King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Billyd]

Jason, Matthew 28:19 "... baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is just one reference to the trinity that come to mind. I have a whole list of verses that relate to the trinity, but I'm pressed for tim this evening. My point is that studying is that it is to understand the subject that you are studying. I made my living as an engineer. Many times I've reached a point in a project where there seemed to be no answer. When I pulled together all the information, the answer became clear. If you restrict yourself to the KJV translation you may miss the point of the scripture all together. It is not heresy to use another translation. It is just common sense analysis.

Here's a great simple and interesting study. Try studying the book of Ecclesiastes with the NLB and the KJV. See how much more you get from your KJV. An old professor once told me don't reinvent the wheel make it better.

 

[JackH]

Maybe, but not as many contradictions and errors as the KJV. At least the NASB never had the Apocrypha in it. Or indicated that the world was created in 4004 BC, as per the date printed right next to the verses in Genesis 1. Oh, and the NASB got 1 John 5 right, unlike the KJV.

But this reminds me, in order for the KJV to be perfect and inerrant et al, it would have to have been translated from manuscripts that were likewise perfect and inerrant et al. Right?

 

[KJV1611]

What I was saying- is that so many people want to throw out the KJV because of the old English. Want to update because it is 'too hard to read' or 'antiquated' etc..

But most would not do the same thing with Shakespeare!

As for my position on the KJV. .I say it is a reliable translation.. not the originally written Word of God of course. But it is reliable preservation.. as promised in scripture that it would be preserved.

There are errors.. such as King James keeping old words of 'assembly' and 'congregation' and being replaced with 'church'.. but not anything that would compromise any major christian doctrine.

Wattie what's the difference between an assembly and a church?

 

[Jason0047]

So if you don't speak English you don't have a perfect Bible? Why not a Spanish perfect Bible?

And until 1769, you have said the Latin Vulgate is the perfect Bible. But then became imperfect? How exactly did it become imperfect, without changing at all? Do you know of anybody else who believes what you do about the Vulgate being the perfect Bible until 1769 when the KJV took over?

I don't care about the dates 1769 or 1885. Some KJV ONLY cultists say the KJV is inerrant and always has been. My point is that the Apocrypha is definitely not divinely inspired and inerrant. Do you or any KJV ONLY cultists want to argue that they are? Therefore, if the KJV contained books that are not divinely inspired and inerrant . . .

God's Bible in Spanish - by Emanual Rodr

 

[KJV1611]

Jason, Matthew 28:19 "... baptizing them in the name (not names) of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is just one reference to the trinity that come to mind. I have a whole list of verses that relate to the trinity, but I'm pressed for tim this evening. My point is that studying is that it is to understand the subject that you are studying. I made my living as an engineer. Many times I've reached a point in a project where there seemed to be no answer. When I pulled together all the information, the answer became clear. If you restrict yourself to the KJV translation you may miss the point of the scripture all together. It is not heresy to use another translation. It is just common sense analysis.

Here's a great simple and interesting study. Try studying the book of Ecclesiastes with the NLB and the KJV. See how much more you get from your KJV. An old professor once told me don't reinvent the wheel make it better.

BillyD if I were to ask you to design me a widget, and I gave you 3 sets of slightly different spec sheets, but only one set represented what I truly wanted, could you compare the 3 differing specs and determine which one was the one I truly wanted built?

 

[Last]

(a) Does not teach that we have to go to another language we don't understand to study the Word of God. Yet, the Bible does teach that there is one Word that is preserved for all generations and that it is perfect.

The bible does not teach that. You are also being contradictory - you are saying we shouldn't have to use another language, yet you insist God would only preserve the bible in one language.

(b) Is superior when compared next to other translations. That these other translations make changes for the worse and not for the better.

No it isn't. What are you basing that on?

(d) Is Confirmed by Biblical Numerics (Just like with the Greek).

What??

 

[Jason0047]

Modern Translations and the Spirit of the Anti-Christ:

[video=youtube;WBMBE_InC30]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBMBE_InC30[/video]

 

[Billyd]

BillyD if I were to ask you to design me a widget, and I gave you 3 sets of slightly different spec sheets, but only one set represented what I truly wanted, could you compare the 3 differing specs and determine which one was the one I truly wanted built?

