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.
God also used NIV and other translations for His glory, but you cannot see that.
The king of England has/had no authority to authorize any version of God´s word. No more than popes or king of France or king of Bohemia.
Not even for use in England, because no man can order what the word of God should be. And, of course, certainly nowhere behind the borders of the English island.
The king of England has/had no authority to authorize any version of God´s word. No more than popes or king of France or king of Bohemia.
Not even for use in England, because no man can order what the word of God should be. And, of course, certainly nowhere behind the borders of the English island.
Your repetition of that silly statement does not make it a fact.
It is similar to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalala"
It makes as much sense as saying the Watchtower version of John 1:1 corrects the corrupt KJV. (and all other mainstream versions)
We KNOW what the Greek says in John 1:1, so we know that the JW "bible" is wrong.
We use the oldest, most "vetted" versions of the Greek to correct any translations that might have missed a word, or nuance here or there.
The KJV is NOT flawless, no matter what you have been indoctrinated to believe. You've been shown this in several instances in this thread, but you can't see past your preconception.
It is similar to sticking your fingers in your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalala"
It makes as much sense as saying the Watchtower version of John 1:1 corrects the corrupt KJV. (and all other mainstream versions)
We KNOW what the Greek says in John 1:1, so we know that the JW "bible" is wrong.
We use the oldest, most "vetted" versions of the Greek to correct any translations that might have missed a word, or nuance here or there.
The KJV is NOT flawless, no matter what you have been indoctrinated to believe. You've been shown this in several instances in this thread, but you can't see past your preconception.
The reason I repeat that "the Holy Bible corrects all the modern bible falsehoods", is to remind readers to disregard all the obfuscating by phony bible lovers and simply compare what they present with what the Holy Bible says. It's a simple and honest thing for truth lovers to do. Compare. For the scripture can't be broken, and not everyone finds the Holy Bible difficult to read and comprehend.
They only present off topic and petty stuff for a reason folks.
The proof is in the comparison.
Their most successful tactics are to claim that their phony bibles are easy pleasy texts any casual reader will find comfy.
These modern bible lovers like to pretend they're translators of unoriginal Greek and Hebrew texts.
But they aren't translators at all. They are merely attempting to corrupt the written word of God as they please without God's authority to do so.
I've shown they can't read English if its in the Holy Bible, without getting emotional, opinionated and thoroughly confused.
If they can't handle the text of the Holy Bible in English they surely aren't to be thought capable students of literature in any foreign languages.
Like I told them, When they are done translating they eventually have to present something in English. ( They try not to ever finish translating though) And when they do present their work in plain speach it will always be found flawed. But they will love their own work irregardless of truth you can count on them for that.
They only present off topic and petty stuff for a reason folks.
The proof is in the comparison.
Their most successful tactics are to claim that their phony bibles are easy pleasy texts any casual reader will find comfy.
These modern bible lovers like to pretend they're translators of unoriginal Greek and Hebrew texts.
But they aren't translators at all. They are merely attempting to corrupt the written word of God as they please without God's authority to do so.
I've shown they can't read English if its in the Holy Bible, without getting emotional, opinionated and thoroughly confused.
If they can't handle the text of the Holy Bible in English they surely aren't to be thought capable students of literature in any foreign languages.
Like I told them, When they are done translating they eventually have to present something in English. ( They try not to ever finish translating though) And when they do present their work in plain speach it will always be found flawed. But they will love their own work irregardless of truth you can count on them for that.
Exactly. So explain to me, why the KJV changes the OT texts.
Exactly. So explain to me, why the KJV changes the OT texts when the OT and the NT is compared.
The key is in usefulness. Its useful to learn German or Spanish or Chinese or Greek.
Its not useful to learn 400 years old English.
So, it is not about capability, its about the common sense.
Exactly. So explain to me, why the KJV changes the OT texts when the OT and the NT is compared.
The key is in usefulness. Its useful to learn German or Spanish or Chinese or Greek.
Its not useful to learn 400 years old English.
So, it is not about capability, its about the common sense.
