/christian/ - Christianity

Religious discussions and spirituality

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (68.69 KB 242x237 kjv.png)
Authorised (King James) Version Anonymous 05/03/2021 (Mon) 17:57:22 No.746
How did you come to the truth that the KJV is the word of God in english?
Open file (27.20 KB 320x240 BibleKJV.jpg)
>>746 I spent my childhood around several different communities that used modern versions. As a child, I repeatedly heard the usual platitudes they make. They say in essence though we can't know for sure whether Scripture says one thing or another. They say trust scholars more than the inspired Scriptures. This attitude has led to the degradation of discourse in society. Everyone has become relativists. The modern versions and the source texts that they choose to use, which are modern and based on modern "discoveries," disagree between themselves on various points, and as a whole their source texts remove about the equivalent of the books of 1 and 2 Peter from the text of what what was actually used as a source for the KJV, but the removals/changes are spread out to almost every page of the New Testament. The modern versions also contain modern interpretive changes on the translational level as well. Words that we have always known to mean one thing since 1611, which was before the first dictionaries were even written - which also happened to use the KJV as a base for word definitions - are redefined in modern translations to mean totally different, contradictory, or vague phrases in modern versions. As an example of some of the removals, see the underlined text in the following passages, which is removed from the modern source text as well as subsequently all its translations. Matthew 5:22 >But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: Mark 10:24 >But Jesus answereth again, and saith unto them, Children, how hard is it for them that trust in riches to enter into the kingdom of God! Luke 2:33 >And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. (note: modern versions replace the word "Joseph" with "his father") Luke 9:55-56 >But he turned, and rebuked them, _and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. >For the Son of man is not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them. And they went to another village. John 5:16 >And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day. These are just a few of the many examples I have found since this was revealed to me. I have a list in front of me filled with hundreds of more examples of changes that are on this level. Sometimes the changes are due to different translational choices, but these are just as bad and just as much a reason not to use those versions. If we cannot find anything wrong with the Received Text that was handed down to us from all previous generations, then I fail to see why a translation that was good for every English speaker from 1611 until approximately some time in the 20th century, would suddenly need to be replaced. But the modern bible version marketers would rather make a name for themselves by selling more "popular" translations instead. These modern versions are intentionally loose, placing footnotes everywhere that casts doubt on various parts of Scripture as being perhaps not valid, and using multiple modern versions allows people to think that the Bible says whatever they want. This is why, after having carefully examined the evidence, I can say I have confidence that the KJV is a carefully edited translation of the pure received text that has been accepted in the English language for centuries, and is free from the corruption that emanates from every modern version which I have ever inspected. I can also say a lot more work went into this translation than many of the ones that came before it. There was a substantial update to the language/spelling of the KJV in 1769, which it alone received, where every last word has been carefully proofread and checked against the original languages. And every KJV printed since around 1900 has inherited this as well. So, there is the information, feel free to judge for yourselves.
>>752 I should also say that Satan has always been involved in planting a small seed of doubt regarding the veracity of God's word. Always wanting people to question it. In Genesis 3:1, he is quoted firstly as saying 'Yea, hath God said...?' This quote of Satan is famous. And yet people seem to blind themselves to the operation of that false spirit today that plants little footnotes in modern versions, each one like a little seed of doubt to make the reader question whether God really authored any of this at all. This is especially if no one, not even the translators of those works, have any certainty about what they write, to the point that they would openly communicate that to the readers, they aren't sure what the Bible says. They want you to think no one is. It's all a confidence trick. And observing how some of the most impactful changes and removals from the "modern critical text" are quietly slipped in among many seemingly minor changes, and how certain doctrines are repeatedly short-circuited throughout Scripture by a percentage of these seemingly random changes, that only seem to appear that way on the surface, only shows the subtlety of the master Deceiver and the spirit of falsehood and father of lies who is really behind all these changes in modern versions. He acts in a way that makes it easy to be deceived into doubts, making the changes appear to be random and inconsequential, when really they are not. Matthew 4:4 speaking of Jesus says, "But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
>>752 Keep in mind also that these new version publishers always compare themselves with the KJV. They all want to usurp the KJV with their translation but they have failed time after time. Why do they want to usurp the KJV? Because they know... They envy its position in the english speaking world. New versions have come and gone out of print and yet the KJV still remains after 400 years. Wow, it sure looks like God knew what he was doing. Talk about quality and perfection... Also, I find it funny how people love to rail and revile the KJV for being hard to understand yet have no problem to go and see what completely different and foreign languages have to say about the Bible (greek and hebrew) and change it around under the notion that it was not translated correctly. Something tells me that if you were to drop these people who pride themselves in the supposed knowledge of the original languages into Greece or Israel, they wouldn't even be able to find a restroom.
>>753 I say that all these new versions ought to change their title of the footnote section from footnotes to Yea, hath God said...?
>>754 Would there ever be men again of such strong faith as to produce an edition true to the message of the KJV? It is sad to think that the efforts which brought it forward, through the conviction of men like Wycliffe and Tyndale, can never again be seen in the world.
>>757 Indeed. And today, we only have lukewarm and mainstream “christians” who only sit and warm pews once a week and then speak, act, and walk like the world the rest of the week. People have put their necks on the line so that we may have a Bible in our hand and this is how we treat their sacrifice.... People have grown spoiled and entitled for not living under papist tyranny. Woe unto that roman whore for shedding the blood of righteous men and women.
>>757 You just have to be really good at translating and be saved. It can happen. God can give his gifts to whoever he sees as worthy of it. Just not the "modern version" translators, they are fake.
>>754 > Something tells me that if you were to drop these people who pride themselves in the supposed knowledge of the original languages into Greece or Israel, they wouldn't even be able to find a restroom. Excellent!
>finally finding the unadulterated and as of yet perfected rendition of the KJV Why is it so difficult brothers?
>>781 Just use the 1900 format. It is very widespread. Local Church Bible Publishers has it, as does Holman ISBN 978-1-5864-0944-9. And I'm sure many others as well.
>>784 The 1900 is what I'm speaking of. However there is a spurious British version floating around the internet that is almost identical but has some edits from Cambridge translator FHA Scrivener in 1873 that were redacted in the definitive printing of 1900.
>>791 I know about the version you are talking about. It actually has quite a few changes from the normal line of KJV. Here are some of the differences between the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible (By Scrivener) and the normal 1900 edition. The 1873 CPB (https://archive.org/details/cambridgeparagra00scri/) has all of the following changes: >Psalm 9 & 10 combined (one chapter called PSALMS IX & X) >"toward" changed to "towards" in 121 places >"lifted" changed to "lift" in 95 places >"among" changed to "amongst" in 81 places >"more" changed to "moe" (archaic spelling) in 35 places >"fetched" changed to "fet" in nine places >many other minor spelling changes like the above >Genesis 11:3: "throughly" changed to "thoroughly" >Genesis 41:38: "the Spirit of God" changed to "the spirit of God" >Leviticus 14:35: "he that owneth the house" reverted to "he that oweth the house" >Numbers 25:1: "the people began to commit" reverted to "the people begun to commit" >2 Kings 11:2: "and stole him from" reverted to "and stale him from" >2 Kings 11:18: "thoroughly" reverted to "throughly" >2 Chron. 24:20: "Spirit of God" changed to "spirit of God" >Ezra 3:11: "And they sang together" reverted to "And they sung together" >Psalm 107:35: Period replaced with semicolon >Psalm 140:3: "adders' poison" changed to "adder's poison" >Proverbs 6:2: Period replaced with comma >Proverbs 8:2: Comma moved to after "way" (nonsensical) >Isaiah 32:9: Second and third comma changed to semicolons, semicolon changed to comma >Isaiah 45:9,11: "Maker" reverted to "maker" >Isaiah 57:5: "Enflaming" reverted to "Inflaming" (pre-1629) >Jeremiah 32:5: Question mark changed to period >Ezekiel 48:30: Inserted a colon after "city" (meaning change) >Matthew 9:20-22: Added parentheses >Matthew 14:9, Mark 6:26: "the oath's sake" changed to "the oaths' sake" >Matthew 23:24: "strain at a gnat" changed to "strain out a gnat" >Luke 1:55: Added parentheses around "As he spake to our fathers" >Luke 1:70: Added parentheses around verse >Luke 7:41: "one owed five hundred pence" reverted to "one ought five hundred pence" >John 4:9: "for" changed to "For" (changes speaker from samaritan to Jesus) >John 8:35: "but the Son abideth ever" changed to "but the son abideth ever" >Acts 10:19: "the Spirit said" changed to "the spirit said" >Acts 11:21: "that owneth this girdle" reverted to "that oweth this girdle" >Romans 5:13-17: Removed parentheses >1 Cor. 13:2: "have not charity" reverted to "have no charity" >2 Cor. 5:19: Removed the comma after "Christ" >Colossians 2:2: Removed the commas after "God" and after "Father" >Titus 2:13: His book claims to remove the comma after "God," but comma not actually removed >Hebrews 3:7-11: Removed parentheses >James 4:5: "The" reverted to "the" (raising the question: is it a quotation? all quotations in the KJV start with a capital letter) >1 John 5:7 placed in italics This is far from an exclusive list, but hopefully it helps you identify the 1873 variant made by Scrivener, as compared with normal KJV editions, which actually has quite a lot of odd changes in it.
