If you are not a King James Only Baptist, you're not even in the game spiritually. Forget about first plate, you haven't even found the field.

>>17861570 (OP)
what's the honest justification behind KJV onlyism?

>>17861574
Anti-Catholic sentiment + American protestant retardation (AKA Denominationalism)

>>17861574
hasn't been completely butchered by papists and revisionists, they threw screeching fits, burned people alive and launched invasions to stop it

>>17861570 (OP)
>Tfw not religious and still know if I was religious I'd be kjv only

>>17861577
now why would there be Anti-Catholic sentiment, I guess they're all just heckin' bigots, huh

>>17861574
>Claim book was written about a divine being
>Can't even get the fucking translation right in 2000 years
>Every time dick and harry writing about what they think the book means
Either the book matters or it doesn't

>>17861580
the justifications behind removing or adding verses comes from manuscript evidence, not some reformer or papist saying they don't like them. Most Bibles mentioned in your picrel either do have the verses or include footnote annotations on their removal.

>>17861574
>what's the honest justification behind KJV onlyism?
I'll give you three:
1. The Holy Ghost tells saved Christians that the King James is the word of God, and that the other CORRUPTED Bible versions like the ESV, HIV, etc are frauds. That's the main reason.
2. Process of elimination. Every English version since the publication of the King James uses manuscripts which weren't known until the 19th century. This is a problem, because Jesus said that his word would always be with us. That leaves only the King James and its predecessors, and the Douai-Rheims. The Douai-Rheims, of course, is tainted with popery. As for the English predecessors of the King James, many of them were done by a single version and none have endured with God's people nor even claim to be perfect renditions. They were more like rough drafts for the King James.
3. There is also the question of the method of translation, of which the King James has the highest pedigree. It was wrought by dozens of scholars who spoke several languages, many devout Christians. Lancelot Andrewes knew over 20 languages alone. They checked each other's work and diligently worked on the project for 7 years, with a specific goal to get it right for the enlightenment of the English people and for their King who tasked them with such a noble undertaking.

>>17861599
Hello Ranjesh.
>>17861577
>>17861589
>>17861605
Have fun burning.

>>17861612
>I'm super not concerned about the translation quality of this book I dedicate my eternal soul to asa long aas it's dumb enough for me to read it
okay lol

>>17861570 (OP)
U.S protestantism is kind of hard to take seriously, to be honest.
It's like everyone inside the country attempted to make their own spin on Christianity all at once. It even went on to partially infect England.

>>17861620
The KJV is pretty hard to read for moderns, actually.

>>17861620
You're Indian. Why are you talking to your superiors?
>>17861621
>U.S protestantism is kind of hard to take seriously, to be honest.
Great! Take the King James Bible seriously. "American Protestantism" isn't one thing, and Baptists have existed since before the formation of the U.S.
>>17861628
Not for native English speakers.

>>17861633
>Baptists have existed since before the formation of the U.S
It's a shame they didn't exist during the time of Jesus or very shortly after.

daily reminder that american evangelicalism is the christian version of wahhabism

a bunch of anti intellectual fundamentalists that don't even understand the religion they claim to be part of that insist everyone else is eternally damned for having even a minor inconsequential disagreement with their dogma

>>17861635
Jesus was a Baptist. John too - "John the Baptist" - ring a bell?

>>17861638
Awesome! Have fun burning.

>>17861628
>The KJV is pretty hard to read for moderns
Yeah? that's the only reason for other translations

>>17861641
>"John the Baptist"
Is the current nation of Israel the same as the one mentioned in Genesis?

>>17861651
If I'm reading some 2000 year old time about the mysteries of life that shit better be borderline hieroglyphics or I'm not impressed. We should destroy all the bibles and force people to learn fluent greek

>>17861644
isn’t it a sin to treat your neighbor like this? just before dying, couldn’t that anon also just say sorry to jesus after sinning (like murdering 100 people) and be forgiven (because jesus) and then go to heaven anyway?

