KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

Where's your evidence for this.

Dead Sea Scrolls is a "library" of various textual variants of OT books. A mixture, a collection.

Then, Septuagint and probably other Greek translations were in general use in Greek speaking world (Timothy).

Then, some kind of temple Scripture line. Independent synagogues having their own made copies, probably some kind of proto-masoretic text.

Then, Samaritan textual variant of Pentateuch.

And these ones are just from the top of my head.

 

[KJV1611]

Dead Sea Scrolls is a "library" of various textual variants of OT books. A mixture, a collection.

Then, Septuagint and probably other Greek translations were in general use in Greek speaking world (Timothy).

Then, some kind of temple Scripture line. Independent synagogues having their own made copies, probably some kind of proto-masoretic text.

Then, Samaritan textual variant of Pentateuch.

And these ones are just from the top of my head.

I believe the inerrant one was the one Jesus read out of when he quoted Isaiah. There’s nothing new under the sun, they had multiple versions and just like us they had to decide which was the inerrant word of truth.

 

[trofimus]

I believe the inerrant one was the one Jesus read out of when he quoted Isaiah. There’s nothing new under the sun, they had multiple versions and just like us they had to decide which was the inerrant word of truth.

OK, but you are talking about what Paul written to Timothy, not what Jesus read in the synagogue....

BTW, have you checked your KJV Isaiah whether it fits perfectly with Jesus´ reading?

 

[KJV1611]

I’m out for a few hours.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I didnt say it was about the KJV or 17th century, it’s for all times and languages. The verse doesn’t say “words of truth”, it says The word of truth. Obviously it’s talking about scripture.

Im just saying that the preservation of Gods perfect word is a doctrine found on the Bible. When there are multiple versions it’s up to the reader to figure out which version it is.

May I ask, if you have no problem accepting that God's word can be (and is) preserved in more than one language. Why then can it not be preserved in different types of the same language? Different dialects?

Can we not credit The Lord God with a unique ability to communicate on many levels? He went to the extreme length of making himself a sacrifice to save us. Surely it isn't beyond God to speak in numerous ways to mankind? I put it to you that 'Onlyism' is out of character for our God.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

 

[Dino246]

And where would a person nowadays find the written word of truth?

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on 2 Timothy 2:15.
If the inerrant word of truth doesn't exist today then how are we supposed to do 2 Timothy 2:15?

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.

Im just saying that the preservation of Gods perfect word is a doctrine found on the Bible. When there are multiple versions it’s up to the reader to figure out which version it is.

I believe you're using a circular argument. You already believe that there is a doctrine of preservation, and you're using 2 Timothy 2:15 to support it. If by "the word of truth", Paul meant the Scriptures, it was the Old Testament. He knew the OT extensively, and argued with Jews, proving "from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ". Of course we now include the NT in "the word of truth".

Regarding your direct question to me, I consider most translations to be "the word of truth" - NIV, NASB and KJV are the ones I'm familiar with. I would specifically exclude the cult-corrupted versions such as NWT and Joseph Smith versions. I've read The Message and consider it a great introduction to Scripture but I think it lacks the precision needed for study.

You include the word, "inerrant" in your second post. That's a red herring. You believe the KJV to be without any error; I disagree. For me, that doesn't preclude it being the word of truth, because I am capable of studying and understanding the truth behind the error.

 

[MarcR]

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

If you look at the genealogy of Shem you will see that Elam(Persia) is also Semitic.

 

[trofimus]

If you look at the genealogy of Shem you will see that Elam(Persia) is also Semitic.

Why do you think that Elam and Persia are genetically related?

All sources I have googled say that Medes/Persians were of Japhet...

 

[MarcR]

I think you two are arguing cross-purposes (SovereignGrace & KJV1611). You are both right. Isaiah 14 is speaking of the attempt of Satan and man to ascend and usurp God's authority. Read it all again and then look at the beast man of revelation.
(The Antichrist fellow you know is coming) And look at Daniel Chapter 11:36-39

Nebuchadnezzar is used in several places in scripture as a type of Antichrist as well as Hiram, King of Tyre, The Assyrian King and others in near/far fulfilment. You claimed to be a god! but you will be brought down to the pit! Prophecy is in some ways like the history of the future. There is a detailed clue to his identiy in the Hebrew (Semitic) term used in Isaiah that the KJV has covered over with the Latin title 'lucifer', though lucifer does reveal it in part. Scripture frequently uses stars as representation of angles. (you have likely noticed this)

I can do a whole teaching on this that would take up pages but I'm not supposed to teach men
I will remind my brothers though that this collection of books we love is Middle Eastern in outlook. Not American or European.

