King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- 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.
I would like to give some reasons for why I say the KJV is the inspired inerrant word of God. Not re-inspired... I don't even know what that means lol.
In the KJV the book of David's DNA can easily seen but it's nonexistent in the NASB. All thy members (fingers, toes, arms, eyes etc.) were written in a book! And this is just the first level of understanding, it is also tlaking about the body of Christ - members = us.
Psalm 139:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Psalm 139:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
My question to each of you is, why did the KJV translators translate this way, all they had to go on for "all thy members were written" was the word below. Is this the KJV translators understanding DNA and making the words obvious that DNA was being spoken of or did God inspire them to use the words they used so that we would understand it to mean DNA in todays time? What is your opinion?
כָּתַבkâthab, kaw-thab'; a primitive root; to grave, by implication, to write (describe, inscribe, prescribe, subscribe):—describe, record, prescribe, subscribe, write(-ing, -ten).
In the KJV the book of David's DNA can easily seen but it's nonexistent in the NASB. All thy members (fingers, toes, arms, eyes etc.) were written in a book! And this is just the first level of understanding, it is also tlaking about the body of Christ - members = us.
Psalm 139:16King James Version (KJV)
16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.
Psalm 139:16New American Standard Bible (NASB)
16 Your eyes have seen my unformed substance;
And in Your book were all written
The days that were ordained for me,
When as yet there was not one of them.
My question to each of you is, why did the KJV translators translate this way, all they had to go on for "all thy members were written" was the word below. Is this the KJV translators understanding DNA and making the words obvious that DNA was being spoken of or did God inspire them to use the words they used so that we would understand it to mean DNA in todays time? What is your opinion?
כָּתַבkâthab, kaw-thab'; a primitive root; to grave, by implication, to write (describe, inscribe, prescribe, subscribe):—describe, record, prescribe, subscribe, write(-ing, -ten).
Here's another one. Why did the KJV translators highlight the number 13 (harlot love) in Revelation 17:5 by writing the statement about the mother of harlots in all caps? Why did they use any all caps, does the Greek have it in all caps?
Revelation 17:5 KJV
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH .
Why did the NASB not capitalize "mystery" and not highlight the number 13?
Revelation 17:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
Also what was actually written on her forehead.... KJV and NASB have two different writings.
Revelation 17:5 KJV
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH .
Why did the NASB not capitalize "mystery" and not highlight the number 13?
Revelation 17:5New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 and on her forehead a name was written, a mystery, “BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND OF THE ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.”
Also what was actually written on her forehead.... KJV and NASB have two different writings.
U
Where have they claimed to be directly inspired by the Holy Spirit?
They only claimed in the preface that the original scriptures were inspired. They considered themselves translators of the inspired version. Why is this not good enough for some I do not understand.
They wrote, “The originall thereof [original Scriptures] being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer [dictator or composer], the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endewed [provided] with a principall [large] portion of Gods spirit...”
They only claimed in the preface that the original scriptures were inspired. They considered themselves translators of the inspired version. Why is this not good enough for some I do not understand.
They wrote, “The originall thereof [original Scriptures] being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer [dictator or composer], the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen-men such as were sanctified from the wombe, and endewed [provided] with a principall [large] portion of Gods spirit...”
I don't think they knew they were being inspired, at least from what they wrote it doesn't seem like it. I wonder if Paul knew he was writting the new testament when he wrote letters to the Corinthians.
I would buy that the KJV is not inspired if someone could produce compelling evidence that the KJV has mistakes and explain all the miraculous writtings in the KJV that no man could cause to happen.
I would buy that the KJV is not inspired if someone could produce compelling evidence that the KJV has mistakes and explain all the miraculous writtings in the KJV that no man could cause to happen.
U
There are many instances in the new testament where the apostles claim divine authority.
(2 Peter 3:15*16)
(2 Peter 3:2)
(1 Corinthians 14:37-*38)
(1 Timothy 5:18) Paul quoting Luke
That is a huge assumption being made that the KJV translators were inspired (even thought they never claimed it) but they did not know they were inspired.
Paul and the apostles knew they were inspired and claimed it to be so.
(2 Peter 3:15*16)
(2 Peter 3:2)
(1 Corinthians 14:37-*38)
(1 Timothy 5:18) Paul quoting Luke
That is a huge assumption being made that the KJV translators were inspired (even thought they never claimed it) but they did not know they were inspired.
Paul and the apostles knew they were inspired and claimed it to be so.
I'll set up a meeting with once I blast off to Heaven and ask them, Lord willing.
You can sit in on the meeting if you'd like... I'll have one of the angels reserve a seat for you... Lord willing.
