-
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.
This is a fallacy. It assumes that the words were correct in the KJV. Since you are unable to prove that (and have actually been proven wrong several times on this site), your fallacy is exposed. However, you continually use this argument. Please, for the sake of your own credibility, learn from your mistakes, and stop using falsified arguments.
R
What's wrong with reading the Bible you feel comfortable reading as long as the core principles have not been compromised? We have many bibles. However, determining which one is best is an excercise in futility. The main points of the Bible are to share the good news that Jesus provided the way to be redeemed and laid the blueprint for the way a Christian should be and groundwork for the first century churches. Secondly to encourage and edify the Church over the centuries. Next to build your faith by talking to God. Followed by our hope in the last days that our suffering will finally be over and satan and his minions are defeated at last. Finally it gives accurate accounts of the history of all Christians. These are the most important themes in the Bible. Arguing over a translation preference is a mute point in the grand scheme of things. I feel whole heartedly that as long as the translation covers these points accurately then there's nothing wrong with it. So please I ask you to stop the arguing and let's focus on more pressing matters. I can think of many things we can be doing. Walking with God in love, resisting the devil, serving in the church/community, reading your bible, and praying. I'm not telling you what to do mind you. I just thought I'd ask everyone to please stop the arguing amongst ourselves. We don't want to make satan's job any easier I know. Bickering creates anger you bottle up anger it turns to bitterness bitterness turns to hate then hate turns to rage. See the cylce my friends let's break the cycle here shall we?
Please allow me to post my criticism in your post. Taking them piece by piece as much as I can…
You said: The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew!
My answer: WRONG! The scriptures were once written in HEBREW, ARAMAIC AND GREEK! It was also translated and WRITTEN in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and the Gothic Version.
Consider these:
Hebrew- it is the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18; Zeph. 3:9) and the JEWS language (Neh. 10:34). It is called “Hebrew” in the New Testament ( Luke 23:38; Rev. 9:11; 16:16).
Aramaic/Syriac – is so named after ARAM and was called the language of Syria (2 Kings 18:26; Isah. 36:11; Daniel 2:4; Ezra 4:7). An early example of Aramaic is seen in Genesis 31:47. Aramaic was predominantly the language of the Middle East and was widely spoken in Palestine in the days of Jesus Christ and during the Apostolic times. It is also the language of Eastern (Anthiocan) Christianity and some early translation of the Bible in the Old Syriac dated 157 AD, older than the Vaticanus and Sinaticus including Taitains Diatessaron in 170AD, the Peshitta, a 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ce AD, a simple vulgate of the Syrian People were written in Syriac language.
Aramaic can be dated to five periods, dating from inscriptions that go back to the first millennium B.C.:
Greek- This language has long history and most scholars classify the Greek language into four historical phases: Ancient Greek, Koine, Byzantine Greek, and Modern Greek.
https://www.alsintl.com/resources/languages/Greek/
You said: The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew!
My answer: WRONG! The scriptures were once written in HEBREW, ARAMAIC AND GREEK! It was also translated and WRITTEN in the Old Latin, the Old Syriac and the Gothic Version.
Consider these:
Hebrew- it is the language of Canaan (Isa. 19:18; Zeph. 3:9) and the JEWS language (Neh. 10:34). It is called “Hebrew” in the New Testament ( Luke 23:38; Rev. 9:11; 16:16).
Aramaic/Syriac – is so named after ARAM and was called the language of Syria (2 Kings 18:26; Isah. 36:11; Daniel 2:4; Ezra 4:7). An early example of Aramaic is seen in Genesis 31:47. Aramaic was predominantly the language of the Middle East and was widely spoken in Palestine in the days of Jesus Christ and during the Apostolic times. It is also the language of Eastern (Anthiocan) Christianity and some early translation of the Bible in the Old Syriac dated 157 AD, older than the Vaticanus and Sinaticus including Taitains Diatessaron in 170AD, the Peshitta, a 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Ce AD, a simple vulgate of the Syrian People were written in Syriac language.
Aramaic can be dated to five periods, dating from inscriptions that go back to the first millennium B.C.:
- Old Aramaic, 925-700
- Official or Imperial (Assyrian) Aramaic, 700-200 (when the language was still uniform)
- Middle Aramaic, 200 B.C. - 200 A.D.
- Late Aramaic, 200-700
- Modern Aramaic, 700 to our time
Greek- This language has long history and most scholars classify the Greek language into four historical phases: Ancient Greek, Koine, Byzantine Greek, and Modern Greek.
https://www.alsintl.com/resources/languages/Greek/
You said: It was inspired in Greek and Hebrew!
