Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

[JacobLaw]

Hi JL,

Just thought I'd add my two cents here. I'm not sure that Jesus would use any bible. As far as we know he never used the actual written Scriptures when he was here. He did one time stand and read a piece of Isaiah in the temple, but as far as we know that is the only time he actually held the Scriptures in his hands.

He merely knew all that was in the Scriptures. I believe that if he were here today in an english speaking country that he would speak exactly the same quotes from the Scriptures that he spoke when he was here, only he would say it in english. He wouldn't say, have you not read the KJV or the NIV or the NRSV, but he would merely say, "Have you not read in the Scriptures...", and then go on to point out what we should have read in the Scriptures. It is my firm conviction that any particular piece of Scripture that he might mention would be found in all of the reliable translations. I also doubt seriously that he would use 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye' in his reciting of the Scriptural truth that he wanted to point out. He would merely speak in plain ordinary common english that would be in use at the time he was here.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Thanks Ted for being honest; and I feel the present main stream mindset would hold your 2 cents as reasonable.
The conclusions derived from Jesus not caring about the scriptures and as a whole any bible brings a counterintuitive position that can only leave men without justification. Jesus essential never had a bible to preach of he always referred to the scriptures or it is written: associating the word of God as being subjective evidence of verifiable words ingrained on medium that could be attained, substance.
In the process of times God has by the prophets spoken to men in many different ways, but of late and signified by his manifestation in the flesh God has made it clear he would speak to us by scriptures in whole, thus the commination of a Canon and clearly was an accepted doctrine by the church of God as a whole. Whereas the issue is and always has been, “hath God said” Now the feigned and enticing words of men war against the legitimate pure words of God.
The strategies of deceptions can only be related to a counterfeiting of the truth through the subjective evidences of justification established by a reliable and complete truth, structure by a comprehensive written word and conclusively, a final, infallible and inerrant written word, A HOLY BIBLE, substance.
To conclude that Jesus would be gibe enough to not address the issues of corruption and perversion of the very substance of evidence he mercifully gave as grace would be simply denying himself, the substance.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Your short sightedness has you blinded, look without the bias of your ingrained programing, please.
But I have never know you to say a kind word to me anyway, so what you said I expected.

Shortsightedness about what?? What context beyond the King James Bible as one of many valid versions of God's Word is it you think I'm not seeing?

Unfortunately, the logic of your position is untenable, which myself and others have been attempting to point out and get you to realize. In line with that logic are some simply absurd assertions which are equally untenable.

With respect to not speaking to you kindly, I apologize if my comments came across that way or with greater frustration than intended. However, that has not been my way with you in other discussions - a quick check of my visitor messages on my home page, where you commented, and a check of your rep history would prove you wrong on that assertion as well.

I think your stance on the KJV is inordinately dogmatic and borderline idolatrous. I don't find your reasoning remotely cogent, let alone rational. If that's "unkind;" if it's somehow "myopic," so be it. I don't think it's either, but neither do I at this point think anything I say capable of changing your mind on this topic.

 

[miamited]

Hi JL,

I don't know if your response to me is based on evidence that you found in my post, but if so, I'd conclude that you didn't understand what I said.

I never said or inferred that Jesus didn't care about the Scriptures. The Scriptures cannot be broken. If you gleaned from my post that I believe that Jesus didn't care about the Scriptures, then I'd be inclined to believe that you read with a lot of preconceived bias as you read. Let me be clear that Jesus cared deeply about the Scriptures. He understood them for what they are; God's written revelation of Himself and who He is and all that He is doing in this realm of His creation. They are of paramount importance to sinful man in finding their way back to God and enjoying His promise of eternal life and Jesus knows this.

What I meant to say, and I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, is that Jesus, who existed before the foundations of this realm were set in place; who is the very Son of the living God, was born in his human form with the knowledge of the Scriptures already known to him. The Scriptures never give any indication that Jesus studied them or that his mother and father gave him any particular instruction in them. He just knew all about them because he was there when they were being written.

Your argument is that a particular translation of them is better than others. I've read many of them, including your favorite, and I don't find the evidence that you find to support your issue. I came to understand the truth of God through the NIV (© 1984) translation of the Scriptures and quite frankly I think I have a better understanding of the importance and intention of the Scriptures than you do.

