KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

And you are entitled to your opinion. I posted this in a response to KJV1611...





It makes too many references in Isaiah 14 to the king of Babylon, to a 'man', for it to be Satan.

Now you're proving why "all bibles have mistakes" is such a detriment to our ability to understand the word of God. Instead of searching the scriptures to understand why Isaiah 14 refers to Satan as a man you immediately try to change the words of the bible to fit your current level of biblical understanding and COMPLETELY MISS the lesson God is teaching by referring to Satan as a man.

Why was your first and only action to condemn the KJV as being wrong instead of investigating WHY Satan is being a man referred to a man in those verses?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I think you two are arguing cross-purposes (SovereignGrace & KJV1611). You are both right. Isaiah 14 is speaking of the attempt of Satan and man to ascend and usurp God's authority. Read it all again and then look at the beast man of revelation.
(The Antichrist fellow you know is coming) And look at Daniel Chapter 11:36-39

Nebuchadnezzar is used in several places in scripture as a type of Antichrist as well as Hiram, King of Tyre, The Assyrian King and others in near/far fulfilment. You claimed to be a god! but you will be brought down to the pit! Prophecy is in some ways like the history of the future. There is a detailed clue to his identiy in the Hebrew (Semitic) term used in Isaiah that the KJV has covered over with the Latin title 'lucifer', though lucifer does reveal it in part. Scripture frequently uses stars as representation of angles. (you have likely noticed this)

I can do a whole teaching on this that would take up pages but I'm not supposed to teach men
I will remind my brothers though that this collection of books we love is Middle Eastern in outlook. Not American or European.

 

[KJV1611]

I think you two are arguing cross-purposes (SovereignGrace & KJV1611). You are both right. Isaiah 14 is speaking of the attempt of Satan and man to ascend and usurp God's authority. Read it all again and then look at the beast man of revelation.
(The Antichrist fellow you know is coming) And look at Daniel Chapter 11:36-39

Nebuchadnezzar is used in several places in scripture as a type of Antichrist as well as Hiram, King of Tyre, The Assyrian King and others in near/far fulfilment. You claimed to be a god! but you will be brought down to the pit! Prophecy is in some ways like the history of the future. There is a detailed clue to his identiy in the Hebrew (Semitic) term used in Isaiah that the KJV has covered over with the Latin title 'lucifer', though lucifer does reveal it in part. Scripture frequently uses stars as representation of angles. (you have likely noticed this)

I can do a whole teaching on this that would take up pages but I'm not supposed to teach men
I will remind my brothers though that this collection of books we love is Middle Eastern in outlook. Not American or European.

I think one issue is that we have to ackowledge that there is a literal Babylon and a figurative Babylon as in Mystery Babylon, the mother of Harlots.

The context of Isaiah 13 and 14 is purely figurative Babylon in my opinion and is speaking of the day of the Lord but I'm open to it being literal Babylon if you could show me where literal Babylon is found in those two chapters.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I think one issue is that we have to ackowledge that there is a literal Babylon and a figurative Babylon as in Mystery Babylon, the mother of Harlots.

The context of Isaiah 13 and 14 is purely figurative Babylon in my opinion and is speaking of the day of the Lord but I'm open to it being literal Babylon if you could show me where literal Babylon is found in those two chapters.

I believe it to be both literal and figurative.

 

[trofimus]

Scripture frequently uses stars as representation of angels. (you have likely noticed this)

I sometimes wonder, if its just symbolic or if there is some deeper connection between angels and distant solar systems...

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I sometimes wonder, if its just symbolic or if there is some deeper connection between angels and distant solar systems...

Me too!

In Ezekiel 28 he calls them 'fiery stones' or (KJV) 'stones of fire'. A simple and accurate description of a physical star. Could a 6th century BC prophet have known that without insight from God?

 

[trofimus]

Me too!

In Ezekiel 28 he calls them 'fiery stones' or (KJV) 'stones of fire'. A simple and accurate description of a physical star. Could a 6th century BC prophet have known that without insight from God?

Are angels something like solar beings and the angel/angels of our sun fell and became satan?

Almost sci-fi theology, but who knows...

 

[KJV1611]

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on 2 Timothy 2:15.
If the inerrant word of truth doesn't exist today then how are we supposed to do 2 Timothy 2:15?

