Why the king james?
- Thread starter Blain
- 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.
So, what’s the use of arguing with since there is NO Final Authority? Are you trying to say “you” are the Final Authority? But we have the written Authority. It is the scriptures that are “given by inspiration of God.” That’s KJV. What really differentiates is that you are inferring to us to have “One Authority” when in fact the KJB is our Final Authority. The Hebrew, the Greek, the Old Latin, Aramaic and others in line with the Byzatine Text are copies of copies of the “original autographs” which these copies including that of Timothy is given the same inspiration. However, in the transmission, some are copied in a corrupt manner so that we have the case of corrupt many versions of today. Examples are the Vaticanus and Sinaticus or the so called “Oldest and Best Manuscripts” by Textual critics yet these so called “oldest and Best” are worse than we can imagine. They have to cut so many verses of the Bible. According to Hoskier, they contradict each one another of about 3000 cases in the New Testament alone. The same Holy Spirit that you and others talking about says “God is not the author of confusion” If the witnesses contradict each other, oftentimes the testimony is invalid. So it’s the KJV in your English, I believe is the pure words of God.
Here are some samples of a useless argument of KJV being outdated. I’ll only point out three (3) of the words from your post that will blow the case and which I believe will suffice to silence this kind of argument for a “threefold cord is not easily broken”. Using your own choice of words on the above post you have written some like. See in blue color.
Waste = exactly it is used in 1200AD. Yours must be outdated but you used them.
Time = we are on the age of 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century yet you have attested that from 1300 AD. Yep there is a time for everything…
anyway (adv.)
1560s, any way "in any manner;" variant any ways (with adverbial genitive) attested from c. 1560, prepositional phrase by any way is from late 14c.; seeany + way (n.). One-word form predominated from 1830s. As an adverbial conjunction, from 1859. Middle English in this sense had ani-gates "in any way, somehow" (c. 1400).
Source: Online Etymology Dictionary
Waste = exactly it is used in 1200AD. Yours must be outdated but you used them.
Time = we are on the age of 21[SUP]st[/SUP] Century yet you have attested that from 1300 AD. Yep there is a time for everything…
anyway (adv.)
1560s, any way "in any manner;" variant any ways (with adverbial genitive) attested from c. 1560, prepositional phrase by any way is from late 14c.; seeany + way (n.). One-word form predominated from 1830s. As an adverbial conjunction, from 1859. Middle English in this sense had ani-gates "in any way, somehow" (c. 1400).
Source: Online Etymology Dictionary
I don't know about anybody else, but your calling other Christians "born of corruptible seed" has just done it for me.
You've gone off the edge, and now have ZERO credibility with me. I used to think you were fairly well learned, if not misguided somewhat by your blind worship of a translation of the Word, but you've proven to be a fanatic member of a cult of book worshippers.
I'll pray for you.... but I won't respond to you further.
You've gone off the edge, and now have ZERO credibility with me. I used to think you were fairly well learned, if not misguided somewhat by your blind worship of a translation of the Word, but you've proven to be a fanatic member of a cult of book worshippers.
I'll pray for you.... but I won't respond to you further.
it really hurts me to read that too. 
i've read the entire bible in the KJV, and i know of a certain that the KJV does not say "anyone who accepts the gospel after having received it as read from any other English translation is born of corruptible seed" anywhere within its pages, nor does it imply it, so yeah, you nailed it:
you make yourself the authority on everyone's salvation, and base it on interaction with a translation of the scripture into a non-native language, not on Christ, not on faith -- not even on works.
it's pretty hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you're not idolizing this thing, at this point. you shame the brothers and sisters with that remark, and shame the Faith. driving nails, indeed.
i've read the entire bible in the KJV, and i know of a certain that the KJV does not say "anyone who accepts the gospel after having received it as read from any other English translation is born of corruptible seed" anywhere within its pages, nor does it imply it, so yeah, you nailed it:
you make yourself the authority on everyone's salvation, and base it on interaction with a translation of the scripture into a non-native language, not on Christ, not on faith -- not even on works.
it's pretty hard for me to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you're not idolizing this thing, at this point. you shame the brothers and sisters with that remark, and shame the Faith. driving nails, indeed.
