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.
Help me out here because I don't want to put words in your mouth. It appears that you are implying that persons who don't use the KJV in some way are rejecting God's truth.
No that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that when God speaks in his word and people say "this is and that is an unfortunate translation, a better translation would be blah blah blah". That is rejecting the word of the Lord and per 1 Kings 22 God will send a lying spirit to decieve those people.

The way it should work is some one reads say the NIV and they read that Jesus' origins are from of old, from ancient times." That is not the word of God, Jesus didn't have an origin. Drop the NIV and go to another another version until you find a version that says Jesus' whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Read that version and don't try to change the words.
 
TRANSLATION ERROR

“Ghost” is a mistranslation of the Greek word “pneuma” which means breath or spirit. The KJV inconsistently translated the word pneuma as spirit or ghost, with 91 instances of Ghost or ghost referring to God. The word “Ghost” with reference to God, which is used in all English Bibles predating the King James Version, can be traced to the Wycliffe translation (1395). Although the Wycliffe Bible was translated from the Latin Vulgate, Jerome used the Latin term “Spirtu Sancto” for the Holy Spirit and “spiritum” for Jesus’ spirit. Wycliffe did not actually translate the Bible that bears his name; it was translated by other Lollard scholars at Oxford University while Wycliffe led the Lollard movement politically. (See: Chap. 19 “The Lollards: John Wycliffe”) These scholars would have been familiar with the famous Old English (Anglo-Saxon) epic poem Beowulf, which was based on a Germanic oral tradition; they would therefore have known that the Old English word gást and gaést from the Gothic wordusgaisjan were used in the poem to describe monsters, i.e., dragons and devils. The Wycliffe/Lollard translation of Eph. 6:17 is most inappropriate and disturbing: “And take ye the helm of helthe, and the swerd of the Goost, that is, the word of God. That the Lollard scholars were “knights” is evident in their use of the word “knyyt” or “knyytis” 92 times in their translation, e.g., 2 Tim. 2:3: “Trauele thou as a good knyyt of Crist Jhesu.”


ooops.......

So the Englsh pre KJV bible translated it Holy Ghost. This is very important since this bears the name of one of the Godhead which is the Holy Ghost. Now, let may say it this one that I am not against the “Spirit of God” as it is also been translated in the KJV. The question: Is Ghost a translational error? The accusation of translational error is sprouted with bias information.

1. The pre KJv of 1611 have use synonymously the word “Ghost” with the Spirit while it is reported in the article that it can be traced to Wycliffe Version(1395). So in saying all pre-KJV bibles are in error in this particular instance. But I will say it No! the article is in error!

2. Ghost in capital letter “G” distinguishes from small letter “g” as used to indicate the spirit of man including our Lord Jesus when he gave up his “ghost”.

3. The article is assumed would have been familiar with the epic poem “The Beuwolf” with Germanic oral tradition. This is an opinion and we cannot prove by giving evidence that because “beuwolf” is familiar they did translate base on the epic poem.

4. What the article seems to downgrade is the Wyclifee not he KJV saying “Goost” which maybe in reference to the spelling since spelling rules during that time are not yet standardize.

5. The article is bragging but lacking an in depth researched. Consider this the vulgar /common people for the pre-KJV did know already it right to mean Holy “Ghost” is the same as Holy “Spirit”. The French, Latin, the Spanish knew that it is God the Holy Ghost. BTW, the word “Spirit” is a transliteration which took primarily from the Latin langauge. What the Greek word says is “Pneuma” meaning spirit or ghost. According to Thomas Cooper in his Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584) cited below, the used of holy “Ghost” can be trace back to 1273 by the Council of Lyons France to 170AD. Now if you want to debate that, then debate with his spirit if you can.

David Chytræus, A Postle or Orderly Disposing of Certain Epistles (1570)
... But in this Epistle is entreated of the hyghest preest, of whom let this definition be fastned in mind. The high preest Christ is a person imme* diatly ordeined by the eternal father, & anoynted with the ful* nesse of the holy Ghost, too the entent he should bring foorth the Gospel out of the secret bosom of the euerlasting father, and make intercession for the whole Churche, hauing pro* mise that he shall assuredly bee herd, and too offer sacrifice, (that is too wit himselfe) once for all: By which sacrifice he deserueth remission of sinne s, rightuousnesse, and euerla* sting saluation too the whole Churche. This whole defini* tion may bee builded and warranted out of the textes of the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

John Baret, An Alveary or Triple Dictionary, in English, Latin, and French (1574)
187


¶ the Ghost,


or spirite. Spiritus, tus, masc. g. L'esprit. Vide Goast. To giue vp the ghost and die. Efflare extremum spiritum. Vide Die. 188 * Ghostes of the dead. Manes, ium. Vmbræ, arum, fœm. gen.

Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584)


Heretikes which tooke that name of one Montanus of Phrygia, an Archeheretike: who affirmed, that the holy ghost was giuen to them, and not to the Apostles. They baptized not in the name of the Trinitie, and vsed to baptise men after they were dead. They condemned the second mariage. This secte beganne in the yeare of our Lorde. 170.

Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584)


A Citie in Spaine, the people whereof he called Concani.Consilium Antiochenum, The general rounsel holden at Antioch in Syria, in the yeare of our Lord. 346. Consilium Ariminense, A generall counsel holden at Ari. minum in Italie, the yeare of our Lorde. 361. In the whiche the articles of the counsell of Nice were confirmed. Consilium Arelatense, A general counsel holden at Orleance, the yeare of our Lord 814. Consilium Basiliense, A generall counsel holden at Balile, the yeare of our Lord. 1345.Consilium Calcedonense, A generall counsell holden at Calcedon in Bithynia, the yeare of our Lorde. 453. In the whiche Counsel % heresies of Nestorius, and Eutiches were condenmed: and all the bookes of the Manechees heresies were burned. Concilium Carthaginense. A general councell holden at Carthage in Affrike, the yeare of our Lorde. 419. Concilium Constantiæ, A generall councell holden at Constance in Heleutia, the yeare of our Lorde, 14 14. and eudured three yeares and more. Concilium Constantinopolitanum. A councell holden at Constantinople, the yeare of our Lorde, 869. Concilium Ferrariense, A generall councell holden at the citie in Ferraria in Italy, where the Churches of the Latines and Greekes, became one Church, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1438. Concilium Lateranense, A generall counsel holden at Rome, in the palaice of the Bishop of Rome, called Lateranum, the yeare of our Lorde, 1215. Concilium Lugdunense, A generall councell holden at Lions in Fraunce, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1273. where the Greekes accorded with the Latines in proceeding of the holy Ghost from the father and the sonne in diuinttie. Concilium Nicenum, The first generall councell, which was holden at Nicea, a citie in Bythinia, the yeare of our Lorde, 327.


John Florio, A World of Words (1598)
Spirito santo, the holy Ghost.



Richard Perceval, A Dictionary in Spanish and English(1599)
Espíritu, m. the breath, the spirit, the ghost

Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1611)
Massoret: m. A Spirit, Ghost, Hobgoblin. Massorets.Such Jewes as corrected the false-written words of Scripture, not blotting them out (for of that they made a scruple) but noting them with a little O, and setting downe their corrections in the margent.
 
No that's not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that when God speaks in his word and people say "this is and that is an unfortunate translation, a better translation would be blah blah blah". That is rejecting the word of the Lord and per 1 Kings 22 God will send a lying spirit to decieve those people.

The way it should work is some one reads say the NIV and they read that Jesus' origins are from of old, from ancient times." That is not the word of God, Jesus didn't have an origin. Drop the NIV and go to another another version until you find a version that says Jesus' whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting. Read that version and don't try to change the words.


well actually, what you have been saying, is that the KJ is the ONLY truth

all the others are wrong

Yes I think they're inspired by Satan under the direction of God.

inspired by the devil...but God knows people have itching ears so he allows it

did I get that right?
 
So the Englsh pre KJV bible translated it Holy Ghost. This is very important since this bears the name of one of the Godhead which is the Holy Ghost. Now, let may say it this one that I am not against the “Spirit of God” as it is also been translated in the KJV. The question: Is Ghost a translational error? The accusation of translational error is sprouted with bias information.

1. The pre KJv of 1611 have use synonymously the word “Ghost” with the Spirit while it is reported in the article that it can be traced to Wycliffe Version(1395). So in saying all pre-KJV bibles are in error in this particular instance. But I will say it No! the article is in error!

2. Ghost in capital letter “G” distinguishes from small letter “g” as used to indicate the spirit of man including our Lord Jesus when he gave up his “ghost”.

3. The article is assumed would have been familiar with the epic poem “The Beuwolf” with Germanic oral tradition. This is an opinion and we cannot prove by giving evidence that because “beuwolf” is familiar they did translate base on the epic poem.

4. What the article seems to downgrade is the Wyclifee not he KJV saying “Goost” which maybe in reference to the spelling since spelling rules during that time are not yet standardize.

