[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

I don't see what you're trying to say. The paper is from a Baptist seminary and uses biblical evidence. The church fathers certainly weren't reading the KJV1611. Tertullian of Carthage could very likely still have been reading from the original Greek and Hebrew texts, although he lived after the New Testament was complete. My only argument is that the original texts are the only completely perfect texts. I gather that you didn't even look at the link.

Of course we aren't going to click your Satanic link.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[Jedediah]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

And I gather you have not read my previous post. Otherwise, you would realize that your flaccid arguments will not work here, boy.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Those things would indeed negate the perfection of a Bible translation, but they most definitely do not appear in the KJV. Take your lies elsewhere.

Let's talk about one of those links on the site you posted in regards to a mistranslation. Here is a specific point from http://www.av1611.org/kjv/easter.html in regards to the word "Easter" being mistranslated.

"We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

2. On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
3. On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread are NEVER referred to as the Passover. (It must be remembered that the angel of the Lord passed over Egypt on one night, not seven nights in a row."


Combs writes in his paper,


"Another clear example is found in Acts 12:4,
And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered
him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to
bring him forth to the people.
Again, no one questions that the word translated “Easter” is actually
“Passover” (pavsca) since it is found in all manuscripts and all editions
of the TR. It is used 28 other times in the NT, and in every other instance
the translators of the KJV rendered it “Passover.” In the context of
Acts 12, Herod has just put James to death (v. 2), and when he saw that
it “pleased the Jews,” he proceeded to arrest Peter and kill him also (v.
3). However, because this happened during the Passover season,22
Herod decided to hold him in prison since he did not wish to pollute
the Jewish feast. All of this has nothing to do with Easter, the Christian
celebration of Christ’s resurrection. We are told that “the term Easter
was derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘Eostre,’ the name of the goddess of
spring. In her honor sacrifices were offered at the time of the vernal
equinox. By the 8th cent. the term came to be applied to the anniversary
of Christ’s resurrection.”23 “Easter” in Acts 12:4 is an erroneous translation."


Now, which one is stating from the data of KJV1611?


Combs references Luke 22:1, “Now the feast of unleavened
bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.”


Is this a genuine reference, or is not actually in the KJV1611?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

1 Timothy 6:20-21 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

2 Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


I'm simply using scripture to instruct.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.


I'm simply using scripture to instruct.

Even Satan was able to twist Scripture to his own purposes. That doesn't make him right. Why do you love Satan?

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Even Satan was able to twist Scripture to his own purposes. That doesn't make him right. Why do you love Satan?

Why do you use logical fallacies? Just because I'm pointing out something that is contrary to something you told me automatically makes me a someone who love Satan? I'm using scripture, so I'm twisting it. You're using scripture and it's not twisting in at all. In all of this, you fail to respond to any of the questions that I pose, another logical fallacy.

[Levi Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

A perfect translation would be complete without error in translation or syntax from the original Greek and Hebrew versions of the Bible.

A complete sidestep of the original question. Allow me to repeat myself.

Which translation of the Bible do you consider to be the most correct?

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Why do you use logical fallacies? Just because I'm pointing out something that is contrary to something you told me automatically makes me a someone who love Satan? I'm using scripture, so I'm twisting it. You're using scripture and it's not twisting in at all. In all of this, you fail to respond to any of the questions that I pose, another logical fallacy.

The word "logic" is not in the Bible, and you will not confuse me with this philosophical mumbo-jumbo.

Colossians 2: 8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;

Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

Ephesians 5:6 Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.

2 Thessalonians 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.

1 Timothy 6:5 Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing that gain is godliness: from such withdraw thyself.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 3:11 Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.

1 John 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

[True Disciple]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Brother Latvija, though I am convinced you mean well, you must understand that it is irrevelant what "original manuscripts" say. If the 1611 KJV says "Easter," than God means Easter and not Passover.

We know the 1611 KJV is infallible, while the other versions, even the supposed "originals," are not. How do we know that?

Now we are entering the area where simple logic guides us, by using our God-given brain.

God wants people to hear His True Message(tm). To convey His Message, He wrote the Bible.

However, there are thousands of Bible Versions right now, many of which convey opposite messages. How can that be? Obviously only one of them can be correct. How can we know than which one is correct?

We know that God wants His Message(tm) to reach as many ears as possible. Therefore, we can asume that He used the most read version of the Bible, which is the KJV, as the success rate would then be highest.

Using this simple logic, we have proven beyond reasonable doubt that the KJV is the only True Version. The "original manuscripts" are not relevant here.

Do you understand this?

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

A complete sidestep of the original question. Allow me to repeat myself.

Which translation of the Bible do you consider to be the most correct?