Fred, if this were true, when it came time to make a translation of the scripture into Cantonese, you would take out your KJB and ye olde English-to-Cantonese dictionary.
in fact, when you wanted an Israeli or a Greek to read the scripture, you wouldn't give him Hebrew or Koine to read, you'd use the KJV as your first source to translate the scripture back into its original languages.
i hope that's as obviously ridiculous an idea to you as it is to the rest of us.
in fact, when you wanted an Israeli or a Greek to read the scripture, you wouldn't give him Hebrew or Koine to read, you'd use the KJV as your first source to translate the scripture back into its original languages.
i hope that's as obviously ridiculous an idea to you as it is to the rest of us.
Hi sir!
I think the better idea is that a Greek speaking people must be also concerned with their own Greek language. A Chinese must be also concerned with A Chinese Bible of their owned… Your English language is an international language now and use in so many ways. It is a language for International Trade and others. Bet with me, I am Filipino, but there’s not a Filipino Bible Translation that is in purest form. So, we use the English-KJV and interpret it using our vernacular language.
Wow! Seven times purified and will never pass away. It contained in the KJV and so with other translations, however, if the true words of God is already in the purified product in English-KJV why would God allow such idea of replacing His words. All we need to do is retain the word as it is and study it. I do believe we have inspired Words in Hebrew, in Greek, in Aramaic and in Latin yet those languages are already dead. Translating them again in Koine Greek and Hebrew using the KJV is futile. I believed English can be learned even by the most uneducated country.
God bless you sir!
I think the better idea is that a Greek speaking people must be also concerned with their own Greek language. A Chinese must be also concerned with A Chinese Bible of their owned… Your English language is an international language now and use in so many ways. It is a language for International Trade and others. Bet with me, I am Filipino, but there’s not a Filipino Bible Translation that is in purest form. So, we use the English-KJV and interpret it using our vernacular language.
Wow! Seven times purified and will never pass away. It contained in the KJV and so with other translations, however, if the true words of God is already in the purified product in English-KJV why would God allow such idea of replacing His words. All we need to do is retain the word as it is and study it. I do believe we have inspired Words in Hebrew, in Greek, in Aramaic and in Latin yet those languages are already dead. Translating them again in Koine Greek and Hebrew using the KJV is futile. I believed English can be learned even by the most uneducated country.
God bless you sir!
For the italicized words in the KJV
Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but because the translators were trying to be honest by showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English (the way we speak), NOR was the word found in Greek/Hebrew but was found in another language or source. Without the italicized words, the sentences from Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be left out of Luke 19:1 and the sentence would be without a subject. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some other language.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . . -- Luke 16:17
Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but because the translators were trying to be honest by showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English (the way we speak), NOR was the word found in Greek/Hebrew but was found in another language or source. Without the italicized words, the sentences from Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be left out of Luke 19:1 and the sentence would be without a subject. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some other language.
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . . -- Luke 16:17
I don't why you're getting so upset over this, it's not as if I said you're not saved, I said your spirit man is corrupt. You and all the others debating me on this admit that your SEED IS CORRUTED, there is no pure word of God today. If your seed is corrupt then your spirit man is corrupt.
Be honest, the Chirst formed in you is not the same Christ that's formed in me. Is it? I mean there's not much about Christianity that you and I will agree on. You think (because you've been taught) that being born again and saved are the same thing... they're not. And I did not say that you're not saved. Read Galatians 4. Paul is the woman (heavenly Jerusalem) that is travailing in the second birth to see Christ, the real Christ, formed in the Galatians that are already saved.... Seriously, read Galatians 4, those people are already saved. I'm doing the same thing Paul did and you're angry at me for telling the truth. Believe every single word in the incorruptible word and the real Christ will be formed in you, then you can see the kingdom of God and then the things I say won't seem ridiculous.
Galatians 4:19 KJV
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
Be honest, the Chirst formed in you is not the same Christ that's formed in me. Is it? I mean there's not much about Christianity that you and I will agree on. You think (because you've been taught) that being born again and saved are the same thing... they're not. And I did not say that you're not saved. Read Galatians 4. Paul is the woman (heavenly Jerusalem) that is travailing in the second birth to see Christ, the real Christ, formed in the Galatians that are already saved.... Seriously, read Galatians 4, those people are already saved. I'm doing the same thing Paul did and you're angry at me for telling the truth. Believe every single word in the incorruptible word and the real Christ will be formed in you, then you can see the kingdom of God and then the things I say won't seem ridiculous.
Galatians 4:19 KJV
My little children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be formed in you,
The Italicized Words in the King James Bible
[TABLE="width: 95%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics.
