true."
     
  13. tampasteve

    tampasteve Lutheran Messianic Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +2,724
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Unfortunately it is usually the KJV-O that are doing the putting down and nonacceptance of others that do not agree with their position. Most non-KJV-O agree that it is a great version - one of the best - and worthy of study, but not to be elevated to an "only" status. By nature of the argument, KJV-O cannot accept any position that allows for another version to be acceptable as the word of God.
     
  14. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    One cannot start a thread of this nature using words like "perfect" or "preserved" in conjunction with the KJV and not expect a debate to ensue.

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  15. Heavenhome

    Heavenhome Well-Known Member Supporter

    +3,861
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    Here we go again.
    See this is exactly what I mean, my answer was my opinion only yet it seems it cannot be accepted.
    I am only speaking on my behalf maybe it is different where you are but I have personally had my views mocked and disrespected because i only use the King James and I'm not talking about this forum.

    I didn't say "because its old it must be true".

    I shall bow out now, my post still stands, sadly even here it can't just be read and accepted in the spirit it was written.
    M
     
  16. Chinchilla

    Chinchilla Well-Known Member

    +1,033
    Poland
    Christian
    Private
    I agree , with these assumptions Jesus did not have Scriptures because he did not have KJV .

    John 5:39 King James Version (KJV)
    39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.


    I just want to have them like these Jews who had them .
    I don't know if Jesus called LXX Scriptures. Most Jews were speaking greek that's why LXX was even born because hebrew was not common language .
    Maybe they had preserved Hebrew scrolls which we no longer have today and these Jesus called Scriptures and not LXX .

    Jesus himself spoke in aramaic so maybe they were written in aramaic or preserved .
     
  17. faroukfarouk

    faroukfarouk Fading curmudgeon

    +15,552
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Hi; I love and use the King James; while recognizing that it's a translation.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
    • List
  18. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I agree.

    In fact, anybody here who has seen any of posts know I quote scripture from the KJV.

    Its a translation folks.

    Geez

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
  19. tampasteve

    tampasteve Lutheran Messianic Staff Member Supervisor Supporter

    +2,724
    United States
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    It is believed that most synagogues would have been using a scroll of the Torah, likely in Hebrew. Many people would have spoken Greek as a fist language, particularly those that identified as Hellenized Jews and they would have likely used the Septuagint (LXX) as their primary scriptures. Those that were worshiping in Hebrew (as well as others) would have also used the Targums to some degree, some more than others and some as part of the liturgy in their synagogue. There is some evidence that Yeshua/Jesus would have had access and used the Targums as well, but that cannot be proven completely of course.
     
  20. DeaconDean

    DeaconDean γέγονα χαλκὸς, κύμβαλον ἀλαλάζον

    +2,585
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Republican
    My research, which is still on-going, in Textual criticism has shown that right around 300 BC, at about the time the Septuagint was being written, the "Torah" vanished.

    "The oldest Hebrew manuscripts discovered to date are the Dead Sea Scrolls. Some of the scrolls date back to the 2nd and 3rd centuries B.C.E., well into the Second Temple period. A few earlier Hebraic inscriptions, mainly on stone and pottery shards, have been found, but no extensive manuscripts have survived.

    Yet many scholars are convinced that at least parts of the Bible had been written down hundreds of years earlier, by the 8th or 7th century B.C.E. — or even earlier. We just don't have any evidence"

    Source

    More than likely, in the Temple, during Jesus' ministry, the scrolls were, as you showed, most likely the "Targums" or the "Midrash".

    God Bless

    Till all are one.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
Loading...