KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Here's one reason.

Micah 5:2 King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


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.”

They say the same thing. You just don't understand early modern English. Stop attacking the NIV. Even if you could prove another translation had major errors it doesn't validate your cult-belief in the KJV.

 

[KJV1611]

Here's one reason.

Micah 5:2 King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


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.”

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!

Again this whole thing started with my quote of Micah 5:2 and your response.

 

[graceNpeace]

Again this whole thing started with my quote of Micah 5:2 and your response.

And I stand by what I actually said, not with your erroneous interpretation of what I said!

 

[KJV1611]

They say the same thing. You just don't understand early modern English. Stop attacking the NIV. Even if you could prove another translation had major errors it doesn't validate your cult-belief in the KJV.

Here's what I think the verse says:
A future ruler of Israel will come out of Behtlehem. That same future ruler has been going forth since the old times (before Micah) even from evelasting (eternity).

Can you expain how I got this wrong?

 

[KJV1611]

And I stand by what I actually said, not with your erroneous interpretation of what I said!

If you'll notice, I posted exactly what you said.

 

[graceNpeace]

Here's what I think the verse says:
A future ruler of Israel will come out of Behtlehem. That same future ruler has been going forth since the old times (before Micah) even from evelasting (eternity).

Can you explain how I got this wrong?

That might be the correct interpretation of that passage, but do you know for sure?
Also, if other translations have opted for an apparently different approach to that passage, it generally means it is a tough passage to interpret from a meaning perspective, or it is tough to translate unambiguously into English, or both!
Until one knows what the original language manuscripts say it is impossible to say....

 

[graceNpeace]

If you'll notice, I posted exactly what you said.

Do you really suffer from memory loss?
Again you ignore posts that you made accusing me incorrectly just a few back from this one.....
Unbelievable!

 

[preacher4truth]

What is really Unbelievable! is the continued sparring with the KJVO cultic types in their disingenuity, misnomers, cover-ups, denials of fact, slanderous remarks, self-righteous condemnation of MV users, &c, &c, &c...and to do it day after day expecting a differing result. They will never concede unless God opens their eyes. Huge waste of time.

 

[KJV1611]

That might be the correct interpretation of that passage, but do you know for sure?
Also, if other translations have opted for an apparently different approach to that passage, it generally means it is a tough passage to interpret from a meaning perspective, or it is tough to translate unambiguously into English, or both!
Until one knows what the original language manuscripts say it is impossible to say....

There's nothing tough about that passage, the Geneva bible interpretted it correctly

Micah 5:2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrathah art [a]little to be among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be the ruler in Israel: whose [b]goings forth have been from the beginning and from everlasting.

Wycliffe had no trouble interpretting it.

Micah 5:2 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)


2 And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art little in the thousands of Judah; he that is the lordly governor in Israel shall go out of thee to me (but he who shall be the ruler, or the governor, in Israel shall go out of thee to me); and the going out of him is from [the] beginning, from (the) days of everlastingness.

It has always been rendered the same in English until Wescot and Hort came around.... Maybe some new fragment was found in the dead sea scrolls that puts Jesus as having an origin I don't know why they changed it.

 

[KJV1611]

Do you really suffer from memory loss?
Again you ignore posts that you made accusing me incorrectly just a few back from this one.....
Unbelievable!

What exactly did I accuse you of?

 

[graceNpeace]

There's nothing tough about that passage, the Geneva bible interpretted it correctly

Micah 5:2 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

2 And thou Bethlehem Ephrathah art [a]little to be among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that shall be the ruler in Israel: whose [b]goings forth have been from the beginning and from everlasting.

Wycliffe had no trouble interpretting it.

Micah 5:2 Wycliffe Bible (WYC)


2 And thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, art little in the thousands of Judah; he that is the lordly governor in Israel shall go out of thee to me (but he who shall be the ruler, or the governor, in Israel shall go out of thee to me); and the going out of him is from [the] beginning, from (the) days of everlastingness.

It has always been rendered the same in English until Wescot and Hort came around.... Maybe some new fragment was found in the dead sea scrolls that puts Jesus as having an origin I don't know why they changed it.

And all you are doing is speculating because you don't actually know....

 

[KJV1611]

What is really Unbelievable! is the continued sparring with the KJVO cultic types in their disingenuity, misnomers, cover-ups, denials of fact, slanderous remarks, self-righteous condemnation of MV users, &c, &c, &c...and to do it day after day expecting a differing result. They will never concede unless God opens their eyes. Huge waste of time.

Maybe you could add a little substance to your remarks. What misnomer, denial of fact or slanderous remarks are you referring to?

 

[KJV1611]

And all you are doing is speculating because you don't actually know....

Dude I KNOW Jesus did not have an origin, I'm not speculating on anything.

 

[graceNpeace]

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?

There is the quote from your post!
Making a false accusation!
And, you repeated it despite me providing an exact explanation of what I meant!

So, I suggest you stop playing games....

 

[graceNpeace]

Dude I KNOW Jesus did not have an origin, I'm not speculating on anything.

What you are most definitely speculating about is what the original manuscripts said!

This is not about what your interpretation of the verse is.
It is about whether it is correctly translated...

 

[KJV1611]

There is the quote from your post!
Making a false accusation!
And, you repeated it despite me providing an exact explanation of what I meant!

So, I suggest you stop playing games....

Is your veiw that both versions say the same thing but use different words? Is this your stance or no?

 

[graceNpeace]

Is your veiw that both versions say the same thing but use different words? Is this your stance or no?

This is an irrelevant question.
I would first want to know what was the correct translation, if any...
And the only to know is get the low-down from the original language manuscripts!

 

[KJV1611]

What you are most definitely speculating about is what the original manuscripts said!

This is not about what your interpretation of the verse is.
It is about whether it is correctly translated...

I could care less what the originals said, the originals were written for Greek speakers 2000 years ago.

 

[KJV1611]

This is an irrelevant question.
I would first want to know what was the correct translation, if any...
And the only to know is get the low-down from the original language manuscripts!

Ok let's go your route then. What did the "originals" say?

 

[MarcR]

Originally Posted by KJV1611

Here's one reason.

Micah 5:2 King James Version (KJV)

2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.


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.”

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!

Maybe you could point out where Jesus has an origin in the KJV.

thousands clans[a] The Hebrew (eleph) can properly translate either way.


goings forth origins The Hebrew (Mohtsawohteer) literally means family ties.


from everlasting from ancient times The Hebrew (Ohlam) can properly be translated either way.


Looking at the issue: On God's side Jesus has no family ties; He is eternal.

On Mary's side Jesus indeed has family ties; and while they are indeed ancient they are not humanly speaking eternal.