King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Billyd]

Re: 654

Thank you for that. It shows that the Modern Translations do not all say the same thing. Many of them subtly change many passages and alter the meaning of God's Word.

While I believe the King James is the divinely preserved Word of God for our world language today (i.e. English), I also like to use Modern Translations in order to help update the language in my readings. Modern Translations are not my final word of authority. I also look at Modern Translations as panning thru dirt in order to get to the gold which can be found in the KJV and the original Greek.

Oh, and despite it's problems, I do like the NLT in my readings next to the KJV. Hence, why I have a KJV / NLT Bible. I find the NLT very helpful especially in reading the Old Testament. New Testament seems pretty straight forward for the most part in the KJV. It's the OT that seems to be more poetic in the KJV. At least in my humble opinion anyways.

Finally we're getting there. Modern translations help us to get to the truth. Our job is to seek out the truth. If we look solely at the KJV, the only thing that we can do is find the truth as we see it. When we look at the works of others, along with our KJV and Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, we will find the truth as God meant for us to know it. I am no expert. I grew up (taught to read by my mother using it) on the KJV. My first real "wow" moment was when I read a Strong's Concordance. The wider I cast my net the more I found, and the better I understood what Good was saying to me. My point is that wee have the works of many others. Don't cast them aside because they may say something different. Find out why.

 

[Billyd]

I apologize for my poor spell checking in my previous post. God is spelled with one o not two. I'm getting too dependent on technology.

 

[JackH]

Why the attacks on the KJV that have proved invauable for millions of people?

I'm not attacking the KJV.

I buy a brand new KJV every year. Seriously.

I am disagreeing with those who make statements like the KJV is perfect and inerrant.

And those who make those statements are in denial when evidence is brought to their attention to the contrary.

For example, in order to claim the KJV is perfect, you would have to also claim that every manuscript the translators of the KJV used were also perfect.

Right?

In order to claim that a KJV Bible is perfect or inerrant and always has been, everything in it would have to be perfect or inerrant.

Right?

 

[kennethcadwell]

I love the KJV over other bibles, and I use it the most for it has been proven to be the closest to the original teachings by comparing it to original transcripts the English version KJ we have come to know. ( Such as the Torah, Dead Sea scrolls, and so on..... )

The thing is that is has also been proven to also have some translation errors in it as well. They are not serious errors as some would like to spread that would effect ones salvation. Examples: Red sea should be Reed sea, the multiple different meanings of love in the original texts that we do not have in the English language, and so on.....

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not attacking the KJV.

I buy a brand new KJV every year. Seriously.

I am disagreeing with those who make statements like the KJV is perfect and inerrant.

And those who make those statements are in denial when evidence is brought to their attention to the contrary.

For example, in order to claim the KJV is perfect, you would have to also claim that every manuscript the translators of the KJV used were also perfect.

Right?

In order to claim that a KJV Bible is perfect or inerrant and always has been, everything in it would have to be perfect or inerrant.

Right?

What error and what evidence are you talking about?

 

[JackH]

Facts are not Historical Evidences but Observable Evidences. You cannot observe those things to be true so it is not a fact. Facts is something that I can actually prove to you in the here and now. Unless it is the Word of God, some piece of paper (with some writing on it) is not proof of anything. People can write one false idea and then it can catch on like wild fire (Even in the past). The only real proof or fact that you can check is observable evidences and not historical evidences. There is a difference.

So eyewitness testimony is always right?

So the science of archaeology is totally irrelevant?

 

[jag1977]

ALWAYS unless I was in a position to witness it not

 

[Nick01]

No in fact Nick it's not enough to demonstrate continuity, that's why the vast number of Christians believe the 1st resurrection takes place after the millennium. Let me see if can illustrate.

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. A fact is presented - those brought back to life before the millennium will reign with Christ during the millennium.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. Another fact is presented - the rest of the dead, meaning all those who did take the mark of the beast etc. will not come to life until the thousand years are completed. This is the first resurrection. A description is given of the ones mentioned in verse 5 - They are part of the 1st resurrection.

But that has nothing to do with the actual text in either the NASB or the KJV. I can read the KJV in the exact same way:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. A fact is presented - those brought back to life before the millennium will reign with Christ during the millennium.


5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.Another fact is presented - the rest of the dead, meaning all those who did take the mark of the beast etc. will not come to life until the thousand years are completed. This is the first resurrection. A description is given of the ones mentioned in verse 5 - They are part of the 1st resurrection.

