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.
Perhaps you'll have time to respond later.
You're grasping at straws with this. Freemasonry did not exist until about the 1700's, though it is based on pagan beliefs that are much older. Drawing numbers from unrelated passages and claiming that there is some deep truth doesn't carry much weight, and it doesn't answer my question.
You're grasping at straws with this. Freemasonry did not exist until about the 1700's, though it is based on pagan beliefs that are much older. Drawing numbers from unrelated passages and claiming that there is some deep truth doesn't carry much weight, and it doesn't answer my question.
According to your statement, Bishop's, Beza, Stephanus and Erasmus were all "copycats with Satan as the instigator". I wonder how this works, since the KJV was translated from the latter three on the direction that it follow Bishop's as much as possible, and that the translators also referred Geneva, Coverdale, and earlier English Bibles.
NO I HAVE NOT. I have been mocking Elizabethan English.
It is a short phase in the history of one of the many languages of man. It isn't sacred in itself.
I have stated repeatedly that I accept the KJV as the word of God.
While you falsely accuse me, in your very next sentence you have the unmitigated audacity to yet again call the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. Other translations also bear the witness of The Holy Spirit.
This is really quite serious. You NEED to repent of this utter lunacy ASAP.
It is a short phase in the history of one of the many languages of man. It isn't sacred in itself.
I have stated repeatedly that I accept the KJV as the word of God.
While you falsely accuse me, in your very next sentence you have the unmitigated audacity to yet again call the work of the Holy Spirit the work of Satan. Other translations also bear the witness of The Holy Spirit.
This is really quite serious. You NEED to repent of this utter lunacy ASAP.
Since God is perfect that would include His words also. You make my point though since you admit God uses imperfect tools and this would include any king, prophet, priest, or translator that ever walked this earth with the exception of Jesus Christ; therefore, the translators letter to King James can hardly be used as evidence against the KJB being the preserved word of God in the English language.
The thing is, the preserved word has been kept over time, and the first english one we got was that of the Geneva bible which came out in like 1560. Way before the King James bible ever came out.
We know the the original copies do not have error, even though we don't have original copies of them now, we just have copies of copies, and pretty much like I stated here, it is amazing how easy the Truth about the Lord Jesus Christ can be easily known even with other translations by having the 4 gospels of Matthew Mark Luke and John to gain knowledge about God, and the Lord Jesus Christ as we go in this life.
If you want an Literal Translation bible, I would recommend a Young's Literal Translation bible.
King James Version is pretty good, but not the best. It does have some translational errors in it.