King James Bible vs. Modern Translations (Honoring The Deity of Jesus Christ)

[Arwen4CJ]

If it was inerrant people would not get several interpretations from one verse. The Bible is not to be taken literal, that is why it has parables, it is written to inspire thought and feelings within. Everyone feels differently about it because the words make you draw your own conclusion based on what your brain has read and interpreted as evidence for such thought and feeling. The same way someone can hear a song and be saddened by it and to another it can bring joy.

Okay -- this is a different issue altogether (well, maybe not according to KJV only people).

It is true that people have different degrees of interpreting the Bible literally vs. metaphorically. However, just because people interpret things differently doesn't mean that the actual source of it has errors. People can misunderstand truths, people can take things out of context and make it say whatever they want it to say. They can do this with any book or form of communication. This doesn't mean that the source is wrong or is riddled with error.

When I read the Bible (and I am not KJV only, which should be apparent from my posts), in any translation that is legitimate, I tend towards a more literal reading. However, I'm not as literal as some on certain points. No one is 100% literal -- to the point where they believe poetry is to be taken literally, etc. From the context, you can tell if it is meant to be literal or metaphorical.

Do I believe that the events in the Bible literally happened? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus literally performed miracles? Yes. Do I believe that we should base our doctrine on the Bible? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins? Yes. Do I believe that the things in the OT actually happened? Yes. Do I believe Jesus was born of a virgin? Yes. Do I believe Jesus physically and bodily rose from the dead? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus will literally and physically return? Yes.

Do I think that people who read the Bible and draw different conclusions -- people who think that Jesus' miracles were only metaphorical have the right understanding? No. I think they are interpreting it incorrectly. They are welcome to their views; they have a right to believe whatever they want. However, that doesn't make their view correct.

Just because people interpret it other ways doesn't mean that the belief about Jesus' miracles isn't true.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Many things are correct and complete but which verses? What has been left out and what was added?

What parts are divinely inspired?

The Bible is always going to change just has it always has, when enough people think one translation is wrong or out dated it gets changed. This has been happening since 400AD

look at what the catholic church did to the KJV and then did to the following translations. They are always changing it, the current and past translations prove it.

in the dark ages people were killed for having a english bible... they have had control over it forever

This issue isn't just limited to this KJV only debate, as I said in my last post.

I believe the whole Bible is divinely inspired by God (in all legitimate translations).

You ask about how we are to know if something was added in or whatever -- that is what footnotes are for. They help us understand which parts are not in the oldest copies of the original languages that are available. Now, having said that, that doesn't mean that the parts that were not in the oldest manuscripts contain false theology. They do not. It's just that the verses aren't found in the earliest ones.

Newer translations are done because the languages they are translated into change -- in our case, English. The English language is always changing. Also, older manuscripts are sometimes discovered, which gives scholars an even better idea about what the original must have contained (or not contained). However, the basic content is the same.

There are no doctrinal changes that have happened with the Bible. Nothing has been radically altered (despite what the KJV only advocates might claim). It's still the same basic Bible. It proclaims the same truth that it has proclaimed since Christianity was founded.

If we all learned biblical Greek and biblical Hebrew, and we could read and write it fluently, we would have no need of translations. But, obviously, most of us don't understand these languages. We need the Bible in our own language. The translators do as faithful a job as they can, working with the copies of manuscripts that they have.

Sometimes it is a good idea to read the same passage in multiple translations to get a fully understanding of what the passage is saying. That's one reason why the KJV only position makes no sense.

 

[2Thewaters]

In Psalm 18:44,
the word "obey" there comes from the hebrew word "SHAWMAH", which means to hear, listen to, obey, to be obeident.

""Shawmah" is found in the scriptures 1158 times in the KJV,
361 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Hear",
372 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Heard",
117 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Hearken",
73 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Hearkened",
8 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Obedient",
41 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Obey",
34 of those times the monks chose to translate it into "Obeyed",

What a shame that it was not translated correctly into "hear and obey" anywhere in the KJV!!!!!

People would be able to understand that hearing and obeying the word of God is an integral part of salvation!

And of course, the 1158 times are ONLY Old Testament references, and does not include how many New Testament references.


