Why the king james?

[JosephsDreams]

The KJV is a waste of time. Who even reads that olde English anymore anyway? It is a version that just borrowed and stole from previous Greek and German and other English transcripts.
The group that put it together was a tribe from the Andes who huckstered the king as being bible experts. They huddled together in a cave for 1 week discussing it, and then spent the next 2 years partying with the kings money. They were really just looking for 3 squares and a bed and stepped in it. The rest of them, those from England, who contributed were proven to be heretics and phonies later on by historians. One of them was even a Nephilim. He was originally the kings bodyguard. All 9 feet of him. Then the kind assigned him to keep order among that rag tag group he hired to put it all together. The King himself insisted on royalties for his family after he was long gone. If the church had not shamed them, they would still be looking to make a buck on it even today.
Anyone reading it may as well be reading the Jehovah Witness bible. It has more accuracy them the KJV. No wonder the church was so messed up in those days.
Last I heard, Obama wanted it banned because he said it caused division among the worlds peoples, and if he didn't get his way he was going to invoke presidential powers and bypass the constitution.
For the genuine word, stick with the stone tablets in the ark.

 

[KJV1611]

While this might be an interesting question in its own thread, it is irrelevant to the topic of this one. Here, it's just another red herring.

You guys act like a word that's not in the "original copies" proves the KJV is wrong. Where's the error??? tongues is an unknown langauge and everybody knows.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

The KJV is a waste of time. Who even reads that olde English anymore anyway?

I do, I like it, been reading it for 25 years now.

 

[KJV1611]

Could someone come up with a real debate about errors in the KJV, not some BS about the original said this and that and the KJV translated it as Easter. That's well beyond a bible doubters ability to understand. Show me a real error in the KJV that's blatantly wrong like God only has one son.

 

[Dino246]

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.

I'm not sure which sources you're using, but Thayer's actually does have this concept in its definition of Strongs 2063 erythros. It notes that in the Septuagint, the term is "sea of sedge or sea-weed". This word only appears together with 'sea', so it appears to refer only to the location, not the colour specifically.

The colour "red" as used in the New Testament in every other example except one (and not referring to the location) is a variant of 'pyrros', not 'erythros'.

I'll stand with PostHuman on this one.

 

[Agricola]

Could someone come up with a real debate about errors in the KJV, not some BS about the original said this and that and the KJV translated it as Easter. That's well beyond a bible doubters ability to understand. Show me a real error in the KJV that's blatantly wrong like God only has one son.

Only if you come up with some real errors in the NIV, not just some rubbish about miss quotes or number of days someone did something.

There you go again, because we do not agree with you, it must mean we are not intellectually superior to you or actually genuine Christians. It is this thinking that defines you again as a cult.

 

[posthuman]

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.

ἐρυθρόςerythrós, er-oo-thros'; of uncertain affinity; red, i.e. (with G2281) the Red Sea:—red.

you can't depend on Strong's to prove anything about whether a word in the KJV is correct or not -- it's not a dictionary; it's a concordance that specifically lists how words have been translated in the KJV. even humble post, who is by no means a scholar, knows that. i learned it here on CC - thank God for what He does through people here!
so that's assuming a theorem is true in order to prove itself.

the Greek term found in Acts 7:36 is used only once in the entire Bible. looking at outside sources from the time period, it's clear that both the terms "erythra thalassa" and "rubrum mare" are used variously to refer to not just the Red Sea, but also indiscriminately to the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and all the waters in the entire Arabian peninsula with uncertain designation. the word as it's used in other sources from the same time period doesn't refer specifically to a particular sea or bay - but to any and all waters in the geographic area. so it could just as easily be referring to the 'Sea of Reeds' as the Indian Ocean, or the Red Sea.
Acts 7:36 isn't conclusive.

but have a look at the Hebrew that the KJV obviously botched in Exodus:
Yam Suph (יַם-סוּף )
neither one of these words means "red" or anything close to it by any stretch of the imagination. the same exact word is used 23 times in the Tanakh. it's literal translation is well established: "Reed Sea"

this body of water doesn't exist today, but archaeologists using the Bible as their guide have found evidence of it in Egyptian relics and writings -- a much shallower lake to the north of the Red Sea, closer to the coast of the Great Sea, and now dried up. when the KJV was translated, this was completely unknown. but rather than trust the Word of God that they were translating, they decided to make an obvious bad translation of the word and change it to something that they did know of and was similar in English - the Red Sea. the fact that the Greek term "erythra thalassa" from Acts 7:36 is completely ambiguous meant they couldn't be sure whether the "Sea of Reeds" as the Hebrew literally says was just another name for the Red Sea or not - so rather than trusting the Scripture, and making a literal translation, they changed it. by private interpretation.

we know better now. it's time to open your eyes.

 

[Dino246]

You guys act like a word that's not in the "original copies" proves the KJV is wrong. Where's the error??? tongues is an unknown langauge and everybody knows.

1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak with the TONGUES of men and angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy going or a clanging cymbal."

 

[posthuman]

link on archaeological evidence for the location of the Reed Sea --

New Evidence from Egypt on the Location of the Exodus Sea Crossing: Part I

link showing "erythra thalassa" doesn't necessarily mean "Red Sea" but is an ambiguous term that could refer to any body of water in the area:

https://books.google.com/books?id=eplQ2TiCgboC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Erythra&source=bl&ots=vOBrUaw0Q2&sig=b0gQh6UdQcJhr-sk4lk-uRB6JvY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRiruOzt_LAhVI8CYKHUomCHYQ6AEIWDAL#v=onepage&q=Erythra&f=false

 

[Dino246]

Could someone come up with a real debate about errors in the KJV, not some BS about the original said this and that and the KJV translated it as Easter. That's well beyond a bible doubters ability to understand. Show me a real error in the KJV that's blatantly wrong like God only has one son.

