King James was never

DavidEsq:
Wasn't it the same u who claimed that Christianity is a sham? That it has been adulterated by the popes and others? Now u suddenly find "authenticity" in a book used by Christians. Chai! Who do u like dis na

Are you mixing me with someone else?

read the history of king James, he us not a Christian

alBHAGDADI:


You mean God is the author of all those different manuscripts which contradict each other?

God is not the author of confusion.

You say you no longer take me serious? Why can't you prove the wrong in my post?

Here we are:

The textus receptus, is the same translation base from which many other bibles were translated. Yet you say KJV is the authentic world of God amongst them. I will show you why it is not

Add to that is it a product of a Catholic scholar

mumumugu:
read the history of king James, he us not a Christian

God also used unbelievers to fulfill his mission in the Bible e.g Cyrus, Pharaoh etc

The OP is right. Yhe modern text have omissions and twisters.

KJV 1611! Another good one OP!

VictorRomanov:


Here we are:

The textus receptus, is the same translation base from which many other bibles were translated. Yet you say KJV is the authentic world of God amongst them. I will show you why it is not

Add to that is it a product of a Catholic scholar

That's a lie. These modern translations were gotten from different manuscripts and not the Textus Receptus.

Your screenshot doesn't prove anything.

alBHAGDADI:
God also used unbelievers to fulfill his mission in the Bible e.g Cyrus, Pharaoh etc

so you justify using a non- b Christian expert in magic to b used as name of Christian bible at expence of other Christian

Avizizo:
Quran can never get a new version or different writers even any write. Please who go write am? Proudly Muslim

The Quran is satanic . It is from Satan himself .
Would Satan pollute , add or remove from his own book? No.

It is original that is adulterated and not fake .

YOU DON'T MAKE IMPURE WHAT IS IMPURE .

Avizizo:
Quran can never get a new version or different writers even any write. Please who go write am? Proudly Muslim

Uncle understanding something is key! I hope you know that there are different versions of spoken Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba? Heck! There are different versions of English spoken and written. So even though they vary they are the same for example one version of of the Bible will say "12 men came" another version will say "a Dozen men came" , these statements look different but they mean the same thing. I hope you've learned something new today?

alBHAGDADI:


That's a lie. These modern translations were gotten from different manuscripts and not the Textus Receptus.

Your screenshot doesn't prove anything.

Prove it is a lie. And these translations are as old as the KJV, so they re not modern bibles.

Here is one example of a spurious text in KJV that has been found not to exist in ancient manuscripts, older that the Textus Receptus. Read, my friend, read!

First John 5:7–8
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, ...

RV: (omitted from main text and not in a footnote)

Reason: A multitude of books have been devoted to just this verse, including: A Vindication of I John V, 7 from the Objections of M. Griesbach [by Thomas Burgess] (1821, London); Das Comma Ioanneum: Auf Seine Hewrkunft Untersucht [The Johannine Comma, an examination of its origin] by Karl Künstle (1905, Frieburg, Switz.); Letters to Mr. Archdeacon [George] Travis in answer to his Defence of the Three Heavenly Witnesses by Richard Porson (1790, London); A New Plea for the Authenticity of the Text of the Three Heavenly Witnesses or Porson's Letters to Travis Eclectically Examined by Rev. Charles Forster (1867, London), Memoir of The Controversy respecting the Three Heavenly Witnesses, I John V.7 ˈ by 'Criticus' [Rev. William Orme] (1830, London), reprinted (1872, Boston, "a new edition, with notes and an appendix by Ezra Abbot" ); and The Three Witnesses - the disputed text in St. John, considerations new and old by Henry T. Armfield (1893, London); and many more.[53] Eberhard Nestle, writing in Germany at the end of 19th century, said, "The fact that it [the Comma Johanneum] is still defended even from the Protestant side is interesting only from a pathological point of view."[54] F.H.A. Scrivener, usually regarded as a defender of the KJV text, said of this verse, "The authenticity of [this verse] will, perhaps, no longer be maintained by anyone whose judgment ought to have weight; but this result has been arrived at after a long and memorable controversy, which helped keep alive, especially in England, some interest in Biblical studies. ...."[55]

