Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

  • 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.

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
7,112
791
113
Not at all, languages changes and people speak different languages. The truth does not change, but the words used to communicate the truth have to be in the language that the people speak or it is jibberish, making the truth of no use.
If I started typing in creole you would not have any idea what I am talking about. You probably don't even though I use American English.
Then, you have not studied the differences between the KJV and all the modern versions. Truth has been changed and doctrines perverted.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
If God did inspire the KJV, then all other English versions are not the words of God. The only choices are: one or none.
That's a VERY big "if". Since it is an unproven idea, you should not be basing anything on it.

It's also easily falsifiable. The KJV borrowed heavily from earlier English translations of Greek editions. If the text of the KJV is inspired, then the text of the prior edition(s) is inspired. An identical block of text cannot be inspired in one version and uninspired in another. So either these previous editions were also inspired, or none of them are.

Here's another postulate for you: If you learn to apply some simple logical tests to your assertions before posting, you will post fewer ridiculous arguments.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
Then, you have not studied the differences between the KJV and all the modern versions. Truth has been changed and doctrines perverted.
Fallacy! You're assuming that the KJV is the standard of correctness for comparison. It isn't.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
10,850
594
113
To the bolded portion; that is exactly what I mean by "baggage". What readers "know" heavily influences their interpretation... and it can be dead wrong. "Hades" in the NT is not the same as the popular notion of "hell".
And that’s exactly why I say that if God isn’t behind the translation then it’s mans opinion of the word of God and not even close to the word of God.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
I’ve already read all the stuff your talking about and found that ONE man and only one man linked Easter to the fertility goddess.

But I’m sure you like most others here are more interested in casting doubt on the accuracy of KJV than getting to the truth.
Only those who are wedded to the accuracy of the KJV worry about such things or consider such arguments to be "casting doubt on the accuracy of the KJV". The rest of us trust in the accuracy of God's word and recognize the inherent weakness of any translation.
 

Sipsey

Active member
Sep 27, 2018
470
249
43
If God did inspire the KJV, then all other English versions are not the words of God. The only choices are: one or none.
If I remember right, about 80% of NT quotes of the OT came from the Septuagint. So even then there was a choice of Greek or Hebrew, and I’m sure the same arguments that are ongoing here might have been present even during the time of the apostles.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
And that’s exactly why I say that if God isn’t behind the translation then it’s mans opinion of the word of God and not even close to the word of God.
Your view of inspiration is presuppositional and cannot be proven. Like John146 you presume that the KJV is correct, and your presupposition of inspiration makes it impossible for you to examine rationally any serious challenge. You simply reject it outright. The line of reasoning is as valid as that of the flat-earther who claims every piece of contrary evidence is a conspiratorial lie.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
7,112
791
113
That's a VERY big "if". Since it is an unproven idea, you should not be basing anything on it.

It's also easily falsifiable. The KJV borrowed heavily from earlier English translations of Greek editions. If the text of the KJV is inspired, then the text of the prior edition(s) is inspired. An identical block of text cannot be inspired in one version and uninspired in another. So either these previous editions were also inspired, or none of them are.

Here's another postulate for you: If you learn to apply some simple logical tests to your assertions before posting, you will post fewer ridiculous arguments.
I have no problem with what you suggest. The "original" book of Jeremiah was cut up and burned and yet God told Jeremiah to write another copy and add to it words of truth. Was the copy of the original inspired? Yep. There other examples of double inspiration throughout Scripture.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,757
1,825
113
If God did inspire the KJV, then all other English versions are not the words of God. The only choices are: one or none.

Hilarious! In fact you are right about there being only one inspired version!! That was the original autographs in Hebrew and Aramaic for the OT and Greek for the NT. And fortunately the manuscript copies go back to the 2nd century, to say nothing of the fact that the early church fathers in their works, quoted those inspired versions.

That is one thing among many that shows the longer ending of Mark 16:9-20 is considered spurious, and a late second century addition, because none of the church fathers quoted it. Something which an inspired copy would not have! Because it is an addition, and no, the KJV does not correct the Greek!

You constantly make these nonsensical assertatiins, with no evidence to back you up. Show me external or internal evidence that the KJV is inspired! And if you resort to bring refined 7 times in the fire, I will lose it! Because it says, "My word." Not the KJV, which was not written until one and a half millennium after the birth of Christ, to say nothing of centuries that elapsed before the birth of Christ.

No more absurd assertions, not backed by some kind of evidence. If the KJV is inspired, rather than the original autographs, then so are modern versions.

And as for the diffferences between KJV and modern copies, you are right! The KJV is a faulty version, with all kinds of nonsense like unicorns and dragons, numerous additions and translation errors. I speak Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek, I know 100% for sure that the KJV is rife with errors. That alone disqualifies it from being some ridiculous 16th century "from the mouth of God" translation. God doesn't make mistakes! And although I acknowledge the KJV has been used of God, it's time has past. Read it you want, but I prefer modern versions, which are far closer to the original autographs than the corrupted KJV.

Probably you should focus on Jesus Christ, and what ALL Bibles have to say about him, rather than the dubious choice of spending hours defending a corrupt Bible, that is not even in a language spoken today.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
I have no problem with what you suggest. The "original" book of Jeremiah was cut up and burned and yet God told Jeremiah to write another copy and add to it words of truth. Was the copy of the original inspired? Yep. There other examples of double inspiration throughout Scripture.
This has nothing to do with "double inspiration". It has to do with your certainty that the KJV is without error. Having found errors in it myself, I will never accept that view.

