KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[posthuman]

See how it the immediately preceding context we're talking about Joshua leading the people into the land?
((Joshua and Caleb being the 'some' who didn't fail to believe, and so provoke Him ?))

Hebrews 3:15-19
While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

So how does KJV say it is Jesus who failed and was unable? How is that not blasphemy?

 

[KJV1611]

See how it the immediately preceding context we're talking about Joshua leading the people into the land?
((Joshua and Caleb being the 'some' who didn't fail to believe, and so provoke Him ?))

Hebrews 3:15-19
While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke: howbeit not all that came out of Egypt by Moses. But with whom was he grieved forty years? [was it] not with them that had sinned, whose carcases fell in the wilderness? And to whom sware he that they should not enter into his rest, but to them that believed not? So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief.

So how does KJV say it is Jesus who failed and was unable? How is that not blasphemy?

The verse you posted said that they didn't enter into His rest because of unbelief. What do you think His rest is, Joshua's?

Edit: How is unbelief on their part Jesus' fault?

 

[KJV1611]

If there's anything blasphemous it would be that Joshua could give them rest.

 

[KJV1611]

Does everyone realize that the GOSPEL was preached in the Old Testament?
Or that the church didn't start at Pentecost as you've been taught, that it's been around since Adam and Eve?
Or that Christ was in the CHURCH in the wilderness?

 

[trofimus]

Are the words of Paul inspired in which he spoke, or was Demas inspired as he wrote what Paul said in the book of Romans?

I say the words are inspired, not the men. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Men preserved the inspired words of God by writing them down.

If only Paul was inspired and not his writers (Timotheus and some others), then Scriptures are not inspired, but contain inspired words, only.

 

[graceNpeace]

The defenders of modern bibles admit they are corrupt.

For that reason they attack the Authorized Holy Bible.

But their notion of error is not a scriptural doctrine, but a subjectively man made rationale. And on philosophical grounds they ask you you readers to reason contrary to faith in God, that error can’t be avoided.

What if your faith in God is challenged by what appears as error to some folks way of thinking? What are you going to do? Doubt God but trust man?

When Jesus went to the cross men tried to cause him to doubt that the word of God directed him to die on the cross.
Jesus said Get thee behind me Satan and went forth to die for us on the cross.

Reading the Old Testament proves that God’s word always appears a foolish thing to believe. Remember how God’s word to Abraham to slay his only begotten son Isaac seemed contrary to God’s promise to him? Did Abraham reason according to faith in God’s word or did he reason based on flesh?
If he’d reasoned as the modern bible promoters do today he would have assumed God was in error.
But Abraham according to his faith knew that although God’s command to slay Isaac seemed to prove God contradictory and unloving, God nevertheless was loving and trustworthy.
When Abraham walked for three days towards the sacrifice of Isaac he didn’t reason as a doubter but as a man of faith in God. He knew by faith that if Isaac was slain then Isaac would be raised from the dead also.
In that manner God reveals truth that unbelievers can’t see.

So it is with the Authorized Holy Bible. It may appears to doubters that it must have error in it, but the faithful know it is authored in the incorruptible manner pleasing to God.

Have you noticed that Jesus Christ was presented in a manner that allowed doubters to reject him based on the way he appeared to them in the flesh.
But we know the humble birth of Jesus, for an example, hid the birth of the king of kings.
And Jesus was hidden still he manifested God’s authority and power in ministry. But what did the haters say? Where did you get your authority? Why do your apostles not wash their hands?
They accused Jesus of breaking the law. They accused him of blasphemy. They judged him worthy of death.

And people who attack the veracity of the authority of the Authorized Holy Bible attack it in the same manner of the unbelieving in Christ in those days did.

No one on this site is attacking the KJV - let that be absolutely clear.

What is being attacked is the fallacy that is KJVO....
It is a measure of your desperation, or ignorance, to try and conflate the two as one issue.
As usual the KJVO position can be summed up in one phrase, "Don't confuse me with facts!"

