Which Bible?

[Dan_473]

I hear a lot of people say that but I've never seen an example of the original languages bringing more clarity to anythinget. From what I've seen it does the opposite.

I think parts (or all?) of the Bible aren't supposed to be clear.

PROVERBS 1:6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

 

[Dan_473]

Why is it hard to believe that the God who spoke the universe in existence isn't able to get the writers and translators of the bible to write exactly what he wanted to have written down? What leads you to believe that?

I can believe God did that. Did he tell us how to identify the correct one?

 

[Dan_473]

I think its time to take your medecine lol.

yes, it sounds silly, doesn't it?

so, number patterns don't really show God was involved.

 

[hornetguy]

You have said that over and over again. The fact is language is in a constant state of change. I don't understand the conversation of many young people today. Hand them a KJV, and they will probably lay it down after reading a few pages, and never open it again. God knows that. Today he hands them a version that they can read and understand. God is going to ensure that his word is understandable by the target audience.

Don't be surprised to see Him provide CTV (Cellphone Text Version), FFV (Facebook Friendly Version), or maybe SLV (Street Language Version. God wants everyone to understand His word. Rather than find fault with any version, pray that the Gospel of Christ will reach more lost soles through them.

If I'm not mistaken, the street language version already exists.... that makes you a prophet!

 

[hornetguy]

So it's ok to change words because of us? It's ok to change doctrines even because of us? I think the problem is with us, not with the word of God. God's holy word should be different. I'm glad it's different and does not sound like the language of today. It stands alone.

If a CTV, FFV, or SL comes out, I still would not consider them the holy word of God without error. How can one hold up a KJV and say, "This is the word of God" and then hold up an ESV and say "This also is the word of God" and then the Message and claim "This is the word of God as well"? Either one is or none of them are.

Yes, pray that the gospel of Christ would go out to all people.

You left out the option "all of them are".....

You keep harping on the "fact" that "words" are important to God, implying that somehow, over thousands of years, an EXACT rendition of God's word exists. Every other rendition is flawed (compared to your exact rendition, of course) and that God expects us all to use that rendition, or we are ultimately lost.... because, hey... God's EXACT words are what matters, right?

God promised to preserve His words for all time, and He has done so... in many renditions.

 

[KJV1611]

Why is it so hard to believe that God guided those who compiled Bibles other than the KJV? God knew the target audience of the KJV. Doesn't he also know the target audience of today's translations? God's word, whether it is via the KJV or other versions, never returns void.

You are absolutely right, God's word never returns void. And I will say again, I don't believe this is a salvation issue. I read the NIV for years and I know beyond the shadow of a doubt that I was saved then .

It's not a question of would he give us multiple versions for each type of reader, it's a question of did he do it. If he did, we would know it for sure... it would be perfect and I'm talking about doctrine, not words matching originals or spelling errors lol.

 

[KJV1611]

Here's one:

In Psalm 8:5, the word angels is translated as God in other places in the KJV.

Apparently, the KJV translators did not have the guts to say what God says which is man was created a little lower than Himself.

But Psalm 8:5 isn't talking about man, I believe it's talking about Jesus isn't it?

Hebrews 2:6-9 KJV
But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

[7] Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

[8] Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

[9] But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

 

[KJV1611]

Maybe you could give some example of error you would accept?

I showed you missing verses, wrong OT citations, Jehovah name (which is obviously error) etc. But you alway try to say its ok, somehow

So what would be some error you would really accept?

Anything in the KJV that contradicts anything else in the KJV. Here's one example that was presented to me as an error in the KJV... it was of course proven wrong.

2 Kings says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles says Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

Which is right? Both statements are right and all the newer translations that changed the numbers to match are wrong.

2 Kings 8:26 KJV
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 KJV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

 

[KJV1611]

I think parts (or all?) of the Bible aren't supposed to be clear.

PROVERBS 1:6 for understanding proverbs and parables, the sayings and riddles of the wise.

Isn't Proverbs 1:6 actually saying that a wise man will hear and hearing will increase his knowledge to understand the proverb and it's interpretation?

Proverbs 1:5-6 KJV
A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
[6] To understand a proverb, and the interpretation; the words of the wise, and their dark sayings.
[7] The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

 

[KJV1611]

I can believe God did that. Did he tell us how to identify the correct one?

In my mind he did, the correct one will be just like the Word of God... spotless and incorruptible.

 

[KJV1611]

yes, it sounds silly, doesn't it?

so, number patterns don't really show God was involved.

Sure they do, but you weren't showing patterns, you were just yanking my chain... at least I hope you were lol.

 

[Dino246]

So it's ok to change words because of us? It's ok to change doctrines even because of us? I think the problem is with us, not with the word of God. God's holy word should be different. I'm glad it's different and does not sound like the language of today. It stands alone.

If a CTV, FFV, or SL comes out, I still would not consider them the holy word of God without error. How can one hold up a KJV and say, "This is the word of God" and then hold up an ESV and say "This also is the word of God" and then the Message and claim "This is the word of God as well"? Either one is or none of them are.

Yes, pray that the gospel of Christ would go out to all people.

