The King James Only Debate

[Dan_473]

The translation can't be trusted absolutely, no

1 CORINTHIANS 13:12 Now we see a blurred image in a mirror. Then we will see very clearly. Now my knowledge is incomplete. Then I will have complete knowledge as God has complete knowledge of me.

 

[trofimus]

Trofimus your view is a perfect example of how not having trust in your bible affects the believer. Your lack of belief in an inerrant bible has caused you to throw away the added information given in the KJV Old Testament.

How exactly I am corrupted but not knowing the "KJV added information"?
BTW, trofimus is just a nickname, its not my real name

Keys to understanding New Testament passages are found in the Old Testament, both Testaments are required to understand either one of them. That's why the bible says 1) line upon line 2) line upon line, 1) precept upon precept 2) precept upon precept. I've read the KJV long enough to know that something repeated twice means Old Testament New Testament.

Its your opinion. You surely know that new Christians of non-jewish origin in the first centuries did not have the complete book we call "Bible". And surely not the perfect manuscripts. And surely not the Hebrew massoretic texts you have in your KJV. They did not speak Hebrew and these texts did not even exist yet.

The New Testament writers aren't qouting the Old Testament, they are paraphrasing and adding more information so that you can fully understand the passage. You are dismissing this valuable info as a manuscript error.

You must believe that because you cant deny the obvious differences between your Old Testament and your New Testament.
But its only "getaway" from the reality.

 

[John146]

Yes you can trust the Word of God, all of it. The reasons again are simple. There are no major distortions within the modern versions to render it false. You can trust the ESV or NIV because they do contain all truth. A word change does affect the point of the text unless it directly, purposefully and unequivocally goes against the content of the text, the context and the intentionality. Which none of the modern versions do.

There is absolute truth to be had in Luke 10:1

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV - After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

Did the Lord send out 70 or 72? You say, what's the big deal? The big deal is truth. Is it true that the Lord sent our 70 or 72? One can be trusted and one cannot be trusted for truth. If so called little truths can't be trusted, who are we to determine if the whole book can be trusted or not?

The differences in versions abound even in doctrinal issues as I posted in #333.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Yes, but can that verse be trusted if there's other verses that can't be trusted? That's the question of the world.

If this was true, then we could never trust any bible Because any bible translated into english is already flawed because the english language is inadequate to interpret literally the hebrew or most importantly the greek.

 

[John146]

If this was true, then we could never trust any bible Because any bible translated into english is already flawed because the english language is inadequate to interpret literally the hebrew or most importantly the greek.

I believe God, the Saviour of the world, can translate His word into the English language, the exact English words to convey exactly what He has said without error. I believe our God can do that? Do you doubt?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

I believe God, the Saviour of the world, can translate His word into the English language, the exact English words to convey exactly what He has said without error. I believe our God can do that? Do you doubt?

God did not translate it. Men did.

end of story.

if you really want to get technical. Why has God not translated an english bible with uses modern english understandable by all people. Why is he still using an old outdated hard to understand language which no one (unless they grew up in it) can understand.

so in both cases.. Your point is prety much invalid.

 

[KohenMatt]

The King James Only Debate.....

.....is a silly one. It isn't the words on the page that speak of God's truth and life. It is His Holy Spirit speaking through those pages. While it is good to have as accurate a translation as you can, it isn't worth a staunch stance or debate. God can speak just as much through the NIV, NASB or ESV, etc. as much as the King James. Hey, God can even speak through The Message (heresy!)

If we want the most accurate translation possible, throw all of the English versions out the window and go with the original Hebrew or Greek.

 

[John146]

God did not translate it. Men did.

end of story.

if you really want to get technical. Why has God not translated an english bible with uses modern english understandable by all people. Why is he still using an old outdated hard to understand language which no one (unless they grew up in it) can understand.

so in both cases.. Your point is prety much invalid.

God did not write the originals. Man did. Would you trust the originals if you had them?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

God did not write the originals. Man did. Would you trust the originals if you had them?

God inspired the originals.

We are not talking about originals. we are talking about interpretations of copies of originals.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

The King James Only Debate.....

.....is a silly one. It isn't the words on the page that speak of God's truth and life. It is His Holy Spirit speaking through those pages. While it is good to have as accurate a translation as you can, it isn't worth a staunch stance or debate. God can speak just as much through the NIV, NASB or ESV, etc. as much as the King James. Hey, God can even speak through The Message (heresy!)

If we want the most accurate translation possible, throw all of the English versions out the window and go with the original Hebrew or Greek.

Now if only we could find them (wink) lol

 

[Dino246]

Read the information on all the other main codexes that are available as a second option. Once you do that come back and tell me if you really trust those catholic heresies or the preserved word that many were persecuted for.

Speculative and irrelevant to the discussion of "authorized".

...

The only other thing that might can be said about the "authorization" by King James for 47 chosen men to translated the Bible - is - God used that king and those men to accomplish a "good-and-proper" translation of the scriptures into English at a time when:

~ it was handled with utmost reverence for the task

~ it was done by a group of scholars whose qualifications for the task have been unequaled since that time

~ the English language was "in its prime"; the "beauty of the language" has 'waned' much since that time

Prove then that the "utmost reverence" exceeded greatly the reverence with which the translators of modern Bibles did their work. Otherwise your comment is irrelevant.