You've got it backwards. You give me the spec of what you want. I take three different and develop your spec from them. The spec here is understanding the word of God. I could take the KJV translation that was translated into the Kings English in the seventeenth century, or I could take several different translations along with the writings of several scholars. Which will lead to better understanding of the word.

I used the example above because the NLB is the absolute worst Bible translation (it's actually a paraphrase) that I have seen, but it is one of the most helpful tools for the study of Ecclesiastes.

 

[Kerry]

Look guy's and gal's. The focus is to find the real word of God. Are there mistakes in the KJV well was it translated by man? then yes there are. Was there an atheist agenda behind this translation? No.

Are there Atheist influence behind the NIV? IDK, but I think so. Remember there is an agenda to change the bible as I have well stated and proven. But the KJ does not fall in that category of scrutiny because it was accomplished well before this agenda started. The other translations could be a part of this agenda. Little by little changing key words. I meant how many times has the NIV been revised, compared to the revisions of the KJ. Just be careful.

 

[Last]

Any more supposed KJV errors?

Any in the other translations? No, I guess you don't have a point here.

 

[Last]

You know, you can buy a 1769 KJV with the Apocrypha in it online. I just saw one for only $1995. In case you want to buy it. Pretty cheap for a perfect translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. Language does not work that way. Language is an art, you try to convey the meaning of what was said.

 

[KJV1611]

You've got it backwards. You give me the spec of what you want. I take three different and develop your spec from them. The spec here is understanding the word of God. I could take the KJV translation that was translated into the Kings English in the seventeenth century, or I could take several different translations along with the writings of several scholars. Which will lead to better understanding of the word.

I used the example above because the NLB is the absolute worst Bible translation (it's actually a paraphrase) that I have seen, but it is one of the most helpful tools for the study of Ecclesiastes.

Ok, I want you to build me a morning star. One spec says Satan is the morning star and the other spec says Jesus is the morning star, what are you going to build me?

 

[Last]

the word is PSCHA
PAssover

not easter

Plain error

PASCHA has always translated passover until KJV guys put it in on purpose to support the church of england following of the blasphemous easter celebration of secual pagan perversions...

Easter is what they call Pascha in English. There was no pagan secular easter thing.

 

[Kerry]

The translation errors ofv the KJ are minimal. Like for instance, the term corn is used when it should have been wheat or barley, but all three are grains. The NIV leaves out the fact that Jesus is the only begotten Son in John 3:16. Again slowly changing the context of the word.

 

[KJV1611]

Any in the other translations? No, I guess you don't have a point here.

Umm yes there are errors in other translations, have you not been reading the posts?

 

[Last]

There are thousands of words added to the KJV that are not in the original texts that it is translated from. Word count can not be used as the basis of accuracy.

Exactly, word count has absolutely nothing to do with accuracy or 'removing words'. Word count is all about how they expressed something in the Greek and how many words they used to do it.

 

[Last]

Umm yes there are errors in other translations, have you not been reading the posts?

I have not seen any so far.

 

[KJV1611]

Easter is what they call Pascha in English. There was no pagan secular easter thing.

Easter is the worship of Ishtar and it goes all the way back to Babylon. Easter and Passover are not the same holidays.

 

[Jason0047]

The bible does not teach that. You are also being contradictory - you are saying we shouldn't have to use another language, yet you insist God would only preserve the bible in one language.

No it isn't. What are you basing that on?

What??

While I tried posting my Three Biblical reasons into this thread here into one neat post, it didn't really work. Here is my post from another forum that will hopefully answer your concerns.

Is the King James Bible Infallible? - Theology Online | Christian Forums & More

 

[Last]

Strong's Concordance is based off of the Textus Receptus.
Most Modern Translations are based off of the Westcott and Hort Greek texts.

These are completely two different sets of Greek manuscripts that are different by thousands of words.

Already addressed this, you ignored it. There are not two different sets of manuscripts.The TR and W/H rely on a variety of manuscripts. TR favored more Byzantine texts which were newer and more available, while W/H relies more on the older manuscripts that are now available.

Do you even understand why they made a TR? Because the byzantine texts did not agree with each other!!
So Erasmus decided to pool all the texts he could get together and whatever the most amount of manuscripts said on a particular passage, that was the version he'd go with!