So, you have no authority to claim the KJV is the preserved word of God in English, yet avow its the word of God for English speaking folk? Huh? How does that even add up?
But, I do appreciate your honesty.
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.
So, you have no authority to claim the KJV is the preserved word of God in English, yet avow its the word of God for English speaking folk? Huh? How does that even add up?
But, I do appreciate your honesty.
He was missing the toy, half the fries, the pickles off the burger, plus the cheese, and the bag.
Dan. 3:25. He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!” NASB, 1995)
Dan. 2:47. The king answered Daniel and said, “Surely your God is a God of gods and a Lord of kings and a revealer of mysteries, since you have been able to reveal this mystery.” NASB, 1995)
In Daniel 3:25, we find the Aramaic word אֱלָהִ֛ין (’ĕ-lā-hîn [gods]) which is a plural.
In Daniel 2:47, we find אֱלָהֲכ֗וֹן (’ĕ·lā·hă·ḵō·wn [your god]) which is singular; אֱלָ֧הּ (’ĕ·lāh [a god]) which is also singular; and אֱלָהִ֛ין (’ĕ·lā·hîn [gods]) which is plural. Therefore, the KJV translates Dan. 3:25 incorrectly, but translates Dan. 3:47 correctly.
He could have, but He didn’t! Daniel records Nebuchadnezzar’s response—and not God’s response though the mouth of Nebuchadnezzar.
How does knowing that Mizraim became the father of the people of Lud, Anam, Lehab, Naphtuh, Pathrus, Casluh, and Caphtor benefit you in any way?
We have the Bible in many hundreds of translations in very many languages—each one of which was the work of men. Moreover, even if the KJV was the perfectly preserved word of God (which of course it is not!), that would not matter because each individual reader of the Bible puts his own spin upon it. What does matter is that we have the most accurate and readable Bible before us when we read, teach, or preach from it—and that Bible is most certainly not the KJV!
You do not read my posts properly
I pointed out the inconsistency in English. Yes, as you say, you dont see anything in English, because English got it wrong, you know."hoti" introduces a direct quotation, its in Mark 7, not in Daniel. Hos and Kathos are other difference, but it is more like "as" vs "like", it does not relate to direct quotation as such, but it is a note I made that this is different too
And lost in English, too.
If you take it literally, that a material book you have translated in your shelf is "spirit", than you are making the same mistake like if you would say that the Church is standing on the literal stones and that Peter is a literal rock somewhere in the middle East.
We must understand a little what we are reading and we know that John uses very simple language with deep meanings.
I know that you can see this, you are a clever guy. Your cleverness is just somehow "shut off" when you defend the KJV...
It must be so, because the KJVO is not possible to defend with reason and logic.
Last edited:
By what authority do you say it's not? You haven't given any proof that the KJV is in error.
Do you believe God created the heavens and the earth?
Then you might be a Ruckmanite.
Do you believe Jesus died on the cross and then rose again the 3rd day?
Then you might be Ruckmanite.
Insane right? Just because Ruckman believes one thing I believe doesn't make me a Ruckmanite.
Go tell a group of Jews that Jesus is the Christ and use their Torah to prove it. If they reject it does that mean Jesus is not the Christ?
I never said the KJV wasn't God's word. However, I'm not the one going around saying it's inspired, either. Huge difference.
It is up to you to prove that God intended us to have this so called perfect Bible. All you do is spew out Pslam 12:6 "The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times" which you somehow apply to Bible translations. You also continue to ignore the slight problem that Tynsdales Bible was incomplete, so how can the KJV be refined 7 times, when most of the Old Testament has only been refined 6 times?
Then we have all these stupid pedantic arguments as you desperately try to prove every word is perfect. I see it as foolish folly. King James is a good translation, but not perfect as has been shown to you countless times over the years
In Genesis we find Elohim (plural of god - gods) rightly translated as God because it is referring to the triune God.
Is elahin (plural form of god - gods) in Daniel 2:47 refer that SAME triune God or is it referring to a son of the gods aka Nephilim?
It's your opinion that he didn't and that's fine. Balaam's ass should have said hee haw but he didn't.
I'm not that far advanced in my studies.... I don't know how it benefits me yet.
I assume that you can figure out which parts of the bible are screwed up and which parts aren't.
This is part of the nonsense I was talking about. You lot totally ignore context and that the God of gods and son of gods, is simply a statement by a pagan King had it been credited to a prophet or disciple, then yes it would not be right, but for a someone who is used to multi-god worship this is how they would respond, yet you keep on trying to use this as "proof" of errors, when it is not and error. If anything the King James has it wrong.
I'm sorry if I'm not reading it right but you didn't point out any inconsistency in English. You pointed out that the Greek is a quote so I said I don't see "qoute" in English. Then I asked why Greek makes it a direct quote.You do not read my posts properly
"hoti" introduces a direct quotation, its in Mark 7, not in Daniel. Hos and Kathos are other difference, but it is more like "as" vs "like", it does not relate to direct quotation as such, but it is a note I made that this is different too
I know your talking about "hoti" in Mark 7... Explain WHY "hoti" makes it a direct qoute.
If you take it literally, that a material book you have translated in your shelf is "spirit", than you are making the same mistake like if you would say that the Church is standing on the literal stones and that Peter is a literal rock somewhere in the middle East.
We must understand a little what we are reading and we know that John uses very simple language with deep meanings.
I know that you can see this, you are a clever guy. Your cleverness is just somehow "shut off" when you defend the KJV...
It must be so, because the KJVO is not possible to defend with reason and logic.
I don't believe the spirit of Christ is a ghost that comes and takes up residency in my body. I believe the spirit of Christ in us is the Christ that is formed in us as we learn about him and that's exactly what Jesus meant when he said my words are spirit.
The Christ in a Catholic is not the same Christ as the Christ in me.... not talking about spirits (ghosts) inhabiting a body. I'm talking the REAL spirit of Christ that is in us.
Because it was used this way in Greek. Like we use " sign, they used hoti for quotations.
I do not know how it explain it better or "why". Every language has some way of how to quote.
And I pointed out several inconsistencies in English. Worship disappeared, fear was added etc etc.
The Torah IS the first 5 books of the bible and evidence that Jesus is the Christ is all over it.
So, by your witness, we have no perfect Bible. We have no absolute truth in which to stand up against the lost world. You have nothing to offer the lost world that you completely trust. I do.
John 17:17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Can one be sanctified without the word of truth? Where is the word of truth? According to you, we don't have it.