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.
This is my point. There is a difference in many doctrines as stated in the KJV compared to the new versions. You need right words to get the right doctrine.
Furthermore, not one error has been shown that hasn't been refuted. You don't accept the answers as truth, instead several cast insults. I have never insulted anyone, neither will I.
One major doctrine that is lost in the new versions is the faith of Christ. The believer is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Furthermore, not one error has been shown that hasn't been refuted. You don't accept the answers as truth, instead several cast insults. I have never insulted anyone, neither will I.
One major doctrine that is lost in the new versions is the faith of Christ. The believer is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Different is not the issue. The issue at hand is, which is correct? That cannot be proven simply by comparing one translation with another.
I don't know if you started with the KJV or not, but it sounds like you did, and therefore you compare everything to the KJV. That is poor reasoning.
As for "faith of Jesus", the rest of Scripture simply doesn't support that wording. Yes, Jesus was faithful; that is not in question. However, when Jesus spoke with the leper, the blind man, the lame man, etc., His words were not, "I have faith for you to be healed" but (in essence), "You have faith to be healed."
Similarly, in Hebrews 11, it is not the faith of Christ that is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" but the faith of the believer in the certainty of the promise. Jesus has seen; His is not hope, but reality.
As for refutations, if you cannot see that "he was forty-two when he became king" is not the same message as "he was twenty-two when he became king", the problem is not with anyone else's refusal to accept your convoluted explanation.
I don't know if you started with the KJV or not, but it sounds like you did, and therefore you compare everything to the KJV. That is poor reasoning.
As for "faith of Jesus", the rest of Scripture simply doesn't support that wording. Yes, Jesus was faithful; that is not in question. However, when Jesus spoke with the leper, the blind man, the lame man, etc., His words were not, "I have faith for you to be healed" but (in essence), "You have faith to be healed."
Similarly, in Hebrews 11, it is not the faith of Christ that is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" but the faith of the believer in the certainty of the promise. Jesus has seen; His is not hope, but reality.
As for refutations, if you cannot see that "he was forty-two when he became king" is not the same message as "he was twenty-two when he became king", the problem is not with anyone else's refusal to accept your convoluted explanation.
Lol challenge accepted.
Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
Galatians 2:16
Yet we know that a person is made right with God by faith in Jesus Christ, not by obeying the law. And we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we might be made right with God because of our faith in Christ, not because we have obeyed the law. For no one will ever be made right with God by obeying the law.”
Galatians 2:16
Why?
Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not use anything else, that we ignore church councils, synods or basic teachings, that we do not read any theological works, that we could not find God in astronomy, philosophy, logic etc.
It means that only Scriptures are the ultimate authority by which all other sources must be judged.
God is not locked in a book. Bible is a help how to recognize what is bounding and what is not. It is not a book of complete knowledge about everything.
Sola Scriptura does not mean that we do not use anything else, that we ignore church councils, synods or basic teachings, that we do not read any theological works, that we could not find God in astronomy, philosophy, logic etc.
It means that only Scriptures are the ultimate authority by which all other sources must be judged.
God is not locked in a book. Bible is a help how to recognize what is bounding and what is not. It is not a book of complete knowledge about everything.
Last edited:
No, sola scriptura does NOT mean that no other book or source can be consulted...
However, sola scriptura definitely means that no source other than Scripture is authoritative.
In other words, I read plenty of books about the Bible and theology, but I believe what is in those books ONLY if Scripture confirms their content!
Many of the books that I own are very good in this regard as the authors themselves believe in sola scriptura and so do their level best to reflect Scriptural truth as accurately as possible, however, none of them are perfect...
However, sola scriptura definitely means that no source other than Scripture is authoritative.
In other words, I read plenty of books about the Bible and theology, but I believe what is in those books ONLY if Scripture confirms their content!
Many of the books that I own are very good in this regard as the authors themselves believe in sola scriptura and so do their level best to reflect Scriptural truth as accurately as possible, however, none of them are perfect...
I would say other sources can be authoritative (why not, even unbelieving kings or pharisees were supposed to be authoritative), but if it contradicts the authority of Scriptures, then Scriptures win. Like pope vs Bible in Luther´days.
Some areas are not mentioned in the Bible or are not mentioned in details.
Some areas are not mentioned in the Bible or are not mentioned in details.