Replies

1 John 2:22

....22. Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist--he denies the Father and the Son....

...1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is anti-christ, that denieth the Father and the Son....

My KJV Bible says he is anti-christ not he is the antichrist. Many are anti-christ but only one is the anti-christ.

1 John 4:3

...3. but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world......

....1 John 4:3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Chrisrt is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world....

Once again the spirit of the antichrist applies to many, all those who follow after the spirit of the antichrist. You can read the verse without the word spirit as the word spirit is in italics which means it was inserted to help the meaning of the sentence in English.

2 John 1:7

...7. Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.....

....2 John 1:7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the Flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist....

Once again the KJV says a deceiver and an antichrist not the deceiver and the antichrist. There are many that follow after the spirit of antichrist and are minor antichrists but only one "the" antichrist. Also this illustrates why there really is a huge difference between versions of the Bible. Through much study I have come to believe that the KJV is the best version that is an English interpretation of the manuscript that I believe is the inspired one. Many of the other versions are compiled from many manuscripts and some of them are dubious. I am going to stick to the KJV myself. PTL!

...and some of them are dubious....

And the others???

The only reason they are 'dubious' is because they do NOT contain certain scriptures that are included in the KJV.

The problem compounds, however, when these 'dubious' ones are found to be written EARLIER than the ONLY KNOWN ONES OF THE TIME that the KJV was compiled.

So we are left with a bigger problem:

Was something TAKEN away later, or was something ADDED later??

We must be careful not to make a TRANSLATION more 'sacred' that the original language texts...

The bible wasn't written in 1622 dearie. you need to learn what a 'o is in Greek before you launch on a tear about how the KJV is the only version to use. A definite article in Greek is not always used even when implied, and the translators of the KJV themselves never claimed to have a perfect translation. The KJV is a very good translation, by the way, especially if you lived in the 17th century! Then again, the Vulgate was really super for those of us who spoke Latin. I don't suppose you try and read Beowulf to the little ones for bedtime story, do you? Languages evolve, and so do translations.
Your objection may center on the TR, rather than simply the KJV, in which case the discussion might be more interesting, but still essentially the same

. Don't build a "support for the faith" that is constructed solely from your own misperceptions about the holy nature of the KJV (or textus receptus, if you are one of those rants). Better people than you or I have done so, and had their own faith implode when their own unbiblical "support" was shown to be in error. The so associated the faith with their own odd doctrinal position that when it collapsed, they thought the faith had collapsed. That is just silly. The KJV was a very good, solid translation, but don't try to make it what it wasn't, nor what its translators never claimed for it.