Why the king james?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
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.
So we have here a case matter of understanding the KJV instead of finding fault or error. The newer Version have the readings “and the fourth looks like a son of the gods”, while the KJV readings is ‘And the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
It seems to appear that KJV is in error and dilutes the “fact that Nebuchanezzar is suddenly realizing that there is only one true God.”
The fact is, the king is making a clear statement for the pre-existence of Christ being the Son of God. But how a heathen, knows about the Son of God? This is simply resolved that the king enquired all about matters of wisdom and understanding such as recorded in Daniel 1:20. Daniel also in all probability discussed Isaiah 40:3 with the king about “walking through the fire and shall not be burned”. The ‘son of gods” is incorrect since the Hebrew word refer s to it as deity or Deity or god or God and even in the meanest consideration of small god that the modern translation above is still incorrect since it places “gods” instead of god. Still, the KJV is correct in this matter.
Daniel 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
Daniel 1:21And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
It seems to appear that KJV is in error and dilutes the “fact that Nebuchanezzar is suddenly realizing that there is only one true God.”
The fact is, the king is making a clear statement for the pre-existence of Christ being the Son of God. But how a heathen, knows about the Son of God? This is simply resolved that the king enquired all about matters of wisdom and understanding such as recorded in Daniel 1:20. Daniel also in all probability discussed Isaiah 40:3 with the king about “walking through the fire and shall not be burned”. The ‘son of gods” is incorrect since the Hebrew word refer s to it as deity or Deity or god or God and even in the meanest consideration of small god that the modern translation above is still incorrect since it places “gods” instead of god. Still, the KJV is correct in this matter.
Daniel 1:20 And in all matters of wisdom and understanding, that the king enquired of them, he found them ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers that were in all his realm.
Daniel 1:21And Daniel continued even unto the first year of king Cyrus.
KJV was translated in English. "Colour" is the standard UK spelling and other english speaking world like Canada, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand. "Color" is an Americanized word and since we are talking of an English translation, "Colour" is an accurate word in bible usage. Same through with musick, Saviour etc.
God bless,
God bless,
Are any of the following statements your beliefs:
1. "Only the originals were inspired by God"
2. "The real words of God are found mixed up with thousands of variant readings in the surviving Greek manuscripts"
3. "No Bible is the perfect words of God; they all have errors in them."
4. "All bible versions, no matter how contradictory and different they might be textually, are the infallible words of God."
Can you show me using Scripture where any of these statements is true?
1. "Only the originals were inspired by God"
2. "The real words of God are found mixed up with thousands of variant readings in the surviving Greek manuscripts"
3. "No Bible is the perfect words of God; they all have errors in them."
4. "All bible versions, no matter how contradictory and different they might be textually, are the infallible words of God."
Can you show me using Scripture where any of these statements is true?
When you read the whole account, son of the gods is the most likely of the two the King Nebuchadnezzar would say, after all he was a polytheist and had no idea of a Messiah, infact how many Jews back then would have identified with a Messiah appearing anyway, that was a future event to happen. The 4th figure in the furnace was more than likely an angel, such as the one sent to Daniel when he was thrown in with the lions.
If the 4th person in the fire was known or was important then do you not think that God would inspire the author to give us a proper narration and to tell us without uncertain terms?
if you all want to believe the king said Son of God then that is your right, but I reject that and stick with the more plausible of son of the gods.
At the end of the day,and at the end of this mega long discussion, which is in its 38th page, you have not provided me with any proof that the King James is the perfect word of God that we should all be reading and touch nothing else.
I ask simple questions and all I get are questions thrown back and a lot of skirting issues and derailment. If you had concrete proof that King James is the only English version we should read, you would have given it already and I would accept it, but you have not.
I love the King James Bible, but I also love my NIV bible and will continue to do so until you provide me with irrifutable evidence regarding the King James. It is a good translation, but it is just that a translation and nothing else.
