KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

I don't have a problem admitting when the newer translations are right, I'm glad there's some good in them.

Everyone will always find what he is looking for.

If you want to find some big error in NIV, you will find one.

If you believe that the KJV is perfect, any error will be just misunderstanding for you.

And because people are so biased, their discussion can never lead to a change, without an open mind.

But open mind contradicts faith. So, its difficult to manage both, for many Christians. Regarding any topic (old earth, evolution, kvj only, flat earth etc.)

----

BTW, I have some questions for the KJVO guys. I do not know if all apply to you, but you can try to answer:

1) Who authorized the 1769 KJV you are probably reading?
2) Are you reading Cambridge or Oxford Edition? Which one is inspired?
3) If KJV 1611 was infallible, why it had to be updated in 1789?
4) Why are you not reading deuterocanonical books and marginal notes, when inspired infallible 1611 had them?
5) Why no historical general church creed ever mentioned any belief similar to KJV onlyism?

 

[preston39]

It is my understanding that there is an edition of the bible in the making which justifies same sex marriage, homosexuality, neutral gender, abortion, individual repentance is not necessary (because Christ repented for us all), once saved always saved ....OSAS...etc.

Since we see justification of other re-writes,....what will be your reaction to that one?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

A translation is not a "re-write"

 

[hornetguy]

It is my understanding that there is an edition of the bible in the making which justifies same sex marriage, homosexuality, neutral gender, abortion, individual repentance is not necessary (because Christ repented for us all), once saved always saved ....OSAS...etc.

Since we see justification of other re-writes,....what will be your reaction to that one?

Yes.... back in the 70's I heard that "God is dead".....

I didn't believe that, either.

Nobody is promoting a "re-write" of the Bible. Translations are a whole different thing, though. The KJV is a translation. So is the NASB. And the ESV... and....

 

[KJV1611]

One of them could be referring to the temple of Diana, for all we know. I mean, how will we KNOW we have the pure words of God, if it doesn't specify WHICH temple?

(sarcasm)

and.... the KJV is no more inspired than any other translation....

I read it and I'm absolutely sure it was the Temple of God.

 

[KJV1611]

Everyone will always find what he is looking for.

If you want to find some big error in NIV, you will find one.

If you believe that the KJV is perfect, any error will be just misunderstanding for you.

And because people are so biased, their discussion can never lead to a change, without an open mind.

But open mind contradicts faith. So, its difficult to manage both, for many Christians. Regarding any topic (old earth, evolution, kvj only, flat earth etc.)

----

BTW, I have some questions for the KJVO guys. I do not know if all apply to you, but you can try to answer:

1) Who authorized the 1769 KJV you are probably reading?
2) Are you reading Cambridge or Oxford Edition? Which one is inspired?
3) If KJV 1611 was infallible, why it had to be updated in 1789?
4) Why are you not reading deuterocanonical books and marginal notes, when inspired infallible 1611 had them?
5) Why no historical general church creed ever mentioned any belief similar to KJV onlyism?

Old earth is a good one, there is no room for pre-Adamic race in the KJV. If there is no standard then there's nothing to keep the believer in line when he starts to stray from the truth.

 

[KJV1611]

Everyone will always find what he is looking for.

If you want to find some big error in NIV, you will find one.

If you believe that the KJV is perfect, any error will be just misunderstanding for you.

And because people are so biased, their discussion can never lead to a change, without an open mind.

But open mind contradicts faith. So, its difficult to manage both, for many Christians. Regarding any topic (old earth, evolution, kvj only, flat earth etc.)

----

BTW, I have some questions for the KJVO guys. I do not know if all apply to you, but you can try to answer:

1) Who authorized the 1769 KJV you are probably reading?
2) Are you reading Cambridge or Oxford Edition? Which one is inspired?
3) If KJV 1611 was infallible, why it had to be updated in 1789?
4) Why are you not reading deuterocanonical books and marginal notes, when inspired infallible 1611 had them?
5) Why no historical general church creed ever mentioned any belief similar to KJV onlyism?

Others will have to answer these questions because I'm not interested in versions and manuscript lines and the like.

My focus is own KJV errors, errors where the KJV contradicts itself or goes contrary to the rest of scripture because that's where I get most of the good stuff I've learned.

 

[trofimus]

Old earth is a good one, there is no room for pre-Adamic race in the KJV. If there is no standard then there's nothing to keep the believer in line when he starts to stray from the truth.

Exactly, we need some standard. What is it?

 

[KJV1611]

Exactly, we need some standard. What is it?

Originals are long gone, copies contradict one another, modern translations contradict one another... without inspiration of the translations there is no standard. If God did inspire a translation, it would stand alone and above all others and would be without mistakes.

 

[trofimus]

...modern translations contradict one another... ..

And the KJV contradicts them too. So not just "modern", but simply "translations contradict one another". Simply because they are work of men and men have different views.

But the question is, what you mean by contradiction and if it is so serious that we must consider it or if it is just a biased attack on anything new.

 

[KJV1611]

And the KJV contradicts them too. So not just "modern", but simply "translations contradict one another". Simply because they are work of men and men have different views.

But the question is, what you mean by contradiction and if it is so serious that we must consider it or if it is just a biased attack on anything new.

Yes I'm including the KJV as "modern" as in bibles over the last several hundred years written in English.

There could be a modern inspired version if God wanted it and maybe he has but I haven't seen any bible that doesn't contradict itself or go backward in revelation that has already been revealed in the KJV.

 

[trofimus]

Yes I'm including the KJV as "modern" as in bibles over the last several hundred years written in English.

There could be a modern inspired version if God wanted it and maybe he has but I haven't seen any bible that doesn't contradict itself or go backward in revelation that has already been revealed in the KJV.

So, your personal "seeing" is the standard?

 

[KJV1611]

So, your personal "seeing" is the standard?

No, I'm going off what you guys say.
Only begotten Son to one and only Son - backward revelation.
Gospel preached in the wildernes to good news preached in the wilderness - backward revelation.
The Son of God in the fiery furnace to a son of the gods in the furnace - backward revelation.
Easter BACK to Passover - backward revelation.
Lucifer falling from heaven to the morining star falling from heaven- backward revelation.

These are just a few things off the top of my head.

 

[trofimus]

No, I'm going off what you guys say.
Only begotten Son to one and only Son - backward revelation.
Gospel preached in the wildernes to good news preached in the wilderness - backward revelation.
The Son of God in the fiery furnace to a son of the gods in the furnace - backward revelation.
Easter BACK to Passover - backward revelation.
Lucifer falling from heaven to the morining star falling from heaven- backward revelation.

These are just a few things off the top of my head.

I see no change in any of that. And if, I see a change for better.

So, which personal seeing is the standard? Mine or yours?

 

[KJV1611]

I see no change in any of that. And if, I see a change for better.

So, which personal seeing is the standard? Mine or yours?

So you see Jesus as a son of the gods as more revealing than The Son of God? If you do then I think my standard is better lol

 

[trofimus]

So you see Jesus as a son of the gods as more revealing than The Son of God? If you do then I think my standard is better lol

No, I do not base my faith on an emotional description of a pagan king. Do you?

My Bible has many more pages that clearly say there is just one Creator God and Jesus is his "monogenes" Son.

So again, such Bible is OK, it only needs some contextual thinking.

 

[KJV1611]

No, I do not base my faith on an emotional description of a pagan king. Do you?

My Bible has many more pages that clearly say there is just one Creator God and Jesus is his "monogenes" Son.

So again, such Bible is OK, it only needs some contextual thinking.

I dont know what the "originals" say in that verse but today we all know or should know that it was Jesus Christ in the fiery furnance. We all know that because the KJV told us that for over 400 years.

Changing the words to a son of the gods is giving less revelation about who was in the furnace. Do you agree with this?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Originals are long gone, copies contradict one another, modern translations contradict one another... without inspiration of the translations there is no standard. If God did inspire a translation, it would stand alone and above all others and would be without mistakes.

Right NIV it is then! What an utterly superb volume of books.
Clearly a superior translation to anything that's been through a Latin filter before it hit the English.

 

[KJV1611]

Right NIV it is then! What an utterly superb volume of books.
Clearly a superior translation to anything that's been through a Latin filter before it hit the English.

Do you think it’s inerrant in its message?

 

[trofimus]

I dont know what the "originals" say in that verse but today we all know or should know that it was Jesus Christ in the fiery furnance. We all know that because the KJV told us that for over 400 years.

Changing the words to a son of the gods is giving less revelation about who was in the furnace. Do you agree with this?

For me personally, the KJV is irrelevant. So I do not care what the KJV is saying for 400 years. I do not base my faith on tradition.

Three centuries of American tradition is not my standard. My town I live in is older than whole United States, so... we are getting again to "what is the standard".