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.
You know, I’ve been reading that story since I was 3 years old. Then, through 4 children, and now, 5 grandchildren (so far!)
In the story I have known, for over 60 years. My story says,
“And he huffed and he puffed, till he blew the house down, and ate up the first little pig!” (No sanitized PC version for my family!)
So, the pictures in the book, to say nothing of my knowledge of modern English, that both huffing and puffing are actions of the lungs. So, are you saying when someone blows on that person in the Scripture, God needs to protect him from this?
Or, perhaps the word has a different meaning than in the 3 little pigs? Just funning you! Although, fairy tells are so much fun!
(Really, it does prove my point! I seriously couldn’t be bothered to try and translate all that Early Modern English into contemporary English! Did I ever mention I don’t like Shakespeare either? Not meaning to offend you, Bill, and others who do! I never understood what they were talking about in all those plays. Maybe I am too science minded for my own good?)
Seems that kjv1769 is a little disingenuous about God speaking to him directly. He claims it here then denies it later. Here it is; "I asked God...and he showed me." That is God being enquired of then giving divine revelation if I've ever seen it.
Later is a "lol" denial that the above happened in sequence and is just reduced to; "I said the Lord SHOWED me through studying SEVERAL translations that the KJV was inerrant. I never said God told me anything."
No, sorry. You claimed you asked then he showed you which implies divine revelation no matter how you attempt to deny it. If you're "bold" enough to claim it then stick to your Montanist story.
Later is a "lol" denial that the above happened in sequence and is just reduced to; "I said the Lord SHOWED me through studying SEVERAL translations that the KJV was inerrant. I never said God told me anything."
No, sorry. You claimed you asked then he showed you which implies divine revelation no matter how you attempt to deny it. If you're "bold" enough to claim it then stick to your Montanist story.
No offense taken sister. My liking of Shakespeare’s plays comes from my love of swords . For the longest time the only way I could as a teen or young adult get my hands on something that resembled a long sword or rapier was to do bit parts in Shakespearean plays . I picked up on the lingo . It is close to Early Modern English. Later I found guys that just liked to smash each other with swords so I gave up the plays the language skills stayed unused until I became a Christian and read a KJV to see what all the hubbub was about.
Blessings
Bill
Blessings
Bill
The words of the Lord are pure words.
Pure words. That’s got to be the highest standard of speech.
Do you want a 1oo% holy Bible? Purely what God desires you to have?
Would you accept 98% pure Bible.
If I gave you a gallon of water would you drink it if it was 1% sewer water?
Would you smell it first?
There is a pure Bible, the Holy Bible.
Pure words. That’s got to be the highest standard of speech.
Do you want a 1oo% holy Bible? Purely what God desires you to have?
Would you accept 98% pure Bible.
If I gave you a gallon of water would you drink it if it was 1% sewer water?
Would you smell it first?
There is a pure Bible, the Holy Bible.
Please understand that I am not trying to tear down the KJV, which I both use and cherish.
I am arguing against the ideas of special inspiration and absence of error.
As with all translations, the KJV has errors; but they are not of such a nature as to in any way compromise God's message.
Having never had contact with the accounts Luke is citing, I have no basis on which to comment; except that I expect that they were not the other 3 Gospels included in the Canon.
It is refreshing to discuss this issue with someone like yourself, who appears to approach the subject reasonably and honestly. I look forward to further exchanges.
I am arguing against the ideas of special inspiration and absence of error.
As with all translations, the KJV has errors; but they are not of such a nature as to in any way compromise God's message.
Having never had contact with the accounts Luke is citing, I have no basis on which to comment; except that I expect that they were not the other 3 Gospels included in the Canon.
It is refreshing to discuss this issue with someone like yourself, who appears to approach the subject reasonably and honestly. I look forward to further exchanges.
You are correct. The Roman conquest of England occurred in 43 A.D Until then a blend of Celtic dialects was spoken.
After the Roman conquest, both the Latin and celtic elements of English were in place. English is basically a Germanic language; and the Anglo-Saxon influence would not arrive until the 5th century.
Marc, I agree with you totally on your opening statement. If someone prefers to read and study the KJV, for whatever reason, and it works for them, God speaks to them through it, then it is a good translation for them. No one can deny the tremendous impact it made in the English speaking world, having been almost the only Protestant translation around for centuries.
But, this weird, concocted scenario which makes a translation inspired, pure, and the only translation one should read, is why I oppose those who claim it is the only translation. By poor slight of hand, they deny mistakes in their translation of choice, and compare ltbeir translation to others, proclaiming other versions as evil and corrupt, by setting the KJV as the standard, instead of the original languages, and by that, I do not mean the majority manuscripts (TR), most of which are copies of copies of copies, mistakes compounding until the very corrupted versions Erasmus used, and the KJV committee used his translation.
