I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
In modern versions, it says Jesus is born of the virgin Mary, while better versions/version will say FIRSTBORN son. Big difference, since Mary had to be a virgin!
-
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.
And you see that, somehow, as a BIG difference?
Goodness.... legalism at its finest.
"that depends on what the definition of "is" is...."
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
It is a big difference, because Jesus Christ said "It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Heaven and earth shall pass away but MY WORDS will never pass away said God in the OT. He must be lying then, since so many 'good' Bibles leave out many words and even complete verses. But God is not a liar, His words will remain forever. If leaving out 'firstborn' isn't a big deal, then why not leave out many other words in other verses, because in your way of reasoning a word missing here or there isn't a big deal? Where do you draw the line? See what the problem is when we start saying that it doesn't make a big difference after all.. Because Satan changed one word the whole world has fallen to the state that it is in now. That's why I believe every word matters...
Heaven and earth shall pass away but MY WORDS will never pass away said God in the OT. He must be lying then, since so many 'good' Bibles leave out many words and even complete verses. But God is not a liar, His words will remain forever. If leaving out 'firstborn' isn't a big deal, then why not leave out many other words in other verses, because in your way of reasoning a word missing here or there isn't a big deal? Where do you draw the line? See what the problem is when we start saying that it doesn't make a big difference after all.. Because Satan changed one word the whole world has fallen to the state that it is in now. That's why I believe every word matters...
and, I say again....
You and KJV and John 146 are all quoting almost word for word the same things.... from the same playbook...
"every word matters" "the pure words of God" yada, yada...... KJV worshipper cultism.
Last edited:
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
This isn't just a theory, even the peoples supporting these Egyptian Bibles (NIV, ESV) admit that these changes exist. The only difference though is that they say the Egyptian manuscripts are older so they must be the best ones. Go to any online Bible website and compare these versions with each other and there's the evidence. The thing is, we need to carefully study this evidence and the differences that are there between them. Seriously, these Egyptian Bibles have changed verses that talk about the Trinity. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one (KJV). And the NIV says (Egyptian): For there are three that testify: 8 the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement. And the list goes on and on. I do not claim to know every single detail about these different versions but I know one thing and that is that God said My Words shall not pass away so His Words are still to be found somewhere on this earth. When we study the key docrtines of the Christian faith in the Bible and we compare these Egyptian and Antiochian, it is obvious that the Antiochian manuscripts have preserved the truth of God's Word.
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
I do worship the KJV and I do belong in that 'cult' as I worship God's Word and I only follow this truth which you sadly enough call a cult. If one Bible says A and another says B you can't tell they both come from God, come on.. I just don't get this
1. We have a perfect Bible that we can trust every word
2. No Bible exists that we can trust
There's only two choices...
B
BeyondET
Guest
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
These are indeed one of the better Bibles but they're not as good as the KJV. Again, I don't know everything about them but I know that there are at least two reasons I can give you to show that the KJV is even better than the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible. First of all, the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible were the best translated English Bibles in their time as far as I know. Secondly, because English grammar was greatest in the 1600's, they decided to come with a 'new' translation immediately translated from the original languages and indeed also used other existing English Bibles at that time to compare and to improve upon. There's a lot of documentaries out there, so I encourage to watch some of them. Maybe you will prefer a more neutral view on this subject, so try and google for 'BBC documentary about the King James Bible', this is from a secular perspective and doesn't come from KJV-onlyists or opposers of the KJV.
What do you mean by Egyptian Bible? NIV uses massoretic texts for OT and UBS Greek for NT. It also uses many other sources like Septuagint, Peshitta etc.
What of those do you call "Egyptian Bible"? And why?
If you, being a Belgian (I hope its your flag, if not, sorry for mistake) want to read Bible in other language than your native one, I would recommend you to learn Greek. Much better than old English KJV.
B
BeyondET
Guest
I am ok with viewing the secular account of the KJV, one being wiki.org that says differently than what you mentioned about translated from the orginal languages.
In that King James instructions, included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The Text of THE BISHOPS' BIBLE would server as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version
W
wwjd_kilden
Guest
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
The problem with the NIV is not about the Old Testament, indeed it is translated from the masoretic Hebrew texts which the KJV also is derived from. The problem lies in the New Testament. Again, I'm not a scholar or something but maybe this video series will help you understand the problem better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIOUN6GJlJI
This documentary deals with this as well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFtI_mVOXbQ
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
Don't get me wrong, but I only use the KJV from time to time, not exclusively. The KJV from 1611 in fact, is what you can call the sister version of the Dutch 'Statenvertaling' Bible from 1637 that I use. They made this Dutch version the same way they made the KJV as a reaction to this. They did this in other Western European nations as well. I use the KJV because 1) it is equal to the Dutch equivalent of the 'Statenvertaling' and 2) I think some verses just sound more beautiful in English and 3) when I'm watching American sermons on YT or somewhere else or when I'm on websites like these I can't just come here and quote from a Dutch Bible, no one would understand what I would be saying. That's why I also use an English Bible from time to time. I have a Hebrew and Greek (Strong's Concordance) as well but I don't speak Greek, I think it's very hard
Since in a later post you encourage people to read sources outside their own frame of belief, I will encourage you to read The King James Only Controversy by James White. He addresses the issue of the 'streams' of manuscripts at length, and provides extensive documentation.
In most modern Bibles, about 16 verses have completely disappeared from the New Testament and there are 3,000 differences between the Egyptian and Antiochian New Testament. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are two major verses that should make people think twice before endorsing the NIV or many other translations for these verses aren't to be found both in the NIV and many others. Then when you've read Acts 8:37, ask yourself what so many churches differ on concerning baptism. The other 14 verses that are completely gone from these Bibles are listed here: 16 verses missing from the NIV[/QUOTE]
This issue has been addressed many times. The charge of missing verses is only made in reference to the KJV. Since the KJV is not the accepted standard, this charge falls flat. Both the NIV and the KJV must be compared with the source material, which encompasses the full manuscript evidence.
I
IFBBC_Jonas
Guest
I read the Nederlandstalige Bijbel (Dutch Bible) 99 % of the time when I'm doing Bible study, or prayer or anything else. But when I'm on my computer watching sermons or on English websites it's obvious I'm using an English version... I use the Dutch Bible 'Statenvertaling' which is the equivalent of the KJV as I stated in my other comment to trofimus. The KJV was created in 1611 and the Statenvertaling was created in 1637 as a response to this. The Bible was translated in many other Western European languages as well in that same time period.