KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

[John146]

We don't worry about Satan's influence in our scripture reading because of our teacher.

1 John 2:27: "But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him."

If that were the case, we would all be in agreement with all doctrinal truths throughout the bible. Have you read through the threads lately? Are we all on the same page?

 

[Dino246]

If that were the case, we would all be in agreement with all doctrinal truths throughout the bible. Have you read through the threads lately? Are we all on the same page?

The KJV-onlyists whine about "new versions causing division and confusion" and don't realize that they are the ones coming in here, creating a tractor load of straw-man beliefs which they then knock down using select passages from the KJV.

If the straw men were real issues and real beliefs of real people, there might be a case. They aren't, and there isn't. Who, then, is causing the division?

 

[trofimus]

Mind you, that Cosmonaut looks like he came from the pages of Cosmopolitan. Can you say "airbrushed", boys and girls?

He was just 27

 

[trofimus]

If that were the case, we would all be in agreement with all doctrinal truths throughout the bible. Have you read through the threads lately? Are we all on the same page?

I wonder, have you sincerely considered any of our objections against KJVonlyism or do you just dismiss them in your thinking immediately?

 

[John146]

I wonder, have you sincerely considered any of our objections against KJVonlyism or do you just dismiss them in your thinking immediately?

Sure I do. And then I go and compare Scripture to Scripture to see if it holds water. And I wonder if you and the others sincerely consider the KJV only perspective or immediately dismiss them?

 

[trofimus]

Sure I do. And then I go and compare Scripture to Scripture to see if it holds water. And I wonder if you and the others sincerely consider the KJV only perspective or immediately dismiss them?

If you consider our objections against the KJV, you cannot solve them by comparing it to KJV, logically.

You would need to get one step higher and examine facts about the KJV regardless what the KJV itself says.

Example - if we tell you that some verse is not in any Greek manuscript, you cannot solve that by looking at your KJV.

 

[John146]

If you consider our objections against the KJV, you cannot solve them by comparing it to KJV, logically.

You would need to get one step higher and examine facts about the KJV regardless what the KJV itself says.

Example - if we tell you that some verse is not in any Greek manuscript, you cannot solve that by looking at your KJV.

Agreed, especially when it comes to manuscript differences between the Majority manuscripts vs the Sinaiticus an Vaticanus manuscripts.

 

[trofimus]

Agreed, especially when it comes to manuscript differences between the Majority manuscripts vs the Sinaiticus an Vaticanus manuscripts.

Thats where the problem lies, I think.

Because you already consider the KJV to be a measurement, a standard, you are not able to examine it without this view.

What the KJV uses, is the standard, for you. Because the KJV uses TR, TR is a standard for you so you actually cannot consider the possibility that the TR is not the best source available.

What I am asking is, if you can independently consider any objection against it or if you are already decided for ever.

 

[trofimus]

Agreed, especially when it comes to manuscript differences between the Majority manuscripts vs the Sinaiticus an Vaticanus manuscripts.

Also, you are simplifying things too much.

TR is not always the majority reading. Some verses in the TR are not in any relevant manuscript (if we will not count Greek taken from Latin, forgeries etc).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Sure I do. And then I go and compare Scripture to Scripture to see if it holds water. And I wonder if you and the others sincerely consider the KJV only perspective or immediately dismiss them?

So, what part of scripture did you go to see if “jesus wept” was a correct and completely accurate translation?

What part of scripture did you go to see that twice Jesus asked if Jesus agape loved him, and the third time he used the lesser form of Love phileo, so you can know that the single english word (love) is the most complete and accurate translation?

 

[posthuman]

I allow Scripture to define itself, you know, comparing Scripture with Scripture.

okay, then . . .

One major problem I have with some new versions when it comes to salvation is Romans 10:9. Most say the following:

ESV - because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Only one who is already saved can confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord. A lost person cannot confess with their mouth Jesus is Lord. They must first confess the Lord Jesus, that is the testimony concerning Him. One day all will confess Jesus is Lord but most will not be saved.

have you compared Matthew 7:21-23 with this "major problem" yet?

 

[posthuman]

The KJV defines itself. Ever heard of the first mention principle? New versions cannot do this.

why wouldn't any other translation have a 'first mention' of a word?

that's like saying {2, 4, 6, ..} has a smallest number in it but {1, 3, 5, ..} has no smallest number ???

and since the KJV often translates the same Hebrew word, and the same Greek word into half a dozen or more English words ((which they purposefully​ did - read the preface)) -- you can't use the KJV to reliably find the first mention or to count the number of instances of a word from the original language. you have to use the original languages to do this accurately.

 

[posthuman]

They have always been preserved, but they were not put together completely into one language, in one book, until the KJV.

eh, weren't there actually at least 2 complete Latin translations by the end of the 2nd century?
and isn't the Vulgate 14th century?
and you've never heard of Wycliffe? and a Czech version of the same period?

Coverdale?

Luther's German Bible?

 

[John146]

okay, then . . .



have you compared Matthew 7:21-23 with this "major problem" yet?

Notice I went on to quote, Jesus is THE Lord. Jesus is not merely Lord but the Lord.

 

[posthuman]

As for troll? Already got that 11 pages ago. That's the only reason he/she is here.

yeah sorted that out when i read the user name

 

[posthuman]

If that were the case, we would all be in agreement with all doctrinal truths throughout the bible. Have you read through the threads lately? Are we all on the same page?

have you read 1 Corinthians 11:19 yet?

For it behooveth heresies to be, that they that be approved, be openly known in you.
​

 

[trofimus]

have you read 1 Corinthians 11:19 yet?

For it behooveth heresies to be, that they that be approved, be openly known in you.
​

I do not understand that verse at all. Can you please translate it to English?

 

[posthuman]

I do not understand that verse at all. Can you please translate it to English?

hmm if Wycliffe's 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century English is unreadable to modern ears maybe it should be updated to something 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

 

[trofimus]

hmm if Wycliffe's 14[SUP]th[/SUP] century English is unreadable to modern ears maybe it should be updated to something 16[SUP]th[/SUP] century.

I think I do not know just one word, but the sentence as a whole is not making any sense to me...

 

[Deade]

I do not understand that verse at all. Can you please translate it to English?

Here it is in KJV trofimus:
1Co. 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it.
1Co. 11:19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.