King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

  • 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.
John146 said:
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Yes, we worship the God of the word, but in order to do that, we exalt the word even above His name. If His word is not exalted, His name is not exalted.

When you got saved, where you trusting in the word of God or the Savior of the word? The two cannot be separated.
Click to expand...

Temple is the Church now. Not a translation.

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks to thy name, on account of thy mercy and thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy holy name above every thing."
138:2
 
Last edited:
John146 said:
The temple represents the dwelling place of God. God's word is exalted above His name to bring Him honor and glory.
Click to expand...

"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks to thy name, on account of thy mercy and thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy holy name above every thing."

No, his word is not exalted above His name. Wrong translation (again proven guilty).
 
KJV1611 said:
Ok, if ’ělâhîn is ALWAYS plural then Daniel 2:47 should have been translated "that your gods is the gods of gods". Is this correct?


[TABLE="width: 608"]
[TR]
[TD]The king answered unto Daniel, and said, Of a truth it is, that your God H426 is a God H426 of gods, H426 and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldest reveal this secret.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...

Never mind I get it now I think...[FONT=&quot]ělâhîn and elah I think.[/FONT]
 
trofimus said:
"I will worship toward thy holy temple, and give thanks to thy name, on account of thy mercy and thy truth; for thou hast magnified thy holy name above every thing."

No, his word is not exalted above His name. Wrong translation (again proven guilty).
Click to expand...

What's that? The message? God's truth is His word.
 
John146 said:
The temple represents the dwelling place of God. God's word is exalted above His name to bring Him honor and glory.
Click to expand...

The temple did not represent the dwelling place of God.... it WAS the dwelling place of God. They were not worshipping the temple, they were worshipping God, who was in the temple.
 
John146 said:
What's that? The message? God's truth is His word.
Click to expand...

Its the Bible of the first Church, the Septuagint is its name, used by apostles and Christ.

The KJV version of the psalm has no inner logic. "I will praise your name because you magnified your word about your name" does not make much sense.

"I will praise your name because you exalted your name above everything" is simple and making sense.
 
Last edited:
Sagart said:
I wrote,
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.​

My assertion is supported by S. R. Driver who, in his 1900 commentary on Daniel, writes, “The rendering ‘the son of God cannot stand’ : ’ĕlôhim is, indeed, used with a singular force in Hebrew, but the Aram. ’ělâhîn is always a true plural.”

My assertion is also supported by John E Goldingay who, in his 1989 commentary on Daniel, writes that the Aramaic word ’ělâhîn is never used in a singular sense in any other biblical literature.

My assertion is also supported by John Stephen R. Miller who, in his 1994 commentary on Daniel writes, “What impressed Nebuchadnezzar most of all was that now the three Jews had been joined by a fourth man, and this one looked like “a son of the gods.” He cites the commentaries by Driver and Goldingay to support his comment and his translation of Dan.3:25.

Furthermore, my assertion is also supported by all of the very best translations of the Old Testament by Christian scholars (ASV, RSV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NAB); and also by the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 translation of the Tenakh,

Dan. 3:25. He answered and said: ‘Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods.’

Additionally, Martin Luther, in his 1534 translation of the Bible, translates Daniel 3:25b as, “und der vierte ist gleich, als ware er ein Sohn der Gotter (“and the fourth is like a son of the gods). And the 1951 German Schlachter Bible translates Daniel 3:25b as, “und die Gestalt des vierten gleicht einem Sohne der Götter! “(“and the figure of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”)

Moreover, Nebuchadnezzar was not a Christian; he was a Babylonian—and hence he was polytheistic rather than monotheistic in his beliefs. Therefore, whatever or whoever he may have seen in the furnace, he most certainly would not have described him as, “like the Son of God.” What is more, the use of the incorrect phrase, “like the Son of God”, in the KJV makes it appear as though the Book of Daniel is a fictional work by a Christian author rather than the inspired word of God.
Click to expand...

I understand your arguments - Every time elahin is found in the bible it's plural but it's only found a few times. Nebuchadnezzar probably would have said son of the gods. I agree it's very compelling evidence but the fact is that God could have put what ever words he wanted in Nebuchanezzer's mouth.

Is the story of the fiery furnace written in the bible as a history lesson so that we would know that Nebuchanezzar thought a son of the gods delivered them? Why would I care what a pagan King said 3000 years ago? How does that help my spiritual growth, how does it benefit me in any way?

It's like I have said many times, if God doesn't translate his word for us, then we have no word. God knows exactly what Nebuchadnezzar said.
 
KJV1611 said:
if God doesn't translate his word for us, then we have no word.
Click to expand...

Can you prove this claim? If I translate what you just said into my native language, I may lost something, but if I will be very careful I can translate it just by my human ability to be almost 100%.

So where did you get the idea that we have "no" word in such a case?
 
John146 said:
Psalm 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

Yes, we worship the God of the word, but in order to do that, we exalt the word even above His name. If His word is not exalted, His name is not exalted.

When you got saved, where you trusting in the word of God or the Savior of the word? The two cannot be separated.
Click to expand...

It says I will worship toward thy holy temple. It does not say I will worship thy holy temple.
 
Does putting His word above His name mean worship the written words?
 
hornetguy said:
The temple did not represent the dwelling place of God.... it WAS the dwelling place of God. They were not worshipping the temple, they were worshipping God, who was in the temple.
Click to expand...

Exactly, and the word of truth tells us that. So as the word of truth is exalted, we are worshiping God.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back