What is KJO ?

[e v e]

They ignored God, cursed themselves, went into captivity, got scattered, and in that state of not understanding a thing, wrote.

 

[e v e]

God was no longer talking to them
making what they wrote down vulnerable to corruption.

 

[koberstein]

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

Really? So all the prophets, Moses, emissaries, sages are compulsive liars?
If what you say is true why do you read it?

 

[e v e]

Really? So all the prophets, Moses, emissaries, sages are compulsive liars?
If what you say is true why do you read it?

you rephrased what I said. what you posted here in your reply is not what I said.

 

[e v e]

you rephrased what I said. what you posted here in your reply is not what I said.

The events are not synonymous to how scribes wrote down their version of the events.

 

[koberstein]

The events are not synonymous to how scribes wrote down their version of the events.

How so?

 

[L.A.M.B.]

I believe THIS to be true.....

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Personally I prefer the KJV but am not an onlyist.
I like Shakespearean archaic language....and foreign films with English subtitles......, but that's just me !

 

[TomL]

I believe THIS to be true.....

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

Personally I prefer the KJV but am not an onlyist.
I like Shakespearean archaic language....and foreign films with English subtitles......, but that's just me !

I use the KJV quite a bit because my bible notes were originally keyed to it

 

[Grace ambassador]

Precious friends, if anyone is interested, there will be a debate on "the originality
of 'The Comma Johanneum' in 1 John 5:7" AV tonight 8 EST 7 CST:

 

[Believe]

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 !!!

Excellent OP. My study bible is a New King James, It doesn't have all the old English, like unto, thou, whence, comest, fro, hast, and the ending certain words with -eth, like feareth, and escheweth.

 

[koberstein]

Excellent OP. My study bible is a New King James, It doesn't have all the old English, like unto, thou, whence, comest, fro, hast, and the ending certain words with -eth, like feareth, and escheweth.

I use the Messianic Jewish Version, because the KJV strips the Jewishness from the Gospel.

 

[Obadiah]

I use the Messianic Jewish Version, because the KJV strips the Jewishness from the Gospel.

I'll have to check that version out.

 

[koberstein]

I'll have to check that version out.

The Tree of Life is also a good Messianic Bible.

 

[360watt]

The Tree of Life is also a good Messianic Bible.

I've seen a number of messianic Jewish people post in another site and encountered a troubling thing.

Many of them were lowering Jesus' deity, so He was like a lesser God. They were interpreting 'the Father is greater than I' as inferiority..rather than positional difference and subjection.

They were also still trying to follow the OT laws, but saying Jesus was about those laws.

I understand when you are free in Christ, you can still do traditions like the feasts. These feasts even have direct relation to Jesus as shadows and types in there. But these guys were hooking law following onto salvation even though proclaiming Jesus as Messiah. They weren't freed from the Law.

Your thoughts?

 

[e v e]

I've seen a number of messianic Jewish people post in another site and encountered a troubling thing.

Many of them were lowering Jesus' deity, so He was like a lesser God. They were interpreting 'the Father is greater than I' as inferiority..rather than positional difference and subjection.

They were also still trying to follow the OT laws, but saying Jesus was about those laws.

I understand when you are free in Christ, you can still do traditions like the feasts. These feasts even have direct relation to Jesus as shadows and types in there. But these guys were hooking law following onto salvation even though proclaiming Jesus as Messiah. They weren't freed from the Law.

Your thoughts?

Christ is a title Jesus Christ has, as Son of God, referring to His anointing in God's spirit...
Every one of God's sons, the 144k, will be anointed of His Spirit and be with Christ on the clouds..
All the sons, will rule with Christ and with Christ, rebuild eden paradise...

As opposed to the nature (physicality of this world) here, in these fleshbodies,
the sons will be given their glorified, Eden body, lost after the fall...
and as such will be in His nature (the physicality of His realm, created for us
in Eden...)

Like Jesus ascended to God, all the sons of Him, as remnant will ascend to God,
and have Their transfiguration at rapture...

and with Christ, all the sons and daughters, after the sons rebuild eden paradise, as His New earth,
will return to this earth, with Christ, and as the two witnesses, male and female Originals,
to witness to the many of Jacob left behind..

Jesus is servant of God, just as will be all the sons restored to their Original Nature
in God's creation He declared Good before the fall.

 

[e v e]

Christ is our deity, just as all the sons will be restored to their Deity
and worship God at His throne...

Deity in this sense, refers to the type of nature of Him... His Nature..
in which His Spirit and Son abide with the Father.

 

[e v e]

where, here on this fallen earth, the 'nature' is perishing, Death...
-- even.... the nature here is Depraved --
it is decay, illness, toil and all the ugly things God warned Adam of...
the Nature here does not Love or care nor praises God..
it is a material soulless nature where any poor soul gets ill,
dies, is harmed by a wild animal... that is the fallen situation,
caused to ALL souls because of adam.

 

[e v e]

and this very body is and has that depraved nature...
and its needs and wants, as flesh, war with God.

it is a foreign nature... Not God's nature.

 

[David 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 the Complete Jewish Bible and the Tree of Life version.

 

[Studyman]

Exactly. People can use the KJ and only that if they like....but to come across as God gave the KJV as some type of unique revelation without question and people from other language cultures wanting to have the equivalent in their languages well they're out of luck.....God only cares about English speaking people I think that really is being rather pretentious, and full of pride.

In seeking God's Truth, it seems prudent to consider several translations. I think God is perfectly capable of revealing His Truth to anyone truly seeking it.

However, seeking translations for the purpose of justifying an adopted religious tradition or philosophy, I think this would be problematic. Personally, I don't place as much trust in this world's New Age or Progressive translations like the NIV, NRSV, as I do in the older translations, like KJV, Douay–Rheims, Tyndale, etc.

One of my favorite study Bibles though, is a newer translation called the CLV, (Concordant Literal Version). I highly recommend it.

But my KJV Bible, is the one I read every day.