King James Bible ONLY? Or NOT?
- Thread starter Dai3234
- 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.
L
limey410
Guest
What do you consider a corruption? Can I get an example of where another version might be corrupted by that definition? I'm just curious.
You stated that the inspired 1611 KJV had typos in it. And that doesn't concern you that ppl, under the inspiration of the Spirit had typos as they wrote under His inspiration?
I am not saying they're corrupted, I am using your logic. You state that newer versions are corrupted. Seeing that the 1769 is a newer version of the 1611, by your definition and logic, the 1769 is corrupted. I am not saying it is, but your logic is.
[h=1]Daniel 3:25New American Standard Bible (NASB)[/h][FONT="]25 He said, “Look! I see four men loosed and walking about in the midst of the fire [a]without harm, and the appearance of the fourth is like a son of the gods!”[/FONT]
Ok can we move on to the real issues, let's discuss the corruptions from 1611 to present.
I am not saying the 1611 is corrupted. But I am not the one saying its inspired either.
Does your Christ have an origin?
Micah 5:2New 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.”
You said a revision is an improvement as the 1611 improved upon those mss they were translated from. So, the 1769, by that logic, is an improvement upon that which was inspired, the 1611.
You then stated that newer versions are corrupted.
How can the 1769 be an improvement and corrupted at the same time?
That's the corner you've backed yourself into.
There was no revision to the KJV. Updating spelling and correcting typos IS NOT a revision to the text.
His ORIGINS are from ancient times and he didn't have an origin . How is that talking about Christ coming in the flesh... he didn't come in ancient times.
Read it from the KJV.
Micah 5:2King 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.
Last edited:
That word, 'owlam has a myriad of meanings...
Long duration, antiquity, for ever, forever, everlasting, evermore, ancient time, long time, &c.
The translators just used a different English word in other translations than the KJV did.