King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Jason0047]

You're adding to the bible. Nowhere else in the bible does the word easter appear. Every other time in the bible that word in the greek is translated passover. You are spouting what someone else has come up with. There is nothing in the bible to support such a hypothesis.

Have you just said to yourself maybe there is a perfect Word of God in existence for the world language of today?

Was there ever a point you believed God does not make mistakes?

Have you ever said to God, Lord maybe this is not a contradiction or an error within your Word?

Would you ever just believe God and take Him at His Word and ask Him what the word "Easter" means and keep trusting and asking until He shows you? I know I have run into many challenging situations in trying to understand a supposed contradiction or error in God's Word and I am here to tell you to have faith in God and He WILL explain it to you. Don't rely on your own heart or thoughts. Keep seeking until y9u can back up your findings with Scripture. That's what I do every time, and He always comes thru for me.

Anyways, may the bless you greatly this fine day.
And please be well.

 

[Last]

They took Peter during the days of unleavened bread... the days of unleavened bread don't begin until Passover is over. Did you catch that? Passover for that year had already passed. The KJV is correct, they were waiting for the pagan holiday Easter to pass.

There was no pagan holiday of Easter. Easter is the English word for Passover/Pascha. Other languages call Easter Pascha.

 

[Last]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

The king James is the only version that the Holy Spirit moved the heart of a king to develop against the wishes of the church.

And your proof of that is what? Nothing.

King James was the head of the Church of England, by the way, so it went with their approval.

 

[Last]

As I pointed out in a couple of pages back, there are 3 major Biblical reasons to trust that there is one perfect Word of God for each generation as Scripture states. As for the Trinity: I know 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that speaks straight forward about the Trinity because I know my Bible.

The Word of God is perfect - that is Jesus Christ. The bible contains the word of God. Scripture is not referring to itself. Scripture never states it is 'perfect'.

 

[Last]

Why is it important to have a perfect Word for today?
Well, is not God's Word a reflection of Him?
Is not God's Word the instruction manual for our spiritual protection?

In other words, if I took the instruction manual in building a plane and altered them slightly, would you feel comfortable in flying in that plane?
No, of course you wouldn't. Then why would you want to place your soul and spirit at risk with a flawed spiritual instruction manual?

The bible is not an instruction manual. The bible is a revelation from God.

 

[Jason0047]

What leads you to suppose that most theists endorse 5:7?

How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?

How can you connect the KJV to the Bible God breathed out, since the KJV did not exist in AD 100? How could all the people trust that their Bibles were not forgeries before 1611? How can people who don't speak English trust their Bibles?
How can you exalt a human translation above God's Word?

Yea, hath God said, ...? (Genesis 3:1).

 

[Last]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

In other words, what is your final Word of authority? Is your authority in some language that you really can't speak and write fluently?

My authority is what has been consistently taught since the beginning of Christianity. The bible is not an authority, the one interpreting it acts as the authority. You cannot ask the bible a question, you can only interpret the bible to answer a question.

 

[Jason0047]

The bible is not an instruction manual. The bible is a revelation from God.

I don't know about you, but the Bible instructs me just fine. For if the Holy Scriptures did not instruct you in how to receive the gospel then how exactly did you receive it?

 

[Jason0047]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

My authority is what has been consistently taught since the beginning of Christianity. The bible is not an authority, the one interpreting it acts as the authority. You cannot ask the bible a question, you can only interpret the bible to answer a question.

First, Ecclesiasology or the study of History outside the Bible is not observable evidence that you can test and repeat like a laboratory experiment. You do not have a time machine to confirm that that the documents you believe to be true are not false information from a heretical group. Second, the Bible is an authority. For God's Word itself makes the claim it is an authority. Are you simply unaware of these Scriptures or do simply don't want to see it, my friend?

 

[Last]

Yes translations work with what's already there but the problem is there are two lines of manuscripts that disagree with one another.

No, there are a lot of different manuscripts which sometimes are not exactly the same in certain parts. The KJV comes from the TR which is based mostly on different collected manuscripts and using passages that were found the most. In other words, if you have 5 manuscripts for a verse and 3 say this and 2 say that, then you go with what the three say.

Also the KJV is not based only on the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Words have been changed, some original words are translated one way in one verse and another way in another verse.

Not sure what you mean by 'words have changed'. Any time you translate a word it can usually mean several different things in another language. The translator has to figure out which one best applies and which wording works best.

As far as errors in the newer translation, I have many. First one, in the NIV Satan is the morning star. In Revelation Jesus is the morning star. Which one is it? Is Jesus the morning star or is Satan?

Isaiah 14:12New International Version (NIV)

12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!





Revelation 22:16New International Version (NIV)

16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

First of all, that's not an 'error'. You would need to show that the NIV was translating the Greek wrong. Both the KJV and NIV are saying the same thing in both. Lucifer means morning star or bringer of dawn.
In Isaiah (KJV) they translate the Hebrew word for morning star with the Latin "Lucifer"
In Revelation (KJV) they translate the Greek phrase "star of the morning" for the similar English phrase.
In Isaiah (NIV) they translate the Hebrew word for morning star as morning star.
In Revelation (NIV) they do the same as the KJV.

