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.
L
Maybe you need to get a "Bible" education from a dude with a PhD and learn how to correct the word of God and become your own final authority. And then you can correct others on Bible words and translation errors because of your vast knowledge of the original languages (you know, the originals that God allowed to be destroyed because they were so important...). Or, keep reading the beautiful, timeless KJV and let the other translations continue to update to the ever changing English language. Heck, in 20 years the accepted translation may be a short hand, slang text version. Please stick with the KJV and don't be shy about defending the word of God.
It is the voice of truth that I listen to. In prayer, He will always lead me to the right spot, the right understanding, as I grow in Him, I hope He will reveal more.
I truly trust in Him and what He can still accomplish, even 400 years after this document was produced by God for that time.
You see, when God actually spoke to Moses it wasn't English, When Jesus spoke to those around Him, it wasn't English, When Jesus spoke to Saul, it wasn't English. He spoke in the language that was understood by the people He was speaking to at that time.
But then in 1611 He froze in the way that He wishes to communicate to people? That is rather presumptuous, and certainly makes no sense to me.
I believe whatever document you might use, if you can see the true heart of God, and He reveals Himself in some way to you, then you are reading the correct version.
And if you are not reading the correct version, The Holy Spirit will guide you away from it, if you can open your ears long enough to be led by Him. For me prayer and discernment seem to work.
Go and read up about textual criticism.
It is the study of ancient manuscripts and is especially important in the Christianity.
Key aspects are the dating of these manuscripts with the understanding that copies of manuscripts dating closer to the time that the originals were written are likely to be more accurate than copies written later.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread the manuscripts that are the basis of the KJV translation are much later than modern archaeology has now discovered.
Newer translations (not just English ones) are based on these earlier manuscripts.
However the most troubling aspect of the whole debate is the fairy-tale that somehow the KJV is "inspired".
It is not.
And to keep insisting that God was directly involved in creating the KJV translation, to the exclusion of all others, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim.
As for the simple facts regarding the manuscripts it is up to you and others to actually do the yards and research what has been said over and over again, for yourself! You have shown no inclination to accept anything said in opposition to your point of view on this forum. Fine, do not take our word for it. Go to the people who do actually know what they are talking about and actually earn their living doing the research.
Idiots like Steven Anderson do not count!
It is the study of ancient manuscripts and is especially important in the Christianity.
Key aspects are the dating of these manuscripts with the understanding that copies of manuscripts dating closer to the time that the originals were written are likely to be more accurate than copies written later.
As has been mentioned ad nauseum in this thread the manuscripts that are the basis of the KJV translation are much later than modern archaeology has now discovered.
Newer translations (not just English ones) are based on these earlier manuscripts.
However the most troubling aspect of the whole debate is the fairy-tale that somehow the KJV is "inspired".
It is not.
And to keep insisting that God was directly involved in creating the KJV translation, to the exclusion of all others, puts the burden of proof squarely on the shoulders of those who make the claim.
As for the simple facts regarding the manuscripts it is up to you and others to actually do the yards and research what has been said over and over again, for yourself! You have shown no inclination to accept anything said in opposition to your point of view on this forum. Fine, do not take our word for it. Go to the people who do actually know what they are talking about and actually earn their living doing the research.
Idiots like Steven Anderson do not count!
1 Peter 1:3King James Version (KJV)
3 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,
KJV - God has begotten us again to a lively hope.
1 Peter 1:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
NASB - God has caused us to be born again.
Which version is right?
Does this verse affect our beliefs on what born again really means?
3 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,
KJV - God has begotten us again to a lively hope.
1 Peter 1:3New American Standard Bible (NASB)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
NASB - God has caused us to be born again.
Which version is right?
Does this verse affect our beliefs on what born again really means?
KJV1611,
You owe me some commentary on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the difference between being born again and salvation I didn't forget, and you seem pretty diligent in replying to all rebuttals. Unless you posted and I missed it.
You owe me some commentary on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and the difference between being born again and salvation
I didn't forget, and you seem pretty diligent in replying to all rebuttals. Unless you posted and I missed it.
L
No, you only presented a partial case. I showed you that forgiveness of sins was not the full picture of salvation. And I believe I showed you that salvation from eternal death is accomplished by God through His indwelling Spirit
I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.
I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.
No, you only presented a partial case. I showed you that forgiveness of sins was not the full picture of salvation. And I believe I showed you that salvation from eternal death is accomplished by God through His indwelling Spirit
I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.
I was hoping for your commentary on the rest of my post. No worries, another thread it is.
The word translated as "begotten us again" in the KJV or "born again" in the NASB is this: [FONT="]ἀναγεννήσας [/FONT]and it literally means "born again".
The problem here is not a textual one - clearly you have some alternate meaning for the word "begotten" because of a theological bias or presupposition. However "hath begotten us again" means "has caused us to be born again".
The problem here is not a textual one - clearly you have some alternate meaning for the word "begotten" because of a theological bias or presupposition. However "hath begotten us again" means "has caused us to be born again".