There is nothing about the 'but' that on its own connects 5b to 5a - logically, the 'but' connects verse 5 to verse 4, which most people would conclude is already the case given the 'rest of' clause. Your argument is a blatant straw man, created only by your highly idiosyncratic reading of the NASB, and your blinkered reading of the KJV.

If you think I'm wrong about this, just Google when was the 1st Resurrection. You will find that most Christians believe something like this explanation I found on the web.

"On the other hand, the immediate referent of the phrase is "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." That would imply that, while the martyrs did come to life and reign with Christ, that event was not properly a "resurrection".

The NASB is wrong, no if's, and's or but's. Removing "but" from the verse completely changed it's meaning.

Since you didn't bother to link it, the quote comes from a stack exchange page here. It is in the form of a question from someone wondering if this is a contradiction. They are not mounting any kind of argument, but are asking if their reading is correct. It is not a question about the KJV, and it is quite clear from the post that the contradiction seemingly arises from the second part of v.5 alone, and the first part is irrelevant.

You will also note that people from a variety of millenial positions answered (I think there is at least a premil and amil answer in that thread), but ALL of the answers agree that the referant is not "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended", but is those who came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You say most Christians believe what was stated in that question. I simply disagree, and believe that to be an outlandish claim. I would be very much interested if you can find a single theologian, or even a single cogent argument ANYWHERE, that actively believes that 5b is referring to the "rest of the dead". Not that I want to have an argument about millennial positions, that's beside the point, but I have read works by premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial scholars, and one of the things they all agree on is that 5b is referring to v4, nor v5a.

Again, your argument is a huge straw man of your own devising.

 

[KJV1611]

[/COLOR]But that has nothing to do with the actual text in either the NASB or the KJV. I can read the KJV in the exact same way:



There is nothing about the 'but' that on its own connects 5b to 5a - logically, the 'but' connects verse 5 to verse 4, which most people would conclude is already the case given the 'rest of' clause. Your argument is a blatant straw man, created only by your highly idiosyncratic reading of the NASB, and your blinkered reading of the KJV.



Since you didn't bother to link it, the quote comes from a stack exchange page here. It is in the form of a question from someone wondering if this is a contradiction. They are not mounting any kind of argument, but are asking if their reading is correct. It is not a question about the KJV, and it is quite clear from the post that the contradiction seemingly arises from the second part of v.5 alone, and the first part is irrelevant.

You will also note that people from a variety of millenial positions answered (I think there is at least a premil and amil answer in that thread), but ALL of the answers agree that the referant is not "the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended", but is those who came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

You say most Christians believe what was stated in that question. I simply disagree, and believe that to be an outlandish claim. I would be very much interested if you can find a single theologian, or even a single cogent argument ANYWHERE, that actively believes that 5b is referring to the "rest of the dead". Not that I want to have an argument about millennial positions, that's beside the point, but I have read works by premillenial, postmillenial and amillenial scholars, and one of the things they all agree on is that 5b is referring to v4, nor v5a.

Again, your argument is a huge straw man of your own devising.

Jesus is God... do you agree with that.

 

[KJV1611]

I read the NIV for about the first 12 years of my Christian life, especially the book of Revelation, and I always thought the 1st Resurrection happened after the millennium. I didn't figure out that I was wrong until I started reading the KJV.

Am I alone in this... have any of you thought the 1st Resurrection happened after the millennium?

 

[jag1977]

Language, a state of mind, consciousness, mood, depression, dependence, freedom, sickness, doom, hope, life, healing, everything we know.

That is why the ancient Hebrew language is considered to be holy and only changed or translated by priest who have spent a lifetime proving themselves to be worthy of touching or altering(altering) such ideas in scripture.

 

[Jason0047]

Re: 654

Finally we're getting there. Modern translations help us to get to the truth. Our job is to seek out the truth. If we look solely at the KJV, the only thing that we can do is find the truth as we see it. When we look at the works of others, along with our KJV and Hebrew/Greek/Aramaic, we will find the truth as God meant for us to know it. I am no expert. I grew up (taught to read by my mother using it) on the KJV. My first real "wow" moment was when I read a Strong's Concordance. The wider I cast my net the more I found, and the better I understood what Good was saying to me. My point is that wee have the works of many others. Don't cast them aside because they may say something different. Find out why.

