By God's grace and Holy Spirit leading, I invested over 50 hours into making the following simple film to honor, uphold and defend the inspiration of the precious King James Bible, gathering all the information I could find to archive it in one place...
THE BATTLE OF THE AGES (I made this 4:19 hour film last year upholding the King James Bible)
The apostate churches today are using the NIV, ESV, ERV, HCSB, GNB and other corrupt versions today, all make light of Bible inspiration, accept the heresy of Lordship Salvation, and are ecumenical as can be. God hasn't changed, nor have His Words changed in 2,000 years since completed with the writing of the book of Revelation in 96 AD. When I see a church supporting a dozen Bible versions, I know immediately that they are merely playing church, making money and the truth is not that important to them. Someone once asked me to summarize the Holy Bible in as few words as possible. That was easy, just one word—TRUTH. John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”
And may I say to those of you who downplay the debate over Bible inspiration, as not being something worth dividing over—THE MEN WHO DENY THE INSPIRATION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO DENY IT!!!!!! Think about that!
12 comments
Yup, modern churches are using modern translations of the Bible. It’s the same in Sweden; they now use Bible 2000, instead of 1917’s Church Bible that was used when I went to school.
It still amuses me that the Kiddydiddler fawns over QUEEN James’ Bible, the bible of a known bisexual adulterer.
96 AD? I thought it wasn’t written down until a couple of hundred years after the events…
THE INSPIRATION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
Since the Bible is supposed to be the only source of truth, what is the source which asserts the inspiration of the JKV? Does the Bible say that? If it's not in the Bible, how can you make that claim as an absolute truth? Where does the Bible say that the textus receptus is a divinely inspired collection of Greek sources? Where does the Bible say that the KJV translation is inspired? You must have an external, divenely inspired source which claims that. What is it?
@Anon-e-moose
Of course what Brother David writes is all pure and unadulterated nonsense, but, for argument’s sake, just how does a high probability of James I having been gay disprove the inspiration of the translation he authorized? Would that be different if James I had been straight?
What Moose said.
**********
I think I have some theories of why “KJV Only” is a thing…..
* ONE: Frums think the archaic language gives the text mystical God-Powers or something.https://runningawayfrommychurch.com/kjv-only-king-james-bible-controversy/
….All other theories the frums give, concerning the validity of various ancient manuscripts and such, are meaningless and disingenuous. They’re not going to admit the truth. They want to deceive believers who don’t know better and thwart those who call-out “KJV Onlyism” for the nonsense it is.
**********
WADDAYA THINK SIRS?
@checkmate
DJS is a homophobe: thus his entire 'Belie fs' are exactly that.
What that word cannot be spelled with without such.
Wait till he hears that his J-boy is as much a Red Sea Pedestrian as Brian.
@SpukiKitty
Your comment makes me think. It's what Davey-boy daren't do.
@Swede
96 AD? I thought it wasn’t written down until a couple of hundred years after the events… No, the scholarly consensus1 is that the Gospel according to Mark was written around 70, in the wake of the destruction of the Temple; Matthew and Luke wrote in the 80s, parallel to but indepently from each other, both drawing from Mark and a non-preserved collection of Jesu sayings known as the Q Source; the Revelation of John around 95, during the persecutions of Domitian (and no, he was not insane, it’s allegory with vivid imagery and part of a larger genre of the time known as “Apocalyptic Literature”); and the Gospel according to John - a different John than the one of Revelation - at the end of the first century, definitively after the other gospels as it draws from all of them.
not remain unchanged. In particularly, the ending of Mark was a later addition from later centuries - originally, it ended abruptly with the women leaving the grave in fear and not speaking of what happened (so how did people learn about it?) (there was also at least one other added ending, and even some Medieval manuscripts retained the original “ending”. Furthermore, the division into chapters is a Medieval invention.
Of course, there is also the fact that the Bible at no point defines what is in the Bible. And while there already was a broad consensus in regards to which Gospels count (while there were other Gospels, they were actually much younger than the four, and compared to them, the four are actually relatively consistent which each other) even before the Council of Nikea, the Epistles and minor books of the OT are another matter entirely; indeed, various denomination founders such as Luther declared scripture with theology incompatible with their views dubious “apocrypha”.
1 By which I mean actual Bible scholarship, which follows historical criticism - i.e. the Bible is neither infallible nor literal nor magic, and it must be understood in its historical context -, not Fundamentalist pseudoscience.
Elizabeth I was king, then James I was queen. I think Moose explained that one, adequately.
Also Davey, if you think there’s something sacred about ye olde Elizabethan/Jacobite era English, then “ill met by moonlight”! I could use quotes that are much more bawdy, from either Shakespeare or even the more devout John Donne, but refuse to arouse a thing like you. That language is no more sacred, than some Catholics believe Latin is, which people 2000 years ago actually spoke. It’s all just WORDS.
You fool a lot less people than you would like to. “Take away the fool, gentlemen.”
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
