KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[Joseppi]

What do you think this verse means?

"Jesus said, "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains."
J 9:41

John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

If a man says he can see then he admits he isn’t blind and his sin remains because he has seen and yet chosen unbelief.

Which is why evil prefers darkness.
Evil prefers that pure and true light doesn’t exist in the form of a published holy book of scripture.

In a preceding verse Jesus reveals that God sent him to blind some men and give sight to others.

John 9:39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.

Does Jesus literally blind some? Yes.
Jesus said that God ordained the blind man in chapter nine to be blind from birth till Jesus came and healed him?

The eyes of the Pharisees were blinded at the end of that chapter. They said, We see. They were victims of the worst darkness of all.

 

[Joseppi]

Psalm 12:
[SUP]6 [/SUP]The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


It says "thou shalt preserve them fromthis generation for ever." It says nothing at all about "every language".

It seems your understanding on this matter is "corrupt" as you are so fond of saying.

It can be read two ways and both are correct.

1 Preserve the pure words of the Lord from the corrupt speech of the ungodly for ever. That is incorruptible words.

2 Preserve the words of the Lord from the generation of those words on ward for ever.

The psalm reveals the manner King James authorized the translation to be done in.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

It can be read two ways and both are correct.

1 Preserve the pure words of the Lord from the corrupt speech of the ungodly for ever. That is incorruptible words.

2 Preserve the words of the Lord from the generation of those words on ward for ever.

The psalm reveals the manner King James authorized the translation to be done in.

The Psalm is not about King James. You are deceived. Who taught you this wickedness?

 

[graceNpeace]

It can be read two ways and both are correct.

1 Preserve the pure words of the Lord from the corrupt speech of the ungodly for ever. That is incorruptible words.

2 Preserve the words of the Lord from the generation of those words on ward for ever.

The psalm reveals the manner King James authorized the translation to be done in.

Unbelievable rubbish...

 

[Joseppi]

The Psalm is not about King James. You are deceived. Who taught you this wickedness?

It is about the publishing of God’s written word on earth, not King James.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

It is about the publishing of God’s written word on earth, not King James.

Well good. Then I apologise. If your statement is as straightforward as it appears then you will agree that the NIV is God's written word on earth.

 

[John146]

Well good. Then I apologise. If your statement is as straightforward as it appears then you will agree that the NIV is God's written word on earth.

The NIV and the KJV do not agree with one another, thus, both cannot be the written, preserved word of God.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Well I've been using them both for years no problem. They both exalt The God of Israel and glorify Jesus as his son. Bible tribalism is the work of the enemy.

 

[trofimus]

The NIV and the KJV do not agree with one another, thus, both cannot be the written, preserved word of God.

Or neither one.

Or you have a wrong definition of "word of God".

Or both are.

Or NIV is.

 

[Joseppi]

The Psalm is not about King James. You are deceived. Who taught you this wickedness?

It isn’t wickednesses to know the Holy Bible is both authorized as well as Holy.
That God used King James is fine, but the real discussion is about the Holy Bible not off topic side issues.

 

[Dino246]

It can be read two ways and both are correct.

1 Preserve the pure words of the Lord from the corrupt speech of the ungodly for ever. That is incorruptible words.

2 Preserve the words of the Lord from the generation of those words on ward for ever.

The psalm reveals the manner King James authorized the translation to be done in.

It is about the publishing of God’s written word on earth, not King James.

Only in a circularly-reasoned, revisionist fantasy. Your interpretation of these verses is creative, but not in any good way. I can only credit you for being adept at eisegesis.

 

[Dino246]

The NIV and the KJV do not agree with one another, thus, both cannot be the written, preserved word of God.

This has been refuted repeatedly.

 

[KJV1611]

If you cant figure out the right hand he is talking about, then, how can you say that what I am saying is wrong. You rather not have any answer unless you can come up with one yourself.What did Jesus tell the Scribes and Pharesees? If you don't believe in me, at least believe the works I do. Ask God, he will give the answer, I asked, and that was my answer.

We don't have to figure out WHO the right hand is, the bible plainly tells us "Jesus BEING the RIGHT HAND of God...".

Acts 2:32-33 King James Version (KJV)

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

 

[Dino246]

It isn’t wickednesses to know the Holy Bible is both authorized as well as Holy.
That God used King James is fine, but the real discussion is about the Holy Bible not off topic side issues.

The "authorization" was limited to being read in Anglican churches. That's it, that's all. It's interesting to note how you try to control the discussion though.

 

[Joseppi]

Well good. Then I apologise. If your statement is as straightforward as it appears then you will agree that the NIV is God's written word on earth.

You seem rather confused.
The niv is corrupt.

 

[Dino246]

We don't have to figure out WHO the right hand is, the bible plainly tells us "Jesus BEING the RIGHT HAND of God...".

Acts 2:32-33 King James Version (KJV)

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
33 Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear.

Jesus is "the" right hand, but in that sermon, Jesus didn't say to cut off "the" right hand, but "your" right hand. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

 

[trofimus]

You seem rather confused.
The niv is corrupt.

Do not be such a hater.

 

[Joseppi]

Or neither one.
Or you have a wrong definition of "word of God".
Or both are.
Or NIV is.

The niv is corrupt. It’s not news.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

It isn’t wickednesses to know the Holy Bible is both authorized as well as Holy.
That God used King James is fine, but the real discussion is about the Holy Bible not off topic side issues.

What off topic side issue?

 

[trofimus]

The niv is corrupt. It’s not news.

I do not think so. I think its a better translation than the KJV.