Which Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter rdbseekingafterhim
  • Start date 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.
Funny thing.... I just looked up that verse in an interlinear, and it says he "was raised"....not "he rose"...

So, apparently, the KJV does NOT follow the Greek.... it (GASP) substituted another word for that phrase.

There is your KJV error that you have been asking for....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Laish
Hey guys,

I use KJV but mostly for practical reasons rather then ideological.

It's a standard that stood the test of time and I believe God would not allow it to happen with an inferior translation which misrepresents His words.
 
I would rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance.
 
ZEEK said:
Greek means Greek, but like everything else, it has a contextual meaning.

German means German, but if I talk about Germans and Italians in WW2, you automatically understand that I am now referring to Axis Forces.
Click to expand...
What part of Romans make the context change from regular Greeks to prosylites?
 
we've seen so many changes taking place throughout our lifetime,
but one thing that we have learned as a surety, Jesus Christ's
Commandments and Principles will always come through,
no matter how corrupt the 'new-age-bibles try to change it,..
 
Dino246 said:
Your assumption is wrong. Circular reasoning is assuming as proven what you are trying to prove. In the example you use here, you are assuming that inerrancy proves inspiration. While it's less direct, it is still a circular argument. Logical syllogisms must be based on evidence, not on unproven assertions such as "the KJV is inerrant". I would encourage you to read up on logical fallacies; here is a link:

Logical Fallacies

Of course you can use logic and common sense; I expect as much. However, I have challenged you to provide objective evidence.
Click to expand...
I understand circular reasoning and logical fallacies. Here is an example of both: The older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate because their older and more accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you basing your argument against the inerrancy of the KJV on circular reasoning and logical fallacies?

Man without the influence of God is not capable of translating an inerrant bible. Is this a logical fallacy or an objective truth?
 
KJV1611 said:
What part of Romans make the context change from regular Greeks to prosylites?
Click to expand...

In Chapter 1. Paul defines what Greek means.

Greek is the opposite of Barbarian, so is a literate person.

But when Paul references Jew and Greek in the same context like this, it is clearly also a reference to Hellenistic Judaism.
 
hornetguy said:
Many have been pointed out in several different long, drawn out threads in the recent past.... do a search.

The problem is that when an error, or misuse of a word is pointed out, the KJVO crowd either ignores it, or brushes it off as an insignificant typo or some such.

Then they turn right around and condemn another translation for the same type of "error"....

The point is, there is no absolutely error or discrepancy-free translation of the word. There are several that are very good, like the KJV, NASB, NRSV, etc, that are more "word for word" translations. The KJV is the most difficult to understand for 21st century English speaking folks. It doesn't mean it's bad, just difficult to understand.

Your insistence on the "complete, pure, inerrant" word of God is chasing after the wind.... unless you can read and converse in Koine greek, and have copies of the oldest manuscripts, there is always a chance that a word has been substituted for another word for clarification, or to modernize the translation.

This is why it is good to compare translations... INCLUDING the KJV, if you have problems understanding a passage.

The newer translations were all done the same way that the KJV was done, by MEN, who (I assume) prayerfully studied the best known texts at that time, and translated them in the common vernacular of their day, with the intent of giving the world their best effort at an accurate translation of the words of God.

That is what we have as the words of God.... translated by men, guided by the Spirit...
Click to expand...

I would like to see an example of how contradictory bible versions bring clarity to a particular passage.
 
hornetguy said:
Funny thing.... I just looked up that verse in an interlinear, and it says he "was raised"....not "he rose"...

So, apparently, the KJV does NOT follow the Greek.... it (GASP) substituted another word for that phrase.

There is your KJV error that you have been asking for....
Click to expand...

Logical fallacy circular reasoning - The KJV is wrong because the interlinear says something different.

Who raised Jesus from the dead? Jesus was God he didn't need someone else to raise himself up, he rose himself.
 
KJV1611 said:
I understand circular reasoning and logical fallacies. Here is an example of both: The older Greek and Hebrew manuscripts are more accurate because their older and more accurate. Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't you basing your argument against the inerrancy of the KJV on circular reasoning and logical fallacies?

Man without the influence of God is not capable of translating an inerrant bible. Is this a logical fallacy or an objective truth?
Click to expand...

I have made no statements (recently) regarding the in/errancy of the KJV. Once again, please provide objective evidence to support your assertion that the KJV is inspired as the original autographs were inspired; evidence, not unproven assertions (which is what your second-last sentence contains).
 
KJV1611 said:
I would like to see an example of how contradictory bible versions bring clarity to a particular passage.
Click to expand...

The Preface to the Reader from the 1611 KJV addresses this. By this logic, a single errant bible would give clarity too, though it could be incorrect. The KJV is just as "contradictory" to the Geneva Bible or the LXX as the ESV is to the KJV. This is no argument in the KJV's favour.
 
Dino246 said:
I have made no statements (recently) regarding the in/errancy of the KJV. Once again, please provide objective evidence to support your assertion that the KJV is inspired as the original autographs were inspired; evidence, not unproven assertions (which is what your second-last sentence contains).
Click to expand...
Are you saying that man without the influence of God is not capable of translating God's word is an unproven assertions?
 
Dino246 said:
The Preface to the Reader from the 1611 KJV addresses this. By this logic, a single errant bible would give clarity too, though it could be incorrect. The KJV is just as "contradictory" to the Geneva Bible or the LXX as the ESV is to the KJV. This is no argument in the KJV's favour.
Click to expand...

Similarly when Ciaphus said "it's expedient for one man to die for the nation than the whole nation perish", he didn't know he was speaking the words that God put in his mouth.
 
KJV1611 said:
Logical fallacy circular reasoning - The KJV is wrong because the interlinear says something different...
Click to expand...

This is not circular reasoning. Hornetguy is merely comparing the KJV to the Greek, which is a higher authority.

By the way, this IS the line of reasoning often used by KJVO proponents... that the modern English translations are wrong because they don't agree perfectly with the KJV. That is inconsistent and intellectually dishonest.
 
KJV1611 said:
Are you saying that man without the influence of God is not capable of translating God's word is an unproven assertions?
Click to expand...

I'm saying for the third time now, please provide objective evidence to support your assertion that the KJV is inspired as the original autographs were inspired. Failure to provide evidence will only lead me to conclude that you are unable to do so and that your assertion should be withdrawn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back