King James Version 100% pure

[brandplucked]

Hi Sammi, you still have the same problem with the NIV.  It still speaks of the ORIGINS of Christ as from ancient times, and the problem exists in the TEXT of the NIV in Acts 13:33 that says: "Today I have become your Father".  The NIV teaches that Christ had origins or a beginning at some time in the past, and it teaches that there was a certain day before which God was not the Father of the Son of God.

The Jesus Christ portrayed in the NIV is a created being, rather than the eternal and everlasting Son of God who has always existed.

 I guess if you're going to leave your brain on your night table, verses such as the one you pointed out could seriously confuse you. These type of arguments are used by non believers to attack Christianity all the time. If you read the entire bible, you can actually put things in their proper context.

 As far as the NIV portraying Jesus as a created being -

 NIV John 1:1-5

1)In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2)He was with God in the beginning.

3)Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4)In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5)The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

 It's pretty clear about who Jesus is my friend.

Hi bronze, thanks for your comments.  However John 1:1 merely tells us the the Word (the Son of God) was with God "in the beginning".  It doesn't tell us what "beginning" is being talked about.  Most likely it is the beginning of the creation.

However, if we combine ALL the verses found in the NIV about the nature of the Son of God, we would have to conclude that the Son of God had "origins" or a beginning himself, and Acts 13:33 clearly infers that there was a "day" when God BECAME HIS FATHER.  So, there were days or a time when God was NOT the Father of the Son  - according to the NIV.


The consistent theology taken from the NIV would mean that God first created the Son on a certain day, and thus He had his "origins" and then later God created the heavens and the earth. The Son of God (the Word) was with God the Father in the beginning of the creation of the world, but before this, the Son did not exist.   This is exactly what the JWs teach and also many liberal theologians.

It it utterly impossible to teach from all the verses in the true Bible, the King James Holy Bible, that either the Son of God had "origins" (or a beginning) or that there was a day when God BECAME the Father of the Son.  But you can easily prove these heresies from the NIV and the Jehovah witness version.

There is nothing here about putting your brain on the night stand, but rather using your God given brain to put together all the verses on any particular subject or doctrine.

Bronze, do you personally believe that any Bible is the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God or not?  If so, exactly which, if any, of all the conflicting versions out there is the inerrant Bible?

Will K

[brandplucked]

Hi Bronze, here is a more complete study on Micah 5:2.  Would you or anyone else like to respond?


  The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal, only begotten Son of God.

We cannot wrap our minds around the mystery of the Holy Trinity, but the Sacred Scriptures, as found in the King James Bible, reveal that Jesus Christ is the eternal, only begotten son of God. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His incarnation. I John 4:9 says, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." Christ was the only begotten Son BEFORE He was set into the world. He did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation.

In John 16:28 the Lord Jesus says, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." In John 10:36, our Saviour asks, “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?”

As the Son of God He appeared in the fiery furnace along with the three Hebrew believers in the days of Daniel. Nebuchadnezzar says: "Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God."

The book of Proverbs makes mention of the preincarnate Son in 30:4. "Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?"

Again, in John 17:5, the Lord prays: " And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

Jesus Christ, as the only begotten Son is one of the Three Persons of the Trinity. He is the eternal Son of the eternal Father. If the Father is eternal, so must be the Son. A human man cannot be a father until he has a son. He is a man, and a husband, but he does not become a father until and at the same time he has a son. The two terms, “father” and “son”, are simultaneous.

The orthodox view of the Person of Jesus Christ is that He is the only begotten Son by eternal generation, eternally proceeding from the Father. He is also eternal God. I Timothy 3:16 tell us, “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness; GOD was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.” You cannot prove that God was manifest in the flesh from the Jehovah Witness bible, nor from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, or NASB versions using this verse. They say something like “He appeared in a body” - NIV. All of us have appeared in a body too, but we are not God.

There are also other verses found in the modern versions that undermine and attack the eternal deity of the only begotten Son of God. Can you prove from the KJB that Jesus Christ had a beginning or an origin? No. Can you prove from the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET version, Holman Standard, or the JW bibles that He had an origin? Yes.

