The KJV is the only true English version of the Bible

The King James Version is the only worthy version of any English translation of the scriptures. Prove me wrong. You can't.

Attached: 51aD5USIDWL.jpg (500x375, 41.59K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Prove yourself right. You can't.

Attached: spiritual-blindness.jpg (402x600, 26.19K)


good thing im not native english

The KJV is basically an edited version of William Tyndale's translation. William Tyndale was a heretic and therefore the KJV can't be inspired.

KJV-onlyists on suicide watch

Attached: 73E54D1F-855D-4B9D-AF98-B244DAABEBA4.jpeg (244x320 2.19 MB, 36.87K)


The only merit the KJV has is literary. In addition to Shakespeare it's pretty much the foundation of all subsequent English literature.

I disagree, even though I find KJV fundamentalists absurd. In most places, it does a better job of representing the original scriptures than contemporary translations. I've never proselytized in an inner city or to anyone who's primary language isn't English, though, so your mileage may vary.

I just find it weird how Pastor Anderson manages to churn out these very slick movies. It's as if the arguments themselves don't hold up any weight, so they have to wrap it in a slick Hollywood-style movie production to lend support to their argument.


And? I did say "most" and this is exactly the reason I find KJV fundamentalists absurd. There isn't an English translation in existence that doesn't contain something that conflicts with some denomination's doctrine. Is there an English version you suggest that should be used in its place?

Douay-Rheims is the best English Bible translation.

That site has the Latin Vulgate (Clementine), as well.

Revised Standard Version is objectively the best tbqh ladfam.

Attached: 1494455837933.png (1000x800, 285.11K)

RSVCE is nice

Why does the KJV mistranslate "arsenokoitai" as "abusers of themselves with mankind" in 1 Cor 6:9 and 1 Tim 1:10?

The King James Version is King in terms of poetic language. The modern translations don't only eliminate "thee" and "thou," but they also obliterate any poetic and literary language that gives the words the seeming of song.

This is another scripture in particular where the KJV has issues. The original Greek Cor 6:9 specifies not only sodomites (arsenkoitai) but also the effeminate (malakoi). I can only assume that the KJV translators were unfamiliar with the phenomenon of dudes trying to look like ladies. But the original scripture is more relevant now than ever given the explosion in effete girly dudes we've seen in our time.

Some of them also have serious issues with real information loss by loosing a lot of the nuance that modern reductionist English isn't capable of.

That's an excellent way of wording that. Stealing it.

It's a present-passive participle so there's no excuse for translating it like that. The KJV is not without bias.

>The King James Version is the only worthy version of any English translation
Proverbs 6:16-19 ESV
There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers.

Attached: Boo this man!.gif (350x233, 1.47M)

There are no Bible """translations""". There is just the Bible (MSG) and a bunch of fraudulent new world order trans-lie-lations.

Attached: MSG Onlyism.jpg (244x320, 55.57K)

Attached: 1375362473593.jpg (188x153, 15.04K)

That argument really doesn't work on a board about objective truth and spiritual morality.

Or a God that does not wants you to enjoy thinks that don't praise or glorify him, like 99% of everything ever made.

Which is perfectly represented in that picture.

God wants you to enjoy things that are good for you, such as Family, work, love, and life.

Attached: 90916858692fa63f27e400ddbdfb92f184373aa6e3a8f2a06425f63a3806f455.jpg (720x767, 34.71K)

The French Louis Ségond does the same thing and an Evangelical used it to argue with me about once saved always saved.

Good thing the translators predicted shitposts like this and wrote the frontispiece about it.

Attached: he cute.png (244x245, 64.21K)

Checks out.


King James was also a closet homo.

Which is a LIE.
Nothing more than pure gossip out of jealously.

Why do you sodomites always have to project your degeneracy on good people?
besides, only REAL christians know King James was pic related

Attached: ff354c980a7b7de8ef114621867df80c.jpg (644x960, 153.58K)

Our Version, which art on Pulpits,
Hallowed be thy Font.
Thy King James come, Thy Word be done
In black as it is in red-lettering
Give us this day our daily verse,
And forgive us our misinterpretations,
As we forgive those who misinterpret against us,
And lead us not into mistranslations,
But deliver us from typos.

For thine is the print, the King James and the Only, forever and ever.


Russian Synodal bible best bible

Wait, where did you get this definition? From a modern concordance?

The Greek verb σωζομενοις is the present passive participle, which is an ongoing passive action. In English, an ongoing passive act can be expressed as either “are being + (past participle)” or “are + (past participle)”.

For example, the declaration "The eggs are stored in the fridge" is equivalent to the declaration "The eggs are being stored in the fridge." In both cases, the eggs are within the fridge in the current moment. You can replace the eggs and fridge and the verb with anything else, this is just an example.

It must be noted however, in specific, the phrase "are being saved" is needlessly wordy since "are saved" denotes the same meaning. Furthermore, "are being saved" has an unintended connotation of an ongoing but incomplete process. This connotation is not found in the original.

1 Corinthians 1:18 (KJV)
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Acts 2:47 (KJV)
Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved.

