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
#2,281
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,281
KJV1611 said:
If a person looks at the bible as history book instead of a book to know Jesus Christ then I would agree but the bible isn't a history book to record a pagan Babylonian kings words.
Click to expand...
So is it right to change also other KJV verses? For a better clarity?

Or, they must stay in their "unclear" state just because... you know... the KJV is perfect? (Double standard).

O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
Dan 4:9
 
Lucy-Pevensie

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
#2,283
Dec 20, 2017
9,382
5,721
113
#2,283
KJV1611 said:
This has nothing to do with the words of a babylonian king, it has to do with taking something that was clear in the KJV and obscuring.
Click to expand...
The KJ is not the starting point. The whole thing would still have been translated faithfully if the KJV had never existed.

No one changed the KJV to make it obscure. It isn't in the equation at all.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,284
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
#2,284
KJV1611 said:
If a person looks at the bible as history book instead of a book to know Jesus Christ then I would agree but the bible isn't a history book to record a pagan Babylonian kings words.
Click to expand...
This is a dangerous view! If the Bible is not historically accurate, it's not truthful. Perhaps you should rethink this. :)
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,285
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,285
Dino246 said:
Correlation does not indicate intentional design. In the Hebrew Bible, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are one book each. The minor prophets are grouped together in one book.
Click to expand...
I don't know anything about the Hebrew bible, does it contain the New Testament?
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,286
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,286
trofimus said:
So is it right to change also other KJV verses? For a better clarity?

Or, they must stay in their "unclear" state just because... you know... the KJV is perfect? (Double standard).

O Belteshazzar, master of the magicians, because I know that the spirit of the holy gods is in thee, and no secret troubleth thee, tell me the visions of my dream that I have seen, and the interpretation thereof.
Dan 4:9
Click to expand...
Are you kidding me, the KJV made all kinds of changes for better clarity.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,287
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,287
Lucy-Pevensie said:
The KJ is not the starting point. The whole thing would still have been translated faithfully if the KJV had never existed.

No one changed the KJV to make it obscure. It isn't in the equation at all.
Click to expand...
Who was in the furnace?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,288
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,288
KJV1611 said:
Are you kidding me, the KJV made all kinds of changes for better clarity.
Click to expand...
So "the spirit of gods" was in Daniel? This is theologically clear?

"Are you kidding me"? :) If the KJV intentionally changed one place, they forgot 4 more.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,289
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,289
Dino246 said:
This is a dangerous view! If the Bible is not historically accurate, it's not truthful. Perhaps you should rethink this. :)
Click to expand...
Do you think God is trying to preserve the words of a pagan king or preaching the gospel in the old testament in that verse?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,290
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,290
KJV1611 said:
Do you think God is trying to preserve the words of a pagan king or preaching the gospel in the old testament in that verse?
Click to expand...
You forgot that it was the KJV in the 17th century that changed it. So the gospel was not preached in the Old testament in this verse, but from 17th century.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,291
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,291
trofimus said:
So "the spirit of gods" was in Daniel? This is theologically clear?

"Are you kidding me"? :) If the KJV intentionally changed one place, they forgot 4 more.
Click to expand...
Or maybe they were inspired to change it in only one place.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,292
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,292
KJV1611 said:
Do you think God is trying to preserve the words of a pagan king or preaching the gospel in the old testament in that verse?
Click to expand...
With such a view, what else is not historically true in the Bible? Words of Moses? Words of Jesus? Words of Paul? What can be changed for "better gospel preaching"?
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,294
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
#2,294
KJV1611 said:
So who do you think it was, a son of the gods or the Son of God?
Click to expand...
You're clouding the issue. What I or any reader thinks about who it was doesn't change what Nebuchadnezzar said. Obviously I don't think it was anything of "the gods". I'm perfectly comfortable with it having been either an angel or Jesus Himself, and what the king said doesn't define who it actually was.

Look at it this way: do you take the words of a child as accurate and definitive? Would you demand that a child's words be recorded accurately, or that they be redacted to represent objective truth? In my view the accurate record of the statement is more important in this case than the accuracy of the statement. The point is that the king recognized something very special had happened, and that a fourth personage appeared in the furnace.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,295
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,295
trofimus said:
You forgot that it was the KJV in the 17th century that changed it. So the gospel was not preached in the Old testament in this verse, but from 17th century.
Click to expand...
How would I know, I don't study original languages or pre KJV texts.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,296
Jun 30, 2015
25,325
13,713
113
#2,296
KJV1611 said:
Do you think God is trying to preserve the words of a pagan king or preaching the gospel in the old testament in that verse?
Click to expand...
KJV1611 said:
Or maybe they were inspired to change it in only one place.
Click to expand...
What I think is that you're grasping at straws to make this consistent with your exalted view of the KJV.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,297
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,297
Dino246 said:
You're clouding the issue. What I or any reader thinks about who it was doesn't change what Nebuchadnezzar said. Obviously I don't think it was anything of "the gods". I'm perfectly comfortable with it having been either an angel or Jesus Himself, and what the king said doesn't define who it actually was.

Look at it this way: do you take the words of a child as accurate and definitive? Would you demand that a child's words be recorded accurately, or that they be redacted to represent objective truth? In my view the accurate record of the statement is more important in this case than the accuracy of the statement. The point is that the king recognized something very special had happened, and that a fourth personage appeared in the furnace.
Click to expand...
We can agree to disagree. :)
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,298
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,298
KJV1611 said:
How would I know, I don't study original languages or pre KJV texts.
Click to expand...
I know. I am not talking about what is actually more authentic. Septuagint has also "son of God."

I am talking about your position that we can change what the Bible says to make it better.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,299
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,299
Dino246 said:
What I think is that you're grasping at straws to make this consistent with your exalted view of the KJV.
Click to expand...
What's the straw grasping? Can God inspire translators to write whatever he wants written - of course he can. I don't understand how I'm grasping at straws.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,300
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,300
trofimus said:
I know. I am not talking about what is actually more authentic. Septuagint has also "son of God."

I am talking about your position that we can change what the Bible says to make it better.
Click to expand...
God can change whatever he wants to change. Hopefully you realize the whole new testament is contained in the old testament through types and foreshadows. All God did in the New Testament was bring those same thoughts and ideas into more clarity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.