My answer: Then, you have an EXPIRED BIBLE! EXPIRED WORD OF GOD! EXPIRED GREEK AND HEBREW! And thus denying the verbal, plenary, inerrant and infallible inspiration of the Bible! Saying “it was…” means once inspired now uninspired. Anyone who believes in the “thought-inspiration” which was believed by AH Strong is in gross error since it is meant to further amend the words of the scriptures. We should better explain why the word was there not to complain it was found there!
BTW, the ESV you now promote says in 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Your ESV “breath out” is a false witness risen up and such breath out cruelty. “Out” here is not found in any Greek text!
Thus saith the LORD!
Psalms 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.
My answer: Then, you have an EXPIRED BIBLE! EXPIRED WORD OF GOD! EXPIRED GREEK AND HEBREW! And thus denying the verbal, plenary, inerrant and infallible inspiration of the Bible! Saying “it was…” means once inspired now uninspired. Anyone who believes in the “thought-inspiration” which was believed by AH Strong is in gross error since it is meant to further amend the words of the scriptures. We should better explain why the word was there not to complain it was found there!
BTW, the ESV you now promote says in 2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
Your ESV “breath out” is a false witness risen up and such breath out cruelty. “Out” here is not found in any Greek text!
Thus saith the LORD!
Psalms 27:12 Deliver me not over unto the will of mine enemies: for false witnesses are risen up against me, and such as breathe out cruelty.
You said: KJ Language is dead language!
My answer: KJ language is alive and well! There’s no doubt Greek was a providential language “when the fullness of time was come…” (Galatians 4:4) for it was a universal language eanabling the preaching of the Gospel and recording of the New Testament scripture but it was intended to passed the scene.
The fact is I have been in communication in this forum mostly in the English language not Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic.
“The history of the English language has traditionally been divided into three main periods: Old English (450-1100 AD), Middle English (1100-circa 1500 AD) and Modern English (since 1500).”
A Brief History of the English Language
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Proto-Germanic, c. 0 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]West Germanic, c. 400 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late Old English, c. 900 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late Middle English, c. 1350 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Early Modern English, c. 1600 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Modern English, c. 2000 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English
SO, the KJV of 1611 is still a Modern English!
My answer: KJ language is alive and well! There’s no doubt Greek was a providential language “when the fullness of time was come…” (Galatians 4:4) for it was a universal language eanabling the preaching of the Gospel and recording of the New Testament scripture but it was intended to passed the scene.
The fact is I have been in communication in this forum mostly in the English language not Greek and Hebrew or Aramaic.
“The history of the English language has traditionally been divided into three main periods: Old English (450-1100 AD), Middle English (1100-circa 1500 AD) and Modern English (since 1500).”
A Brief History of the English Language
[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]Proto-Germanic, c. 0 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]West Germanic, c. 400 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late Old English, c. 900 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Late Middle English, c. 1350 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Early Modern English, c. 1600 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Modern English, c. 2000 AD
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_English
SO, the KJV of 1611 is still a Modern English!
You said: …(thees and thous- my spell check doesn’t recognize the, as words!
My answer: The spell check cannot handle the biblical English! Whining instead of studying, am beginning to think like a “doubting Thomas” of you as a translator… Thee’s and thou’s are but elementary. It must not be that the words of God that needs adjust, we must adjust!
“But there is the important translation point to be considered also. It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English and while this is no doubt partly true in that everything is the product of its own age, yet it is not entirely true, especially as regards this question of the second person singular pronouns. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century, and this use extended in the following three centuries. But the translators of the AV did not conform to this rising usage, so that, when the AV appeared, it was not in some ways in, the usage of the 17th century. WHY DID THE AV TRANSLATORS NOT ADOPT THE UP-TO-DATE ENGLISH OF THEIR TIME? FOR ONE PARTICULAR REASON WHICH MANY PEOPLE HAVE PERHAPS NOT REALISED--ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION! WHENEVER THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS USE THE SINGULAR OF THE PRONOUN, SO DOES THE AV; AND WHENEVER THOSE TEXTS USE THE PLURAL, SO DOES THE AV. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AV TRANSLATORS STUCK CLOSELY TO THE BIBLICAL USAGE, AND TRANSLATED THE WORD OF GOD USING A KIND OF BIBLICAL STYLE OF ENGLISH. THE VERSION WAS A FAITHFUL ONE ABOVE ALL ELSE. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID SO COMPLETELY FOR ANY OTHER ENGLISH BIBLE--IN FACT MOST ARE NOWHERE NEAR THAT STANDARD.