The Scriptures were given to man that he might find his way back to God and enjoy God's promise of eternal life. I've read several translations and I don't find that any of the good ones are found remiss in fulfilling that purpose. The very, very few differences between the KJV translation and the many other good translations has no bearing whatsoever on this overall purpose of 'why' God gave unto man the Scriptures.

Honestly, to me, most of what you write is just a lot of gobbledygook that I suppose makes you feel right and justified in what you do. If you are really interested in working for God in building up His kingdom, then here's my encouragement for you and you can take it for whatever your preconceived mind feels that its worth.

I find that our time and efforts are much better spent doing as Phillip did. Whatever good translation someone is using, let's work with them to help them to understand what they are reading. Whether it be the NIV, NASB, NRSV, NKJV or KJV, I believe that what God asks of us to help others understand their purpose in revealing to man God's hope of eternal life.

However, if you'd rather fight that this word or that phrase isn't the pure word of God, then unfortunately you are fighting a battle that can't be won. We don't have the original manuscripts and so you will never be able to prove that any translation is an exact duplication of the original words written down by the original writers of the Scriptures.

If you really want to grow God's kingdom, then set aside your big boomer KJV translation of the Scriptures, pick up a more modern translation and go sit down with a friend, co-worker or stranger and show that person, just as Phillip did, how they can have eternal life. Trust me friend, any of the reliable translations will do that. Do as Jesus did. Don't refer to any particular translation just say to them, "This is what the Scriptures say."

I'm rather imagining that you'll be fairly apoplectic and sputtering what a fool I am by the time you finish reading this, if you do. However, I would be remiss if I didn't make some effort to help you along.

The Scriptures were given to man that he may know the way of eternal life. They tell us how and when God created this realm in which we live and give assurance that because He is the one who created all that we see, that He is the one in charge of it. They tell us that He loves us and created us to live with Him, but that He will not live with sin and rebellion against His authority. They show us how He worked through a man named Abram to raise up a nation of people to do His bidding upon the earth, thereby asking us to trust that the Scriptures that they have delivered into our hands is His truth. They fully describe the sin of mankind; pride, gluttony, pain and suffering and rebellion against Him and who He is.

Then they tell us of the hope that He has delivered to mankind through His Son. That if we are willing to set aside these inclinations of ours to do wicked rather than good and to love and praise and honor Him for who He is, that we may still receive His gift of eternal life with Him. Finally, they give us fair warning about how all of this realm is going to end. How the day will come when God will put an end to life on this planet as we know it now, separate those who love and honor and obey Him from those who don't, and we will be ushered into the eternal existence with Him.

That, my friend, is the purpose of the Scriptures. Now go and explain that to someone who doesn't know God. Take any reliable translation of the Scriptures with you and show them this truth. Show them all that God has done to show His love for them. Just don't try to tell them that some translation that we have today is what Jesus used because it isn't. Not a single one of them existed in Jesus' day.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi JL,

What exactly do you mean when you write: To conclude that Jesus would be gibe enough...

If at all possible could you rewrite that sentence using another word than gibe, that I might understand what you are trying to say in that sentence? I looked it up and I found:

make insulting or mocking remarks; jeer.

That doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the sentence. I honestly don't see how you might understand that I have ever accused Jesus of making insulting or mocking remarks.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again JL,

Here's something that I think you should read:

7 things you may not know about the King James Bible

I know, I know, you're going to just shut most of this out with the same gobbledygook with which you have used to shut out anything that I have written, but hey,...

I'd encourage you to do the research. You probably belong to a fellowship that takes a very strong stance on this issue and so, much like catholics believing in purgatory because the leaders say so, you are similarly swayed by non-sensical arguments by the leaders of your fellowship, merely because they say so. By now, however, you have surely built up a high wall of protection for yourself that won't allow you to honestly look at this issue any longer. Be that as it may, as a brother, I must make an effort.

You make such a big deal about the KJV being the pure words of God. Can I ask you which KJV has the pure words? The KJV that one might purchase in any good bible booksellers today is just about as different from the original 1611 version as the NIV is to the KJV today. You'll find, again if you care to do the research, that if you lay out a 1611 KJV with a 1900's edition of the KJV just about as many 'differences' and missing and changed places of the Scriptures as any list of supposed difference today between the 1900's edition and the NIV. So, is the 1900's edition the pure words of God or is it the 1611 edition. They can't both be the pure words of God.

Further, the 1611 translation also included the apochrypha. Is it your position that the apochryphal writings are also the pure words of God? In 1759 the KJV went through a major revision. Which one contains the pure words of God? The ones before 1759 or the ones after?