I believe that the restriction on women teaching men is limited to in the churches. If you have something of value to share; I, for one, would welcome it so there would be no possible usurpation.

 

[preston39]

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on 2 Timothy 2:15.
If the inerrant word of truth doesn't exist today then how are we supposed to do 2 Timothy 2:15?

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.

K....,

I have always been a firm believer that if our hearts have been prepared.......repentance, baptism and we are living a righteous life ......G-d ...thru The Holy Spirit..will guide us with a proper understanding of the intent of His word.

After all....... only those three things are required of us to meet G-d's expectations and award us the status of ...saved.....and eternal salvation.

 

[MarcR]

Why do you think that Elam and Persia are genetically related?

All sources I have googled say that Medes/Persians were of Japhet...

ELAM

The Elam of Scripture appears to be the province lying south of Assyria and east of Persia Proper, to which Herodotus gives the name of Cissia (3:91; verse 49, etc.), and which is in part termed Susis or Susiana by the geographers (Strab. 15:3, § 12; Ptolem. 6:3, etc.). It includes a portion of the mountainous country separating between the Mesopotamian plain and the high table-land of Iran, together with a fertile and valuable low tract at the foot of the range, between it and the Tigris. The passage of Daniel (8:2) which places Shushan (Susa) in "the province of Elam," may be regarded as decisive of this identification, which is further confirmed by the frequent mention of Elymseans in this district (Strab. 11:13, § 6; 16:1, § 17; Ptolem. 6:3; Plin. H.N. 6:26, etc.), as well as by the combinations in which Elam is found in Scripture (see Gen 14:1; Isa 21:2; Ezek 32:24). It appears from Gen 10:22, that this country was originally peopled by descendants of Shem, closely allied to the Aramaeans (Syrians) and the Assyrians; and from Gen 14:1-12, it is evident that by the time of Abraham a very important power had been built up in the same region. Not only is "Chedorlaomer, king of Elam," at the head of a settled government, and able to make war at a distance of two thousand miles from his own country,
(from McClintock and Strong Encyclopedia, Electronic Database. Copyright © 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)


ELAM

1. Son of Shem (Gen 10:22). The name is Semitic. The Elamites gave their name to Elymais, the region on the left or E. bank of the Tigris, opposite Babylonia, between it on the W. and Persia proper on the E., and S.W. of Media. The region is also named Susiana or Susis from its capital Susa, called Shushah in Dan 8:2, where Nehemiah (Neh 1:1) waited on king Artaxerxes, and where Ahasuerus (Xerxes) held his court in Esther's (Est 1:2; 2:5) time. Daniel mentions the river Ulai near, i.e. the Greek Euloeus. From Darius Hystaspes' time to Alexander the Great it was the Persian king's court residence.
(from Fausset's Bible Dictionary, Electronic Database Copyright © 1998, 2003, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

 

[MarcR]

Why do you think that Elam and Persia are genetically related?

All sources I have googled say that Medes/Persians were of Japhet...

I can see that a japhephite people inhabited Persia but Susa of Elam was the Persian Capitol at the time of Daniel.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Now you're proving why "all bibles have mistakes" is such a detriment to our ability to understand the word of God. Instead of searching the scriptures to understand why Isaiah 14 refers to Satan as a man you immediately try to change the words of the bible to fit your current level of biblical understanding and COMPLETELY MISS the lesson God is teaching by referring to Satan as a man.

Why was your first and only action to condemn the KJV as being wrong instead of investigating WHY Satan is being a man referred to a man in those verses?

A Latin word inserted into a Hebrew text and ppl know saying Lucifer is another name for Satan, and a pagan goddess used in lieu of Passover, and now the day we use to remember our Christ's resurrection, has a pagan culture intertwined into the Christ's resurrection, are just two examples of mistakes in your beloved KJV.

 

[Icetech]

REVELATION 22 [19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

Welcome, Shelley

Was there a particular reason that you quoted this particular verse in this particular thread?

Perhaps she is pointing out that there are some verses found in the King James Bible that aren't found in modern translations which would imply that someone took "away from the words" of the Bible.

 

[Dino246]

Perhaps she is pointing out that there are some verses found in the King James Bible that aren't found in modern translations which would imply that someone took "away from the words" of the Bible.

I'm well aware of what she "might" be pointing out... but as she is new and I don't know already what she thinks on the matter, I will await her response.

 

[KJV1611]

OK, but you are talking about what Paul written to Timothy, not what Jesus read in the synagogue....

