The King James Bible

[Joseppi]

[/SIZE][/SIZE]

This verse is often presented as evidence that modern translations are corrupting the Bible. There is a straightforward explanation though, one in which no agenda is evident: Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan; he did not believe in the one true God (until Daniel chapter 4, that is). It would therefore be quite natural for him to say "a son of the gods" which is consistent with his worldview. It is actually inconsistent for him to say, "of God" when he didn't believe in God! So the KJV cannot be held up as correct in this matter.

This is somewhat like an anachronism, only instead of imposing a modern understanding into a historical event, you're imposing a Christian (Jewish) understanding of God upon a pagan. I submit that it is far better to have a Bible that records accurately what was said rather than one that reinterprets people's words to conform to an ideal.

If you assume that every difference between recent translations and the KJV is the result of a modern conspiracy or desire to "change the Bible", or assume that in every case the KJV is correct, you will be blinded to the reality of the issues. The KJV simply is not the standard of accuracy in translation. The standard is the original-language manuscripts, against which both KJV and modern translations must be compared. Some read such statements as attacks on the KJV; they simply aren't, and hopefully you won't.

The niv presented a lie and telling a story about why its ok won't make it true.
As I said, when folks are done making up stuff and going on and on about some new translation novelts, we simply compare the result with the Holy Bible.
And I won't be surprised phony bible lovers prefer Satan's handiwork wherever they find it.

 

[trofimus]

The niv presented a lie and telling a story about why its ok won't make it true.
As I said, when folks are done making up stuff and going on and on about some new translation novelts, we simply compare the result with the Holy Bible.
And I won't be surprised phony bible lovers prefer Satan's handiwork wherever they find it.

"Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness."
1 Sam 4:8, KJV

And now, I hope you will hold to your word and stop using the KJV.

No, I do not hope. When the KJV does it, it will be somehow all right.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I don't think fearmongering is going to work for you.
The Lord doesn't respect the false bibles and all the lies in them.
How absurd it is of you to think that God is going to defend a false bible assertion that a son of one of the gods saved anyone.

How absurd it is to make an idol of a mere translation.
If you are going to keep attacking don't be surprised when you meet resistance and self-defence.

 

[fredoheaven]

See above.



You came in here swinging. You started out not with praise of the KJV but with a vicious attack on a translation I have been reading for years. You didn't expect any comeback over that? And now you're offended.

Let's start again. Forgive me for being harsh.

Let me make it clear. I don't hate the King James Version. But it isn't my favourite translation because it is outdated English.
You are more than welcome to read it and love it with no interference from myself. Long may it be printed and distributed.

The only problem I have is the movement to establish The KJV as the ONLY reliable English translation of the word of The Lord God of Israel. The signature of God is on other translations as well.

So what is your favourite English Version of the Bible? May we know and compare with the "outdated" KJV?

Thanks

 

[Joseppi]

Sooner or later you're gonna hafta play another song. Your needle's stuck and your record's warped.

And yet you keep listening?
Not buying it.

 

[fredoheaven]

"Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness."
1 Sam 4:8, KJV

And now, I hope you will hold to your word and stop using the KJV.



No, I do not hope. When the KJV does it, it will be somehow all right.

1 Sam. 4:7 And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.
81 Sam. 4:8 Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.

You should have considered the context! Who said this and who said that?

Thanks

 

[trofimus]

So what is your favourite English Version of the Bible? May we know and compare with the "outdated" KJV?

Thanks

And what will you get by comparing it to KJV?

KJV is not a standard to which all other translations must be compared. Greek is the standard.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

So what is your favourite English Version of the Bible? May we know and compare with the "outdated" KJV?

Thanks

The English is outdated. Not the Bible itself.

 

[trofimus]

1 Sam. 4:7 And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore.
81 Sam. 4:8 Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? these are the Gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues in the wilderness.

You should have considered the context! Who said this and who said that?

Thanks

Exactly. Context. So,you KJVO guys must not use the text in Daniel. Because - who said that? A pagan king.

The same thing, but double standard, as always.

 

[fredoheaven]

The English is outdated. Not the Bible itself.

Okay, never mind. You cannot produced or present your newest/most updated English Bible.

God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

Exactly. Context. So,you KJVO guys must not use the text in Daniel. Because - who said that? A pagan king.

The same thing, but double standard, as always.

that was another set of story and that was trite!

 

[trofimus]

that was another set of story and that was trite!

No idea what this sentence of yours means.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Okay, never mind. You cannot produced or present your newest/most updated English Bible.

God bless

What are you talking about?

I've stated a number of times my personal translation preference. I'm not here to sell it to anyone else and I never claimed it was the NEWEST. You are just being silly.