Hopefully you'll find, if you care to do the research for yourself and not depend on someone else to tell you what to believe, that this battle you are fighting is worthless in doing the work that God has asked of you. Hopefully you'll come to really understand the purpose of the Scriptures. It isn't for us to argue over this noun or that verb or this phrase or that phrase, but that the whole of the work is for this man to know God.

Anyway, I had to try. You responded to me some months back in PM and gave me the understanding that, while being sold out to God as I am, that you desired to dialog. I'm counting on your note to me to be sincere. And please do not misunderstand my intention here. If you enjoy the KJV then by all means I encourage you to use that in your study and prayer life. Use it to gain knowledge and wisdom of God, but don't try to convince a born again believer that no other translation of the Scriptures will do for a man what God intended the Scriptures to do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JacobLaw]

Hi again JL,

Here's something that I think you should read:

7 things you may not know about the King James Bible

I know, I know, you're going to just shut most of this out with the same gobbledygook with which you have used to shut out anything that I have written, but hey,...

I'd encourage you to do the research. You probably belong to a fellowship that takes a very strong stance on this issue and so, much like catholics believing in purgatory because the leaders say so, you are similarly swayed by non-sensical arguments by the leaders of your fellowship, merely because they say so. By now, however, you have surely built up a high wall of protection for yourself that won't allow you to honestly look at this issue any longer. Be that as it may, as a brother, I must make an effort.

You make such a big deal about the KJV being the pure words of God. Can I ask you which KJV has the pure words? The KJV that one might purchase in any good bible booksellers today is just about as different from the original 1611 version as the NIV is to the KJV today. You'll find, again if you care to do the research, that if you lay out a 1611 KJV with a 1900's edition of the KJV just about as many 'differences' and missing and changed places of the Scriptures as any list of supposed difference today between the 1900's edition and the NIV. So, is the 1900's edition the pure words of God or is it the 1611 edition. They can't both be the pure words of God.

Further, the 1611 translation also included the apochrypha. Is it your position that the apochryphal writings are also the pure words of God? In 1759 the KJV went through a major revision. Which one contains the pure words of God? The ones before 1759 or the ones after?

Hopefully you'll find, if you care to do the research for yourself and not depend on someone else to tell you what to believe, that this battle you are fighting is worthless in doing the work that God has asked of you. Hopefully you'll come to really understand the purpose of the Scriptures. It isn't for us to argue over this noun or that verb or this phrase or that phrase, but that the whole of the work is for this man to know God.

Anyway, I had to try. You responded to me some months back in PM and gave me the understanding that, while being sold out to God as I am, that you desired to dialog. I'm counting on your note to me to be sincere. And please do not misunderstand my intention here. If you enjoy the KJV then by all means I encourage you to use that in your study and prayer life. Use it to gain knowledge and wisdom of God, but don't try to convince a born again believer that no other translation of the Scriptures will do for a man what God intended the Scriptures to do.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

Hi Ted,
I like you to know I don’t misunderstand what you are saying. The fact is I might understand you better that you understand yourself. And to suit your understanding I might add that all the so call things you think I didn’t know about the King James Bible I heard before and your plead for me to hear them again is near a mockery of politeness; but since you implore the me to consider I will then implore you to look up the responses that debunk your and others attacks against the word of God.
See your accusations against my witness and the witness of other Christians as being worthless doesn’t sway us or deter us to continue to preach the word of God. Neither is it us that “argue over this noun or that verb or this phrase or that phrase” it is those that have added to and taken from God’s pure words that have made the argument less why do they defend the versions of God’s word that are in fact not even versions but perversions?

I like to add again that the King James Bible is the only bible that Christians witness as being the inerrant and infallible Holy Bible available to men; unless you can tell me where I or others can buy a published copy of a bible that Christians hold as being inerrant and infallible Holy Bible; a holy, infallible, inerrant, inspired, one that contains pure words that cannot be added to or taken away from, r diminish, that is the pure language of God, that Christians hold as the pure language of God as their witness given to them by the Holy Ghost; I then would have to conclude that you have no testimony or witness that one exist which would make my and other Christians witness and testimony of the word of God the only and just witness available to mankind.
And if your witness is against me and others that hold this testimony and witness then I would have to conclude that you might find yourself haply not only fighting against us but God himself. I say this with faith that worketh by love, knowing the terror of Lord that I might persuade you to consider the contradiction of yours and others against the true witness and testimony of faithful Christians that keep the word of God, and since you have no witness or testimony of this position we hold then that you might do well to reconsider.
Love in Christ
JL

PS
Gibe; yes if Jesus himself was here instead of me, I know of certainty he would not ignore the issue of the word of God; because he is not gibe.

