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.
Do you know what the original manuscripts say?
If not, it is pointless to speculate about what the verse in either the KJV or the NIV is trying to communicate....
How do you know the translators of the NIV were trying to imply that Jesus Christ had a finite beginning?
Given the way that the KJV has translated the same passage it is clear that ANY English translation is going to struggle to capture the full meaning of the passage since both are phrased so clumsily....
If not, it is pointless to speculate about what the verse in either the KJV or the NIV is trying to communicate....
How do you know the translators of the NIV were trying to imply that Jesus Christ had a finite beginning?
Given the way that the KJV has translated the same passage it is clear that ANY English translation is going to struggle to capture the full meaning of the passage since both are phrased so clumsily....
Are you actually questioning whether or not the originals said Jesus had an origin? Let me help you out here. Jesus didn't have a beginning, so any copies of originals that say he did have an origin are fake, they aren't the real original.
So now answer the question I asked, where does the KJV say Jesus had an origin? If you want to concede and admit the obivious then I'll let it go and we can move on to some other KJV "error".
So now answer the question I asked, where does the KJV say Jesus had an origin? If you want to concede and admit the obivious then I'll let it go and we can move on to some other KJV "error".
Again you right royally confused....
Until you KNOW what the original languages manuscripts ACTUALLY say any attempt at ascribing either translation as truth or error is nothing but but pure speculation!
For what is worth I firmly believe Jesus Christ to be eternal i.e. without an origin...
However it DOES NOT answer the question as to which, if any, of the translations is correct, and which, if any, of the translations is in error, and which, if any translation, could do with a better rendering in English to explain the meaning of the text in question!
The answer has to lie in the manuscripts themselves NOT a theological presupposition as to its meaning as translated into English....
Until you KNOW what the original languages manuscripts ACTUALLY say any attempt at ascribing either translation as truth or error is nothing but but pure speculation!
For what is worth I firmly believe Jesus Christ to be eternal i.e. without an origin...
However it DOES NOT answer the question as to which, if any, of the translations is correct, and which, if any, of the translations is in error, and which, if any translation, could do with a better rendering in English to explain the meaning of the text in question!
The answer has to lie in the manuscripts themselves NOT a theological presupposition as to its meaning as translated into English....
No they're not.
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.[Acts 12:1-4]
The 'Festival of Unleavened Bread' and the 'Passover' have NOTHING to do with Easter at all. These were Christ-rejecting Jews who were still observing these Jewish customs.
You can either go around with a burlap sack over your head or realize the KJV translators made a YUGE GAFFE when they inserted 'Easter' in lieu of 'Pasha'.
It was about this time that King Herod arrested some who belonged to the church, intending to persecute them. He had James, the brother of John, put to death with the sword. When he saw that this met with approval among the Jews, he proceeded to seize Peter also. This happened during the Festival of Unleavened Bread. After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover.[Acts 12:1-4]
The 'Festival of Unleavened Bread' and the 'Passover' have NOTHING to do with Easter at all. These were Christ-rejecting Jews who were still observing these Jewish customs.
You can either go around with a burlap sack over your head or realize the KJV translators made a YUGE GAFFE when they inserted 'Easter' in lieu of 'Pasha'.
You agree that Jesus is eternal, that's good but the NIV says Jesus had an origin. Instead of deflecting the question and going to the "original language", please show me where the KJV says Jesus has an origin.
You made the statement that both versions say the same thing just using different words, where does the KJV say Jesus had an orgin?
You made the statement that both versions say the same thing just using different words, where does the KJV say Jesus had an orgin?
I believe that the inspired word of God is in the originals. Copies of the originals in the original languages preserve the inspired word of God, but are not, themselves, inspired. Translations of the copies are the inspired word of God, but the translators were not "re-inspired" as they translated. This is where the fallacy of equivocation usually creeps in... many KJV-only proponents believe that "inspired" must also mean "re-inspired". I understand that humans can't make perfectly-accurate translations, so I don't expect perfection of any translation. I believe that despite weaknesses and errors in translation, the Holy Spirit can still guide us to truth by showing us the shortcomings of translation and leading us to truth behind those shortcomings.
Given that I believe no translation is "perfect", I look for "close enough"; which I find in the NIV, NASB, and KJV, and I use reference materials as needed. As I'm not so familiar with others translations, I have no comment on them.
Given that I believe no translation is "perfect", I look for "close enough"; which I find in the NIV, NASB, and KJV, and I use reference materials as needed. As I'm not so familiar with others translations, I have no comment on them.
You never heard me say typesetters were inspired. 
I'm amazed that you condemn the KJV for typos but poudly swallow a bible that says Jesus Christ has an origin.
I'm amazed that you condemn the KJV for typos but poudly swallow a bible that says Jesus Christ has an origin.
https://kjvonlyism.wordpress.com/2010/07/31/micah-52-and-the-niv/
Luther came out of the RCC, so he was influenced by their teachings. IIRC, he was not against indulgences, but the abuse of them. He also held to the belief than pets would go to heaven, too. He was a Godly man, but he wasn't infallible. I don't know a whole lot about Tyndale, though, as far as where he went to church growing up.
Are you REALLY going to try and lie about this!
I already gave my response to this accusation!
All I said is that the wording is different!
And I meant it!
In my first response to the accusation I made it clear as daylight that I made no reference as to MEANING!
Perhaps you think that you can distract me from the issue at hand - you cannot!
You seem unable to comprehend plain contemporary English yet in the same breath you claim the ability to correctly interpret English from 400 years ago.....
It does not lend much credibility to your claims...
YOU are the one making unprovable claims about the KJV, and the burden of proof is on you, not me!
It seems a peculiar trait of the cultists to try and do this all the time...
The only thing that I am saying is that you have neither the skills nor the knowledge to determine which, if any translations of the Bible into English, are correct!
Also, and this point has been made previously: it is EXCEPTIONALLY INSULTING to the readers of any Bible translated into languages other than English to be told by the KJVO brigade that their translation is just garbage because it is not an ENGLISH KJV.
Perhaps you will argue that you have never said this but the result is just the same!
Claiming that the KJV is inerrant and inspired consigns every other translation, English or not, to the garbage can...
I already gave my response to this accusation!
All I said is that the wording is different!
And I meant it!
In my first response to the accusation I made it clear as daylight that I made no reference as to MEANING!
Perhaps you think that you can distract me from the issue at hand - you cannot!
You seem unable to comprehend plain contemporary English yet in the same breath you claim the ability to correctly interpret English from 400 years ago.....
It does not lend much credibility to your claims...
YOU are the one making unprovable claims about the KJV, and the burden of proof is on you, not me!
It seems a peculiar trait of the cultists to try and do this all the time...
The only thing that I am saying is that you have neither the skills nor the knowledge to determine which, if any translations of the Bible into English, are correct!
Also, and this point has been made previously: it is EXCEPTIONALLY INSULTING to the readers of any Bible translated into languages other than English to be told by the KJVO brigade that their translation is just garbage because it is not an ENGLISH KJV.
Perhaps you will argue that you have never said this but the result is just the same!
Claiming that the KJV is inerrant and inspired consigns every other translation, English or not, to the garbage can...