Why the king james?

[trofimus]

I agree the originals were inspired and only God can translate those originals into other languages, man can't do it with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Why cant men do it with the Holy Spirit guidance?
Where God promised something like that? Bible know only about the authors inspiration, even in the time of Jesus there were several versions of the Old Testament so Jesus and apostles had to choose which one to quoute.

And they have chosen many times another version than the KJV translators and that is my point - KJV translators were wrong (or you can say Jesus and apostles were wrong, to defend KJV, but that would be quite a big deal.)

 

[trofimus]

I guess I would agree with you if Paul would have said "For Esaias saith Quote who hath believed our report, but he didn't quote Isaiah, he said Esaias saith... It's a given in Isaiah that Isaiah is talking to the Lord.

John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,
Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith,
Lord, who hath believed our report?

There is no place in whole the Bible, where the quotation is beginning with the word "quote", you know that.
"It is written" or "As xyz said" are the quotations beginnings and you know that too. You are only trying to get out of the consequences.

If both Paul and John made the same "addition", without being it in the text, how do you explain that the OT version, that the apostles chosen to use, has it?

Is 53:1
ΚΥΡΙΕ, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν?
Lord, who has believed our report?

KJV does not have it, because they chose wrong version of OT to translate from. Its very obvious. There is no other explanation other than that apostles and Jesus chose the wrong version and KJV translators knew better than them, but this is a preposterous idea.

 

[fredoheaven]

Game is over for KJV, because it used wrong version of Old testament to translate from. Obviously. So now you have to talk a lot to get it in line.

Well, this is ridiculous idea you have and I can't blame you for that. I have already given you the general principles on how to tackle this kind of problems you have with the bible yet you ignore it or maybe you have been misguided. I remember Santa in my childhood said "ho ho" ...ever think that Santa fabricated that in the Bible? Then Satan said "Yea hath God said.."

Zech. 2:6 Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the LORD: for I have spread you abroad as the four winds of the heaven, saith the LORD

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hathGod said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[fredoheaven]

There is no error in original Bible. There are many errors in manuscripts and translations made from them. Because copying or translation is not inspired.

This is it! Basics, Timothy used not an original Bible but copies of the original yet the Bible says it is the "HOLY SCRIPTURES", Are we not to consider copies of "holy scriptures" according to 2 Timothy 3:15-16? Are they not given by inspiration? What about XeroX copies are they not constitute inspirations? I like to have that original Bible you refer to please...IF YOU HAVE.

 

[fredoheaven]

John 12:38 That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake,
Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?

Romans 10:16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias saith,
Lord, who hath believed our report?

There is no place in whole the Bible, where the quotation is beginning with the word "quote", you know that.
"It is written" or "As xyz said" are the quotations beginnings and you know that too. You are only trying to get out of the consequences.

If both Paul and John made the same "addition", without being it in the text, how do you explain that the OT version, that the apostles chosen to use, has it?

Is 53:1
ΚΥΡΙΕ, τίς ἐπίστευσε τῇ ἀκοῇ ἡμῶν?
Lord, who has believed our report?

KJV does not have it, because they chose wrong version of OT to translate from. Its very obvious. There is no other explanation other than that apostles and Jesus chose the wrong version and KJV translators knew better than them, but this is a preposterous idea.

Scribal Error? "That's if" and if? Many die because of believing "if".

Proverbs 14:12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

 

[KJV1611]

The exact words don't matter but the words. You can say Jesus is God's only begotten son but you can't say Jesus is God's only son. Those 2 don't say the same thing.

That was posting without proof reading I appologize. I meant to say the exact words don't matter but the RIGHT words have to be there. For example, the KJV says Jesus is God's only begotten son which is "the right words". The NIV does not use "the right words", dropping begotten from the verse completely changes the meaning of the verse.

 

[KJV1611]

Game is over for KJV, because it used wrong version of Old testament to translate from. Obviously. So now you have to talk a lot to get it in line.

How is it that you know which Old Testament version is the good one and which is the bad one?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Can you give me an example of someone in the bible that was considered righteous but not made righteous?

Well James was not talking about Abraham being made righteous now was he? He was talking about him being considered righteous. Paul was talking about him being made righteous, when he said in romans 4 that Abraham had faiht in god and it was acreddited to him as righteousness (justified)

I agree a person with no works (a hearer of the word only) is not considered righteous.

Then you should agree. A person with no works, is not considered righteous, nor was he every justified.

by the way, were you ever going to answer peacefulwarriors question?

 

[KJV1611]

You might want to proofread your posts before you click "Post".


If you are to be taken seriously at all, you need to come up with a rational refutation of the Preface to the 1611 edition, from which I quote:

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession (for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God."

"There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes speake) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beastes and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, the because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can beno lesse then presumption. Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded."

(King James Version Original Preface)

Good luck.

You're right I should proof read and I usually do but I had something going on at that time and quickly replied. I don't understand what the preface to the KJV has to do with anything. I don't think the KJV translators knew they were giving God's inerrant word in English any more than Paul knew he was writting the New Testament when he wrote a letter to the Romans or Corintians.

