In all of this discussion about one translation or another, or the perfection of the translators.........let us not lose sight of the fact that Holy Scripture IS the Inspired Word of God........seems to me too many people get caught up in things that are of little or no importance, while they should have their eyes fixed on Jesus and being obedient to His commandments.........
Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?
- Thread starter brandplucked
- 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.
S
Come on brandplucked.... when did i say i hate King James bible?????
i did not. i use KJV most of the time. i quote from it all the time. You calling me an unbeliever is not going to make any difference. I just told u the truth. I was trying to show u that there is a difference between the "word of God" and the "translation of the word of God". the teaching of an everlasting hell makes me uncomfortable, because that is not scriptural. those who stand for the truth of course will feel uncomfortable, because the image of loving god in our heart is completely different.
Notice these nine remarkable statements from the Translators of The King James Version immediately following the Preface, entitled: THE TRANSLATORS To The Readers (1611 Edition—I will copy it as is, in the archaic English spelling):
I can certainly agree and sympathize with almost everything said by these truthful and candid Translators of the Authorized Version, with one exception. Although they believe that "Variety is the spice of life," I would rather suggest that "Honesty is always the best policy." I certainly prefer a translation that is consistent and meticulously accurate over one that has great variety, and reads smoothly with a poetic and melodious rhythm.
i did not. i use KJV most of the time. i quote from it all the time. You calling me an unbeliever is not going to make any difference. I just told u the truth. I was trying to show u that there is a difference between the "word of God" and the "translation of the word of God". the teaching of an everlasting hell makes me uncomfortable, because that is not scriptural. those who stand for the truth of course will feel uncomfortable, because the image of loving god in our heart is completely different.Notice these nine remarkable statements from the Translators of The King James Version immediately following the Preface, entitled: THE TRANSLATORS To The Readers (1611 Edition—I will copy it as is, in the archaic English spelling):
"No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some IMPERFECTIONS and BLEMISHES may be noted in the setting forth of it"
"For to whom euer was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe ouer that which hee had done, as to AMEND IT where saw cause?"
"But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and OUR OFTEN CORRECTING OF THEM, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let vs see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, TO CORRECT) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at vs…they that are less sound themselues, ought not to object infirmities to others."
"Some peraduenture would haue no varietie of sences to be set in the margine [as the King James has done from the start; albeit they have in recent times been all removed in many editions] lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuersies by that SHEW OF VNCERTAINTIE [not knowing for sure the proper or best way to translate this or that], should somewhat be shaken."
"Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and NOT TO CONCLUDE OR DOGMATIZE VPON THIS OR THAT PEREMPTORIALY? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of these things that are euident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit God hath left (euen in the iudgment of the iudicious) QUESTIONALBLE, can be no lesse then PRESUMPTION."
"Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that VARIETIE [different] of Translations is profitable for the find out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where THE TEXT IS NOT SO CLEAR, must needes doe good, yea, is NECESSARY, as we are perswaded."
"An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee haue not tyed our selues to an VNIFORMITIE OF PHRASING [that is just another way of saying they would not be tied to being CONSISTANT in their translating even though, consistency would be more accurate], or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done [I FOR ONE], because they obserue, that some learned men some where, haue beene as exact as they could that way [as though being "as EXACT as they could" is not a virtue]."
"Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to sauour more of CURIOSITIE THEN WISEDOME, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Athiest, then bring profit to the godly Reader." (All CAPS are mine).
"For to whom euer was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to goe ouer that which hee had done, as to AMEND IT where saw cause?"
"But the difference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and OUR OFTEN CORRECTING OF THEM, is the thing that wee are specially charged with; let vs see therefore whether they themselves bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, TO CORRECT) and whether they bee fit men to throw stones at vs…they that are less sound themselues, ought not to object infirmities to others."
"Some peraduenture would haue no varietie of sences to be set in the margine [as the King James has done from the start; albeit they have in recent times been all removed in many editions] lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuersies by that SHEW OF VNCERTAINTIE [not knowing for sure the proper or best way to translate this or that], should somewhat be shaken."
"Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and NOT TO CONCLUDE OR DOGMATIZE VPON THIS OR THAT PEREMPTORIALY? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of these things that are euident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit God hath left (euen in the iudgment of the iudicious) QUESTIONALBLE, can be no lesse then PRESUMPTION."
"Therefore as S.Augustine saith, that VARIETIE [different] of Translations is profitable for the find out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where THE TEXT IS NOT SO CLEAR, must needes doe good, yea, is NECESSARY, as we are perswaded."
"An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee haue not tyed our selues to an VNIFORMITIE OF PHRASING [that is just another way of saying they would not be tied to being CONSISTANT in their translating even though, consistency would be more accurate], or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done [I FOR ONE], because they obserue, that some learned men some where, haue beene as exact as they could that way [as though being "as EXACT as they could" is not a virtue]."
"Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to sauour more of CURIOSITIE THEN WISEDOME, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Athiest, then bring profit to the godly Reader." (All CAPS are mine).
I can certainly agree and sympathize with almost everything said by these truthful and candid Translators of the Authorized Version, with one exception. Although they believe that "Variety is the spice of life," I would rather suggest that "Honesty is always the best policy." I certainly prefer a translation that is consistent and meticulously accurate over one that has great variety, and reads smoothly with a poetic and melodious rhythm.
S
The 14 apocryphal books that used to be in the King James, have been
removed
[h=3]King James Version[/h] The English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly (variations are marked below). The section contains the following:[SUP][18][/SUP]
If kjv was the inspired word of God why did they add all these and removed it?
removed
[h=3]King James Version[/h] The English-language King James Version (KJV) of 1611 followed the lead of the Luther Bible in using an inter-testamental section labelled "Books called Apocrypha", or just "Apocrypha" at the running page header. The KJV followed the Geneva Bible of 1560 almost exactly (variations are marked below). The section contains the following:[SUP][18][/SUP]
- 1 Esdras (Vulgate 3 Esdras)
- 2 Esdras (Vulgate 4 Esdras)
- Tobit
- Judith ("Judeth" in Geneva)
- Rest of Esther (Vulgate Esther 10:4-16:24)
- Wisdom
- Ecclesiasticus (also known as Sirach)
- Baruch and the Epistle of Jeremy ("Jeremiah" in Geneva) (all part of Vulgate Baruch)
- Song of the Three Children (Vulgate Daniel 3:24-90)
- Story of Susanna (Vulgate Daniel 13)
- The Idol Bel and the Dragon (Vulgate Daniel 14)
- Prayer of Manasses (follows 2 Chronicles in Geneva)
- 1 Maccabees
- 2 Maccabees
If kjv was the inspired word of God why did they add all these and removed it?
Hey, don't forget the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the various shards of pottery and parchment that have been discovered over the past 100 years or so...........WHY WERE THEY OMITTED?
.........seriously........
1) Do you believe the Lord God, the Great I Am is the Creator of all?
2) Do you believe that Jesus the Christ is Lord and Saviour of all? Crucified and raised again?
3) Do you believe in the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit?
4) Do you strive to walk Christ-like in obedience to His commandments daily?
5) Do you study the Word of God daily?
If so........good, I don't give a hoot which Bible you use.......KJV, NIV, whatever.........
.........seriously........
1) Do you believe the Lord God, the Great I Am is the Creator of all?
2) Do you believe that Jesus the Christ is Lord and Saviour of all? Crucified and raised again?
3) Do you believe in the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit?
4) Do you strive to walk Christ-like in obedience to His commandments daily?
5) Do you study the Word of God daily?
If so........good, I don't give a hoot which Bible you use.......KJV, NIV, whatever.........
Can you show us a copy of this "Holy Scripture that IS the inspired word of God"?
Which of these might it be? Any idea?
Just pick one if you like and let us know which one IS the inspired word of God. Thanks.
Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?
It is devastating for the modern version promoter to see where the New Jerusalem Catholic bible lands on these verses. Also notice how the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read. It was a whole lot closer to the historical truth than are these more modern translations.
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?
whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."
or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem)
or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).
