The Bible debate
- Thread starter atomiku
- 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.
Here is why i believe the KJV of the bible is GODs word,
No other bible has being more persecuted or questioned in history,
No other bible has anyone ever tried to destroyed.
And this is even before you even open the first page
Please enjoy and marvel
The Story of The King James Bible - YouTube
No other bible has being more persecuted or questioned in history,
No other bible has anyone ever tried to destroyed.
And this is even before you even open the first page
Please enjoy and marvel
The Story of The King James Bible - YouTube
G
This may very well be true ( no doubt ) -- and is very unfortunate to be so when it happens -- however, I think it is a very large jump over a wide gap to call the KJV a "cult bible" or say that the KJV has "spawned" cults.
This is nothing more than evil-minded people taking something good - the KJV bible - and using it to do evil.
The 'well-educated-on-the-KJV' folks today would see it just as laughable - right? Hmmmmmmmmmm...
If more people would take an active interest in understanding the KJV --- there would be a whole lot less "falling for" a lot of stuff...
Just because things like [ in the quote ] happen does not mean that the solution is to throw the KJV away. That is precisely what Satan would like to see happen...
This is nothing more than evil-minded people taking something good - the KJV bible - and using it to do evil.
The 'well-educated-on-the-KJV' folks today would see it just as laughable - right? Hmmmmmmmmmm...
If more people would take an active interest in understanding the KJV --- there would be a whole lot less "falling for" a lot of stuff...
Just because things like [ in the quote ] happen does not mean that the solution is to throw the KJV away. That is precisely what Satan would like to see happen...
[h=3]Daniel 3:25[/h]New International Version (NIV)
25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
[h=3]Daniel 3:25[/h]King James Version (KJV)
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
A son of the gods.
The Son of God.
2 different statements... 2 completely different entities. One is Jesus Christ and the other is an angel.
Which one is right, was the Son of God in the furnace or was an angel in the furnace?
25 He said, “Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods.”
[h=3]Daniel 3:25[/h]King James Version (KJV)
25 He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
A son of the gods.
The Son of God.
2 different statements... 2 completely different entities. One is Jesus Christ and the other is an angel.
Which one is right, was the Son of God in the furnace or was an angel in the furnace?
I read the Bible in French, do you think all French people are going to hell because they can't read your archaic version of the Bible?
i also read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, which so many more things come out in. Things like verb tenses we do not have (aorist comes to mind!) in the Greek! As for Hebrew, it is as Semitic language, and is verbally based. Besides 3 letter consonant roots, they have aspect, person, gender, and the all important stem! A word can mean the exact opposite depending upon whether it is in the Qal or the Piel!
Now, I am not saying the KJV translators, or modern translators don't know their stuff. But I am saying there are words and concepts that can never be translated fully from Greek and Hebrew to any other language. God inspired his Word, there is no doubt about it! But even Jesus, the disciples and Paul quoted from both the Hebrew and the Septugint, and sometimes the LXX is radically different than the Hebrew!!
If Jesus didn't get caught up on the translation, neither should we! As a Hebrew boy, he studied and learned the Bible in two languages, never doubting it was God's powerful and wonderful Word.
The same applies to the New Testament. The language is not so important as the message. Jesus Christ lived as a man, died on the cross, and rose again, is God, and everyone who believes and repents is saved!!!
It is the gospel, the message of how to be saved and follow Christ that matters, not the age, or whether some dead English king commissioned it or not.
Let's get back to what the Bible is about - it is the revelation of Jesus Christ! Any version that reveals Christ is a good one to read, including the KJV! But it quite simply is not the ONLY translation, nor can you compare it to the originals!
i also read the Bible in Hebrew and Greek, which so many more things come out in. Things like verb tenses we do not have (aorist comes to mind!) in the Greek! As for Hebrew, it is as Semitic language, and is verbally based. Besides 3 letter consonant roots, they have aspect, person, gender, and the all important stem! A word can mean the exact opposite depending upon whether it is in the Qal or the Piel!
Now, I am not saying the KJV translators, or modern translators don't know their stuff. But I am saying there are words and concepts that can never be translated fully from Greek and Hebrew to any other language. God inspired his Word, there is no doubt about it! But even Jesus, the disciples and Paul quoted from both the Hebrew and the Septugint, and sometimes the LXX is radically different than the Hebrew!!
If Jesus didn't get caught up on the translation, neither should we! As a Hebrew boy, he studied and learned the Bible in two languages, never doubting it was God's powerful and wonderful Word.
The same applies to the New Testament. The language is not so important as the message. Jesus Christ lived as a man, died on the cross, and rose again, is God, and everyone who believes and repents is saved!!!
It is the gospel, the message of how to be saved and follow Christ that matters, not the age, or whether some dead English king commissioned it or not.
Let's get back to what the Bible is about - it is the revelation of Jesus Christ! Any version that reveals Christ is a good one to read, including the KJV! But it quite simply is not the ONLY translation, nor can you compare it to the originals!
3
The exit ramp for the debate just came in. Phew...
person A: "I read the KJV only because of its authenticity and I have no desire to read any other English translation."
person B: "I read a few...the NIV, ESV, occasionally the KJV...I like widening the scope of language as it helps my understanding."
person C: "I read the message bible. That's the best because it has words like 'yay' and 'over the moon'!"
person A: "I read the KJV only because of its authenticity and I have no desire to read any other English translation."
person B: "I read a few...the NIV, ESV, occasionally the KJV...I like widening the scope of language as it helps my understanding."
person C: "I read the message bible. That's the best because it has words like 'yay' and 'over the moon'!"
Could you show me in the bible where it says that God's word would not be preserved. I know the bible says God would preserve his word, but I have never seen the bible mention that his word would corrupt.
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Am I mistaken or didn't God say he would preserve his word forever?
Psa 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Psa 12:7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Am I mistaken or didn't God say he would preserve his word forever?
What does God promise to preserve... his word as the KJV says, or the needy as the NIV says?
Do you think the spirit behind the NIV may be trying to conceal something????
Psalm 12
King James Version (KJV)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 12
New International Version (NIV)
6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[c] refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,
8 who freely strut about
when what is vile is honored by the human race.
Do you think the spirit behind the NIV may be trying to conceal something????
Psalm 12
King James Version (KJV)
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Psalm 12
New International Version (NIV)
6 And the words of the Lord are flawless,
like silver purified in a crucible,
like gold[c] refined seven times.
7 You, Lord, will keep the needy safe
and will protect us forever from the wicked,
8 who freely strut about
when what is vile is honored by the human race.
The more something is changed the less original it is. If you replace the head of an axe then a year later the handle what axe do you have? People defend the KJV because they believe it to be the true word of God and the more its changed the less it is.
If 500 years from now the worlds languages change so that the ESV sounds archaic whos to say those new versions in the future are correct?
If 500 years from now the worlds languages change so that the ESV sounds archaic whos to say those new versions in the future are correct?
G
The NLT has changed the meaning of the verse. Compare to the KJV:
Matthew 23:
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Can you see just how much the meaning of this verse changes from KJV to NLT?
Can you see that the main essential 'point' of the verse has been removed completely from the NLT?
Anyone who thinks these two versions of this verse are saying the same thing -- is missing 99% of the message -- which has been "currupted" or "perverted" by the NLT.
( I plan to explain the difference later -- but, for now - how do you see it...? )
Matthew 23:
24 Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.
Can you see just how much the meaning of this verse changes from KJV to NLT?
Can you see that the main essential 'point' of the verse has been removed completely from the NLT?
Anyone who thinks these two versions of this verse are saying the same thing -- is missing 99% of the message -- which has been "currupted" or "perverted" by the NLT.
( I plan to explain the difference later -- but, for now - how do you see it...? )
Well first, God did preserve his Word! That is why there are so many manuscripts, more than any other codice or book in the western world! The KJV is a TRANSLATION, not the original texts!
As for your example of Dan 3:25, I have been reading my Masoretic text.
