ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

King James Onlyism

What do you all think of "King James Onlyism"?

(I have nothing against the KJV. Like all standard translations, I believe it is as accurate as the translators could make it. But I am wary of making it a doctrinal issue.)

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Bible History Quiz
 ---Cluny on 6/16/16
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



\\The one called common sense. You seem to have been absent the day it was handed out.\\

That in itself is rather subjective, and NOT objective.

**Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.**

Without looking at your Bible, can you tell me the NEXT verse, Jerry?

I'll save you the trouble. It goes on to say, "Yet you will not come to Me so that you may have life."

In other words, devotion to the Bible can get in the way of seeing Jesus. He said so Himself.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/5/16


Axster: "what objective criteria"

The one called common sense. You seem to have been absent the day it was handed out.




Cluny: "Nor does it mean that it's a metaphor for saying the [sic] Jesus is the perfect embodiment of everything in the Bible, either."

Joh 5:39 Search the scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.



---Jerry6593 on 7/5/16


What is a concern, Cluny, is what a King James only person believes the King James Bible means.

And the King James Bible says that God's children are "the epistle of Christ" > in 2 Corinthians 3:2-3. And this epistle of Jesus in us is not written with paper and pen.

So, if we are Jesus Christ's epistle, aren't we His living Canon message? > the living meaning of all which His written word says?

And this includes >

"Love has been perfected among us in this: that we may have boldness in the day of judgment, because as He is, so are we in this world." (1 John 4:17)
---Bill on 7/5/16


\\Christ is called "the Word" for a reason. He is indeed found in the Bible and not in the doctrines of men.\\

When the Eternally begotten Son is called "the Word," and this Word was made flesh, it does NOT mean that Jesus is the same as the Bible.

Nor does it mean that it's a metaphor for saying the Jesus is the perfect embodiment of everything in the Bible, either.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/4/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Axey: There is no English word "extrant".

Sorry, I meant "extant". I don't know how that got buy Firefox's spellchecker.

When thousands of documents all agree, it doesn't matter which one you choose.

Yes, of the variant manuscripts we have, they typically agree in 99% of what they write. The big contention is over the remaining 1% that differs. People obsess over that 1% to the point that they're willing to throw the other 99% in the trash over it, throwing the baby out with the bath water.

But I ask YET AGAIN, for the third of fourth time, what objective criteria you use to tell which version of that differing 1% is the correct one?
---StrongAxe on 7/4/16




Cluny: "Salvation is NOT found in the Bible but in Jesus Christ alone."

I agree that salvation is in Christ alone, but Christ is called "the Word" for a reason. He is indeed found in the Bible and not in the doctrines of men.

Rom 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the WORD of God.




Axey: There is no English word "extrant". When thousands of documents all agree, it doesn't matter which one you choose.



---Jerry6593 on 7/4/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Axe: You still don't get it. It is not the translations, but the source texts that are the problem.

Yes, I do get that, but you don't seem to be getting MY argument. How do YOU know WHICH of the extrant copies of the source texts is the more authentic? What OBJECTIVE criteria do you use to prefer one over the other?

The modern translation all derive from a single garbage bin.

Being in a garbage bin does not demonstrate quality. If I toss an old KJV into a dumpster does that diminish its authenticity? As I pointed out, ancient societies recycled documents as kindling, etc. but preserved ones they especially revered into garbage bins.
---StrongAxe on 7/3/16


\\ While I agree that one can find salvation in most any Bible version, \\

Salvation is NOT found in the Bible but in Jesus Christ alone.

The Lord said so.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/3/16


Axe: You still don't get it. It is not the translations, but the source texts that are the problem. The modern translation all derive from a single garbage bin. The KJV derives from thousands of individual source texts which show amazing agreement. Do yourself a favor and look up Dr. Walter Vieth's Battle of the Bibles on YouTube. You'll learn a lot.


---Jerry6593 on 7/3/16


Jerry6593:

You wrote: Axey: You are confused. It is the modern translations that apply the techniques of higher criticism to translations of the oldest extant texts.

Then please tell me what OBJECTIVE criteria one can use to say that the Textus Receptus is a more faithful copy of the originals than Sinaiticus or Vaticanus, if we don't know what the original exactly said? The only way to do so is to use some kind of textual criticism (short of a voice from the heavens levitating the book and saying "This is my beloved translation, in which I am well pleased".
---StrongAxe on 7/2/16




\\not from the garbage can Sinaticus and Latin Vulgate as were the modern translations.\\

Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were unknown, at least to the west, during Tudor-Stuart times.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/2/16


Cluny: At last we agree on something!


