KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE
- Thread starter KingJamesVersionBibleOnly
- 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.
I agree with this though I think it needs unpacking...
People deserve basic respect, because people are created in the image of God. People can also earn greater respect, or earn less respect by the way they interact with others and by how they present their ideas.
Ideas do not necessarily deserve respect, because some ideas really do have greater value than other ideas.
I see no problem with scorning a bad idea. Unfortunately, many readers can't separate the idea from the person (themselves, often) who presented it. Telling someone that their ideas are bad is not, by itself, disrespectful.
People deserve basic respect, because people are created in the image of God. People can also earn greater respect, or earn less respect by the way they interact with others and by how they present their ideas.
Ideas do not necessarily deserve respect, because some ideas really do have greater value than other ideas.
I see no problem with scorning a bad idea. Unfortunately, many readers can't separate the idea from the person (themselves, often) who presented it. Telling someone that their ideas are bad is not, by itself, disrespectful.
There are several problems with your reasoning here:
First, nobody has claimed that God "cannot" translate the Bible perfectly into English, so your contention that any non-KKVo claims that is simply unfounded. It's a straw-man fallacy on your part. Quote someone, or drop it.
Second, you have absolutely no evidence that God did so with the KJV. It has been demonstrated many times that the KJV is not a perfect translation from either Greek or Hebrew, but you have shown that you are blind to this. FYI there is a fundamental difference between God translating as in Acts 2, and men translating as in 1604.
Third, because languages change over time (and space) what is a "perfect" translation in one context may not be in another. This leads to misunderstanding, which is not God's intention. The king of England never had final authority over the English language, nor did the translators. We can only point to how a word is understood within a certain context... even if that is diametrically opposite from its meaning in another context. Consider the word "sick". To most people over 40, it means physically diseased. To many people under 40, it also means noteworthy, interesting, and/or desirable.
I have explained why double standards are unacceptable from a biblical perspective; you have not responded, and you certainly haven't shown any evidence of understanding. So I ask you: why do you think that having a double standard (several, in fact) is compatible with a claim to salvation in Christ?
First, nobody has claimed that God "cannot" translate the Bible perfectly into English, so your contention that any non-KKVo claims that is simply unfounded. It's a straw-man fallacy on your part. Quote someone, or drop it.
Second, you have absolutely no evidence that God did so with the KJV. It has been demonstrated many times that the KJV is not a perfect translation from either Greek or Hebrew, but you have shown that you are blind to this. FYI there is a fundamental difference between God translating as in Acts 2, and men translating as in 1604.
Third, because languages change over time (and space) what is a "perfect" translation in one context may not be in another. This leads to misunderstanding, which is not God's intention. The king of England never had final authority over the English language, nor did the translators. We can only point to how a word is understood within a certain context... even if that is diametrically opposite from its meaning in another context. Consider the word "sick". To most people over 40, it means physically diseased. To many people under 40, it also means noteworthy, interesting, and/or desirable.
I have explained why double standards are unacceptable from a biblical perspective; you have not responded, and you certainly haven't shown any evidence of understanding. So I ask you: why do you think that having a double standard (several, in fact) is compatible with a claim to salvation in Christ?
What "gets" me, is the whole "flesh" thing, when it comes to "which" translation, or translations are best. Any/All translations, versions, etc.etc. that gets one to accept Jesus of Nazareth, as high priest, and Kinsman Redeemer (Lord and Savior), is a good and valid version, translation, etc. etc.
The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.
2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways
), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same!
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.
2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways
), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same! Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
H
What "gets" me, is the whole "flesh" thing, when it comes to "which" translation, or translations are best. Any/All translations, versions, etc.etc. that gets one to accept Jesus of Nazareth, as high priest, and Kinsman Redeemer (Lord and Savior), is a good and valid version, translation, etc. etc.
The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.
2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same!
Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
The "problem" lies where, as Paul stated, concerning "spiritual Meat!" Some say, it must be "chewed" "this" way! Another? No?...Must be chewed "this" way. It's like whatever "persuasion" (denomination, or, translation/version) one is, or how it "pertains" to any particular component, that makes up the body of Christ, seems to be in such a fervency, regarding their own particular component, that it causes a loss of cognizance in relation to every, or any other component, that makes up this body of Christ. This just is not so! And, in fact something Paul warned the early forming Christians of the N.T. to not be guilty of doing.
2,000 years, and countless translations, and versions, cannons, and revivals, brings to mind (mine, anyways
), that for as much as some things have changed? Some things (seems) to stay the same! Trust in the Lord with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, until He causes you to march to a different drummer. Then?....Don't! Tis a strength in numbers thing, yanno, that causes blindness and ruts, and ditches!
The catholics martyred thousands or maybe millions over words.
The correct move is always towards original,or purity.
Some of our modern translations are sloppy
D
LOL Loved your raisin cake story. LOL
But, don't trust PBS for full stories. They are the far-left with the far-left agenda. Part of which is to promote there is no God.
Truthfully, King James had a problem with the already-available-English-translations of the Bible. He saw the Bible teaching Lex Rex. (The law is king.) He wanted the obvious -- Rex Lex.
So he hired a bunch of scholars he thought would beholden to give him Rex Lex. God had other plans, so the scholars translated it as best they could from what they had. The KJV is God's word as best as possible at the time, even though there are numerous problems with it. (Sort of like the raisin cake story. Even if that was supposed to be raisin cake, would it have changed your relationship with God? I don't think so. At best, you would have spent your life wondering if you should eat raisin cake. lol)
BTW, I'm not against KJV. I'm against KJVOnlyists and trolls.
But, don't trust PBS for full stories. They are the far-left with the far-left agenda. Part of which is to promote there is no God.
Truthfully, King James had a problem with the already-available-English-translations of the Bible. He saw the Bible teaching Lex Rex. (The law is king.) He wanted the obvious -- Rex Lex.
So he hired a bunch of scholars he thought would beholden to give him Rex Lex. God had other plans, so the scholars translated it as best they could from what they had. The KJV is God's word as best as possible at the time, even though there are numerous problems with it. (Sort of like the raisin cake story. Even if that was supposed to be raisin cake, would it have changed your relationship with God? I don't think so. At best, you would have spent your life wondering if you should eat raisin cake. lol)
BTW, I'm not against KJV. I'm against KJVOnlyists and trolls.
E
Well that one text Is not the KJV, using this logic, that He text is the one which was finished by John when he completed Hs last good. And it was not written in English
All other texts are copies, translations of those copies. event 5e KJV is translated from copies and also other interpretations of the origional text.
All other texts are copies, translations of those copies. event 5e KJV is translated from copies and also other interpretations of the origional text.
E
No, men did.
the only thing inspired was the autographs, if God inspired other languages, there would be a perfect bible in all languages, that is no true so.
God Old is not a respect or of persons. He chose the best languages to inspire the word for a reason, and there is a reason he did not chose english
the only thing inspired was the autographs, if God inspired other languages, there would be a perfect bible in all languages, that is no true so.
God Old is not a respect or of persons. He chose the best languages to inspire the word for a reason, and there is a reason he did not chose english
Already refuted more than once; fallacy of false dichotomy. There is at least one additional option: More than one version is the holy, pure words of God and can be trusted. See more below....
Already refuted; if this were true, the KJV could not be the one. Either Tyndale IS God's perfect word in English and therefore the KJV is not, or Tyndale is not, and therefore the KJV could not be either because it follows Tyndale so much.
Really, John146, you need to stop ignoring the refutations to your arguments. It is no credit to you to repeat arguments which have been discredited completely.
Already refuted; if this were true, the KJV could not be the one. Either Tyndale IS God's perfect word in English and therefore the KJV is not, or Tyndale is not, and therefore the KJV could not be either because it follows Tyndale so much.
Really, John146, you need to stop ignoring the refutations to your arguments. It is no credit to you to repeat arguments which have been discredited completely.
