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.
Irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy, and makes your argument worthless. Your rejection of it carries as much weight with me as modern translations do with you.
What you consider "trivial" really doesn't matter, any more than your exaltation of the KJV means to me. Your generalized condemnation is irrelevant, because it doesn't address the actual statements from people with whom you disagree.
The Bible is God's book. The KJV is simply one translation of it, and has no more authority than any other translation. You have an a priori view of its uniqueness that is indefensible on historical, logical and textual grounds.
Right back atcha. You can claim until you're dead that your research is somehow more valid, but that doesn't make it more valid. You aren't the only one whose research is Spirit-led.
And yet you believe differently than others who also trust the Holy Spirit is telling them the truth. It's subjective and as such is no more indicative of truth than the Mormon's burning in the bosom.
So instead of continuing with your unpleasant behaviour, making excuses for it, justifying it, or even defensively claiming that others do it, just quit it!
You judge the arguments of others as weak and lacking depth... I consider the same of your arguments. Your disregard of a very basic logical fallacy above is a perfect example.
Your sentence structure suggests that there is a "hook that denies truth and promotes corrupt bibles". Perhaps having your nose stuck in a four-century-old book hasn't done much for your understanding of English grammar.
I consider God quite capable of gently correcting those in error who are honestly seeking Him. In your self-righteous arrogance, you can't comprehend that God would do anything other than condemn those whom you condemn. Sadly, that makes you no different than the Pharisees.
What you consider "trivial" really doesn't matter, any more than your exaltation of the KJV means to me. Your generalized condemnation is irrelevant, because it doesn't address the actual statements from people with whom you disagree.
The Bible is God's book. The KJV is simply one translation of it, and has no more authority than any other translation. You have an a priori view of its uniqueness that is indefensible on historical, logical and textual grounds.
Right back atcha. You can claim until you're dead that your research is somehow more valid, but that doesn't make it more valid. You aren't the only one whose research is Spirit-led.
And yet you believe differently than others who also trust the Holy Spirit is telling them the truth. It's subjective and as such is no more indicative of truth than the Mormon's burning in the bosom.
So instead of continuing with your unpleasant behaviour, making excuses for it, justifying it, or even defensively claiming that others do it, just quit it!
You judge the arguments of others as weak and lacking depth... I consider the same of your arguments. Your disregard of a very basic logical fallacy above is a perfect example.
Your sentence structure suggests that there is a "hook that denies truth and promotes corrupt bibles". Perhaps having your nose stuck in a four-century-old book hasn't done much for your understanding of English grammar.
I consider God quite capable of gently correcting those in error who are honestly seeking Him. In your self-righteous arrogance, you can't comprehend that God would do anything other than condemn those whom you condemn. Sadly, that makes you no different than the Pharisees.
It's more than evident that the KJV translators use of Easter is in error and another example of uninspired inconsistency as they used Passover in the following verse:
(1 Cor 5:7 KJV) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
All the irrational rationalizing of the KJV only crowd amounts to nothing.
(1 Cor 5:7 KJV) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:
All the irrational rationalizing of the KJV only crowd amounts to nothing.
So if He will never allow that, why do you keep claiming that He has allowed it? You believe that God would not allow His Scripture to be corrupted, yet you believe that is exactly what has happened with newer translations. You ignore plain and basic errors in the KJV, and retort that such claims are "attacks on God's Word". What silliness, inconsistency and hypocrisy!
Huh? I argue against your arguments, not your person.
The problem is that you haven't grasped the truth the the "authorization" was extremely limited in scope, and you keep trying to apply it universally. Read the front matter of your KJV: it says, "Authorized to be read in churches" or something very similar. That's the extent of it: to be read in Anglican churches.
You assume the word has some imaginary authority beyond the Anglican Church of 1611... which does not exist. The Puritans didn't accept the authorization as binding. The Huguenots didn't. The Lutherans didn't. The Catholics certainly didn't. Yet you keep using the term as though it was a universal authorization administered by God Himself... which is not the case. You claim that single "front matter" statement is somehow binding, but you ignore plain statements in the Preface that carry equal (and similarly sub-scriptural) weight as the other front matter. Your reasoning is inconsistent and therefore invalid.
Huh? I argue against your arguments, not your person.
The problem is that you haven't grasped the truth the the "authorization" was extremely limited in scope, and you keep trying to apply it universally. Read the front matter of your KJV: it says, "Authorized to be read in churches" or something very similar. That's the extent of it: to be read in Anglican churches.
You assume the word has some imaginary authority beyond the Anglican Church of 1611... which does not exist. The Puritans didn't accept the authorization as binding. The Huguenots didn't. The Lutherans didn't. The Catholics certainly didn't. Yet you keep using the term as though it was a universal authorization administered by God Himself... which is not the case. You claim that single "front matter" statement is somehow binding, but you ignore plain statements in the Preface that carry equal (and similarly sub-scriptural) weight as the other front matter. Your reasoning is inconsistent and therefore invalid.
In posts 2453 and 2713 I cite my sources. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, The PCBE and the Schaff Herzogg are all hard copy; and except for the SOED, they are 10" X14" X 3" volumes; so they will not stay on my 8.5"X11" flatbed scanner. The soed is 12"X10"x2" and still very awkward.
Last edited:
All this talk about Easter and Passover is much ado about nothing. I believe that the KJB translators should have transliterated Pascha as Pascha, since it covers more than just the Passover. However we need to keep in mind that by the 17th century, Easter had already become an established Christian festival.
Also it would appear that "Easter" and "Pascha" had become interchangeable at the time that the KJB was translated, and "the days of unleavened bread" followed Passover (Acts 12:3). So while Pascha was for the Jews (including both Passover and the days of unleavened bread), Easter was the corresponding festival for Christians at the time of translation (since the resurrection followed the Passover). In hindsight, we could say that the King James translators should have simply transliterated Pascha.
Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.
Also it would appear that "Easter" and "Pascha" had become interchangeable at the time that the KJB was translated, and "the days of unleavened bread" followed Passover (Acts 12:3). So while Pascha was for the Jews (including both Passover and the days of unleavened bread), Easter was the corresponding festival for Christians at the time of translation (since the resurrection followed the Passover). In hindsight, we could say that the King James translators should have simply transliterated Pascha.
Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.
No there was no confounding with fertility rites at that time. If you check the original KJV and the tables of Christian feasts and festivals provided, Easter is shown as a Christian festival, and had been so for over a thousand years.
(Wikipedia)
True that the origins of Easter were pagan, but the whole Christian world celebrates Easter as the resurrection of Christ to this day. So harking back to the pagan origins does not cut any ice.
(Wikipedia)
True that the origins of Easter were pagan, but the whole Christian world celebrates Easter as the resurrection of Christ to this day. So harking back to the pagan origins does not cut any ice.
Last edited:
You seem blind. You consistently attack other translations (the evidence is seen above), and then turn and write this tripe. You ignore the repeated statements that nobody is attacking the KJV, and instead are defending against the attacks on other translations by KJV-only proponents.
Stop the indefensible KJV exaltation and attacks on other translations, and the strife will cease. Keep promoting the exclusivity of the KJV while attacking other translations and the strife will continue.
Anyone who claims that a reasoned criticism of the KJV is an "attack" and criticizes newer translations on comparable issues or in similar ways hasn't got their head on straight on this matter. It is the same attitude of millennials who perceive anything short of wholehearted agreement with their views as "offensive"... and is similarly ridiculous... and unbalanced.
Stop the indefensible KJV exaltation and attacks on other translations, and the strife will cease. Keep promoting the exclusivity of the KJV while attacking other translations and the strife will continue.
Anyone who claims that a reasoned criticism of the KJV is an "attack" and criticizes newer translations on comparable issues or in similar ways hasn't got their head on straight on this matter. It is the same attitude of millennials who perceive anything short of wholehearted agreement with their views as "offensive"... and is similarly ridiculous... and unbalanced.
Adam Clarke's commentary stated the use of Easter was absurd and has nothing to do with an attack on the KJV as his whole series of commentaries is based on the KJV - he just had the integrity and fortitude of honesty to state so.
"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text."
But to admit this is an error by the KJV only crowd would be to knock the KJV off the pedestal they created for it in their minds.
"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text."
But to admit this is an error by the KJV only crowd would be to knock the KJV off the pedestal they created for it in their minds.