Axey: You are confused. It is the modern translations that apply the techniques of higher criticism to translations of the oldest extant texts. (Note that there are NO original texts extant today.) The KJV was translated from Erasmus' Textus Receptus (16th century), and not from the garbage can Sinaticus and Latin Vulgate as were the modern translations.

A translation of garbage can be no better than original garbage - no matter the scholarship applied to it.


---Jerry6593 on 7/2/16


Jerry said, While I agree that one can find salvation in most any Bible version, I consider the KJV to be the most authentic - not because it is the best translation for modern times - but because it comes from the most authentic source, the Textus Receptus. This source is derived from thousands of ancient extant document fragments which are in amazing agreement.

Jerry, I understand what you are trying to say. But what research I have found is that the TR which Erasmus published (on which the KJV is based) does not contain much of the Byzantine source, which is the completely accurate version of the TR and still exists.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/2/16


Jerry6593:

Your argument suggests that this text is the "most authentic", not "100% accurate". It is based on textual criticism, which does not give a yes-no answer, but a sliding scale of reasonability. It doesn't say "this text is authentic, that isn't", just "this text is seems more reliable than that".

Also, what makes the KJV superior to translations in other languages based on the same text?

Under Jewish tradition, scripture was so holy not even damaged or worn-out copies could be destroyed - they were receptacles in each synagogue (i.e. trash bins) solely for the disposition of such copies.

If a text is 95% accurate, its translation will be too (approximately).
---StrongAxe on 7/1/16


\\but because it comes from the most authentic source, the Textus Receptus.\\

The NKJV, and its derivative, the Orthodox Study Bible (with the OT translated from the LXX) is also the only other English version (to my knowledge) that is based on the TR of the NT.

The late Abp. Dmitri of Dallas said that "early mss" such as Vaticanus and Sinaiticus date from the time of the Christological controversies and were probably doctored by the heretics.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 7/1/16


StrongAxe said, "I am arguing AGAINST them because we have no 100% accurate and authenticable source (i.e. how can we verify their accuracy, given the variant manuscripts?)"

But didn't you pay attention to what I said earlier? I said, "But we do have 100% accurate copies! Search the Vatican, search the old monasteries. You will find the 100% accurate copies there."

But the writers of the KJV didn't search the monasteries or ask the Vatican. They just did their own thing.
---Monk_Brendan on 7/1/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


While I agree that one can find salvation in most any Bible version, I consider the KJV to be the most authentic - not because it is the best translation for modern times - but because it comes from the most authentic source, the Textus Receptus. This source is derived from thousands of ancient extant document fragments which are in amazing agreement. Most all other Bible versions are derived from the Sinaticus (primarily) or the Vaticanus. These documents, while older complete versions, have been altered to remove text and demote the divinity of Christ. (The Sinaticus was literally found in the garbage.)

If the source is contaminated, the translation is inconsequential.


---Jerry6593 on 7/1/16


Monk_Brendan:

You wrote: And monks do not have the same training as Jewish scribes?

I never said that. I am fully willing to accept that monk copyists had the same accuracy as Jewish scribes - i.e. close to, but not equal to, 100%.

Now you are just picking nits. How do YOU KNOW that the translators of the KJV were using 100% accurate copies of the original?

I don't - it's the KJV-onlyists who think they do. I am arguing AGAINST them because we have no 100% accurate and authenticable source (i.e. how can we verify their accuracy, given the variant manuscripts?)
---StrongAxe on 6/30/16


StrongAxe said, "Jewish scribes had extremly meticulous error checking protocols, and even THEIR manuscripts have slight differences."

And monks do not have the same training as Jewish scribes? Believe me, this was their life's work, and they were assiduous in their copying.

"How do you KNOW that those manuscripts are 100% accurate copies of the originals, especially when there exist other copies that differ slightly?"

Now you are just picking nits. How do YOU KNOW that the translators of the KJV were using 100% accurate copies of the original? And how about the variations--where one Bible would say
hair, and another would say head covering?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/30/16


Monk_Brendan:

Bolts from the sky didn't strike medieval monks dead if they made copying errors. Jewish scribes had extremly meticulous error checking protocols, and even THEIR manuscripts have slight differences.