 

[JacobLaw]

Shortsightedness about what?? What context beyond the King James Bible as one of many valid versions of God's Word is it you think I'm not seeing?

Unfortunately, the logic of your position is untenable, which myself and others have been attempting to point out and get you to realize. In line with that logic are some simply absurd assertions which are equally untenable.

With respect to not speaking to you kindly, I apologize if my comments came across that way or with greater frustration than intended. However, that has not been my way with you in other discussions - a quick check of my visitor messages on my home page, where you commented, and a check of your rep history would prove you wrong on that assertion as well.

I think your stance on the KJV is inordinately dogmatic and borderline idolatrous. I don't find your reasoning remotely cogent, let alone rational. If that's "unkind;" if it's somehow "myopic," so be it. I don't think it's either, but neither do I at this point think anything I say capable of changing your mind on this topic.

Your positions against my witness and testimony reminds me of this scripture;
John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?
Thanks for saying borderline; that is better than those that outright call me an idolater; but still you might want to consider the testimony and witness of Faithful Christians, instead of inferring we have myopic beliefs.
The reality is our witness and testimony is the only one in town that holds any logical conclusion, which also makes be consider the 5th seal.
PS
My apologies you have been kind in all ways before; I think I had mistaken you for one of the many that have been very cruel to me before, sorry.

 

[BryanW92]

I like to add again that the King James Bible is the only bible that Christians witness as being the inerrant and infallible Holy Bible available to men; unless you can tell me where I or others can buy a published copy of a bible that Christians hold as being inerrant and infallible Holy Bible; a holy, infallible, inerrant, inspired, one that contains pure words that cannot be added to or taken away from, r diminish, that is the pure language of God, that Christians hold as the pure language of God as their witness given to them by the Holy Ghost; I then would have to conclude that you have no testimony or witness that one exist which would make my and other Christians witness and testimony of the word of God the only and just witness available to mankind.

I attend a PCA church and we strongly believe that the bible is inerrant and infallible. That is, the bible, and not a version of the bible. In our Confession of Faith, we hold that the Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek are the versions that were inspired by God and are authentical. But, since we do not speak Hebrew or Greek and it is the right of the people of God to read the scriptures, the bible must be translated into the vulgar language of all nations and therefore all versions are inerrant and infallible.

Please note that the Confession was written 1647, so the "vulgar" translation of that time would have been the KJV. But, what it says holds true for today's "vulgar" translations as well.

 

[BryanW92]

...but still you might want to consider the testimony and witness of Faithful Christians...

...one of the many that have been very cruel to me...

You imply that you are the only Faithful Christian here because you venerate a version of the bible. You're the only person being cruel in this thread.

 

[EdwinWillers]

Your positions against my witness and testimony reminds me of this scripture;
John 7:41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

JL, my position isn't against your witness or testimony; and the context of that passage pertains to what people were saying about Jesus, about whether or not He was the Christ. Why do my comments about your stance on the King James version of the bible remind you of that?

Thanks for saying borderline; that is better than those that outright call me an idolater; but still you might want to consider the testimony and witness of Faithful Christians, instead of inferring we have myopic beliefs.

You're welcome; and for the record, my comment was about your stance - or more accurately, that stance, not your person.

The reality is our witness and testimony is the only one in town that holds any logical conclusion, which also makes be consider the 5th seal.

Your witness and testimony about what - a version of the bible? That doesn't even make any sense to me.

You make it sound as if your stance on the King James version is a matter of individual prophecy, as if you've received some sort of personal revelation from God that the KJV is what you're claiming it to be. There's nothing remotely logical in that - or scriptural for that matter.

Moreover, pointing to Scriptures that pertain to those who questioned Jesus' witness and testimony, as if they are somehow, in any way relevant to a discussion about the validity of your stance on the King James version of the bible is... well, it's disconcerting frankly - and not that I might be somehow in the wrong, or be counted among those who didn't accept Jesus' witness and testimony - but disconcerting on your behalf for [apparently] believing that.

