King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[limey410]

I can see why you believe what you believe about being born because your bible says something completely different than the KJV in 1 Peter 1:3 and many other place.

1 Peter 1:3 KJV
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

This perfectly illustrates my argument about being born again by words. The born again man (Christ) in you has been formed from the words of the bibles you read just like the born again man (Christ) in me is formed from the words of the bible that I read.

My views on Jesus, the written word, salvation, works and most all other doctrines will be different than yours because the Christ in me is made of different words than the Christ in you.

You still didn't answer my original question, what is the difference between being born again and salvation?

 

[Angela53510]

Mark says "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." One teaching - the commandments of men as doctrine.

LXX Isaiah says "teaching the commandments and doctrines of men." Two teachings - 1) the commandments of men and 2) the doctrines of men.

KVJ Isaiah says "and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of man". One teaching - fear toward God (set of beliefs aka doctrine) taught by the precept (rule of conduct) of man.

Can you see how the LXX is completely wrong as compared to Mark?

I've been doing some further research, and my conclusion, is that you are straining at gnats and swallowing camels. You are focusing on one word which I assume to be kai, but it could be the post-positive de, and some how coming up with TWO teachings.

Except in Greek, καί kai, can be epexegetical. That is, instead of meaning two different teachings, as in a copulative sense, (which means adding - one plus one and getting two!) instead, it may well be saying, "namely."

In other words, "teaching for doctrines, NAMELY the doctrines of man." This would make it exactly the same thing.

In fact, you have not even quoted your own KJV text correctly. I would suggest you need to either learn the original languages, or stop engaging in these discussions, using wrong examples and wrong assumptions.


Language is inexact in any generation. The fact is, all the modern versions assume singular - not two teachings.

Where do you get this stuff from? Some KJV Only website, I would assume, of people who also have little knowledge of Greek, Hebrew or even English.

(By the way, KJV is not wrong, but I doubt the LXX is either! Just a bad translation of the word "kai" into English!)

 

[limey410]

You might worship your bible if you could see the spirit of Christ in your bible or if you could see his finger prints and signatures on the pages. To you the bible is just a book, to me it's Christ. It's alive and it speaks to my soul. It's the only image of Christ that we have on this earth. And yes I worship it proudly!

I have received my salvation and have been born again by the Spirit of God, He is able to do that. He dwells in me and I am His temple. I have a relationship with the creator of the universe. I will not reduce that to a relationship with my bible, no matter what version it may be.

 

[willybob]

Don't forget James Strong's dictionary....it has to be inspired too in order to look up the inspired original words.

James strong was part of their deception, he was brought into the committee by masonic occultist Philip Schaff....Strong started his work in the early 1850s for the very purpose of correcting the errors in the KJB..His translation that was realized in 1901(ASV) was of corrupted text..They all sought to diminish the Deity of Christ, and desolve the truine nature of the Godhead consisting of 3 persons, amongst other goals as well..these were basically the forerunners of modern day Universalism

http://www.avpublications.com/avnew...pter_7_Strong_Delusion-James_Strongs_Dang.pdf

 

[Muzungu256]

Well, the translators, mostly are committees. They toss around ideas, use various lexicons, check use elsewhere in the NT, and even in early church fathers and other concurrent literature. Then they vote on which words to use. (The exception is the paraphrase, the Message, which Eugene Peterson translated. Really good in some places, and just totally wrong in others!)

I understand the NET Bible - the one with the full commentary has explanations for every single word, and how they were guided in their choices.

As far as your specific questions, about olam and aion, it really depends on which verse, and the context. Remember, even in English, the same word can be used differently.

Eg.
I run the business.

I run to the store.

I have a run in my nylons. (You may not understand that archaic use of the word "run." LOL)

Other languages are no different. How is it used in the sentence? Where is it in the sentence? Is it traditionally translated one way, and that is the accepted way?