How do you KNOW that those manuscripts are 100% accurate copies of the originals, especially when there exist other copies that differ slightly? The very fact that different versions exist means it is possible to make copies that are not 100% accurate. How can you possibly know that the ones in the Vatican archives are THE 100% accurate ones?

Something that is 99% accurate is not quite 100% accurate, is it?


Samuelbb7: Originals let you interpret yourself, rather than relying on a translator's bias.
---StrongAxe on 6/30/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


StrongAxe said, "Not exactly. All we have are imperfect copies. They are quite accurate, but not 100% accurate."

I would hate to be your boss, and tell you to cut a board to 10 ft 3.25 inches, and you cut it to 10 ft 3.26 in, and tell him it is quite accurate, even if not 100%.

But we do have 100% accurate copies! Search the Vatican, search the old monasteries. You will find the 100% accurate copies there.

BTW, what is the difference between quite and 100%?
---Monk_Brendan on 6/29/16


True Strong Ax. Which is one of the reasons I like to use different literal translations. I don't need to spend years to study Greek or Hebrew. Which I can just read what groups of PHD's have translated for me.

Most people don't read any Bible.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/29/16


Monk_Brendan:

Not exactly. All we have are imperfect copies. They are quite accurate, but not 100% accurate. The fact that there are multiple manuscripts that are not all identical testifies to this fact. One cannot look that these manuscripts and deduce with 100% accuracy exactly what the originals said, because where there's a difference, how can you tell which of two manuscripts reflects the original, if indeed, either of them does?

If you want a reliable consensus, this is indeed possible. If you want 100% perfection, however, you're out of luck, because nothing in this world is 100% perfect, not even bible manuscripts.
---StrongAxe on 6/29/16


Some think they need to spend years studying Greek and Hebrew before they can understand Gods word in English, and doctrines suffer twisting and corrupting.
Critics can't find a single legitimate mistake in the Bible, yet many seem to be focused on comparing them to "originals"
It would be better if instead of spending time confusing people with third grade Greek that we teach the word of God in English.
---michael_e on 6/29/16


Send a Free Christmas Ecard


Michael E. said, "My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV."

But we DO have the originals. We have them in Greek and Hebrew. (No, we do not have the physical original manuscripts, but before they crumbled to dust, or were burned, etc.) they were copied many times, by monks (such as myself) using papyrus, parchment, vellum, and paper, with ink and paint.

Those copies were just that, copies. It took longer that a Xerox machine, but the copy is just as accurate. From those copies, we have the originals, and we can go word by word through them, and find errors and "fudging" by the translators of the KJV.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/29/16


michael_e:

By that very same reasoning, you cannot prove any errors in any other versions either.

we should be looking for the right Bible that is accurate and inerrant in history.

Without originals, how can you tell one version is "more" inerrant than another?

there is really only one historic text that is accurate and inerrant

What objective criteria do you use to determine WHICH one is THE correct one?

You have also still not answered why you think that an English version is superior to all others, even though for 3/4 of the age of the Church, it only had bibles of other languages. If those were all corrupt, how did a new incorrupt one suddenly appear?
---StrongAxe on 6/28/16


Michael E. said, "My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV."

My ancient and venerable friend, That is not what I am trying to point out to you. The question is what proof, what verification that would be accepted in court as proper evidence, that the KJV was translated from a copy of the TR that was pure and had no flaws, no errors.

It is, after all, a translation of the TR into Tudor Diction English (finished some 416 years ago). I'm glad it is the Textus Receptus that was used. But it is also evident that at least some of the translation has been flawed by the world view of the translators.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/28/16


//michael e, you have NOT explained why you believe that the KJV is "God's preserved word."//
My young friend, since you don't have originals you have not proven any errors in the KJV.
If God preserved his words throughout history and languages, then we should be looking for the right Bible that is accurate and inerrant in history.
If he has not, then we can never be sure the Bible is true at all.
By faith I believe God inspired the scripture according to 2 Tim 3:16, and perfectly preserved it to accomplish 2 Tim 3:17 in us that believe.
Once you understand preservation, there is really only one historic text that is accurate and inerrant
BTW You never answered, how do you rightly divide the word of truth?
---michael_e on 6/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


michael_e:

The originals are lost, yes. However we have copies of the originals. These are imperfect, in that they may contain copyists' errors. On the other hand, translations are also copies of copies of translations of copies of copies, so they have BOTH copyists' errors, and translators' biases. At least with original language manuscripts, there are no translation errors.