In Micah 5:2, the King James Bible says: “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; WHOSE GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING.”

Other versions that read like the KJB "whose goings forth" are the Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, Webster's, Third Millenium Bible, NASB, Darby, Spanish, Hebrew-English translations of 1917 and 1936, Coverdale, Bishops', Hebrew Names Version, Bible in Basic English, Young's, the Geneva Bible, and the Catholic Douay.

The NIV says, "whose ORIGINS are from of old, from ANCIENT TIMES." The JW version, and the RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard say, "whose ORIGIN is from early times, from the days of time indefinite (or "origen..from ancient days)."

Daniel Wallace's Net version likewise reads in Micah 5:2 - "As for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, seemingly insignificant among the clans of Judah— from you a king will emerge who will rule over Israel on my behalf, one whose ORIGINS are in the distant past."

Then the good Doktor footnotes - "Hebrew “his goings out.” The term may refer to the ruler’s origins or to his activities."

Why do the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NET, and the JW bibles say “origin” or "origins"? The Son of God did not have a beginning, but He Himself is the beginning, the source of all that exists. Revelation 22:13 tells us, “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.” Compare these words spoken by the Lord Jesus Christ with those found in Isaiah 44:6, “Thus saith the LORD, the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.”

The JW’s teach that the Son of God is not eternal God, but rather the first created being, that He is less than God the Father. The word of God says, "whose GOINGS FORTH have been from of old, FROM EVERLASTING." Remember, "I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world."

The KJB says his goings forth are from everlasting. Yet the NIV, RSV, ESV, NET say his origin is from ancient times. Ancient times may be long, long ago, but it is not the same as everlasting.

The Hebrew word olam can be translated as “ancient” when applied to created things or people as it is in Psalm 22:28, “Remove not the ancient landmark”, or as in Isaiah 44:7, “since I appointed the ancient people”, but when the word is applied to God, it is rendered as “everlasting” as in Psalm 90:2, “from everlasting to everlasting Thou art God.”

The NIV concordance shows that they have translated this word as “everlasting” 60 times, as eternal or eternity 8 times, as “forever” 202 times, but as “from ancient times” only twice - one of them here in Micah 5:2 where they apply it to our Lord and Redeemer!

Will Kinney

[brandplucked]

There is another phrase. that is “hard to be understood” that has been changed in the NIV, NKJV, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman, and the NASB. It is found in Acts 13:33 where it refers to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The KJB reads, "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN; as it is written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

The versions that read as the KJB, “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN” are Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s 1833, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB. The modern New English Bible and the New Century version both read “raising Jesus from the dead”. The Living Bible says “bringing Jesus back from the dead”, and God’s Word Translation says, “by bringing Jesus back to life.”

It is of great interest to see how many foreign language Bibles render this phrase “he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN”. The Spanish says: “resusitándo a Jesus”, the Latin resuscitans Iesum, the French - en ressuscitant Jesus; the Portuguese- ressuscitando a Jesus, and the Italian has risuscitando Gesu. Thus it is easy to see that they all consider this verse to read as does the KJB. I believe it is referring to the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

The modern NKJV, NIV, RSV, ESV, and NASB versions make this verse refer to the incarnation of Jesus, rather than His resurrection by merely saying, “God has raised up Jesus”. They leave out raised up Jesus AGAIN.

Some new version defenders tell us that the word “again” is not in the Greek text. Yet again, I believe this is a false statement. All the versions, frequently translate the verb anistemi as raised up again. For example the NIV renders this word as “rise again” 6 times, “raised to life” once, and “raised from the dead” once. It is frequently used in the phrase that Jesus would be “raised” on the third day. The noun form of this verb is anastasis and is always used in referrence to the resurrection.

What does the phrase, “This day have I begotten thee” mean? Jesus Christ did not become the only begotten Son at His incarnation. This false doctrine is called incarnational sonship. He was the only begotten Son BEFORE His taking on a human body.

