Same place it has always been, being preserved by God. Why did the Lord Jesus Christ wait so long to become flesh and die on the cross for sins? God's perfect timing. If all translations are the word of God then none are. They all contain different truths. They can't be all God's truth. One stands out, the King James Version.
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.
C
The scripture has been complete since Paul penned his epistles. These were letters written to the saints and distributed. The Jews had the other scriptures down through time, read, studied in the temple. The scripture has always been approved by prophets & saints lead by the Spirit of God, this is the doctrine of preservation. We all know, not all of the letters Paul wrote were declared scripture. How does God save, preaching. How does God instruct the saints, scripture.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;[SUP]16 [/SUP]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation
2 Peter 3:15-16
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;[SUP]16 [/SUP]As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
back to an earlier point:
so what if my native tongue is Polish, and i don't know English? obviously, then the KJV is of no benefit to me. it is not this single, revised English version that is irreplaceably necessary; it is the truth of God, and the understanding of it, that we cannot do without - and Christ, He is that truth, and understanding is the gift of God through His Spirit. in no way am i denigrating the scripture itself, but we should remember not to elevate it above the One about whom it is written, and not forget that this Living One is with us, and is the very purpose of the record & testimony having been preserved and transcribed for us, and that He Himself is sufficient, though the text alone is not.
so, what i think is a stronger point:
if we would that a Polish man read and understand the testimony - do we go to the KJV to make a translation into Polish, or do we go to the surviving Greek & Hebrew texts? what does that choice tell us?
so what if my native tongue is Polish, and i don't know English? obviously, then the KJV is of no benefit to me. it is not this single, revised English version that is irreplaceably necessary; it is the truth of God, and the understanding of it, that we cannot do without - and Christ, He is that truth, and understanding is the gift of God through His Spirit. in no way am i denigrating the scripture itself, but we should remember not to elevate it above the One about whom it is written, and not forget that this Living One is with us, and is the very purpose of the record & testimony having been preserved and transcribed for us, and that He Himself is sufficient, though the text alone is not.
so, what i think is a stronger point:
if we would that a Polish man read and understand the testimony - do we go to the KJV to make a translation into Polish, or do we go to the surviving Greek & Hebrew texts? what does that choice tell us?
i like Proverbs 30:28 in the KJV very much --
but in almost every other English translation, it is rendered more or less like this (HCSB):
a lizard can be caught in your hands, yet it lives in kings' palaces.
if i had my druthers, i'd pick the spider, because i happen to like spiders more than lizards, mostly. and either way it's rendered makes sense and teaches wisdom -- but what is right? or are both? my druthers don't matter a whit. honestly, the idea of being caught by hand probably makes more sense contextually than the animal itself catching with its hands. i'd love to have it shown to me that the KJV is correct here though (because i love spiders) -- i've looked into it before and came away with the sense that lizard is right however. if anyone can show - with better evidence than 'the KJV says spiders therefore spider is correct' -- please, really, i want to see!
this illustrates - as far as i have researched, and i'm no scholar - a common revision to the KJV, that many old words for plants and animals, especially in Hebrew and Aramaic, have more or less unknown or uncertain definitions, because of the antiquity of the language, and more modern translations make use of better scholarship and other sources, which were unknown in the 1600's, that help us to understand what these words probably refer to. so what the KJV calls a "unicorn" in Job for example, may be better described as an auroch or an eland. this isn't a 'corruption' of the text, but it does serve to show where the KJV could stand to use some correction.
in a KJV thread we had several months back now, Tintin wisely pointed out that it would be enlightening for KJV-only-ists to have a look at the actual preface to the 1611 version, written by the translators themselves. in it you will find that they themselves both expected and encouraged better translations to be made as better tools and understanding come to light over the years; the translators of the KJV simply do not share the same opinion that hard-line KJV-only proponents of our day express. i do think it's very interesting to read, if anyone has some time - it's a bit long. here's a link:
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
but in almost every other English translation, it is rendered more or less like this (HCSB):
a lizard can be caught in your hands, yet it lives in kings' palaces.
if i had my druthers, i'd pick the spider, because i happen to like spiders more than lizards, mostly. and either way it's rendered makes sense and teaches wisdom -- but what is right? or are both? my druthers don't matter a whit. honestly, the idea of being caught by hand probably makes more sense contextually than the animal itself catching with its hands. i'd love to have it shown to me that the KJV is correct here though (because i love spiders) -- i've looked into it before and came away with the sense that lizard is right however. if anyone can show - with better evidence than 'the KJV says spiders therefore spider is correct' -- please, really, i want to see!
this illustrates - as far as i have researched, and i'm no scholar - a common revision to the KJV, that many old words for plants and animals, especially in Hebrew and Aramaic, have more or less unknown or uncertain definitions, because of the antiquity of the language, and more modern translations make use of better scholarship and other sources, which were unknown in the 1600's, that help us to understand what these words probably refer to. so what the KJV calls a "unicorn" in Job for example, may be better described as an auroch or an eland. this isn't a 'corruption' of the text, but it does serve to show where the KJV could stand to use some correction.
in a KJV thread we had several months back now, Tintin wisely pointed out that it would be enlightening for KJV-only-ists to have a look at the actual preface to the 1611 version, written by the translators themselves. in it you will find that they themselves both expected and encouraged better translations to be made as better tools and understanding come to light over the years; the translators of the KJV simply do not share the same opinion that hard-line KJV-only proponents of our day express. i do think it's very interesting to read, if anyone has some time - it's a bit long. here's a link:
http://www.kjvbibles.com/kjpreface.htm
Last edited:
Occurring once in the OT, semāmîth refers to a type of lizard, probably a "gecko." Asemāmîth is listed as one of the things on earth that is small, yet extremely wise. Proverbs 30:28 says, "A lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings' palaces" (NIV).
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary - The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary – Sin-Taw.
Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary - The Complete Biblical Library Hebrew-English Dictionary – Sin-Taw.
C
To honor the scripture is to the honor of God.
"[SUP]2 [/SUP]I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
Theology causes Christians to honor doctrines, creeds, traditions, experiences etc., above the truth, above God and above His word. In my previous post, I was not talking about the kjv when it comes to soul salvation, a tangible bible in the hand of a "Polish" person is not necessary to share the truth, the gospel, or the testimony of God. People in this country, who speak English are illiterate and they can be saved without ever cracking open a bible, ever.
What I was talking about in my previous post, is the instruction part of the salvation equation, renewing of the mind, "salvation of the mind." Walking in newness of life, this is what so many are missing in religious theology, how the word is meant to "effectually work"
This question is strange. It's like the atheist who says, what if there is someone on a deserted island who has never heard of God, will they go to hell?! Don't polish people have bibles? How many versions? I would bet not nearly as many as there are in English. And, I'm sure they have to have a bible, with 66 books, translated from the same texts as the KJV.
So, again, the originals don't contain the truth, nor do the manuscripts, nor any compiled Bible other than the KJV (even prior to 1611), nor any Bible in any other language? Number patterns that match chapter and verse numbers, which themselves weren't even in the autographs? Friend, you are believing some silly things.
Messages in the structure of the KJV text? I've heard of coded messages in the original languages, though I don't know them well enough to verify, but you are asserting messages in the English text, which will be easy to verify, or refute. Assertions are pointless without evidence, so show the evidence to support your statements, or don't bother making them.
Calling people "spritually (sic) blind" is an ad-hominem attack, which is not valid in discussion or debate. You don't win by calling your opponent blind, stupid, unsaved, or anything of the sort. Such tactics only make you look bad and weaken your argument.
What is "that obvious" to me is that you are taking whatever you can find that is pro-KJV-only, and parroting it without subjecting it to critical thought. Kindly do your homework. That means reading things which challenge your views. I'd suggest you start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy.
Messages in the structure of the KJV text? I've heard of coded messages in the original languages, though I don't know them well enough to verify, but you are asserting messages in the English text, which will be easy to verify, or refute. Assertions are pointless without evidence, so show the evidence to support your statements, or don't bother making them.
Calling people "spritually (sic) blind" is an ad-hominem attack, which is not valid in discussion or debate. You don't win by calling your opponent blind, stupid, unsaved, or anything of the sort. Such tactics only make you look bad and weaken your argument.
What is "that obvious" to me is that you are taking whatever you can find that is pro-KJV-only, and parroting it without subjecting it to critical thought. Kindly do your homework. That means reading things which challenge your views. I'd suggest you start with James White's book, The King James Only Controversy.
and Christ is the word of God, which is magnified above all names.
my point was that the KJV is not magnified above Christ, nor is any text. the psalm isn't saying that any text is given a name higher than any other - it is Jesus Christ, the Living Word, who is exalted, and given a name above all other names (re: John 1, and Philippians 2:9). without Him, the text is not capable of saving, and without the Spirit of God, the text and message of it is not capable of being apprehended.
the point here, is that when it comes to making the written testimony accessible and understandable to all people, it isn't the KJV that we look to as the authoritative source from which to make a translation; it's the collected Greek & Hebrew manuscripts that have been preserved for us. so if there is any text in particular that we should primarily view as the preserved testimony of God's communication to mankind, it's not even a text written in English.
hey - i carried a leatherbound AKJV scoffield to a homegroup bible study tonight. it's not as though i am against the KJV or think that scripture is not given by God for our edification. it's that the scripture itself was not originally given in English and that any translation among human languages is necessarily not without imperfection, and that the primary thing by which we learn of God, and are taught of God, and through which we have peace, access and communication with God is not the written text - it's the Holy Spirit, the annointing gift of God freely given to us all when we hear and believe. i believe this is something not to lose sight of, and the conduit through which any discussion such as this should become praise, instead of arguments about words and praise of what is ultimately a thing that passes away.
will we speak English in heaven? Elizabethtan English?