Fallacy: burden of proof reversal. It is up to you to defend your claim to the KJV's inerrancy. It is not anyone else's to demonstrate errors, though we have done so several times.

 

[KJV1611]

I'm not sure which sources you're using, but Thayer's actually does have this concept in its definition of Strongs 2063 erythros. It notes that in the Septuagint, the term is "sea of sedge or sea-weed". This word only appears together with 'sea', so it appears to refer only to the location, not the colour specifically.

The colour "red" as used in the New Testament in every other example except one (and not referring to the location) is a variant of 'pyrros', not 'erythros'.

I'll stand with PostHuman on this one.

Hey I don't doubt it, you can find a Greek concordance to make the bible say anything you want it to say.

 

[KJV1611]

you can't depend on Strong's to prove anything about whether a word in the KJV is correct or not -- it's not a dictionary; it's a concordance that specifically lists how words have been translated in the KJV. even humble post, who is by no means a scholar, knows that. i learned it here on CC - thank God for what He does through people here!
so that's assuming a theorem is true in order to prove itself.

the Greek term found in Acts 7:36 is used only once in the entire Bible. looking at outside sources from the time period, it's clear that both the terms "erythra thalassa" and "rubrum mare" are used variously to refer to not just the Red Sea, but also indiscriminately to the Persian Gulf, the Indian Ocean, and all the waters in the entire Arabian peninsula with uncertain designation. the word as it's used in other sources from the same time period doesn't refer specifically to a particular sea or bay - but to any and all waters in the geographic area. so it could just as easily be referring to the 'Sea of Reeds' as the Indian Ocean, or the Red Sea.
Acts 7:36 isn't conclusive.

but have a look at the Hebrew that the KJV obviously botched in Exodus:
Yam Suph (יַם-סוּף )
neither one of these words means "red" or anything close to it by any stretch of the imagination. the same exact word is used 23 times in the Tanakh. it's literal translation is well established: "Reed Sea"

this body of water doesn't exist today, but archaeologists using the Bible as their guide have found evidence of it in Egyptian relics and writings -- a much shallower lake to the north of the Red Sea, closer to the coast of the Great Sea, and now dried up. when the KJV was translated, this was completely unknown. but rather than trust the Word of God that they were translating, they decided to make an obvious bad translation of the word and change it to something that they did know of and was similar in English - the Red Sea. the fact that the Greek term "erythra thalassa" from Acts 7:36 is completely ambiguous meant they couldn't be sure whether the "Sea of Reeds" as the Hebrew literally says was just another name for the Red Sea or not - so rather than trusting the Scripture, and making a literal translation, they changed it. by private interpretation.

we know better now. it's time to open your eyes.

If Strong's is worthless then how does one find the definition of Greek and Hebrew words?

 

[KJV1611]

1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak with the TONGUES of men and angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy going or a clanging cymbal."

You understand angel language?

 

[Dino246]

Hey I don't doubt it, you can find a Greek concordance to make the bible say anything you want it to say.

Wow, is this the best you have? I give you evidence which refutes your statement, and instead of conceding with grace, you throw out a general dismissal of the evidence. That shows a lack of intellectual integrity. The onus is on you to refute my evidence; dismissing it without good reason is not valid.

 

[KJV1611]

Fallacy: burden of proof reversal. It is up to you to defend your claim to the KJV's inerrancy. It is not anyone else's to demonstrate errors, though we have done so several times.

I didn't say anything about proving the KJV has no errors, I just want to see errors you guys have found. I like to know where bible doubters say there are errors because there's usually some sweet honey there.

 

[KJV1611]

Wow, is this the best you have? I give you evidence which refutes your statement, and instead of conceding with grace, you throw out a general dismissal of the evidence. That shows a lack of intellectual integrity. The onus is on you to refute my evidence; dismissing it without good reason is not valid.

Look my faith is in divine inspiration not what some man thinks a Greek word means. The literal Red Sea has nothing to do with anything... why would I care about an earthly sea and what people called it. I'm interested in what the real Red Seas, that's where the word of God is. So tell me, what great revelations and spiritual insight can you give us about the Reed Sea?

Edit: Also do the bibles you read always refer to the reed sea as the reed sea so that you can understand what the red sea represents?

 

[Dino246]

You guys act like a word that's not in the "original copies" proves the KJV is wrong. Where's the error??? tongues is an unknown langauge and everybody knows.

1 Corinthians 13:1 "If I speak with the TONGUES of men and angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy going or a clanging cymbal."

You understand angel language?

Please follow the logic. You stated that "tongues is an unknown langauge (sic)". 1 Corinthians says "tongues of men and angels." If tongues of men, they are known by some humans, not unknown. Whether any human knows the language of angels is irrelevant.

 

[KJV1611]

Seriously guys some of the coolest things God has shown me in the bible come from "KJV errors".... Easter, Ahaziah's age, supposed contradtictions in the resurrection account in the gopels, the church in the wilderness the mark "on" the hand. So bring on some more.

 

[KJV1611]

Please follow the logic. You stated that "tongues is an unknown langauge (sic)". 1 Corinthians says "tongues of men and angels." If tongues of men, they are known by some humans, not unknown. Whether any human knows the language of angels is irrelevant.

No that's not what it says Dino, it says though I speak with the tongue of A) men and of B) angels. Paul speaks in the tongue of men and he speaks in the unknown tongue of angels.

1 Corinthians 13:1 KJV
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

 

[PilgrimPassingThru]

Is "the interpreter" for the known or unknown tongue (meaning tongues of men) or is the intepreter for the unknown tongues of angels?