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.
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
No, they don't. Easter is both the modern secularized holiday and the Christianese term for the death, burial and resurrection. Passover is the memorial of the slaughter of the lambs and the blood on the doorposts so the Destroyer would "pass over" the dwelling. Ask any Jew if they mean the same thing.



Precisely! So there is no justification for the KJV translators using "Easter". By the way, mine wasn't circular reasoning. I encourage you to read up on it.



If you're implying that of me, it's incorrect. I believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. I don't hold that any translation of the Bible is inspired. BIG difference.
Where can I find this inerrant word of God?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,043
13,576
113
Where can I find this inerrant word of God?
Are we really going to take yet another trip around this mulberry bush? C'mon man, you know my answer to that, and to the question you'll ask next.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Are we really going to take yet another trip around this mulberry bush? C'mon man, you know my answer to that, and to the question you'll ask next.
No I really don't think you ever answered that question. NIV, NASB, ESV? All of them? Originals that don't exist? Copies of originals?
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
Ok then show me where the KJV says Jesus had an origin. I'm going to show you exacly where the NIV says Jesus had on origin.

Micah 5:2 New International Version (NIV)

2 “But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah,
though you are small among the clans[a] of Judah,
out of you will come for me
one who will be ruler over Israel,
whose origins are from of old,
from ancient times.”

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....
 
J

jaybird88

Guest
Most High James? Is not this a blasphemy?

BTW he was a king of France too?
its not blasphemy to king james, he was quite found of leading his people to believe he was appointed king by the Most High. and thats the least of his offenses. i wouldnt want his name on my bible. why not just have a canaanite kings name on there.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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....
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".
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
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".
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....
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
You're missing the point, Easter and passover mean exactly the same thing. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
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'.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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....
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?
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,043
13,576
113
No I really don't think you ever answered that question. NIV, NASB, ESV? All of them? Originals that don't exist? Copies of originals?
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.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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'.
Look if you want to think that you know more about the meaning of Easter in the 14th century than Tyndale and Luther did, be my guest but pardon me if I take Luther and Tydale's word for it over yours.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
Look if you want to think that you know more about the meaning of Easter in the 14th century than Tyndale and Luther did, be my guest but pardon me if I take Luther and Tydale's word for it over yours.
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.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
@ KJV1611...

Please do not respond to me anymore. It's obvious you're blinded by your KJVO and are not willing to learn.

Adios.

Another log for my burn pile.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
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 origin?
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...
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
@ KJV1611...

Please do not respond to me anymore. It's obvious you're blinded by your KJVO and are not willing to learn.

Adios.

Another log for my burn pile.
If you respond to anything I post then I will rebut it so if you want our conversations to cease then don't respond to me. I will gladly return the favor.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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 was responding to the below quote where you said "this ONLY show a diffence in wording between the two translations!".

This ONLY shows a difference in wording between two translations!
It DOES NOT prove your claim that the KJV is with out error, or inspired.
This is ESPECIALLY so, since you cannot compare to the manuscripts to check if ANY of the translators got it right!

Your approach here is hopelessly ILLOGICAL!
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
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.
I'm just telling you that I trust Luther and Tydales view of the word Easter more than I do your copy and paste with no evidence to support the claims.
 

graceNpeace

Senior Member
Aug 12, 2016
2,180
107
63
Are you still trying to twist my words...please!!
I said "This ONLY shows a difference in wording between two translations!"
I never made a comment about MEANING!
Until you know EXACTLY what the original language manuscripts said all one can say is the wording is different!
And this my original reply to the accusation - conveniently ignored by you!
This proves that you playing games - you cannot even be honest about small things like this!

It is much easier to play these games rather than try to defend the indefensible isn't it?