KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
I actually haven't said against or that anything's wrong. Was just pointing out that KJV is still a valuable asset with the modern versions. Aswell the Kjver.
Ok then....
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Two Christ's really. Jesus said He would go to the Father and send The Spirit Who would never leave or forsake us. As far as I'm concerned Jesus is seated at the right hand of the Father and the Holy Spirit is living in me. I read the KJV to and haven't come across two Christ's in it or in the NIV or any other translations I have. Hmmm maybe you have a Jehovahs witness KJV.
No I'm not a JW. Maybe take a look at Romans 8:9 for more info on who indwells the believer. What do you think, does the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of Christ dwell in the believer?

[h=1]Romans 8:9 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.[/FONT]
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
I think you are awfully confused here!
Do you realise that the textus receptus, compiled by Erasmus, on which the KJV translators base their NT translation had only six (6) incomplete Greek manuscripts (MSS). And where there was overlap in the content no manuscript was the same. In addition no MSS was earlier that the 10th century.
In creating this Greek text Erasmus borrowed liberally from the Latin Vulgate (the Bible used by the RCC) and so large parts of the textus receptus are actually translations from a LATIN Bible..., never mind six very incomplete and inconsistent Greek MSS!

Doesn't sound very "original" to me...

This completely contradicts any claim that the "KJV used the original Greek"!
This is a laughable claim devoid of any easily verifiable fact.
KJVOnly advocates thrive only on ignorance.
I think he meant that the KJV translators used Greek (original language) and did not translate from Latin.

He did not mean that this Greek was "original" in the meaning of being totally the same as autographs.

IMHO.
 
Jan 8, 2018
35
0
0
I think you are awfully confused here!
Do you realise that the textus receptus, compiled by Erasmus, on which the KJV translators base their NT translation had only six (6) incomplete Greek manuscripts (MSS). And where there was overlap in the content no manuscript was the same. In addition no MSS was earlier that the 10th century.
In creating this Greek text Erasmus borrowed liberally from the Latin Vulgate (the Bible used by the RCC) and so large parts of the textus receptus are actually translations from a LATIN Bible..., never mind six very incomplete and inconsistent Greek MSS!

Doesn't sound very "original" to me...

This completely contradicts any claim that the "KJV used the original Greek"!
This is a laughable claim devoid of any easily verifiable fact.
KJVOnly advocates thrive only on ignorance.
1. My argument was based on KJV translators actually using manuscripts whereas NIV used w&h. 2. You should have noticed I wasn't KJV only 3. You have a bad attitude and are ignorant of my position before you quoted me. I love the KJER the most where Nestle Aland was compared, in fact the only version modernly that was.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
I'm not buying you a westcott and hort Bible. So change your attitude and Google it.
Who has the "attitude" ? I say it's the KJV Only fraternity that won't drop the attacks.
Some of us are fed up to the back teeth of hearing these accusations. It's a pointless diversion to keep slagging off W&H.

And the alleged "missing verses" argument. Old. tired. untrue. Dismissed. Had enough of it. None of this is of any benefit to The Body of Christ. Language changes, it's a fact of life. If people can't accept it and move on that's their right. It isn't their right to keep creating such a fuss over something so rudimentary as updated English.
 
Jan 8, 2018
35
0
0
Who has the "attitude" ? I say it's the KJV Only fraternity that won't drop the attacks.
Some of us are fed up to the back teeth of hearing these accusations. It's a pointless diversion to keep slagging off W&H.

And the alleged "missing verses" argument. Old. tired. untrue. Dismissed. Had enough of it. None of this is of any benefit to The Body of Christ. Language changes, it's a fact of life. If people can't accept it and move on that's their right. It isn't their right to keep creating such a fuss over something so rudimentary as updated English.
Okay, why do people keep saying King James only just cause I love the kjv? I've mentioned plenty that I love NIV and I am currently going through the Nkjv.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
Okay, why do people keep saying King James only just cause I love the kjv? I've mentioned plenty that I love NIV and I am currently going through the Nkjv.
But you still had to throw in the fable about "missing verses" and run down W&H.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people preferring the KJV. I don't think it should be done away with. It's a rich heritage to have several good translations. I'm just not going to accept that a version like The NIV is "corrupt"
 
Jan 8, 2018
35
0
0
But you still had to throw in the fable about "missing verses" and run down W&H.
I don't think there is anything wrong with people preferring the KJV. I don't think it should be done away with. It's a rich heritage to have several good translations. I'm just not going to accept that a version like The NIV is "corrupt"
It's not really fable if you study. Some of the divinity of Christ is missing in modern verses. I've study this verse by verse. Chick publications puts out good books about it. You should never throw out the KJV.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
It's not really fable if you study. Some of the divinity of Christ is missing in modern verses. I've study this verse by verse. Chick publications puts out good books about it. You should never throw out the KJV.
Bible is a library of books.

