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.

Gabriel2020

Senior Member
May 6, 2017
1,099
36
48
LET him without sin cast the first stone. He only translated the bible.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
9,052
69
48
Excellent video on the number 66 in the KJV.


[video]https://youtu.be/hbhSfgT08y0[/video]
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
5,125
140
63
Why is there no Geneva Bible onlyists?

I think it's time to start a new trend.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
5,125
140
63
The more I read about the origins of the KJV the more I see it was a politically motivated move. Perhaps it should be PMV, Politically Motivated Version.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
9,052
69
48
The more I read about the origins of the KJV the more I see it was a politically motivated move. Perhaps it should be PMV, Politically Motivated Version.
Can you give some examples of political motivations?
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,770
534
113
The more I read about the origins of the KJV the more I see it was a politically motivated move. Perhaps it should be PMV, Politically Motivated Version.
The Hampton Court Conference was not political but ecclesiastical. The Puritans (who were fundamentalists) within the Church of England petitioned James 1 for a fresh translation which would address their concerns. At the same time the translators themselves were not exclusively Puritans. Not sure what you have been reading, but there are articles on the Hampton Court Conference which provide a great deal of unbiased detail.
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
5,125
140
63
The Hampton Court Conference was not political but ecclesiastical. The Puritans (who were fundamentalists) within the Church of England petitioned James 1 for a fresh translation which would address their concerns. At the same time the translators themselves were not exclusively Puritans. Not sure what you have been reading, but there are articles on the Hampton Court Conference which provide a great deal of unbiased detail.
I would certainly like to read them.
From what I've read from a number of sources, there was a motivation to stamp out the Geneva Bible which James saw as a threat.

It's quite interesting history and I'm eager to learn more.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,770
534
113
I would certainly like to read them.
You could start with the Millenary Petition presented by the Puritans.

https://history.hanover.edu/texts/ENGref/er88.html

The Millenary Petition (1603)

Gee, Henry, and William John Hardy, ed.,
Documents Illustrative of English Church History
(New York: Macmillan, 1896), 508-11.

Hanover Historical Texts Project
Scanned and proofread by Heather Haralson, May 1998.
Posted by Raluca Preotu, July 1999.
Proofread and pages added by Jonathan Perry, March 2001.

Editors' Introduction:
THIS petition was presented to James on his way to London after his accession. The date is April, 1603. The question of the number of the signatories is discussed by Gardiner, Hist. Eng., i. 148, note.
[Transcr. Fuller's Church History, edit. 1655, book x. p. 21 [1].]

Most gracious and dread sovereign, Seeing it has pleased the Divine majesty, to the great comfort of all good Christians, to advance your highness, according to your just title, to the peaceable government of this Church and Commonwealth of England, we, the ministers of the gospel in this land, neither as factious men affecting a popular parity in the Church, nor as schismatics aiming at the dissolution of the State ecclesiastical, but as the faithful servants of Christ and loyal subjects to your majesty, desiring and longing for the redress of divers abuses of the Church, could do no less in our obedience to God, service to your majesty, love to His Church, than acquaint your princely majesty with our particular griefs; foras your princely pen writeth, 'the king, as a good physician, must first know what peccant humours his patient naturally is most subject unto, before he can begin his cure;' and although divers of us that sue for reformation have formerly, in respect of the times, subscribed to the book--some upon protestation, some upon exposition given them, some with condition rather than the Church should have been deprived of their labour and ministry--yet now we, to the number of more than a thousand of your majesty's subjects and ministers, all groaning as under a common burden of human rites and ceremonies, do with one joint consent humble ourselves at your majesty's feet, to be eased and relieved in this behalf. Our humble suit, then, unto your majesty is that these offences following, some may be removed, some amended, some qualified:

(1) In the Church service: that the cross in baptism, interrogatories ministered to infants, confirmation, as superfluous, may be taken away; baptism not to be ministered by women, and so explained; the cap and surplice not urged; that examination may go before the communion; that it be ministered with a sermon; that divers terms of priests, and absolution, and some other used, with the ring in marriage, and other such like in the book, may be corrected; the longsomeness of service abridged, Church songs and music moderated to better edification; that the Lord's Day be not profaned; the rest upon holy days not so strictly urged; that there may be a uniformity of doctrine prescribed; no popish opinion to be any more taught or defended; no ministers charged to teach their people to bow at the name of Jesus;
that the canonical Scriptures only be read in the Church.