No. From Lev. 20:13 in the Septuagint, which Paul was quoting.
>καὶ ὃς ἂν κοιμηθῇ μετὰ ἄρσενος κοίτην γυναικός βδέλυγμα ἐποίησαν ἀμφότεροι θανατούσθωσαν ἔνοχοί εἰσιν

Unless you're going to say Lev. 20:13 isn't about homosexuals, I don't see any way around this.

Leviticus wasn't originally written in Greek.

Was he though? It looks to me like it might be the other way around.

No kidding. But the New Testament was, and Paul especially, when citing the OT, quotes the Septuagint

This would be impossible, as the Septuagint was translated before Paul was born. He absolutely knew about it and quoted it, either directly or from memory.

There was a translation of just the Pentateuch into Greek in earlier times, the rest of the work does not predate Origen. This fact is seldom mentioned.

So what in particular makes you think that Origen's version, which we have, was the same? I have direct reason to believe the New Testament influenced the Septuagint of Origen, and therefore, Paul's work and any other part of the New Testament could be back-translated just as easily into it, since the NT was already in Greek.

Is Leviticus not in the Pentateuch?

Origen's Hexapla is not the LLX. Extant fragments of Origen's work have the Hebrew, a a Greek transliteration, the translation of Aquila of Sinope into Greek (2nd century)
the translation of Symmachus the Ebionite into Greek (late 2nd century), the a recision of the Septuagint, and the translation of Theodotion into Greek (the middle of the 2nd century).

But we're not talking about Origen. We're talking about Paul quoting the Septuagint.

Though I suppose you're right, I am being loose with my use of "Septuagint".

Yes it is. But the version in question here is Origen's rescension, which everyone just assumes is the same thing as what the historians talk about because it claims the same name.

The geneologies in Origen's version LXX were altered to include Cainan from Luke 3. And the 70 persons from Genesis 46 was erroneously and roughshod altered to 75 persons in order to match Acts 7:14 (yet Origen didn't change Deuteronomy 10:22).

No. Origen's work is irrelevant, as it was completed after Paul's writing, even by your own admission. Your argument seems to be going towards "we don't have an extant copy of the LLX from the the second century BCE, therefore Paul couldn't have quoted it" which is nonsense.

The Greek quote you gave originates from the Septuagint of Origen though. So why quote it? It has been altered to match the New Testament in several places.

No, see, the original quote originates with the Apostles. And Origen took them and put them in his translation of the Old Testament. When it was originally just a paraphrase, he took that opportunity to make his translation seem more legitimate.

Is there another Septuagint that predates Origen that differs from it? Or are you going to argue that all extant copies of the Septuagint that post-date Origen are corrupted by Origen?

I do not dispute that Origen attempted to clear up copyists’ errors that had crept into the text of the Septuagint, which by then varied widely from copy to copy. But I see no reason to believe this was done here, nor any reason to discredit all NT quotes of the Septuagint because of Origen.

It means you can't really cite a document that was influenced by the NT to prove something about it.

As it stands, the earliest occurrences of that term is its place in the context of 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy chapter 1. And so we cannot use it to build a case for sodomites. As much as some of us would apparently like to and be tempted to.

The second picture proves without question how shitty translation KJV is. Lucifer LITERALLY means morning star.

It means "shining one" in English and it's a proper name.

There is no connection to a star or the celestial in that name, either in Hebrew or in English.

This would mean something if you could prove Origen actually changed this verse and every other verse referring to homosexuality or if you could prove every manuscript became corrupt as a result.

the word at issue is "arsenokoitai" it is a compound word.
"Arseno" is Greek for "man"
"Koitai" means "bed." The word has a sexual connotation to it, and It is from this word where we get the English word "coitus". A related verb, "koiten" means lay. So the word "koitai" can fairly be translated as "a place to lay" as well.
Paul joined these two root words together into a compound masculine participle which can only mean “men who lay with men.”

Even if you don't accept that Paul was citing the Septuagint, this neologism of Paul seems to be a Greek translation of the Hebrew miškab zakûr used in rabbinic texts based on Lev 20:13, i.e., “lying with a man as with a woman." See also Lev. 18:22; Numbers 31:17-18; and Judges 21:11.

So, when Paul (a Pharisee of Pharisees who had committed the Old Testament to memory) puts “arsen” & “koiten” together to create the word “arsenokoites”, the Jews would have understood what he was getting at.

Further, Ancient use of the word seems to support the modern understanding of "arsenokoitai" as homosexual. For example, Aristedes Apology 13 uses the word in the context of list of sins, without definition. This suggests the word was understood at the time by the earliest readers of Paul's epistles. These references by early Christians who also condemned homosexuality as a sin but never claim homosexuals can't be saved add context to our understanding of the word. Other usage of the word are found in Sibylline Oracles 2:70-78, the Epistle of Ignatius to the Tarsians (which is a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9 and predates Origen), The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians [again, a citation of 1 Cor. 6:9 predating Origen], the Acts of John 36 (contemporaneous with Origen), Clement of Alexandria’s Instructor 3.11 [again, citation of 1 Cor. 6:9 and contemporaneous with Origen). There is no misunderstanding between them of what Paul was saying, most likely because they all either understood intuitively that Paul was referring to homosexuals or the scripture he was citing, LLX or otherwise.

