Here lies a huge difference in versions. The KJV says that the Lord saw David in his mother's womb before he was completely formed having all members of his body and were perfectly fashioned in continuance, his members. The NIV states that the Lord saw David and then ordained every day David would be alive, thus making David His robot. This is why the Calvinist crowd loves the modern versions. They are better suited to fit their false theology.
Why the king james?
- Thread starter Blain
- 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.
They had to use the wrong scriptures as there is only the KJ "version" that is real...what deception and spiritual foolishness this whole thread has been. You can't be born-again nor have the same Christ if you read another version of the scriptures other then the KJV...I'm still shaking my head over the complete spiritual ignorance of such statements.
You guys can prove that the scriptures are the scriptures and it still will not change the KJV "only" mindset. It's like trying to tell an atheist through intellect that God is real. He just won't understand nor agree with the truth. You are flogging a dead horse here I'm afraid. But great job though and honest people can see the truth of what you are conveying about the scriptures!..it might be better just to let them be with their beliefs.....
First of all, could you explain what the second birth is? No religious BS please. Just explain in simple terms because it is that simple.
I'm a cult member because some moron said the bible is wrong and I don't buy that BS. You need to step back and take a look at yourself man, you're the cult member. You're the one who believes the doctrines of men, you're the one who picks which part of the bible you think should be there and which part shouldn't be there and then you call that truth. And you think i'm following a cult?
Last edited:
John most of these people arguing against the KJV actually say the NIV and KJV say the same thing in that verse. It's almost like willful rejection of the truth to "prove" the KJV is wrong.
Originally Posted by KJV1611
Oh here's another "coincidence"... DNA again mentioned in the bible.
Psalm 139:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Oh wait a minute, you don't get the "secret message" in the NIV.. those idiots didn't translate it right.
Psalm 139:16New International Version (NIV)
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be
Oh here's another "coincidence"... DNA again mentioned in the bible.
Psalm 139:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Oh wait a minute, you don't get the "secret message" in the NIV.. those idiots didn't translate it right.
Psalm 139:16New International Version (NIV)
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be
You wish My argument is based on what Jesus and apostles said about Old Testament. That differs from what you have in your KJV testament.
I am surprised it takes you so long to realize my point.
My point is (again) this: If apostles have another version of OT than you have in your KJV, you cant say your KJV is perfect. In that case you would have better Scripture than apostles.
My argument is based on what Jesus and apostles said about Old Testament. That differs from what you have in your KJV testament.I am surprised it takes you so long to realize my point.
My point is (again) this: If apostles have another version of OT than you have in your KJV, you cant say your KJV is perfect. In that case you would have better Scripture than apostles.
Last edited:
In fact, I was defending the discussion with you
And again, you used a straw-man fallacy. We never said Bible is wrong. We said KJV translation is wrong.
You obviously have a problem to distinguish between these two things.
You say NIV is wrong. Is it the same as saying Bible is wrong? If not, why do you use same logic for your opponents, who say KJV is a wrong translation and why do you change "KJV" for "Bible"?
And again, you used a straw-man fallacy. We never said Bible is wrong. We said KJV translation is wrong.
You obviously have a problem to distinguish between these two things.
You say NIV is wrong. Is it the same as saying Bible is wrong? If not, why do you use same logic for your opponents, who say KJV is a wrong translation and why do you change "KJV" for "Bible"?
What's your argument? Do you believe the NIV to be the very words of God in the English language? Do you believe we even have the very words of God in the English language? Do you trust the manuscripts to be the very words of God in Greek and Hebrew? Do you take God at His word when He promised to preserve every word for all generations? Please, what is your stance?
In fact, I was defending the discussion with you
And again, you used a straw-man fallacy. We never said Bible is wrong. We said KJV translation is wrong.
You obviously have a problem to distinguish between these two things.
You say NIV is wrong. Is it the same as saying Bible is wrong? If not, why do you use same logic for your opponents, who say KJV is a wrong translation and why do you change "KJV" for "Bible"?
And again, you used a straw-man fallacy. We never said Bible is wrong. We said KJV translation is wrong.
You obviously have a problem to distinguish between these two things.
You say NIV is wrong. Is it the same as saying Bible is wrong? If not, why do you use same logic for your opponents, who say KJV is a wrong translation and why do you change "KJV" for "Bible"?
My argument is, that KJV is not perfect inspired translation of the Bible.
What do you mean by "the very words of God"? Like that every word here is perfect? No, I dont believe so. And I dont use NIV, btw.
Do I believe christian can read NIV and be saved and grow in Christ? Yes.
Again - what do you mean by "very words of God". Like that there is some English translation, where every word here is perfect? No, I dont believe so.
Do I believe christian can read most of English translation and be saved and grow in Christ? Yes.
There are about 6000 greek manuscripts of New Testament. Not even 2 of them are the same. All have some differences from others.
You can "compile" them to see what place is probably the error and correct that.. but this is the work of men, so again, not perfect.
Old Testament is bigger problem. Hebrew text is from the middle ages and is heavily censored to get rid of messianic prophecies.
Septuagint is very old and used by church, that is authoritative. But it is only a translation of the original hebrew text that is lost now. So it is preserved only translated in Septuagint, which is not perfect either.
What verse do you have in mind? But generally, I think that the words of God are best preserved in combination of Septuagint + Majority text. But again, not without any error.
What do you mean by "the very words of God"? Like that every word here is perfect? No, I dont believe so. And I dont use NIV, btw.
Do I believe christian can read NIV and be saved and grow in Christ? Yes.
Again - what do you mean by "very words of God". Like that there is some English translation, where every word here is perfect? No, I dont believe so.
Do I believe christian can read most of English translation and be saved and grow in Christ? Yes.