If the 4th person in the fire was known or was important then do you not think that God would inspire the author to give us a proper narration and to tell us without uncertain terms?
if you all want to believe the king said Son of God then that is your right, but I reject that and stick with the more plausible of son of the gods.
At the end of the day,and at the end of this mega long discussion, which is in its 38th page, you have not provided me with any proof that the King James is the perfect word of God that we should all be reading and touch nothing else.
I ask simple questions and all I get are questions thrown back and a lot of skirting issues and derailment. If you had concrete proof that King James is the only English version we should read, you would have given it already and I would accept it, but you have not.
I love the King James Bible, but I also love my NIV bible and will continue to do so until you provide me with irrifutable evidence regarding the King James. It is a good translation, but it is just that a translation and nothing else.
You cannot love the KJV and at the same time the NIV. They are opposed to each other. They differ in thousands of words and even truths.
God said do not add to or take away from my words, if you don't believe you have a perfect Bible, then you are violating the words of God. You should never call anything you're reading a Holy Bible, Scripture, or the word of God. Just call it a perverted version, but hey, it's all we got, take it or leave it.
Innocent until proven guilty. Thousands have tried, zero have succeeded.
God said do not add to or take away from my words, if you don't believe you have a perfect Bible, then you are violating the words of God. You should never call anything you're reading a Holy Bible, Scripture, or the word of God. Just call it a perverted version, but hey, it's all we got, take it or leave it.
Innocent until proven guilty. Thousands have tried, zero have succeeded.
P
Matthew 6:13a
King James Bible
And lead us not into temptation,
James 1:13 -14
King James Bible
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed.
as if gods going to lead anyone into temptation, bad translation, should be let us not enter in to temptation
M
Just as a side theme to this. I remember as a young person that we
had some missionaries visit from, I think it was whitcliffe bible
translators.
They stayed with the church a few weeks and it was such an interesting
visit for all concerned.
The concept was to live with a tribe/people group who had very little of
any written language skills, then to learn their language,
put the language down in writing, teach the people how to read and write and
translate the bible into their language.
It was a long term calling with missionaries spending a great number of years
with these people groups. Like 20-30 years maybe longer.
The missionaries were telling us about the particular people group they
worked with and they brought various foods, articles of clothing, utensils
to show us. I remember tasting this black herb which would have been the
equivalent to having a cup of tea. It was vile!
Sorry i'm digressing. One thing I remember was the missionaries explained
that the tribe they were working with did not have any concept of what sheep were,
so verses like "the lamb of God" would have been meaningless to the tribe they
were working with.
But the most prized animal the tribe had was something that resembled a large
chicken (they were a jungle tribe). So the missionaries were
translating various verses of the bible to incorporate an animal the tribe was
familiar with, rather than lamb, sheep etc.
I dont know how that eventually worked out, but it gives a whole new dimension
to bible translation doesn't it.
If you saw a version of the bible which said behold the chicken which takes away the
sin of the world, you would think it was blasphemies, but to that particular tribe
it was far more meaningful at that moment in time. They had never even seen a sheep.
As language develops and changes there is nothing wrong with translating
into current language. What is the point of holding onto an archaic translation
if people find it hard to understand, surely the word of God needs to be in a
format which available to as many as possible of the current generation.
Incidentally I was brought up with the King James and still read it but I
use various other translation also. I know many though who find the King
James hard to understand, I also know some who think Christianity is
outdated because of the outdated language used in the King James.
By sticking to the King James only, we could potentially be putting off
whole generations from coming to salvation. What is more important
holding up a sacred cow, or making the gospel accessible to all.
had some missionaries visit from, I think it was whitcliffe bible
translators.
They stayed with the church a few weeks and it was such an interesting
visit for all concerned.
The concept was to live with a tribe/people group who had very little of
any written language skills, then to learn their language,
put the language down in writing, teach the people how to read and write and
translate the bible into their language.
It was a long term calling with missionaries spending a great number of years
with these people groups. Like 20-30 years maybe longer.
