Which Bible?

[trofimus]

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

I understand. Every European country has some reformation translation. But is not "KJV Only" saying, that KJV only? In that case you should not read anything else as the Word of God.
KJV only proponents do not say that all reformation translations are inspired, but KJV only.


BTW I have to look for English Scriptures too, when discussing on interneational forums... but KJV is very hard to understand (at least for me) so I mostly use NIV or ESV to quote.

 

[Dino246]

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...

This is a fine example of a false dichotomy. Simply put, there are other options.

Let's examine your logic: If in 1604, there was no Bible which the English could trust, by definition they could not make one in English because there was no trustworthy source. Elsewhere you have written that prior to 1611, the English did not have a perfect Bible, so by your own admission you undermine this dichotomy.

 

[IFBBC_Jonas]

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

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.[/QUOTE]You are referring to the critical text, I know that. When I have some time I'll watch that documentary but I know what it is about.

 

[Demi777]

I understand. Every European country has some reformation translation. But is not "KJV Only" saying, that KJV only? In that case you should not read anything else as the Word of God.

BTW I have to look for English Scriptures too, when discussing on interneational forums... but KJV is very hard to understand (at least for me) so I mostly use NIV or ESV to quote.

I only read the KJV at home. If I wanna study something specific I check out all sorts of translations. But the only english bible I use is KJV.

 

[trofimus]

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 know these theories, I just thought you can prove them

Its a huge jump to call minority text of New Testament as "Egyptian", when 2/3 of the sources are not from Alexandria.

 

[IFBBC_Jonas]

I understand. Every European country has some reformation translation. But is not "KJV Only" saying, that KJV only? In that case you should not read anything else as the Word of God.
KJV only proponents do not say that all reformation translations are inspired, but KJV only.


BTW I have to look for English Scriptures too, when discussing on interneational forums... but KJV is very hard to understand (at least for me) so I mostly use NIV or ESV to quote.

Really? Do American KJV-onlyists believe that other reformation translations aren't Divinely inspired or did I get you wrong? I'm not saying you should never use an NIV or ESV but the point that KJV-onlyists are trying to make is that when you use the KJV, you can learn most from the Bible because its language is hard indeed and thus this means that its richest in vocabulary as well. GTG now

 

[trofimus]

Really? Do American KJV-onlyists believe that other reformation translations aren't Divinely inspired or did I get you wrong? I'm not saying you should never use an NIV or ESV but the point that KJV-onlyists are trying to make is that when you use the KJV, you can learn most from the Bible because its language is hard indeed and thus this means that its richest in vocabulary as well. GTG now

No, KJV Only means, that there is no other inspired Bible, all others are full of errors or (in the worse case) the work of Satan.

And that KJV is absolutely perfect, without any error.

These claims are the reasons why its so strange doctrine. If they only say "we just prefer KJV", nobody would discuss that.

 

[hornetguy]

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.

So, you "worship" the KJV, but you use later translations in a different language?

This seems to be a bit of a contradiction in your belief system....

...and, worship of any "book" is wrong. We are to worship God, not physical things. Worshipping a book is making it into an idol, and I'm sure you know the consequences of that practice.

 

[Dan_473]

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

Kjv worship happens sometimes.. . This kind of stuff has happened before
2 KINGS 18:4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces
the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had
made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan).

 

[wwjd_kilden]

Really? Do American KJV-onlyists believe that other reformation translations aren't Divinely inspired or did I get you wrong? I'm not saying you should never use an NIV or ESV but the point that KJV-onlyists are trying to make is that when you use the KJV, you can learn most from the Bible because its language is hard indeed and thus this means that its richest in vocabulary as well. GTG now

There are several KJV onlyists that basicaly claim that the NIV / ESV etc is from the devil. Which is of course crazy
That was why I asked you about reading the bible in another langauge than English

 

[John146]

No, KJV Only means, that there is no other inspired Bible, all others are full of errors or (in the worse case) the work of Satan.

And that KJV is absolutely perfect, without any error.

These claims are the reasons why its so strange doctrine. If they only say "we just prefer KJV", nobody would discuss that.

Why is it strange to say that our God, who gave us His words, also made sure His words were preserved for all generations? That's not crazy when dealing with God and His words.

 

[trofimus]

Why is it strange to say that our God, who gave us His words, also made sure His words were preserved for all generations? That's not crazy when dealing with God and His words.

Its strange when you say that about only one English translation and all others you set aside like from the devil.

Its strange when it was proved so many times that KJV has errors in it.

