KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[John146]

Psalm 12 is the likely basis for this belief; you have cited it yourself. Here is what the KJV of these verses actually say:

[SUP]6 [/SUP]The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

[SUP]7 [/SUP]Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.


Sound understanding of scriptural truth begins with careful reading of Scripture. The Scripture does not say that God will preserve His word for all generations. Rather, and in complete refutation of your assertion, it promises that God will preserve His word from an evil generation!

Others have presented evidence that verse 7 refers to the people of God, rather than to His word. Every other use but three of "preserve" (and cognates) refers to people (two cases address wine; one case addresses knowledge). I encourage you to rethink your position on this matter.

The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering. It also leaves us with the strange, indefensible position that God is promising the preservation of the poor in always -- a doctrine not to be found elsewhere in Scripture. It also contradicts the very first verse, where David states that "for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men." If we are to accept the reading (Kutilek and others) offer we must conclude that the "godly man" and "faithful" can not also be "poor" and that, oddly, the poor are therefore ungodly, faithless, and will be preserved forever.

A quote from Spurgeon:

“What a contrast between the vain words of man, and the pure words of Jehovah. Man's words are yea and nay, but the Lord's promises are yea and amen. For truth, certainty, holiness, faithfulness, the words of the Lord are pure as well-refined silver. In the original there is an allusion to the most severely-purifying process known to the ancients, through which silver was passed when the greatest possible purity was desired; the dross was all consumed, and only the bright and precious metal remained; so clear and free from all alloy of error or unfaithfulness is the book of the words of the Lord. The Bible has passed through the furnace of persecution, literary criticism, philosophic doubt, and scientific discovery, and has lost nothing but those human interpretations which clung to it as alloy to precious ore. The experience of saints has tried it in every conceivable manner, but not a single doctrine or promise has been consumed in the most excessive heat. What God's words are, the words of his children should be.”

 

[Dino246]

You do understand that the the versions contain different truths. Does God contradict Himself? You can't have it your way and then attach the Lord to it. Either one of them is the word of God and only one, or none. There is no other choice.

Refresh my mind, how has this statement been refuted? What's the other choice?

Here is the refutation: The KJV largely follows the Bishop's Bible, with reference to other English versions extant at the time (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, etc.). The KJV translators used several printed Greek editions of the NT as source material. If your assertion is true, none of these are God's word, therefore the KJV could not be God's word. It is illogical to get God's word from something that isn't God's word.

Here is why your assertion is a false dichotomy: it ignores other real possibilities. Because of the fact that languages cannot be translated perfectly, and that certain words in one language can be translated with several words in another, it is possible to translate a passage accurately and have differing results. The KJV uses "love" for three or four Greek words, and "hell" for at least two. Is that accuracy? Only if you have an a priori bias!

As I have written previously, the French for the phrase, "a big red dog" does not translate directly to the English, "a big red dog". The word order is different... and the relationship between French and English is fairly close. Both Greek and Hebrew are very different. Your understanding of "perfect" and "pure" is simply untenable when it comes to translation.

Further, you have not presented any evidence to support your assertion. You have only stated it in different words in different posts. Repeating something doesn't make it the truth... despite what Joseph Goebbels thought about it.

 

[Dino246]

The chapter is a contrast between David's love of God's words and the vanity of men's words. Incorrectly reading verse 7 to refer to a promise to preserve the poor forever ruins the praise of God's promises David is offering....

I'm not basing my position on whether verse 7 refers to people or words, but on the fact that the promise is to preserve from, not for.

 

[John146]

Here is the refutation: The KJV largely follows the Bishop's Bible, with reference to other English versions extant at the time (Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, etc.). The KJV translators used several printed Greek editions of the NT as source material. If your assertion is true, none of these are God's word, therefore the KJV could not be God's word. It is illogical to get God's word from something that isn't God's word.

Here is why your assertion is a false dichotomy: it ignores other real possibilities. Because of the fact that languages cannot be translated perfectly, and that certain words in one language can be translated with several words in another, it is possible to translate a passage accurately and have differing results. The KJV uses "love" for three or four Greek words, and "hell" for at least two. Is that accuracy? Only if you have an a priori bias!

As I have written previously, the French for the phrase, "a big red dog" does not translate directly to the English, "a big red dog". The word order is different... and the relationship between French and English is fairly close. Both Greek and Hebrew are very different. Your understanding of "perfect" and "pure" is simply untenable when it comes to translation.

