-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is the KJV Only debate dividing the Christian Church?
- Thread starter Sitara
- Start date
-
- Tags
- bible debate
YellowFeather
Member
The KJV Bible has been around for 100s of years all the other Bibles are written from the KJV. The other Bibles are written for those who do not understand hebrew and greek language. If you dont speak spanish then you will not understand hebrew or greek words. The bible has to be written in different languages so we all understand the word. It is up to you to follow the Word of God.
KJV Bible Revelation 22:18 For I testify unto every man that hearth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the PLAGUES that are written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.So your Bibles has no text that postdates Revelations? Neither does mine. In fact, it doesn't even have Revelations.
I'm sorry but the idea that anyone is trying to do that is utterly ridiculous
You clearly know very little about the UK
Tomef
Well-Known Member
How much more divided can it get?
Tomef
Well-Known Member
No, that isn’t the case at all.
YellowFeather
Member
The End is very close and the things God says will happen as the world starts coming to the end are happening and getting worse everyday just as God says it would. Only those who follow the word of God and keep there faith in God will be saved. Those who live their lives for the world will not be saved. The world is controlled by satan 1 John 5:19 Those who follow this world are controlled by satan. Those who follow God are no longer of the world but of God.
I will leave it to Christians to discuss/debate the New Testament.
With regards to those texts found in the Tanakh, your comment is laughably ignorant.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
The part about being around for 100s of years is correct, but the part about all other Bibles being written from the KJV cannot be true, since there have been other Bibles in existence since long before it was written, such as these: Septuagint (LXX), Vulgate, Wycliffe's Bible, Gutenberg Bible, Erasmus' Greek New Testament, Luther's Bible, Tyndale's Bible, Coverdale Bible, Matthew Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bishops' Bible, and the Douay-Rheims Bible. Furthermore, I think it would go against Roman Catholic or Orthodox church policy to use KJV as an official reference for their own Bibles.
Yes, what you're saying here sounds correct; one problem is that you don't address some pertinent things.
One thing pertains to the idea that the KJV of the Bible was written for an English-speaking audience.
Another thing has to do with who this King James was and the history of the Church of England; do you know who King Henry VIII was, one of the ancestors of King James I? Did you know that up until King Henry VIII, English kings were Roman Catholic?
I wonder what was going through your head replying with this to someone who's not religious.
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it may seem utterly ridiculous, but I don't mind or care if it does or doesn't; it doesn't make any difference to me. What does make a difference to me is whether or not it's true. If it's not true then I'm wrong, but if it's true then I'm right - in which case the people of this republic, the USA, need to make a decision about how much they're willing to put up with this.
So? Is there something to this other than serving as a straw man, red herring, or appeal to ignorance fallacy?
Dude, nobody in the UK wants to take over the USA
The idea that anyone does is pure fantasy
Ignorant fantasy
How would we even do that????
It would be impossible
My advice to you is to find a more credible bogeyman
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
How can you possibly know this? Did you interview every single royal subject there? Does it occur to you that maybe you're not in the loop? I'm not referring to the average UK citizen or even the government.
What I do know is that the US has been serving the UK such as in WW 1 and WW 2 (Atlantic Theater of Operations), as if the US is part of or controlled by the UK, somehow; what do you know about Chatham House and the Council on Foreign Relations?
Do you have any idea how much of the world is under the control/influence/dominance of the monarch from London right now, besides the UK - as in British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth realms, and Commonwealth of Nations? Do you have any idea how many countries, territories & islands that is? What do you think all that is about?
LOL no one in the UK wants to take over the USA - is that because they just want to take over the entire world, not just the USA?
Last edited:
1) I did not mean "nobody" literally, any competent speaker of the English language would have picked up on that.
2) We are Citizens of the United Kingdom, not subjects to the king
We just had a massive election to determine who runs the country....
There are 13 American air bases on British soil and no British air bases on American soil. What does that suggest?
Also, it is hilarious that you think having a common enemy and being allied is the same as "serving"
Also, Adolf Hitler declared war on the USA after Pearl Harbour, Hitler and Japan were to blame for the USA joining WW2. That's what actually happened, that is historical fact.
