Is KJV the only real bible version?

[Mitspa]

Do you seriously see any error?
Do people actually preach that every single person in Judea went out to see Christ? What nonsense. It is a phrase.
If they do, by necessity, all of Jerusalem would go out too, as Jerusalem is in Judea.
There is no contradiction in any of the 4 lines you posted. It all says the same thing to the same end.

I didn't want to even discuss such semantics with you, but that division was too much to not call out. Making division for the sake of division.

I think she is just making a point about the manner in which the Greek is translated ...and honest people can see many places throughout the modern KJV where a translation could be better. I have some big issue but more to do with the TR than the translation... Like Rom 8:1 the text 1000 years older do no add the condition used in the KJV....The older text are clearly the more accurate text.

 

[Mitspa]

Your analogy doesn't match what you say you believe. In your analogy you have each one of the 10 witnesses giving 10 accurate TRUE accounts of the car crash. I agree with that, and that is what the bible does in the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection.

But that's not what you believe. You believe that there is some truth in all bibles but all bibles contain errors. That's like one of your 10 witnesses saying the car that wrecked was blue, and another says the car was red, and another says it was white. Obviously either one or more of the witnesses got it wrong or the car was red and blue with white stripes. Either way, it is impossible to know the real truth of that story, the best you can do is pick the story that you best fits your needs.

So when did the KJV become this perfect translation to you? You have never answered that ! I think there has been 8 revisions now?

 

[Mitspa]

The Aramaic Original theory is rejected by all serious scholars.
It is just a tradition passed down by the Assyrian Church, and not a credible historical fact.
The Aramaic texts used are very "late" manuscripts compared to the Greek texts found in Israel and surrounding countries.

The AENTB website is the only place you will find scholastic support of this theory, and all that research is from one man, George Lamsa, and his team. They are all members of the Assyrian Church, and are firm Nestorianists.

Oh this is where some of that nonsense I have seen on the forum comes from? Good to know

 

[Mitspa]

Logic dictates there can only be one Word of God and not many Word's of God. For God is not the author of confusion. I believe the KJV to be the divinely inspired Word of God for our world language today (Amongst a long line of perfect Word's in different languages thru out history (i.e. English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew). For the Scriptures say that God's Word is perfect and that it would be preserved forever. Something that has errors in it is not perfect. It's either God's perfect Word or it is not.

Now, that said, while I believe the KJV is the perfect Word for today, it is written in Old English of the 1600's. So for the new student who is not familar with this language and it's symbolic language and how English words we use today were used slightly different back then, one can easily misunderstand what is truly being said. So I recommend in making the KJV your final Word of authority but do not force Modern English upon Old English, though. For one must realize that words change with the passage of time and that words can look the same but have different meanings or usages. In other words, use Modern Translations or look at various different Parallel Translations ( Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages ) and compare it with the KJV and look at the original languages with a Strong's Concordance with an Interlinear Comparison ( Blue Letter Bible is a good site for this). Also, always make sure your understanding of a passage or verse lines up with the context (i.e. the surrounding passages). Furthermore, it is also good to look for cross references, too (Check out Bible Cross References ). In addition, ask the Lord for understanding when you read the Scriptures (Jeremiah 33:3).

Well logic to some is just the carnal mind...we have Greek text much more accurate than those the KJV had, and the Greek is the final word...thankfully the KJV is very accurate in what they had at that time.

 

[KJV1611]

Do you seriously see any error?
Do people actually preach that every single person in Judea went out to see Christ? What nonsense. It is a phrase.
If they do, by necessity, all of Jerusalem would go out too, as Jerusalem is in Judea.
There is no contradiction in any of the 4 lines you posted. It all says the same thing to the same end.

I didn't want to even discuss such semantics with you, but that division was too much to not call out. Making division for the sake of division.

No I don't see an error in the KJV, the KJV said it right. All of Judea including Jerusalem went out. That's not what the ESV says though, it says that all Judea and all Jerusalem went out.. that is incorrect. The ESV said it right in Matthew and wrong in Mark.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV​

Matthew 3:5English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,

 

[Mitspa]

I'm curious since Mitspa seems to be the "expert" to go to in understanding how the original writings of the New Covenant were in Greek and not Hebrew, when I'm pretty sure the spoken language at the time was Aramaic which was the main language used by Jews for both spoken and written communication.

How was it said? To the Jew first, then the Gentile.

