King James?

  • 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.
J

Jasher

Guest
How do I determine the absolute truth, once and for all, as to which version of the Bible is the real McCoy? Protestants say the King James is the only complete truth. Catholics say the Dhouey-Rheims Catholic is. I want to finally understand the TRUTH, and the history behind it that PROVES it.
If you want a more accurate Bible buy an AENT - Aramaic Bible. The authors of the New Testament all spoke Aramaic and not Greek. The Aramaic was then translated into Greek. So Greek is just an intermediate language. In the translation into Greek the author of the AENT claims that about 500 errors were introduced. Also the "Jewishness" has been stripped out of the texts. I would rather have the original names of places and people myself.
 
I

Is

Guest
He hired the translators, and they answered to him. Have you ever read the long, long introduction to that translation, addressed directly to the king? It's an eye-opener.
Again your information is faulty. Bishop Bancroft (soon to become Archbishop of Canterbury) met with the Dean of Westiminster and the Professors of Hebrew at Oxford and Cambridge for the purpose of suggesting the names of the men who should work on the translation.


Have you ever read the long, long introduction to that translation, addressed directly to the king?It's an eye-opener.


Please clue me in.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
36,691
13,135
113
If you understood what I have been talking about then you would understand what Jeremiah 31:9 is saying. Israel is all the spiritual children of God. Ephraim is the second born son of Joseph, he gets the blessings, that means he is a spiritual son of God. Do you see where this going?
yeah i see quite clearly where this is going.
you were flat wrong here:

For example, the NIV (and others) contradicts itself in regards to the sons of God. In one place it says Israel is God's firstborn son then in another place it says Jesus is God's one and only son. Jesus can't be Gods one and only son if Israel was God's firstborn son, this is an undisputable contradiction and you will not find these contradictions in the KJV.

Exodus 4:22 New International Version (NIV)

22 Then say to Pharaoh, ‘This is what the Lord says: Israel is my firstborn son,


John 3:16 New International Version (NIV)

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
as i pointed out, the KJV says exactly the same thing in Exodus 4:22, and also in Jeremiah 31 He calls Ephriam His "firstborn" ((also in the KJV))

Tintin tried to show you that this is figurative and doesn't contradict Christ being the only begotten of God. you rejected that and argued with him over it, because you wanted to glorify the KJV, claiming that the KJV doesn't include language calling anyone but Christ the "firstborn" of God.

. . until i posted these verses from the KJV. (post #41 & 42)

then i saw you viewing the thread, but not posting - you were reading what i put and trying to reconcile it. probably you were finally actually checking your KJV, and seeing that what i wrote was true. you didn't know how to respond so you didn't.
and now you're back, using Tintin's argument instead, ignoring the fact that i showed you where you were wrong, and acting like i'm the one who doesn't understand.



well, i gotta say, i'm glad that you're seeing this as a figurative way of speaking, instead of talking about how the Bible contradicts itself.
now you're disputing what you called earlier an "undisputable contradiction"
but i'm sad that it took finding exactly the same language in the KJV before you would change your thinking,
sad that you're not admitting your error,
and sad to think that this looks like you're more concerned about the KJV then you are the substance of what's written in the book. like, you're now defending the KJV, not the word of God.

i'd like to be wrong about my impression of what's going on in your head.
 
I

Is

Guest
Different timezones, sister. I live in Australia. I was sleeping. It's common knowledge that the KJV added verses and there are countless books on the subject. You just have to Google 'KJV controversy. Are there missing verses?'
if that is the case I apologize, didn't mean any disrespect.

The so-called 'missing' verses were added to the KJV. But they're not teachings contrary to God's Word. They just didn't exist in the oldest autographs. Therefore, the KJV is still God's Word.
No, you try again. I just gave you the explanation for why the KJV includes some verses the modern translations doesn't. If you can't hack it, find another thread.
https://bible.org/article/changes-kjv-1611-illustration

So, since the verses that are supposedly missing from the KJV are in the newer versions, that means the newer versions are the correct ones? The newer versions are made from the corrupted new Greek textype of Westcott and Hort.

When someone "corrects" the King James Bible with "more authoritative manuscripts" or "older manuscripts," or "the best authorities," they're usually making some reference to Sinaiticus or Vaticanus. These are two very corrupt fourth century uncials that are practically worshipped by modern scholars. These are the primary manuscripts that Westcott and Hort relied so heavily on when constructing their Greek text (1851-1871) on which the new versions are based.

Vaticanus (B) is the most worshipped. This manuscript was officially catalogued in the Vatican library in 1475, and is still property of the Vatican today. Siniaticus (Aleph) was discovered in a trash can at St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai by Count Tischendorf, a German scholar, in the year 1844. Both B and Aleph are Roman Catholic manuscripts. Remember that! You might also familiarize yourself with the following facts:

1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.
2. Tischendorf, who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).
3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.
4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.
5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).
6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.
7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.
8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!
9. When someone says that B and Aleph are the oldest available manuscripts, they are lying. There are many Syriac and Latin translations from as far back as the SECOND CENTURY that agree with the King James readings. For instance, the Pashitta (145 A.D.), and the Old Syriac (400 A.D.) both contain strong support for the King James readings. There are about fifty extant copies of the Old Latin from about 157 A.D., which is over two hundred years before Jerome was conveniently chosen by Rome to "revise" it. Then Ulfilas produced a Gothic version for Europe in A.D. 330. The Armenian Bible, which agrees with the King James, has over 1,200 extant copies and was translated by Mesrob around the year 400. Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are clearly NOT the oldest and best manuscripts.

