The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- 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.
Here's another...
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23.
"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
It is, of course, among many that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?"
In the Book of Genesis, chapters 42-45, we have the record of Joseph's reunion with his brethren. Joseph spoke Egyptian instead of Hebrew is evident by Genesis 42:23.
"And they knew not that Joseph understood them; for he spake unto them by an interpreter."
It is, of course, among many that no translation can be "word perfect". Therefore we know that the Hebrew translation of Joseph's Egyptian statements as found in the Old Testament manuscripts cannot be an exact word for word copy. We are left with quite a dilemma. WHOM did God inspire? Did He inspire Joseph's Egyptian statements, the Egyptian interpreter's verbal translation, or Moses' written translation as found in the Hebrew of the Old Testament?
If God inspired Joseph, was his "original" statement marred by his Egyptian interpreter, or by Moses' translation? Or did God inspire Moses to pen an "inspired translation" which would fly in the face of many Fundamentalist's charges of "progressive inspiration?"
None of these examples prove, or even support, the idea that the KJV translators were "inspired" any more than any other translators. The initial recording was inspired, whether it required translation or not. That record is "Scripture".
Either Wycliffe, Tyndale, Vulgate, Bishop's, Stephanus, Douay-Rheims, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc. are all "Scripture" or none of them are. There is no middle ground. The only legitimate challenge you can make is whether they were accurately translated from the sources used, and, to a lesser degree, whether those sources were sound copies.
Using the KJV as the reference to which all others are compared is logically and academically unsound. The only conclusion one can reach from that approach is "They're different". You can't even argue rightness of theology from that method!
Either Wycliffe, Tyndale, Vulgate, Bishop's, Stephanus, Douay-Rheims, RSV, NIV, NASB, etc. are all "Scripture" or none of them are. There is no middle ground. The only legitimate challenge you can make is whether they were accurately translated from the sources used, and, to a lesser degree, whether those sources were sound copies.
Using the KJV as the reference to which all others are compared is logically and academically unsound. The only conclusion one can reach from that approach is "They're different". You can't even argue rightness of theology from that method!
I concur with you there, Dino, inasmuch, that every ONE (or any combination), of those translations, could lead one to Christ. But? for me, the Companion Bible (by Bullinger, btw), and hardbound Strong's Concordance, is what I prefer. And, in my estimation, is the "easier" way. Not saying that other translations can't, or don't. Yet, in the "straight is the path, and narrow is the gate?" When, is becomes "easier" in any particular translation, for understanding? "Other" things become more difficult, or "intertwined", making it more of a "strain", if you will, on the believer/seeker.
Easter alone might DQ It, ya. there is no objective truth in Scripture, not a single thing, but it is much too early for that one i guess lol, i meant to say that the Lexicon is prolly a great start? ya, that. (fwiw the Book of Truth is mentioned in Scripture...)
Genesis 1:1 Lexicon: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 Lexicon: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Last edited:
The thing about mathematics, is that it is precise. If that post was a bridge you were building, using numbers, it would have collapsed. So, next time, stop worrying about the numbers, and start worrying about the English meanings of words. The difference between "book" and "chapter" is huge! Even if you are hurried or tired! Hurried engineers should not be building bridges! If you want to support this theory, then make sure your words are correct.
In fact, that was the thing I always liked about math. If you got the right answer, you were right! No fooling around with semantics. Yet, you have proposed a theory based on certain (random??) number facts, and then throw out the most unprecise juxtaposition of letters, confusing books and chapters.
In fact, why don't you drop the numbers completely, as you have proven nothing but that you have an untenable obsession. If you want to support your version choice, see what Fred posted on page 34. While I may disagree with some issues people have who claim the KJV is the only version, at least I can read and see the logic, if faulty, that they are posting.
Reams and reams of numbers, divisible by 37 or any other numbers, is just wrong! Let's talk about what is in the Bible, instead of some half baked theory you got off a questionable website!
This is just so wrong! No telephone games in Bible translations, except for the Byzantine tradition, upon which the TR and the KJV are based. In fact, in textual criticism, they actually can trace the generations of manuscripts and the increasing mistakes in each generation in the Byzantine tradition, in particular. So, one scribe writes a comment on something in the margin, and the next generation includes it in the text. Is that inspiration or embellishment? One scribe decides to harmonize gospel stories, and then it is copied down in generations. One scribe makes a spelling error, either from writing or hearing it wrong, the next generations copy it wrong, too!
That, in a nutshell, is the KJV. That is why there is so much added, that appears no where else. Because, the KJV was translated from some very late Greek manuscripts, which had incorporated literally hundreds of errors. Now, most were minor, but some were large additions.
Modern scholarship, goes back to the earliest versions. The ones that were much nearer the original manuscripts. Since there are 4 different geographical schools of Greek manuscripts. Alexandrian, Western (Rome), Caesarian, and of course, Byzantine. Byzantine are the newest and most copied manuscripts, with the most errors. Erasmus used 7 late corrupted copies of Byzantine manuscripts, for his translation, which the KJV based its version on. Even Eramus pointed out numerous errors in those texts.
That is what the KJV version is based on. Do you really think God stepped in and magically corrected all those numerous copy errors, in the KJV?
In fact, it is best to favour the earliest manuscripts, like modern versions do. Through palaeography, and carbon-14 dating, and other methods, scholars are able to assign composition dates to ancient manuscripts. External evidence includes quotes from church fathers. The Byzantine tradition conflates and does not agree with the early church fathers. Another way to verify the original text is when it is attested to across various families of manuscripts. So, if the Alexandrian manscript agrees with the Western and Caesarian manuscripts, despite a separation of many miles, it is likely following the original, God inspired manuscripts.
And the myth that because the Alexandrians tended towards allegorical interpretations, really has nothing to do with the veracity of the text. For example, the JW's and Mormons can prove to your their truths using the KJV. Does that make the KJV a Bible that does not teach the deity of Christ? Of course not! What interpreters do with the manuscripts, has nothing to do with the faithfulness and accuracy of those who copied it!
Thus, you have basically been fed a pack of lies by the KJV Only crowd. I read Greek. The KJV is simply not the best version, and I would never rely on it for matters of doctrine. As far as reading it because you like the sound of the words, I think that is great! Read any version of the Bible, and God is going to speak to you, and use it for good in your life.
KJV
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
ASV
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
GNT
There was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear had a shaft as thick as the bar on a weaver's loom.
Help me here, I don't see the contradictions.
And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
NIV
In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver’s rod.
ASV
And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim the Beth-lehemite slew Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
GNT
There was another battle with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan son of Jair from Bethlehem killed Goliath from Gath, whose spear had a shaft as thick as the bar on a weaver's loom.
Help me here, I don't see the contradictions.
Here are some websites you can go to, to read about scholarly manscript research.
Home - CSNTM
NOBTS - Welcome to the H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies
The New Testament Gateway | NTGateway.com | Dr Mark Goodacre
Evangelical Textual Criticism
Home - CSNTM
NOBTS - Welcome to the H. Milton Haggard Center for New Testament Textual Studies
The New Testament Gateway | NTGateway.com | Dr Mark Goodacre
Evangelical Textual Criticism
Don't you think you are trying to make a big deal out of a small thing. You even had the sense to understand that I meant chapter in your original question. I wonder how many times you accidentally typed something wrong had to be corrected and it was a simple oversight. I certainly do not claim perfection and I have posted quite a bit of information. I may have typed "found in the Bible X times" but is should have read "found in the New Testament X times." Thank you for pointing out my error but swallowing a gnat won't kill you.