Why Christians Should Only Use The King James AV1611 Bible

The NKJV and the AV KJBible are not the same. The NKJV has more in common with the NIV - another misleading deception.
King James did not write the Bible. He commissioned it to be written so the people would have a Bible in their own lanaguage, as the ownership of a bible had been prohibited by the Catholic Church for hundreds of years. Latin was not a spoken language to the common people.


King James was not a homosexual. This rumor was started twenty years after his death. I think by someone in his court whom he kicked out because they had said, paraphrase, " I will not have a Scotsman rule over me"

He was married to the same woman all his married life. I think he had eight children. The arts flourished during hie reign.

There were many tyrannical rulers before he reigned. He seemed to step out of time and contributed so much to the Reformation and arts, a cultural lifestyle.

what about Amplified?

I tend not to trust the King James.

The Geneva Bible is not that much different from the King James Bible. King James authorized an english translation for the people. The objections to the Geneva Bible are unknown to me, if any, but I do know they - the translators of the KJV - objected to the commentary portion of the Geneva Bible.

1611AV
[link to quod.lib.umich.edu]

1611AV
[link to quod.lib.umich.edu]

God's Word

Psalm 12:6 (King James Version)

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in
a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them
from this generation for ever.

Matthew 24:35 (King James Version)

Heaven and earth shall pass away,
but my words shall not pass away.


In 1959, William E. Cox writes:

Most Protestants, certainly all evangelicals, accept the
Scriptures as an all-sufficient guide in matters of
practice and doctrine. It is at this point, in fact, that
Protestants differ most from the Roman Catholic religion.
Whereas Protestants accept only the Scriptures as
authoritative, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the
Scriptures plus tradition.

It is also axiomatic that Protestants have always refused
to have any extra-canonical writings inserted in the Bible
itself. They consider the canon as having closed the
revealed Scriptures.

John, in the Revelation (22:18,19), was inspired to speak
with authority and finality when he said dire consequences
would attend any additions to or subtractions from the
inspired text.

Although many Protestant groups gain much help from
extrabiblical writings, such as the Didache, Apostles
Creed, et cetera, these have never been permitted by
evangelicals to be equated with sacred Scriptures; and they
would never be permitted insertion within the Word of God.

One of the paramount contributions of the Protestant
"Reformation" was the return to the Scriptures as the
Christian's final earthly authority. The Reformers rebelled
against all extra-biblical teachings as binding upon
Christians. Many Protestants have even expressed regret
that the name of King James was associated with the
Protestant translation, even though this has never been
looked on as a part of the Bible itself.

The Protestant philosophy has always been-as stated by such
outstanding translators as the British and Foreign Bible
Society and the American Bible Society - "Without Note or
Comment."

I see Goddrunk is posting even more ignorance that he has read on the interwebs. You would think he would have learned his lesson after his thread attacking those who Keep the Sabbath and attacking the Hebrew Roots movement.

The King James only movement is quite frankly probably run by Satan himself at the top. You see the exact same stupidity posted on every "KJV only" website.

Insanely stupid stuff like:

#1 One obvious reason is that God would not have any man to have exclusive copyrights to His Word. The Word of God is free for all people. Unlike the modern translations, the King James Version is public domain. Anyone who wants to publish it is free to publish as many copies as he wish & never have to ask permission for doing so. These new Bible versions are owned and copyrighted by men, not God.

Folks this is a utter lie straight from hell. The King James was published in 1611 and was Copyrighted then! Guess what? International Copyright on the King James expired in America 100 years later! THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO COPYRIGHT ON THE KING JAMES! THE KING JAMES IS STILL TO THIS DAY COPYRIGHTED IN ENGLAND AND THE COPYRIGHT IS HELD BY QUEEN ELIZABETH!

O yes my friends these people who do not speak one lick of Koine Greek, Modern Hebrew, Paleo Hebrew, or Ancient Pictograph Hebrew, who are so stupid they think the KJV does not have a copyright are the same ones that tell you it is the infallible word of God.............

Then we have people like G. A. Riplinger. Whose pen name is G. A. because it means "God and Riplinger" wrote her books, who is on her THIRD MARRIAGE, AND DOES NOT EVEN SPEAK THE BIBLICAL LANGUAGES, TELLING US THE KJV IS INFALLIBLE!

#2 The entire KJV argument is based upon ignorance.

If you notice every single website never compares the KJV to the Greek. Folks the KJV is not even a accurate translation of the so called Textus Receptus! What these websites do though is say "O man the NASV has over 1,000 changes from the KJV! WHO CARES IF IT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE KING JAMES, NOTICE THEY NEVER COMPARE THEM TO THE GREEK! (OF COURSE THE REASON IS THEY CANNOT READ OR WRITE GREEK SO THEY CANNOT!)