What you seem to be doing is interpreting dissent against your stance on the King James version of the bible as some sort of spiritual persecution and turning that into some sort of proof that your position is therefore not only valid, but backed by Scripture. Again, that would be an improper way to handle Scripture and would only make your position that much more untenable.

Acceptance of the King James version of the bible has nothing to do with the fifth seal in Revelation; it has nothing to do with those who questioned Jesus' witness and testimony; and it has nothing to do with me, or anyone else here questioning your witness and testimony. It doesn't.

PS My apologies you have been kind in all ways before; I think I had mistaken you for one of the many that have been very cruel to me before, sorry.

NP. I'm not trying to be cruel; I'm just trying to get you to see how untenable your stance is on the KJV - logically, and scripturally.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted,
I like you to know I don’t misunderstand what you are saying. The fact is I might understand you better that you understand yourself. And to suit your understanding I might add that all the so call things you think I didn’t know about the King James Bible I heard before and your plead for me to hear them again is near a mockery of politeness; but since you implore the me to consider I will then implore you to look up the responses that debunk your and others attacks against the word of God.
See your accusations against my witness and the witness of other Christians as being worthless doesn’t sway us or deter us to continue to preach the word of God. Neither is it us that “argue over this noun or that verb or this phrase or that phrase” it is those that have added to and taken from God’s pure words that have made the argument less why do they defend the versions of God’s word that are in fact not even versions but perversions?

Well, I'm asking you to test that very theory against your own translation. The KJV 1611 and today's KJV translation are vastly different. There are places between those two texts that have the exact same differences that you are claiming make all other newer translations bad. There are words and phrases in the 1611 that are not in the newer versions (the entire apocrypha) and there are words and phrases in the new version that are not in the 1611. So, here's my question which one of these two is really the pure words of God? They can't both be because they also have missing or added pieces.

I like to add again that the King James Bible is the only bible that Christians witness as being the inerrant and infallible Holy Bible available to men; unless you can tell me where I or others can buy a published copy of a bible that Christians hold as being inerrant and infallible Holy Bible; a holy, infallible, inerrant, inspired, one that contains pure words that cannot be added to or taken away from, r diminish, that is the pure language of God, that Christians hold as the pure language of God as their witness given to them by the Holy Ghost; I then would have to conclude that you have no testimony or witness that one exist which would make my and other Christians witness and testimony of the word of God the only and just witness available to mankind.

That just isn't true. I am a born again believer indwelled with the Holy Spirit of the living God and believe the testimony of Jesus. I believe, as the world defines 'christian', that makes me one. Therefore, when I say that the KJV translation is not the only such text as you describe, you have two choices if you're going to continue to make that claim. I am not a 'christian' or you are not writing the truth as regards this testimony that you have given. Personally, I know a lot of believers who will testify that any good translation represents the infallible and inerrant word of God. You, of course, probably don't count those you know as 'christians'.

And if your witness is against me and others that hold this testimony and witness then I would have to conclude that you might find yourself haply not only fighting against us but God himself. I say this with faith that worketh by love, knowing the terror of Lord that I might persuade you to consider the contradiction of yours and others against the true witness and testimony of faithful Christians that keep the word of God, and since you have no witness or testimony of this position we hold then that you might do well to reconsider.

Against the likes of those who believe as you do, yes, I readily admit that I stand opposed to such a belief. Against God, no, I am confident that I am not.

Love in Christ
JL

PS
Gibe; yes if Jesus himself was here instead of me, I know of certainty he would not ignore the issue of the word of God; because he is not gibe.

Friend, I know that you believe what you believe just as faithfully as any muslim believes what he believes. The question to be answered anytime one discusses what they believe is: Is it the truth?

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[miamited]

Hi again JL,

No, I doubt very much that you do 'misunderstand' what I write. However, when you respond, you 'misrepresent' what I write. I believe it is sad that a believer in the one true and living God finds it necessary to stoop to such deception in order to make their response appear to be an answer to my writing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JacobLaw]

Hi again JL,

No, I doubt very much that you do 'misunderstand' what I write. However, when you respond, you 'misrepresent' what I write. I believe it is sad that a believer in the one true and living God finds it necessary to stoop to such deception in order to make their response appear to be an answer to my writing.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

You see it doesn't matter any longer if you receive my witness or testimony the fact is that it has been put out there; you can deal with it anyway you want.
Accusations or inference that I am saying something or not being logical doesn't matter because I feel all your answers seem evasive.
And like I said as a Faithful Christians my witness and testimony is that the King James Bible is the only Holy Bible on earth, you can receive it or not and I don't care what excuses you all may have, but knowing the terror of the Lord I desire to persuade you of the truth.
Holy Ghost bears witness of the my witness and testimony as do other faithful King James Bible Christians.

