King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
What is the case with this verse from the LXX? Daniel says "As it is written"... where are those exact words "all these evils HAVE come upon us" written?

13As it is written in the law of Moses, all these evils have come upon us: yet we have not besought the Lord our God, that we might turn away from our iniquities, and have understanding in all thy truth.


I am lost a little... Daniel?

BTW I do not propose the LXX to be inspired and preserved in a perfect state. When we see quotations in the NT, most of them agrees with the LXX, some of them with the MSS and some with no OT version we have today.

So I am quite aware of the fact that even with the LXX some places in it are corrupted. But I think it is much closer to the original than the MSS (and so the KJV OT).
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,678
1,117
113
Don't forget James Strong's dictionary....it has to be inspired too in order to look up the inspired original words.
Jesus juke or serious?

i'm honestly confused at this point, and i still like you very much.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
What is being preached in this verse?

Mark 7:7 KJV
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

What is being taught here?

LXX
13 And the Lord has said, This people draw nigh to me with their mouth, and they honour me with their lips, but their heart is far from me: but in vain do they worship me, teaching the commandments and doctrines of men.
OK, it got mixed.

We should not compare the KJV New Testament to LXX, but KJV New Testament to KJV Old Testament and see if it fits better than the Greek NT fits with the Greek OT:

------

English "consistency":

Is 29:13
"...this people... have removed their heart far from me,
and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men."

Mk 7:6,7
"It is written,
This people... their heart is far from me.
Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

------

Greek consistency:

Is 29:13
ὁ λαὸς οὗτος... ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ·
μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας

Mk 7:6,7
ὡς γέγραπται,
Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς... ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ.
Μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων.

-------

Summary:

a) In English, we have these problems:
- heart is far vs they removed their heart far
- the part about "vain worship" disappeared completely
- the part about fear is added
- the word "doctrines" disappeared
- the word "commandments" disappeared
- meaning is changed: "their fear is taught by something" vs "they worship me in vain, because they are teaching something", passive vs active change

b) In Greek, we have these problems:
- word "kai" (and) is added in Mark


Conclusion: The English is perfect and not corrupted at all :) Right? English superiority rules! :)
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I am lost a little... Daniel?

BTW I do not propose the LXX to be inspired and preserved in a perfect state. When we see quotations in the NT, most of them agrees with the LXX, some of them with the MSS and some with no OT version we have today.

So I am quite aware of the fact that even with the LXX some places in it are corrupted. But I think it is much closer to the original than the MSS (and so the KJV OT).
Daniel said it is written, speaking of the curse in Genesis if the children of Israel didn't do all that God said to do. He wasn't quoting even though he said "it is written".
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Jesus juke or serious?

i'm honestly confused at this point, and i still like you very much.
I'm saying that people put 100% faith in Strong's definitions like his definitions are never wrong. If the Hebrew and Greek are the only inspired scripture then no one alive today has a pure word of God because MOST people can't read Hebrew and Greek and use dictionaries to define the words. And I'm glad you still like me! :)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Daniel said it is written, speaking of the curse in Genesis if the children of Israel didn't do all that God said to do. He wasn't quoting even though he said "it is written".
OK, I understand now.

It is also problem only in English, because the difference is lost in the KJV ("As it is written" in Daniel vs "as it is written" in Mark).

But not so in Greek.

The direct citation is introduced by "hoti".

"ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι" (as it is written "that") - Mark 7:6
"καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν" (Like it is written in...) - Dan 9:13


-----

Note:
"hoti" (that) is mostly not translated, because it does not have the "that" meaning while introducing citation. It just does this - it introduces a citation.
 