Dan 3:25 עָנֵ֣ה וְאָמַ֗ר הָֽא־אֲנָ֨ה חָזֵ֜ה גֻּבְרִ֣ין אַרְבְּעָ֗ה שְׁרַ֙יִן֙ מַהְלְכִ֣ין בְּגֹֽוא־נוּרָ֔א וַחֲבָ֖ל לָא־אִיתַ֣י בְּהֹ֑ון וְרֵוֵהּ֙ דִּ֣י דָּמֵ֖ה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃
Because Hebrew is written left to right, we only need look at the last phrase, which is hyphenated! (first in the phrase!)
it basically says, transliterated, le bar elohin.
Le - to or for (could be like or as)
Bar - son of (when hyphenated)
elohin- gods, noun, masculine, plural, variation with n instead of m ending.
Plus, there is the lack of the word "the" in the Hebrew, which is the word "ha".
Therefore the phrase reads like this - "To/for/as a son of gods"
NOT "like the Son of God"
I looked at many versions, and except for the KJV they all interpret the phrase correctly!
Thanks for your example, as it shows the error in the KJV!
My advice is to take about 4 years, and really learn Koine Greek and Old Testament Hebrew. Once you understand the languages, plus a little bit about the difficulties of translation, you will understand the truth of God's Holy Word - God preserved his Word in the original languages, and KJV is only a translation!
As for your example of Dan 3:25, I have been reading my Masoretic text.
Dan 3:25 עָנֵ֣ה וְאָמַ֗ר הָֽא־אֲנָ֨ה חָזֵ֜ה גֻּבְרִ֣ין אַרְבְּעָ֗ה שְׁרַ֙יִן֙ מַהְלְכִ֣ין בְּגֹֽוא־נוּרָ֔א וַחֲבָ֖ל לָא־אִיתַ֣י בְּהֹ֑ון וְרֵוֵהּ֙ דִּ֣י דָּמֵ֖ה לְבַר־אֱלָהִֽין׃
Because Hebrew is written left to right, we only need look at the last phrase, which is hyphenated! (first in the phrase!)
it basically says, transliterated, le bar elohin.
Le - to or for (could be like or as)
Bar - son of (when hyphenated)
elohin- gods, noun, masculine, plural, variation with n instead of m ending.
Plus, there is the lack of the word "the" in the Hebrew, which is the word "ha".
Therefore the phrase reads like this - "To/for/as a son of gods"
NOT "like the Son of God"
I looked at many versions, and except for the KJV they all interpret the phrase correctly!
Thanks for your example, as it shows the error in the KJV!
My advice is to take about 4 years, and really learn Koine Greek and Old Testament Hebrew. Once you understand the languages, plus a little bit about the difficulties of translation, you will understand the truth of God's Holy Word - God preserved his Word in the original languages, and KJV is only a translation!
My personal opinion is that this was a Christophany.
However, since Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel did not know the name of Jesus at this time, they expressed it as they saw it. Elohim can mean gods or angels.
As Tintin said pages ago, they wrote down what they saw - someone who was like a son of gods.
The KJV reads back into history, instead of translating the words properly. That alone disqualifies it from being the only "inspired" text.
Please get some education about languages, translating and hermeneutics too. Call me when you have learned a bit more about these subjects, and maybe we can talk intelligently then, ok?
However, since Nebuchadnezzar and Daniel did not know the name of Jesus at this time, they expressed it as they saw it. Elohim can mean gods or angels.
As Tintin said pages ago, they wrote down what they saw - someone who was like a son of gods.
The KJV reads back into history, instead of translating the words properly. That alone disqualifies it from being the only "inspired" text.
Please get some education about languages, translating and hermeneutics too. Call me when you have learned a bit more about these subjects, and maybe we can talk intelligently then, ok?
I think this a problem...we focus on a bible translation but that isn't what truly matters. If a newly saved man receives salvation...I really don't think they should be focusing on what is most accurate but what is easiest for them to understand God and who he is and how no one could live up the standards of God except Jesus...etc
like really, I don't think God is going to be like, "You are going to hell for using KJV or ESV,"
Doesn't matter what translation you read...if you have the Holy Spirit which has never changed and has been the same since ACTS 2 then you have no worries. Just thought I should say that...continue on!
like really, I don't think God is going to be like, "You are going to hell for using KJV or ESV,"
Doesn't matter what translation you read...if you have the Holy Spirit which has never changed and has been the same since ACTS 2 then you have no worries. Just thought I should say that...continue on!
Last edited: