What is KJO ?

[Rockerduck]

You're wrong. The Geneva Bible was so popular that King James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible and only authorized certain printers to create the KJV. The Geneva Bible was more popular. It wasn't till well into the late 19 century until the KJV became extremely popular. In fact, the Vulgate was extremely popular among Western Christians. Much more widely used than the KJV until the 20th century.

Don't believe every KJVOist website you find. The monarch has controlled the KJV in England it's entirely existence. You have no idea what you're saying. Cambridge and Oxford have long been the authorized editions allowed by the monarchy.

Only in England. Public domain everywhere else. Besides that, the Scotland board has the same authority as the Queens' board. You can just print under the Scottish board for free. Frankly, a perpetual patent is unheard of from 1611. Even after the trickery of buying the Patent holding Printers to extend the patent to 2039. Then its public domain in England.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Only in England. Public domain everywhere else. Besides that, the Scotland board has the same authority as the Queens' board. You can just print under the Scottish board for free. Frankly, a perpetual patent is unheard of from 1611. Even after the trickery of buying the Patent holding Printers to extend the patent to 2039. Then its public domain in England.

That is not what you said earlier....I never said someone couldn't print a KJV in Scotland. Cambridge and Oxford editions are actually different across various printings. So much for perfection. At least you have actually studied the issue a little better now.

There is a reason there are copyrights. Most people are very hypocritical over the subject. They want their own words to be accurately repeated but want to control the words of others.

 

[JD731]

You're wrong. The Geneva Bible was so popular that King James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible and only authorized certain printers to create the KJV. The Geneva Bible was more popular. It wasn't till well into the late 19 century until the KJV became extremely popular. In fact, the Vulgate was extremely popular among Western Christians. Much more widely used than the KJV until the 20th century.

Don't believe every KJVOist website you find. The monarch has controlled the KJV in England it's entirely existence. You have no idea what you're saying. Cambridge and Oxford have long been the authorized editions allowed by the monarchy.

King James did not have more power to influence history than God, IMO. I get the sense sometimes that some commentators thinks God is a bystander and has little power to initiate his own perfect will because of multiple choices provided by powerful men.

The KJV has a history of being used of God in the salvation and instructions of millions, if not billions, over multiple centuries. I cannot see that as being a bad thing and I sure cannot see it as being a ploy by Satan as a tool to withstand God. It could be that God has allowed a multitude of competing never ending translations to test the faithfulness of those who have joined in the faith.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

This is an evil age. Ga 1:4

 

[praise_yeshua]

King James did not have more power to influence history than God, IMO. I get the sense sometimes that some commentators thinks God is a bystander and has little power to initiate his own perfect will because of multiple choices provided by powerful men.

I wonder why God allows the murder of innocent babies in the womb.... I wonder why the guilty overpower the weak. I wonder why pedophiles prosper why Christians are murdered throughout the world....

Your comments ring "hollow". Yes. God "stands by" and allows evil to take place in this world. The evidence is all around us.

The KJV has a history of being used of God in the salvation and instructions of millions, if not billions, over multiple centuries.

The Vulgate was the Bible of choice for over a millenia. Much more so than the KJV. It has many issues as well. The Vulgate dramatically affected the English language itself. You're insistence that the KJV is superior is not established by realty.

I cannot see that as being a bad thing and I sure cannot see it as being a ploy by Satan as a tool to withstand God. It could be that God has allowed a multitude of competing never ending translations to test the faithfulness of those who have joined in the faith.

Maybe. Which maybe your failing because you prefer a inferior English edition of the Scriptures to actually studying the manuscript evidence yourself.

1Co 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.

This is an evil age. Ga 1:4

If you want to talk about evidence, then do so. Appeal the KJV itself to support KJVOism is nothing more than circular reasoning. I was a KJVOist early in life. I soon abandoned it after I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. I've had friends and loved one throughout my life that are KJVOism. I know the subject well. It drove me to know the manuscripts evidence and the canonical processes that define what you read today.

 

[JD731]

I wonder why God allows the murder of innocent babies in the womb.... I wonder why the guilty overpower the weak. I wonder why pedophiles prosper why Christians are murdered throughout the world....

Your comments ring "hollow". Yes. God "stands by" and allows evil to take place in this world. The evidence is all around us.



The Vulgate was the Bible of choice for over a millenia. Much more so than the KJV. It has many issues as well. The Vulgate dramatically affected the English language itself. You're insistence that the KJV is superior is not established by realty.