 

[Jason0047]

The Word of God is perfect - that is Jesus Christ. The bible contains the word of God. Scripture is not referring to itself. Scripture never states it is 'perfect'.

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6 KJV) (Psalm 119:140 KJV) (Proverbs 30:5 KJV) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalm 12:7 KJV) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8 KJV) (1 Peter 1:25 KJV). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1 KJV); Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

 

[Last]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

First, Ecclesiasology or the study of History outside the Bible is not observable evidence that you can test and repeat like a laboratory experiment. You do not have a time machine to confirm that that the documents you believe to be true are not false information from a heretical group. Second, the Bible is an authority. For God's Word itself makes the claim it is an authority. Are you simply unaware of these Scriptures or do simply don't want to see it, my friend?

I am not sure what the first part has to do with anything. Ecclesiology is the study of the Church, not history outside of scripture. Ecclesiology relies on both scriptural and non-scriptural history.

The bible is not an authority, it cannot carry out any action. We might think of a constitution as an authority, but in fact it is not. The authority of a document lies in its interpretation.

 

[Last]

God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalm 12:6 KJV) (Psalm 119:140 KJV) (Proverbs 30:5 KJV) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalm 12:7 KJV) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8 KJV) (1 Peter 1:25 KJV). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1 KJV);

That's referring to God's word, not scripture. Scripture contains the word of God, but its not the whole of the word of God. God's word, His revelation into existence, is eternal and infinite. Scripture contains His word.

Because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe (1 Thessalonians 2:13 KJV). In other words, do you believe you hold the very words of God within your hands like the disciples did?

I believe the bible to be the inspired word of God, what He has revealed to us. The first disciples would not have carried around the bible as we have it today as the NT had not yet been written/finished. Most people did not even read and could not afford copies of the OT.

 

[Last]

I don't know about you, but the Bible instructs me just fine. For if the Holy Scriptures did not instruct you in how to receive the gospel then how exactly did you receive it?

The vast majority of Christians received the Gospel through the words and actions of others. The first two generations of Christians did not even have a written Gospel.

 

[Last]

No, 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in your Bible.

What do you mean it is supposed to be there? It is not in the earlier manuscripts. It was written by a copying it a manuscript as a note and ended up being included as scripture.

It is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity. In fact, many anti-Trinitarians would be patting you on the back and smiling for you helping them to distrust God's Word that teaches about His triune nature.

I don't need something added to the bible to support it. The baptismal formula in Matthew already points out the names of the Trinity.

 

[Last]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

The problem is that the Anti-KJV movement

There is not a 'anti-KJV movement'. There are a people who think the KJV is the only valid translation. The rest of us hold it as it should - as a translation of historical importance for English speaking Christians.

does not either believe a perfect Word of God ever existed or they believe it only existed in the originals in which we do not have anymore.

What do you mean by 'perfect'?

In other words, no perfect standard of truth exists for the Anti-KJV Proponent. Yet Scripture claims it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations.

No, scripture says God's word is perfect.

This a problem for three reasons. One, it is a lack of faith in what God's Word says about itself. Two, if you can't trust one word in the Bible, then how do honestly trust the rest of it? Three, how can you have the full confidence in doctrine, correcting others, and being trained in righteousness if you don't have a perfect Word?

And if you think these questions then you'll want to arbitrarily pick the most popular translation of your language and decide it is the 'perfect' one.

 

[cybertech]

I have never heard any reason why I should believe the writers of the KVJ were divinely inspired. I know for a fact the KVJ differs from some of the original language manuscripts, and that there are errors in it. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says King Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. One of these ages is an error - one that I think wouldn't likely be there if it were a divinely inspired translation.

 

[jag1977]

I have never heard any reason why I should believe the writers of the KVJ were divinely inspired. I know for a fact the KVJ differs from some of the original language manuscripts, and that there are errors in it. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says King Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. One of these ages is an error - one that I think wouldn't likely be there if it were a divinely inspired translation.

There is absolutely nothing confusing about that........grace my friend grace.

 

[Last]

I have never heard any reason why I should believe the writers of the KVJ were divinely inspired. I know for a fact the KVJ differs from some of the original language manuscripts, and that there are errors in it. For example, 2 Kings 8:26 says King Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign, and 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old when he began to reign. One of these ages is an error - one that I think wouldn't likely be there if it were a divinely inspired translation.

That's not a KJV error, that's an issue in the source material.

 

[cybertech]

That's not a KJV error, that's an issue in the source material.

But if they were being inspired by god to correctly preserve the word of God in English, they wouldn't be going off of the source material alone. God would have inspired them to know which age was correct. If all they were going off of was the manuscript and not God's divine inspiration of what his word really is, then what makes the KJV any better than another scholar's translation? Personally, I have found that the English Standard Version has the most scholarly translation and is least likely to have doctrinal bias, but still, to know what the original says, I look at the Hebrew/Greek.