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892) were the two English "scholars" who produced the corrupt Greek text of the modern versions. Their dominating influence on the revision committee of 1871-1881 accounts for most of the corruption that we have today in modern translations. The Bible believer should keep several points in mind when discussing these two men. The following information is well documented in Final Authority, by William Grady, and in Riplinger's New Age Bible Versions.

While working on their Greek text (1851-1871), and while working on the Revision Committee for the Revised Version (1871-1881), Westcott and Hort were also keeping company with "seducing spirits and doctrines of devils" (I Tim. 4:1). Both men took great interest in occult practices and clubs. They started the Hermes Club in 1845, the Ghostly Guild in 1851, and Hort joined a secret club called The Apostles in the same year. They also started the Eranus Club in 1872. These were spiritualists groups which believed in such unscriptural practices as communicating with the dead (necromancy).
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
Again your information is faulty. Bishop Bancroft (soon to become Archbishop of Canterbury) met with the Dean of Westiminster and the Professors of Hebrew at Oxford and Cambridge for the purpose of suggesting the names of the men who should work on the translation.




Please clue me in.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/1611-Bible/1611-King-James-Bible-Introduction.php
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
yeah i see quite clearly where this is going.
you were flat wrong here:



as i pointed out, the KJV says exactly the same thing in Exodus 4:22, and also in Jeremiah 31 He calls Ephriam His "firstborn" ((also in the KJV))

Tintin tried to show you that this is figurative and doesn't contradict Christ being the only begotten of God. you rejected that and argued with him over it, because you wanted to glorify the KJV, claiming that the KJV doesn't include language calling anyone but Christ the "firstborn" of God.

. . until i posted these verses from the KJV. (post #41 & 42)

then i saw you viewing the thread, but not posting - you were reading what i put and trying to reconcile it. probably you were finally actually checking your KJV, and seeing that what i wrote was true. you didn't know how to respond so you didn't.
and now you're back, using Tintin's argument instead, ignoring the fact that i showed you where you were wrong, and acting like i'm the one who doesn't understand.



well, i gotta say, i'm glad that you're seeing this as a figurative way of speaking, instead of talking about how the Bible contradicts itself.
now you're disputing what you called earlier an "undisputable contradiction"
but i'm sad that it took finding exactly the same language in the KJV before you would change your thinking,
sad that you're not admitting your error,
and sad to think that this looks like you're more concerned about the KJV then you are the substance of what's written in the book. like, you're now defending the KJV, not the word of God.

i'd like to be wrong about my impression of what's going on in your head.
Truth is, just because my name shows up as viewing a thread doesn't mean I'm really here, Many times I look at what's being said and go do something else without exiting the thread. But that's neither here nor there.

I haven't changed my stance about an "undisputable contradiction" in the NIV. I take the bible literally word for word and I believe every word on every page.

The NIV says God only has one son period. That statement includes all sons whether literal or figurative, there is no stipulation in that verse for figurative or literal. If you read the verse exactly as it's written you can only conclude that God has one son. We all know the firstborn son in Exodus is figurative. That means God has literal and figurative sons. The only way you can reconcile this contradiction in the NIV is to ADD TO John 3:16 by saying that John 3:16 is talking about literal sons even though it does not say that.

If the NIV would have added "only begotten son" in that verse then it would have been accurate. And that's a problem, we are not supposed to add to the word of God.
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
Truth is, just because my name shows up as viewing a thread doesn't mean I'm really here, Many times I look at what's being said and go do something else without exiting the thread. But that's neither here nor there.

I haven't changed my stance about an "undisputable contradiction" in the NIV. I take the bible literally word for word and I believe every word on every page.

The NIV says God only has one son period. That statement includes all sons whether literal or figurative, there is no stipulation in that verse for figurative or literal. If you read the verse exactly as it's written you can only conclude that God has one son. We all know the firstborn son in Exodus is figurative. That means God has literal and figurative sons. The only way you can reconcile this contradiction in the NIV is to ADD TO John 3:16 by saying that John 3:16 is talking about literal sons even though it does not say that.

If the NIV would have added "only begotten son" in that verse then it would have been accurate. And that's a problem, we are not supposed to add to the word of God.
I have to completely disagree with that. This is what the NIV says:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

That states, even more clearly than "only begotten son", that Jesus was THE ONE... the ONLY one.... not just the only one that was "begotten" (born). Saying "the only begotten son" leaves the possibility of claiming there were possibly OTHER sons waiting in the wings in Heaven who were not "begotten." Much like the Mormons have come up with.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I have to completely disagree with that. This is what the NIV says:
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

That states, even more clearly than "only begotten son", that Jesus was THE ONE... the ONLY one.... not just the only one that was "begotten" (born). Saying "the only begotten son" leaves the possibility of claiming there were possibly OTHER sons who were not "begotten." Much like the Mormons have come up with.
If God only has one son then what is Romans 8:14 talking about. Are we sons of God or not?

Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
If God only has one son then what is Romans 8:14 talking about. Are we sons of God or not?

Rom_8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God
Romans was not written when the one and only son of God, Jesus came to Earth. When Jesus came (the time period John 3:16 is speaking of), there were no other sons and daughters of God.... ONLY Jesus.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Romans was not written when the one and only son of God, Jesus came to Earth. When Jesus came (the time period John 3:16 is speaking of), there were no other sons and daughters of God.... ONLY Jesus.
By that statement you are saying that Jesus is not God's one and only son, we are sons also. And that's my point, the NIV is wrong.
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
By that statement you are saying that Jesus is not God's one and only son, we are sons also. And that's my point, the NIV is wrong.
By that statement (which you must not be reading), I plainly and clearly said that until Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected and made a way for US to then, and only then, become adopted sons and daughters, there WAS only one Son in existence... Jesus.

And the way you want to insist it has to read, "begotten", there are millions of "begotten" sons and daughters now. I was begotten of a woman, weren't you?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
By that statement (which you must not be reading), I plainly and clearly said that until Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected and made a way for US to then, and only then, become adopted sons and daughters, there WAS only one Son in existence... Jesus.

And the way you want to insist it has to read, "begotten", there are millions of "begotten" sons and daughters now. I was begotten of a woman, weren't you?
Now you're thinking! Yes I'm a begotten son of God and so was Jesus, God has and has had more than one son. The bible even said Adam was the son of God.

Now think some more. The KJV bible says that Jesus is Gods only begotten son and it also say we are begotten of God. There is no contradiction here because there are two types of "begotten of God". A physical birth and a spiritual birth.

Jesus was the one and only physically begotten of God because Mary was found with child by the Holy Ghost.
We are not physically begotten of God due to procreation. We are begotten of God through the second birth.

Again the NIV is wrong. Jesus is not Gods one and only son. If the NIV had said the one and only physically born son then it would be right. But it doesn't. The KJV leaves it at only begotten. We the readers have to determine by context if God is talking about a physical birth or spiritual birth.
 
I

Is

Guest
By that statement (which you must not be reading), I plainly and clearly said that until Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected and made a way for US to then, and only then, become adopted sons and daughters, there WAS only one Son in existence... Jesus.

And the way you want to insist it has to read, "begotten", there are millions of "begotten" sons and daughters now. I was begotten of a woman, weren't you?
Yes I'm a begotten son of God and so was Jesus

I was begotten of a woman, weren't you?
Go ahead Willy and KJV1611, claim you are begotten of God.

Beget......1. To procreated as a father or sire; to generate; as to beget a son.

American Dicitonary Of The English Language, Noah Webster, c.1828
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Go ahead Willy and KJV1611, claim you are begotten of God.

Beget......1. To procreated as a father or sire; to generate; as to beget a son.

American Dicitonary Of The English Language, Noah Webster, c.1828
Oh no doubt all true Christians are begotten of God, we are the sons of God. Begat means to bring about, beget could refer to a physical birth or a spiritual birth. I am a not physical child of God but I am a spiritual child of God... he is my Father.
 
I

Is

Guest
Oh no doubt all true Christians are begotten of God, we are the sons of God. Begat means to bring about, beget could refer to a physical birth or a spiritual birth. I am a not physical child of God but I am a spiritual child of God... he is my Father.
Not in the sense that Jesus was "begotten".
 
Feb 7, 2015
22,418
413
0
Now you're thinking! Yes I'm a begotten son of God and so was Jesus, God has and has had more than one son. The bible even said Adam was the son of God.

Now think some more. The KJV bible says that Jesus is Gods only begotten son and it also say we are begotten of God. There is no contradiction here because there are two types of "begotten of God". A physical birth and a spiritual birth.

Jesus was the one and only physically begotten of God because Mary was found with child by the Holy Ghost.
We are not physically begotten of God due to procreation. We are begotten of God through the second birth.

Again the NIV is wrong. Jesus is not Gods one and only son. If the NIV had said the one and only physically born son then it would be right. But it doesn't. The KJV leaves it at only begotten. We the readers have to determine by context if God is talking about a physical birth or spiritual birth.
Well, if you are going to take the position that, "I am right if I'm right, and I am right if I'm wrong." there's not much of a way I can converse with you.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Well, if you are going to take the position that, "I am right if I'm right, and I am right if I'm wrong." there's not much of a way I can converse with you.
I don't mean to be that way Wille-T. Tell me where I'm wrong.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Every word in the bible and it's context matters. There is almost always (or maybe even always) a spiritual version and physical version of everything in the bible and we have to rightly divide between the two. I love the way God wrote the bible. It's written to led his children into all truth while confounding the wisdom of the wise.

Just a small misunderstanding of a word or it's mis-application between spiritual and physical can lead a person way off the mark. And yet people say all translations are true when they don't even say the same thing... I just don't get it.