5. The article is bragging but lacking an in depth researched. Consider this the vulgar /common people for the pre-KJV did know already it right to mean Holy “Ghost” is the same as Holy “Spirit”. The French, Latin, the Spanish knew that it is God the Holy Ghost. BTW, the word “Spirit” is a transliteration which took primarily from the Latin langauge. What the Greek word says is “Pneuma” meaning spirit or ghost. According to Thomas Cooper in his Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584) cited below, the used of holy “Ghost” can be trace back to 1273 by the Council of Lyons France to 170AD. Now if you want to debate that, then debate with his spirit if you can.

David Chytræus, A Postle or Orderly Disposing of Certain Epistles (1570)
... But in this Epistle is entreated of the hyghest preest, of whom let this definition be fastned in mind. The high preest Christ is a person imme* diatly ordeined by the eternal father, & anoynted with the ful* nesse of the holy Ghost, too the entent he should bring foorth the Gospel out of the secret bosom of the euerlasting father, and make intercession for the whole Churche, hauing pro* mise that he shall assuredly bee herd, and too offer sacrifice, (that is too wit himselfe) once for all: By which sacrifice he deserueth remission of sinne s, rightuousnesse, and euerla* sting saluation too the whole Churche. This whole defini* tion may bee builded and warranted out of the textes of the Epistle to the Hebrewes.

John Baret, An Alveary or Triple Dictionary, in English, Latin, and French (1574)
187


¶ the Ghost,


or spirite. Spiritus, tus, masc. g. L'esprit. Vide Goast. To giue vp the ghost and die. Efflare extremum spiritum. Vide Die. 188 * Ghostes of the dead. Manes, ium. Vmbræ, arum, fœm. gen.

Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584)


Heretikes which tooke that name of one Montanus of Phrygia, an Archeheretike: who affirmed, that the holy ghost was giuen to them, and not to the Apostles. They baptized not in the name of the Trinitie, and vsed to baptise men after they were dead. They condemned the second mariage. This secte beganne in the yeare of our Lorde. 170.

Thomas Cooper, Thesaurus Linguae Romanae et Britannicae (1584)


A Citie in Spaine, the people whereof he called Concani.Consilium Antiochenum, The general rounsel holden at Antioch in Syria, in the yeare of our Lord. 346. Consilium Ariminense, A generall counsel holden at Ari. minum in Italie, the yeare of our Lorde. 361. In the whiche the articles of the counsell of Nice were confirmed. Consilium Arelatense, A general counsel holden at Orleance, the yeare of our Lord 814. Consilium Basiliense, A generall counsel holden at Balile, the yeare of our Lord. 1345.Consilium Calcedonense, A generall counsell holden at Calcedon in Bithynia, the yeare of our Lorde. 453. In the whiche Counsel % heresies of Nestorius, and Eutiches were condenmed: and all the bookes of the Manechees heresies were burned. Concilium Carthaginense. A general councell holden at Carthage in Affrike, the yeare of our Lorde. 419. Concilium Constantiæ, A generall councell holden at Constance in Heleutia, the yeare of our Lorde, 14 14. and eudured three yeares and more. Concilium Constantinopolitanum. A councell holden at Constantinople, the yeare of our Lorde, 869. Concilium Ferrariense, A generall councell holden at the citie in Ferraria in Italy, where the Churches of the Latines and Greekes, became one Church, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1438. Concilium Lateranense, A generall counsel holden at Rome, in the palaice of the Bishop of Rome, called Lateranum, the yeare of our Lorde, 1215. Concilium Lugdunense, A generall councell holden at Lions in Fraunce, in the yeare of our Lorde, 1273. where the Greekes accorded with the Latines in proceeding of the holy Ghost from the father and the sonne in diuinttie. Concilium Nicenum, The first generall councell, which was holden at Nicea, a citie in Bythinia, the yeare of our Lorde, 327.


John Florio, A World of Words (1598)
Spirito santo, the holy Ghost.



Richard Perceval, A Dictionary in Spanish and English(1599)
Espíritu, m. the breath, the spirit, the ghost

Randle Cotgrave, A Dictionary of the French and English Tongues (1611)
Massoret: m. A Spirit, Ghost, Hobgoblin. Massorets.Such Jewes as corrected the false-written words of Scripture, not blotting them out (for of that they made a scruple) but noting them with a little O, and setting downe their corrections in the margent.




a simple yes the words from the original were wrongly translated would have sufficed

no need to get lost in the woods of trying to explain away an obvious error

proving of course, that the KJ is not inspired...it is a translation

what you folks forget, is that believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit....and He does not lead us into error

so if I follow your illogical logic, I will assume that a believer who does not think as you do, is NOT indwelt by the Spirit of God

your arguements fall apart constantly...you just refuse to acknowledge that fact
 
Last edited:
Man is not capable of translating an inerrant bible without inspiration of God. The KJV is inerrant - God translated it.