This has already been dealt with.
I have no interest in repeating myself so you can repeat you again claim to not understand.
The Holy Bible isn't as simple as you'd wish it to be for your arguments sake.
My point being that you make a lot of assumptions as to what constitutes error.
You must first deal with false premises.
So, try again. Or, if you must, then repeat yourself for the sake other readers.
I have no interest in repeating myself so you can repeat you again claim to not understand.
The Holy Bible isn't as simple as you'd wish it to be for your arguments sake.
My point being that you make a lot of assumptions as to what constitutes error.
You must first deal with false premises.
So, try again. Or, if you must, then repeat yourself for the sake other readers.
trofimus,
It would be beneficial to stop raising bogus issues. The KJV does not change either the NT or the OT text. I already addressed your bogus issue a while back, but it seems that you simply cannot let go.
Joseppi,
While I fully stand for the KJV, you have to keep in mind that the Hebrew and Greek texts determine the translations, not the other way around.
It would be beneficial to stop raising bogus issues. The KJV does not change either the NT or the OT text. I already addressed your bogus issue a while back, but it seems that you simply cannot let go.
Joseppi,
While I fully stand for the KJV, you have to keep in mind that the Hebrew and Greek texts determine the translations, not the other way around.
Since you are still relatively new around here, I'll let you in on a secret: you didn't start the thread, so you don't get to dictate what is or is not "off topic".
Prove it. Quote ANYONE who has made such a claim... in those exact words, so that there is no evidence of misrepresentation on your part. Give evidence of the "success" of those tactics when compared with other tactics.
Prove it. Your opinions are absolutely worthless without supporting evidence.
What a ludicrous and arrogant statement. Not everyone who contributes in this thread has English as a first language, let alone 16th-centrury English! Further, at least one contributor is an advanced student of biblical Greek who finds the KJV difficult.
Prove it. Quote ANYONE who has made such a claim... in those exact words, so that there is no evidence of misrepresentation on your part. Give evidence of the "success" of those tactics when compared with other tactics.
Prove it. Your opinions are absolutely worthless without supporting evidence.
What a ludicrous and arrogant statement. Not everyone who contributes in this thread has English as a first language, let alone 16th-centrury English! Further, at least one contributor is an advanced student of biblical Greek who finds the KJV difficult.
Ok, then:
Amos 5:26 (masoretic text - KJV):
'But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god.'
Acts 7:43 (KJV):
'Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan
The KJV has obviously messed up these verses.
-------
On the other hand, look at the consistency in the Bible I use:
Am 5:26:
καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολὸχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ραιφάν
Acts 7:43
καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολὸχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ Ῥομφά
-------
==> while your KJV is obviously changed significantly, my Bible has only one word added (the word is "your", changing no meaning).
Then you will come with your KJV only nonsense, saying how corrupted Bible I have. Please, think.
Amos 5:26 (masoretic text - KJV):
'But ye have borne the tabernacle of your Moloch and Chiun your images, the star of your god.'
Acts 7:43 (KJV):
'Yea, ye took up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan
The KJV has obviously messed up these verses.
-------
On the other hand, look at the consistency in the Bible I use:
Am 5:26:
καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολὸχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ ὑμῶν Ραιφάν
Acts 7:43
καὶ ἀνελάβετε τὴν σκηνὴν τοῦ Μολὸχ καὶ τὸ ἄστρον τοῦ θεοῦ Ῥομφά
-------
==> while your KJV is obviously changed significantly, my Bible has only one word added (the word is "your", changing no meaning).
Then you will come with your KJV only nonsense, saying how corrupted Bible I have. Please, think.
Now we are getting somewhere.
"...God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
(Rev 22:19, KJV)
Erasmus did not have Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin back to Greek.
Greek manuscripts have "out of the tree of life", though.
"...God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."
(Rev 22:19, KJV)
Erasmus did not have Greek manuscripts for this part of the text, so he translated it from Latin back to Greek.
Greek manuscripts have "out of the tree of life", though.
Last edited: