King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

  • Thread starter Thread starter lailee
  • Start date 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.
The words on the pages don't contain truth and life.
The God who those words try to describe IS truth and life.
His Spirit is what teaches me any time I read His word.
Not the Bible version.
 
crossnote said:
You are not here to argue so you let a YouTube video do it for you?
The discrepencies between the main versions is so sleight it doesn't alter doctrine and shouldn't be gone into with a christian just starting out.
Click to expand...

it's not an argument on youtube. It's information. I highly recommend letting Chuck Missler explain things to everyone in 10 short minutes.

Post 21
 
lailee said:
thanks for the link. Will go there right now. But what should I do with rest? Can I burn them or bin them?
Click to expand...

I keep them. They are handy to show differences and of course if you are going somewhere dirty. A lake or a river and still want to read your bible but you aren't sure it will survive the elements they are handy for that. Like I said I use mine in the rest room lol
 
lailee said:
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Click to expand...
People argue about what Bibles are good and what ones aren't. The original King James Version is not my favorite version because some of the word in that Bible have different meanings today than they used to have. I suspect most versions of the Bible are okay. Perhaps none of them are perfect, but good enough to get the main ideas across. I wouldn't burn any of my Bibles.
 
crossnote said:
So all foreign language bibles other than KJV get burned too?
Click to expand...

it all comes down to the texts they were drawn from. The word of God was not in english. You better make sure you are reading the same manuscript that God intended for you. The KJV has translational errors this is true. They are also well documented which is actually a benefit. No surprises are left. However the real issue isn't an accidental translational error, it's a purposeful "Transcriptional" err. It's not even taken from the same text.

It is for those who wish to know why- to seek.
 
Last edited:
lailee said:
But what should I do with rest? Can I burn them or bin them?
Click to expand...

Just to let you know, we have versions now that are more accurate to the original than the KJV. If you burn them, you would be burning scripture. Do you not know how horrible that is? You make it out to be a light matter. I question how much the Word itself actually means to you.
 
I use the ESV or English Standard Version. That is because when we were translating from Greek and Hebrew, the ESV was always the best match! However, the Greek and the Hebrew are the best way to read the Bible, so many things are lost in translation.

As far as the KJV being the best version, a while back when we were having this absurd debate about a Bible translation in an archaic language, someone recommended the following book. I highly recommend it, to counter the lies and nonsense of the KJV ONLY Cult.

KJV Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? By James R. White. Very thorough and goes into the history of the controversy, the main players,and the many mistakes in the KJV.
 
People who insist that everyone should only read the KJV remind me of Catholics in the past who didn't want the bible translated from Latin into English (because Latin was traditional) and didn't want the common man reading the Bible. The KJV is difficult to read for many modern folk. It can't be used for evangelical purposes very well because it's unlikely that a nonbeliever would bother slogging through something they would find so difficult to read. In the past it wasn't such a problem because the majority of people were church goers and had grown up on the KJV. Nowadays however with more and more people growing up in secular households the KJV is even more difficult and obscure for nonbelievers. Especially young people. Young people and folks with reading or learning problems have trouble with it. You're basically cutting down on the number of people able to read the Bible by insisting on such an archaic translation. Why do people in other countries get Bibles translated into their modern languages but not english speakers? Why this barrier to reading God's Word?

By the way, I love the KJV and use it quite a bit. I just don't agree with KJV Onlyism.
 
lailee said:
I know someone probably had posted this title before. Just to inform that I had 4 other bibles beside I add the King James version. Should I burn the rest of the 4 because I read on the internet as well youtube that our faith to our Lord will dwindled for using the wrong bibles unless we used the King James version.
Click to expand...



Definitely stick with the King James Authorized Holy Bible.The modern versions are simply vatican versions. They are based on Corrupt texts. There is a ton of information on this important issue. I strongly recommend that you check out the following link below:


Home - King James Video Ministries


On this website; There are plenty of videos which you can watch for free on the Bible Version Issue.


There is a spirit of antichrist behind the modern versions. So any fellowship that is preaching out of an NIV or ESV or NLT etc. has basically brought that spirit of antichrist into their fellowship already.
 
Last edited:
John_S said:
It's silly that people think that by reading and speaking 16th Century English that makes them "holier".
No other language uses the ancient form of their language in their Bibles - Not the French, Spanish, Germans, Italians, or any other nationality. They get along just fine.