JL, my position isn't against your witness or testimony; and the context of that passage pertains to what people were saying about Jesus, about whether or not He was the Christ. Why do my comments about your stance on the King James version of the bible remind you of that?
You're welcome; and for the record, my comment was about your stance - or more accurately, that stance, not your person.
Your witness and testimony about what - a version of the bible? That doesn't even make any sense to me.

You make it sound as if your stance on the King James version is a matter of individual prophecy, as if you've received some sort of personal revelation from God that the KJV is what you're claiming it to be. There's nothing remotely logical in that - or scriptural for that matter.

Moreover, pointing to Scriptures that pertain to those who questioned Jesus' witness and testimony, as if they are somehow, in any way relevant to a discussion about the validity of your stance on the King James version of the bible is... well, it's disconcerting frankly - and not that I might be somehow in the wrong, or be counted among those who didn't accept Jesus' witness and testimony - but disconcerting on your behalf for [apparently] believing that.

What you seem to be doing is interpreting dissent against your stance on the King James version of the bible as some sort of spiritual persecution and turning that into some sort of proof that your position is therefore not only valid, but backed by Scripture. Again, that would be an improper way to handle Scripture and would only make your position that much more untenable.

Acceptance of the King James version of the bible has nothing to do with the fifth seal in Revelation; it has nothing to do with those who questioned Jesus' witness and testimony; and it has nothing to do with me, or anyone else here questioning your witness and testimony. It doesn't.
NP. I'm not trying to be cruel; I'm just trying to get you to see how untenable your stance is on the KJV - logically, and scripturally.

I disagree with you on every single point; *(see my answer to Ted) my witness is by the Holy Ghost which is scriptural and logical, it's faith.

 

[pescador]

It is obvious that 1) JacobLaw worships a book and 2) thereby sets himself apart from and above other Christians. His messages are full of pride and self-righteousness. He reminds me very much of the Pharisees who continually argued with Jesus. Personally I find his argument distasteful and at this point boring.

As Christians we are called to worship a living God, and him only. What is important is NOT the book but the person to whom the book points. If people read modern bibles which are the works of teams of devoted Christian scholars, and the Holy Spirit leads them to faith in God through Jesus Christ, that is all that is important.


Until JacobLaw becomes as passionate about God as he is about the King James version I have no further interest in reading his self-righteous, idolatrous posts.

 

[BryanW92]

other faithful King James Bible Christians.

"King James Bible Christians"??? Scary. Reminds me of "Golden Calf Worshiping Israelites".

 

[abysmul]

other faithful King James Bible Christians.

That's unnerving... like someone saying "other faithful Jim Jones Christians."

 

[pescador]

"King James Bible Christians"??? Scary. Reminds me of "Golden Calf Worshiping Israelites".

Exactly, especially if the KVJ is bound in calfskin. 8^)

 

[JacobLaw]

I guess you could say Holy Bible Christian, but the vernacular would be lost in the host of versions, so to differentiate from versions there is a need to qualify the rightly divided word of truth from the versions.
I find it amazing that escaped your understanding, but nothing is too surprising anymore.

 

[kiwimac]

The KJV is not the standard against which other English translations are to be judged. It is simply an older and somewhat dated translation. There are better out there.

 

[BryanW92]

I guess you could say Holy Bible Christian, but the vernacular would be lost in the host of versions, so to differentiate from versions there is a need to qualify the rightly divided word of truth from the versions.
I find it amazing that escaped your understanding, but nothing is too surprising anymore.

Even a "Holy Bible Christian" has elevated the bible to become an idol. We are Christians, which means followers of Christ.

Nothing that you've said has "escaped my understanding". I fully understand what you are saying and I disagree with it. My shelf full of various translations, including the KJV, all carry the exact same authority. But none of them are an item of veneration or worship.

Muslims venerate their Koran because that's all they have of Mohammed. We have the Holy Spirit, a Living God, a Christ who will return, and an empty cross. The actual book is just a delivery system for the WORDS contained therein and the inspired words were translated in EVERY vulgar translation, including the KJV.