Early Church Fathers did not mention this verse, even when eagerly scraping together verses to support the Doctrine of the Trinity.[56] This verse first appears, not in a New Testament manuscript, but in a fifth century Confession of Faith, and after that it was assimilated into mss of the Latin Vulgate, but it was (because of the lack of Greek documentary support) omitted from the first two "Textus Receptus" printed editions of the New Testament (namely those edited by Erasmus, 1516 and 1519),[57] as well as some other very early Textus Receptus editions, such as Aldus 1518, Gerbelius 1521, Cephalius 1524 and 1526, and Colinaeus 1534.[58] Stephanus (Robert Estienne) , in his influential Editio Regia of 1550 (which was the model edition of the Textus Receptus in England),[59] was the first to provide an apparatus showing variant readings and showed this verse was lacking in seven Greek manuscripts.

Martin Luther rejected this verse as a forgery and excluded it from his German translation of the Bible while he lived - it was inserted into the text by other hands after his death.[61] The first appearance of the Comma in a Greek New Testament manuscript is no earlier than the 15th century.[62]

Doubts about its genuineness were indicated in printed Greek New Testaments as early as that of the first two editions (1515 & 1519) of Erasmus of Rotterdam, who simply left the verse out because he could not find a Greek ms containing it - and provided a comment that "this is all I find in the Greek manuscript".[63] Expressions of doubt also appeared in the edition of Stephen Courcelles (Étienne de Courcelles), in 1658, and from Johann Jakob Griesbach's edition of 1775. Most critical editions relegated the Comma to a footnote or otherwise marked it as doubtful.[64] The American Bible Union.[65] a Baptist organization, omitted this verse from the new English translations of the New Testament it published in the 1860s. The Roman Catholic Church was a bit more resistant about yielding up this verse; an 1897 decision of the Holy Inquisition forbade a Catholic "to deny or even express doubt about the authenticity of" the Johannine Comma, but this was effectively reversed by a declaration of the Holy Office on June 2, 1927, which allows scholars to express doubts and even denials of the genuineness of the Comma, tempered by the fact that the Vatican would have the final authority.[66] and, e.g., the 1966 Jerusalem Bible omits the Comma without a footnote. The spurious nature of this verse is so notorious[67] that even the Revised Version of 1881 did not bother to include nor provide a footnote for this verse, and many other modern versions do likewise. Ezra Abbot wrote, "It may be said that the question [of excluding this verse] is obsolete; that the spuriousness of the disputed passage had long been conceded by all intelligent and fair-minded scholars. This is true, but a little investigation will show that great ignorance still exists on the subject among the less-informed in the Christian community."[68] Even the two leading editions of the so-called Majority Text (Robinson & Pierpont, and Hodges & Farstad) omit this verse (the Hodges & Farstad edition acknowledge the 'Textus Receptus' version of this verse in a footnote).

alBHAGDADI:


You want us to read the Bible given by the Catholic Church known as the Mother of Harlots?

Maybe you are not aware. The Catholic Church is the root of Christianity.

The Bible you carry around was compiled into a single volume called the Bible by the so-called "Mother of harlots".

The idea of going to church on Sunday belongs to the Catholic Church. Shabbat is celebrated by Jews on the 7th day of the week, not the first day of the week. The Catholic Church changed it to the first day for Christians.

If you call yourself a Christian today, then your allegiance is to Rome as long as you carry the bible around and worship on Sunday and do the numerous things, traditions actually, handed down by the Popes down the ages.

Maybe you celebrate Christmas too. Guess what Christmas is? Christ-Mass. guess who celebrates the Mass? The Catholic Church. The same one your pastor has termed "mother of harlots".

this is what baffles me about christainity.
Why do we have different denominations? preaching different doctrines? having different sets of bible versions?hating on other denominations?
yet we say we have one God,una well so?

