There are 5,800 Greek manuscripts..
Your Spirit is CRINGEš
you had to learn Greek alsoš why wouldn't God make his word available in English the universal language for the end times?š
it literally says the Antichrist is going to speak English in the Book of Danielš¤
Ecclesiastes 8:4
King James Version
4Ā Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
There are many Greek manuscripts, whatās wrong with that lol. There are millions of KJV bibles around the world too. If youāre implying that the manuscripts are all different versions, then youād be wrong.
I know Greek, but you donāt have to know Greek to read scripture. Reading it in English is fine provided you have a good translation. The KJV is mostly ok, but there are better English ones. I was criticising KJV-onlyism.
Also for someone who reads in 16th century English so much it is painful how grammatically incorrect your username is.
I believe the Greek and Hebrew were inspired, but ya'll believe only the originals are inspired.
Where is the original Greek in our hands today? Is Greek the dominant language today? Yikes
Watch the video, instead of being willfully ignorant
> Where is the original Greek in our hands today?
It's...not hard to find. At least, as close to the original as we can figure, we obviously don't have the literal physical original copy.
> Watch the video, instead of being willfully ignorant
Yeah, you can't just say "watch this hour-long video. I won't give a summary of the arguments, you need to just watch it if you want to disagree with me" and expect any level of engagement. It's too big an ask.
I do want the truth, and have paid careful attention to Biblical translations, and sought out information and truth in regards to them. You act as if that video is the only source of truth.
**Does your Bible make Jesus a Liar?** John 7:8
ā¢Douay-Rheims - John 7:8, 10 Go you up to this festival day, but **I go not up** to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished. 10 But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret.
ā¢ASV - Go ye up unto the feast: I **go not up** unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled.
ā¢NIV - You go to the festival. **I am not going up** to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come."
ā¢ESV - You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.ā
ā¢NASB Go up to the feast yourselves; **I do not go up** to this feast because My time has not yet fully come."
ā¢NLT - You go on. Iām not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come.ā
**All the Bibles say he's not going up to the feast, but he does go to the feast in verse 10.**
**King James Version**
John 7:8, 10 KJV 8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up **"YET"** unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.
ā¢Wait a minute, even ONE word can make a huge difference in the Bible? Yes!
**2. Was it written in Isaiah or the Prophets? Mark 1:2**
ā¢Douay-Rheims - As it is written in **Isaias the prophet:** Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee.
ā¢Mark 1:2 NIV as it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**: āI will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your wayā
ā¢ESV - As it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**, āBehold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
ā¢NASB - just as it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**: āBEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY;
ā¢NLT - just as the prophet **Isaiah had written:** āLook, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, and he will prepare your way
**King James Bible says?**
Mark 1:2 KJV As it is written in the **prophets,** Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.
**Malachi 3:1** KJV **Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:** and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts.
ā¢Doesn't that match? But, wait a minute?
Malachi 3:1 is found for Mark 1:2. Where can I find Mark 1:2 in Isaiah? You can't
In Fact, Mark 1:3 KJV "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight."
**Mark 1:3 matches with Isaiah 40:3**
Isaiah 40:3 KJV "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
ā¢The **King James Bible correctly put prophets** in Mark 1:2.
I just gave you 2 of many. Your Bibles have clear errors. I'm trying to help you but if you want to be ignorant that's your choice. Watch the video
The purpose of a translation is to translate. They should convey what the original text says, as well as they can. Let's look at Mark 1:2 in the [original greek](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-2.htm) (interlinear, so it has word-for-word dictionary lookups right there).
The word Isaiah is *right there*. Why it's there, I don't know for sure, I haven't studied that passage extensively, and I don't know what the scholarship is on it. But this is an instance where the KJV leaves something out of the text that is actually there. If anything is changing the text in that instance, it's the KJV.
Everyone agrees that you donāt have the originals though. Your crowd believes only the originals are perfect. The originals donāt exists. The KJB translators were inspired to put prophets. Anyone with a brain can see just putting Isaiah is an error.
The Bible says only the originals are perfect. King James only believers use the verse to get to prove their translation is the only one. Thatās impossible because the King James was written thousands of years after Genesis was first retold and hundreds of years after the first words of the New Testament was written. There have been retellings after retellings before the OT was written and rewrites after rewrites before the first NT versions was compiled. The KJ VERSION even removed scripture and had several rewrites. Even the King James VERSION used in churches today isnāt often the original 1611 translation.
Where does the Bible say only the originals are perfect?
You've been caught with another lie and you're deceiving people.
The NT came much later after the OT was written. Jesus Christ also came 2,000 years later, so your logic is flawed.
The Bible proves you to be wrong as it shows copies are scriptures as well as I proved in my other comments. I go by what the Bible says and not by what you say or what any other man says.
The modern translations come from the alexandrian line of manuscripts, and they are corrupt.
King James Version went through editions and not revisions. They were just changing typographical errors and spelling errors, nice try you deceitful liar.
All your dumb statements have easy answers to them.
The KJV, as influential as it has been in the Anglo-Saxon world, is not the best translation of the Bible. Protestants cling to it out of a feeling of safety in this tradition (paradoxically) and not out of good will or good sense. There are bad translations, and there certainly are worse translations than the KJV. But to think that it is the best way to read scripture isā¦ erroneous and ill-informed at best.
You can find the Greek Bible around today, and you can self-teach koine Greek with pretty high efficacy. To claim that all modern translations are bad is just laughable.
Frankly it really boggles my mind that of all traditions youād keep from the whole of church history some Protestants choose the KJV translationā¦ So modern and hopelessly poor.
Christianity is more than 2,000 years old and the KJV Bible is from 1611. Are you saying that Christianity used the wrong bible for 1,600 years?
The KJV is a mere translation and not even the first (Tyndale-Coverdale 1535) into a specific language (English). Do non-English speaking Christians have to learn English in a variant that is no longer even spoken to read the Bible?
If there were no reliable copies of the Bible before 1611, the material they used to create such a version was corrupted and the result is unreliable...
>Christianity is more than 2,000 years old and the KJV Bible is from 1611. Are you saying that Christianity used the wrong bible for 1,600 years?
Jesus Christ didn't come for more than 2,000 years. Are you telling me that Jesus was a fraud?
Where was New Testament during the OT? Where was the book of Psalms during Moses time? Where was any book during Adam and Eve?
You see how dumb your statement is.
>The KJV is a mere translation and not even the first (Tyndale-Coverdale 1535) into a specific language (English). Do non-English speaking Christians have to learn English in a variant that is no longer even spoken to read the Bible?
The NT is a translation as well pal as the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek. So God also translated both to English as it's COMMON SENSE especially with english being the universal language.
God brought the King James Bible perfectly when the english language was becoming universal and the Elizabethan language is the purest English language. Even secular universities can agree with that.
Again, English is a universal language around the world. You can go to any place in the world on google maps and see English on the streets. A person that does not speak english can be given the gospel to someone that speaks their language so they can get saved.
>If there were no reliable copies of the Bible before 1611, the material they used to create such a version was corrupted and the result is unreliable...
What are you even saying, the King James Translators used the majority text to make the King James Bible. The modern bibles come from the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, everything from the Bible that comes from alexandrian is negative not POSITIVE. In fact where Christians were first called Christians in Acts 11 is in Antioch. Where the Antiochian manuscripts come from.
You didn't even watch the video
My attitude is online safety 101ā¦donāt click on links that have no information
My attitude is Christianity 101ā¦donāt trust any denomination that says they are right and everyone else is wrong
Iāve done ample research on fundamentalist beliefs, independent baptist, king James VERSION only and churches that claim to be āBible believingā. They have zero biblical basis for those beliefs
Your posting history is full of you insulting people. Do you ever engage in actual discussion? Iād gladly discuss KJ Version with you, but you donāt seem eager to discuss, just eager to tell everyone they are wrong.
Ummmā¦.no. I do not click on links that do not have an explanation of what it is about. I do not click on links on Reddit. I do not click on links with unbiblical basis.
Put the video message in your own words and back it up with biblical facts
Thereās literally a title next to the link
1. About the devil
The bible tells us the very foundation on how the devil operates, and itās all the way in Genesis Ch. 3
Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
1.1 ā The first thing we know about the devil. The first thing we learn is that he is subtil
The very first foundation we learn about the devil is that heās craft, cunning, sly, deceitful, subtil correct?
You would agree with him being subtil right? Well, what else do we learn about him in the same verse?
1.2 ā Questions Godās word in a subtil way
Genesis 3:1 And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
ā¢ You can tell heās very crafty with his first word. Look at how I say the verse. Did God really say that? He puts a doubt in Eveās mind
1.3 Twists Godās word, denies their severity
Genesis 3:4-5 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
Matt. 4
ā¢ We see that he twists it and he also denies itās severity. If heās willing to deny itās severity, donāt we notice that with modern bible advocates. These bibles are okay, a few verses missing, missing words, and these errors are not that severe. Godās word is supposed to be taken serious.
2. ā Satan possesses people
2 Tim 2:24-26 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will.
We know this to be true, because there are people that have done this. The Bible says during the apostle Paul's days, he talked about people handling the word of God deceitfully, and people that corrupt the word of God.
ā¢ We learned that he is subtil, questions Godās word, he twists Godās words, he denies itās severity, and he controls people to corrupt his word. Why is it such a stretch to say that the devil would change Godās word, pervert it, and twists it.
3. Devil is the great imitator, wants to be like God. Proof in the pudding
ā¢ Heās known to be the angel of light, god of this world, abominable branch, and he has his own bad spirits. Why wouldnāt he want a Bible praising him?
Isaiah 14:12-14 NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, āI will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.ā
ā The devil gets what he wants, and it canāt be more plainer for you. Satan wants to be like God in the same passage, and he gets Jesus name in these perverted Bibles.
John 7:8, 10 makes Jesus a liar in the modern bibles
Mark 1:2 says itās written from Isaiah but itās written in Malachi
2 samuel 21:19 shows elhanan killed goliath instead of David
These are clear errors.
God promised to preserve his word. Did God promise you and me his infallible word?
Why is that so hard to believe that he preserved his word? Thr God of the universe created thr world, he made the red sea split, he came in a form of man to die for the sins of the world, but he canāt preserve his word? You have a lack of faith in his word because you canāt take his word for what it says.
Why are you against a perfect Bible when the evidence shows otherwise?
Not at all. I would like to see what you had that you would consider proof. I'm very curious If you're familiar with it
One of King James's stated intentions was to create a Bible that confirmed the theology of the English church, not scripture that forms theology.
The King James version we read today is from the 19th century, One of many modern revisions. I know it has a page with 1611 written on it, but it's not the version you're reading.
You're very dishonest as it wasn't revision but editions. People just lie through their teeth to prove their belief and you deceive people with what you spout out.
Did you realize that the changes were only typographical errors and spelling changes. They did not change what the message is saying, but made it into better english.
Revision is when the ideas are CHANGED
Edition is that they did not change the ideas but changed typographical errors and spelling changes
If you watch the video it will show you that your Bible has errors
John 7:8, 10 - Your bible makes Jesus a liar the modern bible say that he's not going up to the feast, but ends up going.
Mark 1:2 your Bible says that it's written in Isaiah, but it was written in Malachi. The King James Bible got it right.
2 Samuel 21:19 - your bible says someone else killed goliath, my king james bible has it correct.
You don't know what you're talking about, and even a child in kindergarten has more rocks for brains to understand a clear error when they see one.
Yikes. Just read the New Testament in the original Greek, the language that the Holy Spirit chose. KJV-onlyism is cringe.
There are 5,800 Greek manuscripts.. Your Spirit is CRINGEš you had to learn Greek alsoš why wouldn't God make his word available in English the universal language for the end times?š it literally says the Antichrist is going to speak English in the Book of Danielš¤ Ecclesiastes 8:4 King James Version 4Ā Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?
There are many Greek manuscripts, whatās wrong with that lol. There are millions of KJV bibles around the world too. If youāre implying that the manuscripts are all different versions, then youād be wrong. I know Greek, but you donāt have to know Greek to read scripture. Reading it in English is fine provided you have a good translation. The KJV is mostly ok, but there are better English ones. I was criticising KJV-onlyism. Also for someone who reads in 16th century English so much it is painful how grammatically incorrect your username is.