John, perhaps you should accept that others don't see this issue the same way you do, and leave it at that. Your logic here is faulty in that you use a false dichotomy (again!). You equate the change of language with the change of doctrine, which it isn't. I agree with your last sentence, but that's it.

God's holy word is different; it's God-breathed and is true at a level unattainable by any man-made book. That truth is present in any valid translation, and there are many, even in English. Just because you don't believe that doesn't make it false, and just because you might claim to "know" that the KJV is "perfect" doesn't make it the truth.

 

[Dino246]

Anything in the KJV that contradicts anything else in the KJV. Here's one example that was presented to me as an error in the KJV... it was of course proven wrong.

2 Kings says that Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began to reign.
2 Chronicles says Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

Which is right? Both statements are right and all the newer translations that changed the numbers to match are wrong.

2 Kings 8:26 KJV
Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 KJV
Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Please explain... how is this not an error?

 

[KJV1611]

John, perhaps you should accept that others don't see this issue the same way you do, and leave it at that. Your logic here is faulty in that you use a false dichotomy (again!). You equate the change of language with the change of doctrine, which it isn't. I agree with your last sentence, but that's it.

God's holy word is different; it's God-breathed and is true at a level unattainable by any man-made book. That truth is present in any valid translation, and there are many, even in English. Just because you don't believe that doesn't make it false, and just because you might claim to "know" that the KJV is "perfect" doesn't make it the truth.

I don't agree with all the comments you made, but that was a classy rebuttal. Thanks for your civility.

 

[KJV1611]

Please explain... how is this not an error?

There are three different guys named Ahaziah in that story... which I don't think people who present that as a KJV error even know about. It's there and fairly easy to see if you read it carefully.

 

[Dino246]

There are three different guys named Ahaziah in that story... which I don't think people who present that as a KJV error even know about. It's there and fairly easy to see if you read it carefully.

I'll have to look into that, thanks.

 

[KJV1611]

I'll have to look into that, thanks.

Here are the 3 guys.

1) Ahaziah son of Ahab
1 Kings 22:40 KJV So Ahab slept with his fathers; and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

2) Ahaziah son of Joram
2 Kings 8:24 KJV
And Joram slept with his fathers, and was buried with his fathers in the city of David: and Ahaziah his son reigned in his stead.

3) Ahaziah son of Jehoram
2 Kings 8:25 KJV
In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

Also I would add that Joram and Jehoram aren't the same people as some would argue to make the newer versions right.

 

[fredoheaven]

It's with the understanding that the Bible provides it's own commentary... whatever subject that we are studying, we need to also look at what the rest of God's Word says about that subject.

Yes, going in to the Greek and Hebrew is very helpful. I like the KJV alot, but it does have it's errors as some passages are calvinistic which is not that big of a problem for me since other passages are not.

One thing is for sure in the last few decades... satan is now publishing his own translations geared towards muddying the waters to confuse people.

There are lots of folks that have posted comparisons between the different versions out on the net if one is interested in searching for that. On the other hand, many are departing the faith for doctrines of devils and they'll believe anything that makes them feel good.

KJV did not always depend on the original language of Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic. It is also base from the “original language of Latin, Italic, Gothic and Biblical English.

It has been said that 80-90 percent of the translation came from the English Language for the process of purification. KJ Translators did sometimes translated any Hebrew or Greek text into Latin then English for precession and accuracy. Some of the words used in the KJ Bible were transliterated Latin words. Even the word “spirit” is not the best translation of the Hebrew or Greek language.

Here are other words that need a lot of chewing on since they are not translated words of Hebrew or Greek language. They are transliterated Latin words:

Adoption, altar,assurance, beauty,Calvary, cross, crucify, damnation, divine, excel, excellent, exhort, FAITH, GRACE, honour, immortality, just, justice, JUSTIFICATION, JUSTIFY, liberty, MERCY.MIRACLE, mortify, OBEDIENCE, OBEY, offer, pardon, PRAYER, PREACHER, predestinate, PROPIATIATION, purification, reconcile, reconciliation, REDEMPTION, remission, RESSURECTION, REVEALATION, reverend, revive, sacrifice, SALVATION, SANCTIFICATION, sanctify, SAVE, SAVIOUR, separate, servant, simple, supplication, surely, tempt, temptation, TESTAMENT.

 

[fredoheaven]

Maybe you could give some example of error you would accept?

I showed you missing verses, wrong OT citations, Jehovah name (which is obviously error) etc. But you alway try to say its ok, somehow

So what would be some error you would really accept?

Could you tell us that Jehovah (personal name in the OT. is obviously wrong?

Please expound.

Thank you...

 

[fredoheaven]

So it's ok to change words because of us? It's ok to change doctrines even because of us? I think the problem is with us, not with the word of God. God's holy word should be different. I'm glad it's different and does not sound like the language of today. It stands alone.

If a CTV, FFV, or SL comes out, I still would not consider them the holy word of God without error. How can one hold up a KJV and say, "This is the word of God" and then hold up an ESV and say "This also is the word of God" and then the Message and claim "This is the word of God as well"? Either one is or none of them are.

Yes, pray that the gospel of Christ would go out to all people.

It must be Holy. Separate...

God bless