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.
Maybe you guys are not aware of this but the Christ that's in the newer translation, the one that's a son of the gods, had an origin etc. is the same Christ that occultist Alice Bailey preached. If you've never heard of Alice Bailey or Marilyn Ferguson I urge you to check them out, they lay out the plans for bringing in the new age Christ. This philosophy permeates society at every level, arts, movies, tv, music, business, education, religion and CHRISTIANITY.
The excerpt below is taken from Alice Bailey's book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy.
The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished. I indicate the hope. I do not assert a fact. Its work is intended to be the holding of a broad platform. The church must show a wide tolerance, and teach no revolutionary doctrines or cling to any reactionary ideas.
The [511] church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance. The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.
The excerpt below is taken from Alice Bailey's book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy.
The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished. I indicate the hope. I do not assert a fact. Its work is intended to be the holding of a broad platform. The church must show a wide tolerance, and teach no revolutionary doctrines or cling to any reactionary ideas.
The [511] church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance. The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.
No, the renderings on the left are the renderings in the KJV; and renderings on the right are the concepts that are actually expressed in the manuscripts from which the KJV was translated, and which are shown in Greek-English lexicons going all the way back to the 1834 A NEW GREEK AND ENGLISH LEXICON; PRINCIPALLY ON THE PLAN OF THE GREEK AND GERMAN LEXICON OF SCHNEIDER by James Donnegan.
I do not ask about His existence as such but about His sonship, His position in the Trinity.
Was he the Son from eternity, was he begotten by Father before all worlds as the Church says or did He become Son in incarnation, i.e. 2000 years ago?
If His origins are in Father from eternity, there is nothing wrong with NIV.
Was he the Son from eternity, was he begotten by Father before all worlds as the Church says or did He become Son in incarnation, i.e. 2000 years ago?
If His origins are in Father from eternity, there is nothing wrong with NIV.
OK, but I am afraid it has no impact.
Because they believe the KJV is inspired (which is their feeling they cannot prove by any other way).
So even though you will show them that in Greek there is "white" and in the KJV there is "black", they will say "its how the Holy Spirit wanted it to be in the KJV, because it is inspired and perfect".
And it is inspired and perfect because there is no error in it.
And there is no error in it, because it is inspired. Etc.
They are in a circle.
Because they believe the KJV is inspired (which is their feeling they cannot prove by any other way).
So even though you will show them that in Greek there is "white" and in the KJV there is "black", they will say "its how the Holy Spirit wanted it to be in the KJV, because it is inspired and perfect".
And it is inspired and perfect because there is no error in it.
And there is no error in it, because it is inspired. Etc.
They are in a circle.
Actually, if they were inspired as you believe, it does not matter if they were scholars or not and if they made mistake or not from the scholarship point of view.
"The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."
But NIV was not inspired according to you, so it does not matter at all how many scholars worked on that, right?
"The complete NIV Bible was first published in 1978. It was a completely new translation made by over a hundred scholars working directly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts."
But NIV was not inspired according to you, so it does not matter at all how many scholars worked on that, right?
S
It's a shame the LIE's, the RCC has promoted to destroy the KJV. All the modern versions are promotions of the RCC, through their Greek N,T. The so-called better manuscripts!, are so messed up it would take 50 Philadelphia lawyers to figure them out.
I have almost all of the most popular modern versions, and have compared them to the KJV, its no contest folks. The modern versions ARE!, gross corruptions. The 1599 Geneva (which I have) agrees 100% with the KJV. You have to understand the translators were a different group, but came up with the same translation. The Tyndale also agrees, and the former to the KJV, the "Great Bible".
Now none of the modern versions are alike, each one contradiction the other. Do you suppose that modern English versions will help you understand Holy Scripture, which can be only understood by the Holy Spirits guidance. I think not. This is why there is so much confusion in the modern so-called Church, today.
Now I did not come here to argue, so I won't, I will leave you to sort this out for yourself.
I have almost all of the most popular modern versions, and have compared them to the KJV, its no contest folks. The modern versions ARE!, gross corruptions. The 1599 Geneva (which I have) agrees 100% with the KJV. You have to understand the translators were a different group, but came up with the same translation. The Tyndale also agrees, and the former to the KJV, the "Great Bible".
Now none of the modern versions are alike, each one contradiction the other. Do you suppose that modern English versions will help you understand Holy Scripture, which can be only understood by the Holy Spirits guidance. I think not. This is why there is so much confusion in the modern so-called Church, today.
Now I did not come here to argue, so I won't, I will leave you to sort this out for yourself.
S
PS. To the last post. The original text, and transcripts of the KJV do not exist. The RCC conveniently burned the building at White Hall, where they were stored in 1617. Only a continuing of printing, of the 1611 version until 1911, has preserved the original translation which I also have one. Folks if you can't read the modern KJV, you really don't want to try to read the 1611 version.