The missionaries were telling us about the particular people group they
worked with and they brought various foods, articles of clothing, utensils
to show us. I remember tasting this black herb which would have been the
equivalent to having a cup of tea. It was vile!
Sorry i'm digressing. One thing I remember was the missionaries explained
that the tribe they were working with did not have any concept of what sheep were,
so verses like "the lamb of God" would have been meaningless to the tribe they
were working with.
But the most prized animal the tribe had was something that resembled a large
chicken (they were a jungle tribe). So the missionaries were
translating various verses of the bible to incorporate an animal the tribe was
familiar with, rather than lamb, sheep etc.
I dont know how that eventually worked out, but it gives a whole new dimension
to bible translation doesn't it.
If you saw a version of the bible which said behold the chicken which takes away the
sin of the world, you would think it was blasphemies, but to that particular tribe
it was far more meaningful at that moment in time. They had never even seen a sheep.
As language develops and changes there is nothing wrong with translating
into current language. What is the point of holding onto an archaic translation
if people find it hard to understand, surely the word of God needs to be in a
format which available to as many as possible of the current generation.
Incidentally I was brought up with the King James and still read it but I
use various other translation also. I know many though who find the King
James hard to understand, I also know some who think Christianity is
outdated because of the outdated language used in the King James.
By sticking to the King James only, we could potentially be putting off
whole generations from coming to salvation. What is more important
holding up a sacred cow, or making the gospel accessible to all.
Rev. 3:10:
"Because thou hast kept the Word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." KJV
1 Cor. 10:13:
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." KJV
Col. 1:17:
And He is before all things and by Him all things consist. KJV
Gal. 2:20:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." KJV
Col. 3:11:
"....Christ is all, and in all." KJV
Ephesians 4:6:
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. KJV
Doesn't loving us mean God wants our lives to be easy and comfortable? Well, no it doesn't. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves those who are His Children, and He "Works all things together for good" for us (Romans 8:28 ). So that must mean that the trials and tribulations He allows in our lives are part of the working together of all things for good. Therefore, for the believer, all trials and tribulations must have a divine purpose.
Trials develop godly character, and that enables us to "rejoice in our sufferings," because we know that suffering produces perseverance, character, and character, hope. And hope doesn't disappoint us. So regardless of God not authoring temptation, He is above all things and can use all things for His purpose of investing in us, and showing His glory. For He will, in Himself, never allow us to fall to temptation. If God, therefore, is above all rule and is love, anything He brings us to and thru is love, for He never will leave us or forsake us in the promise of victory. But the text you referenced to be in error is simply from mans prayer. If God rules all things I would from a man's perspective pray lead me not into the thing that would grind me, common sense right? regardless of it's potential positive outcome. Jesus Himself exampled this when He asked the Father on the hill to pass this cup prior to His crucifixion, but concluded not His will but His Father's will was His will ultimately. Thus, the Scripture that if you have seen Me you have seen my Father remains consistent.
But God is the one who determines How He will work thru His Saints, as weak vessels we cannot build up our Character, and show His glory. But God can thru our human weaker vessel in an area of trial to event statement of His Sovereignty, or improve our position from good to best drawing us to His narrow purity within our disposition.
To say the right way the Scripture should read is, "Let us not enter into temptation," is to me incorrect, and is view of human reasoning..... For it takes the deity of Christ out of the equation as ruler of our own disposition. God is not about our business, He is our business. "Apart from Christ I am nothing, but in Christ all things are possible."
Are we to turn our fight within our own ranks in this tit for tat of evaluating the KJV? Is God's overseeing event of His Word, when He says "All Scripture is God-breathed," to mean the event of such a promise must first enter our chat room debates? The KJV is neither more special than Jesus Himself, nor inaccurate in it's display Him, and by the promises of His Word; accurately so. By this I lay my faith, along with other translations, I preference. And the Spirit of God lay testimony to my heart in this my conclusion.
"Because thou hast kept the Word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth." KJV
1 Cor. 10:13:
"There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." KJV
Col. 1:17:
And He is before all things and by Him all things consist. KJV
Gal. 2:20:
"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me. And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me." KJV
Col. 3:11:
"....Christ is all, and in all." KJV
Ephesians 4:6:
One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. KJV
Doesn't loving us mean God wants our lives to be easy and comfortable? Well, no it doesn't. The Bible clearly teaches that God loves those who are His Children, and He "Works all things together for good" for us (Romans 8:28 ). So that must mean that the trials and tribulations He allows in our lives are part of the working together of all things for good. Therefore, for the believer, all trials and tribulations must have a divine purpose.
Trials develop godly character, and that enables us to "rejoice in our sufferings," because we know that suffering produces perseverance, character, and character, hope. And hope doesn't disappoint us. So regardless of God not authoring temptation, He is above all things and can use all things for His purpose of investing in us, and showing His glory. For He will, in Himself, never allow us to fall to temptation. If God, therefore, is above all rule and is love, anything He brings us to and thru is love, for He never will leave us or forsake us in the promise of victory. But the text you referenced to be in error is simply from mans prayer. If God rules all things I would from a man's perspective pray lead me not into the thing that would grind me, common sense right? regardless of it's potential positive outcome. Jesus Himself exampled this when He asked the Father on the hill to pass this cup prior to His crucifixion, but concluded not His will but His Father's will was His will ultimately. Thus, the Scripture that if you have seen Me you have seen my Father remains consistent.
But God is the one who determines How He will work thru His Saints, as weak vessels we cannot build up our Character, and show His glory. But God can thru our human weaker vessel in an area of trial to event statement of His Sovereignty, or improve our position from good to best drawing us to His narrow purity within our disposition.
To say the right way the Scripture should read is, "Let us not enter into temptation," is to me incorrect, and is view of human reasoning..... For it takes the deity of Christ out of the equation as ruler of our own disposition. God is not about our business, He is our business. "Apart from Christ I am nothing, but in Christ all things are possible."
Are we to turn our fight within our own ranks in this tit for tat of evaluating the KJV? Is God's overseeing event of His Word, when He says "All Scripture is God-breathed," to mean the event of such a promise must first enter our chat room debates? The KJV is neither more special than Jesus Himself, nor inaccurate in it's display Him, and by the promises of His Word; accurately so. By this I lay my faith, along with other translations, I preference. And the Spirit of God lay testimony to my heart in this my conclusion.
Last edited:
I don't think the KJV is the only inspired word of God, what good is a KJV to a spanish speaker or Russian. I'm pretty sure, although I can't prove it, that God translated his word into all languages. The KJV is the only inspired English version that I've ever seen. It's easy to tell if it's inspired or not...the inspired verson will not have mistakes and contradictions in it.
M
It does not help though, if people cannot understand it or are put off
discoving God by archaic language. See my last paragraph.
I realise that you personally prefer the King James and that is fine,
but to push the King James onto people who find it hard to understand,
or to insist it is the only version to read, may hinder and may be a
stumbling block to others seeking God.
That's all im saying.
discoving God by archaic language. See my last paragraph.
I realise that you personally prefer the King James and that is fine,
but to push the King James onto people who find it hard to understand,
or to insist it is the only version to read, may hinder and may be a
stumbling block to others seeking God.
That's all im saying.
Miri my reading the KJV has nothing to do with preference, I read the KJV because it is the inerrant word of God and the others are not.
What do you want, something that you call "easy to read" lies or hard to read (which is not true) truth. Let me ask you this hypothetical... if you met and fell in love with a man whose language you didn't understand, would you take the time to learn his language?
What do you want, something that you call "easy to read" lies or hard to read (which is not true) truth. Let me ask you this hypothetical... if you met and fell in love with a man whose language you didn't understand, would you take the time to learn his language?