(2) Concerning Church ministers: that none hereafter be admitted into the ministry but able and sufficient men, and those to preach diligently and especially upon the Lord's day; that such as be already entered and cannot preach, may either be removed, and some charitable course taken with them for their relief, or else be forced, according to the value of their livings, to maintain preachers; that non-residency be not permitted; that King Edward's statute for the lawfulness of ministers' marriages be revived; that ministers be not urged to subscribe, but according to the law, to the Articles of Religion, and the king's supremacy only.

(3) For Church livings and maintenance: that bishops leave their commendams, some holding parsonages, some prebends, some vicarages, with their bishoprics; that double-beneficed men be not suffered to hold some two, some three benefices with cure, and some two, three, or four dignities besides; that impropriations annexed to bishoprics and colleges be demised only to the preachers incumbents, for the old rent; that the impropriations of laymen's fees be charged, with a sixth or seventh part of their worth, to the maintenance of the preaching minister.

(4) For Church discipline: that the discipline and excommunication may be administered according to Christ's own institution, or, at the least, that enormities may be redressed, as namely, that excommunication come not forth under the name of lay persons, chancellors, officials, &c.; that men be not excommunicated for trifles and twelve-penny matters; that none be excommunicated without consent of his pastor; that the officers be not suffered to extort unreasonable fees; that none having jurisdiction or registers' places, put out the same to farm; that divers popish canons (as for restraint of marriage at certain times) be reversed; that the longsomeness of suits in ecclesiastical courts (which hang sometimes two, three, four, five, six, or seven years) may be restrained; that the oath Ex Officio, whereby men are forced to accuse themselves, be more sparingly used; that licences for marriages without banns asked, be more cautiously granted:

These, with such other abuses yet remaining and practised in the Church of England, we are able to show not to be agreeable to the Scriptures, if it shall please your highness further to hear us, or more at large by writing to be informed, or by conference among the learned to be resolved; and yet we doubt not but that, without any further process, your majesty (of whose Christian judgment we have received so good a taste already) is able of yourself to judge of the equity of this cause. God, we trust, has appointed your highness our physician to heal these diseases; and we say with Mordecai to Esther, 'Who knoweth whether you are come to the kingdom for such a time?' Thus your majesty shall do that which we are persuaded shall be acceptable to God, honourable to your majesty in all succeeding ages, profitable to His Church, which shall be thereby increased, comfortable to your ministers, which shall be no more suspended, silenced, disgraced, imprisoned for men's traditions, and prejudicial to none but to those that seek their own quiet, credit and profit in the world.

Thus, with all dutiful submission, referring ourselves to your majesty's pleasure for your gracious answer, as God shall direct you, we most humbly recommend your highness to the Divine majesty, whom we beseech, for Christ His sake, to dispose your royal heart to do herein what shall be to His glory, the good of His Church, and your endless comfort.

Your majesty's most humble subjects, the ministers of the Gospel that desire not a disorderly innovation, but a due and godly reformation.

 
Last edited:

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,940
760
113

Nothing like leaving for 3 weeks, then coming back and bumping up your own thread, even though we have discussed this to death, and not one person has changed sides in the in the debate.

Here's a thought for you, KJBOnly! Why don't you actually read your preferred version of the Bible, and then live it? Wow, that would be so refreshing!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
5,304
731
113
Interesting. Just this morning I was thinking it's been a while since this issue was on the front page of the BDF. Not that I was wanting it back.

So, I'll try not to yawn.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
9,940
760
113
He must have come back and posted on this thread to bump it up. But, he is not just banned, but gone, gone gone! Even the OP is gone, post #2 is the first post. All his posts are gone!

Can I just say, I am so grateful to the mods, for taking action on this? Thank you so much!
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,036
375
83
He must have come back and posted on this thread to bump it up. But, he is not just banned, but gone, gone gone! Even the OP is gone, post #2 is the first post. All his posts are gone!

Can I just say, I am so grateful to the mods, for taking action on this? Thank you so much!
You must have him on ignore, Angela... I can see his posts just fine.

The ignore feature on this new site is much more thorough in doing its job.
 

shrume

Senior Member
Jun 26, 2017
2,036
375
83
Perhaps it should be removed altogether. If you wish to ignore someone you just don't respond.
Some people don't want to read anything by certain posters. It's easier to not read something if you don't see it.
 

calibob

Well-known member
May 29, 2018
618
309
63
lawton ok
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.
i don't think so, as i recall God was opposed to the whole idea but allowed judges instead. As far as Theocratic Monarchies went, look what happened to israel as a result of Soloman