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.
That is your opinion not an established fact.
The scripture says we are to rightly divide the word of truth.
That means man can falsely divide the word of truth.
One leads to a true understanding, and the other to a false understanding.
So far, no one that believes the niv’s rendering of Philippians 2 has explained anything. Instead opinions were offered.
For example, one translation says that Jesus promised to come soon.
Another says Jesus promised to come shortly.
“Soon" and “shortly” don’t convey the same meaning in the context of Jesus’ return.
If one translation says is coming soon, then the argument that some make, that 2000 years later doesn’t qualify as soon, proves the translation is false on that point.
But the Holy Bible says that Jesus is coming shortly. The word shortly has a definition that soon doesn’t share. Which is the idea of ‘as soon as possible." That translation is correct and reveals that there are things that must be done before Jesus can return. Things that will be done in short order however.
When the niv says, Peace on earth to men of goodwill, it doesn’t agree with the Holy Bible that says, Peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.
One translation is saying, only men of goodwill are granted peace by God, but the other translation is saying God’s grants peace and goodwill is towards all men on earth.
When we compare translations we may find some states completely agreeable. However some statements conflict.
When Jesus said, that the scripture can’t be broken, he showed that translation or understanding can be proven false.
The reason folks argue that all translations have error is because they know that various bibles contradict one another.
The scripture says we are to rightly divide the word of truth.
That means man can falsely divide the word of truth.
One leads to a true understanding, and the other to a false understanding.
So far, no one that believes the niv’s rendering of Philippians 2 has explained anything. Instead opinions were offered.
For example, one translation says that Jesus promised to come soon.
Another says Jesus promised to come shortly.
“Soon" and “shortly” don’t convey the same meaning in the context of Jesus’ return.
If one translation says is coming soon, then the argument that some make, that 2000 years later doesn’t qualify as soon, proves the translation is false on that point.
But the Holy Bible says that Jesus is coming shortly. The word shortly has a definition that soon doesn’t share. Which is the idea of ‘as soon as possible." That translation is correct and reveals that there are things that must be done before Jesus can return. Things that will be done in short order however.
When the niv says, Peace on earth to men of goodwill, it doesn’t agree with the Holy Bible that says, Peace on earth, and goodwill towards men.
One translation is saying, only men of goodwill are granted peace by God, but the other translation is saying God’s grants peace and goodwill is towards all men on earth.
When we compare translations we may find some states completely agreeable. However some statements conflict.
When Jesus said, that the scripture can’t be broken, he showed that translation or understanding can be proven false.
The reason folks argue that all translations have error is because they know that various bibles contradict one another.
Hi Lucy,
Let me reiterate that as a rule in translating the KJV that there has to be specific implementation in regards to the said marginal notes in the original 1611 KJV and the very reason why later editions have abandon the use of marginal notes. However, let us be reminded that the marginal notes of the KJV is a different in today’s footnotes. Here are the rules 6 and 7 for your reference:
6. No marginal note at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
7. Such quotation of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for fit reference of one scripture to another.
So in plain language, they were but only an explanation not a criticism or an obstruction and mostly were parallel passage/ references.
But why the later edition has no longer the marginal note?simply because it was generally stated that “No marginal note at all to be affixed…”
Again, why there is a big difference with today’s footnotes?
Today’s footnotes have misled many readers and bring confusion.
Let me demonstrate how misleading these footnotes from many of today’s English versions. Shall we?
Let me start with providing examples:
NKJV NU-Text and M-Text omit verse 36.
The NLT related footnote for 17:35 states:
Some manuscripts add verse 36, Two men will be working in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Compare Matt 24:40.
ESV has its footnotes in verse 35
Some manuscripts add verse 36: Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left
CSB Some mss include v. 36: “Two will be in a field: One will be taken, and the other will be left.
NASB Early mss do not contain this v
RSV Other ancient authorities insert verse 36, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left."
NIV Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The NIV related footnote for 17:35 states:
Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.
The question is: Are today’s footnotes in most Modern English Versions has a valid claim that “some manuscripts was “ inserted” or some “added” while others “excluded”, others “included” and or “omitted.”?
If it was inserted, added, included etc. where the evidence of this irresponsible act is? All one must have to do is to guess, perhaps a scientific guess. This is called emendation which simply means it’s up to YOU.
Why not in most of the New English Versions retain this verse since there are Greek textual evidences?
The NIV had even the worse footnote not only omitted the verse but made such remarks of excluding the verse in some Greek manuscript. Because it was excluded in some Greek, it will also be excluded in the NIV hence the NIV which is said to be a result of “Scientific Biblical Research” must be a misnomer! NIV is still an incomplete English Version.
