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 don't know Greek, could you explain why BibleHub has two different words?
ἀναγεννήσας (anagennēsas) — 1 Occurrence1 Peter 1:3 V-APA-NMS
GRK: αὐτοῦ ἔλεος ἀναγεννήσας ἡμᾶς εἰς
NAS: mercy has caused us to be born again to a living
KJV: hath begotten us again unto a lively
INT: of him mercy having fathered again us to
ἀναγεγεννημένοι (anagegennēmenoi) — 1 Occurrence1 Peter 1:23 V-PPM/P-NMP
GRK: ἀναγεγεννημένοι οὐκ ἐκ
NAS: for you have been born again not of seed
KJV: Being born again, not of
INT: Having been born again not of
The words are exactly the same as far as intrinsic meaning goes.
What is different is tense and person.
Person is incorporated into the word.
Like:
He says
You said
I didn't make contradictory statements, I made complimentary statements..... we are born again by believing in/accepting Jesus, but we GET there by/through the word of God.
Like saying "I'm in Dallas because of I-35"..... I'm in Dallas because I used I-35 to get me there. Just because I'm on I-35 does not mean I'm in Dallas... I could be in Minneapolis/St Paul... it's not I-35 that does it, it's simply a way to GET there.
Or.... faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.....
1 Peter 1:3 “Begotten us again” or “born again”
At the outset, the two are of the same. Precision wise, “Begotten us again” in the KJV is superior translation than the term “born again” as used in the NASB.
The text mainly says of the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” hence we talked of the relationship. As to the Father to the Son, the KJV uses begat, beget or begotten thus thw whole chapter of Matthew 1 is saying Abraham “begat” Isaac and Isaac “begat” Jacob never to “give birth” “born” which only a mother could do. No father is able to give birth or born a child in his intestine, only a mother to her wombs.
Interestingly, the proper usage of “begotten us again” is related much to “salvation” which verse 5 sheds the meaning of the context that as a result of faith “end of our faith” is “unto the salvation of souls”. So that the term “saved” is related to begotten us again, having an established relationship with the heavenly Father into a lively hope just as the Father has seen his child bringing hope to the family. Additionally, we are “begotten” into a lively hope since the resurrection is our final hope and the final estate of the believers into a glorified body. “Born again” on the other hand speaks of beginning and a new life in Christ.
Once again, when we speak of “saved” “salvation” this concerns the soul and being “born again” concern much of the spirit. While I believe, the Doctrine of Salvation includes election, regeneration, justification, sanctification, justification, glorification etc. These terminologies would differ but still under the umbrella of Salvation.
Precision in translation as per comparison, the KJV is superior than that of the NASB in the particular text.
At the outset, the two are of the same. Precision wise, “Begotten us again” in the KJV is superior translation than the term “born again” as used in the NASB.
The text mainly says of the “God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ” hence we talked of the relationship. As to the Father to the Son, the KJV uses begat, beget or begotten thus thw whole chapter of Matthew 1 is saying Abraham “begat” Isaac and Isaac “begat” Jacob never to “give birth” “born” which only a mother could do. No father is able to give birth or born a child in his intestine, only a mother to her wombs.
Interestingly, the proper usage of “begotten us again” is related much to “salvation” which verse 5 sheds the meaning of the context that as a result of faith “end of our faith” is “unto the salvation of souls”. So that the term “saved” is related to begotten us again, having an established relationship with the heavenly Father into a lively hope just as the Father has seen his child bringing hope to the family. Additionally, we are “begotten” into a lively hope since the resurrection is our final hope and the final estate of the believers into a glorified body. “Born again” on the other hand speaks of beginning and a new life in Christ.
Once again, when we speak of “saved” “salvation” this concerns the soul and being “born again” concern much of the spirit. While I believe, the Doctrine of Salvation includes election, regeneration, justification, sanctification, justification, glorification etc. These terminologies would differ but still under the umbrella of Salvation.
Precision in translation as per comparison, the KJV is superior than that of the NASB in the particular text.
It appears to me that you are basing the criteria for "precision of translation" on details of the doctrine of salvation which you understand from the KJV. To put it more directly:
1. The KJV says "X" therefore I believe X'.
2. The NASB says "Y" which is different from "X".
3. Because X' is the truth, the KJV is superior to the NASB.
In other words, that is circular reasoning.