If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
As for the ESV, you can see a lot more examples of how this revamped RSV version often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and has changed over 300 verses from the 2001 to the 2007 editions - The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer
Which of these might it be? Any idea?
Just pick one if you like and let us know which one IS the inspired word of God. Thanks.
Most Evangelical Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language IS the inerrant words of God. In spite of the lame, signifying nothing, recent Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, they did get one thing right. It’s found in Article XII - “We deny that Biblical infallibility and inerrancy are limited to spiritual, religious, or redemptive themes, exclusive of assertions in the fields of history and science.” Every true Bible believer should agree with this statement. IF the Bible is not 100% historically true, then at what point does God start to tell us the truth? If we cannot trust God's Book when it comes to specific numbers and names when it comes to past history, then how can we be sure He got the other parts right?
It is devastating for the modern version promoter to see where the New Jerusalem Catholic bible lands on these verses. Also notice how the previous Catholic Douay-Rheims read. It was a whole lot closer to the historical truth than are these more modern translations.
The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples, but these are just a few to make you aware of what is going on here with "the late$t in $cholar$hip Finding$".
Among these “historic details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985)
1 Samuel 13:1 Here we read: “Saul reigned ONE year; and when he had reigned TWO years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel.” reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach, Orthodox Jewish Bible), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, Catholic New Jerusalem 1985), or "was 40 years old...and when he had reigned 2 years" (Amplified bible 1987) or "____years old and reigned 2 years" (Complete Jewish bible, Knox bible) or "was 30 years old...ruled for 42 years" (ISV, Common English Bible) or “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible, or even "was 50 years old and reigned 22 years." in the New English Bible of 1970!
But wait. There's even more. The ESV 2001 edition had "Saul was________years old when he began to reign, and he reigned____and two years over Israel." But now the 2011 edition of the ESV has come out (I have a hard copy right here in front of me) and it now has the perhaps even more ridiculous reading of "Saul LIVED FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN BECAME KING, and when he had reigned FOR TWO YEARS over Israel, Saul chose 3000 men of Israel...". Think about it. "Saul lived for one year and then became king". They just get loopier and loopier, don't they?
whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman, ISV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, ISV, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, Douay-Rheims) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) or "the NEXT day" ISV (they just made this up!)
Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET, Douay-Rheims) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, ISV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard
or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (KJB, Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV, Douay-Rheims) OR “four years” (NIV, RSV, ESV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem). The ISV ADDS words to the Hebrew text to make it say what they think it means, saying: "And so it was that forty years after Israel had demanded a king, Absalom asked the king..."
or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (KJB, Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem) The ISV completely omits any number and just makes up their own text saying: "in charge of the platoons"
or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (KJB, Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac, St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read "males from THREE years old" (Hebrew texts, KJB, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET, Douay-Rheims) or "males from THIRTY years old" (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”, ISV -"every male 30 years old and older", St. Joseph NAB, Catholic New Jerusalem)
or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV 2001 edition, ISV, Douay-Rheims) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition!!! and once again the Catholic St. Joseph NAB and the New Jerusalem)
or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Douay-Rheims, St. Joseph NAB) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET, ISV, Catholic New Jerusalem).
If you go back and read through this list of just some of the numerous very real differences that exist among these Bible of the Month Club versions, ask yourself which (if any) are the 100% historically true words of God. IF "the Bible" is not 100% historically true in the events it narrates, then when does God start to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
As for the ESV, you can see a lot more examples of how this revamped RSV version often rejects the clear Hebrew readings and has changed over 300 verses from the 2001 to the 2007 editions - The ESV - Another King James Bible Believer
This whole Apocryphal books thingy is so hypocritical. The modern version promoters (and those here who should just write their own bible versions and be done with it) end up cutting their own throats with this argument. Please try to get your facts straight.
Why was the Apocrypha in the early printings of the King James Bible?
Apocrypha KJB - Another King James Bible Believer
Why was the Apocrypha in the early printings of the King James Bible?