Petersamuel8:

I disagree the king james is the first bible to exist so if any one should be altered it will not be the king james

Lol. You are so wrong. A simple search online will have shown you that the KJV is not even a translation of the original, but a translation of a translation.

First bible to exist? puhleeeze...

King James wasn't even Catholic.

The Catholic Church holds the copyright, in a manner of speaking, for the bible because they invented the bible.

I was discussing with one pastor who is an advanced learner of Bible yesterday and he posited that, bible came into being 40years after Jesus was crucified. Secondly, he told me that, Apostle Paul who had 13 books authored in the bible doesn't know Jesus Christ physically. Please, are these narration true

VictorRomanov:


Prove it is a lie. And these translations are as old as the KJV, so they re not modern bibles.

Here is one example of a spurious text in KJV that has been found not to exist in ancient manuscripts, older that the Textus Receptus. Read, my friend, read!

So you admit that there are ancient manuscripts.

1 John 5:7–8
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.

Yes, the above verse can't be found in those so-called older manuscripts because they are the works of Satan who denies the Trinity. Those sane older manuscripts were written by Satan and are what these modern Bibles are translated from.

adams123:
I was discussing with one pastor who is an advanced learner of Bible yesterday and he posited that, bible came into being 40years after Jesus was crucified. Secondly, he told me that, Apostle Paul who had 13 books authored in the bible doesn't know Jesus Christ physically. Please, are these narration true

Apostle Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus.

[quote author=ukaface post=74713941]this is what baffles me about christainity.
Why do we have different denominations? preaching different doctrines? having different sets of bible versions?hating on other denominations?
yet we say we have one God,una well so? [/quote

No insult pls.. Be objective

alBHAGDADI:


Apostle Paul met Jesus on the way to Damascus.

After His crucificaxion or before?

alBHAGDADI:

So you admit that there are ancient manuscripts.

1 John 5:7–8
KJV: 7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the holy Ghost, and these three are one.

Yes, the above verse can't be found in those so-called older manuscripts because they are the works of Satan who denies the Trinity. Those sane older manuscripts were written by Satan and are what these modern Bibles are translated from.

Hahahahahahaha. I never doubted there were ancient manuscription. If you had read and understood my previous post, then you would have found that said the more people have access to these ancient manuscripts, the more they see the errors in translation of the KJV.

And this your "satan" explanation for a text that early manuscripts doesn't contain is the lamest I've ever heard.

To me it more like that enemy planting weeds in a farmland our Lord has planted wheats; they were added.

5thElement:


Maybe you are not aware. The Catholic Church is the root of Christianity.

The Bible you carry around was compiled into a single volume called the Bible by the so-called "Mother of harlots".

The idea of going to church on Sunday belongs to the Catholic Church. Shabbat is celebrated by Jews on the 7th day of the week, not the first day of the week. The Catholic Church changed it to the first day for Christians.

If you call yourself a Christian today, then your allegiance is to Rome as long as you carry the bible around and worship on Sunday and do the numerous things, traditions actually, handed down by the Popes down the ages.

Maybe you celebrate Christmas too. Guess what Christmas is? Christ-Mass. guess who celebrates the Mass? The Catholic Church. The same one your pastor has termed "mother of harlots".

LIES.

Catholic Church is not the root of christianity. It is a Roman invention which went about persecuting the original Christians.

The Bible wasn't compiled by the Catholic Church but was prevented from spreading by them because they didn't want people to have access to the truth of God.

Sunday worship wasn't instituted by Catholic but by the disciples who met on the first day of the week which was when Jesus resurrected.

Acts 20:7
And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them, ready to depart on the morrow; and continued his speech until midnight.

My allegiance is to Jesus Christ in heaven, not to Rome. Basing your allegiance to Rome shows you do t believe in Jesus. That's why you bow down before statues.

Mass means a lot of things. Christmas means gathering i.e Jesus gathering, not Catholic gathering. Mass also means weight; will you now say it is Catholic as well?