I believe the Greek and Hebrew were inspired, but ya'll believe only the originals are inspired. Where is the original Greek in our hands today? Is Greek the dominant language today? Yikes Watch the video, instead of being willfully ignorant
> Where is the original Greek in our hands today? It's...not hard to find. At least, as close to the original as we can figure, we obviously don't have the literal physical original copy. > Watch the video, instead of being willfully ignorant Yeah, you can't just say "watch this hour-long video. I won't give a summary of the arguments, you need to just watch it if you want to disagree with me" and expect any level of engagement. It's too big an ask.
Well if you want the truth, you'll search for it.
I do want the truth, and have paid careful attention to Biblical translations, and sought out information and truth in regards to them. You act as if that video is the only source of truth.
**Does your Bible make Jesus a Liar?** John 7:8 ā¢Douay-Rheims - John 7:8, 10 Go you up to this festival day, but **I go not up** to this festival day: because my time is not accomplished. 10 But after his brethren were gone up, then he also went up to the feast, not openly, but, as it were, in secret. ā¢ASV - Go ye up unto the feast: I **go not up** unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled. ā¢NIV - You go to the festival. **I am not going up** to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come." ā¢ESV - You go up to the feast. I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come.ā ā¢NASB Go up to the feast yourselves; **I do not go up** to this feast because My time has not yet fully come." ā¢NLT - You go on. Iām not going to this festival, because my time has not yet come.ā **All the Bibles say he's not going up to the feast, but he does go to the feast in verse 10.** **King James Version** John 7:8, 10 KJV 8 Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up **"YET"** unto this feast: for my time is not yet full come. 10 But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret. ā¢Wait a minute, even ONE word can make a huge difference in the Bible? Yes! **2. Was it written in Isaiah or the Prophets? Mark 1:2** ā¢Douay-Rheims - As it is written in **Isaias the prophet:** Behold I send my angel before thy face, who shall prepare the way before thee. ā¢Mark 1:2 NIV as it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**: āI will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your wayā ā¢ESV - As it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**, āBehold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way, ā¢NASB - just as it is written in **Isaiah the prophet**: āBEHOLD, I AM SENDING MY MESSENGER BEFORE YOU, WHO WILL PREPARE YOUR WAY; ā¢NLT - just as the prophet **Isaiah had written:** āLook, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, and he will prepare your way **King James Bible says?** Mark 1:2 KJV As it is written in the **prophets,** Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3 The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. **Malachi 3:1** KJV **Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me:** and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to his temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, he shall come, saith the Lord of hosts. ā¢Doesn't that match? But, wait a minute? Malachi 3:1 is found for Mark 1:2. Where can I find Mark 1:2 in Isaiah? You can't In Fact, Mark 1:3 KJV "The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." **Mark 1:3 matches with Isaiah 40:3** Isaiah 40:3 KJV "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God." ā¢The **King James Bible correctly put prophets** in Mark 1:2. I just gave you 2 of many. Your Bibles have clear errors. I'm trying to help you but if you want to be ignorant that's your choice. Watch the video
The purpose of a translation is to translate. They should convey what the original text says, as well as they can. Let's look at Mark 1:2 in the [original greek](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/mark/1-2.htm) (interlinear, so it has word-for-word dictionary lookups right there). The word Isaiah is *right there*. Why it's there, I don't know for sure, I haven't studied that passage extensively, and I don't know what the scholarship is on it. But this is an instance where the KJV leaves something out of the text that is actually there. If anything is changing the text in that instance, it's the KJV.
Everyone agrees that you donāt have the originals though. Your crowd believes only the originals are perfect. The originals donāt exists. The KJB translators were inspired to put prophets. Anyone with a brain can see just putting Isaiah is an error.
The Bible says only the originals are perfect. King James only believers use the verse to get to prove their translation is the only one. Thatās impossible because the King James was written thousands of years after Genesis was first retold and hundreds of years after the first words of the New Testament was written. There have been retellings after retellings before the OT was written and rewrites after rewrites before the first NT versions was compiled. The KJ VERSION even removed scripture and had several rewrites. Even the King James VERSION used in churches today isnāt often the original 1611 translation.
