King James authorized bible vs the rest of other 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.
L

lailee

Guest
#1
#1
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
 
U

Ugly

Guest
#2
#2
This is a new thread every week. I'd say it's beating a dead horse topic myself.
Personally i find the notion silly. There are bad versions out there, no doubt, but it's elitist to assume a one translation is the right one. Especially considering all the other languages the bible gets translated into. I've seen the evidences for and against this idea and i've not budged an inch against the 'king james only' viewpoint. I've felt the notion was silly from day one. Still do. Even in light of the 'evidence' otherwise, which, ironically there's evidence to show the KJV has it's share of problems as well.
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#3
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#3
No, what you should do is worship the God of the book and not the version of the book.....
 
J

John_S

Guest
#4
#4
It's silly that people think that by reading and speaking 16th Century English that makes them "holier".
No other language uses the ancient form of their language in their Bibles - Not the French, Spanish, Germans, Italians, or any other nationality. They get along just fine.

Our Father who is in Heaven
Holy is your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

Saying "thou", "thy" "art", "shalt", etc., does NOT make you holier.
It makes you sound silly.
 
JesusChica1991

JesusChica1991

Banned
#5
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#5
Pffff...those KJV-OccultistsDon't let them get to you. Let them worship their version while the rest of the world reads and compares all the other versions to each other.
 
breno785au

breno785au

Senior Member
#6
Jul 23, 2013
6,002
764
113
39
Australia
#6
John_S said:
It's silly that people think that by reading and speaking 16th Century English that makes them "holier".
No other language uses the ancient form of their language in their Bibles - Not the French, Spanish, Germans, Italians, or any other nationality. They get along just fine.

Our Father who is in Heaven
Holy is your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

Saying "thou", "thy" "art", "shalt", etc., does NOT make you holier.
It makes you sound silly.
Click to expand...
Haha especially when someone gets up and says 'Thus saith the Lord...'
I say no He didn't! He's got you speaking in ye olde English now?
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#7
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#7
JesusChica1991 said:
Pffff...those KJV-OccultistsDon't let them get to you. Let them worship their version while the rest of the world reads and compares all the other versions to each other.
Click to expand...
No doubt and not to mention the fact that the King JIMMY is about 90% copied verbatim from the first English version and their own preface that they had (diligently compared it to the versions that had been prepared by very capable and competent men that had come BEFORE THEM) and they thought that ANOTHER ENGLISH VERSION was good idea (basically)!
 
dcontroversal

dcontroversal

Banned
#8
Dec 12, 2013
46,515
20,395
113
#8
breno785au said:
Haha especially when someone gets up and says 'Thus saith the Lord...'
I say no He didn't! He's got you speaking in ye olde English now?
Click to expand...
More like Thus saith KING JIMMY!
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#9
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#9
lailee said:
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Click to expand...
I use the others for my "rest room" bible :) :D I am under the impression that there are probably other bibles that would suffice besides the KJV. I don't know what they are called but they would only be transcripted from the "majority texts"
which rules out all of the new age bibles. NIV example. People will use that "older text" bit and of course it goes in to the thousands to 1? if the 1 disagrees? anyway it is a beaten topic.

I know there are those here who don't agree. Keep your own search going. Message me if you like. This topic has been breached ALOT lol
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#10
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#10
JesusChica1991 said:
Pffff...those KJV-OccultistsDon't let them get to you. Let them worship their version while the rest of the world reads and compares all the other versions to each other.
Click to expand...
whoa there hoss. I don't worship a version. It's not even the same ancient texts that are being translated. It's alarming to say the least.
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#11
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#11
It's a little more than thee's and thou's

The NIV’s missing 64,000 words - Fact or Fiction?

Some seminary students, who are in the process of having their minds corrupted by “the best of modern scholarship”, lightly dismiss the charge that the NIV perversion is missing some 64,000 words, saying that this figure is only a Riplingerism and not factual.