Your "Yep" indicates that you think you have this all figured out. I leave you to your delusion.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
10,850
594
113
Only those who are wedded to the accuracy of the KJV worry about such things or consider such arguments to be "casting doubt on the accuracy of the KJV". The rest of us trust in the accuracy of God's word and recognize the inherent weakness of any translation.
”The accuracy of Gods word”.... You contradict your own statements. First you say the rest of us trust in the accuracy of the word of God and then your very next statement states that there is no accurate translation.

So where do you and the rest find this “accurate word of God” that doesn’t exist in any translation?
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
10,757
1,825
113
Then, you have not studied the differences between the KJV and all the modern versions. Truth has been changed and doctrines perverted.
Lacking evidence.

Please post actual manuscript evidence, plus translation differences in modern versions that doctrine has been changed or prevented.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
11,322
5,718
113
”The accuracy of Gods word”.... You contradict your own statements. First you say the rest of us trust in the accuracy of the word of God and then your very next statement states that there is no accurate translation.
I didn't contradict myself at all. You misread what I wrote. I didn't state that there is no accurate translation.
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
10,850
594
113
I didn't contradict myself at all. You misread what I wrote. I didn't state that there is no accurate translation.
Ok my bad, I assumed inherent weaknesses meant inaccuracy. Maybe you could clarify what you meant. What are the inherent weaknesses of all translations?
 
Breadcrumbs? We're talking about God's word. Do we have the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Do we have a bible we can trust every word to be true? Do you have a faithful witness?

A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

I'm beginning to wonder if you are even cognizant as to the WHY a "written record" HAD to be kept in the first place? :unsure:

(hint)
Genesis 6
3 And the Lord said, My Spirit will not always strive with man, for that HE ALSO is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

The Lord didn't say abandon, did He?

Deuteronomy 31
6 Be strong and of a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the Lord thy God, he it is that doth go with thee; He will NOT fail thee, NOR Forsake thee.
8 And the Lord, he it is that doth go before thee; He WILL be WITH thee, He WILL NOT fail thee, NEITHER FORSAKE thee: fear not, neither be dismayed.

Here we see the Spirit OF God!

And here? We'll see just ONE of the things our Heavenly Father "IMPUTED IN/WITH" Christ:

Romans 8
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the "SPIRIT OF ADOPTION", whereby we cry, Abba, Father.


11 But if the SPIRIT of HIM that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also MAKE ALIVE your "NATURAL/CARNAL" bodies BY HIS SPIRIT that dwelleth in you.

9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the SPIRIT OF GOD dwell in you. Now if any man have not the SPIRIT OF CHRIST, he is none of his.

Meaning? If you don't "get" this "crux of the biscut?" It doesn't matter WHICH translation you read!

Having said this, however? I (myself) prefer the KJV. But, like ANY "material/EXTERNAL possession?" It can BECOME an Idol!

Does this turn Christ into little more then "CHOPPED LIVER?" God FORBID! (y)(y)

Does this turn the "Spirit of God", INTO "CHOPPED LIVER? In the "eyes of some men?" YES!
"CHRIST FORBID!!!" (y)(y)
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
16,155
3,087
113
My point is this. The Bible is a an esoteric book with its meaning concealed from the world of unbelievers in symbolic language.

To think that any group of men understand that symbolism from cover to cover is asinine. The only way we can have the word of God today is for God to translate the symbols himself anything else doesn’t come close to the word of God.

I am in absolute agreement. It is the title of the OP kind of gave me a giggle, because I studied language and linguistics and none of can just pick up the Word and translate it from any language. First of all the men, far more sstudied and intelligent than I, admit that much of the Word they have translated but they do not quite understand it. This ispartly due to the fact the some words and their definitions, though present in the original texts do not have a translation because their meanings have fallen by the ways ide.

All this considered, you are quite right, I think and believe, but do not try to tell the intelligent folks out there that God is in control of what is understood and what is not, because they cannot accept that........All love in Jesus Christ, and many more blessings…j
 

KJV1611

Senior Member
Nov 23, 2013
10,850
594
113
Your view of inspiration is presuppositional and cannot be proven. Like John146 you presume that the KJV is correct, and your presupposition of inspiration makes it impossible for you to examine rationally any serious challenge. You simply reject it outright. The line of reasoning is as valid as that of the flat-earther who claims every piece of contrary evidence is a conspiratorial lie.
No it’s not presuppositional, I believe what I believe from reading the Bible. It’s beyond my ability to understand how anyone can read the Bible and conclude that God isn’t capable or wasn’t willing to give his word to everybody in all languages.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
7,112
791
113
Lacking evidence.

Please post actual manuscript evidence, plus translation differences in modern versions that doctrine has been changed or prevented.
First of all, how about the simple and basic doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible? That's the most important doctrine of them all. Can God's word be trusted, every word? It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted. You pick which option you are going to believe.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read? That would go against the most important doctrine of all. The validity of God's word.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ thousand of times, and these are the "trusted" manuscripts of the new age versions.
 

Locutus

Senior Member
Feb 10, 2017
5,928
675
113
I don’t even want to debate it so I’ll just say why God did it and be done with it.

That mention of pashca in Acts is the one and only place in the Bible where Passover is mentioned after it had been fulfilled.
But it's still the Passover 16, the Jews were not celebrating it the way we celebrate "Easter".

Adam Clarke's commentary:

Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text.

But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following.

Full argument

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/acts-12.html