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.
J

John146

Senior Member
#2,841
Jan 13, 2016
16,945
3,622
113
#2,841
trofimus said:
God is not bound by anything except of His own character.

That does not imply that His word is perfect only in one specific translation from the 17th century.
Click to expand...
You're right, but it does validate the possibility and that a translation can be 100% trustworthy and without error.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,842
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,842
John146 said:
You're right, but it does validate the possibility and that a translation can be 100% trustworthy and without error.
Click to expand...
It does not. Because you cannot use a general characteristics of God to defend your specific view just because "its possible".
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#2,845
Jan 13, 2016
16,945
3,622
113
#2,845
trofimus said:
It does not. Because you cannot use a general characteristics of God to defend your specific view just because "its possible".
Click to expand...
We see the exact examples throughout Scripture, so yes, it is possible that a translation can be perfect, pure and without error the word of God.
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,847
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,847
John146 said:
We see the exact examples throughout Scripture, so yes, it is possible that a translation can be perfect, pure and without error the word of God.
Click to expand...
It is possible. That does not mean that the KJV is that.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,848
Jun 30, 2015
25,043
13,576
113
#2,848
John146 said:
We see the exact examples throughout Scripture, so yes, it is possible that a translation can be perfect, pure and without error the word of God.
Click to expand...
Where in Scripture does it state that any translation recorded in Scripture is "pure, perfect and without error"?

Or is this just your baseless assumption?

John146 said:
"To argue with a person who has renounced that God can and has preserved His word for us today is like administering medicine to the dead."​ John146, Bible believer
Click to expand...
One can only renounce something that one formerly believed. No verse or passage of Scripture promises the preservation of Scripture for all generations. It does promise that the word of God will stand forever, but it does that without regard to translation.

Before you try Psalm 12:7, re-read it carefully, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
 
J

John146

Senior Member
#2,849
Jan 13, 2016
16,945
3,622
113
#2,849
Dino246 said:
Where in Scripture does it state that any translation recorded in Scripture is "pure, perfect and without error"?

Or is this just your baseless assumption?



One can only renounce something that one formerly believed. No verse or passage of Scripture promises the preservation of Scripture for all generations. It does promise that the word of God will stand forever, but it does that without regard to translation.

Before you try Psalm 12:7, re-read it carefully, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
Click to expand...
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

The "original" Scriptures had translations throughout. Are you stating that these translations within the "originals" are not inspired by God?

Has God given us His word, commanded us to live by His word, and not preserved it for us today? Wow! Has God just left us out? Are we to live by translations and versions that contain errors? Is that what God wants for us?
 
trofimus

trofimus

Senior Member
#2,850
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
#2,850
John146 said:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

The "original" Scriptures had translations throughout. Are you stating that these translations within the "originals" are not inspired by God?

Has God given us His word, commanded us to live by His word, and not preserved it for us today? Wow! Has God just left us out? Are we to live by translations and versions that contain errors? Is that what God wants for us?
Click to expand...
Still no reason to believe that the KJV is special.
 
KJV1611

KJV1611

Banned
#2,852
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#2,852
Dino246 said:
Where in Scripture does it state that any translation recorded in Scripture is "pure, perfect and without error"?

Or is this just your baseless assumption?



One can only renounce something that one formerly believed. No verse or passage of Scripture promises the preservation of Scripture for all generations. It does promise that the word of God will stand forever, but it does that without regard to translation.

Before you try Psalm 12:7, re-read it carefully, because it doesn't say what you seem to think it says.
Click to expand...
2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

God commands every believer to study the word of truth and then doesn’t give them the word of truth to study? Is thIs what you’re saying or am I taking your statement wrong?
 
Last edited:
J

John146

Senior Member
#2,854
Jan 13, 2016
16,945
3,622
113
#2,854
KJV1611 said:
2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

God commands every believer to study the word of truth and then doesn’t give them the word if truth to study? Is thIs what you’re saying or am I taking your statement wrong?
Click to expand...
John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

If we want to be sanctified, we need the word of truth.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,856
Jun 30, 2015
25,043
13,576
113
#2,856
John146 said:
I just don't want to exalt or place more emphasis on the "originals" than God.
Click to expand...
Understandable, and this is one point for which I give you credit. However, there is a vast difference between putting unnecessary emphasis on the originals and assuming that any translation is perfect. It's a non sequitur. There is still enormous value in studying the text in its original language, even if the original "autographs" are not available.
 
Dino246

Dino246

Senior Member
#2,857
Jun 30, 2015
25,043
13,576
113
#2,857
John146 said:
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God..."

The "original" Scriptures had translations throughout. Are you stating that these translations within the "originals" are not inspired by God?
Click to expand...
You're conflating two concepts: "pure, perfect, and without error", and "inspired". The two are not synonymous.

John146 said:
Has God given us His word, commanded us to live by His word, and not preserved it for us today? Wow! Has God just left us out? Are we to live by translations and versions that contain errors? Is that what God wants for us?
Click to expand...
Is God's word available in every language? Has it always been available in every language? Um, no. History and the current need for Bible translation refutes this line of argumentation.