Imagine the confusion which would arise if the translators had not used the italicized words:
"Salvation unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah."
This is Psalm 3:8 with one italicized word omitted. As you can see, the reading implies that the Lord needs to be saved! The correct reading is:
"Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah."
Here is Psalm 7:11 with three italicized words omitted:
"God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry every day."
Is God angry with the righteous every day? No, the correct reading is as the King "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."
Consider Psalm 12:5 without the italics:
"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set in safety puffeth at him."
The verse makes no sense without the italics:
"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."
If we subtract the italics from Psalm 18:3, we have God commanding men to call upon Him to be praised:
"I will call upon the LORD, to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies."
Yet, if we leave the italics in place, the verse makes perfect sense and gives the praise to God:
"I will call upon the LORD, who is worthyto be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies."
Note Psalm 34:16-17 without the italicized words:
"The face of the LORD against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. Cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles."
This reading allows those that do evil to be delivered from all their troubles, but the italics give a whole new meaning:
"The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles."
Just from these few examples in Psalms alone, it is clear that the italics are essential. Hundreds of such examples could be presented.
Someone might suggest that some of the italics could be omitted, which may be true, but who makes that choice, and where do we draw the line? The moment we agree to changing any italicized words, we open the door for Satan. This we cannot do, so the best option is to leave the Authorized Version as it stands.
Not only does confusion arise when the italicized words are omitted, contradictions can also arise. For example, omitting the italicized words from II Samuel 21:19 would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, yet everyone knows that it was David who slew Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says:
"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
If we omit the words "the brother of" then we make II Samuel 21:19 contradict I Chronicles 20:5:
"And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam." (No italics!)
Another important point is that New Testament writers QUOTE from the italicized words in the Old Testament. Note the following:
Psalm 16:8 says: "I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."
The words "he is" are in italics. When Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:25 he also quotes the italicized words, but Luke doesn't write them in italics:
"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved."
Why did Peter quote these words and why did Luke write these words if they weren't in the original manuscripts? Should we omit the italics? Not according to Peter and Luke!
In Deuteronomy 25:4, the word of God says:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
The words "the corn" are in italics, which the sceptics claim should be omitted. However, we find Paul quoting these words in I Corinthians 9:9:
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"
If these words do not belong in Deuteronomy 25:4, why did Paul quote them?
It is easy to claim that the italicized words do not belong in the King James Bible, but proving it is altogether a different story. May God help us to spend more time reading and believing our King James Bible and less time speaking critically of it.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Copyright © 2001 James L. Melton
[TABLE="width: 95%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]The italicized words in the King James Bible are words that were added by the translators to help the reader. This is usually necessary when translating from one language to another because word meanings and idioms change. So, to produce a more readable translation, the King James translators (1604- 1611) added certain words to the Bible text. However, to make sure that everyone understood that these words were not in the available manuscripts they set them in italics.
Imagine the confusion which would arise if the translators had not used the italicized words:
"Salvation unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah."
This is Psalm 3:8 with one italicized word omitted. As you can see, the reading implies that the Lord needs to be saved! The correct reading is:
"Salvation belongeth unto the LORD: thy blessing is upon thy people. Selah."
Here is Psalm 7:11 with three italicized words omitted:
"God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry every day."
Is God angry with the righteous every day? No, the correct reading is as the King "God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day."
Consider Psalm 12:5 without the italics:
"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set in safety puffeth at him."
The verse makes no sense without the italics:
"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."
If we subtract the italics from Psalm 18:3, we have God commanding men to call upon Him to be praised:
"I will call upon the LORD, to be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies."
Yet, if we leave the italics in place, the verse makes perfect sense and gives the praise to God:
"I will call upon the LORD, who is worthyto be praised: so shall I be saved from mine enemies."
Note Psalm 34:16-17 without the italicized words:
"The face of the LORD against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. Cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles."
This reading allows those that do evil to be delivered from all their troubles, but the italics give a whole new meaning:
"The face of the LORD is against them that do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth. The righteous cry, and the LORD heareth, and delivereth them out of all their troubles."
Just from these few examples in Psalms alone, it is clear that the italics are essential. Hundreds of such examples could be presented.
Someone might suggest that some of the italics could be omitted, which may be true, but who makes that choice, and where do we draw the line? The moment we agree to changing any italicized words, we open the door for Satan. This we cannot do, so the best option is to leave the Authorized Version as it stands.
