King James authorized bible vs the rest of other bibles

[Nick01]

well if I have to be then I have to be. Nick, can you show one thread that has been debated about another translation?

If the devil is fighting it then I want it. Don't you or maybe not, it's a hard thing to do. I am used to it as I preach the cross and you would be surprised how many Christians fight against the cross. I meant, they want to be their own God. This is exactly what the atheist agenda is after. I meant look at the past twenty years. Churches have gotten away from the KJV and the cross and are preaching self help. where did this come from? ask yourself.

Actually, this thread is essentially a defence of other perfectly good translations that aren't the KJV. Most of the KJV related threads at least contain attacks on other translations, usually one or several of the NIV, NASB, or ESV. I would say this thread is essentially a debate about non-KJV translations.

I don't read the KJV. I read other translations. I think you would find that I'm healthily within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy.

Your concerns with 'self help' or 'health and wealth' have nothing to do with the Bible translations themselves. In fact, the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer, who I would, at least some of the time, characterise as 'self help' preachers, both happily use the KJV in their writings, Bible reading plans, etc, alongside KJV spin offs such as the NKJV. None of that means that their errant teaching comes from the KJV.

 

[Kerry]

Actually, this thread is essentially a defence of other perfectly good translations that aren't the KJV. Most of the KJV related threads at least contain attacks on other translations, usually one or several of the NIV, NASB, or ESV. I would say this thread is essentially a debate about non-KJV translations.

I don't read the KJV. I read other translations. I think you would find that I'm healthily within the bounds of historic Christian orthodoxy.

Your concerns with 'self help' or 'health and wealth' have nothing to do with the Bible translations themselves. In fact, the likes of Creflo Dollar and Joyce Meyer, who I would, at least some of the time, characterise as 'self help' preachers, both happily use the KJV in their writings, Bible reading plans, etc, alongside KJV spin offs such as the NKJV. None of that means that their errant teaching comes from the KJV.

Classic change of subject doncha think, show a thread that questions other translations. again if the devil aint fight against it then I don't want it.

 

[Last]

Dude read what you want too. But I would rather read the translation that founded America and what people died for. If you want to pad the atheist pockets by purchasing a NIV then have fun.

The KJV is not the foundation of the America. No one died for it. NIV is not about atheism.

 

[Last]

Hey, look. You either read some fancy book, or was taught by another, or read it in article somewhere that this is so. That is not proof but it is just what somebody had written down in a document or book. I can write in a book about how cats can fly. But it doesn't make it true, though. For did you actually check the observable evidence? You know. Check the Word of God to see whether those things be so or not? Or do you just blindly accept all History as being true? The only real source of History we can trust as being 100% true is God's Word. I trust that is true because I know God cannot make mistakes or lie. God is perfect in everything He does.

No, unlike some people I don't watch a video and believe something because it supports my worldview. I simply go by the facts.

The facts of this issue are quite clear:
"There are not two different sets of manuscripts.The TR and W/H rely on a variety of manuscripts. TR favored more Byzantine texts which were newer and more available, while W/H relies more on the older manuscripts that are now available.

Do you even understand why they made a TR? Because the byzantine texts did not agree with each other!!
So Erasmus decided to pool all the texts he could get together and whatever the most amount of manuscripts said on a particular passage, that was the version he'd go with! "

 

[Kerry]

The KJV is not the foundation of the America. No one died for it. NIV is not about atheism.

Thats what they want you to think. which revision do you have? its up in the front before the acknowledgements.

 

[Nick01]

Classic change of subject doncha think, show a thread that questions other translations. again if the devil aint fight against it then I don't want it.

Which posts are you reading? You can't possibly be reading mine. I'll say it again - THIS THREAD IS A THREAD THAT QUESTIONS OTHER TRANSLATIONS. I'll even post this post, all the way back on page one:

I use the others for my "rest room" bible I am under the impression that there are probably other bibles that would suffice besides the KJV. I don't know what they are called but they would only be transcripted from the "majority texts"
which rules out all of the new age bibles. NIV example.

If that isn't "questioning other translations", I don't know what is.

But again, it's irrelevant. Persecution of a thing does not prove that thing is legit. I'll stop flogging the dead horse, that's all I will post in reply to you for today, Kerry.

 

[Kerry]

y'all have a ball and read this junk or get with it and read the truth its your choice and it has always been your choice. Just as the cross is your choice. Read a bible that leaves out that Jesus is the Son of God or read one that declares Jesus is the son of God. Your choice and choose wisely

Good night..

 

[Last]

Thats what they want you to think. which revision do you have? its up in the front before the acknowledgements.

Who, the alien bigfoots in tinfoil hats?

 

[KJV1611]

Originally Posted by KJV1611

[SUP]4 [/SUP]Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of [SUP][b][/SUP]their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

[SUP]5 [/SUP]The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.

[SUP]6 [/SUP]Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

Contradiction – The members of the first resurrection will rule with Christ during the thousand year reign… they are not resurrected until after the thousand year reign of Christ.

Sorry, I'm dumb. You'll have to point out to me a little more clearly where you think the problem is, and how this translation differs in this passage to the KJV.

Who rules and reigns with Christ in the millennium? Those of the first resurrection.
According to the NASB, when is the first resurrection? After the millennium.
How can people reign with Christ during the millennium when they are not raised until after the millennium? It's an error in the new translations.

 

[Nick01]

Who rules and reigns with Christ in the millennium? Those of the first resurrection.
According to the NASB, when is the first resurrection? After the millennium.
How can people reign with Christ during the millennium when they are not raised until after the millennium? It's an error in the new translations.

So, just to clarify, can I ask how you think the NASB differs from the KJV in this passage? For those playing along at home, here is the same passage in the KJV:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

 

[KJV1611]

So, just to clarify, can I ask how you think the NASB differs from the KJV in this passage? For those playing along at home, here is the same passage in the KJV:

One word... "but". But continues the thought of verse four into verse five.
In the other translations verse 4 stands alone. Verse five starts a completely new thought.

 

[JackH]

Who, the alien bigfoots in tinfoil hats?

Hey, that was funny.

It would appear that Kerry is blinded by New World Order conspiracies.

If he denies it, I'll prove it.

 

[Nick01]

One word... "but". But continues the thought of verse four into verse five.
In the other translations verse 4 stands alone. Verse five starts a completely new thought.

I don't follow - the fact that it's talking about 'the rest of the dead' is enough to demonstrate a continuation of thought from verse 4 to verse 5 - otherwise there's nothing to be 'the rest' of. I certainly don't believe that the first resurrection referred to here is referring to the 'rest of the dead', so I don't really understand what your problem with the modern translations is.

On a side note, the word 'but' isn't, as far as I can make out, in any Greek text, not even in the TR. It's simply a word that the KJV translators added, albeit one that is meant to clarify the text, and doesn't change what is fairly obvious from reading the actual passage. I think you would struggle to find a theologian, of any persuasion, who genuinely believes the 'rest of the dead' are 'the first resurrection'

 

[PoxEclipse]

654

http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/86157-translation-comparison-charts.html

 

[Fishbait]

Hey, that was funny.

It would appear that Kerry is blinded by New World Order conspiracies.

If he denies it, I'll prove it.

Why the attacks on the KJV that have proved invauable for millions of people?

 

[klg61]

my only question, is why do most bibles need to be revised and revised and revised? why is some bibles called new? the holy bible has withstood 2000 years of ridicule and it is still here. the bible is the only book that prophecy has came true 100% as it is written. now there is no doubt that bibles that have taken over 32 scriptures out need not be read.

 

[KJV1611]

I don't follow - the fact that it's talking about 'the rest of the dead' is enough to demonstrate a continuation of thought from verse 4 to verse 5 - otherwise there's nothing to be 'the rest' of. I certainly don't believe that the first resurrection referred to here is referring to the 'rest of the dead', so I don't really understand what your problem with the modern translations is.

On a side note, the word 'but' isn't, as far as I can make out, in any Greek text, not even in the TR. It's simply a word that the KJV translators added, albeit one that is meant to clarify the text, and doesn't change what is fairly obvious from reading the actual passage. I think you would struggle to find a theologian, of any persuasion, who genuinely believes the 'rest of the dead' are 'the first resurrection'

No in fact Nick it's not enough to demonstrate continuity, that's why the vast number of Christians believe the 1st resurrection takes place after the millennium. Let me see if can illustrate.

4 Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. A fact is presented - those brought back to life before the millennium will reign with Christ during the millennium.


5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. Another fact is presented - the rest of the dead, meaning all those who did take the mark of the beast etc. will not come to life until the thousand years are completed. This is the first resurrection. A description is given of the ones mentioned in verse 5 - They are part of the 1st resurrection.

If you think I'm wrong about this, just Google when was the 1st Resurrection. You will find that most Christians believe something like this explanation I found on the web.

On the other hand, the immediate referent of the phrase is "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." That would imply that, while the martyrs did come to life and reign with Christ, that event was not properly a "resurrection".

The NASB is wrong, no if's, and's or but's. Removing "but" from the verse completely changed it's meaning.

 

[KJV1611]

my only question, is why do most bibles need to be revised and revised and revised? why is some bibles called new? the holy bible has withstood 2000 years of ridicule and it is still here. the bible is the only book that prophecy has came true 100% as it is written. now there is no doubt that bibles that have taken over 32 scriptures out need not be read.

There are two purposes in revisions, one is to make money, the KJV can be reproduced by anyone at no charge. The other reason for revisions is to change the word of God.

 

[Jason0047]

Re: 654

http://christianchat.com/miscellaneous/86157-translation-comparison-charts.html

Thank you for that. It shows that the Modern Translations do not all say the same thing. Many of them subtly change many passages and alter the meaning of God's Word.

While I believe the King James is the divinely preserved Word of God for our world language today (i.e. English), I also like to use Modern Translations in order to help update the language in my readings. Modern Translations are not my final word of authority. I also look at Modern Translations as panning thru dirt in order to get to the gold which can be found in the KJV and the original Greek.

Oh, and despite it's problems, I do like the NLT in my readings next to the KJV. Hence, why I have a KJV / NLT Bible. I find the NLT very helpful especially in reading the Old Testament. New Testament seems pretty straight forward for the most part in the KJV. It's the OT that seems to be more poetic in the KJV. At least in my humble opinion anyways.

 

[Jason0047]

No, unlike some people I don't watch a video and believe something because it supports my worldview. I simply go by the facts.

The facts of this issue are quite clear:
"There are not two different sets of manuscripts.The TR and W/H rely on a variety of manuscripts. TR favored more Byzantine texts which were newer and more available, while W/H relies more on the older manuscripts that are now available.

Do you even understand why they made a TR? Because the byzantine texts did not agree with each other!!
So Erasmus decided to pool all the texts he could get together and whatever the most amount of manuscripts said on a particular passage, that was the version he'd go with! "

Facts are not Historical Evidences but Observable Evidences. You cannot observe those things to be true so it is not a fact. Facts is something that I can actually prove to you in the here and now. Unless it is the Word of God, some piece of paper (with some writing on it) is not proof of anything. People can write one false idea and then it can catch on like wild fire (Even in the past). The only real proof or fact that you can check is observable evidences and not historical evidences. There is a difference.