 

[PS]

Okay, never mind. You cannot produced or present your newest/most updated English Bible.

God bless

There is the Modern King James Bible (MKJV)

Modern King James Version - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

 

[hornetguy]

I'm not going to play post google source with you, especially after claiming I used quora for mine.


And what of the black Egyptian artwork, mummies, and sculptures? And the biblical accounts the jews and egyptians were identical in appearance? How do you deny those strong pieces of evidence?

You will believe whatever you want to maintain your current limited understanding. Explain the black artwork and mummies and the Bible claiming Jews and Egyptians were identical in appearance.

Oh, good grief... the Bible never says they were identical in appearance.... that is your own prejudice allowing you to see only what you want to see.

The fact is that people of the region of Galilee are of varying skin color.... some are very light skinned, and some are very dark skinned. Same thing with the people of Egypt. I work with people from Egypt, born and raised there, who are only slightly darker skinned than I am.... WE DON'T KNOW what Jesus' skin color was, or how tall/short he was. And, here's a revelation.... IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Your imagined scriptural source about Jesus height is COMPLETELY wrong.... in that verse, it is talking about Zaccheus being short... NOT Jesus. He could not see Jesus because HE could not see over the crowd...

Did you completely miss out on Vacation Bible School? You don't remember the song, "Zaccheus Was a Wee Little Man" ????

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I must have missed the chapter where Jesus was revealed as a wee black hobbit. Is THAT in the KJV?

 

[Joseppi]

There is a straightforward explanation though, one in which no agenda is evident: Nebuchadnezzar was a pagan; he did not believe in the one true God (until Daniel chapter 4, that is). It would therefore be quite natural for him to say "a son of the gods" which is consistent with his worldview. It is actually inconsistent for him to say, "of God" when he didn't believe in God! So the KJV cannot be held up as correct in this matter.

You give an ad hoc reasoning that sounds good to you and then translate according to it.
That is called rationalizing in defense of translating lies.

This is somewhat like an anachronism, only instead of imposing a modern understanding into a historical event, you're imposing a Christian (Jewish) understanding of God upon a pagan.

The Holy Bible told you the truth as to what Nebuchadnezzar said.
Whereas, you are rationalizing an excuse about an obvious lie found in the niv.

I submit that it is far better to have a Bible that records accurately what was said rather than one that reinterprets people's words to conform to an ideal.

You are the one that claims you know what Nebuchadnezzar said based on a rationalization instead of eye witness testimony.

If you assume that every difference between recent translations and the KJV is the result of a modern conspiracy or desire to "change the Bible", or assume that in every case the KJV is correct, you will be blinded to the reality of the issues.

You are the one assuming your rationalization is historical truth.
I believe that the Holy Bible presents the testimony of what Nebuchadnezzar said, according to Daniel.

The KJV simply is not the standard of accuracy in translation.

You are in charge of anything regarding any bible.
Who is going to believe that rationalization is the basis of translation?

The standard is the original-language manuscripts, against which both KJV and modern translations must be compared.

Says who? The corrupt bible scholars working for what the Holy Bible calls filthy lucre?
They have no standards beyond rationalizations based on their unbelief and what helps sell bibles.

Some read such statements as attacks on the KJV; they simply aren't, and hopefully you won't.

I think its safe to say she saw the true colors of the corrupt bible lovers.

 

[Joseppi]

You mean "elohim"?

Elohim is plural. In my language, we have an adequate word to translate it - "božstvo", which has some plurality in it, but is singular in form.

I do not know how English can translate "elohim" - neither "god" nor "gods" are good terms, because they leave something out. Maybe "deity"? I do not know.

You appear to be babbling so I'll wait and see if you figure out what you think you know.

 

[trofimus]

Oh, good grief... the Bible never says they were identical in appearance.... that is your own prejudice allowing you to see only what you want to see.

The fact is that people of the region of Galilee are of varying skin color.... some are very light skinned, and some are very dark skinned. Same thing with the people of Egypt. I work with people from Egypt, born and raised there, who are only slightly darker skinned than I am.... WE DON'T KNOW what Jesus' skin color was, or how tall/short he was. And, here's a revelation.... IT DOESN'T MATTER!

Your imagined scriptural source about Jesus height is COMPLETELY wrong.... in that verse, it is talking about Zaccheus being short... NOT Jesus. He could not see Jesus because HE could not see over the crowd...

Did you completely miss out on Vacation Bible School? You don't remember the song, "Zaccheus Was a Wee Little Man" ????

I have no idea where is this feeling coming from (irony), but I think that pckts is black And maybe small, too.

 

[trofimus]

You appear to be babbling so I'll wait and see if you figure out what you think you know.

This response was so cute.