Not only does Mrs. Riplinger make this factual charge but so also does the Australian author and KJB defender Les Garrett in his book "Which Bible Can We Trust?". If one runs the KJB and the NIV through a computer, the KJB contains over 800,000 words and the NIV has a little more than 64,000 fewer words in it.


anyone interested simply look into it.
NIV missing 64000 words - Another King James Bible Believer

More
NAMES AND TITLES OF JESUS OMITTED IN THE NIV
 
Last edited:
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#12
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#12
Don't worry kids, food is food. So what if this one contains a miniscule amount of arsenic? it's 99% good for you!
 
DavidLOVESsnow

DavidLOVESsnow

Senior Member
#13
Mar 4, 2014
411
4
0
#13
lailee said:
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Click to expand...
Look. I personally believe, from my understanding of the history of the Bible, that the KJV is the best version. If you want you can read the Geneva version too.

However, some of the english in the KJV is confusing. Your best to read multiple versions, do research on the passages, etc.

For example, just look at Romans 8:29-30. So many different understandings just in different versions. Just compare the ESV to TLB to the KJV:

[h=3]Romans 8:29-30[/h]English Standard Version (ESV)

[SUP]29 [/SUP]For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. [SUP]30 [/SUP]And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.




[h=3]Romans 8:29-30[/h]Living Bible (TLB)

[SUP]29 [/SUP]For from the very beginning God decided that those who came to him—and all along he knew who would—should become like his Son, so that his Son would be the First, with many brothers. [SUP]30 [/SUP]And having chosen us, he called us to come to him; and when we came, he declared us “not guilty,” filled us with Christ’s goodness, gave us right standing with himself, and promised us his glory.



[h=3]Romans 8:29-30[/h]King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]29 [/SUP]For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
[SUP]30 [/SUP]Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.



So your best bet, in my opinion, is to read the KJV with this Bible study tool Bible Study Resources and Strong's Concordance with Hebrew and Greek Lexicon

That way you can understand certain words, etc.

However, don't burn your Bibles.
 
K

kennethcadwell

Guest
#14
#14
Not to mention that they change some of the words in some scriptures to fit their belief.

Example: 1st Corinthians 10:14-16 talks about long hair on a man being wrong depending on how you read it, but notice in verse 16....

" But if anyone seems to be contentious, we have no such custom, nor do the churches of God. "

Notice the no such in this verse because other versions have it as no other. This gives a different answer to the question given in verse 14. No such would imply that it is not wrong, and no other would imply that it is wrong.
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#15
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#15
The New Testament has been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, creating a challenge in handling so many different texts when performing these comparisons. The King James Version (or Authorized Version) was based on the Textus Receptus, an eclectic Greek text prepared by Erasmus based primarily on Byzantine text Greek manuscripts, which make up the majority of existing copies of the New Testament.


The majority of New Testament textual critics now favor a text that is Alexandrian in complexion, especially after the publication of Westcott and Hort's edition.


(different manuscripts) NOT a translational issue. A transcriptional one. Different parchments. Most ancient manuscripts agree with each other (God did that so we could know which to trust). Some do not. Those that don't agree with the majority, don't even agree with each other. They are each utterly alone in the world.
 
JesusChica1991

JesusChica1991

Banned
#16
May 9, 2012
1,514
25
0
#16
Actually most of the KJV comes from the Latin Vulgate.
 
L

lailee

Guest
#17
#17
Thanks. I'll stick to KJV. It has to feed my hungry spirit. God blesses you.
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#18
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#18
crossnote

crossnote

Senior Member
#19
Nov 24, 2012
30,706
3,650
113
#19
There are more early manuscripts backing up the KJV text BUT there are the most earliest (but fewer) manuscripts backing up most of the other versions.
Soooo...

coin-toss-26501247.jpg

it's a coin toss depending which you are more comfortable with.
 
Deadtosin

Deadtosin

Banned
#20
Mar 18, 2011
2,540
22
0
#20
You must log in or register to reply here.