Last edited:

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
If the Hebrew and Greek are the only inspired scripture then no one alive today has a pure word of God because MOST people can't read Hebrew and Greek and use dictionaries to define the words. And I'm glad you still like me! :)
So... no one alive or most of people? It is a difference :)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,647
13,124
113
I'm saying that people put 100% faith in Strong's definitions like his definitions are never wrong. If the Hebrew and Greek are the only inspired scripture then no one alive today has a pure word of God because MOST people can't read Hebrew and Greek and use dictionaries to define the words. And I'm glad you still like me! :)
i still love you too, but Strong's isn't a dictionary. It's a concordance. It lists usage specifically in the kjv, so where kjv is inaccurate, so is Strong's.
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,678
1,117
113
I'm saying that people put 100% faith in Strong's definitions like his definitions are never wrong. If the Hebrew and Greek are the only inspired scripture then no one alive today has a pure word of God because MOST people can't read Hebrew and Greek and use dictionaries to define the words. And I'm glad you still like me! :)
so Jesus juke! whew! :)

my mind is small, and broken. i put my trust wholly in God, Who has the power to ensure His children have enough information for life and godliness. i believe He is more than able to bless a translation team's efforts.

none of them are perfect. i just have to learn what i can from outside sources about translation errors and most of all, trust God. :)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
i still love you too, but Strong's isn't a dictionary. It's a concordance. It lists usage specifically in the kjv, so where kjv is inaccurate, so is Strong's.
I wonder why is Strong still the first option on for example biblehub.com about the meaning of the Greek word... as if it would be some authoritative dictionary.
 

notmyown

Senior Member
May 26, 2016
4,678
1,117
113
So... no one alive or most of people? It is a difference :)
wait! do we have all the original autographs?

if not, then yeah, no one alive. :p

except God! He's alive, and so is His Word.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
wait! do we have all the original autographs?

if not, then yeah, no one alive. :p

except God! He's alive, and so is His Word.
Yeah, in this meaning no one :)
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
Part 3

Hort prayed for the destruction of the American Union in a letter to John Ellerton, Sept 25, 1862. Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort. Volume 1 pages 458-459.....Hort praised Charles Darwin and believed in evolution, therefore placing blacks on a lower level in the evolutionary time-table. Also claiming that Genesis chapter 1 was a fairy tale. Bruce Metzger, (1914-2007), served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. Metzger is widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20th century. He sat at the head of Nestles-Aland Critical Text advisory board, (Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Carlo Maria Martini, Bruce Metzger) He believed that 19 of the NT books were not valid, also thought that early Genesis was added to the text and not reliable. Bart Erham, an agnostic, was Metzger's star pupil. This is all in Metzger's own book co-authored with Bart Erhman, textual criticism. (these men believed that the majority of the NT was a myth).. .He felt it was alright to produce a bible with 40% of the text missing, (the Readers Digest Bible) and of course he omitted Rev 22-19 in doing so..........This is the opposite of the Holy Ghost inspiration..........
Even if these things were true (but, of course they are not true), they would in no way whatsoever improve the quality of the corrupt Greek text from the New Testament in the KJV was translated. Moreover, even if these things were true, they would in no way whatsoever improve the accuracy of the translation found in the Old Testament in the KJV. Furthermore, even if these things were true, they would in no way whatsoever decrease the accuracy of the of the Greek texts from which the best translations of the New Testament in our contemporary Bible have been made. The supremacy of the KJV has no defense, and therefore the defenders of that view resort to malicious and libelous slander against the scholars who have dedicated their lives to giving us the most accurate and readable translations possible—thereby discouraging millions of people from reading and benefiting from Bibles that they can understand.
 

Sagart

Senior Member
May 7, 2017
366
29
28
I agree that the word of God is spritual and is not confined to any language and I don't understand why some people say the inerrant word of God only exists in the original languages. The word of God has always been hidden in the symbolic language of whatever language the plain text is written in... only a born again believer can understand that language because it's not learned, it's revealed.
As a pastor, I have seen many unbelievers understand the Bible so very well that, upon hearing it preached, they got down on their knees, confessed to God that they were sinners, and asked Jesus to save them.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
6,646
1,396
113
You might worship your bible if you could see the spirit of Christ in your bible or if you could see his finger prints and signatures on the pages. To you the bible is just a book, to me it's Christ. It's alive and it speaks to my soul. It's the only image of Christ that we have on this earth. And yes I worship it proudly!
And there is the crux of the problem. Any item should never be worshipped. You should know that.

Our worship should only be for God.

Anything else you worship is an idol... and God is a jealous God.... again, you should know that.

I'm saddened by your admission, but not entirely surprised.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
And when your HCSB lies to you, what do you think? Is you HCSB the word of truth?

2 Samuel 21:19 Once again there was a battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam. I thought David killed Goliath.

Matthew 5:22 But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Fool!’ will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, ‘You moron!’ will be subject to hellfire. I guess Jesus is subject to judgment.

Psalm 8:5 You made him little less than God and crowned him with glory and honor. A little less than God? No, angels.

Isaiah 53:5 But He was pierced because of our transgressions, crushed because of our iniquities; punishment for our peace was on Him, and we are healed by His wounds. Crushed? Nope, bruised. Not a bone of His body was broken.

Just to name a few of many...

And this is why I do not use the KJV. When you use 7 corrupted later manuscripts for the NT and 15th century Masoretic texts for the OT, you just end up with so many errors, don't you?

My advice is for you to learn another language and then you will understand there can be many variations on words. Or learn Hebrew and Greek, and even an introductory understanding of the languages used in the manuscripts will help you understand how there is no direct translating languages like Greek and Hebrew.

Did you say you were in some kind of cult that believes only the KJV saves people? Well then, wallow in ignorance, I guess!
 
Apr 23, 2017
1,064
47
0
And this is why I do not use the KJV. When you use 7 corrupted later manuscripts for the NT and 15th century Masoretic texts for the OT, you just end up with so many errors, don't you?

My advice is for you to learn another language and then you will understand there can be many variations on words. Or learn Hebrew and Greek, and even an introductory understanding of the languages used in the manuscripts will help you understand how there is no direct translating languages like Greek and Hebrew.

Did you say you were in some kind of cult that believes only the KJV saves people? Well then, wallow in ignorance, I guess!
hi angela blessed sister in Christ!!!!!!!! can you tell me how the translators decide what words to use???????? i ask specifically about some things i feel are wrongly translated but i have no skill to say so, like the circumcision was supposed to be eternal, law of moses eternal and things like that, why were they translated eternal???????? i know aion in greek can mean "age" not necessarily eternity, olam in hebrew i dont know how that goes but can you tell me please????????
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
Mark says "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." One teaching - the commandments of men as doctrine.

LXX Isaiah says "teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." Two teachings - 1) the commandments of men and 2) the doctrines of men.

KVJ Isaiah says "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of man". One teaching - fear toward God (set of beliefs aka doctrine) taught by the precept (rule of conduct) of man.

Can you see how the LXX is completely wrong as compared to Mark?
I think you have some good points in your posts.

However, you are comparing the LXX, which is in Greek, using English. Perhaps it would be better to compare this verse in Greek - LXX to Mark? The LXX is incredibly difficult in many places. It is a form of Greek that is 300-400 years older than when the NT was written (Mark being one of the earliest NT documents!)

In other words, the writers of the NT, may well have viewed the LXX somewhat as I view the KJV. Basically difficult to read. Languages always change, and certainly the writers of the NT were not obsessed with perfection and accuracy, like we are today.

Or are you implying the KJV is right, and the the LXX is not? Perhaps following a changed and updated 15 century Masoretic text is the reason for the inaccuracy in the KJV?

PS if you put the Scripture addresses in, it would help me look verses up much better. Isaiah has 66 books, you know!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,780
2,943
113
hi angela blessed sister in Christ!!!!!!!! can you tell me how the translators decide what words to use???????? i ask specifically about some things i feel are wrongly translated but i have no skill to say so, like the circumcision was supposed to be eternal, law of moses eternal and things like that, why were they translated eternal???????? i know aion in greek can mean "age" not necessarily eternity, olam in hebrew i dont know how that goes but can you tell me please????????