I've never once said that the KJV1611 is not the "most correct" English version of the Bible. I've simply pointed out that many biblical scholars have found translation errors within the text. I'm sure you know very well that the KJV has changed since the 1611 version, but I don't believe that is relevant because LBC is faithful to the 1611 version. Mind you, of the two that were published in 1611, I haven't found which one you're faithful to. I have noticed that LBC uses the newer publications of the KJV fairly liberally when quoting scripture. Apparently the spelling from 1611 doesn't quite register with everyone. To directly answer your question. I do believe that the KJV is the most correct English version of the Bible, but I think there is significant evidence to prove that it's not completely infallible.

Brother Latvija, though I am convinced you mean well,

Thank you for not immediately condemning me as someone who loves Satan without cause. As a fellow brother, I'm simply seeking understanding of points I find troubling.

We know the 1611 KJV is infallible, while the other versions, even the supposed "originals," are not. How do we know that?

I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that the words that were originally inspired by God are not infallible? This seems like a contradiction to the word of God himself.

God wants people to hear His True Message™. To convey His Message, He wrote the Bible.

I agree with this. God did inspire the authors of the Bible to write what they wrote. However, the original Bible was not the KJV1611. It came over many years after the completion of the New Testament. Are you suggesting that God's True Message™ did not exist until 1611? Are you suggesting that there were no True Christians until after the KJV was translated into English?

However, there are thousands of Bible Versions right now, many of which convey opposite messages. How can that be? Obviously only one of them can be correct. How can we know than which one is correct?

We know that God wants His Message™ to reach as many ears as possible. Therefore, we can asume that He used the most read version of the Bible, which is the KJV, as the success rate would then be highest.

Since God wants His message to reach as many ears as possible, why would He not use as many versions of the Bible as possible to reach as many people as possible? Why does there have to be only one correct version. The Bible is Holy, but the Bible is not in itself God. I'm seeking understanding. I'm not trying to offend anyone or be an enemy of God. I'm just seeking the truth.

[Meek and Humble]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

I've never once said that the KJV1611 is not the "most correct" English version of the Bible. I've simply pointed out that many biblical scholars have found translation errors within the text. I'm sure you know very well that the KJV has changed since the 1611 version, but I don't believe that is relevant because LBC is faithful to the 1611 version. Mind you, of the two that were published in 1611, I haven't found which one you're faithful to. I have noticed that LBC uses the newer publications of the KJV fairly liberally when quoting scripture. Apparently the spelling from 1611 doesn't quite register with everyone. To directly answer your question. I do believe that the KJV is the most correct English version of the Bible, but I think there is significant evidence to prove that it's not completely infallible.

You keep saying there is "significant evidence" and yet you produce none. You are just here to cause discord and stir up trouble with innocent souls in order to damn them to hell. The KJV1611 is perfect, and every other English translation was directed by Satan himself, and contains contradiction and blasphemy! Why do you want to lead people away from the truth?

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

I've never once said that the KJV1611 is not the "most correct" English version of the Bible. I've simply pointed out that many biblical scholars have found translation errors within the text. I'm sure you know very well that the KJV has changed since the 1611 version, but I don't believe that is relevant because LBC is faithful to the 1611 version. Mind you, of the two that were published in 1611, I haven't found which one you're faithful to. I have noticed that LBC uses the newer publications of the KJV fairly liberally when quoting scripture. Apparently the spelling from 1611 doesn't quite register with everyone. To directly answer your question. I do believe that the KJV is the most correct English version of the Bible, but I think there is significant evidence to prove that it's not completely infallible.



Thank you for not immediately condemning me as someone who loves Satan without cause. As a fellow brother, I'm simply seeking understanding of points I find troubling.

I don't understand what you mean. Are you suggesting that the words that were originally inspired by God are not infallible? This seems like a contradiction to the word of God himself.


I agree with this. God did inspire the authors of the Bible to write what they wrote. However, the original Bible was not the KJV1611. It came over many years after the completion of the New Testament. Are you suggesting that God's True Message™ did not exist until 1611? Are you suggesting that there were no True Christians until after the KJV was translated into English?

Since God wants His message to reach as many ears as possible, why would He not use as many versions of the Bible as possible to reach as many people as possible? Why does there have to be only one correct version. The Bible is Holy, but the Bible is not in itself God. I'm seeking understanding. I'm not trying to offend anyone or be an enemy of God. I'm just seeking the truth.

Please read my sermon on the subject of how we can tell which Bible is the One True Word of God HERE.

I am certain that it will open your eyes to the Truth(r).

[Robert Jones]

Re: I like this one, but I'm not sure i have it right.

Please read my sermon on the subject of how we can tell which Bible is the One True Word of God HERE.

I am certain that it will open your eyes to the Truth®.

I read your sermon. It's very enlightening. I've included a link to a website dedicated to the kjvo debate. I don't see how you could see this site as evil as Will Kinney (maybe the name sounds familiar) frequents the discussion.

http://kjvodebate.wordpress.com/