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.

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,281
111
63
#22
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.
We know you KJVO disciples all sneak-read the modern translations to discover what the Bible actually says because you can't actually understand the KJV ;)
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,732
62
48
#23
We know you KJVO disciples all sneak-read the modern translations to discover what the Bible actually says because you can't actually understand the KJV ;)
When you present a bible you believe in to be the pure word of God without error, then we can have a debate.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
169
63
#24
When you present a bible you believe in to be the pure word of God without error, then we can have a debate.
Yep. You got your brain out of the washer. Sadly, the dryer you put it in was too hot as it dried it.

Sam Gipp, Gail Riplinger, and Steven Anderson are REALLY proud of you.

#Waytogo!
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#25
Another one? thought to not post and let it die, but I like wild rides . . .
i was thinking maybe this guy doesn't know that he can click on "page 2" of the BDF

so for a brief moment there wasn't a KJV-ONLY-OR-BURN-IN-HADES thread on page 1, and he thought something like 'omigosh the gospel not being preached' . . . ?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#26
i was thinking maybe this guy doesn't know that he can click on "page 2" of the BDF

so for a brief moment there wasn't a KJV-ONLY-OR-BURN-IN-HADES thread on page 1, and he thought something like 'omigosh the gospel not being preached' . . . ?

so maybe i can help:

Capture.jpg


in the future, if it ever happens that you go to your favorite website and you don't immediately see a NO-MAN-COMES-TO-THE-FATHER-EXCEPT-THROUGH-KING-JAMES thread, fret not, simply click where the red arrow indicates in the screenshot above.


:)
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#27
i like spiders. big fan. amazing creatures.

so i have a personal, non-scholarly reason to hope this is accurate:

The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
(Proverbs 30:28, KJV)​

however nearly every other translation into English ((and other languages)), reads like this:

The lizard you may grasp with the hands, Yet it is in kings' palaces.
(Proverbs 30:28, NASB)

i've asked several times in KJV-ONLY-WHAT'S-WRONG-WITH-YOU-HEATHENS threads for some kind of linguistic explanation for why the KJV is correct here but so many translators disagree with it.
never gotten what i was looking for. couple times i got the '
KJV says so therefore it must be correct, because, KJV' answer, but well y'all know what kind of reasoning that is.

so another fresh thread, let's ask again i guess



 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#28
i like spiders. big fan. amazing creatures.

so i have a personal, non-scholarly reason to hope this is accurate:

The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
(Proverbs 30:28, KJV)

however nearly every other translation into English ((and other languages)), reads like this:

The lizard you may grasp with the hands, Yet it is in kings' palaces.

(Proverbs 30:28, NASB)



the context, vv. 24-28, actually makes more sense to me if it's a lizard that can be caught by the hands, yet is found even in a palace ((overcoming weakness)) -- same theme in the other 3 things grouped here (("
little, but exceedingly wise" v.24)):


  • ants, not strong, but store up food for winter
  • conies, feeble, but house themselves in the strength of rocks
  • locusts, without leadership, but move collectively in an orderly way

each of these first three sayings are examples of creatures with inherent weakness somehow naturally overcoming that through wisdom.

consider as the fourth:

  • spiders, catch things with their hands, and live even in a well-guarded palace

does that mesh? i trow not!
however:

  • lizards, easily caught, but still dwell in the kings house

this jives with the rest of what Agur groups together. it fits the theme and makes sense.

now, that's without any look at the Hebrew, which if i'm not mistaken, the word here is not used anywhere else, and at the time the KJV was made, it's clear from many other citations that they were unsure about the correct meaning of a great many words referring to plants and animals ((hence '
unicorns' and 'basilisks' etc)) -- so they made a guess at it and hoped to be later corrected.
from what i understand later scholarship indicated that the word here means '
lizard' not 'spider' -- is this correct?

the way our resident subjects of King James speak, the tiniest mistake in the KJV destroys their whole worldview. so this may seem a small thing ((that is, if you don't love spiders like post does)) -- but it's actually quite important.

appreciate any insight :)
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#29
Most High James? Is not this a blasphemy?

BTW he was a king of France too?
England, at the time, owned the provences of Brittany and Normandy.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#30
i like spiders. big fan. amazing creatures.

so i have a personal, non-scholarly reason to hope this is accurate:

The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
(Proverbs 30:28, KJV)​

however nearly every other translation into English ((and other languages)), reads like this:

The lizard you may grasp with the hands, Yet it is in kings' palaces.
(Proverbs 30:28, NASB)

i've asked several times in KJV-ONLY-WHAT'S-WRONG-WITH-YOU-HEATHENS threads for some kind of linguistic explanation for why the KJV is correct here but so many translators disagree with it.
never gotten what i was looking for. couple times i got the '
KJV says so therefore it must be correct, because, KJV' answer, but well y'all know what kind of reasoning that is.

so another fresh thread, let's ask again i guess



Do not worry, they will invent some explanation.

If nothing, they can come with some deep mystery.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#31
this is the word in question --

8079. semamith
Strong's Concordance

semamith: (a kind of) lizard
Original Word: שְׂמָמִית
Part of Speech: Noun Feminine
Transliteration: semamith
Phonetic Spelling: (sem-aw-meeth')
Short Definition: lizard


interestingly even Strong's concordance says KJV is wrong here!


what do you think?
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#34
Bleffings? Did ye writest thou the word bleffings?

Whatest is this ye writest? Bleffings? Thou knave?
In both Elizabethan English, and 17th century German, the f and the s were written very similarly; with the s distinguished by a thickened dot at the top right end of the curved portion.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#35
Anyone notice that the OP hasn't returned to defend his views? Doft he fleetly flee from rational difcuffion?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,026
721
113
#36
Anyone notice that the OP hasn't returned to defend his views? Doft he fleetly flee from rational difcuffion?
I've noticed it to be his habit, in fact
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,799
346
83
#37
In both Elizabethan English, and 17th century German, the f and the s were written very similarly; with the s distinguished by a thickened dot at the top right end of the curved portion.
Aw c'mon Marc, we're just having a bit of sun. Errr... fun.

I can see thefe "f" and "s" words could caufe some confternation. ;)
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,281
111
63
#38
When you present a bible you believe in to be the pure word of God without error, then we can have a debate.
I'm not looking for a debate. I don't see Bible translations as being opposed to each other. We are meant to be batting for the same team not trying to take each other out.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#39
Most High James? Is not this a blasphemy?

BTW he was a king of France too?
It would certainly be in our time. Most high and mighty prince(ss) was a title bestowed on royalty not only in England but in most of Europe. It is made subservient to God in the next line 'by the grace of God King'
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,879
254
83
#40
It would certainly be in our time. Most high and mighty prince(ss) was a title bestowed on royalty not only in England but in most of Europe. It is made subservient to God in the next line 'by the grace of God King'
Habit or not, he certainly was not a king of France, this is a clear lie.

Also, royalty in most of Europe, even calling themselves Christians, were so far away from honesty and humbleness as pope was from the Bible.