Maybe. Which maybe your failing because you prefer a inferior English edition of the Scriptures to actually studying the manuscript evidence yourself.



If you want to talk about evidence, then do so. Appeal the KJV itself to support KJVOism is nothing more than circular reasoning. I was a KJVOist early in life. I soon abandoned it after I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. I've had friends and loved one throughout my life that are KJVOism. I know the subject well. It drove me to know the manuscripts evidence and the canonical processes that define what you read today.

You hint one should follow the majority when they are seldom right. Especially when Jesus says the gate is strait and the way narrow and few there be that find it. Then he says many are called but few chosen. He said that to religious people, every one, who were busy keeping the law he gave.

Your last paragraph where you admit that the scriptures are not your final authority concerning the word of God, what it is and where it is and who is really in charge of it. There are a thousand different opinions about manuscript evidence and canonical processes and you are forced into an opinion of what man or group of men to follow. It is kinda like God does not have a voice on this subject so why bother asking him.

I trust you are not this broad minded about all the subjects of the scriptures, that you can express them a hundred different ways, but if you are, or since you are, I am not the one to convince you otherwise.

 

[praise_yeshua]

You hint one should follow the majority when they are seldom right. Especially when Jesus says the gate is strait and the way narrow and few there be that find it. Then he says many are called but few chosen. He said that to religious people, every one, who were busy keeping the law he gave.

Your last paragraph where you admit that the scriptures are not your final authority concerning the word of God, what it is and where it is and who is really in charge of it. There are a thousand different opinions about manuscript evidence and canonical processes and you are forced into an opinion of what man or group of men to follow. It is kinda like God does not have a voice on this subject so why bother asking him.

I trust you are not this broad minded about all the subjects of the scriptures, that you can express them a hundred different ways, but if you are, or since you are, I am not the one to convince you otherwise.

I never made a majority argument. Nor did I give any indication that the Scripture are not authorative. I certainly believe such. However, I have no desire to allow a despot evil tyrant king named James to establish the Scriptures for me. I know the evidence. If you want to discuss the evidence, then do so.

 

[synergy]

I never made a majority argument. Nor did I give any indication that the Scripture are not authorative. I certainly believe such. However, I have no desire to allow a despot evil tyrant king named James to establish the Scriptures for me. I know the evidence. If you want to discuss the evidence, then do so.

Speaking of King James, I still don't understand why a Presbyterian Monarch like himself would shun the Geneva Bible and allow for a more universalist Bible? Aren't Presbyterians and Geneva Calvinists somewhat similar? Why open the flood gates to other Christian denominations? I'm neither Presbyterian nor Calvinist (God forbid!); I'm just curious from a historical point of view.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Speaking of King James, I still don't understand why a Presbyterian Monarch like himself would shun the Geneva Bible and allow for a more universalist Bible? Aren't Presbyterians and Geneva Calvinists somewhat similar? Why open the flood gates to other Christian denominations? I'm neither Presbyterian nor Calvinist (God forbid!); I'm just curious from a historical point of view.

Politics make strange "bedfellows". There were various "figures" during the time of the Reformation in Europe that sought to take advantage of Luther's actions. Henry the '8th" began the Church of England and James expanded the role. James hated the Calvinist position that taught against the doctrine of the "Divine Right of Kings". The Geneva Bible contained some form of the word "Tyranny" in 22 verses. James exserted his power of the Archbishop of Canterbury in the final translation of the KJV. The KJV contained the word tyranny in only 6 verses. All in the disputed books that are no longer included in the 1769 KJV.

For the life of me, I don't honestly know how some Americans can so worship the KJV as they do. King James sought to control the "church of God" throughout the English/British Empire. He believed he alone was the head of the "Church of England". It was all about power. James was the pope of England. Charles the "First" followed in his "footsteps".

The Church of England largely consisted of a ruling class of Anglicans that "supposedly" existed in the Roman province of "Britain" in the 3rd century. They all were struggling for control. Puritans against Puritans. Presbyterian against Presbyterian. Puritans actually assisted in the development of the KJV but they did so (in my opinion) to retain some semblance of "voice" with James.

There are many KJVOists that are extraordinarily fixated on "Rome" in their end time theology..... They really should focus upon how the British Empire through all of these actions have influenced the entire world we live in today. Within their own theology, James and the Church of England have had more impact on end time events then anything "Rome". After all, "Britain" has always had a Roman heritage. It has carried forward in the KJV. There are many many Latin words found in the English language. It is one of the reason you can't soley take the KJV at "face value".