The orthodox doctrine that the Lord Jesus Christ was begotten before His incarnation was firmly established in 325 A.D at the council of Nicea when the church was combating the teaching of Arianism. Arianism taught that Christ was a created being; that He had an origen and was inferior to God the Father.

Here is part of the well known Nicean Creed.

I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of his Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made;

I John 4:9, "In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him." He was the only begotten Son before He was sent into this world.

The NIV teaches heresy with its rendering of Acts 13:33 by saying, "Today I have become your Father." And now the two new versions coming out, the ISV (International Standard Version) and the Southern Baptist Holman Christian Standard also have: "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!

Daniel Wallace, of Dallas Theological Seminary, has his goofy NET bible version on the internet. The NET version says: "13:33 that this promise God has fulfilled to us, their children, by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second psalm, ‘You are my Son; TODAY I HAVE FATHERED YOU."

Then D.Wallace footnotes: " Greek “I have begotten you.” The traditional translation is misleading to the modern English reader because it is no longer in common use. Today one speaks of “fathering” a child in much the same way speakers of English formerly spoke of “begetting a child.”

While Dr. Wallace speaks of updating, or "modernizing" the English language, he utterly fails to see the blatant theological heresy his easy to read version has introduced. This reading of "today I have fathered you" teaches that there was a time when Jesus Christ was not the Son, and God was not His Father. This is the same teaching and reading of the Jehovah Witnesses' bible version.

The verb used here is gennao, to beget or to be born. There is no Greek word here for the NIV's " have become" or " Father" in any Greek text on this earth.

In what sense then can Jesus be said to have been begotten on a certain day? This happened at the resurrection.

Jamieson, Faussett and Brown commentary: this day have I begotten thee-- (Psalms 2:7). Fulfilled at the resurrection of Jesus, whereby the Father "declared," that is, made manifest His divine Sonship, heretofore veiled by His humiliation (Acts 13:33, Romans 1:4). Christ has a fourfold right to the title "Son of God"; (1) By generation, as begotten of God; (2) By commission, as sent by God; (3) By resurrection, as "the first-begotten of the dead" (4) By actual possession, as heir of all . I the Everlasting Father have begotten Thee this day, that is, on this day, the day of Thy being manifested as My Son, "the first-begotten of the dead" (Col. 1:18, Rev. 1:5).The context refers to a definite point of time, namely, that of His having entered on the inheritance (Heb. 1:4)."

B.W. Johnson, People's New Testament: "This day have I begotten thee. What day is referred to in the prophecy? Acts 13:32, 33 answers the question by quoting this very passage and declaring that it was fulfilled in the resurrection of Christ from the dead. He was born from the dead and God, who raised him, thus demonstrated that he was his Son.

The Expositor's Greek Testament: "Today" is evidently intended to mark a special occasion and cannot allude to the eternal generation of the Son. It is not the beginning of life, but the entrance on office that is indicated and it is as King the person addressed is God's Son. Thus Paul applies it to the resurrection of Christ in Acts 13:33.

The Son of God refers to Himself in Revelation 1:5 as, "the firstbegotten from the dead", and in Colossians 1:18 He is referred to as "the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he might have the preeminence."

I believe the NKJV, RSV, ESV, and the NASB are wrong by applying Acts 13:33 to Christ's incarnation instead of His resurrection, and the NIV, ISV, and Holman Standard along with the NWT, are heretical by teaching Christ was not the Son, nor God His Father before a certain day.

I hope this little study has been helpful to you and that we all will appreciate and love the Person of our Blessed Redeemer more for His amazing grace to us unworthy sinners. May our attitude towards His true words as found in the KJB be as that of king David- “Therefore I esteem all thy precepts concerning all things to be right; and I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128.

Will Kinney

[ollie]

Psalms 12:6-7

[Sammi]

I will just say this one last thing on this subject. I love you all in Christ, regardless of the differences we have based on translations. I think it is a ridliculous and divisive discussion,but nevertheless, we should all love each other anywa. By the way,I'm not sure who referred to me as brother Sammi, but I'm sister Sammi.

