KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#581
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#581
KJV1611 said:
Now you're getting into some good stuff... doctrine. What serious theological issues do you see me having?
Click to expand...
That the Son is not begotten of the Father :)
 
fredoheaven

fredoheaven

Senior Member
#582
Nov 17, 2015
4,025
940
113
#582
Angela53510 said:
Now this is a decent argument and I appreciate you taking the time to look at the history of the manuscripts, although you have a few things wrong.

First, you don't have a source. In fact, you have manuscripts that do not have the KJV version eudokia with no sigma, of Luke 2:14, but you have also missed others that do have it.

Second, my source is The Greek New Testament 4th Edition by United Bible Societies, just so you know.

Third, the manuscripts below contain the preferred reading, which is eudokias, with the sigma at the end of the word, making it the genitive. God's favour is not the subject of the sentence as in the variation the later texts use, but it is something that could be said to be the OF God (genitive). In other words, the pleasure OF God, is on those people who believe, not some nebulous potential to believe. Otherwise, you have to throw out Scriptures like Eph. 1:4-5, that God not only predestined us, and predestined us before the foundation of the world.

"For He chose us in Him, before the foundation of the world, to be holy and blameless in His sight. In love 5 He predestined us to be adopted through Jesus Christ for Himself, according to His favor and will," Eph. 1:4-5

In other words, God knew long before the angels sang this at the birth of Christ, who had been chosen and predestined before the foundation of the world. His pleasure was on those he had chosen, not a lot of miserable sinners who would never be saved!

א A B D W it vig cop and early church fathers are Origen, Cyril Jerusalem, Gaudentius, Jerome, Augustie, Irenaeus, Athanasius, Hilary Ambrosiaster. Keep in mind "the most manuscripts," especially if they are just more of the same Byzantine tradition, does not make it the best reading!

UBS says that eudoias is the better reading, and in fact it is CERTAIN that eudokias in the Genitive is the right reading. Why, besides the fact that that eudokia, in the nominative is theologically incorrect? Well, because the better reading comes out of the earlier manuscripts, because there was less time for scribes to drop off a sigma, and so forth.

Eudokias

א aleph IV - (century)
B IV
D IV
W IV

Eudokia

E V!
G !X
H VI
K IX
L VIII
M ?
P IX
S ?
U ?
V ?
Gamma ?
Delta IX
Theta IX
Lambda ?
Xi
Psi IX/X
Y VI
Omega ?

Some of the above texts are so insignificant, they do not even rate a mention in the UBS Unical manuscripts. In any case, the earliest manuscripts and the most reliable, dating back to the 4th Century AD, all use eudokias, or the Genitive

The eudokia in the nominative, are in mostly 9th and 10th century texts, with three 6th century manuscripts.

So, which is better, a manuscript dated to less than 400 years after Jesus died,and after the book of Luke was actually written, or add 2 to 5 more centuries, more time for all those bored scribes to make copying mistakes, handed down? It only really takes one scribe leaving off the sigma and then it being copied over and over, for it to be considered a copyist mistake, which is probably the case for all those much later manuscripts. In addition, if the 4th manuscripts have a sigma, they certainly did not add it to 9th and 10th manuscripts that would not even exist for 5 or 6 centuries!

Finally, I do agree with you, that there are no "men of good will." We are certainly all sinners, and all born rebels. BUT, that is not what the other versions say!

“Glory to God in the highest,
And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased." NASB

"“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!” ESV

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” NIV

"“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among people with whom he is pleased!” NET

Eudokia (feminine noun) has nothing to do with "good will" at all. It has to do with God's favour, or in whom he is pleased.

Bauer (BDAG)
1. State or condition of being kindly disposed
2. state of condition of being favoured, favour, good pleasure. It refers to people on whom divine favour rests.
3. desire, usually directed towards something that causes satisfaction or favour, wish, desire.

#2 is obviously what is being said in this verse, since God himself is pleased with these people, or favours them.

Other uses of this, include:

"he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will—" Eph. 1:5

"And a voice came from heaven, “You are my beloved Son; with you I am well pleased.” Mark 1:11 (God to Jesus after his baptism!)


So, in fact, God's favour or pleasure rests solely on those he has predestined. Surely, even the shepherds who heard the angels sing this, understood this! Israel had been God's chosen people, and now, with the advent of the birth of Christ, all those God chose before the foundation of the world would receive the favour of a sovereign God, who had chosen a new people - believers in Christ.

Of course, this is a different theological debate. The fact is, the mistranslation contained in the later manuscripts, point directly to universalism.

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." Luke 2:14 KJV

There is no good will, or more correctly "favour" or "pleasure" with sinners. You have actually contradicted yourself, saying we are all born sinners, rebels, (and I agree!) and yet even though we are all wicked sinners, God bestowed his favour on the whole world? He was pleased with evil sinners? The only way that can happen, is that Jesus death on the cross made everyone in the world saved, regardless of what they believe, so he is pleased with them!

You can't have God being pleased with sinners. Either the whole world has to be saved, and therefore Christianity is universalism, or God only bestows his favour, or is pleased with those who believe in Christ. So which is it?