Most importantly, it is an offense to God to continue in unbelief.

Yet so many people want to throw out non-KJV translations that are (say) 98% accurate, saying they are not God's word - allowing the 2% to be more important than the 98% good stuff. Who is the unbeliever here?
---StrongAxe on 6/27/16


Michael E. said, "Penance, 3 hail Marys and a back flip"

BACK FLIP???? No no no no I don't do that no more, I'm tired of falling down on the floor. No thank you please, it only makes me wheeze, and then it makes it hard to find the door. (Apologies to Ringo Starr)
---Monk_Brendan on 6/27/16


michael e, you have NOT explained why you believe that the KJV is "God's preserved word."

Why should it be the KJV, and not the Geneva Bible, or Coverdale's, or the RSV, NIV, or even the JW's NWT?

At least you admit that the KJV you use is NOT the original one.

Why is IT (1769 recension) preferred over the original 1611?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/27/16


//God's word is NOT lost in the original Greek and Hebrew texts//
My young friend, if the originals can't be found they must be lost.
Most importantly, it is an offense to God to continue in unbelief. It's not a matter of probability that Gods words are preserved. Neither a matter of mans capability. It is a matter of Gods responsibility. Rom 4:21
And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform.
Maybe God is more capable than you think
---michael_e on 6/27/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


You're starting to catch on, michael e. The sackbut is NOT a plucked stringed instrument, therefore the KJV mistranslated it.

\\Do you actually believe God's word is lost?\\

God's word is NOT lost in the original Greek and Hebrew texts.

You don't actually think that God used translations to preserve his word rather than the original languages, do you?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/27/16


My young friend, here is another definition.
Sackbut [N] [S](Chald. sabkha, Gr. sambuke), a Syrian stringed instrument resembling a harp ( Daniel 3:5 Daniel 3:7 Daniel 3:10 Daniel 3:15 ), not the more modern sackbut, which is a wind instrument.
//But God NEVER promised that any translation would be without error//
Do you actually believe God's word is lost?
---michael_e on 6/26/16


Monk said
//What??? You consult commentaries?//
Monk pay attention, read before you write, I suggested that my young friend try another commentary to answer a question.
Penance, 3 hail Marys and a back flip
---michael_e on 6/26/16


michael e, all the commentaries in the world will not turn a trombone into a plucked string instrument, this latter is what Daniel 3 is talking about.

shira brought up a good point.

There are basically 2 Greek NT types: the Received Text, used and preserved by the Orthodox Church, btw, and the 19th century critical text, sometimes called the Alexandrian text.

The KJV and New King James are the only two translations of the NT into English that are basted on the Received Text.

But God NEVER promised that any translation would be without error.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/26/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


I got this from everyone's favorite wiki. It seems to be an error going back to the Vulgate.

**There are various uses of sackbut-like words in the Bible, which has led to a faulty translation from the Latin bible that suggested the trombones date back as far as 600 BC, but there is no evidence of slides at this time**

Glory to Jesus Christ!!
---Cluny on 6/26/16


shira6773:

You wrote: So many words, verses left out of new corrupt versus.

If words are in the KJV but not in other versions, how do you know that they ought to be there, rather than being incorrect words that were correctly removed? Do you also believe that the Apocrpyha, that were in the original KJV, were incorrectly removed?

Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James.

God inspired the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. King James hired imperfect human translators to create his Authorized Version. There are several revisions of the KJV. Which one of those many do you think God wrote, and which ones do you think are corrupt?
---StrongAxe on 6/26/16


Shira said, " Michael, God is perfect. His Word is perfect. God has never made a mistake and He never will. I am a KJV person and the reason is men keep changing what the King James says. So many words, verses left out of new corrupt versus. Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James...."

You must be joking! God did not write the KJV. He did not pick up a pen and put ink to paper. If you think He did, you are deluded!