In Christs love,
Sammi

[nChrist]

KJV 100% Pure = Nonsense

KJV Only = Nonsense

If you really want to believe all of the nonsense taught by the KJV Only-ists, here's the results:

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

2- If the KJV was perfect, it would have been right the first time, YET there were countless revisions. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

3- If the translators of the KJV were inspired, where is the original copy of the KJV so we can compare our version to it?  It doesn't exist, but this is not material since it was so full of errors. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

4- KJV Only-ists claim all others translations are corrupt and many even claim that all other translations are works of the devil. This is ridiculous considering that the KJV was compiled primarily from translations they now call corrupt. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

5- KJV Only-ists claim that the KJV is perfect and pure, even though it had to be revised many times. Any beginner in the language study of Hebrew and Greek knows that it is impossible to have a perfect translation from Hebrew and Greek. This absolute fact is well known to ALL who study the deeper things of God's Word, so they obviously use Hebrew and Greek word studies. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

6- The devil loves it when a group of people make claims that God's Word is corrupt and works of the devil. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

7- The devil loves it when Christians spend so much time arguing about a Bible translation that they don't have the time, energy, or desire to do the real work of GOD. The real work of GOD is obviously not tearing down the books and materials that GOD uses for HIS work. AND, regardless of intentions, making claims that are obviously false harms the work of GOD. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

8- The Apostle Paul and hosts of other preachers didn't have the KJV for about 1600 years, nor did they need it, and they studied and taught the Word of GOD. The same would be true for modern pastors, with or without the KJV. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

In conclusion:  The KJV is ONLY a translation and that's all it's ever been. It's rated good to excellent by the majority of Bible scholars, but NO Bible scholar will ever claim that the KJV is 100% perfect and pure. In fact, no Bible scholar would ever make any of the ridiculous claims of the KJV Only-ists. Bible scholars will always use Hebrew and Greek for obvious reasons.  This bears repeating one more time, so I will:

THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

(First Revision for errors. If there are other errors, I want the same number of attempts and years that the KJV translators had.)

[PeterAV]

KJV 100% Pure = Nonsense
KJV Only = Nonsense

*******
Sorry Blackeyedpeas that you are upset there.I don't know what is bothering you so?All we do is show the results of the Holy Bible verses the ones that have been corrupted,using OTHER corrupted manuscrpts,that are not part of the 99%.

There is nothing wrong in believing the Holy Bible,and defending it from corruption!Good grief!
Like I said before,you can use any version you like,it is a free world out there so far.But we would highly recomend the pure Holy Bible,proven to be without error.

Either God preserved his word,or he did not.Either the BOOK is his work or it is not.We can't be thinking in terms of humanistic argument.This is what gets the scholars every time.
KJV folk have a final authority.The others have themselves as the final authority,or the ones that they would like to be the final authority.
It is all about final authority.Every political event,every war,every newscast,is all about one thing and one thing only,Final and ultimate athority.

This is what Satan used to temp EVE.He said you can be a god! You can usurp God's words and be your own authority.
You can know as much as God.
She took the bait,and became an Arbiter against the words of God.The same thing is happening today.

Can there be some passages that could be better in the KJB?
Maybe,but nobody has so far done an honest job of it and used the same text family but have used corrupted manuscripts that they know do not agree with the Hebrew or the Greek in many places.

They all end up using corrupted manuscripts,that actually change the meanings of many a verse.

Is the message still there?By and large,yes.
Is it as acurate as it should be?By and large no.

When they finally repent and use the same manuscript tree and repair the slight improvements that they think that they can improve upon,then that is a diferent story.So far they use Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and that family from Egypt.Instead of the Greek and Hebrew that has been the Received text all throughout history.

So is KJVO nonesense?Of course not.It is the other way around.The other versions have to compare themselves to the KJV,because it is the standard,and everyone knows it.
They use false aguments to validate their corrupted versions.
Some are not as corrupted as others.

God says his word is pure,and I believe it.Is it now a sin to believe what many have believed for hundreds of years?That the Bible is the Bible,pure,and sure.God's word is pure.

