-
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.
We've gone down this road before mate, and it's all well and good to say that there is extra revelation in the KJV not in the originals.
But I am under no compulsion to believe you, because:
1. By definition, your position is based on a prior belief that the KJV has this extra revelation. It is by definition impossible to 'prove' this without having already adopted this belief. It is, in other words, beyond discussion of reason or proof.
2. By your position, I also have to conclude that the majority of the history not only of the church, but of creation, has been without a complete revelation of God's word, even after all the events described in the Scriptures, barring Christ's return and the new creation, had been completed.
But I am under no compulsion to believe you, because:
1. By definition, your position is based on a prior belief that the KJV has this extra revelation. It is by definition impossible to 'prove' this without having already adopted this belief. It is, in other words, beyond discussion of reason or proof.
2. By your position, I also have to conclude that the majority of the history not only of the church, but of creation, has been without a complete revelation of God's word, even after all the events described in the Scriptures, barring Christ's return and the new creation, had been completed.
Joh 8:43 Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word.
The people talking to Jesus understood every word that come out of Jesus' mouth, he wasn't speaking a different language. Why did they not understand his speech? Because they could not hear His Word. His Word was hidden in the words he spoke to them, but they couldn't receive it. Very similar to the people who walked away after Jesus said the following... they could not hear His Word in these words.
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
The people talking to Jesus understood every word that come out of Jesus' mouth, he wasn't speaking a different language. Why did they not understand his speech? Because they could not hear His Word. His Word was hidden in the words he spoke to them, but they couldn't receive it. Very similar to the people who walked away after Jesus said the following... they could not hear His Word in these words.
Joh 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
How much revelation did the believers in the Old Testament have? Everything was a shadow in the Old Testament... yet all the doctrines of the New Testament were there. The New Testament came around and gave GREATER REVELATION than the Old Testament scriptures. But you're right this is a faith issue and it is not debatable.
This whole never ending debate about translations reminds me of the never ending one about denominations. I can't help but sense that somehow the same concepts apply...
One day Jesus is walking down the street and a group of people bring a blind man to Him, asking for healing. Jesus spits on the ground, makes a little mud, puts some in the blind man’s eyes, and tells his friends to take him down to the river and wash. They and the crowd do just that, and when the man washes he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘spit and washing’.
Another day, Jesus comes across another blind man seeking healing. Jesus tells the man to go to the temple and pay his alms. The man and the crowd around him do, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘alms and giving’.
On still another occasion, a blind man is brought to Jesus wanting to be healed. Jesus asks the man if he believes He can do it, the man says yes, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘faith and belief’.
So now we have these three groups going at it, insisting you can only be saved by ‘spit and washing’, or only by ‘alms and giving’, or only by ‘faith and belief’ - each ‘denomination’ insisting it’s exclusive of the others. But in debating about the blind men, they totally lose sight that there are many ways sight may be restored by God, and that they are not exclusive of each other. None of us has the whole picture... but we all have a piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
Like wise no one translation is perfect by itself. Those who focus on one translation only, only see part of what God says.
One day Jesus is walking down the street and a group of people bring a blind man to Him, asking for healing. Jesus spits on the ground, makes a little mud, puts some in the blind man’s eyes, and tells his friends to take him down to the river and wash. They and the crowd do just that, and when the man washes he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘spit and washing’.
Another day, Jesus comes across another blind man seeking healing. Jesus tells the man to go to the temple and pay his alms. The man and the crowd around him do, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘alms and giving’.
On still another occasion, a blind man is brought to Jesus wanting to be healed. Jesus asks the man if he believes He can do it, the man says yes, and he is healed. So off this group goes, preaching ‘faith and belief’.
So now we have these three groups going at it, insisting you can only be saved by ‘spit and washing’, or only by ‘alms and giving’, or only by ‘faith and belief’ - each ‘denomination’ insisting it’s exclusive of the others. But in debating about the blind men, they totally lose sight that there are many ways sight may be restored by God, and that they are not exclusive of each other. None of us has the whole picture... but we all have a piece of the jigsaw puzzle.
Like wise no one translation is perfect by itself. Those who focus on one translation only, only see part of what God says.
Last edited:
Yes, but the OT specifically says, over and over again, that there are things to come that have yet to come to fruition. The Messianic prophecies, for instance, depict Messiah (the complete and exact image of the invisible God), although he had not yet come. That is a very different scenario to saying that the KJV introduced new revelation that was not expected, and is AFTER the incarnation.