The Scriptures were written by men, under Divine Inspiration, millennia ago. God did not ever put pen to paper. So back off of the rhetoric, take a deep breath, and try to say what you really want to say. If you put it in plain English, there shouldn't be a problem.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/26/16


Michael, God is perfect. His Word is perfect. God has never made a mistake and He never will. I am a KJV person and the reason is men keep changing what the King James says. So many words, verses left out of new corrupt versus. Man thinks he can improve what God penned in the King James. The new versions Are nothing excep Satan invading and trying to take the deity away from Christ. It doesn't matter who agrees or who don't, I have went thru this with a fine tooth comb. It is trendy to carry a new version but if I were you, I would throw it in the trash where it belongs.
---shira6773 on 6/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


//You don't think that means the KJV, do you?// Of course My young friend, where else would it be, since you don't have the "Originals" It's the KJV. You don't think God's word is lost do you?
//WITH the Apocrypha, btw.//
Doesn't surprise me.
When are you going to prove the KJV is inaccurate?
---michael_e on 6/25/16


Michael said, "My young friend check a few more commentaries."

What??? You consult commentaries? They are not Scriptural! If you want to use the KJV only, that's fine. But ALL the Word of God is IN the Scriptures, and commentaries do not apply!
---Monk_Brendan on 6/25/16


**It says his Word would be preserved forever You don't think his word was lost do you?**

You don't think that means the KJV, do you?

If you do, prove it.

**//WHICH recension?//
1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version
Which one do you use?**

Being one of the more common ones, that's the one I have--WITH the Apocrypha, btw.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/25/16


michael_e:

You wrote: Maybe the translators were not Hebrew and Greek scholars.

Which proves his point - that the KJV translation is NOT perfect.

It says his Word would be preserved forever You don't think his word was lost do you?

Yes, but what makes you think that it's necessarily the KJV, and no other English version, and no other non-English version?

1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version

Why that one, in particular? Were the earlier recensions somehow flawed? If not, why not use them, and if so, by what mechanism did those flaws magically disappear?
---StrongAxe on 6/25/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


// Being a music major, I knew what a sackbut was//
My young friend check a few more commentaries.
//As I said the last time you asked this, it's the Greek and Hebrew.//
Maybe the translators were not Hebrew and Greek scholars.
//Please show me FROM THE BIBLE where God promised to preserve the KJV from error.//
It says his Word would be preserved forever You don't think his word was lost do you?
//WHICH recension?//
1769 edition of the King James 1611 Authorized Version
Which one do you use?
---michael_e on 6/25/16


What do you all think of "King James Onlyism"?

I've only known of a few that exclusively use the KJV and adhere to it as the only bible to use.

I don't worry about such things, believing the Lord is able to make truth known as He wills. I am thankful for those who have encouraged me to use the KJV in addition to other versions and it has become a preference.
---chria9396 on 6/25/16


michael_e:

He never said that. What he did do is show that the assumption that "The KJV is inerrant" is false, because this is one (of several) counterexamples.

That is no proof that it is the KJV. Scripture has been around for 16 centuries before the KJV was put together, and the KJV has only been around for 4. The New Testament has existed in other languages and other translations than the KJV for 3/4 of its existence. What makes the KJV so special?

No one has ever proven the KJV is not God's word.

Nobody has ever proven that the National Enquirer isn't God's word either. Is that reason to blindly trust it?
---StrongAxe on 6/24/16


Being a music major, I knew what a sackbut was.

\\There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. \\

Why?

\\If it isn't the KJV, what is it? \\

As I said the last time you asked this, it's the Greek and Hebrew.

Please show me FROM THE BIBLE where God promised to preserve the KJV from error.

And you have YET to answer the question of WHICH recension of the several I listed is the God-preserved recension of the KJV.

Or did you even KNOW there were several different ones?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


My young friend, you just happened to be thumbing through the Bible and found the word sackbut and wondered what it meant? And someone said it wasn't a stringed instrument?

God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7, Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God's pure words somewhere. If it isn't the KJV, what is it?
All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Strange the new versions don't compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they line up against the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.
No one has ever proven the KJV is not God's word. The 1611 should be considered innocent until proven guilty with a significant amount of genuine manuscript evidence.
---michael_e on 6/24/16


\\//there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work//
So my young friend since you seem to be able to find errors, I believe it is up to you to prove it.\\

I've already mentioned a couple.

The work KJV translates "sackbut" in Daniel 3 was really a stringed instrument.

Sackbut is a Renaissance ancestor of the trombone, which is NOT played with strings.

Will that do?

In any case, YOU are the one who made the assertion about the inspiration of the KJV.

Now you prove yours.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/24/16


//You have YET to explain why it's necessarily in the KJV//
One of the best explanations is so many try (and fail)to prove it wrong
//there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work//
So my young friend since you seem to be able to find errors, I believe it is up to you to prove it.
---michael_e on 6/23/16


\\There is no good reason to doubt God could preserve his inspired words perfectly and without e\\

You have YET to explain why it's necessarily in the KJV.

And you've not yet told WHICH recension of the KJV you think is the inerrant one.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


Cluny (the perfect one, who knows it all, and never makes mistakes) I noticed in the past week you have made at least two grammatical errors.

If you are so perfect and know it all, (as you present yourself to be) why do you make errors?

As for myself, at times I do make my mistakes and I do accept and own up to them.

Because you are so high minded, arrogant, and self centered, and perfect, you never make mistakes!
---Rob on 6/23/16


My young friend
There is no good reason to doubt God could preserve his inspired words perfectly and without error.
It's not a hard conclusion to make that if God inspired words for the salvation of humanity that he would preserve them.
Sadly, many find it hard to believe every word in the Bible. Some argue to prove the impossibility of Gods preservation mistakes and errors. Even though I dont see the need for argument according to Romans 3:3-4, the errors simply dont exist.
By the way shouldnt we be teaching belief in God and his words and not doubt? What good is it to stand in doubt of the Bible you study when the very words of eternal life and peace with God are only beneficial if they are first believed?
---michael_e on 6/23/16


Rob said, "The...Lords supper, communion...Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel.
Paul says the bread is not the physical body of Jesus, it is the church, the boC. (1 Cor 10:16-17)"


The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

What part of IS IT NOT do you not understand?

As far as us being part of the Body of Christ, I can receive that, for I partake of His Body and Blood every time I go attend Divine Liturgy.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/23/16


Rob said, "The phrases Lords supper, communion, and Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel."

What about in Matt 26:26-27, and the parallel phrases in the other synoptic Gospels? What about John 6:34-58? These verses are directly from Jesus mouth. THAT is what Paul is talking about, not words that Protestants use because they dislike the term "Eucharist"
---Monk_Brendan on 6/23/16


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


\\My young friend, it amazes me that you think God is incapable of preserving and translating his word. \\

What proof do you have it's the KJV?

\\Christ himself was called a devil and not accepted by the masses.\\

Are you equating the KJV with Christ?

Fie, michaele. As your namesake said, "Who is like God?"

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/23/16


michael_e:

You wrote: So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?

Ever since Babel, there has not been "one true language". It is pure anglo-centric egotism to believe that the sole uncorrupted version of God's word just happens to be an English-speaking version, and not in some other language.

You don't think God is incapable of preserving His Word do you?

Many people refuse to consider the possibility that the essence of God's word is kept, imperfectly but mostly intact, in many versions in many different languages. Nothing in this world is 100% black and white. Why should human translations of God's world be any different?
---StrongAxe on 6/22/16


I love my King James. But I read other translations also.

Often modern word for word translations can help bring clarity.

Even dynamic and paraphrases' can help in understanding.

It shouldn't be a doctrinal issue.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/22/16


monk said
//if the KJV is the "true" Bible, why do you not follow the clear Word of God contained in it? For in the KJV it is written: (Matt 26:26-28 KJV)//
The phrases Lords supper, communion, and Lords table appear in Pauls epistle not in the Messiahs ministry to Israel.
Paul says the bread is not the physical body of Jesus, it is the church, the boC. (1 Cor 10:16-17)
Paul says, the cup is not the blood of Jesus shed in shame for Israel, but the blood that bought the salvation and forgiveness for all men not under any covenants (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor 12:13).
The doctrine of communion was given first to Paul in order to teach the church about its common free gift of salvation together in Christ.
Rightly divide monk
---michael_e on 6/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Settlements


Michael E. said, "Anytime I see what some call an "error"....I NEVER try to correct the Book that God has honored for so long. I'm not that stupid."

But, my ancient and venerable friend, if the KJV is the "true" Bible, why do you not follow the clear Word of God contained in it? For in the KJV it is written: And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it, For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matt 26:26-28 KJV)
---Monk_Brendan on 6/22/16


//The REAL Bible is the Hebrew and Greek text. There is no "real English Bible."
My young friend, it amazes me that you think God is incapable of preserving and translating his word.
//Why should the KJV be the exception? It was not exactly greeted with applause and kisses when it first appeared. In fact, radical Puritans called it the Devil's Bible and burned it in the streets.//
Christ himself was called a devil and not accepted by the masses.
---michael_e on 6/22/16


The REAL Bible is the Hebrew and Greek text.

