KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

  • 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.

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,283
116
63
You claim I am limiting God and then go on to say God is limited to the original languages since a word for word translation to English is not possible for our God. Our God can speak English and have His holy word translated into English as He has chosen in the KJV. A word for word translation? Maybe not, but even in the originals we have translations from one language to another, not a word for word. I'm ok with that. Are you?

Make up your mind John, you are tying yourself in knots. You have been arguing for limits on translation. (Only King James) Now you are attempting to turn it around to accuse others of your own folly.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,772
1,054
113
All members should be treated with respect.
I agree with this though I think it needs unpacking...

People deserve basic respect, because people are created in the image of God. People can also earn greater respect, or earn less respect by the way they interact with others and by how they present their ideas.

Ideas do not necessarily deserve respect, because some ideas really do have greater value than other ideas.

I see no problem with scorning a bad idea. Unfortunately, many readers can't separate the idea from the person (themselves, often) who presented it. Telling someone that their ideas are bad is not, by itself, disrespectful.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,772
1,054
113
You claim I am limiting God and then go on to say God is limited to the original languages since a word for word translation to English is not possible for our God. Our God can speak English and have His holy word translated into English as He has chosen in the KJV. A word for word translation? Maybe not, but even in the originals we have translations from one language to another, not a word for word. I'm ok with that. Are you?
There are several problems with your reasoning here:

First, nobody has claimed that God "cannot" translate the Bible perfectly into English, so your contention that any non-KKVo claims that is simply unfounded. It's a straw-man fallacy on your part. Quote someone, or drop it.

Second, you have absolutely no evidence that God did so with the KJV. It has been demonstrated many times that the KJV is not a perfect translation from either Greek or Hebrew, but you have shown that you are blind to this. FYI there is a fundamental difference between God translating as in Acts 2, and men translating as in 1604.

Third, because languages change over time (and space) what is a "perfect" translation in one context may not be in another. This leads to misunderstanding, which is not God's intention. The king of England never had final authority over the English language, nor did the translators. We can only point to how a word is understood within a certain context... even if that is diametrically opposite from its meaning in another context. Consider the word "sick". To most people over 40, it means physically diseased. To many people under 40, it also means noteworthy, interesting, and/or desirable.

I have explained why double standards are unacceptable from a biblical perspective; you have not responded, and you certainly haven't shown any evidence of understanding. So I ask you: why do you think that having a double standard (several, in fact) is compatible with a claim to salvation in Christ?
 

NayborBear

Senior Member
Dec 6, 2015
1,054
64
48
What "gets" me, is the whole "flesh" thing, when it comes to "which" translation, or translations are best. Any/All translations, versions, etc.etc. that gets one to accept Jesus of Nazareth, as high priest, and Kinsman Redeemer (Lord and Savior), is a good and valid version, translation, etc. etc.

The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.

2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways :)), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same!

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
 
H

heartofdavid

Guest
What "gets" me, is the whole "flesh" thing, when it comes to "which" translation, or translations are best. Any/All translations, versions, etc.etc. that gets one to accept Jesus of Nazareth, as high priest, and Kinsman Redeemer (Lord and Savior), is a good and valid version, translation, etc. etc.

The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.

2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways :)), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same!

Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
Um,no it does matter.
The catholics martyred thousands or maybe millions over words.
The correct move is always towards original,or purity.

Some of our modern translations are sloppy
 
D

Depleted

Guest
There is this documentary on the King James bible that appears every now and then on the PBS channels.
It describes how King James spent a small fortune hiring the best translaters, who over several years translated all the known manuscripts of scriptures.
Before this translations were mostly in latin, so that the people were unable to comprehend what was written in the Word.
The bible was deliberately kept out of the hands of the people by the clergy (or the Roman Catholic Church), until King James came around.

Additionally, for many years I used to use the revised berkely version in modern English, until one day I read this passage in Hosea 3:1 about how Israeli's worshipped raisin cakes causing them to fall away from God.
Since having a fondness for pastry seemed somewhat of an odd reason causing people to fall away from God, I then decided to look at the King James Version that I had, but which I avoided due to its harder to understand Old English.
In it the same passage showed how the Israeli's love for flagons of wine was the cause for their falling away from God.
As an ecess love for alcohol seemed like a much more credible reason for falling away from God than a love for pastries, I have since kept using the KJV.

Revised Berekley edition: Hosea 3:1 Again the Word of the Lord said unto me, "Go, love a woman now in love with a paramour, herself an adulteress, besides; such is the way the Lord loves His people Israel, even though they keep turning to other gods and love raisin cakes.

KJV Hosea 3:1 Then said the Lord unto me, Go yet, love a woman beloved of her friend, yet an adulteress, according to the love of the Lord toward the children of Israel, who look to other gods, and love flagons of wine.
LOL Loved your raisin cake story. LOL

But, don't trust PBS for full stories. They are the far-left with the far-left agenda. Part of which is to promote there is no God.

Truthfully, King James had a problem with the already-available-English-translations of the Bible. He saw the Bible teaching Lex Rex. (The law is king.) He wanted the obvious -- Rex Lex.

So he hired a bunch of scholars he thought would beholden to give him Rex Lex. God had other plans, so the scholars translated it as best they could from what they had. The KJV is God's word as best as possible at the time, even though there are numerous problems with it. (Sort of like the raisin cake story. Even if that was supposed to be raisin cake, would it have changed your relationship with God? I don't think so. At best, you would have spent your life wondering if you should eat raisin cake. lol)

BTW, I'm not against KJV. I'm against KJVOnlyists and trolls.
 
D

Depleted

Guest
HERETIC!!

Funny, but I see they are coming out with a new version of that... a movie, I think. I'm looking forward to it. Although, without Helen Reddy, it might be lacking.... we'll see.

It's really a great rock opera, as long as you don't expect it to be Biblically accurate.

edit.... my mistake... it will be live on stage, not a movie.
I've seen it a couple of times live. The second time really frosted me. Pontius Pilate was a homosexual.

Movie was pretty good. I still want to sing like Mary Magdalene in the movie. Then again, since I'm going on 62 and still can't sing at all, I'd be happy to sing like Willie Nelson by now. lol
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
5,044
445
83
I've seen it a couple of times live. The second time really frosted me. Pontius Pilate was a homosexual.

Movie was pretty good. I still want to sing like Mary Magdalene in the movie. Then again, since I'm going on 62 and still can't sing at all, I'd be happy to sing like Willie Nelson by now. lol
I'd sound more like a cross between Kris Kristofferson and Tom Waits. :cool:

Used to sound just like Neil Diamond....... in the shower, at least.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,886
126
63
God did not promise an inspired english language, You saying god can only use on translated english text and is unable to use the rest.

That is limiting God.
If one text is God's word, then that would make all others not God's word.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,886
126
63
Make up your mind John, you are tying yourself in knots. You have been arguing for limits on translation. (Only King James) Now you are attempting to turn it around to accuse others of your own folly.
Yes, because there's only two choices. Which is it?

1. One version can be trusted and stands alone as the holy, pure word of God. All others cannot be trusted.
2. None of the versions can be trusted and are not the holy, pure word of God.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,886
126
63
There are several problems with your reasoning here:

First, nobody has claimed that God "cannot" translate the Bible perfectly into English, so your contention that any non-KKVo claims that is simply unfounded. It's a straw-man fallacy on your part. Quote someone, or drop it.
Has God translated His word into English and if so, which one is it? You know, that would make all others false.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
460
83
Yes, because there's only two choices. Which is it?

1. One version can be trusted and stands alone as the holy, pure word of God. All others cannot be trusted.
2. None of the versions can be trusted and are not the holy, pure word of God.
3. All good translations can be trusted in their Christian message. There is no need for a perfect translation in every word. You are using many times failing KJV and yet you are still living.
 
Mar 14, 2011
53,054
1,473
113
If one text is God's word, then that would make all others not God's word.
Well that one text Is not the KJV, using this logic, that He text is the one which was finished by John when he completed Hs last good. And it was not written in English

All other texts are copies, translations of those copies. event 5e KJV is translated from copies and also other interpretations of the origional text.
 
Mar 14, 2011
53,054
1,473
113
Has God translated His word into English and if so, which one is it? You know, that would make all others false.
No, men did.

the only thing inspired was the autographs, if God inspired other languages, there would be a perfect bible in all languages, that is no true so.

God Old is not a respect or of persons. He chose the best languages to inspire the word for a reason, and there is a reason he did not chose english
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,886
126
63
3. All good translations can be trusted in their Christian message. There is no need for a perfect translation in every word. You are using many times failing KJV and yet you are still living.
Part of that Christian message is God's word is truth, not part but the whole.

"Hello, may I talk with you about what the bible says about Jesus Christ? This part is true, but there are other parts of the bible that are not true. Do you still want to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour?


 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,772
1,054
113
Yes, because there's only two choices. Which is it?

1. One version can be trusted and stands alone as the holy, pure word of God. All others cannot be trusted.
2. None of the versions can be trusted and are not the holy, pure word of God.
Already refuted more than once; fallacy of false dichotomy. There is at least one additional option: More than one version is the holy, pure words of God and can be trusted. See more below....

Has God translated His word into English and if so, which one is it? You know, that would make all others false.
Already refuted; if this were true, the KJV could not be the one. Either Tyndale IS God's perfect word in English and therefore the KJV is not, or Tyndale is not, and therefore the KJV could not be either because it follows Tyndale so much.

Really, John146, you need to stop ignoring the refutations to your arguments. It is no credit to you to repeat arguments which have been discredited completely.
 
Dec 28, 2016
6,041
295
83
Part of that Christian message is God's word is truth, not part but the whole.

"Hello, may I talk with you about what the bible says about Jesus Christ? This part is true, but there are other parts of the bible that are not true. Do you still want to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour?


Yes, we get it, if a person isn't saved via the magical wording of the KJV they'll not be saved and will go to hell. :rolleyes:
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
172
63
Make up your mind John, you are tying yourself in knots. You have been arguing for limits on translation. (Only King James) Now you are attempting to turn it around to accuse others of your own folly.
You are talking to ppl who...

arent the tightest wrapped mummy in the pyramid...
if you packed their heads full of dynamite, they still couldn’t blow their nose...
there’s no pot of gold at the end of their rainbow...

#Igotamillionofem
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
460
83
Part of that Christian message is God's word is truth, not part but the whole.
Not applicable to translations.

"Hello, may I talk with you about what the bible says about Jesus Christ? This part is true, but there are other parts of the bible that are not true. Do you still want to trust Jesus Christ as your Saviour?
You are using KJV, a translation with so many wrong sources in the OT and with so many wrong translations. And still, you can be a normal Christian (except of your strange KJV onlyism).
So, what is your point.
 
Last edited: