KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

Just so everybody knows that we have biblecal evidence that God can and does translate his word into other languages.

Acts 2 King James Version (KJV)

2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.
6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.
7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?
8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?
9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,
10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,
11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If a person looks at the bible as history book instead of a book to know Jesus Christ then I would agree but the bible isn't a history book to record a pagan Babylonian kings words.

In Acts 28, Paul is bitten by a snake. Those on Melita thinks he’s some sort of evil guy but when they see him live, they think he’s a god. They were expressing themselves via what knowledge they had.

Just like with Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3. He was referring to the one with those three in the furnace as a son of the gods. He was a pagan and was expressing himself with the knowledge he had. The Bible recorded the king’s words as he spoke them. The NIV does NOT teach the Christ as a son of the gods, but was giving us the uttered words of a pagan king.

 

[Joseppi]

I do not think that something that is not true should be in the Bible.

If the king said "son of gods", it should not be "fixed" later. Such a fix is a lie.

But, because the LXX has also "son of God", I accidentaly agree with the KJV, although I do not consider this to be so important. The words of babylonian king are not our creed.

Nebuchanezzar was quoted both ways.
So, there existed no motive to falsify without being consistent.
The queen is quoted using “holy gods” which enforces the understanding of the commonness of that perspective among the pagans.

In the context of pagan idolatry being thwarted by a God before all witnesses and the awe of Nebuchadnezzar when the truth destroyed his presumption of deification, justifies his novel use of the phrase Son of God. For Daniel used the phrase. And Nebuchadnezzar knew very well what the miracle meant concerning Babylonian pagan gods.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If the church and creeds match the bible then they are ok to believe.
The only possible standard is the standard that God breathed. Uninspired translations are just mans work and they are fallible.

And that standard, the KJV does not meet. Those translators were not inspired as they translated the KJV into English.

 

[trofimus]

Just so everybody knows that we have biblecal evidence that God can and does translate his word into other languages.

Acts 2 King James Version (KJV)

[FONT=&]2 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]3 And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]5 And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]6 Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]7 And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]8 And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?[/FONT]
[FONT=&]9 Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]10 Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]11 Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.[/FONT]

Right, but nothing like that happened to the KJV translators.

 

[Joseppi]

I don't know anything about the Hebrew bible, does it contain the New Testament?

But, maybe you do know that testaments are legal historical documents.

 

[KJV1611]

And that standard, the KJV does not meet. Those translators were not inspired as they translated the KJV into English.

What do you base that on?

 

[Dino246]

The title page of the Authorized proves the apocrypha was not included in the Holy Bible.

So now the title page is inspired as well? If you're going to argue that the title page "proves" anything then intellectual integrity demands that you also consider what the Preface to the Reader says. Then again, I have ceased to expect integrity from you.

 

[KJV1611]

Right, but nothing like that happened to the KJV translators.

God put words into mens mouth to convey God's message. How do you know he didn't do that with the KJV translators? All I hear is God didn't blah blah blah but nobody gives reason or evidence for saying it. How are you so certain that this didn't happen?

 

[SovereignGrace]

What would prove inspiration of a translation in your opinion? How would God authenticate it?

There is no inspiration of any translation. Every version is a translation from copies of copies, of copies, of copies.......of copies of the originals, of which were the only inspired writings.

 

[KJV1611]

But, maybe you do know that testaments are legal historical documents.

Honestly that doesn't matter to me.

 

[Dino246]

Just so everybody knows that we have biblecal evidence that God can and does translate his word into other languages.

Acts 2 King James Version (KJV)...

This is irrelevant, as I have noted previously. What God can do doesn't prove that He did so with the translation of the KJV. It's speculative and circular.

 

[Joseppi]

The phrase Holy Spirit is mentioned 7 times in the KJV and Holy Ghost is mentioned 90 times. Pure coincidence I'm sure lol.

You are mistaken. You are probably thinking that phrases suc as, holy Spirit...etc... equate, but they don’t.
”Holy Spirit” is a name, not a descriptive phrase.

 

[trofimus]

God put words into mens mouth to convey God's message. How do you know he didn't do that with the KJV translators? All I hear is God didn't blah blah blah but nobody gives reason or evidence for saying it. How are you so certain that this didn't happen?

They would know it and they would mention it like "Our translation was like fire in our heads, our hands wrote automatically whatever was needed" etc.

But actually, what they witnessed about their work was like "we used this and this, we tried this and that..." very natural work of normal men.

 

[KJV1611]

There is no inspiration of any translation. Every version is a translation from copies of copies, of copies, of copies.......of copies of the originals, of which were the only inspired writings.

That's your opinion and I respect that but it's just an opinion.

 

[SovereignGrace]

What do you base this on that someone has to attend church every week?

Hebrews 10:25 for starters. I would also think Proverbs 11:14 & 24:6 would also suffice. Then in Acts 2:46 and 17:11 also.

The question I ask you is why you feel it unnecessary to attend a local assembly?

 

[KJV1611]

This is irrelevant, as I have noted previously. What God can do doesn't prove that He did so with the translation of the KJV. It's speculative and circular.

I never said it proved God did it with the KJV. I'm just saying God can and has translated his word into multiple languages in the past so there is no reason to believe he can't or wont at other times.

 

[Dino246]

God put words into mens mouth to convey God's message. How do you know he didn't do that with the KJV translators? All I hear is God didn't blah blah blah but nobody gives reason or evidence for saying it. How are you so certain that this didn't happen?

The logic is quite simple: the KJV mostly follows the Bishop's Bible. If the Bishop's was not inspired, then the parts of the KJV that follow it are not inspired. There are places where the KJV follows Beza. If Beza was not inspired, then neither is the KJV.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV was inspired and that other translations aren't. It's pure groundless speculation. You as the KJV-only proponent are making the claim that it is inspired. By claiming that "nobody gives reason or evidence for saying" that it isn't inspired, you are making a burden of proof reversal (a logical fallacy). You have given your side; it has been rejected as illogical, groundless, and circular. We have no need to give further evidence against it.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I don't know but I hope to get to watch you tell him that lol.

LOL? It’s not a laughing matter.

You say God inspired the KJV, then we see revision after revision all the way up to 1769.

No, which is inspired? It can’t be both.

1611?

1769?

 

[KJV1611]

Hebrews 10:25 for starters. I would also think Proverbs 11:14 & 24:6 would also suffice. Then in Acts 2:46 and 17:11 also.

The question I ask you is why you feel it unnecessary to attend a local assembly?

I"m not going to a church that teaches that all bibles have mistakes.