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.
You may believe you have, but you are simply deluding yourself into thinking this, which is more than evident from your posts and your continued attempts to prove it, You still have to give an English lesson in this post, simple English, says what is says on the tin, the NIV is simpler and clearer English to understand than the King James.
You still fail to give any proof or undeniable evidence, which I have lost count saying in this thread alone.
One final question, what will happen to me if I continue to read the NIV?
thank you for pointing out that the KJV also inserts the word "unknown" into 1 Corinthians 14:2, when it is not found in any Greek text --
-- so that it creates for itself a coherent "immediate context" that is not the one found in the literal text, but agrees with the interpretation the translators made.
and once again, to their credit, they put the word in italics, so we would know that it was not part of a faithful, literal translation, but an adding to the Word what wasn't there in the original language.
this is more than just adding a pronoun, like "he said.." when the text actually only says ".. said .." but the verb form implies the pronoun "he" -- this is changing the meaning, adding words that are not in the text at all and not implied by the form of any of the words in the text -- strictly adding words because of the way it was thought it should be interpreted.
that is, after all, what you are arguing: that the added word "unknown" agrees with your interpretation of the text, therefore it is in your mind "superior" -- you're arguing your interpretation, because you can't argue it's a literal translation here, since "unknown" is literally not in the text.
thanks again. it's helpful to note that they added words to alter the whole context, not just the one verse.
Probably the lack of growth and always having to seek an outside source to define what you're reading which is often times corrupt. Better question is, if the KJV is the true word of God, what does God think about you reading a false version? We either have it, or we shouldn't call any of them the word of God.
Like I said earlier, Bible believers believe in a word for word meaning, not necessarily a strictly literal word for word translation. Sometimes the literal translation would not make sense to us. It's the exact words we need in the English language. Again, my trust is in God and what He promised to give us.
thank you for pointing out that the KJV also inserts the word "unknown" into 1 Corinthians 14:2, when it is not found in any Greek text --
-- so that it creates for itself a coherent "immediate context" that is not the one found in the literal text, but agrees with the interpretation the translators made.
and once again, to their credit, they put the word in italics, so we would know that it was not part of a faithful, literal translation, but an adding to the Word what wasn't there in the original language.
this is more than just adding a pronoun, like "he said.." when the text actually only says ".. said .." but the verb form implies the pronoun "he" -- this is changing the meaning, adding words that are not in the text at all and not implied by the form of any of the words in the text -- strictly adding words because of the way it was thought it should be interpreted.
that is, after all, what you are arguing: that the added word "unknown" agrees with your interpretation of the text, therefore it is in your mind "superior" -- you're arguing your interpretation, because you can't argue it's a literal translation here, since "unknown" is literally not in the text.
thanks again. it's helpful to note that they added words to alter the whole context, not just the one verse.
thank you for pointing out that the KJV also inserts the word "unknown" into 1 Corinthians 14:2, when it is not found in any Greek text --
-- so that it creates for itself a coherent "immediate context" that is not the one found in the literal text, but agrees with the interpretation the translators made.
and once again, to their credit, they put the word in italics, so we would know that it was not part of a faithful, literal translation, but an adding to the Word what wasn't there in the original language.
this is more than just adding a pronoun, like "he said.." when the text actually only says ".. said .." but the verb form implies the pronoun "he" -- this is changing the meaning, adding words that are not in the text at all and not implied by the form of any of the words in the text -- strictly adding words because of the way it was thought it should be interpreted.
that is, after all, what you are arguing: that the added word "unknown" agrees with your interpretation of the text, therefore it is in your mind "superior" -- you're arguing your interpretation, because you can't argue it's a literal translation here, since "unknown" is literally not in the text.
thanks again. it's helpful to note that they added words to alter the whole context, not just the one verse.
Another classic reply that indicates a cult. What you are basically doing is claiming God for yourselves and only yourself and other members of your cult can obtain a higher understanding and level of growth than people who reject your claims.