Further, you have not presented any evidence to support your assertion. You have only stated it in different words in different posts. Repeating something doesn't make it the truth... despite what Joseph Goebbels thought about it.

So your answer must be none of them are the word of God. You have given no other possibility since you believe God could not have His word translated into another language, and those words in that language would be the pure words of God for that language.

 

[KJV1611]

Question, has God protected and preserved the poor and needy people of the world as some argue?

 

[trofimus]

Question, has God protected and preserved the poor and needy people of the world as some argue?

"The poor are blessed in Spirit, because theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Mt 5:3

 

[Joseppi]

I disagree with you on unconditional love, what makes me more special than Jehu or Esau? We were all just like those two before we got saved and God saved us any way.

Regardless of how we feel, God’s love is conditional.

John 3:14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up:
15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Without faith in Jesus Christ can a man receive forgiveness of sin?
What love is given to a man that does despise the blood of Jesus?

 

[Joseppi]

That sounds good and looks good on paper; but IMO it doesn't work

I believe that there are indeed errors in transcription [some of which are acknowledged in marginal notes] and errors in translation in all available translations and all existing Hebrew and Greek Mss. I believe that God allows those errors; but does NOT allow his message to be compromised by those errors.

Do you have scriptural support for your belief that there is error in scripture?

 

[trofimus]

Do you have scriptural support for your belief that there is error in scripture?

Mt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set.

Lk 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain

---

Was Jesus sitting on a mountain or was he standing in a plain?

A clear contradiction/inconsistency in Gospels. On the other hand, which Christian creed is in danger because of it?

 

[Magenta]

Regardless of how we feel, God’s love is conditional.

“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

“But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved” (Ephesians 2:4-5).
​

"This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:9-10).
​

God's love is unconditional. It is salvation that is conditional.​

 

[John146]

Mt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set.

Lk 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain

---

Was Jesus sitting on a mountain or was he standing in a plain?

A clear contradiction/inconsistency in Gospels. On the other hand, which Christian creed is in danger because of it?

The sermon in Luke 6 bears some similarities with the Sermon on the Mount, but it is not the same sermon. This sermon was delivered on a plain after the Apostles were chosen.

Next...

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I agree with all that, that's what I've been telling you. Begat is referrring to the physical manifestation of Christ.

Begotten of the father means the earthly body of Jesus, that's all it's talking about. Jesus and God are the same being , one didn't come out of the other.

Psalm 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

This verse "this day have I begotten thee" is prophetic of the earthly coming of Christ, it's not something that happened in eternity past.

I agree with all that, that's what I've been telling you. Begat is referrring to the physical manifestation of Christ.

I don't think anybody on this forum believes that God begat Jesus in eternity past. That is not a Christian creed, maybe its a catholic creed or something but not christian.

Au contraire! It is one of the core beliefs of orthodox Christianity.

You are trying to understand within the constraints of time. God is not confined to our dimensions of space and time.
He is eternal and Jesus is eternally begotten of the father.

Colossians 1 (KJV)

12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:
14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.


**************************************************

The doctrine of eternal Sonship simply affirms that the second Person of the triune Godhead has eternally existed as the Son. In other words, there was never a time when He was not the Son of God, and there has always been a Father/Son relationship within the Godhead. This doctrine recognizes that the idea of Sonship is not merely a title or role that Christ assumed at some specific point in history, but that it is the essential identity of the second Person of the Godhead. According to this doctrine, Christ is and always has been the Son of God.

there are numerous verses that speak of God the Father sending the Son into the world to redeem sinful man (John 20:21; Galatians 4:4; 1 John 4:14; 1 John 4:10) and giving His Son as a sacrifice for sin (John 3:16). Clearly implied in all the passages that deal with the Father sending/giving the Son is the fact that He was the Son before He was sent into the world. This is even more clearly seen in Galatians 4:4-6, where the term “sent forth” is used both of the Son and the Spirit. Just as the Holy Spirit did not become the Holy Spirit when He was sent to empower the believers at Pentecost, neither did the Son become the Son at the moment of His incarnation. All three Persons of the Godhead have existed for all eternity, and their names reveal who they are, not simply what their title or function is.

 

[Joseppi]

My usual position is that the Bible is the ultimate standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie and an error.

You can find that statement in many of my earlier posts. When people attempt to ascribe a status of unique inspiration to the KJV; and attack other versions as unsound; I am led to show that the KJV is equally flawed. I am quite content to regard none of them as flawed; but if the KJVO adherents keep attacking other versions, I will show that the KJV is not exempt.

How come you don’t reveal the corruption in modern bibles?

 

[Dino246]

So your answer must be none of them are the word of God. You have given no other possibility since you believe God could not have His word translated into another language, and those words in that language would be the pure words of God for that language.

You're trying to squeeze reality into your dichotomy; it doesn't fit. I believe that all of them are the word of God, as would the KJV translators, according to the 1611 Preface. It refutes your position as well.

 

[trofimus]

The sermon in Luke 6 bears some similarities with the Sermon on the Mount, but it is not the same sermon. This sermon was delivered on a plain after the Apostles were chosen.

Next...

ok, ok, whatever you say...

So, next:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11Give us this day our daily bread.

12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6


----


When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3Give us day by day our daily bread.

4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Lk 11

======

1. Mt gives Our Father as an example of the manner of praying. Lk give it for precise reciting.

2. Sins vs debts (but ok, it can be seen as the same thing, but you would go crazy being it a difference between KJV and NIV)

3. Missing ending sentence in Lk.

 

[John146]

You're trying to squeeze reality into your dichotomy; it doesn't fit. I believe that all of them are the word of God, as would the KJV translators, according to the 1611 Preface. It refutes your position as well.

Obviously, they all can't be the word of God since they all contain different words and different truths. God cannot contradict Himself.

I don't get my theology from the thoughts of man in the preface of the KJV, but from the words contained within. Because they did not claim God's hand in translating the Scripture does this mean that God could not be or was not in control of their commission? For the answer we must look to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of faith and practice.

When John the Baptist was accosted by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah. Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it. Likewise, God could easily have divinely directed the King James translators without their active knowledge.

 

[John146]

ok, ok, whatever you say...

So, next:

After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.

10Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.

11Give us this day our daily bread.

12And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.

13And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.

Matthew 6


----


When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

3Give us day by day our daily bread.

4And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us. And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Lk 11

======

1. Mt gives Our Father as an example of the manner of praying. Lk give it for precise reciting.

2. Sins vs debts (but ok, it can be seen as the same thing, but you would go crazy being it a difference between KJV and NIV)

3. Missing ending sentence in Lk.

By rightly dividing the word of truth, we must understand that Matthew's gospel is Jewish in its' content, intended towards God's physical people Israel. Luke has a Gentile slant. Because of this difference, the Jewish kingdom of Matthew 6:13 is omitted in Luke's gospel account. People have a hard time understanding why there are four accounts but contain different wording.

 

[Joseppi]

Mt 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set.Lk 6:17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain---Was Jesus sitting on a mountain or was he standing in a plain?A clear contradiction/inconsistency in Gospels. On the other hand, which Christian creed is in danger because of it?

Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
18 And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.In the above passage of scripture, Jesus went up into a mountain and prayed all night, then appointed Apostles from among his disciples, then came down and stood on the plain and there he healed.

Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...

In the above Jesus is went up and sat down and taught the multitudes.Matthew’s account occurs after the healing among the multitudes on the plain.Luke’s account leaves out ascending back up to sit down and teach after healing on the plain.

 

[Joseppi]

Luke 6:12 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.
13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
14 Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,
15 Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,
16 And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.
17 And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great multitude of people out of all Judaea and Jerusalem, and from the sea coast of Tyre and Sidon, which came to hear him, and to be healed of their diseases;
18 And they that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed.

In the above passage of scripture, Jesus went up into a mountain and prayed all night, then appointed Apostles from among his disciples, then came down and stood on the plain and there he healed.

Matthew 5:1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:2 And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...

In the above Jesus is went up and sat down and taught the multitudes.Matthew’s account occurs after the healing among the multitudes on the plain.Luke’s account leaves out ascending back up to sit down and teach after healing on the plain.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

So your answer must be none of them are the word of God. You have given no other possibility since you believe God could not have His word translated into another language, and those words in that language would be the pure words of God for that language.

Not at all, he doesn't have the same single-translation encumbrance blocking his faith as you do. You have placed limits on Almighty God and you don't have the right to do so. The Lord isn't locked in to one translation. The KJV itself doesn't back up your argument.