 

[trofimus]

That was posting without proof reading I appologize. I meant to say the exact words don't matter but the RIGHT words have to be there. For example, the KJV says Jesus is God's only begotten son which is "the right words". The NIV does not use "the right words", dropping begotten from the verse completely changes the meaning of the verse.

There are many differences between translations, and I dont care about NIV or KJV

But if you teach that KJV is infallible and perfect, without any error and the only one to be used for sound doctrines, I must point to you that it is not. I think that most simple proof is to show you, that KJV Old testament is different from the OT used by apostles.

Either apostles had wrong OT version or you have the wrong OT version. Simple as that.

 

[trofimus]

How is it that you know which Old Testament version is the good one and which is the bad one?

By reading citations of OT made by apostles and Jesus.
Either they used wrong version or KJV did. Simple as that. Nothing complex or deep about it.

 

[posthuman]

How is it that you know which Old Testament version is the good one and which is the bad one?

i've heard that the order Paul quotes the ten commandments in Romans 13:9 matches the Septuagint. i don't think that makes one version 'bad' or the other 'good' necessarily, but i am ignorant about the subject.
it's not likely, i think, that in the synagogues Jesus taught in, He would have read from a Greek text rather than a Hebrew one.
putting those two thoughts together (really they both are conjectures) i got another conjecture, that there was more than one 'version' of the scripture floating around even then, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that the scribes sometimes got all het up arguing about which one was best.

 

[KJV1611]

Well James was not talking about Abraham being made righteous now was he? He was talking about him being considered righteous. Paul was talking about him being made righteous, when he said in romans 4 that Abraham had faiht in god and it was acreddited to him as righteousness (justified)


Then you should agree. A person with no works, is not considered righteous, nor was he every justified.

by the way, were you ever going to answer peacefulwarriors question?

I've been busy trying to fix a 1940 9N tractor... I wasted my whole vacation on it and it still wont run. Anyway I must have missed it, what was the question

 

[KJV1611]

Well James was not talking about Abraham being made righteous now was he? He was talking about him being considered righteous. Paul was talking about him being made righteous, when he said in romans 4 that Abraham had faiht in god and it was acreddited to him as righteousness (justified)


Then you should agree. A person with no works, is not considered righteous, nor was he every justified.

by the way, were you ever going to answer peacefulwarriors question?

Exactly, righteousness comes from faith not works.

 

[KJV1611]

There are many differences between translations, and I dont care about NIV or KJV

But if you teach that KJV is infallible and perfect, without any error and the only one to be used for sound doctrines, I must point to you that it is not. I think that most simple proof is to show you, that KJV Old testament is different from the OT used by apostles.

Either apostles had wrong OT version or you have the wrong OT version. Simple as that.

Again, the word of God is spirit, the spirit dwells in the body. You are searching the scriptures (the body) trying to find truth but the truth is the spirit behind the words. It doesn't matter what was written in the originals because the same was true with them, the word of God is hidden in the text. You're doing exactly what the Pharisees did, you can't see the word of God because you're stumbling over the words.

John 5:39 KJV
Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

 

[KJV1611]

Well James was not talking about Abraham being made righteous now was he? He was talking about him being considered righteous. Paul was talking about him being made righteous, when he said in romans 4 that Abraham had faiht in god and it was acreddited to him as righteousness (justified)


Then you should agree. A person with no works, is not considered righteous, nor was he every justified.

by the way, were you ever going to answer peacefulwarriors question?

If G1344 means made righteous or counted as righteous then how does that apply to Luke 10:29? Should that verse have been translated "But he, willing to be made righteous himself...."?

[TABLE="class: bibleTable, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: bVerse"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"] Luk 10:29[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"]But he, willing to justify G1344 himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[eternally-gratefull]

If G1344 means made righteous or counted as righteous then how does that apply to Luke 10:29? Should that verse have been translated "But he, willing to be made righteous himself...."?

[TABLE="class: bibleTable, width: 100%"]
[TR="class: bVerse"]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"] Luk 10:29[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #F8F8DA"]But he, willing to justify G1344 himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

lol.. He wanted to do it himself.. That is the opposite of what James was trying to say.

Abraham was not trying to justify himself. That is why the word "himself" is missing, the verb in James 2 is an verb where he is acted on, (passive) where the verb in Luke 10 is an action done by the doer himself (active)

Abraham was not gtrying to justify himself by his works. The guy in Luke 10 was.



They are not even the same word (they have the same root word, but are different)

Please, Study up some on greek..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Exactly, righteousness comes from faith not works.

I never said it did, Nor did James, Nor did the authors of the NIV.

Your the one who is mistaken..

your trying to make a mountain out of a valley, there is nothing there.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I've been busy trying to fix a 1940 9N tractor... I wasted my whole vacation on it and it still wont run. Anyway I must have missed it, what was the question

Sorry for your work, Hope you get it fixed soon. Go back two pages, and you will have it.

 

[KJV1611]

I never said it did, Nor did James, Nor did the authors of the NIV.

Your the one who is mistaken..

your trying to make a mountain out of a valley, there is nothing there.

LOL tell that to works salvation folks who use that verse to say Abraham was seen as righteous by his works. There's a different spirit in the NIV EG. It leads to a different gospel and a different Christ.