Whatever "arsenokoitai" means, "abusers of themselves with mankind" is not a fair translation. The etymology supports the rendering of the word as "homosexual", the OT text supports the rendering as "homosexual" and the ancient witness support the rendering as "homosexual".

It means literally "man bedding." There is no implication that the person doing such is male themselves. And the fact is, this word only occurs in two lists, and none of the terminology is related to any of the related passages that do deal with sodomy as such. So to simply change the definition to what is desired is not intellectually honest, and the translators knew that, hence this translation.

Now to go more into what is known from the context here, looking beyond the word itself, its appearance next to adulterers and effeminate in one list, and between whoremongers and menstealers in the other would definitely suggest a commonality in sexual trafficking, as all these are related to such illicit acts. The best way to honestly describe those who abuse themselves would be those who are prostituting their own body, and this fits very well into the context without contradicting all the other scriptures we have in the Bible.

Why? There is no basis to relate this one particular word to any other scripture regarding sodomy.

Also, "androkoites" was the word in wide use for homosexual at that time, but Paul declined its use. Why then bypass this instance, and think yourself wiser than the author of the words? And all for what? just to benefit the sodomites?

despite knowing exactly what Romans 1:24-2:2 (KJV) says? I guess they're paying you well.

>claim the version you use is divine and perfect despite all of the errors that are the results of (((noses))) failing to maintain scripture

Don't do this, please…

Attached: 1525412303022.png (512x494, 129.7K)

I don't have to, you're winnie the pooh retarded.

You are making the claim, therefore you have to back it up, and you can't just expect us to 'prove you wrong.'

Do you realize that there are translations of Psalm specifically for singing?


Is Biblical infallibility even supported by the bible?

Psalm 12:6-7
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.

Proverbs 30:5-6
Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

John 10:35-36
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psalm 138:2
I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

John 12:48
He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

Can't anybody define what is scripture, or not who bestows authority, and if it was God who validates Devine authority. I think the final word might be Christ, what was his Canon?

Consider what the word of God says, and consider what the Lord Jesus Christ said to the unbelieving Pharisees.

John 10:45-47
And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not.
Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me?
He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

1 John 5
He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

Sorry that should be the Gospel of John chapter 8, I was planning to use 10 but changed my mind.

Okay so what books of the bible did Jesus read? And which did he not?

Jesus actually authored all of it, all 66 books.

Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Psalm 119:160
Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.

Your count is off by about 7.

That probably isn't true, and that scripture is unrelated.

Extra unicornus nulla salus


It is related in 2 Peter 1 that holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. And in 2 Timothy chapter 3 it is related that all scripture is given by inspiration of God. That makes God the author and originator.

So, are you denying the Trinity or the divinity of Christ? or perhaps just selectively this one part of God's word?

What is all of scripture, I read it, he just sayed scripture, what was the scripture? What defines legitimit scripture?

They that are of God hear God's words. The word of God works effectually in them that believe.

So then if you are not of God and don't believe, then you will never know what is legitimate. You can only look for other people to try to tell you, but will not understand yourself.

Well god just told me that your canon is not accurate, what? Are you saying God is wrong * sniffs * smh, what ever bud. The crux of my opinion towards scripture, and it's legitimacy is what agrees with the philosophy of Christ. Soooo, what can we assume to be the canon of Christ? This not some kind of bullshit feeling, or divine revelation I am talking about, those can disregarded. I am asking what was scripture to Jesus, Christ, Son, Of God!

Also, you sound like a larper, and it is really winnie the pooh pretentious.

Attached: 797d48e320ae2ba8c8c14c9d8ffb606ab8dfb8f777e54ea7ed11267e3ace4992.png (410x500, 384.42K)

Not everyone is telling the truth.

Okay, tell me the truth, how do we define what is legitimate scripture?

Buddy, the only way you're going to understand is if you believe it first. That's what I've been trying to explain this whole time, that's what the previous scripture explains. It's not simply a matter of someone telling you and you just go with what they said. It simply doesn't work that way. I could easily just tell you it's the 66 books of the Bible in one post and leave the thread, but that will never stand in for understanding that fact for yourself not on the basis of someone telling you. You could ask and I could answer you all day, yet your understanding wouldn't increase, if you still don't believe the word of God. You don't really need me, you just need to believe on the word of God.

What, was, the, scripture, according, to, jesus?

That's still like really bad. If you want to brag about how accurate your Bible is then stop being lazy and learn Koine Greek.

dem whiteboys steal everything..

Attached: 21584882_10213923249224899_310612808_n.jpg (782x960, 92.31K)

Attached: 2018_05_20_031036.png (600x528, 373.64K)

even pic related is smart enough to use that one

in all seriousness though try to find the Septuagint for the old testament if you wanna see what the Apostles used. pretty good translation based on OG king James here: (
KJV New testament pretty good actually from my Orthocuck prospective actually.

Attached: 1401958756142.jpg (500x500, 55.32K)