Only the guys writing were inspired to write what God said... the KJV guys were inspired to put together the best English copy they could.
You can sit in on the meeting if you'd like... I'll have one of the angels reserve a seat for you... Lord willing.
Only the guys writing were inspired to write what God said... the KJV guys were inspired to put together the best English copy they could.
Last edited:
How do you know anything about the Savior? How do you know how to be saved? How do you know how to live a sanctified life?
2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do we have "all Scripture"? If so, where?
2 Timothy 3
16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Do we have "all Scripture"? If so, where?
We have all that God decided to give us in the 66 books of the Bible as He caused other writings to not be included that some claim should have been included... God just had His angels stand around and influence people so just the 66 books were put in His canon.
If God could not control this process inspite of men handling the scriptures that weren't even born again at some times during history... then He is weak and inept which is obviously not the case.
And yet, we have people claiming other books should have went in and some should have been excluded as though Jesus is not capable of ultimately controlling what went in the Book.
Jesus Christ is personally responsible for the 66 books we have being there.
If God could not control this process inspite of men handling the scriptures that weren't even born again at some times during history... then He is weak and inept which is obviously not the case.
And yet, we have people claiming other books should have went in and some should have been excluded as though Jesus is not capable of ultimately controlling what went in the Book.
Jesus Christ is personally responsible for the 66 books we have being there.
The interlinear... in other words the Hebrew (OT) and the Greek (NT)
And... God's Word provides it's own commentary meaning... on any given subject one needs to see what God said about that subject through the entire Word of God... and not go read after some beenie baby seminary cat!
And... God's Word provides it's own commentary meaning... on any given subject one needs to see what God said about that subject through the entire Word of God... and not go read after some beenie baby seminary cat!
I have details about that somewhere on my PC... but it's the one that is conservative cause the other one is liberal as in folks been tinkering with it
I've found the KJV to contain the least translation errors.
The main reason I've kept using it all these years is because it goes with Strong's Concordance
The main thing is to see what God said about a given subject through the entire Word of God... most folks don't do that not realizing that God provided His own commentary... and personal Tutor!
I've found the KJV to contain the least translation errors.
The main reason I've kept using it all these years is because it goes with Strong's Concordance
The main thing is to see what God said about a given subject through the entire Word of God... most folks don't do that not realizing that God provided His own commentary... and personal Tutor!
Daniel 2:4 – 7:28 is written in Aramaic rather than in Hebrew, and the although the Hebrew word for God, ’ĕlôhim, is used with a singular force in the Hebrew parts of the Old Testament, the Aramaic word for God, ’ělâhîn (found in Daniel 3:25), is always plural. Therefore, although the paraphrase used in the NLT is ridiculous, the footnote is precisely correct!
An excellent and precisely accurate translation of Daniel 3:25 is found in the Second Edition (1972) of the Revised Standard Version,
25. He answered, “But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
The KJV is a relic from an age of biblical ignorance and verbal antiquities!
Thomas Shelton’s 1612 English translation of the first of the two volumes of El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha is written in the same beautiful English as the 1611 KJV, but without the extreme archaisms. For example, in Matt. 4:2 we read in the KJV,
4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
The expression, ‘an hungred’ is so ancient and obscure that today’s most prominent lexicographers of the English language disagree on the meaning of it. Moreover, the expression was so ancient and obscure even when the KJV was first published in 1611 that printers of it believed it to be a grammatical error and attempted to correct it by changing it to “an hungered,” or “a hungered,” or “ahungered.” In my study, I have copies of the KJV with all four of these renderings. We do not find ludicrous messes like this in good translations of the Bible.
An excellent and precisely accurate translation of Daniel 3:25 is found in the Second Edition (1972) of the Revised Standard Version,
25. He answered, “But I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they are not hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.”
The KJV is a relic from an age of biblical ignorance and verbal antiquities!
Thomas Shelton’s 1612 English translation of the first of the two volumes of El ingenioso hidalgo don Quixote de la Mancha is written in the same beautiful English as the 1611 KJV, but without the extreme archaisms. For example, in Matt. 4:2 we read in the KJV,
4:2. And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward Matthew 4:2 And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred.
The expression, ‘an hungred’ is so ancient and obscure that today’s most prominent lexicographers of the English language disagree on the meaning of it. Moreover, the expression was so ancient and obscure even when the KJV was first published in 1611 that printers of it believed it to be a grammatical error and attempted to correct it by changing it to “an hungered,” or “a hungered,” or “ahungered.” In my study, I have copies of the KJV with all four of these renderings. We do not find ludicrous messes like this in good translations of the Bible.