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.
SovereignGrace said:
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...
Click to expand...

Actually, I wonder what languge will Christ speak in when He will return :)

I know we will all understand by some miracle, like in Acts. But what will His original language be before it will reach our ears? :)
 
Sagart said:
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.”
Click to expand...
Give some examples of how the Byzantine's are different than Vaticanus.
 


dā·mêh דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb
lə·ḇar- לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
’ĕ·lā·hîn. אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun


[TABLE="width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
is like​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
tag_parse_a.png
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
the Son​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
בַּר bar (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
of God​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
h426​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Is this an example of the difference between Byzantine and the newer codices? One uses elahin and the other uses elahh. If not where can each original be found for Daniel 3:25?
 
KJV1611 said:


dā·mêh [FONT=&]דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb[/FONT]
lə·ḇar- [FONT=&]לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
[/FONT]’ĕ·lā·hîn. [FONT=&]אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun


[TABLE="width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
is like​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
tag_parse_a.png
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
the Son​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
בַּר bar (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
of God​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
h426​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Is this an example of the difference between Byzantine and the newer codices? One uses elahin and the other uses elahh. If not where can each original be found for Daniel 3:25?[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Not sure about your convo, but byzantine text type is about the New Testament only. Byzantine Church does not use Hebrew OT.
 
trofimus said:
Not sure about your convo, but byzantine text type is about the New Testament only. Byzantine Church does not use Hebrew OT.
Click to expand...
How many sources are there for the old testament? And why does one online concordance or what ever you call it have elah and the other has elahin?
 
KJV1611 said:
How many sources are there for the old testament? And why does one online concordance or what ever you call it have elah and the other has elahin?
Click to expand...

I am not much into the Old Testament, as far as I know there is:

Septuagint (used from the 1st century by the church and then by the eastern church - byzantine church)
Latin Vulgate (used from 4th century by the western church)
Massoretic texts - several editions, used by protestant churches from the 16th century
Dead Sea scrolls - discovered in 20th century
Samaritan Pentateuch - not sure about this, I would have to look it up
 
trofimus said:
I am not much into the Old Testament, as far as I know there is:

Septuagint (used from the 1st century by the church and then by the eastern church - byzantine church)
Latin Vulgate (used from 4th century by the western church)
Massoretic texts - several editions, used by protestant churches from the 16th century
Dead Sea scrolls - discovered in 20th century
Samaritan Pentateuch - not sure about this, I would have to look it up
Click to expand...
No worries, maybe someone else will know.
 
ChosenbyHim said:
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.
Click to expand...

What utter rubbish. I shake my head in wonder. Clearly you haven't done your homework. I'd respond with more information, but you won't accept anything I write anyway. Go and read James White's The King James Only Controversy (for a start).

If you respond with any criticism of Dr. White, without reading his book, you paint yourself as closed-minded and brainwashed. Have a nice day.
 
trofimus said:
Not sure about your convo, but byzantine text type is about the New Testament only. Byzantine Church does not use Hebrew OT.
Click to expand...

KJV1611 appears to be either “Lost in Space” or in the “Twilight Zone” because he is confusing the contextual form (אֱלָהִֽין) in Daniel 3:25, which is plural, with the lexical form (אֱלָהּ), which is singular—as lexical forms always are!
 
Sagart said:
KJV1611 appears to be either “Lost in Space” or in the “Twilight Zone” because he is confusing the contextual form (אֱלָהִֽין) in Daniel 3:25, which is plural, with the lexical form (אֱלָהּ), which is singular—as lexical forms always are!
Click to expand...

Yes I'm totally lost when it comes to original languages. All I'm asking is why are these two websites giving different words for God. Same verse but one says elahin and the other says elahh, why?

dā·mêh דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb
lə·ḇar- לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
’ĕ·lā·hîn. אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun


[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
is like​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
tag_parse_a.png
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
the Son​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
בַּר bar (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
of God​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
h426​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 
KJV1611 said:
If he lost a debate with James White he must be a moron lol.
Click to expand...

Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Raca means empty-headed.
 
KJV1611 said:
Yes I'm totally lost when it comes to original languages. All I'm asking is why are these two websites giving different words for God. Same verse but one says elahin and the other says elahh, why?

dā·mêh דָּמֵ֖ה - is like Verb
lə·ḇar- לְבַר־ - the Son Noun
’ĕ·lā·hîn. אֱלָהִֽין׃ - of God Noun


[TABLE="class: cms_table, width: 599"]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
is like​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
דְּמָה dĕmah (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
tag_parse_a.png
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: right"]
the Son​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
בַּר bar (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"]
speaker.3.svg
[/TD]
[TD="align: right"][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
of God​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
h426​
[/TD]
[TD="bgcolor: #E8E6B8, align: right"]
אֱלָהּ 'elahh (Aramaic)​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Click to expand...
Man, you are in so far over your head!

You believe in fairytales (KJVO and the rest) but defend your views from a position of total ignorance, despising and rejecting the efforts of others to shift you to the truth!

How on earth can you be in the business of arguing the meanings of words in languages in which you are so ignorantthat you, in all likelihood, you cannot correctly even discern the individual letters of their alphabets?
Are you even aware of how silly you look?

This is a bit like a school-kid who struggles to even do simple addition of integers arguing with Albert Einstein about his proofs for the theory of relativity!
You who cannot do simple integer maths trying to tell Einstein that his calculus is wrong!!!??!

You are wanting us to engage in "intelligent debate" with you, but, in all cases where I have attempted this the starting proposition from you is as nonsensical as 1 + 1 = 3.
You are trying to "prove" the unprovable and believe that those that disagree with you are being unfair, or insulting.
This, while you are digging your heels in convinced that your fairytale views of Scripture just have to be correct.
No amount of evidence will convince you.

I mean how could the kid disputing with Einstein know whether Einstein was talking sense or not - he doesn't even know enough maths to do simple addition, never mind keep up with Einstein's argument.
Apparently, as evidenced by you, it is better to stick with the mantra "Don't confuse me with facts!"

However, I can see that anything I say will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe the Holy Spirit will have better luck!
 
graceNpeace said:
Man, you are in so far over your head!

You believe in fairytales (KJVO and the rest) but defend your views from a position of total ignorance, despising and rejecting the efforts of others to shift you to the truth!

How on earth can you be in the business of arguing the meanings of words in languages in which you are so ignorantthat you, in all likelihood, you cannot correctly even discern the individual letters of their alphabets?
Are you even aware of how silly you look?

This is a bit like a school-kid who struggles to even do simple addition of integers arguing with Albert Einstein about his proofs for the theory of relativity!
You who cannot do simple integer maths trying to tell Einstein that his calculus is wrong!!!??!

You are wanting us to engage in "intelligent debate" with you, but, in all cases where I have attempted this the starting proposition from you is as nonsensical as 1 + 1 = 3.
You are trying to "prove" the unprovable and believe that those that disagree with you are being unfair, or insulting.
This, while you are digging your heels in convinced that your fairytale views of Scripture just have to be correct.
No amount of evidence will convince you.

I mean how could the kid disputing with Einstein know whether Einstein was talking sense or not - he doesn't even know enough maths to do simple addition, never mind keep up with Einstein's argument.
Apparently, as evidenced by you, it is better to stick with the mantra "Don't confuse me with facts!"

However, I can see that anything I say will fall on deaf ears.
Maybe the Holy Spirit will have better luck!
Click to expand...
Why does one say elah and the other say elahin?
 
Zen said:
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Raca means empty-headed.
Click to expand...
Maybe I should be brought before the council I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back