Anyway, please read the version that works for you. As for me, God showed me when I compared various versions to the Hebrew and Greek, that the KJV is a fair, but not perfect translation, just like all the other translations. Despite never having read the KJV, God still has managed to reach me, teach me, and feed me in my daily Bible readings for the last 37 years!
But, this weird, concocted scenario which makes a translation inspired, pure, and the only translation one should read, is why I oppose those who claim it is the only translation. By poor slight of hand, they deny mistakes in their translation of choice, and compare ltbeir translation to others, proclaiming other versions as evil and corrupt, by setting the KJV as the standard, instead of the original languages, and by that, I do not mean the majority manuscripts (TR), most of which are copies of copies of copies, mistakes compounding until the very corrupted versions Erasmus used, and the KJV committee used his translation.
Anyway, please read the version that works for you. As for me, God showed me when I compared various versions to the Hebrew and Greek, that the KJV is a fair, but not perfect translation, just like all the other translations. Despite never having read the KJV, God still has managed to reach me, teach me, and feed me in my daily Bible readings for the last 37 years!
So, how do you explain that His perfect quotations differ from your perfect KJV OT? Can there be several perfect versions that differ from each other? But that is not "preservation" as said in Psalm.
But that makes your view of the masoretic Psalm contradicting what you say... Either God preserves Bibles in a perfect shape for all generations or not.
But that makes your view of the masoretic Psalm contradicting what you say... Either God preserves Bibles in a perfect shape for all generations or not.
First, its David talking, not God. Let us be technical, when you want your Bible to be technically perfect 
-------
To your question, some context: You are right, there were several lines of Scriptures. Two became dominant. The Septuagint line (from which Septuagint was translated) and masoretic line.
The Septuagint line was used by universal (Greek speaking) Jewish community, by apostles and by Church (its used by Greek speaking churches till today, without interruption).
Because the Septuagint were so much used by Christians and prophecies about Christ were so clear in it, Jews decided to go by the other, masoretic line, after they made some serious editations to it.
In a reformation era, people in Latin Europe were used to translate from Latin Vulgate. It was unacceptable for reformators, who wanted to get rid of RCC influence. So they decided to translate from original languages, instead.
No problem with the NT. But regarding the OT, there is just one Hebrew line - the masoretic text. Thats why they used it without much consideration - and that was a mistake, IMHO. Greek churches continue in using Septuagint, RCC is probably still using Vulgate? Not sure. So its mainly a protestant problem/issue.
---------
My response to "which line is correct" - from the historical context, I am very much for the Septuagint line.
1) There is too much Jewish antiChristian agenda behind the masoretic line.
2) The majority of NT places where the OT is quoted is from the Septuagint. So if I want to have a consistent Bible, I must use it.
3) Because it is so massively used in the NT, I think that the authority of apostles and the first Church indicates I should use it too.
-------
To your question, some context: You are right, there were several lines of Scriptures. Two became dominant. The Septuagint line (from which Septuagint was translated) and masoretic line.
The Septuagint line was used by universal (Greek speaking) Jewish community, by apostles and by Church (its used by Greek speaking churches till today, without interruption).
Because the Septuagint were so much used by Christians and prophecies about Christ were so clear in it, Jews decided to go by the other, masoretic line, after they made some serious editations to it.
In a reformation era, people in Latin Europe were used to translate from Latin Vulgate. It was unacceptable for reformators, who wanted to get rid of RCC influence. So they decided to translate from original languages, instead.
No problem with the NT. But regarding the OT, there is just one Hebrew line - the masoretic text. Thats why they used it without much consideration - and that was a mistake, IMHO. Greek churches continue in using Septuagint, RCC is probably still using Vulgate? Not sure. So its mainly a protestant problem/issue.
---------
My response to "which line is correct" - from the historical context, I am very much for the Septuagint line.
1) There is too much Jewish antiChristian agenda behind the masoretic line.
2) The majority of NT places where the OT is quoted is from the Septuagint. So if I want to have a consistent Bible, I must use it.
3) Because it is so massively used in the NT, I think that the authority of apostles and the first Church indicates I should use it too.
Last edited:
It's amazing how adding "eth" on the end of a word obscures it's meaning lol.
The transliterated modern English version of the word is puff. Puff belongs to the family of KJV English words that describe proud, haughty people.... people full of hot air. Leaven is also reltated to puffeth because a cake rises due to the leaven created air pockets within the dough.
I don't know, maybe this synergy of words doesn't exist in Greek. I wonder if God possibly hid his true pure words in the nuances of the languages.... nah lol that wouldn't be the character of God to conceal a thing so that kings can search them out lol.
The transliterated modern English version of the word is puff. Puff belongs to the family of KJV English words that describe proud, haughty people.... people full of hot air. Leaven is also reltated to puffeth because a cake rises due to the leaven created air pockets within the dough.
I don't know, maybe this synergy of words doesn't exist in Greek. I wonder if God possibly hid his true pure words in the nuances of the languages.... nah lol that wouldn't be the character of God to conceal a thing so that kings can search them out lol.