King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?

[KJV1611]

I would go to the landfill and try to retrieve them. Be careful not to step on a jagged object and have hurt.

I wont read a bible that promotes Jesus as a son of the gods....It's another Jesus and another gospel.

 

[pckts]

Ok, just one.

Here is one error I believe the KJV and many to have.

◄ Matthew 19:24 ►

King James Bible
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Greek Scholars believe this to be an error in translating the word "heavy rope" accidentally into camel. To further back this claim the Aramaic Peshitta and Khabouris Codex explicitly use the word for rope.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...the-word-camel-in-matthew-1924-be-thick-rope/

So if we are rejecting Bibles for singular errors the KJV should be lumped into that group.

 

[followjesus]

Here is one error I believe the KJV and many to have.

◄ Matthew 19:24 ►

King James Bible
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Greek Scholars believe this to be an error in translating the word "heavy rope" accidentally into camel. To further back this claim the Aramaic Peshitta and Khabouris Codex explicitly use the word for rope.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...the-word-camel-in-matthew-1924-be-thick-rope/

So if we are rejecting Bibles for singular errors the KJV should be lumped into that group.

i think the translation is correct, its the principle that is taught. when a person is rich, they tend to find security in it, and as we Know

"we cannot serve both God and mammon"

remember what lead to this statement the rich young man.....being rich makes it harder because wealth pulls at our heart and offers security in the world were called to not Love.

 

[graceNpeace]

I'm just here to defend the KJV, my word doesn't matter and I'm not trying to win an argument or get the last word in.

Then close the thread!

 

[Dino246]

I watched a video recently that changed my mind on the type of Bible I should keep as the over-riding bible authority. ... I watched Pastor Steven L Anderson's, New World Order movie. Just under 2 hours long, very interesting. Puts potentially the NIV, ESV, NKJV and more to shame, depending on version's and errors of course.
So, (1) Have you watched the video? If not,
watch it first, please.
(1b) Did the video change your mind?
(2) What Bible do you support?
(3) Why do you support it?
At the bottom of your post, please put final Bible choice in caps, alone, so it can be seen as a tally. Thanks.

1. No. No need. I've seen several of his videos, including his discussion with James White. I find it VERY interesting that both those are KJV-only AND those who aren't both decry Anderson as unworthy of their time. I concur. To borrow a phrase from a former member, the guy's a nutter.
2. Obviously, no.
3. I don't "support" any Bible. I use the NASB for daily reading, I also use the NIV (1975) and the KJV, along with a couple of interlinear versions, and I reference Young's Literal and a dozen others.
4. Because I understand that there are several approaches to translation, none of them perfect.

There's only two camps:
1. We have the final authority on what God has said in one translation.
2. We have no final authority on what God has said, thus man becomes his own final authority through scholarship and "higher" education.

God has promised to preserve His pure words for all generations. Where are they?

Aaaand, here we go again. John14:6, your brain has been duly and thoroughly washed by the Sam Gipp soap company. Yours is a false dichotomy, as I have told you MANY times. Your comment about scholarship and higher education applies to the translators of the KJV just as much as to anyone else. Get your head out of the 17th century, pass it through some education on logic, and open it to the possibility that you have embraced something less than the truth.

 

[pckts]

i think the translation is correct, its the principle that is taught. when a person is rich, they tend to find security in it, and as we Know

"we cannot serve both God and mammon"

remember what lead to this statement the rich young man.....being rich makes it harder because wealth pulls at our heart and offers security in the world were called to not Love.

Yeah I understand the principle and meaning of the verse. A heavy rope can be unthreaded by giving away the wealth, a Camel can NEVER fit through the eye of the needle.

The Camel is doomed and the rope just has to unthread itself.

 

[KJV1611]

Here is one error I believe the KJV and many to have.

◄ Matthew 19:24 ►

King James Bible
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Greek Scholars believe this to be an error in translating the word "heavy rope" accidentally into camel. To further back this claim the Aramaic Peshitta and Khabouris Codex explicitly use the word for rope.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...the-word-camel-in-matthew-1924-be-thick-rope/

So if we are rejecting Bibles for singular errors the KJV should be lumped into that group.

That's odd because all the translations I just checked translate as camel.... NLT, NASB, NIV. Are all bibles wrong?

κάμηλοςkámēlos, kam'-ay-los; of Hebrew origin (H1581); a "camel":—camel.

 

[KJV1611]

Then close the thread!

I probably won't be around for long.

 

[pckts]

Here is one error I believe the KJV and many to have.

◄ Matthew 19:24 ►

King James Bible
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.


Greek Scholars believe this to be an error in translating the word "heavy rope" accidentally into camel. To further back this claim the Aramaic Peshitta and Khabouris Codex explicitly use the word for rope.

https://www.neverthirsty.org/bible-...the-word-camel-in-matthew-1924-be-thick-rope/

So if we are rejecting Bibles for singular errors the KJV should be lumped into that group.

That's odd because all the translations I just checked translate as camel.... NLT, NASB, NIV. Are all bibles wrong?