Greek was the world language at that time...the educated spoke and wrote in Greek...Paul who wrote most of the New Testament to gentiles was clearly educated and spoke Greek. No scholar anywhere buys in to this nonsense that the text where written in Aramaic. Man get out of that kind of stuff!

 

[Dan_473]

Here it is right here Dan. The bible that has been tried in a furnace of earth and purified 7 times is the pure words of the Lord. There's only one bible around today that I know of that meets that criteria.

Psa 12:4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
Psa 12:5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psa 12:8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

I don't see the letters KJV in there... do you mean that in any language, the seventh translation is the right one?

 

[Mitspa]

No I don't see an error in the KJV, the KJV said it right. All of Judea including Jerusalem went out. That's not what the ESV says though, it says that all Judea and all Jerusalem went out.. that is incorrect. The ESV said it right in Matthew and wrong in Mark.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV​

Matthew 3:5English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,

Which revision are you claiming is without error? Like I said I think they have been 8 now?

 

[Dan_473]

Of course not, God gave his word in all languages. The prophecy is plainly stated in Acts 2... unless your Pentecostal, then you twist it to fit the speaking in tongues heresy. As for the English speaking peoples, it's the KJV.

I think I asked this a long time ago... how does a person find the right translation in any language? I think the answer was the Daniel 3:25 test... how it was translated... we can legally take any public domain bible, alter that verse, and then it will be the right version.

 

[Dan_473]

I'm just curious to know why you guys that think the inerrant word of God doesn't exist today, why do you think that is.
Is God not capable of maintaining it?
Is God not capable of crossing language barriers?
Or does God just not want people today to have the inerrant word?

I'm not being a smarty nor being snide, but honestly how do you guys answer those questions.

My feeling is that God doesn't want people to have the inerrant word. I think this because of how the nt writers quote the ot... one example is Isaiah 60, compare it with Luke's quote in Luke 4... close, but not the same...

Why would God not want an inerrant word that could be printed? My guess is that it then becomes tempting to worship the printed word... kind of like how we're not supposed to make 'graven images'...

(not saying anyone here is doing that, but the temptation is there...)

 

[dcontroversal]

Answer me this, KJV-Onlyists. Why is it that the Preface to the KJV was excised from the KJV Bible since 1900 or so? In this preface, the translators of the KJV talk about the necessity of new translations and welcome the addition of more modern translations for the future. Hmm...

and they openly admit to comparing it to other English versions that came before by very learned and competent men.....and even stated that they felt another ENGLISH version was needed.....and to be quite frank most of the OT was copied verbatim.......

 

[Butch5]

No I don't see an error in the KJV, the KJV said it right. All of Judea including Jerusalem went out. That's not what the ESV says though, it says that all Judea and all Jerusalem went out.. that is incorrect. The ESV said it right in Matthew and wrong in Mark.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV​

Matthew 3:5English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,

Are you aware that the KJV and the ESV are translated from different texts?

 

[Butch5]

I know everything about Frances Bacon, the Masons, the Illuminatti, King James being a homo, using the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, Bishops bible and everything else you can bring up. I studied this out years ago and I don't need to rehash it. I need you to put your money where your mouth is lol... show me the errors in the KJV! You say it has errors but the only thing you presented so far is a type setting mistake... is that all you got? I love you brother!

Paul in the NT quotes Deutoronomy 32:43

New Testament
Hebrews 1:6 ( KJV ) [SUP]6[/SUP]And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

He quotes this verse from Deuteronomy 32:43

Masoretic text (KJV)
Deuteronomy 32:43 ( KJV ) [SUP]43[/SUP]Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people: for he will avenge the blood of his servants, and will render vengeance to his adversaries, and will be merciful unto his land, and to his people.

Where in the KJV (Deu 32:43) is the phrase, "And let all the angels of God worship him. " that Paul quoted? It's not there. It seems that either Paul or the KJV is wrong, I doubt it's Paul.

 

[Chopper]

Greek was the world language at that time...the educated spoke and wrote in Greek...Paul who wrote most of the New Testament to gentiles was clearly educated and spoke Greek. No scholar anywhere buys in to this nonsense that the text where written in Aramaic. Man get out of that kind of stuff!

Language of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is generally agreed that Jesus and his disciples primarily spoke Aramaic, the common language of Judea in the first century AD, most likely a Galilean dialect distinguishable from that ofJerusalem.[SUP][1][/SUP] The towns of Nazareth and Capernaum in Galilee, where Jesus spent most of his time, were Aramaic-speaking communities.[SUP][2][/SUP]

What were the ten commandments written in? What is the Old Covenant written in?
Who needs to conform to who? Our Father conforms to us, or we conform to Him?

Why is this so hard to see?

 

[Chopper]

How about the New Covenant Word prove itself they spoke Hebrew?

Jon_1:9 And he said unto them, I am an Hebrew; and I fear YHWH, the Elohim of heaven, which hath made the sea and the dry land.

Joh_5:2 Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

Joh_19:13 When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Yahushua forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.

Joh_19:17 And he bearing his stake went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:

Joh_19:20 This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Yahushua was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.

Act_21:40 And when he had given him licence, Paul stood on the stairs, and beckoned with the hand unto the people. And when there was made a great silence, he spake unto them in the Hebrew tongue, saying,

Act_22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)

Act_26:14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

Rev_16:16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.

 

[dcontroversal]

How about the New Covenant Word prove itself they spoke Hebrew?

Alexander the Great conquered the known word and Hellenized it...including the land of Israel/Palestine....the O.T. was translated into Greek (Septuagint) and the N.T. was written in Koine Greek (a dead language) and for a reason....What is so hard to comprehend about those two HISTORICAL FACTS.........!

 

[john832]

Alexander the Great conquered the known word and Hellenized it...including the land of Israel/Palestine....the O.T. was translated into Greek (Septuagint) and the N.T. was written in Koine Greek (a dead language) and for a reason....What is so hard to comprehend about those two HISTORICAL FACTS.........!

How was the OT preserved?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews preserved it. It was translated into Greek and Latin, but the actual preservation was in Hebrew by the Jews.

 

[dcontroversal]

How was the OT preserved?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews preserved it. It was translated into Greek and Latin, but the actual preservation was in Hebrew by the Jews.

The Septuagint was translated into Greek by 70 JEWISH scholars.....so.....whatever John!

the oldest Greek version of the Old Testament, traditionally said to have been translated by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II: most scholars believe that only the Pentateuch was completed in the early part of the 3rd century b.c. and that the remaining books were translated in the next two centuries.
Origin

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I know so many people who prefer the KJV over any other version. Some say the KJV is the real version and the real true word of God and I heard there's some Christians who only believe in reading the only KJV and so forth.

No, it is not "the real true word of God" nor is any other English version, or any other translation into any language, for that matter.

The "real true word of God" is found in Christ Jesus, and was expressed only in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, of which we have exceptionally well preserved copies so as to reconstruct that word almost perfectly. None of the versions are "perfect" but we don't need a perfect copy to have the word and testimony of God in any of the major translations of Scripture we choose, if the Holy Spirit lives in us and directs our study, or if He is calling those of us in unbelief to understanding, confession, repentance, and salvation.

I personally have a way of believe this because I have read the NLT or NIV and found many contradictions.

No, you have not found "contradictions" in those versions. There are no contradictions in God's word, and the NLT and NIV do not "corrupt" the text so as to create contradictions, errors, or omissions, either. If you found a "contradiction" in either, you would also find it in the KJV. A contradiction is a misunderstanding of two Scritpures so as to create in one's own mind the erroneous finding that God's word "conflicts" with itself. So you are incorrect, my friend, and I would urge you to stop being so concerned about who translated your Bible and begin to be concerned about what the Holy Spirit would have it say to you. If you want to use the KJV, that's great. But don't go around trying to disparage the other versions when there is nothing wrong with them.

 

[Ukorin]

How was the OT preserved?

Rom 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
Rom 3:2 Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

The Jews preserved it. It was translated into Greek and Latin, but the actual preservation was in Hebrew by the Jews.

If Jesus and the Apostles publicly spoke in Aramaic, then why did they quote Septuagint rather than Masoretic version of OT texts?

The historical fact is that Greek was the common language of the people, and Aramaic was the household language of the Samaritians and rural Jews. It was used the way Hispanics use Spanish in my hometown: only when they don't want outsiders to understand, and only momentarily as a side note.

Aramaic is not Hebrew, and it is not a Jewish language, but is the Babylonian language that the Jews learned during their Exile.

Hebrew was already a "dead language" by the 1st century, used only the way Latin is today: in religious ceremony and scholarly debate.