KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES
- 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.
You are refreshing as well my friend. But I think you are wrong about the KJV being in error in Luke 1 and you're using that error (which does not exist) to cast doubt on the reliablity of the KJV... all of this is in good faith on your part, I believe you are going with what you believe.
I think that this one single issue is so important that I would like to reason with you on how the KJV is right in this instance. Are you willing to discuss it with me?
I think that this one single issue is so important that I would like to reason with you on how the KJV is right in this instance. Are you willing to discuss it with me?
How does that verse even apply in this discussion? Are you simply throwing out platitudes, hoping to sound pious?
So, persecution complex, much? You have been told, time and again... and I will tell you one final time (from me, at least) that we that disagree with your approach do not tell people to avoid the KJV.... that it is a good translation, for the most part, if they can read and understand the archaic language.
I have, and occasionally do read, a KJV, and a NKJV translation. They are occasionally useful tools in seeing another perspective on a particular passage. I can do that, because I do not believe that there is only ONE translation handed down "with God's name on it" as has been claimed about the KJV.
As you said in your message.... the complaints are coming from the anti-KJVO crowd... not the anti-KJV crowd. I'm not sure your persecution complex will allow you to understand that, but, there it is.
So, persecution complex, much? You have been told, time and again... and I will tell you one final time (from me, at least) that we that disagree with your approach do not tell people to avoid the KJV.... that it is a good translation, for the most part, if they can read and understand the archaic language.
I have, and occasionally do read, a KJV, and a NKJV translation. They are occasionally useful tools in seeing another perspective on a particular passage. I can do that, because I do not believe that there is only ONE translation handed down "with God's name on it" as has been claimed about the KJV.
As you said in your message.... the complaints are coming from the anti-KJVO crowd... not the anti-KJV crowd. I'm not sure your persecution complex will allow you to understand that, but, there it is.
trof.... my very very good friend. The word of God is not bound by words, there are a myriad of words that can be used to carry the word of God. Yes there can be and have been several perfect versions over the years and over many different languages.
Just because the word of God is not bound by words doesn't mean all bibles that slap "Holy Bible" on the cover are the container for the word of God.
Look at the bible as an encrypted message from God to his children, the written words are not the message, they are the carrier of the message. Radio waves would be a good ananlogy - the radio wave is the carrier, the modulation of the radio wave is the message. The radio wave has to be de-modulated in order to get the message... if the receiving radio isn't set to the right frequency then the message can't be decoded.
Just because the word of God is not bound by words doesn't mean all bibles that slap "Holy Bible" on the cover are the container for the word of God.
Look at the bible as an encrypted message from God to his children, the written words are not the message, they are the carrier of the message. Radio waves would be a good ananlogy - the radio wave is the carrier, the modulation of the radio wave is the message. The radio wave has to be de-modulated in order to get the message... if the receiving radio isn't set to the right frequency then the message can't be decoded.
The Holy Bible is the standard the Holy Ghost uses to correct, reprove and rebuke.
I think that is why so many compromise with corruption by pretending to love the Holy Bible on one hand, but loving corruption and lies with the other bible in hand.
Do you think God compromises? I know he doesn’t.
The modern bibles can’t stand the light of day, so to speak, that is the problem they have. They really aren’t of God. And you can’t sell them to people seeking truth. They are a blight.
Are the churches better off? No. Look around, the churches have themselves been compromised. Fattened and dumbed. Popular yet empty like Oprah.
It all sounds reasonable until you compare the modern bibles with the truth. The problem is that corruption ruins modern bibles.
And the churches in America are sick because of it.
Try reading the Holy Bible prayerfully for 30 arduous days. No helps of any kind but only God leading you and see what happens.
I think that is why so many compromise with corruption by pretending to love the Holy Bible on one hand, but loving corruption and lies with the other bible in hand.
Do you think God compromises? I know he doesn’t.
The modern bibles can’t stand the light of day, so to speak, that is the problem they have. They really aren’t of God. And you can’t sell them to people seeking truth. They are a blight.
Are the churches better off? No. Look around, the churches have themselves been compromised. Fattened and dumbed. Popular yet empty like Oprah.
It all sounds reasonable until you compare the modern bibles with the truth. The problem is that corruption ruins modern bibles.
And the churches in America are sick because of it.
Try reading the Holy Bible prayerfully for 30 arduous days. No helps of any kind but only God leading you and see what happens.
Why does the scripture offend you?
The Holy Bible is attacked as being problematic according to the opposers of it.
God does choose weak things to confound the wise of this world that claim they know better.
I am not interested in your compromise approach to bibles.
Why try and convince me you are fair minded about compromise.
I believe you present the “compromise equals godliness” thing precisely because the modern bibles are obviously corrupt.
And you’ve been reading them and never noticed? I’m supposed to believe that?
I get your point.
If only everyone accepts the corrupt modern bibles, then the world would be a nicer place to sleep in.
Isn’t going to happen.
The Holy Bible is attacked as being problematic according to the opposers of it.
God does choose weak things to confound the wise of this world that claim they know better.
I am not interested in your compromise approach to bibles.
Why try and convince me you are fair minded about compromise.
I believe you present the “compromise equals godliness” thing precisely because the modern bibles are obviously corrupt.
And you’ve been reading them and never noticed? I’m supposed to believe that?
I get your point.
If only everyone accepts the corrupt modern bibles, then the world would be a nicer place to sleep in.