Apocrypha KJB - Another King James Bible Believer
And YOU, jimmydiggs, are a typical example of the mentality that does NOT believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever WAS the complete, inspired and infallible Bible, and so you fit perfectly the example I gave in the article. Did you actually READ it or did you just jump in here with your knee jerk response?
Do YOU yourself believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God? Yes or No? If Yes, can you show us a copy of it or give us a link to where we can see it? If No, are you willing to be honest enough to admit it? Go back and actually read the article. See if you are not described in it as holding one of those positions. OK? Thanks.
Do YOU yourself believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God? Yes or No? If Yes, can you show us a copy of it or give us a link to where we can see it? If No, are you willing to be honest enough to admit it? Go back and actually read the article. See if you are not described in it as holding one of those positions. OK? Thanks.
J
Too quick and loose with your response. I do believe that there is an inspired and infallible bible, and those are the manuscripts, the very letters that Paul wrote.
Strike 1.
Which one?
No knees were jerked or harmed in the making of that post.
I don't have a link to the original copy of Paul's letter to the Ephesians or the others, as they are not published on the web.
Strike 1.
Which one?
No knees were jerked or harmed in the making of that post.
I don't have a link to the original copy of Paul's letter to the Ephesians or the others, as they are not published on the web.
S
If this post is reply to mine, i was actually replying to somebody else, not ur post. i do not blindly believe what is translated in the different versions like u. I do bible study by trying to know the exact meaning of the greek word. For u it might be no importance, because u might be least interested to know God. but i would love to know the great God, have knowledge abt him( like the word of God says) and stay away from the worldly heretic teachings.
eternal punishment is not scriptural, but u guys believe in that, isnt that wrong? now how will u know God if u swallow any thing u see????i don't do that mistake.
the OP has told that i"m not a believer, do u think i shud not respond to it? he asked me questions and i answered it. Please do not reply by seeing one or two posts of mine. read the whole thing before making such comments.
God bless u
S
i came to this thread just to say it is not a right thing to say that the king James believers are idolators....but now i think why people think they are idolators.....cant blame them....protecting the king james bible as if it is the original letters written by the apostles. i dont hve any experience in standing for a particular version, but only for the truth. I wont waste my time anymore here.
S
NO.. its what the different translation teaches. You see only aeons in the greek scripture, there is no word with the meaning eternal in the bible.
"It may be laid down as a rule that no language had, for some time after the first century A.D., any term to denote eternity." (Whence Eternity?, By: Alexander Thomson, p. 5).
"In the year 540, Justinian made arrangements for the calling together of the famous local council of four years later. ... In particular, he wished it made very plain that the life of the saints was to be everlasting, and that the doom of the lost was to be likewise. Yet he did not argue that the word eonian meant everlasting. Nor did he claim that the word eonian had hitherto been misunderstood ... Origen, who exulted in the truth of the reconciliation of the universe, definitely used the word eonian with reference to fire and doom as meaning a limited time. But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, 'The holy church of Christ teaches an ENDLESS eonian (ateleutetos aionios) life for the just, and ENDLESS (ateleutetos) punishment for the wicked.' Justinian knew quite well that by itself eonian DID NOT signify endless, and he therefore added a word the meaning of which is quite unequivocal, a word not found in the Scriptures. This letter of Justinian, which is still in existence, ought to convince anyone who is in doubt, regarding the true scriptural meaning of the word eonian. ... It was not until the year 696, at Constantinople, that a Council publicly condemned this doctrine of Origen [reconciliation of all] for the first time, the glorious teaching [reconciliation] being called 'DRUNKEN RAVINGS as to the future life of the dead." [Emphasis mine], page 19
as i said before if aeions means eternity then
Hb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (G165 aion ) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
it shud have been end of the eternity....is that possible eternity will not have an end, eternity means forever and ever...without an end.
the translators have taken the same Greek word (aion, for instance), and translated it with six different English words—some with opposite meanings—or that their version contains a bona fide contradiction (compare Rev. 11:15 with 1 Cor. 15:25-28)
1Corintians says Jesus will reign till he put all his enemies under his feet and subject the kingdom and himself to God , so God will be all in all
Revelation says Jesus will reign for ever and ever.