And no, it's not a faith issue, at least not in the biblical sense. Saying something is true on the basis of no evidence is not faith. It's an issue of arbitrary and misguided belief
And no, it's not a faith issue, at least not in the biblical sense. Saying something is true on the basis of no evidence is not faith. It's an issue of arbitrary and misguided belief
What is wrong about what I said in reply to KJV1611?
What is 'the Codex' you are referring to. If you are referring to uncial codices, there are several.
As for the LXX, Luther referred to it, but he translated the OT from Hebrew texts, not from the Septuagint, which is the OT in Greek. This is part of the reason why the Apocrypha (which are part of the LXX) were not in Luther's German translation, and why the Reformation included a rejection of the apocrypha as part of its doctrine.
But I don't see what this has to do with anything.
What is 'the Codex' you are referring to. If you are referring to uncial codices, there are several.
As for the LXX, Luther referred to it, but he translated the OT from Hebrew texts, not from the Septuagint, which is the OT in Greek. This is part of the reason why the Apocrypha (which are part of the LXX) were not in Luther's German translation, and why the Reformation included a rejection of the apocrypha as part of its doctrine.
But I don't see what this has to do with anything.
I believe the Word of God does have things that are written in such a way so to hide things from the world. Jesus speaking in parables was one of these ways. The use of Metonmy (figurative language) is another way the Bible also hides things from those who are not true believers. In fact, there are over 200 different types rhetorical devices that have been classified in the Bible. Cross references in Scripture is another way things are hidden from others. In addition, Jesus is all over the Old Testament. There are typifications of Christ. Pre-incarnate appearances. Messianic Prophecies. However, despite the complexity to the depth of God's Word, it is also simple to understand for those who have been born again spiritually and who study to show themselves approved unto God (Comparing Scripture with Scripture) and calling upon the Lord for help (Jeremiah 33:3).
As for symbols: Yes, Revelation has many things mentioned within it that is in code. For example: In Revelation, Eagles or the fowls of the air are believers or saints. This parallel wouldn't make sense if there was not some kind of connection between the two. Isaiah 40:31 helps to shed some light unto this. Along with Ezekiel 39:18 and Matthew 24:28. But again, if you changed the saints into being another animal besides an Eagle, then you destroy the parallel within the collective passages that talks about the Eagles / Saints and thereby destroy the message God wants to convey to us. In other words, even allegory must use real things that we are familar with in order for us to help us to understand that allegory.
As for symbols: Yes, Revelation has many things mentioned within it that is in code. For example: In Revelation, Eagles or the fowls of the air are believers or saints. This parallel wouldn't make sense if there was not some kind of connection between the two. Isaiah 40:31 helps to shed some light unto this. Along with Ezekiel 39:18 and Matthew 24:28. But again, if you changed the saints into being another animal besides an Eagle, then you destroy the parallel within the collective passages that talks about the Eagles / Saints and thereby destroy the message God wants to convey to us. In other words, even allegory must use real things that we are familar with in order for us to help us to understand that allegory.
What Bible did Jesus and Paul and the Apostles likely preach from?
They likely preached from the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the OT from the Hebrew. The reason for the Greek being that was the language the vast majority of people being preached to understood.
Is the Septuagint a "perfect" translation of the Word of God?
One needs merely to take but a few minutes to compare the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint to the Hebrew manuscripts to determine that the Septuagint is not a "perfect" translation.
So any of the Apostles who preached from the Septuagint were using a corrupt Word of God, and so was their faith?
They likely preached from the Septuagint, an ancient Greek translation of the OT from the Hebrew. The reason for the Greek being that was the language the vast majority of people being preached to understood.
Is the Septuagint a "perfect" translation of the Word of God?
One needs merely to take but a few minutes to compare the book of Jeremiah in the Septuagint to the Hebrew manuscripts to determine that the Septuagint is not a "perfect" translation.
So any of the Apostles who preached from the Septuagint were using a corrupt Word of God, and so was their faith?
These KJV ONLY cultists should actually read the Preface to the KJV of 1611, written by the translators.
It is quite apparent that the translators didn't think of themselves as divinely inspired and did not believe that they had created a "perfect" Bible. It is quite apparent that they expected their work to be improved upon in the future.
It is quite apparent that the translators didn't think of themselves as divinely inspired and did not believe that they had created a "perfect" Bible. It is quite apparent that they expected their work to be improved upon in the future.