Thy word is very pure,
therefore thy servant loveth it.
Psalm 119:140

[PeterAV]

Quote=Blackeyedpeas

1-  The Holy Bible could not have existed before 1611 because that's when the KJV was first published. Do you really think that God allowed the world to go without a Holy Bible for so many years? In fact, the Holy Bible would not exist without the KJV according to the KJV Only-ists. THE KJV ONLY-ISTS CLAIMS OF SOMETHING OBVIOUSLY FALSE IS DESTRUCTIVE TO GOD'S WORK!

*******
That is simply a false statement all together.
The Holy Bible has been around all over the world.There are many Bibles that are built upon the same Received Text as the English Bibles.So where was the Bible BEFORE 1611 is not a correct question.It is misleading at best.

Before the 1611 the Bible was everywhere!
The Received Text
Erasmus:1516
Beza:1565
Stephanus:1546
Colinaeus:1534
Elzevir:1633
*******
Bibles that came from this text that makes up 99% of manuscript evidence;
Martin Luther [German]
Diodati [Italian]
Erdosi [Hungary]
Olivetan [France]
Valera [Spain]
Visoly [Poland]
Gottshcalkson [Iceland]
DeGrave [Holland]
Elizabeth Bible [Russia]
Coverdale [England,1535]
Great Bible [1539]
Matthew's Bible [1537]
Bishop's Bible [1568]
Tyndale Bible [1525]
Geneva Bible [1560]

and finally;
King James [1611 AV]
To make a good one better,was their motto.

The other versions are trying to use the same line,but it is a lie,for they use corrupted manuscripts.
In fact when they tell you that ever since 1611,many more manuscripts have been found;they conveniently omit that of the total amount of those thousands found,that KJV is yet supreme,with 99% of the manuscript evidence.

So where was the Holy Bible BEFORE 1611?
All over the place.
All versions in the other languages that follow the KJV or the same Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts as the KJV are the Holy Bible for those lands.Even they are complaining of corrupters coming in and changing the words.

KJVers stand for docrtinal perfection in all of scripture.
The modern versions stand for opinions as the final standard.
Sure is a lot of opinions out there.

The Holy Bible has been around all the time.One can find versions that compliment the KJV as early as 150 AD.One can also find early Paprus that agree with the KJV by a larger margin that the corrupters.
In fact,of the 85,000 Early church sitations that were quoted,the KJV type readings outnumber the minority text by two to one.And on important verses it is three to one.

That is;66% to 75%.
Now that says something,reguardless that there was so much corruption at that time.

Now let us all speak the same thing,How?
Satan has duped too many.No more responsive readings,and fewer and fewer memorizing of the scriptures.

Do I think that God allowed the world to go without the Bible for so many years?Of course not,it has been around all the time for those who believed it and gave their lives for it,and God lets it surface where and when he so choose.

"I have found "The BOOK".
II Chronicles 34:14-19

[nChrist]

PeterAV,

So, KJV Only would not be correct, would it? Thanks for admitting the obvious. Now, here's the other half of the obvious: The Holy Bible would and does exist now WITHOUT the KJV.

The truth of the matter is exceptionally simple:  The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. It's good, but it's not 100% anything.

Love In Christ,
Tom

1 Corinthians 2:2-5 ASV  For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified.  And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.  And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:  that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

[PeterAV]

The Holy Bible would and does exist now WITHOUT the KJV.[/b]Quote]
*******
No! I never said that the KJV was incorrect,I simply said that there Might be the possibility of improvement.There are various valid words or synonyms that can mean the same in some instances.Plus the KJV is the final improvement upon all of the valid English versions that use the Majority 99% text.

But God has seen fit to leave it as such,despite what I or others think.Besides,I would never change a word,disobeying God's words.The KJV is the final purified Bible for the end time.
All of the others as good as they are,[specifically English]that are based upon the Proper Texts,are not the very word of God as the KJV is.The KJV is perfect,purified 7 times.And God has seen fit to have it as such,so I agree with him.