That is the most astoundingly asinine statement I have read on this forum..... at least the second sentence is.

So, King James went up on the mountaintop and came back down with the KJV? Which was then "tweaked" several times to correct typos and such....

Your blind worship of a translation is stunning.

I'm borderline speechless...which takes some doing.
 
You know those aren't the originals writers, they're only copies and there are two contradictory lines of manuscripts. How can anyone say a mixture of corrupt texts with good texts has higher authority than the KJV.

Where do you think the KJV translators got their "words of God" that became the KJV ?
 
False Presuppositions

King James Only defenders have two false presuppositions behind their belief that there must exist an absolutely perfect copy of the Bible upon the earth. They assert (1) that God has promised a perfect transmission of the Bible and (2) that a copy of the Bible with any blemishes cannot be trusted at all. Quotations from Mickey Carter and Lloyd Streeter espouse the first assertion:

Those saying no one has a perfect Bible are really saying that God left us without His preserved Word. The only group claiming to have the perfect Word of God is the King James Version believers. God has not given us the Bible, unless we have it in the King James Version. The other versions are different, and things that are different are not the same. If they are not the same, one is right and the others are wrong; or all are wrong, and God failed to keep His promise.[6]

God gave promise concerning His Word that He would preserve it perfectly.[7]

There is no promise to preserve Scripture in which God has defined the exact form or location of such preservation. He has not guaranteed that copies precise in every detail would always exist upon earth. King James Only advocates have dictated how God must fulfill his promise, not the Bible itself. The Bible does not identify one particular manuscript, version, or translation as the one and only perfect Bible. Anyone who chooses to call the KJV the one and only perfect Bible does so without any instructions from the Bible itself about how to make his decision.

The second false presupposition behind the belief that God must always preserve a perfect copy of his Word upon the earth, namely that a copy of the Bible is of no value unless it is perfect in every detail, is reflected in the words of Streeter:

If there are errors in the Bible then you can not trust anything that it says because you will not know what is error and what is truth, (Streeter, p. 259).

Here Streeter sets up a straw man. His opponents are not claiming that errors exist in the Bible as originally given, but only in the subsequent copies. It is a favorite ploy of those who believe in a perfect KJV to accuse all who disagree with them of believing that there are errors in the Bible, instead of errors in the copies. In fairness they should accurately state that their opponents believe that the biblical writers made no errors and that God has preserved his Word such that it is sufficient for all practical matters of doctrine and life. The blemishes contained in extant copies do not overthrow the Bible’s fundamental trustworthiness. How can believers know that the Bible is trustworthy if errors have occurred in transmission? They can know it by faith, and a faith which is consistent with the observable facts. There is no need to play word games to make preservation into something that it plainly is not. History does not need to be falsified in defense of an indefensible theory.

6) Mickey Carter, Things That Are Different Are Not The Same (Haines City, FL: Landmark Baptist Press, 1993) p. 196, underlining added.

7) Lloyd L. Streeter, Seventy-five Problems with Central Baptist Seminary’s Book The Bible Version Debate (Kearney, NE: Morris Publishing, 2001), p. 110.
 
Man is not capable of translating an inerrant bible without inspiration of God. The KJV is inerrant - God translated it.

you are simply quoting from the handbook of King James only apolgetics

from my post above:

It is a favorite ploy of those who believe in a perfect KJV to accuse all who disagree with them of believing that there are errors in the Bible, instead of errors in the copies.

you have done this numerous times. textbook dodge and a verbatim one at that

you attempt to say that God teaches you these things, but the more one looks into your beliefs, the less that statement seems credible
 
What I find really amusing is that YOU criticized and denounced a "newer" translation because it said Jesus was "raised from the dead" instead of "he rose from the dead"..... To you, that completely discredited the newer translation.

But when I pointed out that the original Greek said "raised from the dead", you brush off the different translation as being insignificant.

By your (very flawed) logic, that should have completely discredited the KJV.

Fortunately, for you KJV worshippers, the REST of us understand that translations can be slightly different, and still get the same point across.
 
a simple yes the words from the original were wrongly translated would have sufficed

no need to get lost in the woods of trying to explain away an obvious error

proving of course, that the KJ is not inspired...it is a translation

what you folks forget, is that believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit....and He does not lead us into error

so if I follow your illogical logic, I will assume that a believer who does not think as you do, is NOT indwelt by the Spirit of God

your arguements fall apart constantly...you just refuse to acknowledge that fact

I bet to disagree and who told you that KJV is in error. You have just given one point of your "Beuwolf" as your researched does. I gave you many...