There is a distinct loss of accuracy in translation if "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. The AV informs us correctly on what was the proper original sense. Thus, in Luke 22.31,32, the Lord says to Peter "Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat," "you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples; "But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not, " "thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Such shades of meaning are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.”
Why Ye, The, Thou, Thine, And Mine
My answer: The spell check cannot handle the biblical English! Whining instead of studying, am beginning to think like a “doubting Thomas” of you as a translator… Thee’s and thou’s are but elementary. It must not be that the words of God that needs adjust, we must adjust!
“But there is the important translation point to be considered also. It is often said that the AV is written in 16th/17th century English and while this is no doubt partly true in that everything is the product of its own age, yet it is not entirely true, especially as regards this question of the second person singular pronouns. The pronoun "You" started to be used instead of "Thou" towards the end of the 13th century, and this use extended in the following three centuries. But the translators of the AV did not conform to this rising usage, so that, when the AV appeared, it was not in some ways in, the usage of the 17th century. WHY DID THE AV TRANSLATORS NOT ADOPT THE UP-TO-DATE ENGLISH OF THEIR TIME? FOR ONE PARTICULAR REASON WHICH MANY PEOPLE HAVE PERHAPS NOT REALISED--ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION! WHENEVER THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS USE THE SINGULAR OF THE PRONOUN, SO DOES THE AV; AND WHENEVER THOSE TEXTS USE THE PLURAL, SO DOES THE AV. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AV TRANSLATORS STUCK CLOSELY TO THE BIBLICAL USAGE, AND TRANSLATED THE WORD OF GOD USING A KIND OF BIBLICAL STYLE OF ENGLISH. THE VERSION WAS A FAITHFUL ONE ABOVE ALL ELSE. THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID SO COMPLETELY FOR ANY OTHER ENGLISH BIBLE--IN FACT MOST ARE NOWHERE NEAR THAT STANDARD.
There is a distinct loss of accuracy in translation if "You" is used for the singular as well as the plural: it becomes an ambiguous word. The AV informs us correctly on what was the proper original sense. Thus, in Luke 22.31,32, the Lord says to Peter "Satan hath desired to have YOU, that he may sift YOU as wheat," "you" here referring to Peter and the other disciples; "But I have prayed for THEE, that THY faith fail not, " "thee " and "thy" referring to Peter only. Such shades of meaning are completely lost when "you" is used throughout.”
Why Ye, The, Thou, Thine, And Mine
You said: …so many words have drop out of usage, or changed meaning… and that is the beginning of many bad doctrines!
My answer: Corruption of the words of God is as early as in Genesis 3:1-5. The hiss of the serpent appears to question the words of God. This maybe in the form of:
Doubting God’s words “Yea hath God said?”
Diluting God’s words “We may eat” vs. Genesis 2;16c
Distending God’s words “touch it lest ye die”
Denying God’s words “ not surely die” vs. Genesis 2:17
Displacing God’s words “ye shall be as gods,”
Willful mutilation of the scriptures is as early as recorded in 2 Corinthian 2:17 that is corruption of the scriptures under the guise of correcting them (2 Peter 3;16). The deadly nature of the corruption of God’s words is the beginning of the Devils Doctrine!
(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, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
(2)And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
(3)But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
(4)And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
(5)For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
2 Cor. 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
My answer: Corruption of the words of God is as early as in Genesis 3:1-5. The hiss of the serpent appears to question the words of God. This maybe in the form of:
Doubting God’s words “Yea hath God said?”
Diluting God’s words “We may eat” vs. Genesis 2;16c
Distending God’s words “touch it lest ye die”
Denying God’s words “ not surely die” vs. Genesis 2:17
Displacing God’s words “ye shall be as gods,”
Willful mutilation of the scriptures is as early as recorded in 2 Corinthian 2:17 that is corruption of the scriptures under the guise of correcting them (2 Peter 3;16). The deadly nature of the corruption of God’s words is the beginning of the Devils Doctrine!
(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, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
(2)And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
(3)But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
(4)And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die
(5)For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
2 Cor. 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
2 Peter 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
fredoheaven: I am not sure what you are trying to do, but every your respond to Angela53510 misses the point, totally.
1. Yes, she did not list aramaic. But the point was that was not written in English.
2. It was inspired in the time of writing, translations or copying of manuscripts were not / are not inspired. That does not change the inspiration of original text.
2. English of the 17th century is not some kind of God´s language so we dont have to adjust.
3. Your comparison of language change with the events in Genesis is ridiculous.
1. Yes, she did not list aramaic. But the point was that was not written in English.
2. It was inspired in the time of writing, translations or copying of manuscripts were not / are not inspired. That does not change the inspiration of original text.
