WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2025 Poal.co

812

I'm not going to argue this point on the basis of accuracy of content, because that's not the real issue. The reason you should adopt only the King James 1611 edition as your Bible is for the stability of God's word.

Do you know how many English translations of the Bible we have today? Because, I don't. There are too many to count. Every year someone beings out a new translation, or revises a recent translation. Consider what effect this has on religious faith. The Bible is the Rock on which Protestantism is built. It is considered to be the actual words of God. But how can anyone believe this, in their hearts, when those words change every year? They cannot, even if they want to do so.

In order for the Bible to be the foundation of our belief system, it must be firm; it must be stable; it must be unchanging. When you build a house on shifting sands, it falls into ruin. We are trying to build our Christian faith on the shifting sands of hundreds of Bible translations, all of them different from all others. It cannot be done.

The first edition of the King James authorization of the English translation of the holy texts is around 400 years old. That's not old in biblical terms, but it is old enough to provide some stability to Christians using the texts. They read the same verses that were read by their fathers, and their grandfathers, and their great-grandfathers, in exactly the same words. This provides the continuity that is absolutely essential for a faith to endure.

When was the last time the Jews changed the wording of the Book of Genesis? I believe it was when they returned from their captivity in Babylon. That's a long time ago, and it has given the Old Testament books stability. The clowns who are rewriting the New Testament every year, along with the translation of the Old Testament into English, care nothing about continuance of the faith, or stability of belief -- they only care about copyright. If they rewrite the Bible, they can copyright it and make money from it. That's what drives all these translations, not a desire for accuracy.

The text of the Bible in English has been accurate since the time of Tyndale. The King James edition solidified the text for English believers, and we don't need any changes to it. They don't increase our belief. They don't change anything at all, other than undermining the faith of Christians, who can't understand why every Bible says something different.

The name of Jesus is a good point. Recently, it's become fashionable in a cult that calls itself Christian to say that "Jesus" is not the original name of the Christ, and therefore when you use the name "Jesus' in your prayers, they have no power. Can you see how distructive of faith this kind of thinking is? King James Bible users can say that "Jesus" is the name of God and has proven its worth over the span of four centuries. They can rightly claim that the King James version of the Bible is the translation that God approved and appointed to the English-speaking peoples of the world. All other translations are mere pretenders.

The argument in favor of King James only-ism does not stand on accuracy of translation of texts from the Hebrew and Greek -- it stands on the absolute necessity for Christians to have a stable text that they can rely on not to change from one year to the next. Its four centuries of use show us that it is the English version approved of by God.

I'm not going to argue this point on the basis of accuracy of content, because that's not the real issue. The reason you should adopt only the King James 1611 edition as your Bible is for the stability of God's word. Do you know how many English translations of the Bible we have today? Because, I don't. There are too many to count. Every year someone beings out a new translation, or revises a recent translation. Consider what effect this has on religious faith. The Bible is the Rock on which Protestantism is built. It is considered to be the actual words of God. But how can anyone believe this, in their hearts, when those words change every year? They cannot, even if they want to do so. In order for the Bible to be the foundation of our belief system, it must be firm; it must be stable; it must be unchanging. When you build a house on shifting sands, it falls into ruin. We are trying to build our Christian faith on the shifting sands of hundreds of Bible translations, all of them different from all others. It cannot be done. The first edition of the King James authorization of the English translation of the holy texts is around 400 years old. That's not old in biblical terms, but it is old enough to provide some stability to Christians using the texts. They read the same verses that were read by their fathers, and their grandfathers, and their great-grandfathers, in exactly the same words. This provides the continuity that is absolutely essential for a faith to endure. When was the last time the Jews changed the wording of the Book of Genesis? I believe it was when they returned from their captivity in Babylon. That's a long time ago, and it has given the Old Testament books stability. The clowns who are rewriting the New Testament every year, along with the translation of the Old Testament into English, care nothing about continuance of the faith, or stability of belief -- they only care about copyright. If they rewrite the Bible, they can copyright it and make money from it. That's what drives all these translations, not a desire for accuracy. The text of the Bible in English has been accurate since the time of Tyndale. The King James edition solidified the text for English believers, and we don't need any changes to it. They don't increase our belief. They don't change anything at all, other than undermining the faith of Christians, who can't understand why every Bible says something different. The name of Jesus is a good point. Recently, it's become fashionable in a cult that calls itself Christian to say that "Jesus" is not the original name of the Christ, and therefore when you use the name "Jesus' in your prayers, they have no power. Can you see how distructive of faith this kind of thinking is? King James Bible users can say that "Jesus" is the name of God and has proven its worth over the span of four centuries. They can rightly claim that the King James version of the Bible is the translation that God approved and appointed to the English-speaking peoples of the world. All other translations are mere pretenders. The argument in favor of King James only-ism does not stand on accuracy of translation of texts from the Hebrew and Greek -- it stands on the absolute necessity for Christians to have a stable text that they can rely on not to change from one year to the next. Its four centuries of use show us that it is the English version approved of by God.

(post is archived)

[–] 1 pt

God was practicing when he did the Geneva Bible. He got it right when he did King James, first time around.