There are about 6000 greek manuscripts of New Testament. Not even 2 of them are the same. All have some differences from others.
You can "compile" them to see what place is probably the error and correct that.. but this is the work of men, so again, not perfect.
Old Testament is bigger problem. Hebrew text is from the middle ages and is heavily censored to get rid of messianic prophecies.
Septuagint is very old and used by church, that is authoritative. But it is only a translation of the original hebrew text that is lost now. So it is preserved only translated in Septuagint, which is not perfect either.
What verse do you have in mind? But generally, I think that the words of God are best preserved in combination of Septuagint + Majority text. But again, not without any error.
Last edited:
Sorry, I was being sarcastic. I hate that about myself. The bottom line is, do we have the pure words of God in any language that we can trust 100%? If not, that goes against God's promise. If so, where are they? My belief is God can give us His pure words for the English language and has done so. God foresaw the English language being the closest thing to a universal language and used it to explode the gospel around the world using the KJV. When the modern versions started to come out and believed, we saw a huge decrease in revivals and evangelism. Now look at what we've got. Total apostate living and anarchy against God.
Sarcasm is ok to me.
What Gods promise do you mean?
BTW, Chinese and Spanish are more used than English.
So according to you, everybody in the world has to learn English to get the 100% perfect word of God?
I think there is no real decrease in anything, there were never so many christians as today. I would only say the center of christianity moved from Europe to Africa, South America and Asia, thats why you cant see so many revivals around you.
And again, KJV Old Testament differs from the OT of apostles, how do you explain this?
What Gods promise do you mean?
BTW, Chinese and Spanish are more used than English.
So according to you, everybody in the world has to learn English to get the 100% perfect word of God?
I think there is no real decrease in anything, there were never so many christians as today. I would only say the center of christianity moved from Europe to Africa, South America and Asia, thats why you cant see so many revivals around you.
And again, KJV Old Testament differs from the OT of apostles, how do you explain this?
The modern versions have laid the path for the Laodicea Age. No real belief in the words of God.
Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever"
What would happen if we had all original Scripture? Would everyone have to learn Greek and Hebrew?
Psalm 12:6-7, "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever"
What would happen if we had all original Scripture? Would everyone have to learn Greek and Hebrew?
To Psalm - there are two possible views on this verse... "your words" can mean the message, meaning or really all literal words one after another.
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
R
To Psalm - there are two possible views on this verse... "your words" can mean the message, meaning or really all literal words one after another.
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." John 1:1
"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth." John 1:14
Having the right words is the only true way to make the right connections in Scripture. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to compare Scripture to Scripture with just meaning. We need the right words. Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Psalm 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Certainly, our God can preserve His pure words in any language He sees fit. Preservation does not have to mean exact words as given in the originals. God can preserve His words in a language to where it's better that the originals for those who speak that language.
Psalm 138:2, "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name."
The explosion of modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.
Certainly, our God can preserve His pure words in any language He sees fit. Preservation does not have to mean exact words as given in the originals. God can preserve His words in a language to where it's better that the originals for those who speak that language.
To Psalm - there are two possible views on this verse... "your words" can mean the message, meaning or really all literal words one after another.
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
If the second is the case, where do you suppose we can find them? In what manuscript? KJV is obviously different from the Bible first church used, so KJV is out of game too. So where to look for that perfectly preserved words?
I think there is reason why the original Scripture was not preserved... maybe to show us, that Bible is only a book, not God. I dont know. But we would know more certainly which source to translate from
Heres a few, these are so beautifully, and not even all of them considering Duet 18:18 also
Of Christ
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight:
but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth
went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
The word spoken by the Word would judge them on the last day John 12:38
As He said,
John 7:8.... I have given them the words which thou hast given me
Psalm 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
and a twoedged sword in their hand;
Ephes 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Mark 7:13 which is off Mark 7:10 (What Moses stated) being the word of God and in John 12:38 show Logos
Shows "the word" (logos) that comes out of the mouth of "the Word" the Logos (Jesus Christ) Who is the quick and he that is shown sharper then any a twoedged sword (which sword goeth out of his mouth, Rev 1:16). Is the same named sword shown being given into their hand (in Psalm 149:6). Even as the helmet of salvation and sword of the Spirit in Ephes 6:17 is also called the word (rhēma) of God. But is mentioned also the twoedged sword that come out of His (the Logos) mouth. Gets all woven into it when referred to as a sword (in their hand) equated with the word (Rhema with them) and Logos with Him (but who referred to Moses word as the Logos as well) seeing God had spoken by Moses.
Of Christ
Rev 19:13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood:
and his name is called The Word of God.
Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword
Heb 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword,
piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.
Heb 4:13 Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight:
but all things are naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do.
Rev 1:16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth
went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
The word spoken by the Word would judge them on the last day John 12:38
As He said,
John 7:8.... I have given them the words which thou hast given me
Psalm 149:6 Let the high praises of God be in their mouth,
and a twoedged sword in their hand;
Ephes 6:17 And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Mark 7:13 which is off Mark 7:10 (What Moses stated) being the word of God and in John 12:38 show Logos
Shows "the word" (logos) that comes out of the mouth of "the Word" the Logos (Jesus Christ) Who is the quick and he that is shown sharper then any a twoedged sword (which sword goeth out of his mouth, Rev 1:16). Is the same named sword shown being given into their hand (in Psalm 149:6). Even as the helmet of salvation and sword of the Spirit in Ephes 6:17 is also called the word (rhēma) of God. But is mentioned also the twoedged sword that come out of His (the Logos) mouth. Gets all woven into it when referred to as a sword (in their hand) equated with the word (Rhema with them) and Logos with Him (but who referred to Moses word as the Logos as well) seeing God had spoken by Moses.
Last edited: