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.

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#41
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. ;)
I knew you were playing and I had no trouble with it:)

I have a love of history and tend to take things too seriously at times. I wasn't born knowing how the f was distinguished from the s and thought others might be interested to know; since it isn't obvious.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,282
112
63
#42
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.
You are mistaken if you believe the French are capable of governing themselves. ;)
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,901
263
83
#43
You are mistaken if you believe the French are capable of governing themselves. ;)
I never said they are :))

Their royalty was the craziest parade of corruption and foolishness.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
2,282
112
63
#44
Jeremiah 10:22

[FONT=&quot]Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.[/FONT]
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
8,901
263
83
#45
Jeremiah 10:22

[FONT="]Behold, the noise of the bruit is come, and a great commotion out of the north country, to make the cities of Judah desolate, and a den of dragons.[/FONT]
Oh no, now we have young earth proof... dinosaurs again.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#46



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 :)
s'mawmeeth strictly translated does mean Lizzard or Gecko; Semawm means poison. Semawmeeth literally means poisoner (feminine); so with very little latitude spider may well fit.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
4,732
62
48
#48
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.
If we're fighting the same enemy, we should use the same sword.

All bible translations oppose each other. They all say different things, contain different words and even different truths. Again, God is not the author of confusion. One has got to be the only pure word of God or none. There is no other choice.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
172
63
#49
I smell smoke. Either the dryer is too hot or your brain is. My $$$ is on your brain.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
171
0
#50
If we're fighting the same enemy, we should use the same sword.

All bible translations oppose each other. They all say different things, contain different words and even different truths. Again, God is not the author of confusion. One has got to be the only pure word of God or none. There is no other choice.
The various Bible translations are far more remarkable for their agreement than for their occasional minor differences.
 

SpoonJuly

Senior Member
Feb 16, 2018
270
82
28
#51
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 ;)
I have never read or considered the modern translations. I have always used the KJV, and have no problem understanding it.
I do use a Greek and Hebrew dictionary in my studies. I would not call myself a KJVO disciple, just never felt a need or desire to change.
Now I am not condemning or judging those who do. That is your choice. All are just translations and all probably have error.
Just wondering what translation you first began to study and why did you change, if you changed?
 

breno785au

Senior Member
Jul 23, 2013
5,125
140
63
#52
For those who know the nature of God, can you actually imagine Him saying, "The KJV is the only English version of my Word that I want you English speakers to read!" ?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,824
375
83
#53
If we're fighting the same enemy, we should use the same sword.

All bible translations oppose each other. They all say different things, contain different words and even different truths. Again, God is not the author of confusion. One has got to be the only pure word of God or none. There is no other choice.
This has been refuted... every time you have posted it.

Your assertion is a logical fallacy called a false dichotomy. Your rejection of other options does not eliminate them from existence.
 

Monnkai

Senior Member
Mar 18, 2014
1,220
55
48
#54
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 ;)
Im glad others cant make head or tails of a KJV. In one of my books that im writting one of the characters speaks like that. It will make her quite challenging to write. Good to know KJV is good for something!
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,824
375
83
#55
s'mawmeeth strictly translated does mean Lizzard or Gecko; Semawm means poison. Semawmeeth literally means poisoner (feminine); so with very little latitude spider may well fit.
I can see the logic in that, but to me the lizard is still more likely because, although spiders are easily caught with the hand, very few people would catch one with the hand, for concern of being bitten. Perhaps I should research poisonous creatures in the Bible lands... both four- and eight-legged ones.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
4,824
375
83
#56
Im glad others cant make head or tails of a KJV. In one of my books that im writting one of the characters speaks like that. It will make her quite challenging to write. Good to know KJV is good for something!
Shakefpeare is good for that too. So is Chaucer. :)
 

nddreamer

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2017
142
1
18
#57
KJV "1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love."

Can anyone say that they've never been afraid? Think of those poor kids who witnessed that terrible event at Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida. It'll probably be a long time before they feel comfortable going into that school again. Fear is a very natural response to what they experienced. And fear does have torment. It's very troubling to one's psyche. It can affect one's ability to function normally.

NIV "1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love."

It's surprising that they interpreted it this way. Instead of being tormented or troubled by our sense of fear, now our sense of fear is punishment. We're all aware of our sinful natures. So are we made to feel afraid as punishment for our sins? Is God the author of our fear because he wants to punish us?
If I was one of the kids from Stoneman Douglas School and by chance happened to read this verse, I'd close the book and never open it again. That would be the ultimate turn-off.
 

nddreamer

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2017
142
1
18
#58
"Prov. 30:24 There be four things which are little upon the earth, but they are exceeding wise:"
"25 The ants are a people not strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer;"

The ants are always busy gathering into their nests so they are never hungry. The lesson of the ants is that we should be busy gathering the knowledge of God in our youth so it will sustain us through the trials that come.

"26 The conies are but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks;"

The lesson of the conies is we should build our house (our lives) on a sure foundation -- our rock, Jesus Christ.

"27 The locusts have no king, yet go they forth all of them by bands;"

The lesson of the locusts is that there is safety in numbers. "Ec. 4:12 And if one prevail against him, two shall withstand him; and a threefold cord is not quickly broken."

"28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces."

The lesson of the spider is that we should take hold with our hands (our resolve) to dwell with our king (Jesus Christ) in his kingdom.
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,111
783
113
#59
I can see the logic in that, but to me the lizard is still more likely because, although spiders are easily caught with the hand, very few people would catch one with the hand, for concern of being bitten. Perhaps I should research poisonous creatures in the Bible lands... both four- and eight-legged ones.

whether spider is a mistranslation or not is one part of the passage, and the other is whether it's the creature being easily caught or the creature itself doing the catching:


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)
KJV has the spider as the one grasping with the spider's own hands.
overwhelming majority of other translations have instead, the a third party being the one grasping the lizard, with the third party's hands.

which subject/object pair does the grammar of the Hebrew suggest is accurate?
 

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
18,111
783
113
#60
s'mawmeeth strictly translated does mean Lizzard or Gecko; Semawm means poison. Semawmeeth literally means poisoner (feminine); so with very little latitude spider may well fit.
thank you Marc.

you're saying, that it is certain that the word should be a type of lizard, but the literal meaning from the etymology fits any type of creature that poisons, so without the knowledge of the strict translation 'spider' would be just as justifiable as 'wasp' or 'snake' or 'scorpion' or 'shrew' or . . even a platypus or basilisk? that essentially KJV is incorrect here, but it is understandable what they put, or is it really not that clear?
i see how context makes a spider a logical assumption if there wasn't a reliable way to know what the word's actual usage was ((platypus wouldn't make any sense here at all and no king would allow a basilisk in the palace for long!)). perhaps not as much, if one takes into account the unified theme of the quartet of verses, as i was saying.

the largest lizards in the middle east and Egypt are monitors - which happen to be venomous. as are many geckos, which is one of the most widespread and diverse type of lizards in the area today. i've read that this word in modern Hebrew is the name of what we call a 'Mediterranean Gecko' - which isn't poisonous, but which is known to pervasively invade homes and in fact to hunt and eat whatever spiders might be there! is it plausible that the literal meaning is etymologically evolved from a word used in more general terms for lizards, with the largest of these, possibly by virtue of their size and aggression having an influence on the language that of an archetype, being venomous old-world populations of what we know now as Nile & Desert Monitors?