There is no "real English Bible."

Which recension of the KJV do you believe is the "Real Bible"?

The original 1611?

With our without the Apocrypha?

The fair copy delivered to the printer, which had changes ordered by the Abp. of Canterbury on his own authority--and has since been lost?

The 1769 revision by the Church of England?

The 1904 version by ABS normalized according to American spellings?

Which?

(BTW, I disagree with your ecclesiology, but that's a subject for another blog.)

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/16


My young friend,
There is one true God, yet many false gods. There is one true Church,(body of Christ) consisting of true believers in Christ, yet there are many false churches. So why do you think it's so wrong to teach that there is one true Bible, yet many false "bibles"?
You don't think God is incapable of preserving His Word do you?
Since you know it isn't the KJV, you must know where it is, please share.
---michael_e on 6/22/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Internet Services


Monk said
// what are you judging as the "real" Bible?//
The KJV, what do you judge as the "real bible?"
---michael_e on 6/21/16


\\I assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error.\\

Any chance there are other people who ARE so learned?

Where did you get the idea that God honored the KJV?

WHERE did you get the idea that ANY translation could could claim the inspiration and authority of the original?

One thing the Bible makes clear in any version is that mere human beings have never done ANYTHING for God and gotten it 100% right.

Why should the KJV be the exception? It was not exactly greeted with applause and kisses when it first appeared. In fact, radical Puritans called it the Devil's Bible and burned it in the streets.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/22/16


Michael E. said, "My young friend, you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today? Anytime I see what some call an "error". I assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it..."

Michael, what are you judging as the "real" Bible? The JW's have a Bible that rejects the Trinity in favor of three different aspects of the same Person. There are many other "Bibles" that have been written to support or deny some theological point or another.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/21/16


//there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work//
My young friend, you believe God inspired His holy words in the "originals," but has lost them, since no one has a perfect Bible today? Anytime I see what some call an "error". I assume that I'm not learned enough in the Scriptures to explain it, but that it is NOT an error. I trust God. I NEVER try to correct the Book that God has honored for so long. I'm not that stupid
---michael_e on 6/21/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Stores


michaele, there ARE places where the KJV translators fudged their work, either for good reason (such as listing commonly known Tudor instruments in Daniel 3), or not so good reason (as rendering KECHARITOMENOI as "highly favored in Luke 1, where everywhere else the root CHARIS is translated "grace").

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/21/16


It's a shame many teach there are mistakes in the KJB.
Some try to convince the church there are better renderings easier to understand. As a result saints waste time studying Greek and Hebrew instead of understanding Gods word in English.
Critics can't find a legitimate mistake in the KJB yet many seem focused on creating them by peppering scripture with better renderings.
It would be better instead of spending time confusing people with third grade Greek that we teach them the word of God in English!
There are no mistakes in the Bible. .
---michael_e on 6/20/16


Good points. I love the King James for it beauty and words. But I reference other Bibles in my studies to make sure I have a clear understanding.
---Samuelbb7 on 6/19/16


Those who state that the KJV is the only one we should use are wrong i.m.o. I find it extremely helpful to have many versions and, when appropriate, I check out a text in several of them. This usually gives me more clarity when I am slightly confused or when I wish to explain a scripture to someone who is not a regular bible reader and would be helped by these comparisons.

As I do not understand the original languages in which the bible was written I do the best I can do by comparing the English versions that I DO have.
---Rita_H on 6/19/16


Read These Insightful Articles About Business Training


There are KJVOnly churches that DO make a doctrinal issue of it.

There are some who actually believe it's the only truly inspired version of the Bible.

What's funny is that many of KJVOnlyists deny some of the very doctrines that its translators affirmed.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 6/18/16


Josef said, "What do you all think of "King James Onlyism"?
To each his own, I didn't realize it was a doctrinal issue."


To some, it is of vital interest. There are congregations that will not allow a person in the door if he is not carrying a KJV Bible.

To me it's a non-issue, as only foolish people debate of what translation of the Bible one is to use.
---Monk_Brendan on 6/18/16


"What do you all think of "King James Onlyism"?
To each his own, I didn't realize it was a doctrinal issue.
---josef on 6/18/16


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.