King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- 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.
I don't have to reject the KJV to learn about the original languages. Hopefully someone will come along that's willing to help me understand. All I want to know is what the original Aramaic says, I don't expect it to contradict what the KJV says... although it may, but I just want to know the truth.
The truth will escape you as long you hold to the view KJV is the only possible word of God.
You have been duped, how I know not, into putting the KJV as your prime object of worship.
The TRUTH, if indeed you really seek the truth of the Gospel, is NOT to be found only in the KJV, to the exclusion of all other translation.
It certainly does not have anything to do with the misinterpretation and nitpicking about the so-called differences that you are trying to highlight.
You are indulging in Bibliolatry - you are worshipping the KJV instead of God - all because you have been duped into believing that if any other version differs in the slightest from what you think the KJV says, whether that is accurate or not, then that other version must be false.
This is just not about using the KJV, amongst other equally good translations.
No!
You go far beyond that:
Your handle is KJV1611 (trying to make a statement perhaps...);
Then Ps 12:6 - falsely applied as referring to the infallible preservation of the Word of God as apparently evidenced in the KJV - the absolute poster verse of the KJVO heresy.
Then we come to the choice of the Scriptures that you want to argue about and the dodgy misinterpretations that you insist on making. You know, of course, that all these verses are used by various cults to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, to change the nature of salvation to God knows what (varies depending on the cult), etc, etc.
You have been duped and you do need to reject, absolutely, your KJVO views.
You have been duped, how I know not, into putting the KJV as your prime object of worship.
The TRUTH, if indeed you really seek the truth of the Gospel, is NOT to be found only in the KJV, to the exclusion of all other translation.
It certainly does not have anything to do with the misinterpretation and nitpicking about the so-called differences that you are trying to highlight.
You are indulging in Bibliolatry - you are worshipping the KJV instead of God - all because you have been duped into believing that if any other version differs in the slightest from what you think the KJV says, whether that is accurate or not, then that other version must be false.
This is just not about using the KJV, amongst other equally good translations.
No!
You go far beyond that:
Your handle is KJV1611 (trying to make a statement perhaps...);
Then Ps 12:6 - falsely applied as referring to the infallible preservation of the Word of God as apparently evidenced in the KJV - the absolute poster verse of the KJVO heresy.
Then we come to the choice of the Scriptures that you want to argue about and the dodgy misinterpretations that you insist on making. You know, of course, that all these verses are used by various cults to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, to change the nature of salvation to God knows what (varies depending on the cult), etc, etc.
You have been duped and you do need to reject, absolutely, your KJVO views.
View attachment 170548
Sorry, it was too good to pass up.....
Don't throw me soft pitches if you don't want me to hit it out of the park....
Sorry, it was too good to pass up.....
Don't throw me soft pitches if you don't want me to hit it out of the park....
I've just completed a study of Romans 3, and to be honest, I just blend the translations, KJV, NRSV, NIV, whatever makes sense and is loyal to the Greek.
Sometimes the translations just lose the thread of Paul's argument, and so you have to use all the resources available to get to the bottom of it.
Sometimes one word poorly interpreted throws you right off the scent
Sometimes the translations just lose the thread of Paul's argument, and so you have to use all the resources available to get to the bottom of it.
Sometimes one word poorly interpreted throws you right off the scent
The translation, "like a son of the gods" takes away nothing from the identity of the fourth man in the furnace. The words of a pagan king don't define who that person was. They only convey his perception.
Perhaps a comparison will help... I'm a relatively-tall person, but not unusually tall by any means. A child once looked up at me and said, "Mommy, there's a giant in here!" (yes, there was plenty of laughter). Does her perception of me as a giant change the truth about my height? Of course not. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar's perception of the fourth man tells us that man was unusual, but doesn't define who he/He actually was.
My faith in Christ and certainty of the reliability and truthfulness of Scripture isn't challenged one iota on this matter, regardless of what King Neb actually said, and regardless of whether it was Jesus or an angel. Personally, I think "son of the gods" makes more sense, given the context. In similar fashion, the centurion's words in Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 could legitimately be either "the Son of God" or "the son of a god". It's the same issue, and the testimony of a pagan is not the rock on which my faith is built.
Perhaps a comparison will help... I'm a relatively-tall person, but not unusually tall by any means. A child once looked up at me and said, "Mommy, there's a giant in here!" (yes, there was plenty of laughter). Does her perception of me as a giant change the truth about my height? Of course not. Similarly, Nebuchadnezzar's perception of the fourth man tells us that man was unusual, but doesn't define who he/He actually was.
My faith in Christ and certainty of the reliability and truthfulness of Scripture isn't challenged one iota on this matter, regardless of what King Neb actually said, and regardless of whether it was Jesus or an angel. Personally, I think "son of the gods" makes more sense, given the context. In similar fashion, the centurion's words in Matthew 27:54 and Mark 15:39 could legitimately be either "the Son of God" or "the son of a god". It's the same issue, and the testimony of a pagan is not the rock on which my faith is built.
