New world order Bible Versions (NIV ESV NKJV etc)
- Thread starter Paisley_buddie
- 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.
While KJV English resembles Shakespearean English it is in fact BIBLICAL ENGLISH since it follows the Hebrew and Greek. In order to determine the difference, one only has to compare "The Translators to the Reader" (Preface) with the actual Bible and see how different they are. And of course, compare Shakespeare to the Bible.
PREFACE (This is all one sentence, and you will never find such English in the KJV)
Yet for all that, the learned know that certain worthy men have been brought to untimely death for none other fault, but for seeking to reduce their countrymen to good order and discipline; and that in some Commonwealths it was made a capital crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating of an old, though the same were most pernicious; And that certain, which would be counted pillars of the State, and patterns of Virtue and Prudence, could not be brought for a long time to give way to good Letters and refined speech, but bare themselves as averse from them, as from rocks or boxes of poison; And fourthly, that he was no babe, but a great clerk, that gave forth (and in writing to remain to posterity) in passion peradventure, but yet he gave forth, that he had not seen any profit to come by any Synod, or meeting of the Clergy, but rather the contrary; And lastly, against Church-maintenance and allowance, in such sort, as the Ambassadors and messengers of the great King of Kings should be furnished, it is not unknown what a fiction or fable (so it is esteemed, and for no better by the reporter himself, though superstitious) was devised; Namely, that at such a time as the professors and teachers of Christianity in the Church of Rome, then a true Church, were liberally endowed, a voice forsooth was heard from heaven, saying: Now is poison poured down into the Church, etc. (Here is the period or full stop).
And here's some dialog from Macbeth by William Shakespeare. Let's see how easy it is to understand.
The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, (What does this mean?)
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse, (What does this mean?)
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances (What does this mean?)
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, (What does this mean?)
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'
PREFACE (This is all one sentence, and you will never find such English in the KJV)
Yet for all that, the learned know that certain worthy men have been brought to untimely death for none other fault, but for seeking to reduce their countrymen to good order and discipline; and that in some Commonwealths it was made a capital crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating of an old, though the same were most pernicious; And that certain, which would be counted pillars of the State, and patterns of Virtue and Prudence, could not be brought for a long time to give way to good Letters and refined speech, but bare themselves as averse from them, as from rocks or boxes of poison; And fourthly, that he was no babe, but a great clerk, that gave forth (and in writing to remain to posterity) in passion peradventure, but yet he gave forth, that he had not seen any profit to come by any Synod, or meeting of the Clergy, but rather the contrary; And lastly, against Church-maintenance and allowance, in such sort, as the Ambassadors and messengers of the great King of Kings should be furnished, it is not unknown what a fiction or fable (so it is esteemed, and for no better by the reporter himself, though superstitious) was devised; Namely, that at such a time as the professors and teachers of Christianity in the Church of Rome, then a true Church, were liberally endowed, a voice forsooth was heard from heaven, saying: Now is poison poured down into the Church, etc. (Here is the period or full stop).
And here's some dialog from Macbeth by William Shakespeare. Let's see how easy it is to understand.
The raven himself is hoarse
That croaks the fatal entrance of Duncan
Under my battlements. Come, you spirits
That tend on mortal thoughts, unsex me here, (What does this mean?)
And fill me from the crown to the toe top-full
Of direst cruelty! make thick my blood;
Stop up the access and passage to remorse, (What does this mean?)
That no compunctious visitings of nature
Shake my fell purpose, nor keep peace between
The effect and it! Come to my woman's breasts,
And take my milk for gall, you murdering ministers,
Wherever in your sightless substances (What does this mean?)
You wait on nature's mischief! Come, thick night,
And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell, (What does this mean?)
That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,
Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark,
To cry 'Hold, hold!'
Last edited:
We should understand that as Paul said that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God…” What we have is the scripture of truth that says it is the ‘scriptures is God given inspiration’ and not the writers or the translators. Another thing, It’s not that when God moved so that we have the inspiration. God even worked with the animals that it can be considered ‘given by inspiration’. He can used the angel like Gabriel to proclaim the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ yet we consider them as inspired words of God. Satan’s words even when they were written or recorded in the scriptures are still considered in the ‘All scripture is given by inspiration of God’.
The Bible says nothing of the original language of Hebrew Greek and Aramaic that gets only the inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:15-16 say nothing of the originals yet what Timothy had access were copies called ‘holy scriptures. If he had the originals and the Bereans had the originals, and the Apostles had the originals OT manuscripts then where is the one that’s true originals? We have no problem with originals being inspired words of God. Yet the copies also are given by inspiration and so with translations. KJV is scriptures in English so that I believe it “is given by inspiration of God.” Is your bible given by the inspiration of God? If so then so be it but we know in English we have already one pure inspired words of God. Is there another?
God bless
The Bible says nothing of the original language of Hebrew Greek and Aramaic that gets only the inspiration. 2 Timothy 3:15-16 say nothing of the originals yet what Timothy had access were copies called ‘holy scriptures. If he had the originals and the Bereans had the originals, and the Apostles had the originals OT manuscripts then where is the one that’s true originals? We have no problem with originals being inspired words of God. Yet the copies also are given by inspiration and so with translations. KJV is scriptures in English so that I believe it “is given by inspiration of God.” Is your bible given by the inspiration of God? If so then so be it but we know in English we have already one pure inspired words of God. Is there another?
God bless
Your conclusion is flawed by a logical fallacy of equivocation. You rightly assert, based on your earlier reasoning, that the KJV, as Scripture, is given by the inspiration of God. However, you switch gears and claim therefore that the KJV is the only inspired Scripture in English.