Prove then that the qualifications of the group of KJV translators exceeded the qualifications of the groups of modern translators (not by picking 'best' vs 'worst' either!).

Prove your opinion of "prime" language with any evidence at all, other than mere opinion.

Psalm (12:6-7) - The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

The King James Bible was also the 7th English Bible and took the scholars 7 years to publish it from 1604-1611. It may have something to do with the "purified seven times" part.

Complete and irrelevant speculation which is easily refuted and has been repeatedly. This is not sound reasoning at all and has no bearing whatsoever on "infallible" or on "authorized".

 

[Dan_473]

The King James Only Debate.....

.....is a silly one. It isn't the words on the page that speak of God's truth and life. It is His Holy Spirit speaking through those pages. While it is good to have as accurate a translation as you can, it isn't worth a staunch stance or debate. God can speak just as much through the NIV, NASB or ESV, etc. as much as the King James. Hey, God can even speak through The Message (heresy!)

If we want the most accurate translation possible, throw all of the English versions out the window and go with the original Hebrew or Greek.

The Message can be useful

But don’t let it faze you. Stick with what you learned and believed, sure of the integrity of your teachers—why, you took in the sacred Scriptures with your mother’s milk! There’s nothing like the written Word of God for showing you the way to salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. Every part of Scripture is God-breathed and useful one way or another

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Tim+3&version=MSG

 

[KJV1611]

I would say when the words convey a different meaning of the text and context given. One is able to detect a deficiency by way of going to the original greek and manuscript evidence.

How do you know which original Greek manuscript line is right?

 

[The_Bible]

Speculative and irrelevant to the discussion of "authorized".




Prove then that the "utmost reverence" exceeded greatly the reverence with which the translators of modern Bibles did their work. Otherwise your comment is irrelevant.

Prove then that the qualifications of the group of KJV translators exceeded the qualifications of the groups of modern translators (not by picking 'best' vs 'worst' either!).

Prove your opinion of "prime" language with any evidence at all, other than mere opinion.




Complete and irrelevant speculation which is easily refuted and has been repeatedly. This is not sound reasoning at all and has no bearing whatsoever on "infallible" or on "authorized".

I gave you the info abut the original manuscripts already yiu decide to ignore evidenxe and just say is a lie. So idk what to tell you half fun being 70% Christian, the other 30% being fooled. You obviously never had a person criticize yur Bible and had to defend it.

 

[The_Bible]

There is absolute truth to be had in Luke 10:1

KJV - After these things the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

ESV - After this the Lord appointed seventy-two others and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to go.

Did the Lord send out 70 or 72? You say, what's the big deal? The big deal is truth. Is it true that the Lord sent our 70 or 72? One can be trusted and one cannot be trusted for truth. If so called little truths can't be trusted, who are we to determine if the whole book can be trusted or not?

The differences in versions abound even in doctrinal issues as I posted in #333.

Idk why you give people CLEAR information like this and they act like is ok to have mistakes in God's words. They obviously aren't educated on the subject and DO NOT even try to be a apologetic to defend why their "bible" is corrupt unlike KJV-ONlY. Much rather just justify the errors in the Bible, can't believe they would worship a lying God.

 

[The_Bible]

God did not translate it. Men did.

end of story.

if you really want to get technical. Why has God not translated an english bible with uses modern english understandable by all people. Why is he still using an old outdated hard to understand language which no one (unless they grew up in it) can understand.

so in both cases.. Your point is prety much invalid.

There is no update on the KJV we cannot attempt to make it more modern bc all that he said in the KJV was made for that way. Even in the NEW KJV they try to make it more modern and it still has errors. Is not hard to understand just keep studying and you'll get used to the language.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

There is no update on the KJV we cannot attempt to make it more modern bc all that he said in the KJV was made for that way. Even in the NEW KJV they try to make it more modern and it still has errors. Is not hard to understand just keep studying and you'll get used to the language.

1. I grew up KJV. so please.
2. It has errors
3. We need to make kids study it to learn the language, Why not just have them learn greek and hebrew.. it is closer to the origional than even the KJV is..

 

[KJV1611]

1. I grew up KJV. so please.
2. It has errors
3. We need to make kids study it to learn the language, Why not just have them learn greek and hebrew.. it is closer to the origional than even the KJV is..

Is it possible that the things that you say are errors are not really errors at all but a lack of understanding on your part?

 

[The_Bible]

1. I grew up KJV. so please.
2. It has errors
3. We need to make kids study it to learn the language, Why not just have them learn greek and hebrew.. it is closer to the origional than even the KJV is..

Show me these "errors" it certainly doesn't have none. Learning Greek and Hebrew causes more conterversy over those definitiojs of the words their is a reason why our protestants reformation risked getting persecuted to translated them already Erasmus, Martin Luther, Theodore Beza, Stephanus.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Is it possible that the things that you say are errors are not really errors at all but a lack of understanding on your part?

Is it possible that the so called errors of the other versions are not errors but a misunderstanding on you part?

It goes both ways, You can not judge one without judging the other with the same judgment

Thats why this "debate" is quite sad.