Chatham House and the Council of Foreign Relations are about co-operation, not one party controlling some other party.
It sounds to me as though you disapprove of your nation co-operating with others.
Do you think that co-operating with other nations is beneath the dignity of your nation?
LOL, what has that got to do with the UK controlling the USA???? Nothing.
I've done a few Google searches and it seems that the USA has over 900 bases in foreign countries. It would be reasonable for a person to take this as evidence that the USA seeks to control the world. That puts the number of foreign UK bases to shame.
Have you just got out of a time machine????? Are you from the 19th century?????
You know nothing about us so stop carrying on as though you do.
Stop talking **** about a nation you clearly know next to nothing about.
Last edited:
McBell
Admiral Obvious
Bible
"You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you"
(Deuteronomy 4:2).
Seems your phrase is much older than you give it credit for.
Are you in the least familiar with the language skills of the teams behind these other Bibles?
McBell
Admiral Obvious
KJOnlism started losing steam when its champions started dying off.
Tomef
Well-Known Member
He talks to plants. The plants know things.
But do the plants talk back to him?
anotherneil
Well-Known Member
Ok, I am aware of this sort of thing for conversations that are a certain degree of casual and informal & it's fine with me if you want to be that degree of casual and informal in this conversation, but I don't agree that this has to do with being a competent speaker of the English language.
It has to do with communicating on an international public online forum where some readers are - as you put it - (probably) competent speakers of the English language; we also (probably) have some who are not native speakers of the English language & perhaps even some who translate postings to their language as non-English speaking readers.
So, since it's your contention that any competent speaker of the English language would have picked up on that, meaning that you seem to be implying that non-competent speakers may not qualify, then it seems you're not taking into account the full extent of your audience.
Personally I don't tend to try to be very formal, strict & non-casual with a discussion on an online forum with international participants & readers, but I do generally have a position of responding based on what someone wrote. On another forum, I actually had to tell someone who said something very differently (far more contrasting that your example) from what they meant that I'm not a mind reader & I can only go with what I have.
Furthermore, what if you had literally meant nobody and you actually had surveyed or read a survey of everyone to back it up & I did the opposite and took it as not literal? That could have the same adverse effect in communication in the opposite way.
Either way, I already covered the idea that I essentially don't expect that it's the average, everyday UK dweller who holds such a position, and I elaborated on the basis for my position.
If you say so; you can keep telling yourself that. The fact is that monarchies (any and all monarchies, not just what's headed by the monarch from London) are essentially soft forms of slavery, and religion is usually involved in some way.
Take Saudi Arabia, as an example; it's a monarchy, and there's a law that makes it a crime for anyone to challenge (even indirectly) the religion or justice of the King or Crown Prince.
All monarchies are mooch rackets & its subjects are there to serve and provide for their lords, royal families, and other aristocratic types.
To me, progress means having all of human society throughout the world transition away from such medieval-style soft slavery mooch rackets to democratic republics with equality, including a bill of rights that includes separation of church and state (and more).
Yes, I'm aware of it & I would imagine that you're aware that not only do British voters not elect the prime minister, but the prime minister even has to be approved by the British monarch.
Before you attempt to whitewash it with "oh, that's just ceremonial (this)" or "constitutional formality (that)", just try to keep in mind that it's in fact there as the system of government that you in fact have.
I can suggest 2 things, that I can think of; one would be that the Americans are occupying British soil, and the other would be what essentially corroborates my position.
What does that suggest to you? Are you insinuating that Americans are occupying British soil?
I'm pretty sure we both know that it's not an occupation, and it is a free service to the British being provided by Americans; if one day the British government decided that these American bases had to go, they'd be gone.
I'm personally opposed to this presence of American military air bases on British soil (or anywhere else around the world, for that matter) - and even if I wasn't personally opposed, I'm still opposed to the fact that I'm paying taxes to provide you guys with free protection; we (the American military/government) ought to be sending you guys a bill for our services.
You're kinda putting words in my mouth; I never established a position pertaining to "a common enemy". I have reservations (to put it rather mildly) about the notion that British enemies are American enemies, because to me such a notion is contentious. In other words, it seems to me that the US inherited as enemies those who are British enemies, and as an American, I don't think we - here in the US - ought to be going along with that idea since it undermines our severance and the American Revolution that established the 13 former colonies as a sovereign nation, separate and independent from the British Empire.
It's one thing to have the US only in the Pacific Ocean theater to go to war with Japan the way we did given its direct attack on Pearl Harbor with over 350 aircraft (not to mention the question of who or what may have been the cause or drive behind Japan's decision to pick a fight with the US), but that's a rather stark contrast to Nazi Germany declaring war with the US on paper.
The only thing that could count as an attack on US soil by Nazi Germany was Operation Pastorius involving 8 saboteurs who came to US soil via 2 U-boats; it took place about half a year after the US & Nazi Germany declared war on each other, and these 8 saboteurs even failed to carry out any sort of attack on US soil.
On the surface, it seems to make sense for the US to have taken the action that it did in response to a declaration of war against it by Nazi Germany, but from the perspective of looking at the big picture, it appears odd that Nazi Germany wound up in a position of being antagonistic against the US.
So the US went ahead anyways with going to Europe to fight in the war there; fine, but what I don't get is why General MacArthur chose to make the Japanese emperor tell the Japanese people that he's not a living god and let the monarchy remain rather than the other way around. What he should've done which would've been in line with the American way was to let that dude continue to claim that he's a living god (consistent with the American way of freedom of religion), but disbanded Japan's monarchy and replaced it with a republic (consistent with the idea that everyone is created equal and prohibition of titles of nobility). It's far too late to do anything about that now, almost 80 years later - it's water under the bridge.
Oh wait, maybe something like this was originally what MacArthur had in mind, but was stopped by our British ally, since it would've been bad for royal business during a time when several monarchies throughout Europe were collapsing - the optics wouldn't have been good for the institution of monarchism. Well, I guess we'll never know what MacArthur might have originally had in mind.
Even after Japan's surrender, there was the abolition of Italy's monarchy about a year later, and King George VI & Queen Elizabeth II eventually lost some of their own dominions.
Yeah, and co-operation for what purpose?
I suppose it may depend on what they're co-operating on and why; I'm generally for my nation engaging in non-interventionist trade with other nations.
George Washington strongly advised that the US avoid foreign entanglements in his farewell address; now history has shown that he was right about this & we should've been following his advice.
It depends on what that co-operation is about & what you mean by "co-operation".
Would you oppose having the UK get annexed by the US and turned into a republic or becoming part of one (meaning no more titles of nobility)?
Why did you omit this part: "- as in British Overseas Territories, Commonwealth realms, and Commonwealth of Nations? Do you have any idea how many countries, territories & islands that is? What do you think all that is about?"? It has everything to do with its monarch having control over other places in one form or another, and how it relates to the possibility of also involving some form of control or influence over the US.
I'm for removing US military bases from foreign countries & in fact I'm for dismantling the US military and replacing it with privately owned & operated security services to deal with the same things when appropriate.
An example would be the US Navy being used for protecting cargo ships & oil tankers; right now I pay for their protection with my taxes, regardless of whether or not I purchase imported goods. I think these cargo ships & oil tankers ought to foot the bill themselves for their protection.
I'm also opposed to having something that's modeled after institutions and concepts that seem to be geared towards monarchies, like militaries and civilians; I think they're not compatible with the idea of a republic with equality and non-interventionist international trade. Militaries are for imperial conquest, not republics.
And I don't support that, but this doesn't refute my position.
It would be shameful if you desire imperial worldwide conquest.
Well - this is quite a triggered reaction: I wonder why (well, not really).
Is the KJV Only debate dividing the Christian Church?
There are over 450 English translations / versions of the bible and many thousands in other languages.
Different groups of Christians interpret the version of the bible they prefer to suit their particular belief system. This has resulted in close to 50,000 different branches of Christianity.
So no, idea don't think the KJV is dividing the church, it's already divided.