If we were to accept your exclusive reasoning, then we must conclude that Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale, etc. were not "given by inspiration". However, the KJV is based largely on Tyndale's work. How could "inspired Scripture" be essentially a copy of an uninspired work? No, we must reject that.
The logical conclusion of your earlier reasoning (which is also consistent with the 1611 Preface to the Reader) is that each of these previous works, and of the translations made after the KJV, is also "inspired Scripture". The implied assertion that the KJV is the only inspired Scripture in English simply fails.
If we were to accept your exclusive reasoning, then we must conclude that Tyndale, Wycliffe, Geneva, Bishops, Coverdale, etc. were not "given by inspiration". However, the KJV is based largely on Tyndale's work. How could "inspired Scripture" be essentially a copy of an uninspired work? No, we must reject that.
The logical conclusion of your earlier reasoning (which is also consistent with the 1611 Preface to the Reader) is that each of these previous works, and of the translations made after the KJV, is also "inspired Scripture". The implied assertion that the KJV is the only inspired Scripture in English simply fails.
The KJV is more regulated and is not impinged by catholic influence like new nestle catholic alexandrian text versions, it seems.
Though, saying that the KJV in English is the only word of God that is perfected. Implies, the word of God was previously poorly perfected in other languages and earlier versions etc.
I think the original writers might disagree. Even though the Bible has all the books we have texts for, doesn't mean necessarily, that it is the final version that God has planned.
We may have another 1000+ years to go yet. We don't know. But the KJV is the only latest English Bible to include the "THUMBPRINT OF GOD", I think???
The coded system as a marker.
Though, saying that the KJV in English is the only word of God that is perfected. Implies, the word of God was previously poorly perfected in other languages and earlier versions etc.
I think the original writers might disagree. Even though the Bible has all the books we have texts for, doesn't mean necessarily, that it is the final version that God has planned.
We may have another 1000+ years to go yet. We don't know. But the KJV is the only latest English Bible to include the "THUMBPRINT OF GOD", I think???
The coded system as a marker.
Now you're playing games, avoiding the issue at hand and obfuscating by bringing in side issues. Let's stay with one issue for the moment: whether or not all the English translations prior to the KJV were "inspired Scripture". The 1611 Preface suggests strongly that they are. Logical analysis concludes that they are. The text of the Scripture itself suggests that they are. Fredoheaven implied that they are not. Do you believe they are "inspired Scripture"? If not, and these differ from the KJV, then how can "inspired Scripture" come from what is "uninspired" and therefore must not be "Scripture"? If they are inspired, then logically, there is no reason to conclude that subsequent translations aren't also inspired Scripture.
Don't mix up the concept of "pure" with the concept of "inspired" because they aren't the same thing. Simply answer the questions, please.
This claim has been refuted so many times, and is such a poor argument that I'm honestly surprised that you keep making it. In one post you'll argue for double inspiration, in another you'll argue for the unmatched and unmatchable knowledge and ability of the translators, and here you argue for progressive purification. These are mutually exclusive! I would argue (and have done so) that none of the three is correct.
Don't mix up the concept of "pure" with the concept of "inspired" because they aren't the same thing. Simply answer the questions, please.
This claim has been refuted so many times, and is such a poor argument that I'm honestly surprised that you keep making it. In one post you'll argue for double inspiration, in another you'll argue for the unmatched and unmatchable knowledge and ability of the translators, and here you argue for progressive purification. These are mutually exclusive! I would argue (and have done so) that none of the three is correct.
Another jab at the the KJV. Do you know something? When a translation is hated, burned, mocked, despised, and rejected, it is suffering the same fate as the Son of God, who is also the eternal Word of God. So in fact that is CONFIRMATION that the KJV is indeed the written Word of God. You will not find such malice directed toward any of the modern versions.
Anyone with an ounce of information about Bible translations would know that there were a string of English tranlations preceding the KJV, and that it was the translation of all translations because that was the stated goal of the translators (whoe piety and scholarship are yet to be rivaled).
Starting with the Venerable Bede at the end of the 7th century, there were at least eight English translations of the Bible. Aside from the Old English translations, we have those of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, The Geneva Bible, The Bishops' Bible, and then the Authorized Version (King James Bible).
What many Christians have not yet grasped is that they have been subjected to a hoax of gigantic proportions through the claims of modern scholars, critics, and Bible publishers. They have been fed chaff instead of wheat, and the Lord says "What is the chaff to the wheat?"
The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:28).
Anyone with an ounce of information about Bible translations would know that there were a string of English tranlations preceding the KJV, and that it was the translation of all translations because that was the stated goal of the translators (whoe piety and scholarship are yet to be rivaled).
Starting with the Venerable Bede at the end of the 7th century, there were at least eight English translations of the Bible. Aside from the Old English translations, we have those of Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthews, The Geneva Bible, The Bishops' Bible, and then the Authorized Version (King James Bible).
What many Christians have not yet grasped is that they have been subjected to a hoax of gigantic proportions through the claims of modern scholars, critics, and Bible publishers. They have been fed chaff instead of wheat, and the Lord says "What is the chaff to the wheat?"
The prophet that hath a dream, let him tell a dream; and he that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully. What is the chaff to the wheat? saith the LORD. (Jeremiah 23:28).
It saddens me to see how far Christians will go to try and prove that we do not have access to God's word and there is no Bible we can trust completely. What you are claiming is the same God who gave man His word, is not capable of preserving His word perfectly for future generations in whatever language He so chooses.
You're claiming man's logic when trying to explain away how God preserved His word? Since it's not logical to you, it must not be true. So no, no earlier version was inspired by God if it does not match his preserved, perfect word in the KJV.
You're claiming man's logic when trying to explain away how God preserved His word? Since it's not logical to you, it must not be true. So no, no earlier version was inspired by God if it does not match his preserved, perfect word in the KJV.