>>17861699
No its not a sin to wish punishment on evil people. The problem is figuring out who the evil people are

>>17861703
actually unchristian, I'll pray for you tonight so that you may find your way to the Love of Our Savior Jesus Christ again

>>17861570 (OP)

>>17861610
>1. The Holy Ghost tells saved Christians that the King James is the word of God, and that the other CORRUPTED Bible versions like the ESV, HIV, etc are frauds.
Mormons say the Holy Ghost tells them the Book of Mormon is true.
>2. Process of elimination. Every English version since the publication of the King James uses manuscripts which weren't known until the 19th century. This is a problem, because Jesus said that his word would always be with us. That leaves only the King James and its predecessors, and the Douai-Rheims.
If the manuscripts are the issue, this isn't an argument for KJV-onlyism. This is an argument for the ecclesiastical text position over the critical text position, which is a whole other discussion. Why use the KJV rather than the NKJV? Or better yet, why not just learn the languages and just go to the Hebrew and Greek texts the KJV translators used? KJV-onlyists can't argue against this without devolving into Ruckmanite heresy.
>3. There is also the question of the method of translation, of which the King James has the highest pedigree. It was wrought by dozens of scholars who spoke several languages, many devout Christians.
Most modern Bible translations are done by committees of scholars.

>>17861710
One of the greatest coping mechanisms christianity gives christians is imagining evil people getting bisected by jesus

>>17861703 >>17861776
if hell opened and you could push evil people right into hell woudl that be a sin

>>17861580
>I don't care that the earliest versions of scripture don't have these passages because they are in the version from seventeenth century England commissioned by a gay Anglican king.

>>17861965
swerve pissant

>>17861599
It doesnt matter, kjv is just written like shit

>>17861785
Just like Jimmy the Bastard

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Hg3zJ3Z1fM

>>17862014
I don't know what to tell you. If the Bible was in Twitterspeak would you still read it?

>um ackshually older documents in greek in hebrew arent as accurate as an early modern english translation written 1500 years later

Why did the inspired word of God not exist for 1500 years

>>17862170
because it came down from heaven along with the usa constitution why else

Why did God wait 1500 years to deliver His inspired word only to give it to a homosexual heretic

>>17861570 (OP)
King James Onlyism is retard-tier. There is no argument for it that cannot be instantly taken apart. Might as well be Mormon or a Jehova's Witness if you're going to use your brain that little.

>>17861605
They are using corrupted sources.

>>17861689
>Is the current nation of Israel the same as the one mentioned in Genesis?
Those who claim to be Jews today have zero connection to the ancient or biblical Jews or Israel.

>>17861729
>Why use the KJV rather than the NKJV?
The NKJV is inaccurate and uses the critical text in some places. For example, in 2 Corinthians 4:14, the translation should have the word "by" (corresponding to the Greek "dia") but in the NKJV and modern translation the word is changed to "with" (corresponding to "syn" in the Greek critical text).

The above isn't the only example. In Matthew 22:10, Acts 19:9, 2 John verse 7 and a few other places, the NKJV translation blatantly followed the critical text.

That's before we get into other inaccurate translation choices. For example "comparable" instead of "meet" in Genesis 2:18, "descendants" (plural) instead of "seed" (singular) in Genesis 22:17, "went to the aid" instead of "went up against" in 2 Kings 23:29 (compare 2 Chron. 35:20), "he made his grave" changed to "they made his grave" in Isaiah 53:9, "hath turned away" changed to "will restore" in Nahum 2:2, "narrow" changed to "difficult" in Matthew 7:14, "in a place where two ways met" changed to "street" in Mark 11:4, "letter" changed to "written code" in Romans 2:27, "corrupt the word of God" changed to "peddle the word of God" in 2 Corinthians 2:17, "and of the Father" changed to "both of the Father" in Colossians 2:2, reversing the meaning of Hebrews 3:16, "heretic" changed to "divisive man" in Titus 3:10 and Jude 1:19, the removal of singular pronouns "thee/thou" to distinguish from plural "ye/you" in numerous passages (i.e. Luke 9:41, Luke 17:21, Luke 22:31-32, John 3:7).

Compared to the KJV, the NKJV is distinctly inaccurate and therefore inferior, and the NKJV literally takes some lines directly from the critical text (and modern masoretic text) despite claims that it doesn't. Maybe they accidentally left some of those in.

>>17862158
We have the originals. Why would we need anything else? God preserved the originals via the received text.

>>17861610
>1. The Holy Ghost tells saved Christians that the King James is the word of God
That is Satan, not the Holy Ghost.