Well, the translators, mostly are committees. They toss around ideas, use various lexicons, check use elsewhere in the NT, and even in early church fathers and other concurrent literature. Then they vote on which words to use. (The exception is the paraphrase, the Message, which Eugene Peterson translated. Really good in some places, and just totally wrong in others!)

I understand the NET Bible - the one with the full commentary has explanations for every single word, and how they were guided in their choices.

As far as your specific questions, about olam and aion, it really depends on which verse, and the context. Remember, even in English, the same word can be used differently.

Eg.
I run the business.

I run to the store.

I have a run in my nylons. (You may not understand that archaic use of the word "run." LOL)

Other languages are no different. How is it used in the sentence? Where is it in the sentence? Is it traditionally translated one way, and that is the accepted way?

My advice, as always, is to read it in context. So, not just the word, but the verse, the chapter, the book. And the historical and grammatical context. And not to be nasty, but until you have 20 or 30 years translating under your belt, probably what you "feel" is not enough to trump what the people who have studied their whole lives "to show themselves approved," understand.

In other words, you have a certain belief or doctrine, and you want to read INTO the text so it agrees with what you believe. It makes you "feel" uncomfortable, because the translation doesn't agree with you. Translating involves taking meaning OUT of the words, and words are never used in isolation.

So, perhaps you need to re-examine the things that are making you "feel" uncomfortable, and why the words say something different than you want them to. Or, perhaps you do have a wrong feeling. Sometimes you need to go back to the tradition of the translation. Is it just parroting something from another time? Or is it supporting a particular viewpoint, but translating words in a particular way? I have this issue with complimentarianism, ESV saying plainly in the footnotes that they chose a word because it supports the complimentarian view. Of course, eschatology and the Scofield Bible, from what I understand incorporates notes in the margins that Darby/Scofield made, slanted its end times view.

In other words, perhaps the translation does reflect the biases of the translators. But in order to uncover that, you really do need to study Greek and Hebrew. And then be humble enough to admit you need to know more. My Greek prof has been studying Greek his whole life. His dad was a Greek scholar, his uncles, his cousins, etc. It was just something his family did. They all wrote all kinds of commentaries and books and texts books. Yet, he still is open to the fact that new things are being discovered with regards to manuscripts, and that our words have changed, so then, we have to look differently at the words we use to translate the Bible.

In fact, he would get so excited when we were talking about a text, and because of the parsing, we would see a different angle, as a class. Or a different translation would shed a different light on the passage, reflecting the Greek better. He would write these things down, to take to the translation committee meanings.

As for you, being young, what about studying Greek and Hebrew? Some people do it on their own, I needed a professor to help me. If you are interested, and you have some spare money to pay for the books and classes, pm me, and I will give you some links to follow and some good books to get started. Plus, having a real professor for Greek and Hebrew (don't do both at the same time, is my advice!) you can ask them questions like this, and they will have better answers than I have? I'm only advanced, not a professional!
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
I think you have some good points in your posts.

However, you are comparing the LXX, which is in Greek, using English. Perhaps it would be better to compare this verse in Greek - LXX to Mark? The LXX is incredibly difficult in many places. It is a form of Greek that is 300-400 years older than when the NT was written (Mark being one of the earliest NT documents!)

In other words, the writers of the NT, may well have viewed the LXX somewhat as I view the KJV. Basically difficult to read. Languages always change, and certainly the writers of the NT were not obsessed with perfection and accuracy, like we are today.

Or are you implying the KJV is right, and the the LXX is not? Perhaps following a changed and updated 15 century Masoretic text is the reason for the inaccuracy in the KJV?

PS if you put the Scripture addresses in, it would help me look verses up much better. Isaiah has 66 books, you know!
I compared it in the post #523.