The words "As soon as they hear" are translated from "shay-mah" (sound rumor announcement, loud report speech tidings) and "ozen" (ear, advertisement, audience, hearing+showing).


So it would mean to hear in the ear, as it is written in the HRB:


"At the hearing of the ear they listen to me; the sons of foreigners shall bow down to me." Psalm 18:44.


So we find in the HRB that "shaw-mah" must not only mean be obedient, but it must also mean to worship and submit oneself, instead of just "obey".


If shaw-mah indeed means worship, submit, bow down, and obey, again, it is another instance of the KJV covering up completely 1158 times the necessity of bowing down, obeying, and worshiping God.

Is there a cover up?
can Translators be influenced bay a king who will cut their heads off if they tell people to OBEY a book rather than a KING?
of course, they choose a partial word...
But
king james is CORRECT, just not a CLEAR on certain anti king issues like OBEDIENCE TO GOD ALONE


With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. The Protestant clergy approached the new King in 1604 and announced their desire for a new translation to replace the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568. They knew that the Geneva Version had won the hearts of the people because of its excellent scholarship, accuracy, and exhaustive commentary. However, they did not want the controversial marginal notes (proclaiming the Pope an Anti-Christ, etc.) Essentially, the leaders of the church desired a Bible for the people, with scriptural references only for word clarification or cross-references.


Do you see now?
If you say it straight out, you get in trouble so it is colored

now if you want the TRUTH it is still Gods word
just click on the original GREEK WORD and all becomes clear as in this short study demonstartion..

KJV is the Very good translation of the best original greek manuscripts
of course the aramaic originals are a touch more clear on issues that would get your head cut off by a king...

So, because they were waselers and would not speak the truth
we now have people who say we dont have to obey anything
once saved always saved
the enemy uses every advantage...

But prayer and study defeats any enemy attack against the truth
WORSHIP KNEEL PRAY READ and STUDY DEEP that means click on the greek words
and yo can not be lead astray.

 

[2Thewaters]

King james Bible isnt the cracker jack you think it is, it was invented by king James because he wanted a watered down version of the straight spoken Geneva translation that correctly translated aL the words as they meant...

The KJV they used middle of the road words so you would never obey the bible more than a king and also it threatend the people they would go to hell forever if they didn't obey the king!
which of course is silly God is just

and a few things that made them better slaves to the king

king james is a good bible if you look of the original words and take the words chosen in some places with a prayer and faith study.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The truths are hidden. The scriptures are hollow. The purpose is ever changing. You cannot understand it without long fasting, in body and spirit. The truths are hidden from those who have structured it over time to yield truth to them. The spirit fades when in bondage therefore even by force they will never know the truth. Only by your own spirit will you ever know understand and administer it's wisdom. There is no nourishment to the apple tree by way of the root of the fig tree. You are figs and to figs you will remain.

The Scriptures don't change in meaning from one person to another, or from one time to a different one. The basic truth is the same, and remains unchanged. It is true that God can speak through them to us, personally -- but the overall meaning is the same. And, yes, the Holy Spirit helps us to understand it...but that doesn't mean that for anyone to understand Scripture, they all must fast, as you are suggesting.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The Catholic Church has touched the KJV...they influence it's teachings somewhat especially in the present. There is another who has a more pronounced grip on the scriptures.

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't usually use the KJV. They publish their own Bible translation.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Then throw in the theory of evolution which is founded upon genetics evolve intelligence. ...When it is actually the other way around. Our spiritual evolution controls the physical evolution of our bodies. Why do you think apes are so different? Because they are our ancestors? No! We evolved along side each other but we are a product of spiritual evolution. It seems someone is trying to slow or stop our current spiritual break out into the next evolutionary race closer to perfection.

Ok -- it really does sound like you are into gnosticism/mysticism/occult/New Age.

But, just to be sure, how do you define spiritual evolution? What do you mean by "it seems someone is trying to slow or stop our current spiritual break out into the next evolutionary race closer to perfection?"

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Labels...I'm a christian just like you. Because I don't take heed to the Roman or egyptian reformation I am wrong? I don't think so. The spirit still guides you even without scriptures. The word God is an empty shell. Think of God like the thing that dominates your life. Broken relationship and heartbroken God can be Love and in that God takes away your pain. God is our tool of the spirit. God delivers us from bondage not into bondage.