Particularly since he did not read my posts explaining in exhaustive detail what ἀναγεννήσας actually means!
And it LITERALLY means "again-born".
In English the only literal translation is "born again".
Truth be told I get exactly the same MEANING from the KJV rendering but it seems that there is a huge theological imperative from some for the word ἀναγεννήσας not to mean what it clearly does mean!
This is called eisegesis - which means reading one's own meaning into a word or verse or text, rather than employing exegesis - which means letting the word or the verse or the text tell one what it is really saying!
The problem is that being "born again" doesn't only refer to the spiritual birth in a believer and it's not being used that way in the KJV.
born-again
adjective
1.committed or recommitted to religious faith through anintensely religious experience:a born-again Christian.
2.reactivated or revitalized:a born-again conservatism in American politics.
3.enthusiastically committed:a born-again jogger.
noun
a person who is characterized by a newfound faith or enthusiasm.
One of many examples of how is the KJV not suitable for today's use. Not even to say for non-English speakers.
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/153715-what-i-secret-place-bible-talks-about.html
http://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/153715-what-i-secret-place-bible-talks-about.html
And I would suggest to you that you are going to an English dictionary to try to figure out the meaning of a Greek word written centuries ago!
I don't give a toss how you think the word is used in the KJV.
(The bottom line here is rather what YOU want the word to mean, in any case.)
If you really want to know how the word is used (and you obviously don't) then go back to the original text - AS I HAVE ALREADY DONE AND SHOWN YOU IN EXQUISITE DETAIL - you simply won't accept it.
The problem is not with the original text, it is not even with the KJV, it is absolutely with theological presuppositions that you are trying to impose on that text!
I am sorry - you just going around in tight circles.
All you are doing is trying to resurrect all the same arguments that I refuted yesterday - as if they were brand new!
I am not prepared to play your game.
I'm not playing a game, I'm asking how do you get spiritual rebirth of that definition... I honestly can't understand your logic on this one. It's like you ignore both the Greek and English meanings of the word and say it means spiritual rebirth because I say so.
I am sorry you are definitely not accepting a plain fact.
The word in question in Greek is a compound verb with two parts: the absolutely literal translation of the verb is again-born however in English that we speak it has to be born-again.
I explained this in exquisite detail yesterday - just because your limited source appears to you make the word mean a different thing (it actually doesn't) is not my problem.
You are the one with the theological axe to grind here - you are the one who wants this word to mean something other than what it plainly does mean.
We are done
Angela, you are the one who has been brainwashed. The Byzantine Text type as well as the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Hebrew texts are pure.
On the contrary though, the modern versions are actually gross perversions which are based upon corrupt manuscripts (Siniaticus and Vaticanus). They are inf act worthless manuscripts. To look further into their corruption, you can visit this website:
The Unreliablitity of the Alexandrian Manuscripts - Preserved Word Ministries
And by the way, your utter disrespect for the beautiful and fascinating language of the King James Holy Bible is very appalling. The English found in the King James Holy Bible is Biblical English.
Big fat raspberry to this one...
I am so sure that - Preserved Word Ministries is a COMPLETELY unbiased organisation devoted to the science of textual criticism - NOT!!
Have you actually read the Byzantine manuscripts that makeup the Byzantine Text type and compared them with the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus? Are you familiar with the textual variants found in the Byzantine manuscripts that makeup the Byzantine Text type? Are you familiar with the principles involved in deciding which readings are original, and which are variants? Or have you simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God”?
Are you familiar with the differences between the Masoretic text edited by Yaakov Ben Hayyim and printed by Daniel Bomberg in 1525, and the somewhat earlier Masoretic text edited by Felix Pratensis in 1517-1518? Do you agree that the textual basis for the Old Testament in the King James Version was the Masoretic text edited by Yaakov Ben Hayyim? And are you familiar with the differences between these two Masoretic texts and the three editions of the Masoretic text edited by Rudolph Kittel commonly referred to as BH1 (1906), BH2 (1913), and BH3 (1937)? Or have you simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God”?
And now we know—you have simply taken the word of men whose agenda is to promote a 400+ year old translation of the Bible that they have been deceived and tricked into believing is the “perfectly preserved word of God.”
I would love to see their faces when the Christ welcomes them to heaven in a non-KJV language. They'll not know what He's saying. Lullz...