Isn’t going to happen.
First, its David talking, not God. Let us be technical, when you want your Bible to be technically perfect 
-------
To your question, some context: You are right, there were several lines of Scriptures. Two became dominant. The Septuagint line (from which Septuagint was translated) and masoretic line.
The Septuagint line was used by universal (Greek speaking) Jewish community, by apostles and by Church (its used by Greek speaking churches till today, without interruption).
Because the Septuagint were so much used by Christians and prophecies about Christ were so clear in it, Jews decided to go by the other, masoretic line, after they made some serious editations to it.
In a reformation era, people in Latin Europe were used to translate from Latin Vulgate. It was unacceptable for reformators, who wanted to get rid of RCC influence. So they decided to translate from original languages, instead.
No problem with the NT. But regarding the OT, there is just one Hebrew line - the masoretic text. Thats why they used it without much consideration - and that was a mistake, IMHO. Greek churches continue in using Septuagint, RCC is probably still using Vulgate? Not sure. So its mainly a protestant problem/issue.
---------
My response to "which line is correct" - from the historical context, I am very much for the Septuagint line.
1) There is too much Jewish antiChristian agenda behind the masoretic line.
2) The majority of NT places where the OT is quoted is from the Septuagint. So if I want to have a consistent Bible, I must use it.
3) Because it is so massively used in the NT, I think that the authority of apostles and the first Church indicates I should use it too.
-------
To your question, some context: You are right, there were several lines of Scriptures. Two became dominant. The Septuagint line (from which Septuagint was translated) and masoretic line.
The Septuagint line was used by universal (Greek speaking) Jewish community, by apostles and by Church (its used by Greek speaking churches till today, without interruption).
Because the Septuagint were so much used by Christians and prophecies about Christ were so clear in it, Jews decided to go by the other, masoretic line, after they made some serious editations to it.
In a reformation era, people in Latin Europe were used to translate from Latin Vulgate. It was unacceptable for reformators, who wanted to get rid of RCC influence. So they decided to translate from original languages, instead.
No problem with the NT. But regarding the OT, there is just one Hebrew line - the masoretic text. Thats why they used it without much consideration - and that was a mistake, IMHO. Greek churches continue in using Septuagint, RCC is probably still using Vulgate? Not sure. So its mainly a protestant problem/issue.
---------
My response to "which line is correct" - from the historical context, I am very much for the Septuagint line.
1) There is too much Jewish antiChristian agenda behind the masoretic line.
2) The majority of NT places where the OT is quoted is from the Septuagint. So if I want to have a consistent Bible, I must use it.
3) Because it is so massively used in the NT, I think that the authority of apostles and the first Church indicates I should use it too.
The story you tell is made up.
(The technical approach bit is your own notion.)
Origen was a pagan Bible corrupter that invented ecclesiastical texts no common man wanted.
And those are the texts used to invent the Latin Vulgate in the hope of replacing the Old Latin bible, and today’s phony modern bibles.
The result of the Origenic corrupt texts was that the ecclesiastical class used them to bring in the the dark ages of superstition, thinly veiled paganism, and enormous ignorance, as the Roman Empire fell, divided, and went underground.
And the modern corrupt bibles are as Alexandrian as Origen’s office, and are now leading the dumbfounded back into darkness.
Do you know why they invented the monastery system?
To remove seekers of the truth off the streets lest the common man wake up and forsake paganand heathen nonsense masquerading as Christianity.
Can’t have truth out in the streets when the ecclesiastical want to keep people in the dark.
The Holy Bible is on the loose, thank God.
Pray tell us then from your lofty height which available translations merely "slapped Holy Bible on the front"?
Which Bible publishers would you like to accuse of:
1) Not translating
2) Not utilising language scholars
3) Not studying available manuscripts
4) Not praying for guidance
5) simply writing anything and having " Holy Bible" printed on the cover.
Wrong; it's the bible YOU use to attack and condemn others.
What utter closed-minded rubbish.
That is a load of cow chips. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew by a team of scholars before Jesus was born! One can trace the readings quoted by Jesus to the Septuagint!
That's a ridiculous argument, considering that it is the "ecclesiastical texts" that many KJV-onlyists promote as being the "true lineage" of Scripture. Again, your understanding of history is sadly lacking.
What utter closed-minded rubbish.
That is a load of cow chips. The Septuagint was translated from the Hebrew by a team of scholars before Jesus was born! One can trace the readings quoted by Jesus to the Septuagint!
That's a ridiculous argument, considering that it is the "ecclesiastical texts" that many KJV-onlyists promote as being the "true lineage" of Scripture. Again, your understanding of history is sadly lacking.
Not historically true.
Manuscripts of Septuagint´s line of text are older than Origénes (For example DSS).
New Testament´s quotations of the Septuagint readings, too.
Tell me, if you are so paranoid that some Christian theologian (Origénes) corrupted something, why are you totally OK with Jewish antichristian texts? Its like being afraid of rain and but ending up in a river. Origénes could have some strange views of Christ, but Jews hated Christ.
Manuscripts of Septuagint´s line of text are older than Origénes (For example DSS).
New Testament´s quotations of the Septuagint readings, too.
Tell me, if you are so paranoid that some Christian theologian (Origénes) corrupted something, why are you totally OK with Jewish antichristian texts? Its like being afraid of rain and but ending up in a river. Origénes could have some strange views of Christ, but Jews hated Christ.
Last edited: