KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,161
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,161
Lucy-Pevensie said:
No he didn't get banned. He's still suffering from a maniacal obsession with numbers and the KJV. No digit is safe from the count.


Click to expand...
It says banned underneath his name on the number 5 thread, is he really not banned?
 
Lucy-Pevensie

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
#2,162
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
#2,162
KJV1611 said:
It says banned underneath his name on the number 5 thread, is he really not banned?
Click to expand...
Oh, I didn't know. I guess he finally pushed it too far. I wasn't keeping up with his threads so I didn't realise.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,163
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,163
KJV1611 said:
I thought I did but maybe not. I think both are perect but I prefer 1769 because it's easier to read. I've not noticed any differences between the two.
Click to expand...
1611 vs 1769 changes:

2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

So, which one was perfect and inspired?
 
Lucy-Pevensie

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
#2,164
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
#2,164
KJV1611 said:
I thought I did but maybe not. I think both are perect but I prefer 1769 because it's easier to read. I've not noticed any differences between the two.
Click to expand...
So easier to read is acceptable for some people?
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,165
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,165
trofimus said:
1611 vs 1769 changes:

2 Kings 11:10 – “in the Temple” vs. “in the temple of the LORD”
Ezekiel 24:5 – “let him seethe” vs. “let them seethe”
Ezekiel 48:8 – “which they shall” vs. “which ye shall”
1 John 5:12 – “the Sonne, hath” vs. “the Son of God hath”

So, which one was perfect and inspired?
Click to expand...
Ok starting with the first one, what is the difference the Temple and the temple of the LORD? How are those not the same temple?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,166
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,166
KJV1611 said:
Ok starting with the first one, what is the difference the Temple and the temple of the LORD? How are those not the same temple?
Click to expand...
Perfect translation can leave out the word "Lord"? I thought its one of main attacks on NIV etc.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,168
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,168
Lucy-Pevensie said:
So easier to read is acceptable for some people?
Click to expand...
I really don't have a problem with the newer translation all I am saying is they aren't inpsired are don't have the earmarks of inspiration. As I've said before I used to read the NIV. I just don't think a person will come to the same conclusions reading un-inspired books as they will reading inspired ones.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,169
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,169
Lucy-Pevensie said:
It has been one of the main attacks. "EVERY WORD COUNTS!" We were told repeatedly.
Click to expand...
Not to mention the "number 5, 37, 7, 9 etc" in the KJV patterns :) I wonder if the "pure bible search engine" James37 is using is built on 1611 or 1769 words counts.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,170
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,170
KJV1611 said:
I really don't have a problem with the newer translation all I am saying is they aren't inpsired are don't have the earmarks of inspiration. As I've said before I used to read the NIV. I just don't think a person will come to the same conclusions reading un-inspired books as they will reading inspired ones.
Click to expand...
And which one was inspired, 1611 or 1769? :) Again.
 
hornetguy

hornetguy

Senior Member
#2,171
Jan 18, 2016
6,647
1,397
113
#2,171
KJV1611 said:
Ok starting with the first one, what is the difference the Temple and the temple of the LORD? How are those not the same temple?
Click to expand...
One of them could be referring to the temple of Diana, for all we know. I mean, how will we KNOW we have the pure words of God, if it doesn't specify WHICH temple?

(sarcasm)

and.... the KJV is no more inspired than any other translation....
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,172
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,172
trofimus said:
Perfect translation can leave out the word "Lord"? I thought its one of main attacks on NIV etc.
Click to expand...
Bear with me I'm on a conference call while I'm doing this lol.
I've never looked for number patterns on the word "Lord" before so I don't know if a pattern exists or not. But no I don't think leaving the word Lord out changes the message in any.

Maybe you can tell me why it is diffrent.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,173
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,173
I'm tied up with work right now, I'll be back when it calms down a bit.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,174
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,174
KJV1611 said:
Bear with me I'm on a conference call while I'm doing this lol.
I've never looked for number patterns on the word "Lord" before so I don't know if a pattern exists or not. But no I don't think leaving the word Lord out changes the message in any.

Maybe you can tell me why it is diffrent.
Click to expand...
Tell me, would it mater if it was in NIV?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,176
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,176
KJV1611 said:
If the meaning was the same no it wouldn't matter.
Click to expand...
And who decides whether the meaning is the same? 100 people = 100 opinions.

Also, if the meaning is the same, why did they update it, then?
 
Lucy-Pevensie

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
#2,177
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
#2,177
KJV1611 said:
I really don't have a problem with the newer translation all I am saying is they aren't inpsired are don't have the earmarks of inspiration. As I've said before I used to read the NIV. I just don't think a person will come to the same conclusions reading un-inspired books as they will reading inspired ones.
Click to expand...
trofimus said:
And who decides whether the meaning is the same? 100 people = 100 opinions.

Also, if the meaning is the same, why did they update it, then?
Click to expand...
A rabbi once told me, "2 Jews 10 opinions" ;)
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,178
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,178
trofimus said:
And who decides whether the meaning is the same? 100 people = 100 opinions.

Also, if the meaning is the same, why did they update it, then?
Click to expand...
Opinions don't matter, it either is the same meaning or it isn't.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,179
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,179
KJV1611 said:
Opinions don't matter, it either is the same meaning or it isn't.
Click to expand...
And guess what... in NIV, KJVOnly guys will always say "the meaning is different!" and in the KJV they will alway say "the meaning is the same!" even if the kind of change is the same in both NIV and KJV.

So, now what. We need some unbiased standard.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,180
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,180
trofimus said:
And guess what... in NIV, KJVOnly guys will always say "the meaning is different!" and in the KJV they will alway say "the meaning is the same!" even if the kind of change is the same in both NIV and KJV.

So, now what. We need some unbiased standard.
Click to expand...
I don't have a problem admitting when the newer translations are right, I'm glad there's some good in them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.