Gentlemen, what do we make of the apocrypha? Also, false bibles make additions to Daniel and Esther. The real Bible has 10 chapters in Esther, false bibles (especially catholic approved) have 16. Daniel 3 in the real Bible is 30 verses long. In false bibles, it’s 100 verses long.
>>814 It's apocryphal. The church shouldn't make doctrine of it. Their spurious quality was noted as far back as Jerome. It's only that the Catholics have made doctrine on it, most notably Purgatory, that they have to keep it around.
>>815 I understand. Thank you, anon. You know, catholics remind me of mormons. When your doctrines are not found in the Holy Bible, you run to false texts and vehemently defend them as inspired... Catholics pride themselves in the notion of giving us the Bible, yet somehow... the Holy Bible strictly condemns every single ordinance of their vain religion.
>>816 >Catholics pride themselves in the notion of giving us the Bible, yet somehow... the Holy Bible strictly condemns every single ordinance of their vain religion.
Open file (517.08 KB 1000x840 popealexandervi1.jpg)
>>816 >catholics remind me of mormons. That's actually a very good comparison. >Catholics pride themselves in the notion of giving us the Bible, yet somehow... the Holy Bible strictly condemns every single ordinance of their vain religion. They pride themselves on the collaborative effort of the early church to establish the biblical canon (it was not Rome alone) and think that the privilege of history gives them sanction to supersede what was produced to be complete once and forever. As it is their beliefs are based on the supposed interpretation of church tradition through the bishops and the Pope, with all its subjectivity. You see this in how weak their scriptures are, Catholics are willing to embrace loose rewordings in the New Revised Standard Version and the New American Bible Revised translations, because the priest is supposed to communicate dogma to the audience that is expected to be docile and receptive. Pre-Reformation they were content that scant few in Medieval Europe could read scripture. Theodosius moreso than Constantine threw a stumbling block in the way of the church when he established it as state religion in 380, but ultimately both sought the church be a political tool and in line with the political ideal of the time foist the model of a monarchic priesthood on to Christendom for the next 1000 years. The rare times when right men are around that system can be at least be serviceable (but when you have the right men, any system is), but married with political power it became a disgrace. Rome shows its true colors clearly in one way, while it insists Protestants must conform to its specific set of rites and rituals, it went around and admitted ex-Orthodox churches in the Eastern Mediterranean with a completely different form of worship; it only cares for politics and the world of men in its heart, perhaps it is not so much tragic as to be expected of the legacy of the Caesars.
>>819 The irony is that many unbelievers have taken it upon themselves not only to alter the fundamental text of the Bible (thus making things with apocryphal additions such as found in the Vulgate or DRB), but also to try to claim to have originated the Scripture itself, declining to even give God the glory for writing his own word. I have had discussions where some Orthodoxes would insist that, what they call the church (actually the state church) CREATED the Bible. That is to say, Not God. They would argue me on that point, saying it was actually them that created the Bible rather than God being the author. You can see how ironic it is that we don't use the same version as them at the same time as they claim this. >to establish the biblical canon To this I would again say, Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. (Psalm 119:160). When we read that the word of God was "spreading" in the book of Acts, that tells us that His word was already fixed and immovable (Matthew 24:35), just as God inspired His word and gave and confirmed the word by His Son (Hebrews 1:1-2) and by the Apostles (John 17:8, 2 Peter 1:21). This means that no council or group truly determined God's word. But rather, by the determinate counsel of God, His word has been true from the beginning, and revealed (Galatians 1:12, Titus 1:3, Deuteronomy 29:29) in due time according to the will of God. (Daniel 12:8-9, Revelation 22:10). Thus His word has been true and self-evident from the beginning. Hence the Lord Jesus Christ tells the Pharisees & scribes, in John 8:47 that, "He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." The inspired prophecy obviously did not magically become true only when someone arranged their contents in a single physical tome. Rather, the words of prophecy have always been true and God providentially preserves them to every generation (Matthew 24:35, Psalm 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:23-25). >As it is their beliefs are based on the supposed interpretation of church tradition through the bishops and the Pope, with all its subjectivity. And this part is just as much rebuked by Christ in Mark 7:7-13. The non-Biblical traditionalists stand rebuked by the truth here. They lay aside the commandment of God to turn to traditions of men. This is absolute, rebuking not only the Pharisees of Christ's day, but modern-day equivalents in all the manmade traditions of today which are just as fake as the Pharisaic "oral tradition" that Christ rebuked. Amen.