#3 The King James is one of the most BIASED translations of the New Testament out there. One example, just look at John 3:36. Everyone on this planet has heard John 3:16. But we never hear the rest of the story!

John 3:36 in the KJV:

"he that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life ; but the wrath of God abides on him."

Folks there is a major problem with this translation! Notice how Believeth is used twice? WELL GUESS WHAT THE 2ND BELIEVE IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT GREEK WORD! THE SECOND BELIEVE MEANS OBEY

SO let us read that again properly translated.

He that Believeth on the Son hath Everlasting life, BUT HE WHO DOES NOT OBEY THE SON SHALL NOT SEE LIFE; BUT THE WRATH OF ELOHIM ABIDES ON HIM.

See the Difference folks? See how the King James promotes a "Believe only" to punch your ticket to heaven? Now that I have correctly translated this for you, I suggest you read Deut chapter 18. The Creator himself says He will raise up a prophet like Moses and if they people do not OBEY HIM, they will fall into the wrath of God.

#4 The KJV is utterly full of biased translations like I listed above Paul's letters are utterly butchered In fact Paul's letters are often times stating the exact opposite of what modern christianity teaches! Paul's letters properly translated are PRO-TORAH

#5 Still high on the KJV? Still think it is the "infallible word of God for the English speaking people of the world?" THE KING JAMES HAS ALMOST 7,000 MISTAKES ALONG WHEN IT LIST THE NAME OF THE CREATOR. THE KING JAMES CHANGED THE 3RD COMMANDMENT FROM "THOU SHALT NOT LET MY NAME COME TO NOTHING".

EVERYTIME YOU SEE CAPITOL LORD IN YOUR KJV OF THE BIBLE THE EDITED OUT YHWH AND REPLACED IT WITH "THE LORD" FOLKS THE LORD MEANS BAAL IN HEBREW! Do you understand what I just told you? THE KJV CHANGED THE NAME OF THE CREATOR TO BAAL THE SUN GOD

#6 The KJV has several verses WHICH SHOULD NOT EVEN BE IN THE SCRIPTURES!

#7 The KJV adds words like "Church". The word Church never occurs in the Greek. It is the word Ekklesia which has always referred to the Called out Assembly of Israel which KEEP HIS COMMANDMENTS. I hope you all understand what I just told you. THE WORD CHURCH NEVER OCCURS IN THE GREEK MY FRIENDS!

#8 THE KING JAMES VERSION, KNOWING THE MESSIAH HAD THE EXACT SAME NAME AS "JOSHUA" THE 2ND IN COMMAND OF MOSES, AND "JOSHUA" THE HIGH PRIEST IN ZECHERIAH, CHANGED THE NAME TO "JESUS" JESUS IS A FAKE NAME, A MADE UP NAME, AND NOT EVEN A TRANSLATION!

Folks I could go on and on. And I am not saying any of the English translations are any better. THEY ALL HAVE BIASED TRANSLATIONS ACCORDING TO CHURCH DOGMA.

Friends I cannot stress enough if you live in the Fantasy land of "KJV only" you will remain in spiritual stupidity your entire lives.

I can understand if you don't trust Zondervan or the Lockman Foundation. How can you trust the King James version though? It was written in a time when they were starting to re-write Shakespearean tragedies into happy endings. There is no doubt the King James version has been altered and passages softened or added.

[link to www.genevabible.com]

Where does this information come from? Going forward and backwards Greek & Hebrew I do not see this just as Hebrews at the time did not have vowels and the two word Joshua & Jesus do not have same spelling. There are 100's of words & names in Hebrew with simular spellings but are different people and different time frames/time lines. The arguement does not hold water. I can not say I agree 100% with OP but for his personal faith and mine to get to the core of the truth is the most important thing.
To others:
If Christ was such a nothing then why do you have to attack him, he obviously (by omissions) has been some sort of threat to them or has some sort of Power over them! If He is nothing why is it bother-some? Tell them to get lost if you do not like the message and go on. Let others be encouraged and enlightened to His message without twisting it and distorting it.

And Yes I do have a problem with people telling me how I should believe. The message of Faith is the most important! The Ideal that GOD has only one Son is important. The Fact he had a Son is important! Whether he has Vowels in his name is not important but the message is! The Hope of Eternal life By Believing, is not guaranteed. There is a difference between Knowing and Believing. The difference of Acting and living by Faith.

[link to www.youtube.com]

Excellent post!!!!