"It may be laid down as a rule that no language had, for some time after the first century A.D., any term to denote eternity." (Whence Eternity?, By: Alexander Thomson, p. 5).
"In the year 540, Justinian made arrangements for the calling together of the famous local council of four years later. ... In particular, he wished it made very plain that the life of the saints was to be everlasting, and that the doom of the lost was to be likewise. Yet he did not argue that the word eonian meant everlasting. Nor did he claim that the word eonian had hitherto been misunderstood ... Origen, who exulted in the truth of the reconciliation of the universe, definitely used the word eonian with reference to fire and doom as meaning a limited time. But writing in the very expressive Greek language, Justinian says, 'The holy church of Christ teaches an ENDLESS eonian (ateleutetos aionios) life for the just, and ENDLESS (ateleutetos) punishment for the wicked.' Justinian knew quite well that by itself eonian DID NOT signify endless, and he therefore added a word the meaning of which is quite unequivocal, a word not found in the Scriptures. This letter of Justinian, which is still in existence, ought to convince anyone who is in doubt, regarding the true scriptural meaning of the word eonian. ... It was not until the year 696, at Constantinople, that a Council publicly condemned this doctrine of Origen [reconciliation of all] for the first time, the glorious teaching [reconciliation] being called 'DRUNKEN RAVINGS as to the future life of the dead." [Emphasis mine], page 19
as i said before if aeions means eternity then
Hb 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world (G165 aion ) hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.
it shud have been end of the eternity....is that possible eternity will not have an end, eternity means forever and ever...without an end.
the translators have taken the same Greek word (aion, for instance), and translated it with six different English words—some with opposite meanings—or that their version contains a bona fide contradiction (compare Rev. 11:15 with 1 Cor. 15:25-28)
1Corintians says Jesus will reign till he put all his enemies under his feet and subject the kingdom and himself to God , so God will be all in all
Revelation says Jesus will reign for ever and ever.
Well then Jimmy, where is this inspired and infallible bible that you profess to believe in?
We don't have the original autographs Jimmy. The original autographs (manuscripts) probably vanished into thin air no later than 30 to 40 years after being penned. So basically what you just admitted is that you are your own Final Authority.
You used a present tense verb IS to profess belief in something that you don't really believe in!!
What you really should have said Jimmy, is this:
"I do believe there WAS an inspired and infallible bible."
You see, because then, at least you would have been honest.
No where in the Holy Scriptures are we ever told to preach the original manuscripts, nor are we told to study the original manuscripts, or to rightly divide the original manuscripts, or to search the original manuscripts.
We are commanded to preach the word. To study and to rightly divide the word of truth. And we are told to search the Scriptures.
When Paul wrote to Timothy, he told him that from a child that he had known the holy scriptures. And Timothy did not have the original manuscripts. He had a copy and a translation of what the Original Autographs said. But he did not have an original manuscript.
15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works. - 2 Timothy 3:15-17 (KJV)
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are not told that all the original autographs are given by inspiration of God, but we are told that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
When our Lord Jesus Christ quoted the Scripture, He stated "It Is Written."
He NEVER said one time that it was written.
So with close examination of what the Scriptures teach on this matter, your whole position falls apart. Your position is unbilblical. It is not supported at all in the Scriptures.
And they also are not published anywhere on the face of this earth. So again, you've admitted Jimmy that you are your own Final Authority. And you fit the description of a Bible agnostic to a T.
Last edited:
Jimmy, how do you know what Scripture teaches if you don't have the Scriptures?
You implied directly in your last post that you only believe the original autographs. Yet you do not have the original autographs, nor have you ever seen an original autograph a day in your life.
So how do you know what Scripture teaches?
Don't you need to have the Scriptures in order to know what they teach???
J
I do have it. That being said, it is the spirit that reveals to us what scripture teaches, not the King James bible.
I said no such thing.
No, I do not have them on me personally.
The spirit is what reveals truth to us through scripture.
Don't you need to have the Scriptures in order to know what they teach???