KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.
Feb 12, 2018
60
2
8
#1
A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

-
Hebrews 4:12
(KJV)
- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)


Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

-
Galatians 1:6-7
(of 1:1-12) (KJV)

Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

-
2 Corinthians 11:3-4
(KJV)

Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

Here is our History:
The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Protestant Reformation for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.


The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.


-
Proverbs 30:5-6
(KJV)

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.


Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.

...............................................................

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
2,196
195
63
#4
Another one? thought to not post and let it die, but I like wild rides . . .
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
#6
BTW he was a king of France too?
"James styled himself "King of France", in line with other monarchs of England between 1340 and 1800, although he did not actually rule France."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

So, there was a lie in the KJV? That king liked to be named more than he actually was in reality. Not very Christ-like.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,883
117
63
#7
"James styled himself "King of France", in line with other monarchs of England between 1340 and 1800, although he did not actually rule France."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_VI_and_I

So, there was a lie in the KJV? That king liked to be named more than he actually was in reality. Not very Christ-like.

The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,283
115
63
#8
Imagine if a leader of the NIV translation committee had called himself 'Most High'
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,742
1,021
113
#9
The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
Thou hast completely missed the point... again.

I am confident that if ANY modern translation were dedicated to "THE MOST HIGH... KING... (whatever)", you would scream "Blasphemy!". Once again your double standards turn around to bite you.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
#10
The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
So, who is the most high king/prince, James or Christ?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
9,661
458
83
#11
Imagine if a leader of the NIV translation committee had called himself 'Most High'
KJVO guys would go crazy and flood youtube, forums and web with that as a proof of corruption.

And so many preachings about this would be made in some churches...

But of course, its OK in the KJV :)
 

Johnny_B

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2017
1,954
61
48
#12
Imagine if a leader of the NIV translation committee had called himself 'Most High'
​I am surprised that no one has brought up the homosexual and lesbian that was on the commitee of the NIV translating team.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
12,852
640
113
#13
We should rejoice always in Christ.

Mat 10:25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
 

Chester

Senior Member
May 23, 2016
2,196
195
63
#14
The main subject of the Bible is the kingdom which God intends to give to His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who will be crowned "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS," according to Revelation 19:16. Ecclesiastes 8:4 says, "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" Unlike the modern versions, the KJV was translated under a king. In fact, the king's name was "James," which is the English word for "Jacob," whom God renamed "Israel," because he had power with God and with men (Gen. 32:28).

The new versions have been translated in America, which is not a monarchy. God's form of government is a theocratic monarchy, not a democracy. Therefore, it makes perfect sense that His word would be translated for the English speaking people under a monarchy with an English king.
You have got to be kidding me? You really mean what you wrote?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,883
117
63
#15
​I am surprised that no one has brought up the homosexual and lesbian that was on the commitee of the NIV translating team.
It doesn't matter. Know one believes the NIV to be the word of God, so who cares if a lesbian was on the committee.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,742
1,021
113
#16
​I am surprised that no one has brought up the homosexual and lesbian that was on the commitee of the NIV translating team.
This has been debunked, and it is merely the fact that people who should know better don't fact-check that results in comments like this.

Virginia Mollenkott was a specialist in English language who was consulted on matters of style. Her sexual preferences were not known at the time she was consulted, and she was never a member of the translation committee. It is irrelevant.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
172
63
#18
Bleffings, majestie, ftrength, fleffe, fuffer, amongft, almightie, diminifh, darkneffe, funne, inftantly difpelled, treafure...


Yep. Sure looks like the pure word of God. Sho nuff...err...fho nuff...
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
172
63
#20
It doesn't matter. Know one believes the NIV to be the word of God, so who cares if a lesbian was on the committee.
I believe the NIV to be the very word of God. I am just not naive like you are. YUGE difference. Got your brain out of the washer yet?