[h=1]2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT=&quot]15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/FONT]

 

[Joseppi]

Babylon is a prophetic name referring to the final kingdom of the heathen on earth.

Lucifer: is Satan, the son of the morning, that is; he appears as Venus appears to be...a herald of the sun: his name is a compound code name, inserted in Isaiah to signify that Satan will appear on earth as a Latin man, in time of great darkness, immediately before the coming of Christ, the Daystar, and will implement his luciferian doctrine and mercantile system.

 

[KJV1611]

Babylon is a prophetic name referring to the final kingdom of the heathen on earth.

Lucifer: is Satan, the son of the morning, that is; he appears as Venus appears to be...a herald of the sun: his name is a compound code name, inserted in Isaiah to signify that Satan will appear on earth as a Latin man, in time of great darkness, immediately before the coming of Christ, the Daystar, and will implement his luciferian doctrine and mercantile system.

Are you a chatbot?

 

[trofimus]

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on 2 Timothy 2:15.
If the inerrant word of truth doesn't exist today then how are we supposed to do 2 Timothy 2:15?

[h=1]2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version (KJV)[/h][FONT="]15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.[/FONT]

I do not think its related to the KJV onlyism in any way.

Word of truth can be anything, its a general statement. This verse was not directed just to people living after the 17th century translation.

 

[KJV1611]

I do not think its related to the KJV onlyism in any way.

Word of truth can be anything, its a general statement. This verse was not directed just to people living after the 17th century translation.

I didnt say it was about the KJV or 17th century, it’s for all times and languages. The verse doesn’t say “words of truth”, it says The word of truth. Obviously it’s talking about scripture.

 

[trofimus]

I didnt say it was about the KJV or 17th century, it’s for all times and languages. The verse doesn’t say “words of truth”, it says The word of truth. Obviously it’s talking about scripture.

If its for all times and all languages, then how is it related to some KJVO view of inerrancy?

In other words, what problem do you see in this verse when we do not use the KJV?

 

[KJV1611]

If its for all times and all languages, then how is it related to some KJVO view of inerrancy?

In other words, what problem do you see in this verse when we do not use the KJV?

Im just saying that the preservation of Gods perfect word is a doctrine found on the Bible. When there are multiple versions it’s up to the reader to figure out which version it is.

 

[trofimus]

Im just saying that the preservation of Gods perfect word is a doctrine found on the Bible. When there are multiple versions it’s up to the reader to figure out which version it is.

In the time of that writing to Timothy, there was not any Bible in todays meaning of the term. Just several books, mostly of the Old Testament, circulating among Christians.

So, again, how is this verse releated to the KJVO? What perfect word are you talking about? Try to elaborate more.

 

[KJV1611]

In the time of that writing to Timothy, there was not any Bible in todays meaning of the term. Just several books, mostly of the Old Testament, circulating among Christians.

So, again, how is this verse releated to the KJVO? What perfect word are you talking about? Try to elaborate more.

I'm not trying to tie it to KJVO or any other version. I'm just saying that the bible does in fact contain the preservation of the written word doctrine.

They had the scriptures that were given at that time - the old testament. That was the word of truth for them. Again I'm not tying this to KJVO I'm proving that the preservation of the perfect word of truth for all the languages of God's people is a biblical doctrine.

 

[trofimus]

I'm not trying to tie it to KJVO or any other version. I'm just saying that the bible does in fact contain the preservation of the written word doctrine.

They had the scriptures that were given at that time - the old testament. That was the word of truth for them. Again I'm not tying this to KJVO I'm proving that the preservation of the perfect word of truth for all the languages of God's people is a biblical doctrine.

And that Old Testament was in which version... the same as in the KJV? Or different, in your opinion?

I think that Paul simply says that Timothy should work properly with truth. I would not bind it to Scriptures only, Paul would use the word Scriptures in such a case.

 

[KJV1611]

And that Old Testament was which version... the same as in the KJV? Or different, in your opinion?

How many old testament versions were there?

 

[trofimus]

How many old testament versions were there?

At least several. And to make it more complicated, I think that nobody had simply one version of all books. Everybody got some mixture.

 

[KJV1611]

At least several. And to make it more complicated, I think that nobody had simply one version of all books. Everybody got some mixture.

Where's your evidence for this.