Btw, scholars agree that evidences may be source through the following:
Bro. Will Kenney has detailed explanation on the link, if you wish to find biblical balance approach.
Luke 17:36 Scripture - Another King James Bible Believer
To conclude, Luke 17:36 the KJV had passed all the evidences and the footnote did not cause any obstruction in the text whereas the NIV especially did not pass the weightier evidence.
If you may, you can proceed by presenting your evidence or cite evidences that some manuscripts have excluded this text?
Thank you.
Let me reiterate that as a rule in translating the KJV that there has to be specific implementation in regards to the said marginal notes in the original 1611 KJV and the very reason why later editions have abandon the use of marginal notes. However, let us be reminded that the marginal notes of the KJV is a different in today’s footnotes. Here are the rules 6 and 7 for your reference:
6. No marginal note at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.
7. Such quotation of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for fit reference of one scripture to another.
So in plain language, they were but only an explanation not a criticism or an obstruction and mostly were parallel passage/ references.
But why the later edition has no longer the marginal note?simply because it was generally stated that “No marginal note at all to be affixed…”
Again, why there is a big difference with today’s footnotes?
Today’s footnotes have misled many readers and bring confusion.
Let me demonstrate how misleading these footnotes from many of today’s English versions. Shall we?
Let me start with providing examples:
NKJV NU-Text and M-Text omit verse 36.
The NLT related footnote for 17:35 states:
Some manuscripts add verse 36, Two men will be working in the field; one will be taken, the other left. Compare Matt 24:40.
ESV has its footnotes in verse 35
Some manuscripts add verse 36: Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left
CSB Some mss include v. 36: “Two will be in a field: One will be taken, and the other will be left.
NASB Early mss do not contain this v
RSV Other ancient authorities insert verse 36, "Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other left."
NIV Some Greek manuscripts exclude this verse. The NIV related footnote for 17:35 states:
Some manuscripts include here words similar to Matt. 24:40.
The question is: Are today’s footnotes in most Modern English Versions has a valid claim that “some manuscripts was “ inserted” or some “added” while others “excluded”, others “included” and or “omitted.”?
If it was inserted, added, included etc. where the evidence of this irresponsible act is? All one must have to do is to guess, perhaps a scientific guess. This is called emendation which simply means it’s up to YOU.
Why not in most of the New English Versions retain this verse since there are Greek textual evidences?
The NIV had even the worse footnote not only omitted the verse but made such remarks of excluding the verse in some Greek manuscript. Because it was excluded in some Greek, it will also be excluded in the NIV hence the NIV which is said to be a result of “Scientific Biblical Research” must be a misnomer! NIV is still an incomplete English Version.
Btw, scholars agree that evidences may be source through the following:
- Textual Evidence. Uncials, miniscules extant Greek manuscripts etc.
- Early Bible Versions. Old Latin, Itala, French Oliivati, Gothic etc.
- Quotation from the Church Fathers and Lectionaries.
Bro. Will Kenney has detailed explanation on the link, if you wish to find biblical balance approach.
Luke 17:36 Scripture - Another King James Bible Believer
To conclude, Luke 17:36 the KJV had passed all the evidences and the footnote did not cause any obstruction in the text whereas the NIV especially did not pass the weightier evidence.
If you may, you can proceed by presenting your evidence or cite evidences that some manuscripts have excluded this text?
Thank you.
Is "was made" the same as "became?"
Can you readers note the difference?
They are synonymous in context. KJV "was made" has the sense of 'was caused to be'.
NIV "became" has the sense of 'was caused to be'
“Became flesh” gives no evidence as to how the Word became flesh, and allows the idea that the flesh itself is the Word.
Now some simply claim that I’m straining s unimportant gnat. But, I’m saying that the distinction is important in advancing in study towards God’s approval.
Granted that many like a casual reading and few like rigor. But the scripture warns us that milk is for babes. And that it isn’t right to not grow up.
Is "was made" the same as "became?"
Can you readers note the difference?
They are synonymous in context. KJV "was made" has the sense of 'was caused to be'.
NIV "became" has the sense of 'was caused to be'
[SUP]14 [/SUP]The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
KJV has the purity since ”was made” taking particular instance of the Virgin Birth of our Lord Jesus Christ being the only begotten Son or be born
Using the word “became” in the NIV do not fit the Mary’s conception or bearing of a child, the NIV just created a magic when it says “became”. This abracadabra can make the Word no longer to be born.
God bless
The kjv says, And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth,
Jesus was “given” the power, which reveals that in time past Jesus didn’t possess all power in heaven and earth. This again shows that the Father is above the Son, in power and authority.