To be honest, all of the Bible are conclusions that one individual can reach if they're self aware enough.
The Bible itself is more like a guide book for retards, not the absolute word of God, though it can contain absolute words of God and it must have been inspired by the holy spirit of God. But to worship a book is retard tier for which the book was written in the first place. Those self aware enough know what's in it intuitively, which is of a higher form of intelligence.

>>17862300
Oh, you have 1st century version of mark?

>>17862300
Entire passages have been added and removed with the evidence of such occurrences predating the compilation of the Bible

>>17861725
>no response
Lol

What about Christians who speak Spanish or German? Are they all doomed to hell because they don't understand a 17th century english translation of book from a completely different language?

>>17861570 (OP)
You guys know KJ was probably bisexual right? I'm not even kidding

>>17861641
If anything they were closer to Essenes

>>17861699
>just before dying, couldn’t that anon also just say sorry to jesus

The ultimate life hack

>>17862941
>What about Christians who speak Spanish or German? Are they all doomed to hell

Yes. Sorry anon dems da rulez

>>17862454
We have the inspired version, as it was originally written, of every book of the Bible.

>>17862470
>Entire passages have been added and removed with the evidence of such occurrences predating the compilation of the Bible
Some people have attempted to add or remove passages, it's true. But they've never managed to destroy the inspired original version, which we still have today. Throughout history they have tried through various schemes to corrupt the word of God.

"For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ."
(2 Corinthians 2:17)

Paul here mentions that there are many people, even in his day, who were corrupting God's word. To corrupt means to mix or adulterate manmade words, which can include attempting to remove parts of the inspired Scripture.

>>17862941
There are accurate TR translations in those languages, to my understanding. Spanish has certain revisions of the Reina Valera translation which bring the original translation much closer to the TR for example.

>>17861699
>isn’t it a sin to treat your neighbor like this?
1. It's not my neighbor.
2. You don't care, you're just pretending for rhetorical effect to condemn the elect. Those flames just got hotter. I can't wait to hear your screams.
>>17861710
>actually unchristian,
>The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
You are now a proven liar.
>>17861729
>Mormons say the Holy Ghost tells them the Book of Mormon is true.
Who cares?
>Why use the KJV rather than the NKJV?
The Non-King James doesn't use the received text exclusively. It takes cues from the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
>Or better yet, why not just learn the languages and just go to the Hebrew and Greek texts the KJV translators used?
It's not better. We have God's perfect word in our native tongue. You don't speak Greek, by the way.
>KJV-onlyists can't argue against this without devolving into Ruckmanite heresy.
You're braindead.
>>17862158
>older = better
You're braindead.
>>17862170
It did. You're braindead.
>>17862294
>>17862301
Enjoy Hell.
>>17862965
>If anything they were closer to Essenes
No, they were Baptists.
>>17862941
>What about Christians who speak Spanish or German? Are they all doomed to hell because they don't understand a 17th century english translation of book from a completely different language?
They have Bibles which are good enough to get saved from. I don't know about German as much, I have heard that Spanish has good translations but not yet one on the same tier as the King James. Brown people tend not to care about the Bible.

>>17861605
this is just a cope made after their treachery was revealed, or else why bloody mary, why the inquisition, why the spanish armada

>>17864178
>We have God's perfect word in our native tongue
Early Modern English is not your native tongue moron. You do not speak it.

>>17864221
>a dialect is a different language
Sorry you failed high school English since you're too retarded to read Hamlet. Have fun burning.

If you're not a Golden Children's Bible Onlyist, you're not even in the game spiritually. Forget about first plate, you haven't even found the field.

>>17864304
You are not fluent in the dialect of Early Modern English.

>>17864334
You are going to Hell, forever. Oh, and you still don't speak Greek. :)

>>17861580
IIRC many of those verses aren't even significant, and they're fully explained by cross-contamination between the gospels. E.g. the first example given, Matthew 17:21, is what Jesus says in the same or an extremely similar story in Mark 9:29, which the other translations still have. So it isn't like it's been removed for some nefarious doctrinal manipulation purposes. It's just that the earliest manuscripts don't have it, and it being added later is well explained by someone being aware of Mark's version of the story and filling in what would be perceived as a missing detail in Matthew's version.

