KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- Start date
-
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.
L
A look at those verses.
King James Bible Deut 4:48
From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even unto mount Sion, which is Hermon,
King James Bible 2sam 5:7
Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.
this could be possible meaning encompass the whole area. though today its called mount Sinai 118 miles away from Jerusalem, though there was a hill right out side the city walls called Zion as well. so the translation could be mentioning the hill not the mountian.
King James Bible Deut 4:48
From Aroer, which is by the bank of the river Arnon, even unto mount Sion, which is Hermon,
King James Bible 2sam 5:7
Nevertheless David took the strong hold of Zion: the same is the city of David.
this could be possible meaning encompass the whole area. though today its called mount Sinai 118 miles away from Jerusalem, though there was a hill right out side the city walls called Zion as well. so the translation could be mentioning the hill not the mountian.
Fair enough... it can be challenging to find the right words to capture one's thoughts. I struggle with that as well.
Regarding your view on 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."...
What I see in your view is that you believe this: "being born again... of incorruptible seed, the word of God...". It is as if you have deleted the "by". Perhaps if I break it up as follows it will be more clear what I'm saying...
"We have been born again of incorruptible seed..."
That seed is not the word of God.
"by the word of God..."
But the word brings about the re-birth of that different seed.
Changing the word order might also make it clearer: "We have been born again by the word of God of incorruptible seed." There are two distinct prepositional phrases there. The incorruptible seed is not the word of God; it is the life of Christ. Therefore, this verse is not actually stating that the word of God is incorruptible.
This verse can be linked to Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The hearing is not the word, but the hearing (of the true gospel) comes about bythe word of God.
This may be a case where a doctrine is made from a single verse. That is always dangerous; because it tends to dismiss other verses which inform the truth.
Regarding your view on 1 Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever."...
What I see in your view is that you believe this: "being born again... of incorruptible seed, the word of God...". It is as if you have deleted the "by". Perhaps if I break it up as follows it will be more clear what I'm saying...
"We have been born again of incorruptible seed..."
That seed is not the word of God.
"by the word of God..."
But the word brings about the re-birth of that different seed.
Changing the word order might also make it clearer: "We have been born again by the word of God of incorruptible seed." There are two distinct prepositional phrases there. The incorruptible seed is not the word of God; it is the life of Christ. Therefore, this verse is not actually stating that the word of God is incorruptible.
This verse can be linked to Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The hearing is not the word, but the hearing (of the true gospel) comes about bythe word of God.
This may be a case where a doctrine is made from a single verse. That is always dangerous; because it tends to dismiss other verses which inform the truth.
First I want to say that this verse isn't the only verse I base my belief on and secondly no verse will ever contradict another verse so whatever this verse says then it agrees with all scripture.
Correct me if I'm wrong but we are told what seed represents in Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. So the "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed" are descriptors of 2 types of seeds.
An example of the first seed (corruptible) is not given in that verse but the second type of seed (incorruptible) is the word of God. So if we remove the desciptors we have "Being born again by the word of God".
1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Correct me if I'm wrong but we are told what seed represents in Luke 8:11 - Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. So the "not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible seed" are descriptors of 2 types of seeds.
An example of the first seed (corruptible) is not given in that verse but the second type of seed (incorruptible) is the word of God. So if we remove the desciptors we have "Being born again by the word of God".
1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)
23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Understood.
We discussed this in part previously... Given that the parable mentions only one type of seed, and 1 Peter 1:23 mentions two, it should alert the reader to the fact that there may not be a straight parallel between two passages. I believe that the statement, "the seed is the word of God" refers only to the parable, not necessarily to every other mention of "seed" in Scripture.
I believe that the "incorruptible seed" is Christ Himself; the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and 13:15 and Galatians 3:16. I would further assert that it is more consistent with the gospel that we are born again "of Christ" not merely of "the word of God". Only the Word Who was and is God died on the cross and rose again to life; the word of God never did. Our life is in Christ, not in the word of God. All things hold together in Christ, not in the word of God.
We discussed this in part previously... Given that the parable mentions only one type of seed, and 1 Peter 1:23 mentions two, it should alert the reader to the fact that there may not be a straight parallel between two passages. I believe that the statement, "the seed is the word of God" refers only to the parable, not necessarily to every other mention of "seed" in Scripture.
I believe that the "incorruptible seed" is Christ Himself; the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and 13:15 and Galatians 3:16. I would further assert that it is more consistent with the gospel that we are born again "of Christ" not merely of "the word of God". Only the Word Who was and is God died on the cross and rose again to life; the word of God never did. Our life is in Christ, not in the word of God. All things hold together in Christ, not in the word of God.
Understood.
We discussed this in part previously... Given that the parable mentions only one type of seed, and 1 Peter 1:23 mentions two, it should alert the reader to the fact that there may not be a straight parallel between two passages. I believe that the statement, "the seed is the word of God" refers only to the parable, not necessarily to every other mention of "seed" in Scripture.
I believe that the "incorruptible seed" is Christ Himself; the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and 13:15 and Galatians 3:16. I would further assert that it is more consistent with the gospel that we are born again "of Christ" not merely of "the word of God". Only the Word Who was and is God died on the cross and rose again to life; the word of God never did. Our life is in Christ, not in the word of God. All things hold together in Christ, not in the word of God.
We discussed this in part previously... Given that the parable mentions only one type of seed, and 1 Peter 1:23 mentions two, it should alert the reader to the fact that there may not be a straight parallel between two passages. I believe that the statement, "the seed is the word of God" refers only to the parable, not necessarily to every other mention of "seed" in Scripture.
I believe that the "incorruptible seed" is Christ Himself; the seed mentioned in Genesis 3:15 and 13:15 and Galatians 3:16. I would further assert that it is more consistent with the gospel that we are born again "of Christ" not merely of "the word of God". Only the Word Who was and is God died on the cross and rose again to life; the word of God never did. Our life is in Christ, not in the word of God. All things hold together in Christ, not in the word of God.
I don't wont to beat a dead horse to death but I would like to add that the incourrutible seed is only an adjective that describes the noun "the word of God".
I can see your point but disagree of course... but that's not an issue with me.
I don't wont to beat a dead horse to death but I would like to add that the incourrutible seed is only an adjective that describes the noun "the word of God".
I don't wont to beat a dead horse to death but I would like to add that the incourrutible seed is only an adjective that describes the noun "the word of God".
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God".
For that reason I don't believe it's merely an adjective. However, I respect your right to disagree.
I believe you have erred as you have overlooked the word "by":
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God".
For that reason I don't believe it's merely an adjective. However, I respect your right to disagree.
"Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God".
For that reason I don't believe it's merely an adjective. However, I respect your right to disagree.
Born again (verb) by the word of God (what).
Just to be clear I'm not saying in any way shape or form that people who read other versions are not saved or don't have the Spirit of Christ indwelling them. All I'm saying is that the Christ that we belief in is based solely one the words we read and the things we have been taught. If those words are corrupt then the Christ in our minds will be corrupt, not the Spirit of Christ that indwells all believers but the Chirst in our minds.
This thought and/or belief is not a Christian belief at all.
Two Christ's really. Jesus said He would go to the Father and send The Spirit Who would never leave or forsake us. As far as I'm concerned Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father and the Holy Spirit is living in me. I read the KJV to and haven't come across two Christ's in it or in the NIV or any other translations I have. Hmmm maybe you have a Jehovahs witness KJV.