King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[trofimus]

There is no difference between the Word and the Son, both are the same. Word and Son are just titles.

John 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

OK, but that was not my question Is the origin of the Word or Son in the Father or not?

 

[trofimus]

Agree, God doesn't need a scholar to write exactly what he wants written. My point was Sagart was saying that those scholars couldn't read the originals because they changed the wording of the originals.

The NIV isn't inspired because it has errors, God doesn't inspire errors.

If you believe that NIV is inspired, you will always explain out all errors others can find in it. The same with the KJV.

So its the matter of faith.

Some translations need just a small faith to believe in them, some translations need a really huge one. But still, everything is possible for the believer.

On the other hand, our faith must not be blind.

 

[SovereignGrace]

If you believe that NIV is inspired, you will always explain out all errors others can find in it. The same with the KJV.

So its the matter of faith.

Some translations need just a small faith to believe in them, some translations need a really huge one. But still, everything is possible for the believer.

On the other hand, our faith must not be blind.

All one has to do is get a Strong's concordance and see that many Hebrew, Chaldean & Greek words have a myriad of english words one can use. Some versions use the same word others use another.

 

[trofimus]

All one has to do is get a Strong's concordance and see that many Hebrew, Chaldean & Greek words have a myriad of english words one can use. Some versions use the same word others use another.

Not to say that we must first choose from various sources to translate from and they differ significantly...

 

[KJV1611]

OK, but that was not my question Is the origin of the Word or Son in the Father or not?

No neither have their origin in the Father.

 

[KJV1611]

If you believe that NIV is inspired, you will always explain out all errors others can find in it. The same with the KJV.

So its the matter of faith.

Some translations need just a small faith to believe in them, some translations need a really huge one. But still, everything is possible for the believer.

On the other hand, our faith must not be blind.

I tried to make the NIV inerrant as new believer because I felt from the beginning that God's word was perfect but the NIV had way too many problems.

 

[trofimus]

No neither have their origin in the Father.

But this is the opposite of what the Church teaches for 2000 years. Do you have some evidence?

 

[KJV1611]

But this is the opposite of what the Church teaches for 2000 years. Do you have some evidence?

Where does it say in the bible that Jesus had his origin in the Father?

 

[trofimus]

I tried to make the NIV inerrant as new believer because I felt from the beginning that God's word was perfect but the NIV had way too many problems.

Every translation or even the edition from original languages has some problems. Thats why you really need faith to believe it is inerrant or inspired.

I do not say that NIV is the best translation we have. If I would be English speaker I would probably use NASB or Berean Literal Bible. But I would not consider them "without any error".

 

[KJV1611]

Every translation or even the edition from original languages has some problems. Thats why you really need faith to believe it is inerrant or inspired.

I do not say that NIV is the best translation we have. If I would be English speaker I would probably use NASB or Berean Literal Bible. But I would not consider them "without any error".

How do you decipher between good and error?

 

[trofimus]

Where does it say in the bible that Jesus had his origin in the Father?

You give me some evidence, because it is you who is attacking the ancient belief of the Church

 

[KJV1611]

You give me some evidence, because it is you who is attacking the ancient belief of the Church

I've never believed that and never heard that preached before.

 

[trofimus]

How do you decipher between good and error?

I think its a complex of various things.

The choice of reliable and actual sources, the choice of the translation style and then how good they were in being literal and still being understandable.

 

[trofimus]

I've never believed that and never heard that preached before.

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

 

[Sagart]

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 truth, rather than a maliciously false lie, can be read here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/bible-translations-guide

The so-called better manuscripts!, are so messed up it would take 50 Philadelphia lawyers to figure them out.

The truth, rather than a maliciously false lie, can be read here:

Text and Manuscripts of the New Testament

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".

If A agrees with B, C, and D, but B, C, and D are incorrect, A is also incorrect!

 

[Sagart]

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.

People who still have healthy minds read threads like this, and they need to be able to read both sides lest they read the lies and believe them.

 

[Dino246]

How do you decipher between good and error?

I know you directed the question to Trofimus, but I'd ask you to answer the same question. How did you come to conclude that the NIV has errors, or in your words, "way too many problems"?

I ask that you respond without referring to the KJV because comparing one translation to another merely demonstrates different wording, and perhaps a different method of translation (formal vs. dynamic, for example).

 

[SovereignGrace]

People who still have healthy minds read threads like this, and they need to be able to read both sides lest they read the lies and believe them.

Ppl can read this whole thread and know where the asininity is. And its not us, either.

 

[KJV1611]

"And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father;"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

It looks like those guys didn't know who Jesus was, most theologians do't know anything about God nor the bible. How can Jesus be "I Am" and then be begotten by "I Am"?

 

[KJV1611]

I know you directed the question to Trofimus, but I'd ask you to answer the same question. How did you come to conclude that the NIV has errors, or in your words, "way too many problems"?

I ask that you respond without referring to the KJV because comparing one translation to another merely demonstrates different wording, and perhaps a different method of translation (formal vs. dynamic, for example).

It's very simple did Jesus have an origin... surely you recognize this as an error.