>>820 >>819 >The rare times when right men are around that system can be at least be serviceable All it ever was was an occasion for men to sin by placing various ordinances of men on a higher platform than the sacred Scriptures. One might be tempted to excuse it as simply a more Christian-like version of government, but in practice it was far more insidious than that, as it called itself an actual church (that is, a state church) and in most medieval time periods (including in Britain until 1688 with the Act of Toleration) it displaced local churches. >it only cares for politics and the world of men in its heart, Yes, which is why it became the only congregation that allowed mass murderers to preside over it, such as many of the caesars, among others. It is all about money and power buying influence in the church, and not about doctrine, except for creating blasphemous and contradictory doctrines (something like forcing people to admit that 2+2=5 or whatever the number some guy made up instead of the real answer) in order to separate and divide itself from the believers who might stay around and rebuke them for their crimes. But the true church of God has censured such individuals, remaining always distinct and pure from them in line with the teachings Paul the Apostle of 1 Corinthians 5, and no state, not even Rome at its highest power, ever managed to wipe us out.
Open file (102.66 KB 1024x768 caesaropapism-l.jpg)
>>820 >The inspired prophecy obviously did not magically become true only when someone arranged their contents in a single physical tome. Rather, the words of prophecy have always been true and God providentially preserves them to every generation (Matthew 24:35, Psalm 12:6-7, Proverbs 30:5, Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:23-25). Yes; the institutionalized churchgoers let their pride lead them and not the Spirit, which is why they frame the canon as a work of their hands, rather than the putting down on paper of what was realized true from the beginning. The canon was by the grace of God already extolled in belief far and wide, the formulation of it was not invention as they consider it, but a reflection, such that heretics would less be able to appeal to false texts to lead others astray. True faith is not a science, that some men assembled in a council and argued and tested this way and that to come up with a fallible conclusion. That is what the latter councils turned into, a farce in which that deplorable structure of episcopal organization enjoined a contest of internal politics, excommunications, or outright executions for one party to become more influential than another. Whereas the earlier of those in majority peaceable and Christian character affirmed what was in extant believed on such things as canon; believed not as a product of a council, but established by the precedent of men prior, those of great faith and dedication that kept what was fundamental in memory throughout trial and persecution. This is antithetical to ritualists, for whom vain works precede grace after a pagan and/or legalistic style. Their religion is powered by emotive aesthetics than essential matters; that isn't to say Christians should not be artistic, but they ought to measure that what they work is for the glory of God and not a guise for vanity. >>821 >All it ever was was an occasion for men to sin by placing various ordinances of men on a higher platform than the sacred Scriptures. One might be tempted to excuse it as simply a more Christian-like version of government, but in practice it was far more insidious than that Amen. The long list of unprincipled men in high ecclesiastical positions shows that despite its lofty assertions episcopacy does nothing to enforce actual regularity in practice, instead opening an avenue for simony and avarice. True titles come of steadfastness in the light, not of sovereign designation. The slyness of the devil knows no bounds; as he deceived in the garden that man could become as God in taking of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, so too did he deceive a great mass of Christians, that in taking of the tree of state patronage they could become as the Kingdom of Heaven. Yet to this day that lie is active, sowing doubt and distrust every which way it goes.
>>814 Wait ‘til you see other atrocities in the popish versions. Let us take a look at Genesis 3:15 for an example: In the Holy Bible (King James Version): > And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. Praise God, Amen! This is true and accurate and also the second prophecy of the coming Savior. Popish version (DoUaY-rHeImS 1899): > I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. This is hersey. Frankly, it’s blasphemy. Mary is not the savior. Never has been, never will be. Just another excuse fabricated by the papist institution to fornicate with their goddess, the “queen of heaven”. The same devil which the children of Israel worshipped in the days of Jeremiah the prophet.
Open file (1.03 MB 1600x1200 kjv.jpg)
If I may share this beautiful picture in this thread.
>>825 Ephesians 3:9 >KJV: which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: >DRV: which hath been hidden from eternity in God, who created all things: 1 John 4:3 >KJV: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: >DRV: And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God: 1 Timothy 3:16 >KJV: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, >DRV: And evidently great is the mystery of godliness, which was manifested in the flesh, Acts 2:30 >KJV: that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; >DRV: that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. 1 Corinthians 15:47 >KJV: The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. >DRV: The first man was of the earth, earthly: the second man, from heaven, heavenly.