My advice, as always, is to read it in context. So, not just the word, but the verse, the chapter, the book. And the historical and grammatical context. And not to be nasty, but until you have 20 or 30 years translating under your belt, probably what you "feel" is not enough to trump what the people who have studied their whole lives "to show themselves approved," understand.

In other words, you have a certain belief or doctrine, and you want to read INTO the text so it agrees with what you believe. It makes you "feel" uncomfortable, because the translation doesn't agree with you. Translating involves taking meaning OUT of the words, and words are never used in isolation.

So, perhaps you need to re-examine the things that are making you "feel" uncomfortable, and why the words say something different than you want them to. Or, perhaps you do have a wrong feeling. Sometimes you need to go back to the tradition of the translation. Is it just parroting something from another time? Or is it supporting a particular viewpoint, but translating words in a particular way? I have this issue with complimentarianism, ESV saying plainly in the footnotes that they chose a word because it supports the complimentarian view. Of course, eschatology and the Scofield Bible, from what I understand incorporates notes in the margins that Darby/Scofield made, slanted its end times view.

In other words, perhaps the translation does reflect the biases of the translators. But in order to uncover that, you really do need to study Greek and Hebrew. And then be humble enough to admit you need to know more. My Greek prof has been studying Greek his whole life. His dad was a Greek scholar, his uncles, his cousins, etc. It was just something his family did. They all wrote all kinds of commentaries and books and texts books. Yet, he still is open to the fact that new things are being discovered with regards to manuscripts, and that our words have changed, so then, we have to look differently at the words we use to translate the Bible.

In fact, he would get so excited when we were talking about a text, and because of the parsing, we would see a different angle, as a class. Or a different translation would shed a different light on the passage, reflecting the Greek better. He would write these things down, to take to the translation committee meanings.

As for you, being young, what about studying Greek and Hebrew? Some people do it on their own, I needed a professor to help me. If you are interested, and you have some spare money to pay for the books and classes, pm me, and I will give you some links to follow and some good books to get started. Plus, having a real professor for Greek and Hebrew (don't do both at the same time, is my advice!) you can ask them questions like this, and they will have better answers than I have? I'm only advanced, not a professional!

great response angela, i gave you reputation reason i asked about olam and aion is not to make up my own doctrines i just noticed those because they've been translated as being eternal and we now know the law of moses isnt in effect so i just wondered that translation since all these guys were christians and they knew it that the law of moses or circumcision wasnt eternal...........

 

[RedeemedGift]

I think you have some good points in your posts.

However, you are comparing the LXX, which is in Greek, using English. Perhaps it would be better to compare this verse in Greek - LXX to Mark? The LXX is incredibly difficult in many places. It is a form of Greek that is 300-400 years older than when the NT was written (Mark being one of the earliest NT documents!)

In other words, the writers of the NT, may well have viewed the LXX somewhat as I view the KJV. Basically difficult to read. Languages always change, and certainly the writers of the NT were not obsessed with perfection and accuracy, like we are today.

Or are you implying the KJV is right, and the the LXX is not? Perhaps following a changed and updated 15 century Masoretic text is the reason for the inaccuracy in the KJV?

PS if you put the Scripture addresses in, it would help me look verses up much better. Isaiah has 66 books, you know!

Isaiah 29:13 in LXX:

ὁ λαὸς οὗτος ἐν τῷ στόματι αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν τιμῶσί με, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας.

Mark 7:6-7 Nestle Aland 27th:

Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με, διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων·

Mark 7:6-7 Stephanus' 1550 Textus Receptus

Οὗτος ὁ λαὸς τοῖς χείλεσίν με τιμᾷ ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ' ἐμοῦ· μάτην δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

Not a scholar by any means

 

[Angela53510]

You still didn't answer my original question, what is the difference between being born again and salvation?

I'm glad you brought this up. For one thing, this phrase "born again." The word Jesus uses is anothen. ἄνωθεν, which means "from above, again."

