• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

King James Only movement

soylentgreen said:
I prefer gideons myself. the paper is much more absorbent while the glossy paper of a king james just does not work as well when also used as toilet paper.
Click to expand...
Ewwww, do you know how many people have touched those pages? And then you wipe your butt with it... 😱
 
Rumpel said:
It was not before today that I heard of this:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement


I still can hardly believe that adult people can believe such nonsense.
Click to expand...
Why would you be surprised? This is just another attempt at one religion or sect trying to outlaw any other religious belief that they might disagree with. The Shia and Sunnis have been doing it for 1500 years and protestants and Catholics have been warring ever since Martin Luther redecorated the front door of the cathedral in Wittenburg. There are some people who never learn from the past.

If they didnt manage to ban the catholic and Eastern Orathdfox religions then the various protestant sects would only start to fight among themselves for religious supremacy. This is why we have the strict separation of church and state to keep them from using the government as a weapon in their desire to create a theocracy to attack the religious and secular rights of everyone else.
 
Rumpel said:
I am surprised because of the sheer stupidity of the idea.

I have met several kinds of stupid people in my life - but not quite this degree.
Click to expand...
Extreme religious beliefs often create this level of stupidity because extreme beliefs are an anathema to logical and rational thought. I know more than a few people personally who would support this.

If you question them on their illogical and often violent ideas they will proclaim that they prayed about it and their god demands that they act in this way so they must be obedient to his commands. It's not a sin because they prayed and their god told them to do it.
 
Rumpel said:
Well, it is always fine to see that the tastes differ from person to person :)
Click to expand...

Tastes? You eat it? Please tell me you don't do that AFTER using it as TP.
 
Well, even more eloquent proof that Christianity cannot seem to agree on things.

Let it sink in, that the King James version is the "greatest English translation."
 
Tlrmln said:
Tastes? You eat it? Please tell me you don't do that AFTER using it as TP.
Click to expand...

Did you not notice that used your own words and entered into your own joke?
It seems you understand only those "jokes" that you make yourself.
And bad and revolting enough they are.
I will never waste any time with you.
IGNO from now on.
 
Lisa said:
Extreme religious beliefs often create this level of stupidity because extreme beliefs are an anathema to logical and rational thought. I know more than a few people personally who would support this.

If you question them on their illogical and often violent ideas they will proclaim that they prayed about it and their god demands that they act in this way so they must be obedient to his commands. It's not a sin because they prayed and their god told them to do it.
Click to expand...


So it is, so it is.
 
Lisa said:
Why would you be surprised? This is just another attempt at one religion or sect trying to outlaw any other religious belief that they might disagree with. The Shia and Sunnis have been doing it for 1500 years and protestants and Catholics have been warring ever since Martin Luther redecorated the front door of the cathedral in Wittenburg. There are some people who never learn from the past.

If they didnt manage to ban the catholic and Eastern Orathdfox religions then the various protestant sects would only start to fight among themselves for religious supremacy. This is why we have the strict separation of church and state to keep them from using the government as a weapon in their desire to create a theocracy to attack the religious and secular rights of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Lisa, you don't know hog jowls from horse shit. People just like the way the KJV reads because it is very poetic when read aloud.
 
it's just me said:
Lisa, you don't know hog jowls from horse shit. People just like the way the KJV reads because it is very poetic when read aloud.
Click to expand...
Yeah, forget about being able to understand it...just as long as it sounds pretty, who cares...
 
Can a generous soul explain to me what spiritual benefit I will gain if I only refer to the KJV? (I recently got a lovely copy BTW. 1909 with leather covers. Quite elegant. I must say it feels more Bible-ish).
 
it's just me said:
Lisa, you don't know hog jowls from horse shit. People just like the way the KJV reads because it is very poetic when read aloud.
Click to expand...
They cant like whatever they want but they cannot ban other versions or try to force people to obey their religious beliefs, either as a religion or secular law.

You can worship a rusty Edsel hubcap and two broken Star Wars Pez dispensers as your god, but you cannot make others pay for it, respect it, or obey it as either a religion or secular law with the blessing and/or the endorsement of the government with taxpayer dollars
 
Elvira said:
Yeah, forget about being able to understand it...just as long as it sounds pretty, who cares...
Click to expand...

At least it makes sense, unlike that JW forgery, the NWT.
 
Alizia Tyler said:
Can a generous soul explain to me what spiritual benefit I will gain if I only refer to the KJV? (I recently got a lovely copy BTW. 1909 with leather covers. Quite elegant. I must say it feels more Bible-ish).
Click to expand...

Is it an original?
Alizia Tyler said:
Can a generous soul explain to me what spiritual benefit I will gain if I only refer to the KJV? (I recently got a lovely copy BTW. 1909 with leather covers. Quite elegant. I must say it feels more Bible-ish).
Click to expand...

Very nice.

The KJV is a word for word translation, as is the ESV, which is my favorite word for word translation. It is smooth reading if you are not used to the KJV, which reads like Shakespeare. There are also thought for thought translations, like the NIV, which is not the best if you are trying to suss out doctrine. But, I have several Bibles I refer to, plus the Greek and Hebrew.

But, the best Bible to read is the one you have, unless it's the NWT. Then pitch it in the trash, it is a forgery from a cult.
 
it's just me said:
Is it an original?

Very nice.

The KJV is a word for word translation, as is the ESV, which is my favorite word for word translation. It is smooth reading if you are not used to the KJV, which reads like Shakespeare. There are also thought for thought translations, like the NIV, which is not the best if you are trying to suss out doctrine. But, I have several Bibles I refer to, plus the Greek and Hebrew.

But, the best Bible to read is the one you have, unless it's the NWT. Then pitch it in the trash, it is a forgery from a cult.
Click to expand...
Have Jehovah’s Witnesses Changed the Bible to Fit Their Beliefs?
No, we haven’t. On the contrary, when we have discovered that our beliefs were not completely in line with the Bible, we have changed our beliefs.
Long before we started producing the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures in 1950, we examined the Bible. We used whatever translation was available and formed our beliefs accordingly. Consider a few examples of long-standing beliefs of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and decide for yourself whether they match what the Bible really teaches.
  1. What we believe: God is not a Trinity. The July 1882 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower said: “Our readers are aware that while we believe in Jehovah and Jesus, and the holy Spirit, we reject as totally unscriptural, the teaching that these are three Gods in one person or, as some put it, one God in three persons.”
    What the Bible says: “Jehovah our God is one Jehovah.” (Deuteronomy 6:4, The Holy Bible, by Robert Young) “There is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” (1 Corinthians 8:6, American Bible Union Version) Jesus himself stated: “The Father is greater than I.”—John 14:28, Douay-Rheims Version.
  2. What we believe: There is no eternal torment in a fiery hell. Quoting from Romans 6:23 in the King James Version, Zion’s Watch Tower entitled its issue of June 1882 “The Wages of Sin Is Death,” stating: “How clear and simple is this statement. How strange it is that so many who profess to receive the Bible as the Word of God persist in contradicting this positive statement, and affirm that they believe, and that the Bible teaches, that the wages of sin is everlasting life in torment.”
    What the Bible says: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die.” (Ezekiel 18:4, 20, King James Version) The final punishment for those who oppose God is, not eternal torment, but “everlasting destruction.”—2 Thessalonians 1:9, King James Version.
  3. What we believe: God’s Kingdom is a real government, not just a condition of the heart. Regarding God’s Kingdom, the December 1881 issue of Zion’s Watch Tower said: “The setting up of this kingdom will, of course, involve the overthrow of all the kingdoms of earth.”
    What the Bible says: “In the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”—Daniel 2:44, King James Version.
Do Jehovah’s Witnesses depend on the New World Translation to support their beliefs?
No, for we continue to use many translations of the Bible in our witnessing work. In fact, while we provide a copy of the New World Translation at no charge as part of our free Bible study program, we are also happy to study with those who prefer to use other translations.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/502014164?q=king+james+version&p=sen
 
KING JAMES BIBLE ALREADY CHANGED

To the surprise of many people the King James Bible has already been changed; today no one reads the King James Version in its original form. Explaining why this is so the book The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions says: “Almost every edition, from the very beginning, introduced corrections and unauthorized changes and additions, often adding new errors in the process. The edition of 1613 shows over three hundred differences from 1611. . . . It was in the eighteenth century, however, that the main changes were made. . . . The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running headnotes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed, the use of capitals was considerably modified and reduced, and a thorough revision made in the form of certain kinds of words.”

So many changes have been made, many of them in the readings of passages, that the Committee on Versions (1851-56) of the American Bible Society found 24,000 variations in six different editions of the King James Version!

What, then, of the objections raised by persons who say they do not want the King James Bible changed? Since the King James Version has already been changed, they lie on a crumbled foundation. If these persons do not want it changed, then why do they use, instead of a copy of an edition of 1611, an edition that has been changed? They use a present-day edition of the King James Bible because it is far easier to read. They appreciate, perhaps unknowingly, the improvements the later editions have made. They do not like the odd spelling and punctuation of the 1611 edition; they do not want to read “fet” for “fetched,” “sith” for “since” or “moe” for “more,” as the edition of 1611 had it. Thus improvement, when needed, is appreciated, even by those who say they object to any changing of the King James translation.

It is this very improvement that modern translations are providing by keeping pace with changing language, this for the purpose of making God’s Word clear, understandable, alive.
https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1957081
 
Elvira said:
Yeah, forget about being able to understand it...just as long as it sounds pretty, who cares...
Click to expand...

Well, Anglicans are smarter than JWs.
 
it's just me said:
Is it an original?
Click to expand...
It is an Oxford Self-Pronouncing Bible with indented tabs. Black leather. 1909. Wonderful maps at the back. With some leather conditioner the cover came back to life. I really like the feel of it. I also have the ESV study version which I like as well. I'll take a picture and post it, I am that enthused!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom