Why the king james?

[eternally-gratefull]

Yea, hath God said? Where do you all think Satan will attack even from the beginning? The word of God. If he can get people doubting the word of God, then he's won. Multiple versions creates doubt and the question, Yea, hath God said?

this is almost laughable. I have heard people use all kinds of excuses, I have never heard a anyone doubt the bible is real because there are so many translations.

I have however, heard MANY MANY people say they would never want to be a christian, Because we are so divided.. and are so apposed to each other based on such stupid thing of what version of the bible should we use. or when the rapture will be, or what denomination should we be a part of..

it is not the differences which cause hate or attach, it is our divisive nature which causes the hate.

 

[Angela53510]

Well said!.....I have one question about Thayers being discredited as a source for the meanings of greek words. Where does that discrediting come from? I ask because it is a part of my bible software and once in awhile I look at it and to me it seems to say basically the same thing as the others.

I also find that some of them give their "commentary" of what the words means which could be just them giving their thoughts based on their own particular belief from the denomination they belong to. It's similar to what translators did for some words in the KJV.

What do you think of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament? It seems to be thorough albeit somewhat tedious to read.

Thanks for your input and I always enjoy your posts on these topics.

I do apologize for saying in such a way about Thayer's that it seems like the entire concordance is discredited. Chalk that one up to typing in the dark on a phone when you can't sleep.

Probably a lot of the actual words are translated the same as in other concordances. It is some of the grammar that is at issue. It is a very old source, and new scholarship has discredited some key interpretative issues. If you want more, I can type it out later.

But again, compared to the KJV, it is a very modern source. Reading these posts really makes me wonder. Why do people want to read a Bible translation written to English culture in the 16th century? So much has been discovered with regards to lower textual criticism since that version was translated. That means uncovered amazing things supporting the Bible, which the KJV translators knew nothing about.

The KJV is a translation. It is NOT inspired, but it has been used to bring millions to Christ. It did change many things about modern Christianity. Unfortunately, not all those things are good! But still, a Bible we owe much to in the English speaking world.

 

[Grace777x70]

That's excellent!...thanks for your inpute. So, the KJV is not inspired as " the only word of God"..whew...that was a close one...I thought I would have to start believing the pope was the head of the church here on earth.

It's ok about Thayer's...I will not need anymore info..I have about 6 other sources to go to...thanks!

I do apologize for saying in such a way about Thayer's that it seems like the entire concordance is discredited. Chalk that one up to typing in the dark on a phone when you can't sleep.

Probably a lot of the actual words are translated the same as in other concordances. It is some of the grammar that is at issue. It is a very old source, and new scholarship has discredited some key interpretative issues. If you want more, I can type it out later.

But again, compared to the KJV, it is a very modern source. Reading these posts really makes me wonder. Why do people want to read a Bible translation written to English culture in the 16th century? So much has been discovered with regards to lower textual criticism since that version was translated. That means uncovered amazing things supporting the Bible, which the KJV translators knew nothing about.

The KJV is a translation. It is NOT inspired, but it has been used to bring millions to Christ. It did change many things about modern Christianity. Unfortunately, not all those things are good! But still, a Bible we owe much to in the English speaking world.

 

[John146]

The word of God is that important to me. I have trusted in the Savior of the book for the salvation of my soul for eternity. And by the way, I have spoken to more than one lost person who said the Bible is a joke because us Christians have more than one version. It can't be trusted.

this is almost laughable. I have heard people use all kinds of excuses, I have never heard a anyone doubt the bible is real because there are so many translations.

I have however, heard MANY MANY people say they would never want to be a christian, Because we are so divided.. and are so apposed to each other based on such stupid thing of what version of the bible should we use. or when the rapture will be, or what denomination should we be a part of..

it is not the differences which cause hate or attach, it is our divisive nature which causes the hate.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The word of God is that important to me. I have trusted in the Savior of the book for the salvation of my soul for eternity. And by the way, I have spoken to more than one lost person who said the Bible is a joke because us Christians have more than one version. It can't be trusted.

It is just as important to me too. Thats why I use all things God has given to me, to make sure the words I am reading are actually Gods word. I do not take it lightly.

Well it is good if some people have said this to you. However, it does not prove your point.. Your not even reading the book you claim was inspired, you do understand that do you not? Your reading a modern day interpretation of that interpretation.

 

[kohelet]

So now I am to trust man's notes over what God has said. No thank you.

Hi again John146,

You'd know that six committees of (human) translators were responsible for the King James Translation. How would their work be any more reliable than the translation of scholars of today, who have manuscripts discovered since 1611 to include in the mix? You don't "now" have to trust men any more now than you did when you decided the KJV is the best translation. Ultimately, of course, we trust God who men look to as they do the work of Old and New Testament text research.

How do you feel about the Greek New Testament (since you gave a NT example) - and the Hebrew Old Testament, for that matter. Are they reliable?

 

[kohelet]

(As an aside, English has a lot of words that are from the French because of the Norman invasion and the back-and-forth ownership of Normandy by France and England. In fact, UK spelling conventions of colour, honour, etc. come from French spellings).

Let's stay with the tangent for a moment, Mary, shall we? I like a good tangent. Did you know that we Australians spell the word "baptise" (with "baptize" [spellcheck wanted "baptise" there, and for once it was right!] running a distant second), in line with the French? Well, we do. We're such purists. We think Samuel Webster has a lot to answer for.

The OED goes with either.

 

[hornetguy]

Baptizo in Greek means "to baptize, dip, immerse." It is actually an ancient Jewish cleansing tradition, a ritual to do with ceremonial cleansing.

So, the literal translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is to baptize, not "immerse" or "dip"? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where did the Anglican/English word "baptize" originate, and when? That's what I'm wondering. I'm thinking the word "baptized" is simply the Anglicized translation of "baptizo", which literally means "immerse" or "dip"
Some of the Jewish versions of the NT show it as "repent and be immersed..."

This is a pretty big deal... if the original statement was to repent and be immersed (baptizo), then that would fit in with the symbolism of baptism replicating the death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling water on someone's head does not fit with that at all.

 

[Mitspa]

Study to shew thyself approved unto God...here are some notes on a study I went through years ago. The word Easter is the perfect word and should not be Passover. Herod is the one that waited to arrest Peter. Do you think Herod was being sensitive to the Jews? Nonsense. Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. The days of day of Passover takes place the day before the days of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:13-18:"And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14),we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:
"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

1. On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
2. On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.

Are you serious? The Jews was celebrating "easter" even before it was established as a Christian holiday? And it says right in the passage "he was trying to please the Jews" and your logic about the timeframe is just silly.

 

[valiant]

The word of God is that important to me. I have trusted in the Savior of the book for the salvation of my soul for eternity. And by the way, I have spoken to more than one lost person who said the Bible is a joke because us Christians have more than one version. It can't be trusted.

There is only one version of the Bible that is completely trustworthy and that is the original Greek text which we do not have.

Why should God give us english speakers a correct version, and not the other European nations and African and so on

you may think english speakers are all important, God doesn't.

 

[valiant]

So, the literal translation of the Greek word "baptizo" is to baptize, not "immerse" or "dip"? That makes no sense whatsoever. Where did the Anglican/English word "baptize" originate, and when? That's what I'm wondering. I'm thinking the word "baptized" is simply the Anglicized translation of "baptizo", which literally means "immerse" or "dip"
Some of the Jewish versions of the NT show it as "repent and be immersed..."

This is a pretty big deal... if the original statement was to repent and be immersed (baptizo), then that would fit in with the symbolism of baptism replicating the death, burial, and resurrection. Sprinkling water on someone's head does not fit with that at all.

the original meaning of baptizo was to immerse, to overwhelm, Baptism was taken over from it.

bapto means dip,

 

[hornetguy]

This is not addressed specifically to you, Hornet guy, but to everyone, especially in this thread who keep misusing the Greek/Hebrew to support their points.

I imagine most folks misuse Greek/Hebrew, because only a few really dedicated scholars (like yourself) have the desire/discipline to study and learn them. My mother was a bit of a Greek student, and my younger brother has his MDiv and PhD in Biblical history or some such, so he's sort of my "go-to" walking Greek reference. (Go-to is figurative, since he and his wife both teach at Cambridge... that would be a long swim) That's why I stated that what I was writing was just what I had been taught all my life... that I didn't know it to be true, first-hand. It appears that the word baptize, or baptism is a sort of Latin and English transliteration of the Koine (sp?) Greek word baptizo... and was seen in writings maybe as early as the 400's? I didn't know that. However, it was still interpreted, and accepted universally to mean full immersion up until the 1620's or so... about the time the KJV came into full acceptance. The RCC apparently decided that sprinkling or pouring was acceptable about that time. Before that, it was immersion only, apparently.

 

[Mitspa]

Look if this guy wont admit something as obvious as pass-over being translated "easter" as a error in the KJV...your never going to get him to admit anything in the Greek that takes some study.

 

[KJV1611]

Are you serious? The Jews was celebrating "easter" even before it was established as a Christian holiday? And it says right in the passage "he was trying to please the Jews" and your logic about the timeframe is just silly.

Do you think the KJV translators were stupid or what? Obviously they knew Passover was in the original Greek. So why do you think they translated passover as Easter in the book of Acts? What is different about the word Passover in the book of Acts? Have you ever looked to see? I'm sure your haven't so I'll tell so maybe you will GROW UP and stop falsely suggesting that he inerrant word of God is full of mistakes.

Passover is a shadow Easter (death, burial and resurrection) just like "the lamb" was a shadow of Christ, just like the feast of unleavened bread was a shadow of the pure inerrant word of God that you blasphemously say is full of errors.

The KJV translators translated passover as Easter in the book of Acts because the book of Acts is the only book in the bible to reference the feast of passover AFTER Passover had been fulfilled by Christ... it is no longer passover, it's Easter just like the KJV translators translated it.

If you would start believing the bible instead of trying to force holes in it where holes don't exist, God might actually show you something.

 

[Mitspa]

Do you think the KJV translators were stupid or what? Obviously they knew Passover was in the original Greek. So why do you think they translated passover as Easter in the book of Acts? What is different about the word Passover in the book of Acts? Have you ever looked to see? I'm sure your haven't so I'll tell so maybe you will GROW UP and stop falsely suggesting that he inerrant word of God is full of mistakes.

Passover is a shadow Easter (death, burial and resurrection) just like "the lamb" was a shadow of Christ, just like the feast of unleavened bread was a shadow of the pure inerrant word of God that you blasphemously say is full of errors.

The KJV translators translated passover as Easter in the book of Acts because the book of Acts is the only book in the bible to reference the feast of passover AFTER Passover had been fulfilled by Christ... it is no longer passover, it's Easter just like the KJV translators translated it.

If you would start believing the bible instead of trying to force holes in it where holes don't exist, God might actually show you something.

Look fellow ...you don't translate Jewish holidays into Christian holidays ..when its clear the WORD OF GOD intended the Jewish holiday to be mentioned in its evident context. We don't translate Old Testament shadows when the text clearly don't read that way ... Under that logic..you could change a very large percentage of the whole bible ... This word is NEVER translated as Easter in all the bible...old and new and its just clear and evident error to translate it as "easter" here ...and most all the other translations translated it as it should be ...

 

[John146]

So God gave us all the different versions saying different things containing different truths? I thought God is not the author of confusion. How do you know which is God's words? When you read each version, how do you know which is true?

It is just as important to me too. Thats why I use all things God has given to me, to make sure the words I am reading are actually Gods word. I do not take it lightly.

Well it is good if some people have said this to you. However, it does not prove your point.. Your not even reading the book you claim was inspired, you do understand that do you not? Your reading a modern day interpretation of that interpretation.

 

[KJV1611]

If any of you readers are on the fence about the KJV bible issue, don't pay any attention to these people who speak about things they know nothing of. Continue investgating the bible issue for yourself, don't believe others because I'm telling you these folks just parrot things things they heard some other moron say, none of them can back up their cliams against the kJV.

 

[John146]

Absolutely, I don't trust in man's reliability. I trust in God's promise to preserve His pure words for all generations. Do you trust in that promise? Where are they?

Hi again John146,

You'd know that six committees of (human) translators were responsible for the King James Translation. How would their work be any more reliable than the translation of scholars of today, who have manuscripts discovered since 1611 to include in the mix? You don't "now" have to trust men any more now than you did when you decided the KJV is the best translation. Ultimately, of course, we trust God who men look to as they do the work of Old and New Testament text research.

How do you feel about the Greek New Testament (since you gave a NT example) - and the Hebrew Old Testament, for that matter. Are they reliable?

 

[KJV1611]

Look fellow ...you don't translate Jewish holidays into Christian holidays ..when its clear the WORD OF GOD intended the Jewish holiday to be mentioned in its evident context. We don't translate Old Testament shadows when the text clearly don't read that way ... Under that logic..you could change a very large percentage of the whole bible ... This word is NEVER translated as Easter in all the bible...old and new and its just clear and evident error to translate it as "easter" here ...and most all the other translations translated it as it should be ...

Do you celebrate passover or Easter?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So God gave us all the different versions saying different things containing different truths? I thought God is not the author of confusion. How do you know which is God's words? When you read each version, how do you know which is true?

confusion what confusion?

I have read the NKJV, NASB and KJV, I am also studying the ESV, I am not confused, they all saty the same thing.

It is not as confusing as you make it to be..

Your making a mountain out of a mole hill