>>17864394
>IIRC many of those verses aren't even significant
See what Jesus said in the Gospel:

"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God."
(Matthew 4:4)

>and they're fully explained by cross-contamination between the gospels.
Not exactly. The missing verses are not true parallel passages. Almost all of them occur at different times in Jesus' ministry.

For example, Matthew 18:11 happens significantly earlier than Luke 19:20, which is a verse where Jesus says something similar, but is co-temporal with chapter 20 of Matthew, not chapter 18.

Similarly, Mark 7:16 has Jesus say, "If any man have ears to hear, let him hear." The parallel passage to this teaching is in Matthew 15, which does not have this saying. However, Jesus often said this at other times. This saying is meaningful in its own context in each place and should not just be removed. Similarly with Mark 11:26, which is parallel to Matthew 21.

In addition to these verses being said at different times from their supposed parallel passages, the sayings in question aren't always exactly the same either. In Matthew 17:21, Jesus said, "this kind goeth not out (οὐκ ἐκπορεύεται) but by prayer and fasting." This is slightly different than the statement Jesus also made in Mark 9:29, which says, "this kind can come forth by nothing (οὐδενὶ δύναται ἐξελθεῖν) but by prayer and fasting." The two sayings are not exactly the same, nor do the omitted words/verses occur at the same time.

In the case of Matthew 23:14, which is the only remaining possible "parallel passage" here, the words are not exactly the same there either. Only Matthew 23 includes the words, "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!" at this place in Jesus' speech. He may have also said the same thing more than once during the course of His speech to the multitude. This would make Matthew 23:14 unique as well, meaning every verse mentioned is unique.

>>17864394
>IIRC many of those verses aren't even significant,
They are all significant, as they were authored by the Holy Ghost himself.
>older = better
You're retarded.

>>17864541
Also, if even one of these verses or sections of verses (for example Luke 9:55-56, which isn't even mention in the graphic) is wrongfully removed from the critical text, that invalidates the entire argument that "only some" of those verses are parallel passages. What about the ones that aren't?

This >>17864394 anon's argument is so full of holes that it almost wasn't worth responding to.

>>17864555
>older = better
>You're retarded.
He thinks there is such a thing as "better" when it comes to accuracy of Scripture. This implies we don't have the originals when we do.

The original is still today in the received text, and that has been divinely preserved. What's sad is that these people, who don't even believe in the Bible, are spending all this energy trying to undermine and cast doubt on the Bible. Yet they completely fail to do so unless they assume a priori that their worldview is true. And they also have to concern troll as supposed believers with doubts, rather than admitting their a priori assumptions and beliefs, which they have never justified or explained.

Instead of explaining their assumption that the Bible is false as their starting point, they just keep trying to assume and sneak it into their premises constantly, hoping that no one notices.

>>17864581
>The original is still today in the received text, and that has been divinely preserved. What's sad is that these people, who don't even believe in the Bible, are spending all this energy trying to undermine and cast doubt on the Bible. Yet they completely fail to do so unless they assume a priori that their worldview is true. And they also have to concern troll as supposed believers with doubts, rather than admitting their a priori assumptions and beliefs, which they have never justified or explained.
>Instead of explaining their assumption that the Bible is false as their starting point, they just keep trying to assume and sneak it into their premises constantly, hoping that no one notices.
Yep.

>>17864555
>as they were authored by the Holy Ghost himself
(citation needed)
>older=better
>You're retarded
I didn't say older was better, did I? Instead, I maintain that the Golden Children's Bible is the one true sacred text directly inspired by the Holy Ghost in modern times. But, if you're interested in what the original texts composing the Bible said, then understanding how those texts changed over time is important.

>>17864593
>(citation needed)
2 Peter 1:21. Have fun burning.

>>17861580
Sorry we have to remove your fan fic, luthie

>>17861570 (OP)
It's sad that the one true Bible wasn't published until 1611. Imagine all the poor Christian who had to make do without it for so long.

>>17864624
The KJV is based on the received text form of the Old Testament and New Testament in the original languages. We have always had the received text, as it has been handed down by the faithful from generation to generation.

Spiritual growth and faith don’t hinge on a single translation, but on one’s relationship with God and study of Scripture.