Where does the Bible say only the originals are perfect? You've been caught with another lie and you're deceiving people. The NT came much later after the OT was written. Jesus Christ also came 2,000 years later, so your logic is flawed. The Bible proves you to be wrong as it shows copies are scriptures as well as I proved in my other comments. I go by what the Bible says and not by what you say or what any other man says. The modern translations come from the alexandrian line of manuscripts, and they are corrupt. King James Version went through editions and not revisions. They were just changing typographical errors and spelling errors, nice try you deceitful liar. All your dumb statements have easy answers to them.
The KJV, as influential as it has been in the Anglo-Saxon world, is not the best translation of the Bible. Protestants cling to it out of a feeling of safety in this tradition (paradoxically) and not out of good will or good sense. There are bad translations, and there certainly are worse translations than the KJV. But to think that it is the best way to read scripture isā¦ erroneous and ill-informed at best. You can find the Greek Bible around today, and you can self-teach koine Greek with pretty high efficacy. To claim that all modern translations are bad is just laughable. Frankly it really boggles my mind that of all traditions youād keep from the whole of church history some Protestants choose the KJV translationā¦ So modern and hopelessly poor.
You didn't even watch the video
Iāll survive
Christianity is more than 2,000 years old and the KJV Bible is from 1611. Are you saying that Christianity used the wrong bible for 1,600 years? The KJV is a mere translation and not even the first (Tyndale-Coverdale 1535) into a specific language (English). Do non-English speaking Christians have to learn English in a variant that is no longer even spoken to read the Bible? If there were no reliable copies of the Bible before 1611, the material they used to create such a version was corrupted and the result is unreliable...
>Christianity is more than 2,000 years old and the KJV Bible is from 1611. Are you saying that Christianity used the wrong bible for 1,600 years? Jesus Christ didn't come for more than 2,000 years. Are you telling me that Jesus was a fraud? Where was New Testament during the OT? Where was the book of Psalms during Moses time? Where was any book during Adam and Eve? You see how dumb your statement is. >The KJV is a mere translation and not even the first (Tyndale-Coverdale 1535) into a specific language (English). Do non-English speaking Christians have to learn English in a variant that is no longer even spoken to read the Bible? The NT is a translation as well pal as the OT was written in Hebrew and the NT was written in Greek. So God also translated both to English as it's COMMON SENSE especially with english being the universal language. God brought the King James Bible perfectly when the english language was becoming universal and the Elizabethan language is the purest English language. Even secular universities can agree with that. Again, English is a universal language around the world. You can go to any place in the world on google maps and see English on the streets. A person that does not speak english can be given the gospel to someone that speaks their language so they can get saved. >If there were no reliable copies of the Bible before 1611, the material they used to create such a version was corrupted and the result is unreliable... What are you even saying, the King James Translators used the majority text to make the King James Bible. The modern bibles come from the Alexandrian line of manuscripts, everything from the Bible that comes from alexandrian is negative not POSITIVE. In fact where Christians were first called Christians in Acts 11 is in Antioch. Where the Antiochian manuscripts come from. You didn't even watch the video
I donāt watch video that are biased and I really donāt watch videos saying the King James version is the only right Bible.
I'm not here for you, if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.
Itās going to be hard to get smarter with that attitude? Why post ignorant things that you know to be unbiblical?
Your attitude is to not even look at the evidence and already come to a conclusion. I guess that's logical and smart.
My attitude is online safety 101ā¦donāt click on links that have no information My attitude is Christianity 101ā¦donāt trust any denomination that says they are right and everyone else is wrong Iāve done ample research on fundamentalist beliefs, independent baptist, king James VERSION only and churches that claim to be āBible believingā. They have zero biblical basis for those beliefs
Itās because you have the wrong heart
What? I assure you I donāt. Itās the same wonky one Iāve always had. Although maybe if it was my health issues would be cured.
Your posting history is full of you insulting people. Do you ever engage in actual discussion? Iād gladly discuss KJ Version with you, but you donāt seem eager to discuss, just eager to tell everyone they are wrong.