 

[KJV1611]

No one on this site is attacking the KJV - let that be absolutely clear.

What is being attacked is the fallacy that is KJVO....
It is a measure of your desperation, or ignorance, to try and conflate the two as one issue.
As usual the KJVO position can be summed up in one phrase, "Don't confuse me with facts!"

i haven’t seen any facts come out that side yet lol.

 

[graceNpeace]

i haven’t seen any facts come out that side yet lol.

What possibility is there for a rational discussion when the KJVO crowd insist on an illogical circular argument as the primary defence of their argument???

 

[KJV1611]

What possibility is there for a rational discussion when the KJVO crowd insist on an illogical circular argument as the primary defence of their argument???

OK I will agree that some of the KJV people don't have an argument whatsoever but the same is true of the other side. When real issues are raised people on your side just leave.

 

[graceNpeace]

OK I will agree that some of the KJV people don't have an argument whatsoever but the same is true of the other side. When real issues are raised people on your side just leave.

Surely, you do not include yourself as someone with a rational argument?

The best you could come up with the other day was that it was your experience reading the KJV that somehow told you that the KJV was inspired of God and all other translations were false or corrupted or whatever...

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

OK I will agree that some of the KJV people don't have an argument whatsoever but the same is true of the other side. When real issues are raised people on your side just leave.

Why are there 'sides' ?

The only issue is that KJV Onlyies keep saying "corrupt". There is no other issue. The Bibles proclaim God and speak for themselves. They declare the Gospel, the creation, God's salvation plan for mankind. If some people don't like the way they are worded that's just tough. It doesn't make modern English Bibles corrupt. It's dishonest to keep making that claim.

 

[KJV1611]

Surely, you do not include yourself as someone with a rational argument?

The best you could come up with the other day was that it was your experience reading the KJV that somehow told you that the KJV was inspired of God and all other translations were false or corrupted or whatever...

Yes my experience reading the KJV, all the errors that you guys say exist don't exist, it's just that you don't like the word choices but none of them are in error.

 

[graceNpeace]

Yes my experience reading the KJV, all the errors that you guys say exist don't exist, it's just that you don't like the word choices but none of them are in error.

Until you are prepared to understand that the KJV is just a TRANSLATION, and therefore needs to be compared with the original language manuscripts before any conclusions can be drawn about how good or bad it is as a translation, then you are not even at the start line!

The same standard applies to all other translations....

 

[KJV1611]

Why are there 'sides' ?

The only issue is that KJV Onlyies keep saying "corrupt". There is no other issue. The Bibles proclaim God and speak for themselves. They declare the Gospel, the creation, God's salvation plan for mankind. If some people don't like the way they are worded that's just tough. It doesn't make modern English Bibles corrupt. It's dishonest to keep making that claim.

The opposite of pure is corrupt, I don't say there evil, I read the NIV for years as a saved person, but there are critical errors in the newer translations. The errors are severe enough to miss key doctrines like the gospel was preached in the old testament which leads to a ton of false doctrines.

 

[graceNpeace]

The opposite of pure is corrupt, I don't say there evil, I read the NIV for years as a saved person, but there are critical errors in the newer translations. The errors are severe enough to miss key doctrines like the gospel was preached in the old testament which leads to a ton of false doctrines.

Hopelessly without foundation...

 

[KJV1611]

Until you are prepared to understand that the KJV is a TRANSLATION, and therefore needs to be compared with the original language manuscripts before any conclusions can be drawn about how good or bad it is as a translation, then you are not even at the start line!

The same standard applies to all other translations....

God's word isn't bound by language period. The originals are worthless to us because the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words have changed over the years.

 

[KJV1611]

Hopelessly without foundation...

Be a little more specific.

 

[graceNpeace]

Be a little more specific.

You made the accusation - provide the evidence!

 

[KJV1611]

You made the accusation - provide the evidence!

What part, the part about the gospel being preached in the old testament?

 

[graceNpeace]

What part, the part about the gospel being preached in the old testament?

Obviously...