The simple fact that some verse is different does not mean that the Bible as a whole is missing "the divinity of Christ".

---

The KJV has "the only begotten son" instead of "the only begotten God" in J 1:18. Does that make the KJV being inferior regarding Christ´ divinity?
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
I'm not buying you a westcott and hort Bible. So change your attitude and Google it.
Not letting you off the hook that easy. You said W&H altered the Greek. You made this accusation, now its up to you show where and how they altered it. You made the accusation, you back it up.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
Okay, why do people keep saying King James only just cause I love the kjv? I've mentioned plenty that I love NIV and I am currently going through the Nkjv.
With respect it is pretty clear that it is not just a case of "I love the kjv"...
You are denigrating other translations - and not from a position of knowledge but ignorance.

Westcott and Hort got plenty of criticism when it was first published but the discovery of so many very early manuscripts since has more than vindicated nearly all their textual decisions.

As for your "criticism" of newer translations "missing" certain verses etc is vindicated by these much older MSS than anyone 400 hundred years ago had access to because they do not contain those verses either!

If you really investigate the process behind the creation of the textus receptus as well as the translation of the KJV then you will discover why! Interestingly enough, those six manuscripts I mentioned, in what they cover of the NT also often demonstrate much the same omissions....
 
Mar 7, 2018
50
3
0
With respect it is pretty clear that it is not just a case of "I love the kjv"...
You are denigrating other translations - and not from a position of knowledge but ignorance.

Westcott and Hort got plenty of criticism when it was first published but the discovery of so many very early manuscripts since has more than vindicated nearly all their textual decisions.

As for your "criticism" of newer translations "missing" certain verses etc is vindicated by these much older MSS than anyone 400 hundred years ago had access to because they do not contain those verses either!

If you really investigate the process behind the creation of the textus receptus as well as the translation of the KJV then you will discover why! Interestingly enough, those six manuscripts I mentioned, in what they cover of the NT also often demonstrate much the same omissions....
Reading different translations helps. And example is KJV Gen 2:8 I looked up the word eastward once and it says in antiquity, before time. Clearly denoting past tense. The NIV unlike the KJV puts in the word God HAD planted a garden leading you to understand that. Also the KJV calls the Holy Spirit a ghost which I find rather disconcerting.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Reading different translations helps. And example is KJV Gen 2:8 I looked up the word eastward once and it says in antiquity, before time. Clearly denoting past tense. The NIV unlike the KJV puts in the word God HAD planted a garden leading you to understand that. Also the KJV calls the Holy Spirit a ghost which I find rather disconcerting.
Why does ghost bother you?
 
Mar 7, 2018
50
3
0
I have heard the histories about different translations and they're interesting, agnostics blah blah. Wonder how many of the people on the site are spending as much time reading any version as they are arguing about it. What did God say to do_Oh that's right, read it.
 

tourist

Senior Member
Mar 13, 2014
41,319
16,303
113
69
Tennessee
I'm surprised no ones bought up the Queen James version
That version is unauthorized. Of course, no one can prove who authorizes the authorizing of the various versions and translations of the written word of God. You could probably pick up a used copy of the Queen James version at Amazon.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,265
5,624
113
It's not really fable if you study. Some of the divinity of Christ is missing in modern verses. I've study this verse by verse. Chick publications puts out good books about it. You should never throw out the KJV.
We've studied that right here in THIS thread. And it's a false accusation. If anything it was the KJVO advocates that had the problem with the divinity of Christ. You would be about the 4th or 5th person that has tried to accuse the NIV in THIS thread alone of downgrading Jesus. It's a falsehood.
 

preston39

Senior Member
Dec 18, 2017
1,675
240
63
I'm interested in knowing how you arrived at the thief was a saved backslider.

K....,

See post 1982;

He was a sinner.... as a thief.
He knew Christ...strongly suggesting a previous following and study of scripture content.
He was confident of Christ power/position.
He exhibited faith......only a believer would.
His actions acknowledged that he was wrong and appealed for forgiveness....."remember me when"....