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.
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,001
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,001
MarcR said:
I don't think knowledge of original languages would change anything.

He is not talking about accuracy of translation. He is talking about an inspired English text; in which even deviation from the original language mss used are inspired. Both King James' instructions to the translators and the translator's preface argue against this belief; but he believes it anyway.
Click to expand...
I don't believe the word of God is bound by words or language so to say the KJV doesn't match the original word or what we think the original word meant hs no bearing on accuracy. Just like "the gospel" vs "good news", both mean exactly the same thing but to say "good news" obscures the fact that the gospel was preached to the old testament saints.

Hebrews 4 King James Version (KJV)
4 Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it.

2 For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,003
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,003
trofimus said:
Can you define "having"?
Click to expand...
Like a believer accepts Christ and recieves the Holy Spirit.

[h=1]Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]3 O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[/FONT]
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,004
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,004
KJV1611 said:
Like a believer accepts Christ and recieves the Holy Spirit.

[h=1]Galatians 3 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT="][FONT=Arial][B]3 [/B][/FONT]O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you, that ye should not obey the truth, before whose eyes Jesus Christ hath been evidently set forth, crucified among you?[/FONT][/COLOR]
[COLOR=#000000][FONT="]2 This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[/FONT]
Click to expand...
OK, so you mean specific receving of the Holy Spirit given only based on our faith.

What do you mean by "unsaved"? :)
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#2,005
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#2,005
KJV1611 said:
I don't understand what point you're trying to get across here.
Click to expand...

Lucy's point was that the KJV translators, in their own words say: "we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."


To make it simple, the KJV translators say that even the worst translation is the word of God.

That was [in your own words] inspired by God; since it was included in the KJV of 1611.

Therefore God, Himself, refutes your claims; if indeed your claims of direct inspiration are true.
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#2,006
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#2,006
KJV1611 said:
How could I know if a translator thought he was inspired or not? The only thing I can go on is their work.
Click to expand...
When the OT prophets were inspired, they knew they were inspired and wrote "Thus saith the Lord". We see the same understanding in the writings of Paul and the Revelation and epistles of John.
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#2,007
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#2,007
KJV1611 said:
I do understand it and that's why I'm asking you what point you're trying to make. The preface is only saying that even older mediocre bibles of the past were the word of God.
Click to expand...
The preface does NOT limit that statement to translations of the past!

If the KJV 1611 was inspired then the preface was equally inspired because it was attached to and part of the same work.
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#2,008
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#2,008
KJV1611 said:
He was just a man so I'm sure he was inspired sometimes and sometimes not.
Click to expand...
You seem to be saying that the translators were not inspired; but their work was inspired. That is fine; because their work includes their preface.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,009
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,009
MarcR said:
Lucy's point was that the KJV translators, in their own words say: "we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."


To make it simple, the KJV translators say that even the worst translation is the word of God.

That was [in your own words] inspired by God; since it was included in the KJV of 1611.

Therefore God, Himself, refutes your claims; if indeed your claims of direct inspiration are true.
Click to expand...
I never said there weren't inspired versions before the KJV.
 
S

SparkleEyes

Senior Member
#2,011
Mar 23, 2013
771
21
18
#2,011
King James version is fine if you are interested in only reading a bible that has not been updated based on the: Dead Sea Scrolls and many many other documents we have found since the 1600s!!
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,012
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,012
MarcR said:
When the OT prophets were inspired, they knew they were inspired and wrote "Thus saith the Lord". We see the same understanding in the writings of Paul and the Revelation and epistles of John.
Click to expand...
Did Caiaphus know he was prophesing ? No he didn't know it, but he was under the direct inspiriation of God to say exactly what he said.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,013
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,013
trofimus said:
OK, so you mean specific receving of the Holy Spirit given only based on our faith.

What do you mean by "unsaved"? :)
Click to expand...
What do you make of Galatians 3, were the bewitched Galatians saved or not? They had the Spirit within them.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,014
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,014
KJV1611 said:
What do you make of Galatians 3, were the bewitched Galatians saved or not? They had the Spirit within them.
Click to expand...
Galatians were church, a group of people.

Its probably impossible to say "they were saved" or "they were not saved". As usual in any church group, some were, some were not.

The question is, if Paul is generalizing or not, if he is warning them or saying "you are already lost".
 
Last edited:
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,015
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,015
MarcR said:
The preface does NOT limit that statement to translations of the past!

If the KJV 1611 was inspired then the preface was equally inspired because it was attached to and part of the same work.
Click to expand...
With all due respect, I don't think you understand what inspiration means. Men aren't "special" because God spoke through them or influenced their actions. There's nothing special about any of the bible writers nor of the KJV translators. All of them were just normal men whom God used to get his will done... everything they did in their lives most certainly wasn't inspired.

And yes the KJV translators were talking about PAST bibles. They were not talking about every book past, present and future that slaps Holy Bible on the cover.

"we affirm and avow — that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,016
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,016
trofimus said:
Galatians were church, a group of people.

Its probably impossible to say "they were saved" or "they were not saved". As usual in any church group, some were, some were not.

The question is, if Paul is generalizing or not, if he is warning them or saying "you are already lost".
Click to expand...
Ok lol expound on this verse. What is your interpretation of the verse?

2 [FONT=&quot]This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[/FONT]
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,017
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,017
MarcR said:
You seem to be saying that the translators were not inspired; but their work was inspired. That is fine; because their work includes their preface.
Click to expand...
Again I don't think you understand inspiration.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,018
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,018
trofimus said:
But you cannot find even one that would not contradict the KJV in something :)
Click to expand...
I've never looked at the older bibles, they may be or may not be.... Just because the KJV translators said they were doesn't mean they were.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,019
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,019
KJV1611 said:
Ok lol expound on this verse. What is your interpretation of the verse?

2 [FONT="]This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?[/FONT]
Click to expand...
I suppose you think that these Galatians Paul is talking to were unsaved/lost their salvation by accepting the false teaching of Jews?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,020
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,020
KJV1611 said:
I've never looked at the older bibles, they may be or may not be.... Just because the KJV translators said they were doesn't mean they were.
Click to expand...
Can you name at least one inspired perfect Bible in whole the history of Christianity (excluding the KJV)?

BTW, do you use 1611 or 1769?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.