Not only does confusion arise when the italicized words are omitted, contradictions can also arise. For example, omitting the italicized words from II Samuel 21:19 would give Elhanan credit for slaying Goliath, yet everyone knows that it was David who slew Goliath. II Samuel 21:19 says:
"And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
If we omit the words "the brother of" then we make II Samuel 21:19 contradict I Chronicles 20:5:
"And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam." (No italics!)
Another important point is that New Testament writers QUOTE from the italicized words in the Old Testament. Note the following:
Psalm 16:8 says: "I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved."
The words "he is" are in italics. When Peter quotes this verse in Acts 2:25 he also quotes the italicized words, but Luke doesn't write them in italics:
"For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved."
Why did Peter quote these words and why did Luke write these words if they weren't in the original manuscripts? Should we omit the italics? Not according to Peter and Luke!
In Deuteronomy 25:4, the word of God says:
"Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn."
The words "the corn" are in italics, which the sceptics claim should be omitted. However, we find Paul quoting these words in I Corinthians 9:9:
"For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen?"
If these words do not belong in Deuteronomy 25:4, why did Paul quote them?
It is easy to claim that the italicized words do not belong in the King James Bible, but proving it is altogether a different story. May God help us to spend more time reading and believing our King James Bible and less time speaking critically of it.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Copyright © 2001 James L. Melton
it really hurts me to read that too.
i've read the entire bible in the KJV, and i know of a certain that the KJV does not say "anyone who accepts the gospel after having received it as read from any other English translation is born of corruptible seed" anywhere within its pages, nor does it imply it, so yeah, you nailed it:
i've read the entire bible in the KJV, and i know of a certain that the KJV does not say "anyone who accepts the gospel after having received it as read from any other English translation is born of corruptible seed" anywhere within its pages, nor does it imply it, so yeah, you nailed it:
Reading the KJV is like a geneticist reading another persons DNA, it's not forming a new person. Reading and believing every word of the KJV forms a new spirit being. Like I said, there's a huge difference between reading the KJV and allowing the KJV to form your spirit man.
I'm not the authority on anyone's salvation, I don't know who's saved and who isn't. Like I said to hornetguy, being saved and born again are two separate things. By the way, there is no such thing as "non-native" language for the word of God. The word of God is spirit, not the letter. The letter is just the body the spirit resides in. Do yourself a favor and get a King James bible and study the concept of "the spirit and the letter". Don't read the perverted versions because they want you to believe the "letter" is the Old Testament. (That is the goal of the modern translations.. hide the truth instead of revealing it.)
After you figure out what the spirit and the letter are, then you will see that the letter is not important at all... the letter is just the body for the spirit. The body can be in English, Spanish, German, Greek or any other language except maybe HEBREW. God said he wouldn't speak to his people in Hebrew any more. Hey after you understand the spirit and the letter, maybe you will stop worshipping the "original autographs". And by all means stop encouraging others to do so.
IF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the "old fashioned language" is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.
But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew - Words like "mouse", IPad, "Kindle", Office, Word, "paste".
But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew - Words like "mouse", IPad, "Kindle", Office, Word, "paste".
Would any Bible believing, devout Jew change a single syllable of his “archaic” Hebrew Bible? Or a believing Orthodox Greek change his “old fashioned” Textus Receptus New Testament? Of course not; they have too much respect and reverence for the biblical texts.
I believe it is the same thing with the English language. God knew that languages would change over time and that His pure words, as found only in the King James Bible, would sound slightly “strange, different and old fashioned”, but this is a good thing.
When people read out of the King James Bible we are immediately struck by the fact that it reads like NO OTHER BOOK on this earth. It is an OLD Book that has been around for a good long time, and it speaks God’s eternal truths to us like no other book or Bible on this earth. The very way it is written sticks in the mind and makes you think about what it is saying the way the watered down and dumbed down modern versions do not.
I believe it is the same thing with the English language. God knew that languages would change over time and that His pure words, as found only in the King James Bible, would sound slightly “strange, different and old fashioned”, but this is a good thing.
When people read out of the King James Bible we are immediately struck by the fact that it reads like NO OTHER BOOK on this earth. It is an OLD Book that has been around for a good long time, and it speaks God’s eternal truths to us like no other book or Bible on this earth. The very way it is written sticks in the mind and makes you think about what it is saying the way the watered down and dumbed down modern versions do not.