Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

I look in the OT. And I can not find a time when Judah RULED with God.

I do however, see that they also, just like israel and Ephram, were unruly, so much in fact. Babylon conquered them, Medea and persia enslaved them Greece defiled their holy place. And even when christ walked the earh, their unruliness cause rome to totally destroy them and scatter them all over the earth.


Also, the hebrew can help.

The term interpreted “rule” in the KJV or “walk” in the NKJV is this

RWD - to rome about freely, to tear oneself loose (walk with no guide)
To wander restlessly, to roam
here accordeing to the dictionary of biblical languages

8113 רוּד (rûḏ): v.; ≡ Str 7300; TWOT 2129—1. LN 34.40–34.41 (qal) disassociate, formally, roam, be in a state of no longer being in an association, as a figurative extension of roaming or wandering about in linear motion (Jer 2:31; Hos 12:1[EB 11:12]+), see also domain LN 15; (hif) start to roam (Ge 27:40+); 2. LN 25.223–25.250 (hif) be troubled, formally, be caused to roam, i.e., have feelings of anxiety or distress as a figurative extension of being driven or caused to flee in linear motion (Ps 55:3[EB 2]+)

Yep. I think we see who got it wrong.

It is hard to number the versions of the Bible and all the over 2000 language translations that have been published since 1526 and Tyndale's New Testament.
As far as English translations and paraphrases of scripture published to date there are over 900.
http://news.americanbible.org/article/number-of-english-translations-of-the-bible

Many people think they know God by the book. But God is a spirit and he was The Word before anything that is created was created. His kingdom is within you.
Jesus said seek and ye shall find. "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well"
The kingdom is within.
God bless and protect you.

You are the assertion proved true.
Humor isn't bad. Your tactics are not humor save for the satisfaction it brings you.
Mockery, ridicule, laughing at someone while being condescending. The joke is on you thinking you are actually an example of a good person seeking to teach sincere students of the word. And when exposed as just the opposite you try to implicate humor as having your c!! haracteristics. No, that's not how humor works. Humor makes people laugh with the joke. Your condescencion , mockery, ridicule, intends to make people laugh at the person who is made the target of such efforts.

I wonder if people here read your name and realize you're saying, up yours?

You are putting words in my mouth that I would never say. All translations have flaws. Only the original language is perfect. This is why using my smartphone I can select any translation and switch between translations and see any differences. Committees do the translation not a single person. This minimizes the errors. KJVs major flaw is its age with language changes and environmental science advances. Many words in KJV don't exist today and new words have been added. We now know there are no satyrs for example.

So you can not answer the question about why the authors of your perfect bible screwed up and could not translate the word baptiso. But you want to discuss a question not even you can prove yourself.

Thats what I thought..

Hi Sherril, this is what has happened. The KJV was translated in 1611, more than 400 years ago. Since that time older manuscripts have been discovered. Older ones (obviously) appear closer in time to the originals, so are more reliable, more correct, as there has been less opportunity for copyists to make errors.

This is why there are changes from what we see in the KJV. I love the KJV translation of Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." But is it a good translation? Is there good will toward men or good will only toward those who with whom God is pleased, as many (perhaps all) of the modern versions have it?

This is not a matter of the evil one coming in as a Trojan horse at all. It is one of responsibly making available a bible as close as possible to the original text.

Does this help clarify things?

If this is the case. Then niether can the KJV be considered Gods word. Because it is different also..thus we have no word we can trust.

These older manuscripts were found in garbage cans in the vatican. They are older, in better condition, because they were rejected by the early church because they were corrupt. Older never means better, on the contrary.

How can we know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if we're all using corrupt bibles...?

There are thousands of manuscripts that exist and contain inspirations from God. Thousands.
Are they of no avail? Please remember that we do not have the original writings that predate the scriptures in today's Bibles. Those were called, Autographs.
Rather, we have copies across the ages. But not the original texts or inspired words of God.

By comparing manuscripts... just like the textual scholars have been doing.

What does the Bible say about gossip and lies? "Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. "

" There are six things that the Lord hates, seven that are an abomination to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that make haste to run to evil, a false witness who breathes out lies, and one who sows discord among brothers. "

The LGBTQ community many years ago arrived at their own translation of the Bible. They labeled it the Queen James Bible. One of their associates I should say took credit for that monstrosity.
Well before that however King James was slandered by those who wanted to diminish the authorized version of the Bible he arranged to be printed so that later and different translation versions would be accepted. And due to the lie he was gay diminishing his credibility.
There is not one iota of proof behind the accusations. His accusers have never shown one iota of proof to sustain their fabrications.

And if anyone wonders how that could be true it isn't difficult to understand if you encounter someone who devalues the King James Version of the Bible with harsh criticism, pejoratives, or attacks on those for whom it is the preferred tome of study.

James was fluent in three languages, studied two others to become so, and arrived at the conclusion the common people should have access to the Lord's word in their native language rather than have it preached to them in Latin. Until the 1611 version of the KJV being published as a result of his desire only the Church of England possessed the Bible copy.

The lie that King James was gay was born 25 years after James was dead. He had written a pamphlet condemning the use of tobacco and in the hopes its abuses would stop in England. A very wealthy tobacco family known as the Weldon's were not impressed.
Twenty-five years after King James died Anthony Weldon, who was not allowed at court, which was a great dishonor for such well off families at the time in England, got this revenge with is own writings. He claimed James, now dead and unable to retort, was a homosexual.

The false rumor has spread ever since.
King James was not a homosexual, he was not a free mason, he was not any of the things people conceived to use as slander against him and his Christian character after he was unable to defend himself from the standpoint of a Monarch.
Those who propagate those falsehoods all these centuries later are exactly what God calls them.
They should be very worried when it catches up.


Oh, by the way, this should come to mind before thinking to accept the falsehood contrived against King James. How would a man who was a homosexual seek to publish a Bible in full and in the native tongue of those he ruled so that it remained teaching his kind were damned to Hell?
Wouldn't such a man with the power invested in him as monarch and overseer of the English language version of God's word seek to make it what appears today as blasphemy and called the Queen James Bible? Which omits the so called "clobber scriptures" that speak of the fate of unrepentant sexually active sodomites?

Does this make man the final authority? Do you know that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ thousands and thousands of times? These are the manuscripts of the new versions use (Rome and Egypt). When they differ, how does one determine which manuscript is correct? Also, when you study a word in Greek and there are 7 English word choices, how do you know which word to go with?

The word baptize is not an english word, it is a greek tansliterated.

Why was it not interpreted?

ROFL
You seem to miss the point that man is just removing spelling errors that creapt into the manuscripts. Not changing the meaning at all.

The word baptize was around for hundreds of years before 1611. Did you know that?

The Oxford dictionary is an encyclopedia of the English language. It is so thorough and so authoritative that no other language has anything comparable. In this dictionary, there are quotations from English works using the words baptize, baptism, and other forms of the word from the following dates: 1200, 1297, 1300, 1325, 1382. The word is used throughout the English Bible translation of Wycliffe completed in 1382. This means that the word baptize and its forms were English words long before the 1611 translation.

Hi Endoscopy,

God’s words never change. It changes lives! Your archaic con job against KJV is trite and was proven to be false. You have made a major error when age really doesn’t matter.You actually have committed the same mistakes with using only of your post. You are even unaware that what you have posted chosen words are archaic so to speak. You speak 3 “error” and you are conveying to us a 14th Century word. “Original” is a 14ce. Word, “Switch” is an early 1600’s. So you are as guilty of using words that are old as the kJV. Btw, God can speak English.

God bless