King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

  • 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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I base my statements [about the Aramaic word for God, ’ělâhîn (found in Daniel 3:25), always being a plural form] upon the Aramaic language—the language in which Daniel 2:4 – 7:28 was written. James Strong and his opinions had nothing to do with my statement.

The first authorized (by both houses of the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury) revision of the KJV was completed in 1881 (the New Testament) and in 1885 (the Old Testament). The whole Bible, without the Apocrypha which was not completed till 1895, bore the title, THE HOLY BIBLE CONTAINING THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS TRANSLATED OUT OF THE ORIGINAL TONGUES : BEING THE VERSION SET FORTH A.D. 1611 COMPARED WITH THE MOST ANCIENT AUTHORITIES AND REVISED. This Bible accurately translates Daniel 3:25 as follows:

25. He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

This Bible, known today as the English Revised Version, is the earliest translation of the Bible that I know of that accurately translates the Aramaic word ’ělâhîn. Westcott and Hort were scholars of the New Testament, not the Old Testament, and even their views on the Greek text of the New Testament have been superseded by new and more accurate views based upon much more recent textual studies. Moreover, Westcott and Hort had nothing to do with the translation of the Old Testament in the English Revised Version.

In 1901, an American edition of the English Revised Version was published as The Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New Testaments, Translated out of the Original Tongues, Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised A.D. 1881-1885, Newly Edited by the American Revision Committee A.D. 1901, Standard Edition. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1901. This American edition, known today as the American Standard Version, translates Daniel 3:25 as follows:

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.

A further revision was published in 1952 as the Revised Standard Version. The Revised Standard Version translates Daniel 3:25 as follows:

25 He answered, “But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”

Beginning in 1971, the Revised Standard Version was published with the Second Edition of the New Testament. Yet a further revision was published in 1989 as the New Revised Standard Version. The New Revised Standard Version translates Daniel 3:25 as follows:

25 He replied, “But I see four men unbound, walking in the middle of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the fourth has the appearance of a god.”

However, it includes the following footnote:

“Aram a son of the gods

The original KJV gives us an incorrect and very misleading translation of Daniel 3:25,

25 He answered and said, Loe, I see foure men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they haue no hurt, and the forme of the fourth is like the sonne of God.

After three revisions and over 100,000 changes, today’s “KJV” still gives us an incorrect and very misleading translation of Daniel 3:25,

25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

Is this what you're talking about? If so, that is NOT a KJV bible, this is a Wescott and Hort bible.


English Revised Version (1881-1895)

New Testament 1881. C.J. Ellicott, et al., The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, Translated out of the Greek: Being the Version Set Forth A.D. 1611, Compared with the Most Ancient Authorities and Revised, A.D. 1881. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1881.
The New Testament version commonly called the “Revised Version” (RV) or the “English Revised Version” (ERV) of 1881, of which the American Standard Version was an American edition. This version is a revision of the King James version made on the basis of Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857. The readings adopted by the committee of revisers were presented in a continuous Greek text in Palmer 1881, which includes marginal notes showing every departure from the Greek text presumed to underlie the King James version (for which see Scrivener 1881). See the version’s preface for detailed explanations of the principles and method of revision.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
It has been proven from the Aramaic text that the KJV has given us an incorrect and misleading translation in Dan. 3:25—that is, unless one claims that Daniel made a mistake and the translators of the KJV corrected Daniel’s mistake.
Where do you get this from? What more do you have to go on than the ARAMAIC definition of elahh?

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
24,822
13,439
113
So what is this "seven very late manuscripts" Angela referring to? Now if we have 5000+ N.T. Greek manuscripts and not editions then The KJV is of the majority and not a minority.
Angela can answer for herself. Regarding your second sentence, your logic is lacking something, but it appears that you are asserting that the KJV aligns with the majority of the manuscripts. I won't argue that point, but I will assert that the majority is not by itself a barometer of truth, because of the widespread destruction of documents by Moslems, and the much lower likelihood of manuscripts being copied in Moslem-controlled areas.
 

Dai3234

Senior Member
Sep 6, 2016
524
4
0
Tried to find a public domain Bible app that's not poor. NHEB looked decent because it's not king James based (in UK) but they ask for a lot of permissions. Anyone know a decent public app version? Not KJV based. And normal ish English. The web one is urgh, with extra letters etc.

Any help appreciated, thanks.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
You will never convince the brainwashed cult members who ignore context when it suits them. They also totally ignore the fact that it is a statement made by a pagan king who was acknowledging something amazing was happening, its not as if a prophet or one of the disciples are making the claim, which would then definitely throw the translation into question.
We are live our lives by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God, not assumptions of what so and so PROBABLY said. It's only common sense!
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I'm still trying to figure out which KJV is the KJVO.

I like the ESV. It makes it a little more difficult to use verses out of context.
1611 version says the same thing my bible app KJV says... there are no differences except spelling changes, the words are the same.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
All scripture as originally inspired.......God inspired holy men. God did not inspire false anglican priests......
No, it says ALL scripture IS (present tense) given by inspiration... If it's scripture then it's inspired, anything else is just man GUESSING what God really meant.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Sorry, KJV

3
Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.

4
Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?

5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Highlight the word saved in that verse. :)
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
So those non-English speaking ppl are just outta luck.
Where did you see me say that there are no inerrant bibles in other languages? For the record I don't believe the KJV is the only inerrant bible, it's the only inerrant English bible that I know of.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Not sure what you are asking about. Masoretic texts are (bad quality) copies.
Maybe I used the wrong word... I was talking about the text the KJV Old Testament was based on. Also, do you know if there is a revision history for the LXX?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Angela can answer for herself. Regarding your second sentence, your logic is lacking something, but it appears that you are asserting that the KJV aligns with the majority of the manuscripts. I won't argue that point, but I will assert that the majority is not by itself a barometer of truth, because of the widespread destruction of documents by Moslems, and the much lower likelihood of manuscripts being copied in Moslem-controlled areas.
What is the barometer for truth?
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
Where did you see me say that there are no inerrant bibles in other languages? For the record I don't believe the KJV is the only inerrant bible, it's the only inerrant English bible that I know of.
The KJV has known errors in it.

The word "bishop", for example, is a purposeful mistranslation. That was put in on purpose by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So was the word "office". Both of these were done to establish the Archbishop's position of power in the church.

 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
The KJV has known errors in it.

The word "bishop", for example, is a purposeful mistranslation. That was put in on purpose by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

So was the word "office". Both of these were done to establish the Archbishop's position of power in the church.

What's wrong with bishop?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
It seems you don't have a problem with wrong words written into the Bible.

Most KJV onlyists don't.
I just asked what's wrong with the word..... Is Jesus not the bishop of our souls? If he's not the bishop then what is he?
 
Aug 15, 2009
9,745
179
0
I just asked what's wrong with the word..... Is Jesus not the bishop of our souls? If he's not the bishop then what is he?
Bishop is an authoritarian name first made up in the RCC, then carried over to the Church of England, the Archbishop being like a protestant Pope.

Anyone looking at the word cannot see such a person as a servant, because most who hold such a title are not.

Many denominations today are changing their titles to bishop because it sounds more important & powerful.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Bishop is an authoritarian name first made up in the RCC, then carried over to the Church of England, the Archbishop being like a protestant Pope.

Anyone looking at the word cannot see such a person as a servant, because most who hold such a title are not.

Many denominations today are changing their titles to bishop because it sounds more important & powerful.
What should the title of bishop be called?