 

[JD731]

I never made a majority argument. Nor did I give any indication that the Scripture are not authorative. I certainly believe such. However, I have no desire to allow a despot evil tyrant king named James to establish the Scriptures for me. I know the evidence. If you want to discuss the evidence, then do so.

You said this:

Maybe. Which maybe your failing because you prefer a inferior English edition of the Scriptures to actually studying the manuscript evidence yourself.

And this:

If you want to talk about evidence, then do so. Appeal the KJV itself to support KJVOism is nothing more than circular reasoning. I was a KJVOist early in life. I soon abandoned it after I was saved by the Lord Jesus Christ. I've had friends and loved one throughout my life that are KJVOism. I know the subject well. It drove me to know the manuscripts evidence and the canonical processes that define what you read today.

In the first quote you suggest the manuscript evidence has more authority than any Bible and my "failure" can be attributed to ignoring the manuscript evidence and relying on the words of my Bible to teach me. If all the researchers who says they are saved agreed on the material then you would have a stronger argument. The fact that some of them are revising their translations and others are making more demonstrates they are not nearly as sure of themselves as you are of them.

Secondly, you think it is circular reasoning to understand Bible doctrine by believing the scriptures without a study of manuscript evidence. I do not know how far you are willing to take that but from your comments I understand what you believe to be the word of God comes from the wisdom of men and how they process less than perfect data, being imperfect themselves.

A question comes to mind from this; how does one revise anothers testimony?

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.



De 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Most Christians, sad to say, have bought into your philosophy concerning the holy Scriptures and are depending on men and their scholarship for their theology. The Spirit is our Lord Jesus mentioned here in another form.

 

[praise_yeshua]

In the first quote you suggest the manuscript evidence has more authority than any Bible and my "failure" can be attributed to ignoring the manuscript evidence and relying on the words of my Bible to teach me. If all the researchers who says they are saved agreed on the material then you would have a stronger argument. The fact that some of them are revising their translations and others are making more demonstrates they are not nearly as sure of themselves as you are of them.

That is a entirely dishonest claim from you. I appealed the manuscripts themselves. I don't care what you standard is. I don't have to accept your standard. Your standard has zero authority.

Secondly, you think it is circular reasoning to understand Bible doctrine by believing the scriptures without a study of manuscript evidence. I do not know how far you are willing to take that but from your comments I understand what you believe to be the word of God comes from the wisdom of men and how they process less than perfect data, being imperfect themselves.

Your wisdom came from "James" and the ArchBishop of Canterbury Richard Bancroft. As always from you, you're judging me by the words of translators. You should know the manuscript evidence and learn real source of the Scriptures. Over and over again, you're appealing to the KJV itself as support the KJV. That is circular reasoning. No doubt about it.

A question comes to mind from this; how does one revise anothers testimony?

1Co 2:1 And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God.

De 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but (in the words) which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.

Most Christians, sad to say, have bought into your philosophy concerning the holy Scriptures and are depending on men and their scholarship for their theology. The Spirit is our Lord Jesus mentioned here in another form.

You're so divorced from reality that you don't realize that you're relying upon the words of the those who published the KJV. They were nothing more than men themselves. Do you actually deny this?

I prefer not to blindly trust men such men.

Jesus never spoke a word of English. Neither did the apostles. Funny how you prefer I accept a flawed late English translation as the "standard" for serving God. You're not honoring the very words of Jesus Christ and the apostles. You're honoring the words of a despot tyrannical king. A king that started persecuting Christians in England to force them to accept the Church of England or flee to America. A task that his son continued. A task that lead to the death of so many Americans in resisting the Britain empire and the demands of their evil kings.

I suppose you don't really care about history do you? How many of your ancestors died fighting these "kings"? How many of your ancestor fought against Roman Brittannia?

 

[JD731]

You missed the point. I quoted duet. 18 to show the prophet, who turned out to be Jesus, came to speak the words of God, not his own words.

De 18:18 I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him.

I figure God gave his words to Jesus in Hebrew since Jesus is a Hebrew and his coming was to the Hebrews only. I think there could be no doubt that Jesus, who spent over 3 years preaching his kingdom is at hand and he is come as the promised King, would speak to his subjects in the official language of the people of the kingdom. It would not make any sense to do otherwise.

44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
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.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

So, when Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, who heard these words in conversations, teaching sessions, and preaching sessions, in the Hebrew language, wrote them in a gentile language, Greek. Why did they do that and were the translated words of the apostles still the words of God in the Greek language?