Do you believe that God is external to creation -- especially humanity, or do you believe that God is creation? Just because two people use the term "God" does not necessarily mean they are talking about the same thing.

Furthermore, just because two people say they are Christian doesn't necessarily mean that they are using the same definition.

Even with phrases like "the spirit guides me," can have different meanings. That's why it is important to define terms, such in a discussion like this.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I'm a believer....just because I believe with spirit and not what man has taught me doesn't make my beliefs any less true.

What do you mean when you say, "I believe with spirit." Thank you.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Isn't that in ROMANS

Romans is a letter that Paul wrote to Christians who lived in Rome. It wasn't to the Roman Catholic Church or to the Roman government -- whatever you might imagine a book named "Romans" to be. It was to Christians, which Paul called the church in Rome.

 

[Arwen4CJ]

The creator. You are the one spoken of in romans giving a vain image unto God. You do not know God. It is my use of scriptures to yours.

Then please define what/who you mean by "God." That way everyone in this thread is clear what you mean when you say "God."

 

[Arwen4CJ]

What you are experiencing is bondage of the fleshy laws. Haven't you read enough about this issue to know that you are bound by the flesh?

How do you interpret "flesh" in this context? And what do you mean when you say, "to know that you are bound by the flesh?"

 

[Arwen4CJ]

You cannot put you foot on a spirit no matter what scriptures you chose to use. I am only bound by the spiritual virtues...love, faith, charity, patience....etc

Which spirit are you speaking of?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I just said earlier that God is Love. Love is God. God is not the Creator. Read John 4. GOD IS LOVE! Now go back and reread your scripture and see who is wrong in romans.

If God isn't the Creator, then who is?

And how do you explain all the passages that speak about God as being the Creator?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Really have you not seen the 4 generations of Adam In genesis administered by 4 separate entities? GOD, Lord God, Lord, Adam. Another thing....why do you think those specific words are italicized in those scriptures you posted?

How many gods do you think there are?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

Tim 2? Telling me to study? It's spirit you lack, I AM complete in my study. Just ask me and I will show you every time where you love flesh and cannot let go.

Why did you write it like, "I AM," instead of, "I am." Are you applying God's name, "I AM" to yourself?

 

[Arwen4CJ]

I guess the spirit that is of God in all of us is lacking by your law. I am here because of that spirit.

Jag, please explain to us what you mean.

 

[VCO]

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't usually use the KJV. They publish their own Bible translation.

The other way around, it was the KJV Translation Team that CHOSE as one of their many resources of other Translations to be used, the Latin Bible, to aid in Translating what became the KJV. So the KJV was in some ways influenced by the Catholic Latin Version. That is right in the 1611 Original Preface of the KJV. They also used the Translation of the Seventie, even though it was known to contain errors in translation. The KJV Translators never claimed that their paraphrase Version know as the KJV, (Translated from other Translations rather than the original Language manuscripts.) that their Translation was error free.

That was exaggeration at best, made up by KJV ONLY Zelots. I read the 1611 Original Preface of the KJV, and even though it was difficult to read, exposed that the brag and hype about the KJV came later from the KJV ONLY Zelots. King James Version Original Preface

Robert Joyner - Were the KJV Translators KJV Only?

 

[VCO]

If God isn't the Creator, then who is?

And how do you explain all the passages that speak about God as being the Creator?

MAY I ?

Colossians 1:16-19 (HCSB)
[SUP]16 [/SUP] For everything was created by Him, in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities— all things have been created through Him and for Him.
[SUP]17 [/SUP] He is before all things, and by Him all things hold together.
[SUP]18 [/SUP] He is also the head of the body, the church; He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that He might come to have first place in everything.
[SUP]19 [/SUP] For God was pleased ⌊to have⌋ all His fullness dwell in Him,

Genesis 1:1 (HCSB)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

CONCLUSION: The Spirit part of JESUS, really is part of GOD HIMSELF.

 

[LovePink]

The Spirit part of JESUS, really is part of GOD HIMSELF.

All of Jesus is God, not just part. His whole spirit, soul & body is risen and glorified, Every bit of Jesus is God.