The KJV is the best, yes, but the 1611 has the Apocryphal books from Rome. Subsequent editions correctly removed them.

The 1560 Geneva Bible is also a good translation which confirms the later KJV. There are new printings with updated english of the Geneva now available.

Why do God allow many different copies of the Bible to be in circulation?

Wich one is the word of God? Are all of them?

You are mistaken about the KJV. We have the Greek to check it. And the earlier Geneva also agrees with the KJV. The later translations have been produced after the enemy has taken over again. This is the reason only the KJV. Even the Geneva has a couple of errors the KJV corrected. Still the 1560Geneva and the 1611KJV are near identical.

WOW KING JAMES LIKED LITTLE BOYS KINDA GOES WITH THE CATHOLIC THING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON.

NOT MESSED WITH??

Bullshit.

They deleted the holy name of God from that translation many times over.

Not messed with my ass.

Yea not to mention changing the name of Yahuwshua's brother Yaakov (Same name as "Jacob"), into "James" in honor of King James.

Was King James a homosexual?

QUESTION: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is this true?

ANSWER: No.

[link to www.chick.com]

Didn't the KJV contain the Apocrypha at first?

QUESTION: Didn't the King James Bible when first printed contain the Apocrypha?

ANSWER: Yes

EXPLANATION: Many critics of the perfect Bible like to point out that the original King James had the Apocrypha in it as though that fact compromises its integrity. But several things must be examined to get the factual picture.
First, in the days in which our Bible was translated, the Apocrypha was accepted reading based on its historical value, though not accepted as Scripture by anyone outside of' the Catholic church. The King James translators therefore placed it between the Old and New Testaments for its historical benefit to its readers. They did not integrate it into the Old Testament text as do the corrupt Alexandrian manuscripts.
That they rejected the Apocrypha as divine is very obvious by the seven reasons which they gave for not incorporating it into the text. They are as follows:
1. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.
2. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.
3. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.
4. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.
5. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.
6. It inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.
7. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.
If having the Apocrypha between the Testaments disqualifies it as authoritative, then the corrupt Vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt must be totally worthless since their authors obviously didn't have the conviction of the King James translators and incorporated its books into the text of the Old Testament thus giving it authority with Scripture.

[link to www.chick.com]

Last Edited by Aenon on 04/10/2010 08:07 PM

Hasn't the King James Bible been revised?

QUESTION: Haven't there been several revisions of the King James Bible since 1611?

ANSWER: No. There have been several editions but no revisions.

[link to www.chick.com]

King James commissioned a new translation due to pressure from the growing Puritan movement. The most extreme among them wanted to dismantle the structure of the Episcopal Church which was patterened after Roman Catholicism. By doing so, they were also challenging the 'divine right of kings'.

In order to appease them, he commisioned a new 'authorized' translation. Though nearly half the translators considered themselves Puritain, they were the most liberal of the sect.

And just what was the commission (instructions to the translators)?

They were to translate the Bible to reflect Episcopal church dogma and doctrine!

Last Edited by Mrs. Smith on 04/10/2010 08:10 PM

Thanks

Old English / Anglo-Saxon (Englisc)
[link to www.omniglot.com]

If you can prove it, I'll believe it :)

Don’t you mean the Queen James Version, authorized by a homosexual King!

The guy who mentioned John 3:36 in the KJVB is really just grasping at straws here. Jesus made it clear that if you love Him you will keep His commandments; and in order to love Jesus and keep His commandments, you must first BELIEVE He is the Messiah. If you do not believe, you WILL NOT OBEY.

It's like when Jesus said to Thomas, "You have seen, but blessed are those who have not seen and believe."

John 3:36
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth [G544 - apeitheo] not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Strong's G544 - apeitheo - believeth
1) not to allow one's self to be persuaded
-a) to refuse or withhold belief
-b) to refuse belief and obedience
2) not to comply with

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 16
AV — believe not 8, disobedient 4, obey not 3, unbelieving 1
[link to www.blueletterbible.org]

As you can see, the word could easily be translated as "not obeying due to lack of belief," or as the shortened version says: "believeth not the Son."

The above word comes from the Greek word apeithes

Strong's G545 - apeithes
1) impersuasible, not compliant, disobedient, contumacious

Authorized Version (KJV) Translation Count — Total: 6
AV — disobedient 6
[link to www.blueletterbible.org]

Last Edited by Aenon on 04/10/2010 10:18 PM

Do you believe that Yeshua is the Messiah, Goddrunk?

If so, why aren't you obeying him?

You've made many posts on why Christians don't need to obey YHWH's commandments.

who said i was a christian?