κάμηλοςkámēlos, kam'-ay-los; of Hebrew origin (H1581); a "camel":—camel.

I already answered this.

 

[KJV1611]

I already answered this.

The Peshitta was translated from the Greek, it's not the original writting.

 

[Ugly]

I would never watch a video that supports KJV only.

The KJV was translated from 7 very late manuscripts, filled with errors. A simple knowledge of Greek results in finding errors in almost every sentence.

The fact is, the grammar pretends to be word for word, which NO Bible can be, as Greek syntax is radically different than English sentence structure and grammar. The result is that not only does it not follow English well, it doesn't follow the Greek well, either. It has a huge amount of obscure and archaic words. We do not have 2nd person singular, and I won't read a bible that has grammar that I do not understand.

I just finished 2nd year seminary Greek, and our prof, who is on the translation committees of the ESV and NIV, had nothing good to say about using KJV today. A good translation must be readable in the vernacular. Early Modern English is not the language I speak. I have used NASB, ESV, NIV, and HCSB. I've also read paraphrases like the Message and NLT. I am trying to get the NET Bible with complete commentary notes, as my next. I also have read most of the NT in Greek, ad

KJV has its historical purposes. Quite simply, you have been duped and brainwashed by this video. Trying reading James White's book on the KJV only controversy. You obviously need to hear the other side of this debate!

NLT (New Living Translation) is a translation, not a paraphrase. You must be thinking of the New Living Bible. Or version. Whatever it's called.

 

[pckts]

The Peshitta was translated from the Greek, it's not the original writting.

Says you and some but not all:

"The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river."

 

[KJV1611]

Says you and some but not all:

"The Church of the East has always rejected this claim. We believe that the Books of the New Testament were originally penned in Aramaic, and later translated into Greek by first-century Gentile Christians in the West, but never in the East, where the Aramaic was the Lingua Franca of the Persian Empire. We also hold and maintain that after the books were translated into Greek, the Aramaic originals were discarded, for by now the Church in the West was almost completely Gentile and Greek-speaking. This was not the case in the East, which had a Jewish majority (especially in Babylon and Adiabene) for a much longer period. Even when the Church of the East became mostly Gentile, the Aramaic was preserved and used rather than translated into the various vernacular languages of the regions to the East of the Euphrates river."

Hebrew Roots cult claim this is so, but there are to my knowledge there are no fragments to prove the claim.

 

[pckts]

Hebrew Roots cult claim this is so, but there are to my knowledge no fragments to prove the claim.

Here's another:

The KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).[SUP]4


[/SUP]

 

[notbythesword]

Hi Dai3234. If you’re thinking about switching away from a KJV, I would recommend possibly viewing a few other scholarly reviews before you settle on any one particular format. Steven L Anderson is a devout KJV only guy, so out of fairness, you might be getting a bit of a biased review (not that I’m against someone using a KJV). I personally like reading from the HCSB, but different people like different formats.

As far as accuracy is concerned, both the ESV (that you mentioned) and the NASB, are more literal (word for word) translations. Translations like the NIV are called thought for thought translations. Thought for thought translations like the NIV can be more easily influenced by the translators, so you need to be careful. However, I have been able to find the occasional subtle variance in ALL translations that I own.

I also use a parallel bible which has four translations side by side, one of which is the KJV. This is handy to have if you want to compare translations and then look up a potential variance in an interlinear Bible or other Greek source. The bad thing about a parallel Bible is that it is relatively cumbersome, as well as more distracting to read and with minimal footnotes. Regardless of what you decide on, I think it’s always a good idea to check the interlinear Greek from time to time to verify accuracy.

 

[KJV1611]

Here's another:

The KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).[SUP]4


[/SUP]

This would be similar to your situation, you are STRAINING at a gnat (rope or camel) but you swallow the camel (a son of the gods in the fiery furnace).

 

[KJV1611]

Here's the non-religious definition of dia.

dia-

• Word Origin

1.a prefix occurring in loanwords from Greek ( diabetes;dialect) and used, in the formation of compound words,to mean “passing through” ( diathermy), “thoroughly,”“completely” ( diagnosis), “going apart” ( dialysis), and“opposed in moment” ( diamagnetism).

 

[pckts]

This would be similar to your situation, you are STRAINING at a gnat (rope or camel) but you swallow the camel (a son of the gods in the fiery furnace).

My situation is that I recognize all Bibles have minor errors, discrepancies, and odd phrasings/wordings, and I will cross reference everything at my disposal to achieve my understanding of The Word.

Your situation is not being able to come to terms with this and arguing ridiculous positions with a closed mind. Enjoy

 

[KJV1611]

My situation is that I recognize all Bibles have minor errors and discrepancies, and I will cross reference everything at my disposal to achieve my understanding of The Word.

Your situation is not being able to come to terms with this and arguing ridiculous positions with a close mind. Enjoy

Prove from the bible that the written word of God corrupts.

 

[pckts]

Prove from the bible that the written word of God corrupts.

Why would I do this? I don't recall making this claim or anyone else. Bye