As far as your false assertion that the KJB is not needed to have the Bible is nonsense supreme.Then they would have to start all over and write the KJV out again.
The KJV "IS" the "VERY" words of God.Perfect and purified.
Just what has possessed you to attack the pure words of God?Why not the Webster edition,or NIV?
There is ONE Lord,ONE faith,ONE baptism;there is ONE Holy Bible.The KJV has all the evidence in its favour and you are found fighting agaist it?Don't take it personally!
There is no single Book that is perfect,for the English speaking world than the KJV.  "...to make of many good ones a better one..."
The only way your statement would be true about the Bible is there,without the KJV,is this.It is in various multitudes of manuscripts and versions,that "IF" one could get to the bottom of it,could finally one day maybe find the right set of words that make up the very words of God.Then Tadah!The Bible.

Well that doesn't cut it.That is humanistic reasoning,just like the modern versions.Your Achille's heel is that you think that the Bible is the work of man.
You just don't seem to get it,that the word of God is the word of God.It is his work,not man's.

All of the other versions are going back to Rome just like the Puseyites and the Oxford movement.
*******
Quote=blckyp
The truth of the matter is exceptionally simple:  The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. It's good, but it's not 100% anything.
quote]
*******

You don't seem to understand scriptures very well at this point.
You belittle the word of God.
Now hear this.
Timothy had the scriptures.And they were not the originals.
The scribes has the scriptures to search,and they were not the originals.
God uses copies and translations,AS the very words of God.

Did Pharoh speak Hebrew?By your logic there might have been something that got lost is the transmission.
Even the New Testament is a translation of the Old Testament in many verses.Ya! who really cares about the New Testament eh?It's just a translation.It's not the scriptures.Good grief!Do you see what I am saying?

You can still use your other versions,I will not stop you or condemn you for doing so.But I will warn you that they are not the very words of God,because they are based upon corrupted texts that were pumped out by heretics.
It is just a word of love to you,believe it or not.You are a leader here and love the LORD all the way.So I commend you for your deep concern here at getting at the truth.

I was like you,one time,so I can really sympathize.
May God richly bless you as you work for the LORD and be a blessing to others on this site.

Relentless for the LORD Jesus Christ,and his perfect word,
PeterAV
Thy word is truth.
John17:17

[Sammi]

The Holy Bible would and does exist now WITHOUT the KJV.[/b]Quote]
*******
No! I never said that the KJV was incorrect,I simply said that there Might be the possibility of improvement.There are various valid words or synonyms that can mean the same in some instances.Plus the KJV is the final improvement upon all of the valid English versions that use the Majority 99% text.

But God has seen fit to leave it as such,despite what I or others think.Besides,I would never change a word,disobeying God's words.The KJV is the final purified Bible for the end time.
All of the others as good as they are,[specifically English]that are based upon the Proper Texts,are not the very word of God as the KJV is.The KJV is perfect,purified 7 times.And God has seen fit to have it as such,so I agree with him.

As far as your false assertion that the KJB is not needed to have the Bible is nonsense supreme.Then they would have to start all over and write the KJV out again.
The KJV "IS" the "VERY" words of God.Perfect and purified.
Just what has possessed you to attack the pure words of God?Why not the Webster edition,or NIV?
There is ONE Lord,ONE faith,ONE baptism;there is ONE Holy Bible.The KJV has all the evidence in its favour and you are found fighting agaist it?Don't take it personally!
There is no single Book that is perfect,for the English speaking world than the KJV.  "...to make of many good ones a better one..."
The only way your statement would be true about the Bible is there,without the KJV,is this.It is in various multitudes of manuscripts and versions,that "IF" one could get to the bottom of it,could finally one day maybe find the right set of words that make up the very words of God.Then Tadah!The Bible.

Well that doesn't cut it.That is humanistic reasoning,just like the modern versions.Your Achille's heel is that you think that the Bible is the work of man.
You just don't seem to get it,that the word of God is the word of God.It is his work,not man's.