The emboldened part is a bit of desperation...and off topic.
 
False Presuppositions



There is no promise to preserve Scripture in which God has defined the exact form or location of such preservation. He has not guaranteed that copies precise in every detail would always exist upon earth. King James Only advocates have dictated how God must fulfill his promise, not the Bible itself. The Bible does not identify one particular manuscript, version, or translation as the one and only perfect Bible. Anyone who chooses to call the KJV the one and only perfect Bible does so without any instructions from the Bible itself about how to make his decision.

First, this is what maybe a false presuppositions regarding KJVO's however the truth is God promise to preserve His words no matter what opinions of men be. God is not a respecter of person. God is not a man. What He says, He will keep it.

Secondly, what has been probably that make it in error of this post as in the colored post is that the word/s "exact" form or location. The Bible does not say that "Exact" but we can be sure the preservation were done in the hands of real bible believers. Because of the persecution. real Bible believers were gone out to caves, catacombs, wilderness, mountains etc. or far away from the cruel hands of the Roman Empire. In short, God can preserves His words in the hands of His people as He promise!
 
False Presuppositions


The blemishes contained in extant copies do not overthrow the Bible’s fundamental trustworthiness. How can believers know that the Bible is trustworthy if errors have occurred in transmission? They can know it by faith, and a faith which is consistent with the observable facts. There is no need to play word games to make preservation into something that it plainly is not. History does not need to be falsified in defense of an indefensible theory.

.

IMHO, as the emboldened one as being suggested has again its flaws. This can be easily demonstrated to refute this but I will not do so this time...
 
well actually, what you have been saying, is that the KJ is the ONLY truth

all the others are wrong



inspired by the devil...but God knows people have itching ears so he allows it

did I get that right?
The KJV is the only truth I've ever seen. I can't lie and say the NIV is the pure inerrant word of God when the NIV has Jesus having an origin. What I don't get is why that doesn't bother you. The NIV preaches another Jesus and you have no problem with that? Why would you put a translation like that on level with or above a translation that gets it right?
 
That is the most astoundingly asinine statement I have read on this forum..... at least the second sentence is.

So, King James went up on the mountaintop and came back down with the KJV? Which was then "tweaked" several times to correct typos and such....

Your blind worship of a translation is stunning.

I'm borderline speechless...which takes some doing.
Did Matthew or Mark or John go up on the mountain top and come back with the gospels? I mean it's absurd to think that a group of men and a homosexual woman in the case of th NIV could perfectly translate God's word. Actually I don't think you believe that at all, I'm pretty sure that you don't believe the inerrant word of God exists today. Do you believe the inerrant word of God exists today?
 
Where do you think the KJV translators got their "words of God" that became the KJV ?
The same place Matthew Mark Luke and John got their words.... Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the spirit. How else can you have the word of God if God doesn't give the words?
 
you are simply quoting from the handbook of King James only apolgetics

from my post above:



you have done this numerous times. textbook dodge and a verbatim one at that

you attempt to say that God teaches you these things, but the more one looks into your beliefs, the less that statement seems credible
Do you think I'm making up the errors in the newer translations? I mean those books are full of errors and they contradict themselves. I'm not dodging anything.
 
False Presuppositions
There is no promise to preserve Scripture in which God has defined the exact form or location of such preservation. He has not guaranteed that copies precise in every detail would always exist upon earth. King James Only advocates have dictated how God must fulfill his promise, not the Bible itself. The Bible does not identify one particular manuscript, version, or translation as the one and only perfect Bible. Anyone who chooses to call the KJV the one and only perfect Bible does so without any instructions from the Bible itself about how to make his decision.

God promised to preserve His word for all generations. His word is truth. That means it does not and cannot contain any error whatsoever. If any Bible is in error, it cannot be consider the word of God and must be rejected as such.

John 17:17, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
 
I bet to disagree and who told you that KJV is in error. You have just given one point of your "Beuwolf" as your researched does. I gave you many...

The emboldened part is a bit of desperation...and off topic.




your arguements are past silly...people post the errors with facts about the errors and you KJ folk insult us and basically ignore the facts

your all just playing out of your KJ apologetics handbook...

what you do, is ignore the actual rebuttal and make personal comments to the responder

it's a silly and immature tactic and is not an actual conversation or a proper response

many of us here have told you that same thing in different words, but the same thing

nothing is off topic, nothing is desperate save your own lack of actual ability to respond

what you folks are actually doing, is defending yourselves, because your defense of an inspired English translation of the Bible, is indefensible