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.
A baseless assertion. It is much quicker to type "KJV" than to type "the Holy Bible of God". Further, the way you use the phrase, "the Holy Bible of God" (or "Authorized Version") is a fallacy of equivocation, and I for one will not play that game with you.
True, but again there is an implied equivocation, as you believe that only the KJV is "the scriptures". That is demonstrably untrue, both historically and logically.
What, in your view, are these three tests?
True, but again there is an implied equivocation, as you believe that only the KJV is "the scriptures". That is demonstrably untrue, both historically and logically.
What, in your view, are these three tests?
You believe that God was able to direct the KJV translators, but that He was unable to direct the NIV translators (or those for the NASB, or RSV, or any other translation). You believe that God was able to guide the KJV translators to the correct interpretation, but that He is unable to guide you to the correct interpretation. Your god is too small.
If you claim that the Bible is an incorruptible book, and then that the NIV is corrupt, you either are engaging in circular reasoning or you don't truly believe that the Bible is incorruptible.
If you claim that the Bible is an incorruptible book, and then that the NIV is corrupt, you either are engaging in circular reasoning or you don't truly believe that the Bible is incorruptible.
You do not just believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a common meaning like behind some good stuff.
You believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a very specific and extraordinary meaning, that the KJV is totally perfect, every change is inspired, every obvious error is inspired... and that there has never beeen nor will ever be something better than the 1611 KJV. You believe that it must not be updated or corrected in any way, such a correction od update is always a "corruption".
And this belief is not based in reality.
You believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a very specific and extraordinary meaning, that the KJV is totally perfect, every change is inspired, every obvious error is inspired... and that there has never beeen nor will ever be something better than the 1611 KJV. You believe that it must not be updated or corrected in any way, such a correction od update is always a "corruption".
And this belief is not based in reality.
Last edited:
I figure you don’t really know what language is, since if you did you wouldn’t think translation so impossibly difficult.
The endless translation such as you seem condemned to goes on and on for the simple reason that the translators are selling books not because it’s hard do.
And they can never stop and admit they are unable to create trustworthy bibles so they pretend they can yet someday maybe reproduce as close to an imaginary standard as is humanly possible by magic.
While the whole time legal translation between nations goes on everyday all day long on earth without any legal hindrance to doing so.
The endless translation such as you seem condemned to goes on and on for the simple reason that the translators are selling books not because it’s hard do.
And they can never stop and admit they are unable to create trustworthy bibles so they pretend they can yet someday maybe reproduce as close to an imaginary standard as is humanly possible by magic.
While the whole time legal translation between nations goes on everyday all day long on earth without any legal hindrance to doing so.
More subjective circular reasoning.
You are misquoting and therefore misinterpreting the text. 2 Peter 1:20 says "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation", and "of" here is in the sense of "from". Prophecy doesn't come about by man's interpretation of events. The general interpretation of Scripture is not addressed here.
You are misquoting and therefore misinterpreting the text. 2 Peter 1:20 says "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation", and "of" here is in the sense of "from". Prophecy doesn't come about by man's interpretation of events. The general interpretation of Scripture is not addressed here.
You seem to be conflating two ideas here: that of "difficult" as in "requiring much effort" and that of "impossible" as in "not possible to achieve". Translation is not "so difficult that it is nearly impossible". Rather, because of structural differences between languages, exact translation is not "difficult" in that sense; it's impossible. However, adequate translation is very possible, and not all that difficult if one knows the two languages well enough.
If you know two or more languages, you may get this concept. Otherwise, you may not, and may remain stubbornly stuck in your Anglo-centric ignorance on this matter.
If you know two or more languages, you may get this concept. Otherwise, you may not, and may remain stubbornly stuck in your Anglo-centric ignorance on this matter.