His words will never pass away - but human language is a tool for the expression of ideas and concepts; a thing that the Lord divided at the tower of Babel. it is the Logos that is eternal, not the printed page.
the way i am looking at this thread, is not to denigrate scripture, or to pooh-pooh the KJV, but i look at the topic and think - how can we praise God in this, and not a translation? how can we talk about this with our minds on the things of God, and not on earthly things?
my point was that the KJV is not magnified above Christ, nor is any text. the psalm isn't saying that any text is given a name higher than any other - it is Jesus Christ, the Living Word, who is exalted, and given a name above all other names (re: John 1, and Philippians 2:9). without Him, the text is not capable of saving, and without the Spirit of God, the text and message of it is not capable of being apprehended.
the point here, is that when it comes to making the written testimony accessible and understandable to all people, it isn't the KJV that we look to as the authoritative source from which to make a translation; it's the collected Greek & Hebrew manuscripts that have been preserved for us. so if there is any text in particular that we should primarily view as the preserved testimony of God's communication to mankind, it's not even a text written in English.
hey - i carried a leatherbound AKJV scoffield to a homegroup bible study tonight. it's not as though i am against the KJV or think that scripture is not given by God for our edification. it's that the scripture itself was not originally given in English and that any translation among human languages is necessarily not without imperfection, and that the primary thing by which we learn of God, and are taught of God, and through which we have peace, access and communication with God is not the written text - it's the Holy Spirit, the annointing gift of God freely given to us all when we hear and believe. i believe this is something not to lose sight of, and the conduit through which any discussion such as this should become praise, instead of arguments about words and praise of what is ultimately a thing that passes away.
will we speak English in heaven? Elizabethtan English?
His words will never pass away - but human language is a tool for the expression of ideas and concepts; a thing that the Lord divided at the tower of Babel. it is the Logos that is eternal, not the printed page.
the way i am looking at this thread, is not to denigrate scripture, or to pooh-pooh the KJV, but i look at the topic and think - how can we praise God in this, and not a translation? how can we talk about this with our minds on the things of God, and not on earthly things?
Well.... I'm curious... if the KJV was translated from Greek, why would Acts 2:38 not say, "repent and be immersed...." ? The word used was "baptizo" which, as I understand it, translates to "immerse". Could it have been that good old King James believed in sprinkling for baptism, and the translators knew upon which side their bread was buttered? So in order to NOT irritate their employer, created a word to cover the incorrect method?
When did the word "baptize" come into existence? I've always been told it was around 1611 or so. I will be the first to admit I have not researched it myself, but was taught that from a very early age.
Any linguists out there?
When did the word "baptize" come into existence? I've always been told it was around 1611 or so. I will be the first to admit I have not researched it myself, but was taught that from a very early age.
Any linguists out there?
My belief is that almost any of the major translations, KJV, RSV, ASB, NIV, NLT, Jerusalem, yada, yada are ALL God's word. So there are minor discrepancies in translations? Tell me... does ANYONES' salvation depend on getting it "right" on whether there were 70 or 72 sent out? My goodness, folks... talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels! Or, the ever-critical question of "Just how many angels CAN dance on the head of that pin?"
Show me a translation that says "salvation is through your good works.." and I'll toss that translation on the bonfire faster than any of you. Nearly all the major translations have the words of God correctly written down for us to read.
This argument about which one is "best", or "most accurate" is just another way to say "see there, I'm right, and YOU are wrong" nanny nanny boo boo....
Let's get back to trying to live like Jesus, loving each other and not trying to out do each other on being "right", the same way the Pharisees were "right". I believe the Word says we are saved by grace, NOT by what version of the book we read.
Show me a translation that says "salvation is through your good works.." and I'll toss that translation on the bonfire faster than any of you. Nearly all the major translations have the words of God correctly written down for us to read.
This argument about which one is "best", or "most accurate" is just another way to say "see there, I'm right, and YOU are wrong" nanny nanny boo boo....
Let's get back to trying to live like Jesus, loving each other and not trying to out do each other on being "right", the same way the Pharisees were "right". I believe the Word says we are saved by grace, NOT by what version of the book we read.