Here is what ESV quotes, which I believe is similar to KJV.

"This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c]7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’"

However, the footnotes of the ESV are clear. In verse three ἄνωθεν, anothen means the following:

b. John 3:3Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7.


So, when Jesus uses the word in Greek ἄνωθεν, anothen, is he saying "born again" or "born from above?" It is obvious that Nicodemus thinks it is actual birth from his questions. But was Jesus telling him we needed to be born from above, of the Spirit, or born again in our flesh? Reflecting on the passage, I would have to say that Jesus is not saying "born again" but rather "born from above."
My commentaries have some interesting notes about this passage. The reference to ἄνωθεν anothen, "born again/born from above" is startling and unexpected. But either way, it speaks of a new beginning and a decisive inner transformation in a person's life.

Now, the notion of divine birth would have made sense to someone with a Hellenistic background, (and the later Hellenistic readers of John would have easily recognized it!) since divine regeneration was a frequent idea in Greek philosophy. But, when the one questioning is a Pharisee, it would be better to look at Judaism to find the meaning of the words. Proselytes to Judaism were often called "newly born children." But the language Jesus uses seems unusual to Nicodemus. By the word ἄνωθεν anothen, Jesus means "not an amendment, but the renewal of the whole nature."

But since Jesus sees the word ἄνωθεν anothen- one way, "born from above" and Nicodemus sees it another "born again" John has purposefully provided us with a misunderstanding of the Gospel. In order to enter the Kingdom, in order to understand divine revelations, such as this one, one must have an experience that transports beyond the mere observation of '"signs". Divine signs are ambitious without divine aid. (John is about the "signs" Jesus did!)

So far from ignoring what Nicodemus has said, Jesus says, "Unless someone is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This means that just as it is impossible to do what Jesus has been doing UNLESS (ἐὰν μή) God is with him, so it is impossible to "see the kingdom of God" UNLESS one is born from above. And Jesus uses the plural in verse 7, meaning he has gone from Nicodemus specifically to tis τις or - anyone or certain ones.

So, therefore, Jesus is specifically saying that God is the one who causes us be born again. Certainly we cannot reach into the heavens, and make ourselves born from above. Anymore than, as Nicodemus rightly says, we cannot make ourselves be born from our mother's wombs. But Jesus was speaking of a spiritual rebirth, from God, not a fleshly rebirth, of the flesh.

But, this so far does not deal with the issue of salvation, and its relationship to being "born from above."

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matt 1:21 NIV

The name "Jesus" means "The Lord saves." It is the Greek form of Joshua, which is Hebrew. So literally, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Jesus also says the way to be saved is to be born from again, of the Spirit, going back to John 3:2-7.

Now, there is more to the gospel, in that God is the one who gives us faith, and obviously gives us a new spirit, and a new heart. Paul says,

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old has gone, the new has come." 2 Cor. 5:17

We must be born from above, because we are spiritually dead. We are spiritually dead, because we are sinners.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23

Jesus is the one who saves or rescues us from our utterly dead state, through the power of the Holy Spirit, who gives us faith and causes us to be born from above.

So are the terms "born from above" and "salvation" the same? Well, for me, they show different aspects of the same gospel. We are born again of the Spirit. It comes from God. It is not of ourselves.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph. 2:8-10


When we are born again, God gives us the power to repent of our sins, and he saves us from those sins. Thus, salvation is from God, and being born from above is from God. You cannot get much closer in meaning than that. The gospel of salvation, is that God causes us to be born from above, and we have a new spirit, and we are new creatures, adopted by faith into the Kingdom of God!

 

[Angela53510]

I compared it in the post #523.

Apparently, I missed the whole page!

 

[fredoheaven]

Woah!

I wish your English was better so I could understand what you write better!

I don't even know what your point is here or what you're trying to assert.

And "responses makes pointless". Huh?