2. English of the 17th century is not some kind of God´s language so we dont have to adjust.
3. Your comparison of language change with the events in Genesis is ridiculous.
Last edited:
I don't speak neither greek nor hebrew, but I find it interesting to read one or two bible verses in other languages I have some knowledge of, to see if I can find a broader meaning to the text. + I love languages 
NIV
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
KVJ
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all thing
Norwegian (1030 translation)
den utholder alt, tror alt, håper alt, tåler alt
(Utholder = stands / preseerveres. Tror = believes, håper= hopes, tåler = stands / handles / endures)
Dutch
(I am no expert, but I sort of get the gist , and use dictionaries for looking stuff up)
De liefde beschermt altijd, heeft altijd vertrouwen, verwacht het altijd van God en houdt stand
(Liefde = love, Beschermt = protects, vertrouwen = confidence, trust , verwacht (het altid van God) expexts (it always from God), houdt stand= holds out / stands (up)
NIV
It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.
KVJ
Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all thing
Norwegian (1030 translation)
den utholder alt, tror alt, håper alt, tåler alt
(Utholder = stands / preseerveres. Tror = believes, håper= hopes, tåler = stands / handles / endures)
Dutch
(I am no expert, but I sort of get the gist , and use dictionaries for looking stuff up)
De liefde beschermt altijd, heeft altijd vertrouwen, verwacht het altijd van God en houdt stand
(Liefde = love, Beschermt = protects, vertrouwen = confidence, trust , verwacht (het altid van God) expexts (it always from God), houdt stand= holds out / stands (up)
všechno snáší, všemu věří, ve vše doufá, všechno vydrží. (KRB)
- stands everything, believes everything, hopes in everything, endures everything
Last edited:
You can find the love of God and the Gospel in all Bibles, but by changing one word you can change a whole doctrine.
This is what has happened throughout history, people have made small changes to make the bible fit their doctrine.
For example those that do not believe that Jesus is God, change the verses or put notes near them that lower Jesus.
People that translated the bible had their set belief and that influenced their translation. So what is truth? If you search you shall find. Research it when in doubt.
I want to list the beliefs of the two professors who were the driving force in translating a Bible. By knowing their beliefs, you will gain needed knowledge as to why the Revised Version of 1881 was produced.
The best way to gain a perspective as to what Hort and Westcott believed is to read direct quotations from them.
“Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.
( Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 430)
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history---I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did---yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2, P.69)
“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 81 - This was a letter written to Westcott on October 17, 1865.)
“No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place; ‘heaven is a state and not a place.’”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2 Page 49)
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, Pages 414-416)
If this is just a few of the things that Westcott and Hort believed and they are the one’s that translated the modern version I’d be asking myself if they had any part in the version I’m reading.
This is what has happened throughout history, people have made small changes to make the bible fit their doctrine.
For example those that do not believe that Jesus is God, change the verses or put notes near them that lower Jesus.
People that translated the bible had their set belief and that influenced their translation. So what is truth? If you search you shall find. Research it when in doubt.
I want to list the beliefs of the two professors who were the driving force in translating a Bible. By knowing their beliefs, you will gain needed knowledge as to why the Revised Version of 1881 was produced.
The best way to gain a perspective as to what Hort and Westcott believed is to read direct quotations from them.
“Certainly nothing can be more unscriptural than the modern limiting of Christ’s bearing our sins and sufferings to His death; but indeed that is only one aspect of an almost universal heresy.
( Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 430)
“No one now, I suppose, holds that the first three chapters of Genesis, for example, give a literal history---I could never understand how anyone reading them with open eyes could think they did---yet they disclose to us a Gospel. So it is probably elsewhere.”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2, P.69)
“I have been persuaded for many years that Mary-worship and ‘Jesus’ worship have very much in common in their causes and results.
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, p. 81 - This was a letter written to Westcott on October 17, 1865.)
“No doubt the language of the Rubric is unguarded, but it saves us from the error of connecting the Presence of Christ’s glorified humanity with place; ‘heaven is a state and not a place.’”
(Westcott, Arthur, Life and Letters of Brooke Foss Westcott, (New York, 1903), Volume 2 Page 49)
“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with…My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”
(Hort, Arthur Fenton, Life and letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, (New York, 1896), Vol. 1, Pages 414-416)
If this is just a few of the things that Westcott and Hort believed and they are the one’s that translated the modern version I’d be asking myself if they had any part in the version I’m reading.