 

[Dan_473]

Why is it strange to say that our God, who gave us His words, also made sure His words were preserved for all generations? That's not crazy when dealing with God and His words.

reading the Bible is a great way to gain wisdom.

but the guarantee of truth for Christians is the spirit

ST. JOHN 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

 

[John146]

So the Holy Spirit's job as we are reading the word of truth, is to guide us around the errors and lead us to the truth? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. Try explaining that one to the world.

 

[KJV1611]

right! but Jesus

found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,

It don't see that it says Jesus read from the book of Isaiah or quoted it. All it says is that Jesus opened the book to that passage and spoke the words below and then closed the book.

Jesus stood before the synagogue and read scripture every Sabaath. If he had just quoted Isaiah or read directly from the book of Isaiah that day then why would everybody's eyes been fastened on him after he finished?

Luke 4:17-20 KJV
And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written,

[18] The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

[19] To preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

[20] And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him.

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, there are many errors in KJV and many other translations, because translators used corrupted massoretic texts for the Old Testament.

Apostles used correct texts, so when they quote the Old Testament in the New Testament, it differs from the English Old Testament translations based on the massoretic source.

There are many errors in quotations form, words missing, even the meaning differences, Christ prophecies censored by Jewish scribals, errors in numbers etc.

And this is, BTW, the fastest way to prove KJV is not infallible

Are these Massoretic texts?

Luke 4:18New American Standard Bible (NASB)

18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,


Isaiah 61:1New American Standard Bible (NASB)

61 The Spirit of the Lord [a]God is upon me,
Because the Lord has anointed me
To bring good news to the [b]afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And [c]freedom to prisoners;

 

[KJV1611]

Yes, I am from the Czech Republic.


Are you sure that "the" should be in Daniel 3:25?
KJV is the only one translation I found that adds "the".

Is it justified by the original text?

I have always understood this verse like describing somebody of angelic look (it can be either Christ or some angel).

Why do you think "the" should be there?

Why would I believe otherwise? It's either the son of God or a son of the gods. A son of the gods would be a Nephilim wouldn't it? It don't think a Nephilim would be in the fiery furnace to protect them.

 

[KJV1611]

I have some random thoughts about the Bible.

The Bible is NOT God - God breathed and inspired - yes! The Bible is about Jesus. The Bible is not an end to itself - the Bible speaks of Jesus. He is the reality that the Bible speaks of.

Jesus said this about the scriptures:

John 5:39-40 (NASB)
[SUP]39 [/SUP] "You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me;

[SUP]40 [/SUP] and you are unwilling to come to Me so that you may have life.

The Bible does not have all the answers. It points us to the One who is the Answer.

James never said " If any of you lacks wisdom - you should study the Bible." He said you should ask God. The purpose of scripture is to lead us to complete dependence on God and what He has already one in His Son's work.

God surely does speak to us through the Bible and is profitable for instruction but if the Bible doesn't lead us to a revelation of the One called Wisdom, we will be no wiser than a Pharisee.

Read the Bible with the view to "see" Jesus! The best "translation" of the Bible is Jesus.

He is the Living Word of God and He is flawless and free of translation errors.

We are totally dependent on the Holy Spirit to reveal Christ to us as Mary was dependent on the Holy Spirit to conceive Jesus in her womb.

That's sounds nice, but if what you say is true then ALL of us would be on the same page. Some say the Holy Spirit tells them that "holy laughter" is the Spirit of God, some say the Holy Spirit tells them that "holy laughter" comes form the devil. Same with almost any doctrine you can come up with. Some will say the Spirit says this and some will say the Spirit says the opposite.

The only true image of Christ and who he is comes from the bible. Anything outside of that is not trustworthy.

 

[KJV1611]

That's just silly. Of COURSE Jesus is the same in the newer translations. You are simply being argumentative. The translators didn't use the words that YOU want, so you dismiss it out of hand....

and, why do we think that the reference to the furnace meant Jesus? It very likely could have meant an angel, or a heavenly being... a "small g" god.... elohim....

Being the son of a "small g" god is not the same as being the son of the most high God "big G God".

Both exist, so the translation "a son of the gods" is very likely exactly the way they intended it.... NOT meaning Jesus. Just an angelic being.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a son of the gods would the offspring of the sons of God and the daughters of men aka Giants or Nephillim.

Also why do you choose little g god instead of big G God? Apparently elahh can mean either one.

אֱלָהּ ʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

 

[HisHolly]

That's when knowing helps..
People blindly follow and believe anything.
Everything does Not come from God.
The devil will masquerade