Holy Spirit has not said to me "put that NIV down now!" if it was an issue do you not think that would happen? it has not. My walk and position with God is not known to you, so you have no idea what I have been through and what God has pulled me through, so as I say I am 100% certain without doubt that HOly SPirit would nag me to death to only read the King James, that never happens so as far as I am concerned it this so called Bible Issue is clearly a delusion you have made up in your head.
Holy Spirit has not said to me "put that NIV down now!" if it was an issue do you not think that would happen? it has not. My walk and position with God is not known to you, so you have no idea what I have been through and what God has pulled me through, so as I say I am 100% certain without doubt that HOly SPirit would nag me to death to only read the King James, that never happens so as far as I am concerned it this so called Bible Issue is clearly a delusion you have made up in your head.
Fallacy: assuming the proposition is true, and then using that assumption to attempt to prove its veracity. This is circular reasoning, and it is common in KJV-only argumentation. I don't accept the validity of your assumption, so your question has no merit.
By the way, your last sentence contains yet another fallacy: bifurcation, also known as false dichotomy, false dilemma, or the excluded middle.
By the way, your last sentence contains yet another fallacy: bifurcation, also known as false dichotomy, false dilemma, or the excluded middle.
i guess that's true, but it's not the case with the sea of reeds, and it's not the case with 1 Corinthians 14. actually, i've seen several pentecostal believers take that extra word you say was "necessary" to add to the scripture and totally run away with it -- that's why i'm so glad to finally understand what's going on with that! it always puzzled me: is there really a scriptural basis for babbling, calling it a 'prayer language' ??
now that i know it's based on a word inserted into the KJV because of someone's interpretation, that potentially alters the meaning of the text, it's become a lot clearer to me
i'm sorry that what i'm thanking God for seems to be troubling you tho
give it time - this is for your good as well!
Last edited:
I noted this earlier and it warrants addressing. This is the fallacy of equivocation: redefining a word or term mid-stream so that it suits your view. It's also known as "bait-and-switch". In general usage, the term, "Bible believer" means "one who believes that the Bible is the word of God"; in your usage, it means "one who believes that the KJV alone is the only word of God."
S
The responses in this thread got m to thinking about why I read the KJV Bible. Quite simply I read it because it's what I have and I find it easy to read. I scoff at comments that the KJV is hard to read or to understand. It's written at a 5th grade reading level. Thee is singular, thou is plural. I don't see what's so difficult. But, that's not the point I am trying to make. I did some looking last night and found a documentary that tackles this issue, and while it is done from the viewpoint of the kjv-only crowd, of which I do not consider myself a member because I think it's silly to champion causes, I think the documentary is well done and that it makes some interesting points. I will not speak to it's truth, but I found it interesting.
[video=youtube;kFtI_mVOXbQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ[/video]
[video=youtube;kFtI_mVOXbQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ[/video]
Here is an example below and there are many like this....this kind of language is not used today even at any level....the language of 1611 is not the same as our modern language today. Words mean different things to people now in 2016 then they did in 1611.
I had a "nought" in my thigh one time while working out....but I didn't put it on my brother ..he always got his own "noughts".....and come to think of it, he got more of them then I did.
Romans 14:10 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
I had a "nought" in my thigh one time while working out....but I didn't put it on my brother ..he always got his own "noughts".....and come to think of it, he got more of them then I did.
Romans 14:10 (KJV)
[SUP]10 [/SUP] But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
Wow! Great video. It's packed full of information and quotes including George Bush and Billy Graham speaking against Jesus Christ as THE only way to heaven. It's got James White testifying to things and backstroking on issues in the modern versions especially the NIV which even James White says is corrupt. Thanks for sharing. The New World Order is coming and the new versions of God's word is making it possible.
Then why is it called the Red Sea in the book of Acts? Reed is no where to be found in the definition of erythros. What's up with that? Maybe the writer of Acts new more about the ancient dead languages than you do.
ἐρυθρός erythrós, er-oo-thros'; of uncertain affinity; red, i.e. (with G2281) the Red Sea:—red.
ἐρυθρός erythrós, er-oo-thros'; of uncertain affinity; red, i.e. (with G2281) the Red Sea:—red.