All of the other versions are going back to Rome just like the Puseyites and the Oxford movement.
*******
Quote=blckyp
The truth of the matter is exceptionally simple:  The KJV is just a translation, and that's all it's ever been. It's good, but it's not 100% anything.
quote]
*******

You don't seem to understand scriptures very well at this point.
You belittle the word of God.
Now hear this.
Timothy had the scriptures.And they were not the originals.
The scribes has the scriptures to search,and they were not the originals.
God uses copies and translations,AS the very words of God.

Did Pharoh speak Hebrew?By your logic there might have been something that got lost is the transmission.
Even the New Testament is a translation of the Old Testament in many verses.Ya! who really cares about the New Testament eh?It's just a translation.It's not the scriptures.Good grief!Do you see what I am saying?

You can still use your other versions,I will not stop you or condemn you for doing so.But I will warn you that they are not the very words of God,because they are based upon corrupted texts that were pumped out by heretics.
It is just a word of love to you,believe it or not.You are a leader here and love the LORD all the way.So I commend you for your deep concern here at getting at the truth.

I was like you,one time,so I can really sympathize.
May God richly bless you as you work for the LORD and be a blessing to others on this site.

Relentless for the LORD Jesus Christ,and his perfect word,
PeterAV
Thy word is truth.
John17:17

You contradict yourself. NUFF SAID.

[PeterAV]

In which way?
The earlier versions were the word of God for their time but they are not the word of God for now.God has seen fit to use the KJV that has been purified beyond the other good translations that uses the correct texts also.

I look forward to hearing just what you meant.
It is communication that brings us to an understanding.If I have not been clear,I would like to know about it,so I can clear up the perceived contradiction.

Sometimes we read our own definitions into what others say,and so the discussion goes on and on,when each should try to find out things more clearly.Don't ya' think?

Relentless for Jesus and his words,
Peter A V
Thy word is truth.
John17:17

[Sammi]

I highlighted the contradictions. I would just like to make this perfectly clear.You said this:
No! I never said that the KJV was incorrect,I simply said that there Might be the possibility of improvement.

Then you said this:
The KJV is perfect,purified 7 times.

And this:
The KJV "IS" the "VERY" words of God.Perfect and purified.

I would like to point out that perfection means without flaw, and has no need for improvement, as it is PERFECT already. So if the KJV can have room for improvement, then it isn't the perfect and pure word of God. You argue about something that is not only ridiculous, but it's going to get to the point where you are going to get fanatical, (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this hasn't happened yet) and you are actually going to TURN non-believers away from God with your fanaticism. And you may even turn believers away from God also. I have seen first hand how far KJV onlyists can go with their fanaticism and it is ugly. You should take your eyes off of an earthly king and turn them back to the Heavenly one, my friend.  

[Allinall]

Hmmmmmm...methinks she has a point...

[nChrist]

I highlighted the contradictions. I would just like to make this perfectly clear.You said this:
No! I never said that the KJV was incorrect,I simply said that there Might be the possibility of improvement.

Then you said this:
The KJV is perfect,purified 7 times.

And this:
The KJV "IS" the "VERY" words of God.Perfect and purified.

I would like to point out that perfection means without flaw, and has no need for improvement, as it is PERFECT already. So if the KJV can have room for improvement, then it isn't the perfect and pure word of God. You argue about something that is not only ridiculous, but it's going to get to the point where you are going to get fanatical, (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that this hasn't happened yet) and you are actually going to TURN non-believers away from God with your fanaticism. And you may even turn believers away from God also. I have seen first hand how far KJV onlyists can go with their fanaticism and it is ugly. You should take your eyes off of an earthly king and turn them back to the Heavenly one, my friend.  

AMEN SAMMI!

This really says it all. There are numerous good to excellent translations of the Holy Bible, and the KJV is only one of them. Arguing about translations and putting down various translations simply hurts God's Work. Our focus should be on our Lord and Saviour, JESUS CHRIST!

Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable GIFT, Jesus Christ, our Lord and Saviour Forever!

Love In Christ,
Tom

John 1:14 ASV  And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father), full of grace and truth.