This is what I said “With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV.
You said: Only to the deluded KJVO-ists.

Then…

You said: The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.

I said:
…the argument is “reading” not “speaking” for I can read using my mind, eyes and not my mouth only.

Here lies your faulty argument of “easy reading” while it is true that reading may be done publickly, thus making it aloud (speaking), I can also read my Bible privately with my eyes. Now it seems you are trying to deflect, turning your own argument of “easy reading” to “easy speaking”.

Sure, and I admit it, I have my “mystical” English and that it will be your advantage, I am a Filipino and you’re an American but one thing, if you really talking of the 400 years ago of English which is hard to follow as you are saying is because English is English. English is to England not American.

Now, if again you wanted to point-zero in my pointless English, then I guessed that’s off the topic.

 

[limey410]

I'm glad you brought this up. For one thing, this phrase "born again." The word Jesus uses is anothen. ἄνωθεν, which means "from above, again."

Here is what ESV quotes, which I believe is similar to KJV.

"This man came to Jesus by night and said to him, “Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher come from God, for no one can do these signs that you do unless God is with him.”3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again[b] he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born?”5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.[c]7 Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You[d] must be born again.’"

However, the footnotes of the ESV are clear. In verse three ἄνωθεν, anothen means the following:

b. John 3:3Or from above; the Greek is purposely ambiguous and can mean both again and from above; also verse 7.


So, when Jesus uses the word in Greek ἄνωθεν, anothen, is he saying "born again" or "born from above?" It is obvious that Nicodemus thinks it is actual birth from his questions. But was Jesus telling him we needed to be born from above, of the Spirit, or born again in our flesh? Reflecting on the passage, I would have to say that Jesus is not saying "born again" but rather "born from above."
My commentaries have some interesting notes about this passage. The reference to ἄνωθεν anothen, "born again/born from above" is startling and unexpected. But either way, it speaks of a new beginning and a decisive inner transformation in a person's life.

Now, the notion of divine birth would have made sense to someone with a Hellenistic background, (and the later Hellenistic readers of John would have easily recognized it!) since divine regeneration was a frequent idea in Greek philosophy. But, when the one questioning is a Pharisee, it would be better to look at Judaism to find the meaning of the words. Proselytes to Judaism were often called "newly born children." But the language Jesus uses seems unusual to Nicodemus. By the word ἄνωθεν anothen, Jesus means "not an amendment, but the renewal of the whole nature."

But since Jesus sees the word ἄνωθεν anothen- one way, "born from above" and Nicodemus sees it another "born again" John has purposefully provided us with a misunderstanding of the Gospel. In order to enter the Kingdom, in order to understand divine revelations, such as this one, one must have an experience that transports beyond the mere observation of '"signs". Divine signs are ambitious without divine aid. (John is about the "signs" Jesus did!)

So far from ignoring what Nicodemus has said, Jesus says, "Unless someone is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God." This means that just as it is impossible to do what Jesus has been doing UNLESS (ἐὰν μή) God is with him, so it is impossible to "see the kingdom of God" UNLESS one is born from above. And Jesus uses the plural in verse 7, meaning he has gone from Nicodemus specifically to tis τις or - anyone or certain ones.

So, therefore, Jesus is specifically saying that God is the one who causes us be born again. Certainly we cannot reach into the heavens, and make ourselves born from above. Anymore than, as Nicodemus rightly says, we cannot make ourselves be born from our mother's wombs. But Jesus was speaking of a spiritual rebirth, from God, not a fleshly rebirth, of the flesh.

But, this so far does not deal with the issue of salvation, and its relationship to being "born from above."

"She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.” Matt 1:21 NIV

The name "Jesus" means "The Lord saves." It is the Greek form of Joshua, which is Hebrew. So literally, Jesus came to save us from our sins. Jesus also says the way to be saved is to be born from again, of the Spirit, going back to John 3:2-7.

Now, there is more to the gospel, in that God is the one who gives us faith, and obviously gives us a new spirit, and a new heart. Paul says,

"Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature, the old has gone, the new has come." 2 Cor. 5:17

We must be born from above, because we are spiritually dead. We are spiritually dead, because we are sinners.

"For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. " Romans 3:23

Jesus is the one who saves or rescues us from our utterly dead state, through the power of the Holy Spirit, who gives us faith and causes us to be born from above.

So are the terms "born from above" and "salvation" the same? Well, for me, they show different aspects of the same gospel. We are born again of the Spirit. It comes from God. It is not of ourselves.

"For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— 9 not by works, so that no one can boast. 10 For we are God’s handiwork, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do." Eph. 2:8-10


When we are born again, God gives us the power to repent of our sins, and he saves us from those sins. Thus, salvation is from God, and being born from above is from God. You cannot get much closer in meaning than that. The gospel of salvation, is that God causes us to be born from above, and we have a new spirit, and we are new creatures, adopted by faith into the Kingdom of God!

Thank you for being extremely detailed in your explanation. It makes sense to me that the verbiage in the scriptures as to salvation and being born again (of the Spirit of God) are interchangeable in part.
Thus negating that the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, is the KJV version of the bible as maintained by KJV1611. He uses Peter to establish this and delineates salvation and that one can only be born again by the KJV.

 

[Angela53510]

This is what I said “With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV.
You said: Only to the deluded KJVO-ists.

Then…

You said: The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.

I said:
…the argument is “reading” not “speaking” for I can read using my mind, eyes and not my mouth only.

Here lies your faulty argument of “easy reading” while it is true that reading may be done publickly, thus making it aloud (speaking), I can also read my Bible privately with my eyes. Now it seems you are trying to deflect, turning your own argument of “easy reading” to “easy speaking”.

Sure, and I admit it, I have my “mystical” English and that it will be your advantage, I am a Filipino and you’re an American but one thing, if you really talking of the 400 years ago of English which is hard to follow as you are saying is because English is English. English is to England not American.

Now, if again you wanted to point-zero in my pointless English, then I guessed that’s off the topic.

Well, I am Canadian and we were taught British "English." In other words, I use "u" in neighbour, I add "ly" to words like "slow" when they are used as adverbs, more or less English English, if you get my drift. I have been drilled as to parts of speech, verb forms, and all the aspects of English English.

And NO, I cannot read KJV and have a clue what it says. Perhaps your problem is that your English is already a foreign language, so the KJV is just another step in the same direction.

I speak modern English. I do not speak an English from 400 years ago, complete with archaic and obsolete words. Words that do not exist in English anymore. So, I read modern versions, which are in my heart language. Perhaps you should read Tagalog, or maybe whatever dialect you speak, and then you would understand the Bible better?

Again, the KJV is extremely difficult for me to read, because I speak modern British English. I do not speak 400 year old English. I am repeating myself, because maybe if you read it more than once, it will make sense?

We won't even get into the fact that KJV English is not even 17th century English. The translators tried to follow Greek word order, on occasion, which means they get their word order wrong, even for that era's English.

Kind of like in French, it would be "La maison blanche." We would translate that as "the white house" in English. But, the way the KJV translators would translate it would be something like "the house white" and then they would congratulate themselves they got the word order right.

The receptive language is as important than the original languages. Because if we do not understand it in our own language, the whole point of translating is lost. We need to understand it in our language, which for NONE of us is 17th century and slightly convoluted English.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

This is what I said “With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV.
You said: Only to the deluded KJVO-ists.

Then…

You said: The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.

I said:
…the argument is “reading” not “speaking” for I can read using my mind, eyes and not my mouth only.

Here lies your faulty argument of “easy reading” while it is true that reading may be done publickly, thus making it aloud (speaking), I can also read my Bible privately with my eyes. Now it seems you are trying to deflect, turning your own argument of “easy reading” to “easy speaking”.