You're also ignoring the words of the Preface to the Reader... again.

KJV1611 said:
2 Timothy 2:15 King James Version (KJV)

15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

God commands every believer to study the word of truth and then doesn’t give them the word of truth to study? Is thIs what you’re saying or am I taking your statement wrong?
Click to expand...
See what I wrote to John146 above. You are taking my statement incorrectly, by the way.
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Senior Member
#2,858
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2,858
trofimus said:
I do not think so. It was destroyed by Persian empire and therefore Persia became dominant after Babylon.

"Babylon was founded by Nabopolassar(625B.C.), consolidated by Nebuchadnezzar(604-562), and destroyed by Cyrus the Persian(538).

It lasted almost exactly seventy years and the period of its existence was almost the same period as the Babylonian captivity of the Jews(606-536).

With its destruction was fulfilled the prophecy of Jeremiah: 'The Lord has stirred up the fury of the kings of Medes; because his device is against Babylon to destroy it; for it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance for his temple'(Jer.51:11,24; Isa. 13:17).

But at the same time with the fall of Babylon the whole world rule of the Semitic race collapsed permanently(538B.C.). "

Erich Sauer, The Dawn of World Redemption
Click to expand...
In Daniel 6, was Darius over Mede-Persia? Was he under Cyrus the Persian?
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Senior Member
#2,859
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2,859
Part 1...


[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] In Daniel chapter 5, a Babylonian king by the name of Belshazzar mocks God by throwing a party with articles taken from the Jewish temple. As a result God passes judgment on Belshazzar by taking away his kingdom and dividing it between the Medes and Persians.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Bible critics love to use this story to point out apparent historical errors in the text, trying to disprove the accuracy of the bible. [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] The first thing they say is that the last King to rule the empire of Babylon before being destroyed by the Medes and Persians, was a man by the name of Nabonidus not Belshazzar. [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Secondly, Belshazzar was never a King of Babylon. And third the bible refers to Nebuchadnezzar as the father of Belshazzar, which he wasn't. [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] But these statements made by the Bible critics are full of half truths.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] First of all, Belshazzar's name is found in history, and he just happens to be the son of King Nabonidus, making him a crown prince in the kingdom of Babylon. Although some translations of the bible state that Nebuchadnezzar was his father, the Hebrew word for father can also be interpreted into English as meaning grandfather or ancestor. And in fact, Belshazzar was a blood line descendent of Nebuchadnezzar.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] The same goes for the fact that the Bible calls Belshazzar a king. Even though historical records do not mention he was a king, the Hebrew word for king can also be interpreted as governor or royal prince. And history records that he was both.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 470"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
SovereignGrace

SovereignGrace

Senior Member
#2,860
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
#2,860
Part 2...

[TABLE]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]Nabonidus, who ruled the empire of Babylon from 555-538 B.C., mentions his firstborn son Belshazzar on an inscription found in the city of Ur in 1853. The inscription reads:[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] "May it be that I, Nabonidus, king of Babylon, never fail you. And may my firtstborn, Belshazzar, worship you with all his heart." BM91228[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Another piece of evidence for Belshazzar's reign in the city of Babylon comes from an inscription where he is referred to as the son of Nabonidus and is given authority to rule.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] "Putting the camp under the rule of his[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]oldest son, the firstborn. The army of the empire[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]he placed under his command. His hands[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]were now free; He entrusted the authority of[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]the royal throne to him." [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]BM38299[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]
[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Yet even another piece of evidence comes from a tablet dating back to the seventh year of the reign of Nabonidus, where he is mentioned in the same light as his father:[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] “In regards to the bright star which has appeared, I will undertake to interpret its meaning for the glory of my lord Nabonidus, Babylon’s king, and also for the crown prince, Belshazzar”[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] YBC2192[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] What is interesting to note is that on this oath, the man swore by both Nabonidus and Belshazzar. While on oaths dating back to other times, generally only the king is mentioned. This seems to indicate that Belshazzar had a co-reigning authority that was second only to his father throughout all the Empire. [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]
[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]This backs up the Bible completely: [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]
[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] Belshazzar speaking to Daniel in chapter 5 verse 16 says: ..... "Now if you can read the writing and make known to me its interpretation, you shall be clothed with purple and have a chain of gold around your neck, [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom."[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] (Here Belshazzar indicates he was the second highest ruler in Babylon and not the first.) [/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] We also know that at the time the Medes and Persians captured the Babylon, Nabonidus was not living in the city of Babylon, but was staying in a place called Teima in the northern part of Arabia. Leaving his son back home in charge of governing the city.[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif] The text from an artifact known as the[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]Nabonidus chronicle states: Nabonidus, the king[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]stayed in Tema; the crown prince, his officials[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="width: 476"][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, Sanserif]and the troops were in Akkad. BM35382[/FONT][/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.