Jesus was “given” the power, which reveals that in time past Jesus didn’t possess all power in heaven and earth. This again shows that the Father is above the Son, in power and authority.
Last edited:
That is incorrect. What "a body hast thou prepared for me" means is that even before the foundation of the world God the Word understood completely that one day He would be born as a human child and grow up to be the Man Christ Jesus.
It was a Divine imperative that the Son of God become the Lamb of God to be sacrificed on the Cross and to shed His precious blood for our redemption. There was no other "body" except the body which came into existence at His supernatural conception and then was born to the virgin Mary as the Christ Child "Jesus".
Those words in Hebrews 10:5-9 as quoted from Psalm 40:6-8 are a prophetic intimation of what had already been discussed in eternity past within the Godhead. But there was no other body than that which was given to Jesus of Nazareth in His incarnation.
It was a Divine imperative that the Son of God become the Lamb of God to be sacrificed on the Cross and to shed His precious blood for our redemption. There was no other "body" except the body which came into existence at His supernatural conception and then was born to the virgin Mary as the Christ Child "Jesus".
Those words in Hebrews 10:5-9 as quoted from Psalm 40:6-8 are a prophetic intimation of what had already been discussed in eternity past within the Godhead. But there was no other body than that which was given to Jesus of Nazareth in His incarnation.
I beg to differ in this of your post, Jesus had all the power and authority in the past. He is God equal to his Father and the glory they have. His subjection to His Father while on his earthly ministry proves his humanity. Nevertheless, this is already an exposition commentary perhaps not the subject of Bible version issue.
God bless you sir!
God bless you sir!
True. Christ's METAPHORICAL AND SPIRITUAL body. But that is not what is under discussion.
Of course. And what that means is that the thousands of animal sacrifices for about 1500 years under the Old Covenant had minimal value for God.
What else? When Christ was nailed to that Cross is was a body of flesh and blood, and that is why He could shed His blood for our redemption, and His body could be "broken" for us.
Of course. And what that means is that the thousands of animal sacrifices for about 1500 years under the Old Covenant had minimal value for God.
What else? When Christ was nailed to that Cross is was a body of flesh and blood, and that is why He could shed His blood for our redemption, and His body could be "broken" for us.
I think you must be referring to Jesus Christ being slain before the foundation of the world, which requires him to have a body of flesh for sacrifice.
But that doesn’t prevent understanding the prophecy in Psalms is pointing to the actual preparation of the body at the time when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.
For God did indeed prepare the body for Jesus Christ.
As Philippians 2:7 shows that Jesus Christ, “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” Which reveals the body existed before he then took it.
For again as I showed, the Word didn’t become actual flesh but “took upon” the body made for him.
Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son if God.
Jesus’ body was formed of Mary’s not Adam’s when the Holy Ghost overshadowed her.
For the scripture says of Jesus Christ
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
He being born of a virgin
But that doesn’t prevent understanding the prophecy in Psalms is pointing to the actual preparation of the body at the time when Mary was overshadowed by the Holy Ghost.
For God did indeed prepare the body for Jesus Christ.
As Philippians 2:7 shows that Jesus Christ, “took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” Which reveals the body existed before he then took it.
For again as I showed, the Word didn’t become actual flesh but “took upon” the body made for him.
Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son if God.
Jesus’ body was formed of Mary’s not Adam’s when the Holy Ghost overshadowed her.
For the scripture says of Jesus Christ
Romans 1:3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
He being born of a virgin
Yes a body of flesh was given Jesus Christ for the purpose of sacrifice.
This is all clarified in Hebrews 10:8-10
And notice in verse 8 it is carefully pointed out that the “sacrifice and offerings” part came before Jesus came to do God’s will and was law. Verse 9 says Jesus then came and took it away
And verse 10 says that we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all”
Keep in mind that what you refer to as the body of Christ refers to the resurrected body.
For we are baptized into his death then raised to newness of life in the body of Christ.
This is all clarified in Hebrews 10:8-10
And notice in verse 8 it is carefully pointed out that the “sacrifice and offerings” part came before Jesus came to do God’s will and was law. Verse 9 says Jesus then came and took it away
And verse 10 says that we are “sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ once for all”
Keep in mind that what you refer to as the body of Christ refers to the resurrected body.
For we are baptized into his death then raised to newness of life in the body of Christ.
I think it may help some to know how it can be that the blood of Jesus redeems us from all the curse of the law, and proves also the Jedus is heir to God’s most high throne as well as to Adam’s and David’s.
This is why Jesus was given all power after he died not before. The Holy Bible is a legal document and Jesus’ blood is proof it is all absolutely true.
This is why Jesus was given all power after he died not before. The Holy Bible is a legal document and Jesus’ blood is proof it is all absolutely true.