BTW, have you checked your KJV Isaiah whether it fits perfectly with Jesus´ reading?

Study to show thyself approved has always been true even before Paul wrote it to Timothy. What I was getting at was that the old testament scripture is what they would have studied at the time and before the time Paul wrote it.

You kill me with this "the old testament qoutes are wrong" stuff... I've already explained to you that they are paraphrases and not quotes.

 

[KJV1611]

May I ask, if you have no problem accepting that God's word can be (and is) preserved in more than one language. Why then can it not be preserved in different types of the same language? Different dialects?

Can we not credit The Lord God with a unique ability to communicate on many levels? He went to the extreme length of making himself a sacrifice to save us. Surely it isn't beyond God to speak in numerous ways to mankind? I put it to you that 'Onlyism' is out of character for our God.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23 New International Version (NIV)

19 Though I am free and belong to no one, I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

I'm sure God could do that if he wanted, maybe he even did it but I haven't seen another inerrant bible besides the KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

I believe you're using a circular argument. You already believe that there is a doctrine of preservation, and you're using 2 Timothy 2:15 to support it. If by "the word of truth", Paul meant the Scriptures, it was the Old Testament. He knew the OT extensively, and argued with Jews, proving "from the Scriptures that Jesus is the Christ". Of course we now include the NT in "the word of truth".

My belief about preservation has no bearing on "the word of truth", the very words dictate that every word is true.

Regarding your direct question to me, I consider most translations to be "the word of truth" - NIV, NASB and KJV are the ones I'm familiar with. I would specifically exclude the cult-corrupted versions such as NWT and Joseph Smith versions. I've read The Message and consider it a great introduction to Scripture but I think it lacks the precision needed for study.

All those bibles contain errors not just in my view but in your view also, so by definition and common sense, all of the bibles can't be the word of truth. Why does the meaning of those words change just because they're talking about the bible?

You include the word, "inerrant" in your second post. That's a red herring. You believe the KJV to be without any error; I disagree. For me, that doesn't preclude it being the word of truth, because I am capable of studying and understanding the truth behind the error.

If what you say is true, the KJV has errors, then the KJV is not the word of truth either. You say that you're capable of understanding the truth behind the errors but yet the passage we are talking about proves that you can't. The bible says "the word of truth" and yet you're saying it's not the word of truth because it has errors.

It seems to me that you have replaced the actual words with your idea of what the word of truth is... isn't that by definition called circular reasoning? Your starting with the preconceived notion that the bible has errors and then changing the meaning of the words to match your preconceived notion instead of letting the actual words define themeselves.

 

[preston39]

My belief about preservation has no bearing on "the word of truth", the very words dictate that every word is true.


All those bibles contain errors not just in my view but in your view also, so by definition and common sense, all of the bibles can't be the word of truth. Why does the meaning of those words change just because they're talking about the bible?



If what you say is true, the KJV has errors, then the KJV is not the word of truth either. You say that you're capable of understanding the truth behind the errors but yet the passage we are talking about proves that you can't. The bible says "the word of truth" and yet you're saying it's not the word of truth because it has errors.

It seems to me that you have replaced the actual words with your idea of what the word of truth is... isn't that by definition called circular reasoning? Your starting with the preconceived notion that the bible has errors and then changing the meaning of the words to match your preconceived notion instead of letting the actual words define themeselves.

K...,

You have hit on a very good point here;

The new age religion type.....uses man's errors in scriptures as a basis for adopting and infusing his own words and interpretation to achieve a liberal more wide meaning.

Sad.

I have not seen a man made error in scripture which has anything to do with our guidelines to live by.

 

[KJV1611]

K....,

I have always been a firm believer that if our hearts have been prepared.......repentance, baptism and we are living a righteous life ......G-d ...thru The Holy Spirit..will guide us with a proper understanding of the intent of His word.

After all....... only those three things are required of us to meet G-d's expectations and award us the status of ...saved.....and eternal salvation.

If that statement were true "The Holy Spirit..will guide us with a proper understanding of the intent of His word." then all of us would be in complete agreement as all of us are being led by the same Holy Spirit.

John covers this very well in John 16:13. He says that the Spirit of truth will guide us into all truth using the following method.

The Spirit of truth will only speak what he HEARS FROM YOU. If you're not giving the Spirit "the word of truth" then a) he isn't going to speak or b) he is going to speak the error you have given him. I believe the first statement, he isn't going to speak, is what he will do.

John 16:13 King James Version (KJV)

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.