Our Father who is in Heaven
Holy is your name
Your Kingdom come
Your will be done
On Earth as it is in Heaven.

Saying "thou", "thy" "art", "shalt", etc., does NOT make you holier.
It makes you sound silly.
Click to expand...

To those raised in a church where they not only used KJV, but prayed in Elizabethan English, it does not sound silly. Major modern translations even tried to hold on to it when God was addressed. Perhaps most didn't realize that thou, thy, and thee are the familiar, less formal pronouns; but for some reason, the familiar is used to address the Lord -- though neither Greek nor Hebrew have 2 sets of 2nd person pronouns. Thou, thy, thee have the advantage of distinguishing 2nd person you-singular from plural (Ye, you). In KJV "you" always is plural.

I favor using you in translation for singular, and you* for plural, not the original NASB you[SUP]p -- I can hear kids in SS class saying, "youp."

You are somewhat mistaken on Spanish. I believe many use the old KJV-ish Reina-Valera. And I think that most even modern translations use "vosotros" for you plural, though modern Latin American is Ustedes not vosotros. I think a lot of Germans use Luther's translation. RCCists used to favor using Latin, for crying out loud. I sent a modernized Spanish Bible to my mother-in-law in Guatemala and learned from her that she preferred the old Reina-Valera. My guess would be that in French it would be largely the same.

I think that the majority of our pagan children today don't understand KJV English, where let means prevent, prevent means precede, suffer means allow, besom means broom. Has anyone figured out what a means in "I go a fishing"?

I believe that our Pilgrim Fathers disliked that new upstart KJV, preferring the older Geneva Bible.

But don't forget that if the St. James Version was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for you.

It doesn't bother me if some want to hold on the King Jimmy -- it is an excellent translation. But it is not perfect; nothing made by men is prefect. And to substitute the KJV for the original language texts is a heresy.[/SUP]
 
ChosenbyHim said:

Definitely stick with the King James Authorized Holy Bible.The modern versions are simply vatican versions. They are based on Corrupt texts. There is a ton of information on this important issue. I strongly recommend that you check out the following link below:


On this website; There are plenty of videos which you can watch for free on the Bible Version Issue.


There is a spirit of antichrist behind the modern versions. So any fellowship that is preaching out of an NIV or ESV or NLT etc. has basically brought that spirit of antichrist into their fellowship already.
Click to expand...

Do you think that before 1611 there was no Bible?
Were the Pilgrim Fathers wrong who objected to the new modernistic upstart KJV and favored the older Geneva Bible? Why do you favor the KJV over the Geneva Bible?

You quote Paul in 1 Thessalonians. How can that refer to the KJV? Paul wrote in Greek in the 1st Century AD; there was no English language at all when he wrote 1 Thes.
 
Atwood said:
To those raised in a church where they not only used KJV, but prayed in Elizabethan English, it does not sound silly. Major modern translations even tried to hold on to it when God was addressed. Perhaps most didn't realize that thou, thy, and thee are the familiar, less formal pronouns; but for some reason, the familiar is used to address the Lord -- though neither Greek nor Hebrew have 2 sets of 2nd person pronouns. Thou, thy, thee have the advantage of distinguishing 2nd person you-singular from plural (Ye, you). In KJV "you" always is plural.

I favor using you in translation for singular, and you* for plural, not the original NASB you[SUP]p -- I can hear kids in SS class saying, "youp."

You are somewhat mistaken on Spanish. I believe many use the old KJV-ish Reina-Valera. And I think that most even modern translations use "vosotros" for you plural, though modern Latin American is Ustedes not vosotros. I think a lot of Germans use Luther's translation. RCCists used to favor using Latin, for crying out loud. I sent a modernized Spanish Bible to my mother-in-law in Guatemala and learned from her that she preferred the old Reina-Valera. My guess would be that in French it would be largely the same.

I think that the majority of our pagan children today don't understand KJV English, where let means prevent, prevent means precede, suffer means allow, besom means broom. Has anyone figured out what a means in "I go a fishing"?

I believe that our Pilgrim Fathers disliked that new upstart KJV, preferring the older Geneva Bible.

But don't forget that if the St. James Version was good enough for Paul, it should be good enough for you.

It doesn't bother me if some want to hold on the King Jimmy -- it is an excellent translation. But it is not perfect; nothing made by men is prefect. And to substitute the KJV for the original language texts is a heresy.[/SUP]
Click to expand...

I loved my NIV. I learned the truth later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back