>>825 >>827 Amen. This verily shows how pure the Holy Word of God truly is and how desparate the enemy is to wrest God's Word. I thank the Lord who has graciously preserved his Holy Word for us who speak english for more than 400 years! \o/ !
>>828 Indeed. If the Bible was the only heritage that our ancestors could keep pure and complete without error, then I am sure they would be glad to see it in use today. Here is an interesting bit of history from one of the scholars in the 16th century who worked on the Greek manuscripts behind the received text. >Thus in the year 1536 the Faithful of the Valleys of Piedmont, who were always beseiged and horrified by the Romans, and who had never in successive times declined in their piety, or in their doctrine, sent unto Guillaume Faren at Geneva, who was renowned for his doctrine and piety, two characters, one named Jean Girard, who has since been a printer in said city, and the other, called Martin Gonin, who having been imprisoned on his return to Grenoble, was secretly drowned there on 26 of April, to the chagrin of the Inquisitor, after having so resisted the adversaries of truth that they dared not execute it by day. -Theodore Beza, Histoire ecclesiastique des Eglises reformes au Royaume de France (tl. into English), Vol. 1, pp. 38-39. >Now, to return to our history, after the above-mentioned heard the grace that God did in some cities of Germany and Switzerland, they sent there for their part Georges Morel de Freissiniere of Dauphine, a minister whom they themselves had supported at the schools, and one Pierre Masson de Bourgongne, who conferred diligently of all the points of doctrine, both in Basel with John Œcolampade, in Strasbourg with Capito and Martin Bucer, and in Bern with Berthold Haller, prime minister of that Church... and since the year 1535 they have printed at their expense, at Neuchatel in Switzerland, the first printed French Bible of our time, translated from the Hebrew by Pierre Robert Olivétan, with the help of Jean Calvin... -ibid. page 53. This was written in 1580 by the way. Somehow you are not likely to find it in your modern textbooks. I wonder why. Also interesting is that an English translation, the Geneva Bible of 1560 was also made here from these manuscripts. This version was printed in England itself in 1575 and Scotland in 1579. Previous English Bibles has partially relied on translating from Latin or German Bibles as an intermediate for part of the Old Testament, due to Tyndale (the Hebrew scholar) being martyred in 1536 (he finished translating Genesis to 2 Chronicles + Jonah, in addition to the whole New Testament). The 1560 English Bible is very similar to, uses the same sources as and has influenced the Authorized version of 1611. Tyndale's work additionally became the base for another very similar version called the 1568 Bishops' Bible, the second complete translation to use only original language sources. These two competing versions were used by the households and the church of England respectively, receiving updates until 1592 (Bishops') and 1599 (Geneva). In 1604, James VI & I authorized a commission to make a translation that each faction could agree on, and it took influence in its word choice from both of these versions. As a result, the 1611 translation is very similar to both the 1592 and 1599 Bibles, which mainly differed in certain word choices (such as 'presbytery' over 'eldership', or 'church' instead of 'assembly'). The textual variants between these three (1592, 1599, 1611) are very few. After 1611, it is possible to trace the line of editions to the 1900 format, which is for every practical purpose the same translation made readable by formatting, orthography and spelling improvements. If you read the words aloud it would sound the same. Much of this later work was made possible by the early Dictionaries, especially Samuel Johnson's dictionary of 1755, a very comprehensive Dictionary which also used the only Bible in use then, which is the 1611 KJV, as its authority for definitions of words and their proper usage. So we see that the language itself has been influenced by the translation, and for this reason it would be backwards to say that the 1611 translation is incorrect in a word choice. It would only signify that you do not understand how the word is properly used in English, and/or that you are trying to change the meaning of language for some unusual purpose.
>>829 Very interesting read, anon. Thank you for the insight on the history of the Kjv! People love to claim that the kjv is too hard to read or that it is written in old english. But that is not the case at all. The kjv is written in correct english and the reason many love to attack it in such manner is because our generation has been dumbed down by the god of this world to the point where they no longer are able to comprehend correct english. Furthermore, english is not my first language and I understand the kjv perfectly. And you are without excuse, o reader, if you have english as your mother tongue but yet still claim that the kjv is too hard to understand. You have some work to do, friend. That last part wasn’t directed to you, anon, but to those who know that their hearts have been pricked.
>when modernist translators point to the introduction of the KJV as "proof" the authors were not inerrant, missing the fact that them being so humble in producing such a perfect work is a plain sign of their soul's sanctuary from false pride
>>835 This tbh

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?