Sure, and I admit it, I have my “mystical” English and that it will be your advantage, I am a Filipino and you’re an American but one thing, if you really talking of the 400 years ago of English which is hard to follow as you are saying is because English is English. English is to England not American.

Now, if again you wanted to point-zero in my pointless English, then I guessed that’s off the topic.

I will clarify what I meant as well, first cutting/pasting(italics below) the original comment from post 490:

easy reading argument” is in response on the accusation of Critics of the KJV telling us KJV is outdated, hard to read when the fact is it’s not, using the 8 readability test online as I did and you can do it by yourself if you may proves KJV though age old still readable. The argument is that we don't speak English the same now as we did 400 years ago. English of 400 years ago is harder to follow and understand than modern day English.

Now, to clarify what I meant in post 490:

The argument is that we don't currently speak English as they did 400 years ago and we don't read(with our eyes) the same English now as what was used 400 years ago. It is harder to read(to ourselves or out loud) and understanding 400 year old English than it is to read(to ourselves or out loud) and understand modern day English.


In post 461 you wrote(italics below):

Oh, but I am not telling you here that modern versions is not easy to read either. What I am saying is that KJV is almost the same with the newer version base on the available readability test. With that in mind, the argument of “easy reading” is no longer true against KJV. Actually,” easy reading argument” is in response on the accusation of Critics of the KJV telling us KJV is outdated, hard to read when the fact is it’s not, using the 8 readability test online as I did and you can do it by yourself if you may proves KJV though age old still readable.

So you see now, that the argument of “easy understanding” is false accusation. We need to X-out that arguments now.

My response to the above italicized comments have not changed: it's delusional thinking.


English is to England not American. Huh?

Now, if again you wanted to point-zero in my pointless English, then I guessed that’s off the topic. Huh? Point-zero?

 

[notmyown]

Well, I am Canadian and we were taught British "English." In other words, I use "u" in neighbour, I add "ly" to words like "slow" when they are used as adverbs, more or less English English, if you get my drift. I have been drilled as to parts of speech, verb forms, and all the aspects of English English.

And NO, I cannot read KJV and have a clue what it says. Perhaps your problem is that your English is already a foreign language, so the KJV is just another step in the same direction.

I speak modern English. I do not speak an English from 400 years ago, complete with archaic and obsolete words. Words that do not exist in English anymore. So, I read modern versions, which are in my heart language. Perhaps you should read Tagalog, or maybe whatever dialect you speak, and then you would understand the Bible better?

Again, the KJV is extremely difficult for me to read, because I speak modern British English. I do not speak 400 year old English. I am repeating myself, because maybe if you read it more than once, it will make sense?

We won't even get into the fact that KJV English is not even 17th century English. The translators tried to follow Greek word order, on occasion, which means they get their word order wrong, even for that era's English.

Kind of like in French, it would be "La maison blanche." We would translate that as "the white house" in English. But, the way the KJV translators would translate it would be something like "the house white" and then they would congratulate themselves they got the word order right.

The receptive language is as important than the original languages. Because if we do not understand it in our own language, the whole point of translating is lost. We need to understand it in our language, which for NONE of us is 17th century and slightly convoluted English.

lol !

and btw, some Americans also know how to properly use an adverb.

we split infinitives, however.

 

[Test_F_i_2_Luv]

And NO, I cannot read KJV and have a clue what it says. Perhaps your problem is that your English is already a foreign language, so the KJV is just another step in the same direction.

...I think the KJV may be more appealing to those whose first language is not English because the word order and sentence structure is similar to their native tongue.

These "ease of read" tests KJVO-ists like to point to are, in my mind, laughable. Gives me little confidence in the people who publish and conduct them, and I view the "evidence" as a stain to their credibility.

