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.
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,343
Jun 30, 2015
24,822
13,440
113
#2,343
Joseppi said:
”Holy Spirit” is a name, not a descriptive phrase.
Click to expand...
Here's your statement restated:

"Holy Spirit" is not a descriptive phrase.
Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not "spirit"; or,
the Holy Spirit is not holy; or,
the Holy Spirit is neither holy nor "spirit".

Any other blasphemy you wish to add to that before you are written off as a heretic?
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,344
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,344
Dino246 said:
The logic is quite simple: the KJV mostly follows the Bishop's Bible. If the Bishop's was not inspired, then the parts of the KJV that follow it are not inspired. There are places where the KJV follows Beza. If Beza was not inspired, then neither is the KJV.

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the KJV was inspired and that other translations aren't. It's pure groundless speculation. You as the KJV-only proponent are making the claim that it is inspired. By claiming that "nobody gives reason or evidence for saying" that it isn't inspired, you are making a burden of proof reversal (a logical fallacy). You have given your side; it has been rejected as illogical, groundless, and circular. We have no need to give further evidence against it.
Click to expand...
I was hoping for some compelling evidence and not just speculation.
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Senior Member
#2,345
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2,345
KJV1611 said:
That's your opinion and I respect that but it's just an opinion.
Click to expand...
If the 1611 was inspired, then no revisions would have been necessary. Now, what proof do you have the KJV translators were under the Spirit’s inspiration as they translated it?
 
J

Joseppi

Senior Member
#2,346
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
#2,346
trofimus said:
It was. Find any old print.
Click to expand...
It was what? You make statements you can't back up. And now you are suddenly vague.

Whereas, I know what the title page says, and that the title page refutes any notion that the apocrypha is scripture of God.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,348
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,348
SovereignGrace said:
LOL? It’s not a laughing matter.

You say God inspired the KJV, then we see revision after revision all the way up to 1769.

No, which is inspired? It can’t be both.

1611?

1769?
Click to expand...
Where has the meaning of any verse from 1611 to present changed?
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Senior Member
#2,349
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2,349
Joseppi said:
You are mistaken. You are probably thinking that phrases suc as, holy Spirit...etc... equate, but they don’t.
”Holy Spirit” is a name, not a descriptive phrase.
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit is a Person, the third Person in the triune Godhead. He is not a name. :mad: :rolleyes: :(

What other heresies do you have in your grab bag?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,350
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,350
Joseppi said:
It was what? You make statements you can't back up. And now you are suddenly vague.

Whereas, I know what the title page says, and that the title page refutes any notion that the apocrypha is scripture of God.
Click to expand...
"It was" was a reaction to your sentence "It was not".

I.E. Apocrypha was a part of all the KJV editions.

---

The title page is also inspired and infallible? Be careful there.
 
J

Joseppi

Senior Member
#2,354
Jan 4, 2018
887
7
18
#2,354
SovereignGrace said:
In Acts 28, Paul is bitten by a snake. Those on Melita thinks he’s some sort of evil guy but when they see him live, they think he’s a god. They were expressing themselves via what knowledge they had.

Just like with Nebuchadnezzar in Daniel 3. He was referring to the one with those three in the furnace as a son of the gods. He was a pagan and was expressing himself with the knowledge he had. The Bible recorded the king’s words as he spoke them. The NIV does NOT teach the Christ as a son of the gods, but was giving us the uttered words of a pagan king.
Click to expand...
Nebuchadnezzar said he saw one like the Son of God.
And that makes perfect sense in light of the miracle he saw.
His pagan notion of holy gods was overthrown by the miraculous proof that there is one true and almighty God in Heaven.

It is the modern invented texts that changed the wording.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,356
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,356
SovereignGrace said:
If the 1611 was inspired, then no revisions would have been necessary. Now, what proof do you have the KJV translators were under the Spirit’s inspiration as they translated it?
Click to expand...
Are the errors in question wirting errors or type setting errors?
 
G

Grandpa

Senior Member
#2,357
Jun 24, 2011
11,551
3,190
113
#2,357
SovereignGrace said:
If the 1611 was inspired, then no revisions would have been necessary. Now, what proof do you have the KJV translators were under the Spirit’s inspiration as they translated it?
Click to expand...
I didn't use the 1611 version.

But I used the KJV. Whatever version the Gideons were handing out in the early 2000's.

And I was saved through reading it and trying to do what it said to do.

And I worked out my Salvation through fear and trembling with this same book.


I would think that would be proof of its inspiration.


The English language itself has gone through revisions since 1611. I would think that a book written in a language that has changed over the years would need to change its language to keep close to its original meaning.

Otherwise, the true intent could be lost because of the difference in meaning between similar but different words.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.