Therefore, the certain manuscript evidence, and the theological implications of universalism, indicate that the reading is definitely eudokias, in the genitive, and there is peace on earth among those whom [God] is pleased. Believers only!
Click to expand...
Basic error is to disregard Ancient Versions and citation of the church fathers to determine veracity of the English text. Ancient versions like syriac etc. are basically older than SIN-VAT.
 
Lucy-Pevensie

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
#585
Dec 20, 2017
9,273
5,635
113
#585
joefizz said:
not even looking at one whole page I see where this thread went sour...
Click to expand...
It was sour from the very first post. The thread title is a divisive statement. 'KJV Vs Modern English Bibles' There is no need for it. They are not now, nor were they ever opposed. This is a control issue.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#589
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#589
SovereignGrace said:
Who is the seed? The Christ.

Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ.[Galatians 3:15,16]
Click to expand...
The verse says the incorruptible seed is the word of God.

1 Peter 1:23 King James Version (KJV)

23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.

You know I could care less if you prove me wrong or beat me in an argument or make fun of me all day long. but please, please, please DON'T LEAD OTHER PEOPLE ASTRAY ON THESE VERSES. The incurruptble seed is the written word of God.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#591
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#591
KJV1611 said:
Jesus DID NOT come out of the Father trof, he and the father are one. :)
Click to expand...
"We believe in...
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father."

Nicene Creed.

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

Athanasian Creed

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, my God."

Heb 10:7



----

I am afraid you are wrong. They are one, but Son is begotten of the Father.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#592
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#592
trofimus said:
"We believe in...
in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten from the Father before all ages, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made; of the same essence as the Father."

Nicene Creed.

"The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding."

Athanasian Creed

"Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said: "Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me;
with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased. Then I said, 'Here I am--it is written about me in the scroll-- I have come to do your will, my God."

Heb 10:7



----

I am afraid you are wrong. They are one, but Son is begotten of the Father.
Click to expand...
Alrigthy then.... please explain how God begat Jesus before Mary.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#593
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#593
KJV1611 said:
Alrigthy then.... please explain how God begat Jesus before Mary.
Click to expand...
I do not think I am able to explain to you, how exactly/technically is Son begotten of the Father. Its a matter of faith. The same with Triunity or Jesus being fully man and fully God.

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18
 
Last edited:
J

John146

Senior Member
#594
Jan 13, 2016
16,794
3,573
113
#594
SovereignGrace said:
I think its hilarious the lengths they go to support this KJV supremacy heresy.
Click to expand...
Likewise, the lengths the other side will go to prove that the same God who gave us His word and commanded us to live by His word, has not made good on His promise to preserve His word for us today but what we have at best is full of errors.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#595
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#595
trofimus said:
I do not think I am able to explain to you, how exactly/technically is Son begotten of the Father. Its a matter of faith. The same with Triunity or Jesus being fully man and fully God.

"No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known."
J 1:18
Click to expand...
Begotten of the father means the earthly body of Jesus, that's all it's talking about. Jesus and God are the same being , one didn't come out of the other.

[h=1]Psalm 2:7 King James Version (KJV)[/h]7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This verse "this day have I begotten thee" is prophetic of the earthly coming of Christ, it's not something that happened in eternity past.
 
MarcR

MarcR

Senior Member
#596
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
183
63
#596
My usual position is that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie and an error.

You can find that statement in many of my earlier posts. When people attempt to ascribe a status of unique inspiration to the KJV; and attack other versions as unsound; I am led to show that the KJV is equally flawed. I am quite content to regard none of them as flawed; but if the KJVO adherents keep attacking other versions, I will show that the KJV is not exempt.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#597
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#597
MarcR said:
My usual position is that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie and an error.

You can find that statement in many of my earlier posts. When people attempt to ascribe a status of unique inspiration to the KJV; and attack other versions as unsound; I am led to show that the KJV is equally flawed. I am quite content to regard none of them as flawed; but if the KJVO adherents keep attacking other versions, I will show that the KJV is not exempt.
Click to expand...
Would you mind explaining your view of this passage?
Are we born again by the word of God?

[h=1]1 Peter 1:23-25 King James Version (KJV)[/h]23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
24 For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#598
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#598
KJV1611 said:
Begotten of the father means the earthly body of Jesus, that's all it's talking about. Jesus and God are the same being , one didn't come out of the other.

[h=1]Psalm 2:7 King James Version (KJV)[/h]7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This verse "this day have I begotten thee" is prophetic of the earthly coming of Christ, it's not something that happened in eternity past.
Click to expand...
As you can see in ancient Christian creeds I posted, your view is not Christian.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#599
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#599
trofimus said:
As you can see in ancient Christian creeds I posted, your view is not Christian.
Click to expand...
I don't think anybody on this forum believes that God begat Jesus in eternity past. That is not a Christian creed, maybe its a catholic creed or something but not christian.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#600
Jan 13, 2016
16,794
3,573
113
#600
MarcR said:
My usual position is that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie and an error.

You can find that statement in many of my earlier posts. When people attempt to ascribe a status of unique inspiration to the KJV; and attack other versions as unsound; I am led to show that the KJV is equally flawed. I am quite content to regard none of them as flawed; but if the KJVO adherents keep attacking other versions, I will show that the KJV is not exempt.
Click to expand...
You do understand that the the versions contain different truths. Does God contradict Himself? You can't have it your way and then attach the Lord to it. Either one of them is the word of God and only one, or none. There is no other choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.