 

[Angela53510]

1:23 sense to me that the verbiage in the scriptures as to salvation and being born again (of the Spirit of God) are interchangeable in part.
Thus negating that the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, is the KJV version of the bible as maintained by KJV1611. He uses Peter to establish this and delineates salvation and that one can only be born again by the KJV.[/QUOTE]


Are you kidding me? I went through all that so you think you can turn it around and somehow make Word of God, into the KJV. In fact, I said the opposite!

Anothen, is NOT the word used in 1 Peter 1:23. It is [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ἀναγεγεννημένοι[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] - which literally, translated, means [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"having being born again.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" It is a Perfect, Passive Participle. Something that was done in the completed past.

In fact, I did NOT deal with this word in what I wrote in my last post, because it is NOT anothen.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] ἄνωθεν [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]means "from above." It does NOT mean - "born of the KJV text." Or born again as in literally born again from the flesh. Anothen means BORN FROM ABOVE if you are Jesus, or BORN AGAIN if you are Nicodemus.
[/FONT]
Or, you could say that every translation is the Living Word!

"διὰ[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] λόγου ζῶντος [/FONT]θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος" 1 Peter 1:23b

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23 NIV.

"since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;" 1 Peter 1:23 ESV
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
"[/FONT] for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23 NASB[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

Please note the KJV doesn't even translate this correct - It says "the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. In fact, NIV , ESV and NASB above have it right because there is no relative pronoun "which" which should be ῟ων. To say nothing of the fact, that we are born OF THE SPIRIT. Not of a 17th century translation of the Greek.

Spirit - that means the Spirit from above! Not the KJV of the Bible!
[/FONT]
"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:6

Plus, 1 Peter was written by an amanuensis, evidenced by the incredible differences from 2 Peter. Peter may have dictated "born again" thinking of "anothen yennethe." Jesus said "born from above of the Spirit!" That is what Peter was speaking about.

"ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν" John 3:3b "Unless anyone is born from above."

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]We won't even get into the fact that Peter did not say that no one could be born again until they read the KJV in English in the 17th century. Where do people come up with this utter and absolute nonsense? No where does 1 Peter 1:23 say, "The living and abiding Word is the KJV which won't be written till the 17th century."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Amazing! You just can't fix stupid! [/FONT]

 

[John146]

Well, I am Canadian and we were taught British "English." In other words, I use "u" in neighbour, I add "ly" to words like "slow" when they are used as adverbs, more or less English English, if you get my drift. I have been drilled as to parts of speech, verb forms, and all the aspects of English English.

And NO, I cannot read KJV and have a clue what it says. Perhaps your problem is that your English is already a foreign language, so the KJV is just another step in the same direction.

I speak modern English. I do not speak an English from 400 years ago, complete with archaic and obsolete words. Words that do not exist in English anymore. So, I read modern versions, which are in my heart language. Perhaps you should read Tagalog, or maybe whatever dialect you speak, and then you would understand the Bible better?

Again, the KJV is extremely difficult for me to read, because I speak modern British English. I do not speak 400 year old English. I am repeating myself, because maybe if you read it more than once, it will make sense?

We won't even get into the fact that KJV English is not even 17th century English. The translators tried to follow Greek word order, on occasion, which means they get their word order wrong, even for that era's English.

Kind of like in French, it would be "La maison blanche." We would translate that as "the white house" in English. But, the way the KJV translators would translate it would be something like "the house white" and then they would congratulate themselves they got the word order right.

The receptive language is as important than the original languages. Because if we do not understand it in our own language, the whole point of translating is lost. We need to understand it in our language, which for NONE of us is 17th century and slightly convoluted English.

Hard to read and understand? Not with the Holy Spirit's help. Besides, the beauty about the KJV is it defines itself. One doesn't have to go to concordances or use the Greek game.

 

[limey410]

1:23 sense to me that the verbiage in the scriptures as to salvation and being born again (of the Spirit of God) are interchangeable in part.
Thus negating that the incorruptible seed, by the word of God, is the KJV version of the bible as maintained by KJV1611. He uses Peter to establish this and delineates salvation and that one can only be born again by the KJV.

Are you kidding me? I went through all that so you think you can turn it around and somehow make Word of God, into the KJV. In fact, I said the opposite!

Anothen, is NOT the word used in 1 Peter 1:23. It is [FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]ἀναγεγεννημένοι[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] - which literally, translated, means [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"having being born again.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]" It is a Perfect, Passive Participle. Something that was done in the completed past.

In fact, I did NOT deal with this word in what I wrote in my last post, because it is NOT anothen.[/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] ἄνωθεν [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]means "from above." It does NOT mean - "born of the KJV text." Or born again as in literally born again from the flesh. Anothen means BORN FROM ABOVE if you are Jesus, or BORN AGAIN if you are Nicodemus.
[/FONT]
Or, you could say that every translation is the Living Word!

"διὰ[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] λόγου ζῶντος [/FONT]θεοῦ καὶ μένοντος" 1 Peter 1:23b

"For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23 NIV.

"since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;" 1 Peter 1:23 ESV
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
"[/FONT] for you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God." 1 Peter 1:23 NASB[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]

Please note the KJV doesn't even translate this correct - It says "the word of God which liveth and abideth forever. In fact, NIV , ESV and NASB above have it right because there is no relative pronoun "which" which should be ῟ων. To say nothing of the fact, that we are born OF THE SPIRIT. Not of a 17th century translation of the Greek.

Spirit - that means the Spirit from above! Not the KJV of the Bible!
[/FONT]
"Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." John 3:6

Plus, 1 Peter was written by an amanuensis, evidenced by the incredible differences from 2 Peter. Peter may have dictated "born again" thinking of "anothen yennethe." Jesus said "born from above of the Spirit!" That is what Peter was speaking about.

"ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν" John 3:3b "Unless anyone is born from above."

[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]We won't even get into the fact that Peter did not say that no one could be born again until they read the KJV in English in the 17th century. Where do people come up with this utter and absolute nonsense? No where does 1 Peter 1:23 say, "The living and abiding Word is the KJV which won't be written till the 17th century."
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]Amazing! You just can't fix stupid! [/FONT][/QUOTE]

You may have misread my response. Your point is my point.

 

[limey410]

I may have misplaced a comma ??????

 

[KJV1611]

OK, I understand now.

It is also problem only in English, because the difference is lost in the KJV ("As it is written" in Daniel vs "as it is written" in Mark).

But not so in Greek.

The direct citation is introduced by "hoti".

"ὡς γέγραπται ὅτι" (as it is written "that") - Mark 7:6
"καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν" (Like it is written in...) - Dan 9:13


-----

Note:
"hoti" (that) is mostly not translated, because it does not have the "that" meaning while introducing citation. It just does this - it introduces a citation.

Hoti has nothing to do with anything because Daniel is talking about the evil that would come upon the Jews if the Jews didn't do everything God commanded them to do at any point in history.

Deuteronomy 28:15 KJV
But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Daniel is saying that as it is written (Deuteronomy 28:15-68) ALL those curses have come upon US.... present tense - his day.

Daniel 9:13 KJV
As it is written in the law of Moses, all this evil is come upon us: yet made we not our prayer before the Lord our God, that we might turn from our iniquities, and understand thy truth.

Daniel is speaking of the evil that has come upon us (present time in his day). Does that make sense, Dueteronomy didn't mention anything about the evil that would come in Daniel's day... The curse of Dueteronomy 28 is for ALL TIMES, not just Daniels day. I realize English is not your first language so I hope this makes sense.

 

[Angela53510]

I may have misplaced a comma ������

My apologies. But, on the other hand, it did give me a chance to answer the issue of 1 Peter 1:23.

As for "can't fix stupid" I guess it still applies. Just not to you. Sorry, again!

I guess I need to get off the internet and take a break??