King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Last]

An error would be a contradiction within itself or statement that is contrary to the nature of God and the doctrines of the bible.

That does not even begin to make sense as a definition of a biblical error. Translations work with what is already there. Thus, theological errors would be in the Hebrew and Greek if there were any. Error would be the result of wrong translation, to say what the text does not actually say.

I can show you error after error in the modern translations.

Oh please do, this should be interested. Just pick three of your favorites and I'll reply to them. I know you are probably itching to cut and paste a whole list of them from different websites, but just pick three and let's go over them, shall we?

 

[Last]

People try to correct God's Word, when in reality it should always be God's Word that corrects us.

I don't think you understand how translation works.

There is no perfect translation nor can there be for two reasons:
1) Languages cannot be perfectly translated, they do not work that way
2) Languages constantly change, thus requiring updates translations

I would also add that many translations that exist today rely on older manuscripts that were not previously available. Thus, making them more authentic to what early Christians had.

Finally, I do not understand how anyone can arbitrary pick a particular translation and declare that no one should ever translate again because it would be 'correcting' God's word.

 

[Last]

It's a little more than thee's and thou's

The NIV’s missing 64,000 words - Fact or Fiction?

Some seminary students, who are in the process of having their minds corrupted by “the best of modern scholarship”, lightly dismiss the charge that the NIV perversion is missing some 64,000 words, saying that this figure is only a Riplingerism and not factual.

Not only does Mrs. Riplinger make this factual charge but so also does the Australian author and KJB defender Les Garrett in his book "Which Bible Can We Trust?". If one runs the KJB and the NIV through a computer, the KJB contains over 800,000 words and the NIV has a little more than 64,000 fewer words in it.


anyone interested simply look into it.
NIV missing 64000 words - Another King James Bible Believer

More
NAMES AND TITLES OF JESUS OMITTED IN THE NIV

How on Earth does a translation that uses more words make it better?

 

[wattie]

There are quite a number of objections people aim at the Bible being the Word of God-

One such claim is- 'Chinese whispers'- like you did as a kid, where you get one kid to say something to another.. and then they tell another around a group. Last person says what they hear.. and chances are it is very different to what was initially said.. so this is supposed to be the objection with the bible- that the process of handing down translations has been infected with this kind of error.

Problem-- Think about how the Scribes go about their process from the past. First thing is.. they wouldn't just accept what the person beside them said to them.. they would get up.. walk to the first person.. and ask if this is what they actually said in the first place.

The Scribes were careful and meticulous.

So the next objection is - what about copying errors! The assumption is that whole words and sentences are being recorded wrong.

Fact is-- human error does come in.. yes.. but this is again a careful and meticulous process.. the errors are the likes of writing 'sanctified' as 'sacntified' or 'delivered' as 'dlivered'... and one word being mispelt..

and then that error being repeated.. is not 100 errors of one word spelt wrong 100 times.. but ONE error.

And then the other fact is.. the scribes can go and compare their copying with earlier works.. eg.. OT testament written earlier.. and then another OT manuscript is found that is from an even earlier date.. that says the same thing.

If people do the study-- it is reasonable to believe the bible is the Word of God.


As for the KJV..

Do you throw out Shakespeare?

 

[Last]

But today, Greek is a dead langauge, and the language of the end times that is the closest thing to a universal language is English. And God knew that English was going to be the language of the end times, that is why He put His word into the English language.

I am pretty sure they would have said the same at different points of history.
"It's the end times, so Greek must be the language"
"It's the end times, so Latin must be the language"
"It's the end times, so Spanish must be the language"
"It's the end times, so French must be the language"

Now Britain/USA are the major powers

 

[Last]

1 John 5:7-8

New International Version (NIV)

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For there are three that testify: [SUP]8 [/SUP]the[SUP][a][/SUP] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.




1 John 5:7-8

King James Version (KJV)

[SUP]7 [/SUP]For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[SUP]8 [/SUP]And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Thank you for showing the 'error' in the KJV - where they translated copyist notes. Fortunately modern translations do not include the notes added by men.

 

[Jason0047]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

I see people sometimes doing this with translations: "X changes such and such to...."
Translations do not 'change' one English sentence to another. They translate a Greek or Hebrew sentence into an English one. There is no 'changing'. Something is changed in second, third, fourth etc additions. That's because there was an existing English statement that was changed into something else.

The problem is that the Anti-KJV movement does not either believe a perfect Word of God ever existed or they believe it only existed in the originals in which we do not have anymore. In other words, no perfect standard of truth exists for the Anti-KJV Proponent. Yet Scripture claims it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This a problem for three reasons. One, it is a lack of faith in what God's Word says about itself. Two, if you can't trust one word in the Bible, then how do honestly trust the rest of it? Three, how can you have the full confidence in doctrine, correcting others, and being trained in righteousness if you don't have a perfect Word?

 

[Jason0047]

Thank you for showing the 'error' in the KJV - where they translated copyist notes. Fortunately modern translations do not include the notes added by men.

No, 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in your Bible. It is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity. In fact, many anti-Trinitarians would be patting you on the back and smiling for you helping them to distrust God's Word that teaches about His triune nature.

 

[KJV1611]

That does not even begin to make sense as a definition of a biblical error. Translations work with what is already there. Thus, theological errors would be in the Hebrew and Greek if there were any. Error would be the result of wrong translation, to say what the text does not actually say.



Oh please do, this should be interested. Just pick three of your favorites and I'll reply to them. I know you are probably itching to cut and paste a whole list of them from different websites, but just pick three and let's go over them, shall we?

Yes translations work with what's already there but the problem is there are two lines of manuscripts that disagree with one another. Also the KJV is not based only on the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Words have been changed, some original words are translated one way in one verse and another way in another verse.

As far as errors in the newer translation, I have many. First one, in the NIV Satan is the morning star. In Revelation Jesus is the morning star. Which one is it? Is Jesus the morning star or is Satan?

[h=1]Isaiah 14:12New International Version (NIV)[/h][h=1]12 How you have fallen from heaven,
morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!



[/h][h=1]Revelation 22:16New International Version (NIV)[/h][h=1]16 “I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you[a] this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.”

[/h]

 

[Jason0047]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

The problem is that the Anti-KJV movement does not either believe a perfect Word of God ever existed or they believe it only existed in the originals in which we do not have anymore. In other words, no perfect standard of truth exists for the Anti-KJV Proponent. Yet Scripture claims it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations. This a problem for three reasons. One, it is a lack of faith in what God's Word says about itself. Two, if you can't trust one word in the Bible, then how do honestly trust the rest of it? Three, how can you have the full confidence in doctrine, correcting others, and being trained in righteousness if you don't have a perfect Word?

In other words, what is your final Word of authority? Is your authority in some language that you really can't speak and write fluently?

 

[Jason0047]

Looking forward to it.

I am on my phone now, so it is difficult to do the write up without my keyboard.
But I hope I can have it written early in the morning.

Thank you, my friend.

 

[Atwood]

Yes translations work with what's already there but the problem is there are two lines of manuscripts that disagree with one another.

How do you know that there are only 2 lines of mss?
How do you know that the disagreements amount to more than a hill of beans?
[/QUOTE]

 

[Atwood]

No, 1 John 5:7 is supposed to be in your Bible. It is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity. In fact, many anti-Trinitarians would be patting you on the back and smiling for you helping them to distrust God's Word that teaches about His triune nature.

How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?

 

[Atwood]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

In other words, what is your final Word of authority? Is your authority in some language that you really can't speak and write fluently?

How does your language prove what language the Bible should be in?
What do all the people in the world who don't speak English do for a Bible?

 

[Atwood]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

The problem is that the Anti-KJV movement does not either believe a perfect Word of God ever existed or they believe it only existed in the originals in which we do not have anymore.

How do you know that we do not have the original text? Is that consistent with God's promises to preserve the Bible?

In other words, no perfect standard of truth exists for the Anti-KJV Proponent. Yet Scripture claims it is perfect and that it would be preserved for all generations.

How could scripture be referring to the KJV when it claims it is perfect & preserved, since English did not even exist then?

This a problem for three reasons. One, it is a lack of faith in what God's Word says about itself.

When it speaks about itself, there was no KJV nor English. So how could it be referring to the KJV?

[/quote]Two, if you can't trust one word in the Bible, then how do honestly trust the rest of it? Three, how can you have the full confidence in doctrine, correcting others, and being trained in righteousness if you don't have a perfect Word?[/QUOTE]

How does the KJV solve your problem? What make you think it is perfect? When the Bible spoke of itself, there was no KJV & no English.

 

[Jason0047]

Why is it important to have a perfect Word for today?
Well, is not God's Word a reflection of Him?
Is not God's Word the instruction manual for our spiritual protection?

In other words, if I took the instruction manual in building a plane and altered them slightly, would you feel comfortable in flying in that plane?
No, of course you wouldn't. Then why would you want to place your soul and spirit at risk with a flawed spiritual instruction manual?

 

[Atwood]

Do you throw out Shakespeare?

If you want to quote it as God's word, I say you and the speare should both get the ol' heave ho.

 

[Kerry]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

How does your language prove what language the Bible should be in?
What do all the people in the world who don't speak English do for a Bible?

They have the King James translated into their language. So is the NIV and others. The Septuagint is Latin, The OT is Hebrew with some Aramaic which is the language that Jesus spoke. The NT is Greek.

But if you really want to know the Holy Spirit must reveal it to you.

 

[Jason0047]

How do you know that 5:7 belongs in the Bible?
How do you know that it is not a late forgery in Greek?
How do you know that it is the only verse that actually clarifies the Trinity?

As I pointed out in a couple of pages back, there are 3 major Biblical reasons to trust that there is one perfect Word of God for each generation as Scripture states. As for the Trinity: I know 1 John 5:7 is the only verse that speaks straight forward about the Trinity because I know my Bible.

 

[Kerry]

Re: The Authorized Geneva Bible vs that Modernist KJV, unauthorized!

The king James is the only version that the Holy Spirit moved the heart of a king to develop against the wishes of the church.