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.
The “candlestick” was not the actual candle itself, but was the stand that was composed of 7 branches, a shaft, knops and bowls in which was placed oil that burned and was referred to as a “lamp”. Obviously we are not referring to “electrical” lamps, but rather the extended meaning of both “lamps” and “candles” which is simply any kind of artificial light.
"No man, when he hath lighted A CANDLE, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on A CANDLESTICK, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16
"No man, when he hath lighted A CANDLE, covereth it with a vessel, or putteth it under a bed; but setteth it on A CANDLESTICK, that they which enter in may see the light." Luke 8:16
I'll check that assertion when I have time, but my first impression is that it is simply illogical, for they would have rejected many readings in favour of the ones they chose.
That is playing with semantics, but I'll play along to show how silly it is... which is the inspired "edition" of the KJV?
On the one hand, you claim that the KJV has everything else correct and other versions are incorrect, now you are claiming that because other versions say "candlestick" that the KJV is therefore correct? That is poor logic.
That is playing with semantics, but I'll play along to show how silly it is... which is the inspired "edition" of the KJV?
On the one hand, you claim that the KJV has everything else correct and other versions are incorrect, now you are claiming that because other versions say "candlestick" that the KJV is therefore correct? That is poor logic.
Perhaps you should have clarified what I meant by "far better and more numerous" before attempting to refute it. There were perhaps dozens of manuscript copies available in the early 1600's. Now there are over 5500... far more numerous.
Most of those manuscripts have been made available in digital form and are available to both scholars and the public... far better.
The advent of personal computers and software now allows comparison of multiple versions, including manuscripts, at one's fingertips... far better.
The availability of language tools, including lexicons, concordances, multiple translations in multiple languages, commentaries
and the like, all enhance our ability to understand the text... far better AND more numerous
The Granville Sharp construction was unknown in 1611. It was identified several centuries later... far better.
Most of those manuscripts have been made available in digital form and are available to both scholars and the public... far better.
The advent of personal computers and software now allows comparison of multiple versions, including manuscripts, at one's fingertips... far better.
The availability of language tools, including lexicons, concordances, multiple translations in multiple languages, commentaries
and the like, all enhance our ability to understand the text... far better AND more numerous
The Granville Sharp construction was unknown in 1611. It was identified several centuries later... far better.
"Candlestick" is the wrong word. It's called an "anachronism" on the part of the KJV translators... taking a current term and applying it to a situation which is analogous but distinct. If the Levites didn't use candles, they didn't call the stand a candlestick; that term would have little or no meaning to them. It's a lampstand... a stand, for oil-fed lamps. Even today the two terms are distinct.
Is this logic that wishes to correct God's word? A logic that put words in other's mouth? In this instance of the 'candlestick' where I didn't claim the KJV alone has all the correct translation and all others are incorrect. If I am going to play the same game/ argument your buddies used in here maybe you are arguing into some ignorance... sorry to tell you this because other versions has it. The Living Bible has it. The Upadated Bible Version has it. The Complete Jewish Bible has it. The Modern English Version has it and many more.
Yea, but I am talking about the candlesticks not really the candle. Just because the Jews did not use candles, that it is imposible for the Holy Spirit to used it in the Bible. Are we not limiting God? What is a lamp anyway? Courd you further discussed this one. I have submitted my report. It's your turn...
Thanks
Thanks
The golden candlestick, like the table of shewbread, was represented on the Arch of Titus. It was composed of a straight stem, rising perpendicularly from a base, and having on either side of it three curved arms or branches, all of them in the same plane, and all rising to the same level. The stem and arms were ornamented with representations of almond flowers, pomegranates, and lily blossoms, repeated as there was room for them, the top ornament being in every case a lily blossom, which held a hemispherical (lamp).
The form and ornamentation of the base are unknown, since the representation of the base upon the Arch of Titus is manifestly from some Roman work which had superseded the original pedestal. The special object of the candlestick seems to have been to give light by night. Its lamps were to be lighted at even (Exodus 30:8) by the High Priest, and were to burn from evening to morning (Exodus 27:21), when they were to be dressed, or trimmed (Exodus 30:7), and “extinguished." The Holy Place had sufficient light during the day from the entrance, where the curtain would let the light through, if indeed it were not also partially looped up.
The form and ornamentation of the base are unknown, since the representation of the base upon the Arch of Titus is manifestly from some Roman work which had superseded the original pedestal. The special object of the candlestick seems to have been to give light by night. Its lamps were to be lighted at even (Exodus 30:8) by the High Priest, and were to burn from evening to morning (Exodus 27:21), when they were to be dressed, or trimmed (Exodus 30:7), and “extinguished." The Holy Place had sufficient light during the day from the entrance, where the curtain would let the light through, if indeed it were not also partially looped up.