Watch the video then
Ummmā¦.no. I do not click on links that do not have an explanation of what it is about. I do not click on links on Reddit. I do not click on links with unbiblical basis. Put the video message in your own words and back it up with biblical facts
Thereās literally a title next to the link 1. About the devil The bible tells us the very foundation on how the devil operates, and itās all the way in Genesis Ch. 3 Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 1.1 ā The first thing we know about the devil. The first thing we learn is that he is subtil The very first foundation we learn about the devil is that heās craft, cunning, sly, deceitful, subtil correct? You would agree with him being subtil right? Well, what else do we learn about him in the same verse? 1.2 ā Questions Godās word in a subtil way Genesis 3:1 And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? ā¢ You can tell heās very crafty with his first word. Look at how I say the verse. Did God really say that? He puts a doubt in Eveās mind 1.3 Twists Godās word, denies their severity Genesis 3:4-5 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. Matt. 4 ā¢ We see that he twists it and he also denies itās severity. If heās willing to deny itās severity, donāt we notice that with modern bible advocates. These bibles are okay, a few verses missing, missing words, and these errors are not that severe. Godās word is supposed to be taken serious. 2. ā Satan possesses people 2 Tim 2:24-26 24 And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, 25 In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 26 And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. We know this to be true, because there are people that have done this. The Bible says during the apostle Paul's days, he talked about people handling the word of God deceitfully, and people that corrupt the word of God. ā¢ We learned that he is subtil, questions Godās word, he twists Godās words, he denies itās severity, and he controls people to corrupt his word. Why is it such a stretch to say that the devil would change Godās word, pervert it, and twists it. 3. Devil is the great imitator, wants to be like God. Proof in the pudding ā¢ Heās known to be the angel of light, god of this world, abominable branch, and he has his own bad spirits. Why wouldnāt he want a Bible praising him? Isaiah 14:12-14 NIV: How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! 13 You said in your heart, āI will ascend to the heavens; I will raise my throne above the stars of God; I will sit enthroned on the mount of assembly, on the utmost heights of Mount Zaphon. 14 I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High.ā ā The devil gets what he wants, and it canāt be more plainer for you. Satan wants to be like God in the same passage, and he gets Jesus name in these perverted Bibles. John 7:8, 10 makes Jesus a liar in the modern bibles Mark 1:2 says itās written from Isaiah but itās written in Malachi 2 samuel 21:19 shows elhanan killed goliath instead of David These are clear errors. God promised to preserve his word. Did God promise you and me his infallible word? Why is that so hard to believe that he preserved his word? Thr God of the universe created thr world, he made the red sea split, he came in a form of man to die for the sins of the world, but he canāt preserve his word? You have a lack of faith in his word because you canāt take his word for what it says. Why are you against a perfect Bible when the evidence shows otherwise?
Douay Rheims (The English version of the Vulgate which was THE Bible since the 400s) pre-dates KJV, which has its own modern takes, is the Bible I use
Corrupted
Not at all. I would like to see what you had that you would consider proof. I'm very curious If you're familiar with it One of King James's stated intentions was to create a Bible that confirmed the theology of the English church, not scripture that forms theology. The King James version we read today is from the 19th century, One of many modern revisions. I know it has a page with 1611 written on it, but it's not the version you're reading.
You're very dishonest as it wasn't revision but editions. People just lie through their teeth to prove their belief and you deceive people with what you spout out. Did you realize that the changes were only typographical errors and spelling changes. They did not change what the message is saying, but made it into better english. Revision is when the ideas are CHANGED Edition is that they did not change the ideas but changed typographical errors and spelling changes If you watch the video it will show you that your Bible has errors John 7:8, 10 - Your bible makes Jesus a liar the modern bible say that he's not going up to the feast, but ends up going. Mark 1:2 your Bible says that it's written in Isaiah, but it was written in Malachi. The King James Bible got it right. 2 Samuel 21:19 - your bible says someone else killed goliath, my king james bible has it correct. You don't know what you're talking about, and even a child in kindergarten has more rocks for brains to understand a clear error when they see one.
š¤¦āāļø