I believe God hides His Word in such a way that the world, the carnal Christian, and the unbelieving Christian cannot see it.

 

[Nick01]

Jesus is God... do you agree with that.

Yep. How about you?

I read the NIV for about the first 12 years of my Christian life, especially the book of Revelation, and I always thought the 1st Resurrection happened after the millennium. I didn't figure out that I was wrong until I started reading the KJV.

Am I alone in this... have any of you thought the 1st Resurrection happened after the millennium?

Depends on what you mean by first resurrection. I tend to hold an amillenial position in regards to that stuff, so take that as you will I think those who have died in Christ live with him now, and so are alive. There will be a complete resurrection when Christ returns, when all are raised, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting judgement (which is the second death).

I'll be honest, I struggle to see how you believed the 1st resurrection was after the millenium purely from reading the NIV, and then someone you started reading the KJV, and then your idea on this passage completely flipped. Had you actually READ this passage closely when you read the NIV? Or did you only actually study this passage when you started reading the KJV? Perhaps the problem was less the translation you were reading, and more you're own reading habits (in other words, you started reading the Bible properly about the same time you started reading a KJV)

I've never read the KJV version of Revelation 20 before this thread, and simply don't hold the view you accuse most Christians of holding.

 

[KJV1611]

Yep. How about you?



[/COLOR]Depends on what you mean by first resurrection. I tend to hold an amillenial position in regards to that stuff, so take that as you will I think those who have died in Christ live with him now, and so are alive. There will be a complete resurrection when Christ returns, when all are raised, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting judgement (which is the second death).

I'll be honest, I struggle to see how you believed the 1st resurrection was after the millenium purely from reading the NIV, and then someone you started reading the KJV, and then your idea on this passage completely flipped. Had you actually READ this passage closely when you read the NIV? Or did you only actually study this passage when you started reading the KJV? Perhaps the problem was less the translation you were reading, and more you're own reading habits (in other words, you started reading the Bible properly about the same time you started reading a KJV)

I've never read the KJV version of Revelation 20 before this thread, and simply don't hold the view you accuse most Christians of holding.

I just wanted to see if we could agree on anything lol. I agree with most of what you posted there also. I will have to say the "but" in the KJV is what keyed me in on it.

 

[Nick01]

I just wanted to see if we could agree on anything lol. I agree with most of what you posted there also. I will have to say the "but" in the KJV is what keyed me in on it.

That's interesting. I genuinely don't read the but as having that effect, and I read that passage the same way in the modern translations as you seem to in the KJV, regardless of the 'but'. It's a new one on me.

 

[KJV1611]

That's interesting. I genuinely don't read the but as having that effect, and I read that passage the same way in the modern translations as you seem to in the KJV, regardless of the 'but'. It's a new one on me.

Apparently I'm the only one that it misled.

 

[Jason0047]

I love the KJV over other bibles, and I use it the most for it has been proven to be the closest to the original teachings by comparing it to original transcripts the English version KJ we have come to know. ( Such as the Torah, Dead Sea scrolls, and so on..... )

The thing is that is has also been proven to also have some translation errors in it as well. They are not serious errors as some would like to spread that would effect ones salvation. Examples: Red sea should be Reed sea, the multiple different meanings of love in the original texts that we do not have in the English language, and so on.....

I actually don't believe the Red Sea is the reed sea. This hour and so long video explains location of the real Red Sea crossing.

[video=youtube;CXf2IDS-9g0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXf2IDS-9g0[/video]

 

[Kerry]

Language, a state of mind, consciousness, mood, depression, dependence, freedom, sickness, doom, hope, life, healing, everything we know.

That is why the ancient Hebrew language is considered to be holy and only changed or translated by priest who have spent a lifetime proving themselves to be worthy of touching or altering(altering) such ideas in scripture.

MY brother, there is nothing holy about the Hebrew language and in fact Jesus spoke Aramaic. If you go back to Genesis they all spoke one language. What that language is we do not know.

 

[Kerry]

I actually don't believe the Red Sea is the reed sea. This hour and so long video explains location of the real Red Sea crossing.

[video=youtube;CXf2IDS-9g0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXf2IDS-9g0[/video]

IDK but the soldiers of Jericho knew about it and were shaking in their boots when Joshua camped on the outskirts. So much so that Rahab helped them. Knowing that they would be defeated.

 

[Kerry]

I don't do videos, I don't have the trime and my speakers don't work