VictorRomanov:



Hahahahahahaha. I never doubted there were ancient manuscription. If you had read and understood my previous post, then you would have found that said the more people have access to these ancient manuscripts, the more they see the errors in translation of the KJV.

And this your "satan" explanation for a text that early manuscripts doesn't contain is the lamest I've ever heard.

To me it more like that enemy planting weeds in a farmland our Lord has planted wheats; they were added.

That's to show you that those ancient manuscripts were designed by Satan to make people reject the KJV without knowing that they are rejecting the word of God. For those manuscripts to be contradicting each other is enough to show that they are not theBword of God. They even lied against Jesus.

adams123:


After His crucificaxion or before?

Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.

enilove:


The Quran is satanic . It is from Satan himself .
Would Satan pollute , add or remove from his own book? No.

It is original that is adulterated and not fake .

YOU DON'T MAKE IMPURE WHAT IS IMPURE .

See how bigotry and hatred has finished some of you. He wrote about only the Quran and his love for it and proud to be a Muslim but inferiority complex, hatred, bigotry and intolerance made you to attack Quran yet you all claim to be good spirited and attack the Muslims. Look in the mirror man.

alBHAGDADI:
King James didn't write the KJV. He was just the one who sponsored all the scholars assembled to translated the Bible.

Let's even assume he was an occultist, haven't you seen instances in the Bible where God made use of ungodly men to fulfill his mission?

Oooh
Really??
So that is why he removed a lot of vital informations from the original Latin and Hebrew transcript. Do u know that the present Bible isn't complete??

MyVILLAGEpeople:


Oooh
Really??
So that is why he removed a lot of vital informations from the original Latin and Hebrew transcript. Do u know that the present Bible isn't complete??

Don't make claims you can't prove.

What did he remove?

alBHAGDADI:


That's to show you that those ancient manuscripts were designed by Satan to make people reject the KJV without knowing that they are rejecting the word of God. For those manuscripts to be contradicting each other is enough to show that they are not theBword of God. They even lied against Jesus.

You dont read, that's your problem. Those manuscript didnt contradict each other. They are in unison in saying that those spurious text never existed. It was people with thinking like yours that added it.

Thank God the light keeps getting brighter and people are saying these additions for what they are: fraud. - Daniel 12:4

Jaynom:

Uncle understanding something is key! I hope you know that there are different versions of spoken Hausa, Ibo and Yoruba? Heck! There are different versions of English spoken and written. So even though they vary they are the same for example one version of of the Bible will say "12 men came" another version will say "a Dozen men came" , these statements look different but they mean the same thing. I hope you've learned something new today?

If that's true, then why the arguments? You don't expect an American and a British to be arguing about tmwho speak and write the best English between them when we all know it's the latter.

alBHAGDADI:
Don't make claims you can't prove.

What did he remove?

Oga go and make research.
The complete Bible is in the Vatican city. The Catholic Church have it. Why do the Ethiopian Orthodox Church have 88 chapters of the Bible??

alBHAGDADI:


THEY SAY JESUS CHRIST IS THE SATAN WHO IS FALLEN FROM HEAVEN

Isaiah 14:12
New International Version
How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!

Below is Jesus Christ calling himself the Morning Star. How can he and Satan share the same title when Jesus never shares his glory with anyone?

Revelation 22:16 King James Version (KJV)
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

The proper rendition of Isaiah 14:12 is to place Satan's name there instead of Morning Star a title which belongs to Jesus.

Isaiah 14:12 King James Version (KJV)
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

OP

VictorRomanov:



You dont read, that's your problem. Those manuscript didnt contradict each other. They are in unison in saying that those spurious text never existed. It was people with thinking like yours that added it.

Thank God the light keeps getting brighter and people are saying these additions for what they are: fraud. - Daniel 12:4

Sorry dude, God is not in the business of majority. The fact that many believe in those manuscripts doesn't mean it is the word of God. They are clearly on the way of destruction.


Matthew 7:13-14 King James Version (KJV)
Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.