Consider a conversation Jesus had with a Jewish ruler, a Pharisee, in the city of Jerusalem.

Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and [of] the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
10 Jesus answered and said unto him, Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things?

These words were spoken in a kingdom of God context. They were not spoken in Latin, or Aramaic, or Greek. They were spoken in Hebrew. But they were written by John much later in Greek, after the Jews had rejected their King and his kingdom and they had put their King to death. The generation that rejected him was cursed and God stripped them from the root of the Olive tree and grafted in the gentile tree and established a spiritual kingdom after the King had risen from the dead and had gone to his Father's house to await until his Father had humbled his enemies and after that he would send him to establish his kingdom over those few who were left on the earth at that time, all of them redeemed by the blood of the Lamb, and with Israel speaking Hebrew.

God had prepared the world for this contingency. He had allowed Alexander of Macedon to become great and powerful and to conquer the world and establish the Greek culture with it's language all over the known world in preparation to send the gospel West to gentiles lands where God in his omniscience knew it would be received. The Bible and history both agrees that the gospel has gone West. In instances where it has gone other directions it has been Westerners who have carried it there.

Zep 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.
9 For then will I turn to the people (the people are always Israel) a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

Pure language means that all Israel will speak the same language, Hebrew. When God speaks to his own people Israel in any other language besides Hebrew, it is a sign to them that they are under his judgement.

1Co 14:21 In the law it is written, With men of other tongues and other lips will I speak unto this people (Israel); and yet for all that will they not hear me, saith the Lord.
22 Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not to them that believe, but to them that believe not: but prophesying serveth not for them that believe not, but for them which believe.

In Acts 2 all Israel heard the preacher but it was in many different gentile languages.

In the years leading up to the writing of the KJV God was preparing to move father West to America. Catholicism and Calvinism were choking the truth in Europe and it looks as if God wanted to check the leaven by restricting it until the time when our Lord will return to establish his earthly kingdom. He did this with a better government and with people who would honor him. (I can still remember the days not that long ago in the 60's when it was a huge presidential campaign issue between Nixon and Kennedy that he was a Catholic and trying to become president in America, God forbid)

Just as God translated his words from Hebrew to Greek, he translated it to English and in both cases it remains the word of the Lord and is his words. He did not give us ideas, he gave us words.

I do not need manuscript evidence from an era of apostasy to reason and use logic and to believe the word of God, and I believe I have it in the KJV. It just makes sense.

I know this will probably not make much sense to you because we view the words in our Bibles so differently and define them differently and even have different words so that there can never be unity.

The word of God has ALL the answers and we can believe it.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Up to this point, you've made an argument for the LXX and you don't eve realize it.

In the years leading up to the writing of the KJV God was preparing to move father West to America. Catholicism and Calvinism were choking the truth in Europe and it looks as if God wanted to check the leaven by restricting it until the time when our Lord will return to establish his earthly kingdom. He did this with a better government and with people who would honor him. (I can still remember the days not that long ago in the 60's when it was a huge presidential campaign issue between Nixon and Kennedy that he was a Catholic and trying to become president in America, God forbid)

Just as God translated his words from Hebrew to Greek, he translated it to English and in both cases it remains the word of the Lord and is his words. He did not give us ideas, he gave us words.

I do not need manuscript evidence from an era of apostasy to reason and use logic and to believe the word of God, and I believe I have it in the KJV. It just makes sense.

I know this will probably not make much sense to you because we view the words in our Bibles so differently and define them differently and even have different words so that there can never be unity.

The word of God has ALL the answers and we can believe it.

I know the KJV is wrong. Wrong in many places because your king James sought to control his "church". You know the pope of England still has you under his control.

Pray tell, don't you realize you're making a majority argument with your insistence that English is God's choice?

It is amazing to me how some want to live both in the minority and majority at the same time. Which is it for you?

 

[360watt]

I like the KJV but if we can't understand that there are ways words are being said in it that somehow for today's readers can be counter productive, then I think we're amiss. Even on little things ....example,

The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly. John 10:10 KJV

The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy; I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full. John 10 : 10 NIV

A new person not knowing Elizabethan English would think cometh not means he doesn't come for that reason. So do we really have to do that to people? So updated way words can be used can be fine and perhaps better. Not allowing it can also be considered a hindrance to good spiritual growth, in other words stop making it hard on people.

Another things for the KJO group. Why shouldn't they have said then a few hundred years ago forget even using English! Nope you've go to teach everyone Greek or Hebrew. That is the language it was written in! Why make English speaking people feel they get to define their Bible in their language as the gold standard.

What about all the other languages of the world that the Bible has been translated into?? Nope you've got to stay with the King James! All must learn this Elizabethan English! So has God shown favoritism in giving English speaking people a break....and not all people having different languages? Doesn't that in and of itself make English people look rather like elites or God's special exclusive people. So I really don't think KJO people have thought through on what they're saying.

The KJV has though been translated into other languages right?

 

[Begotten]

The KJV has though been translated into other languages right?

You mean like Swahili? I'm not an expert by no means but it seems like that would be impossible. Because each language uses different words to convey the same idea.

https://www.readwritethink.org/sites/default/files/resources/lesson_images/lesson1031/terms.pdf

 

[koberstein]

Many people have strong and serious objections to the translation methods and textual basis for the new translations and therefore take a strong stance in favor of the King James Version. Others are equally convinced that the newer translations are an improvement over the KJV in their textual basis and translation methodology. GotQuestions.org does not want to limit its ministry to those of the "KJV Only" persuasion. Nor do we want to limit ourselves to those who prefer the NIV, NAS, NKJV, etc. Note - the purpose of this article is not to argue against the use of the King James Version. Rather, the focus of this article is to contend with the idea that the King James Version is the only Bible English speakers should use.

The KJV Only movement claims its loyalty to be to the Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament manuscript compilation completed in the 1500s. To varying degrees, KJV Only advocates argue that God guided Erasmus (the compiler of the Textus Receptus) to come up with a Greek text that is perfectly identical to what was originally written by the biblical authors. However, upon further examination, it can be seen that KJV Only advocates are not loyal to the Textus Receptus, but rather only to the KJV itself. The New Testament of the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, just as the KJV is. Yet, KJV Only advocates label the NKJV just as heretical as they do the NIV, NAS, etc.

Beyond the NKJV, other attempts (such as the KJ21 and MEV) have been made to make minimal updates to the KJV, only "modernizing" the archaic language, while using the exact same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. These attempts are rejected nearly as strongly as the NKJV and the other newer Bible translations. This proves that KJV Only advocates are loyal to the King James Version itself, not to the Textus Receptus. KJV Only advocates have no desire or plan to update the KJV in any way. The KJV certainly contains English that is outdated, archaic, and sometimes confusing to modern English speakers and readers. It would be fairly simple to publish an updated KJV with the archaic words and phrases updated into modern 21st century English. However, any attempt to edit the KJV in any way results in accusations from KJV Only advocates of heresy and perversion of the Word of God.

When the Bible is translated for the first time into a new language today, it is translated into the language that culture speaks and writes today, not the way they spoke and wrote 400 years ago. The same should be true in English. The Bible was written in the common, ordinary language of the people at that time. Bible translations today should be the same. That is why Bible translations must be updated and revised as languages develop and change. The KJV Only movement is very English-focused in its thinking. Why should people who read English be forced to read the Bible in outdated/archaic English, while people of all other languages can read the Bible in modern/current forms of their languages?

Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English. However, none of the modern translations are perfect. Every one contains verses that are at least somewhat mistranslated. By comparing and contrasting several different translations, it is often easier to get a good grasp on what the verse is saying than by only using one translation. Our loyalty should not be to any one English translation, but to the inspired, inerrant Word of God that is communicated by the Holy Spirit through the translations (2 Timothy 3:16-17).got?

hope this helps !!!

I prefer to use my Complete Jewish Study Bible. I believe the KJV strips away some of the Jewishness of the Gospel.

 

[Obadiah]

I prefer to use my Complete Jewish Study Bible. I believe the KJV strips away some of the Jewishness of the Gospel.

The way I look at it is whatever works for you or whichever one you read...go for it!

 

[e v e]

I prefer to use my Complete Jewish Study Bible. I believe the KJV strips away some of the Jewishness of the Gospel.

it's still the corrupt scroll.

 

[e v e]

God did not translate anything - into hebrew or Greek. Nothing was written down until the OT fathers cursed themselves.

The kjv is a continuation of esau's septuagint.

the modern bible = the Sealed Vision.

 

[koberstein]

it's still the corrupt scroll.

On the contrary, it's the most accurate scroll/manuscript from the Hebrew writers.
It shows the Bible through the Jewish lense as it was written.

 

[e v e]

On the contrary, it's the most accurate scroll/manuscript from the Hebrew writers.
It shows the Bible through the Jewish lense as it was written.

sure. But they wrote it, not God and what they wrote is not what He said.