KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

The complication you avoided was that the heart is the thing that must be gotten rid of.

Thats God´s work. Then, you should do yours.

 

[trofimus]

You found it too complicated?
We are commanded to study to show ourselves approved by God.

It is a sin to be lazy and careless.

To complicate things or invent something that is not needed is not what we should do to not be lazy or careless.

 

[John146]

You cannot inspect the results of translators´ labor if you cannot read Greek.

Why would this matter? We do not have the originals. It comes down to trust and belief. Trusting and believing God has made good on His promise to preserve His pure words for us today. I wholeheartedly trust and believe He has in the King James Bible.

 

[Joseppi]

You cannot inspect the results of translators´ labor if you cannot read Greek.

You cannot prove that anything is corrupted, because you do not have needed knowledge in that area. You can only repeat what others told you.

Do you know what proves a language is truly a language?

 

[trofimus]

Why would this matter? We do not have the originals. It comes down to trust and belief. Trusting and believing God has made good on His promise to preserve His pure words for us today. I wholeheartedly trust and believe He has in the King James Bible.

It matters because if you are unable to read even one sentence of underlying text, you are also logically unable to inspect the work of a translator.

We do not have the Greek originals and you do not have the original KJV manuscript before it was put to print. Thats the area of textual criticism to discover what is the most probable text.

You can wholeheartedly trust or believe anything, its not an evidence for your claims.

 

[trofimus]

Do you know what proves a language is truly a language?

I dont get your question. Greek is not a true language?

 

[John146]

It matters because if you are unable to read even one sentence of underlying text, you are also logically unable to inspect the work of a translator.

We do not have the Greek originals and you do not have the original KJV manuscript before it was put to print. Thats the area of textual criticism to discover what is the most probable text.

You can wholeheartedly trust or believe anything, its not an evidence for your claims.

If I could read Greek and Hebrew and had the originals in front of me, I would still be trusting in my own scholarship to get it right. I don't want to put trust in myself but my God who promised to preserve His pure words. It all comes down to trusting and believing. Is your trust in man's scholarship or in the Lord?

 

[John146]

If I could read Greek and Hebrew and had the originals in front of me, I would still be trusting in my own scholarship to get it right. I don't want to put trust in myself but my God who promised to preserve His pure words. It all comes down to trusting and believing. Is your trust in man's scholarship or in the Lord?

And before you say it, I'm not putting any trust in the KJV translators, but in my God who used these corruptible men to translate an incorruptible book.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

And before you say it, I'm not putting any trust in the KJV translators, but in my God who used these corruptible men to translate an incorruptible book.

Whilst condemning other Christians who also trust God. How can you say you trust God if you believe he is incapable of using a modern language?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

The only way to judge translators is to inspect the results of their labor.
When that inspection is done the Authorized Holy Bible is proven true while the modern bibles are proven corrupt.

The only "proof" is in your delusional mind.

 

[John146]

Whilst condemning other Christians who also trust God. How can you say you trust God if you believe he is incapable of using a modern language?

If these "modern language" bibles contradict the KJV, then in my opinion they cannot be considered. Why would God update His word to satisfy lazy man for lack of study? His word is already in English.

Do you really trust that God has preserved His pure words for us today in one of the modern language bibles? Which one?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

If these "modern language" bibles contradict the KJV, then in my opinion they cannot be considered. Why would God update His word to satisfy lazy man for lack of study? His word is already in English.

Do you really trust that God has preserved His pure words for us today in one of the modern language bibles? Which one?

NO. I'm not an indoctrinated fool who believes I must pick only one. God has no such man-made restrictions.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

If these "modern language" bibles contradict the KJV, then in my opinion they cannot be considered. Why would God update His word to satisfy lazy man for lack of study? His word is already in English.

Do you really trust that God has preserved His pure words for us today in one of the modern language bibles? Which one?

Who are you calling lazy? How does reading modern English signify "lack of study" ? What a load of utter rubbish!

 

[John146]

Who are you calling lazy? How does reading modern English signify "lack of study" ? What a load of utter rubbish!

It has been said the the "archaic" language of the KJV is too difficult to read, thus the need for easier updated words.

 

[preacher4truth]

Who are you calling lazy?

All who use other translations and those who are not hoodwinked by the KJVO cult.

 

[trofimus]

If I could read Greek and Hebrew and had the originals in front of me, I would still be trusting in my own scholarship to get it right. I don't want to put trust in myself but my God who promised to preserve His pure words. It all comes down to trusting and believing. Is your trust in man's scholarship or in the Lord?

How is this "scholarship" different from being taught the English language in school?

How is this "scholarship" different from learning about the KJV?

We must learn in all areas of theology. There is no reason to stop somewhere.

 

[trofimus]

Why would God update His word to satisfy lazy man for lack of study

Are you not the one being "lazy" to learn original languages? Why would God update His word to satisfy a lazy American?

 

[Dino246]

I am objective in that I read what is written and see that it is God’s word.

Here is what the Oxford Dictionary says about "subjective" and "objective":

Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

Objective: Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

Something can be either or both. My house exists; that is objective truth. I like my house; that is subjective truth. The Bible is the word of God; we as Christians take that as objective truth; non-believers see that as subjective. Some here think the KJV is objectively God's pure, perfect word in English. Others think that is a subjective belief only. We aren't going to convince each other merely by our claims. Rightly understanding the difference between "subjective" and "objective" as well as how they overlap might help us be less dogmatic in our assertions though.

This being true because the scripture demands that scripture be judged by scripture to assure authenticity, even in like manner as prophets judge prophets to insure the authenticity of a word spoken.

Please give the verses where "scripture demands that scripture by judged by scripture to assure authenticity". Please also give the verses where "prophets judge prophets to insure (sic) the authenticity of a word spoken".

I find the arguments against faith in the written word of God are subjective in that they are philosophical and unrelated to any actual textual problem.

So-called "philosophical" arguments are not necessarily subjective. There is objective philosophy, which includes logic. A view can be demonstrated to be unsound or invalid on logical grounds; that often doesn't deal with an "actual textual problem" but it is a truth issue nonetheless.

 

[Dino246]

Again you merely opinionated subjectively.

Why don’t you present scripture as evidence that God’s written word isn’t to be found incorruptible on earth.

Fallacy: burden of proof reversal.

 

[KJV1611]

Matthew 5:28 But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.

In the verse above Jesus gives example of eyes used to commit sin.

Matthew 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Then Jesus teaches that if the eye is the offender then get rid of the eye and save the body.

Matthew 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Then Jesus teaches that if the right hand is the offender then get rid of it and save the body.

Matthew 5:31-32 It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: but I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

Then Jesus gives an example of the use of the right hand writing a divorce that leads to commuting adultery.

It isn’t a coincidence that the right eye and right hand examples are bracketed by two corresponding examples.

I consider this literary device God uses, a parenthetical. Which means that the verses are bracketed and are to be understood in the of context of those parentheticals.

It is a profound method of instruction because, as in the above example, it allows Jesus to argue that if man thinks sin is caused by the body then, sacrifice the body, at the same time Jesus reveals that the heart is the true cause of sin. For even in the hand example we know that Jesus taught that God allowed divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts who sought divorce rather than forgiveness and reconciliation.
By use of the parenthetical examples Jesus proves that the heart is the cause of sin, and that the body is corrupted by that heart of sin.

Jesus also shows that the law can be used to justify sin. That is, that a hardened, unloving heart, corrupts man’s understanding and use of the law.

The examples Jesus gives of cutting off of the eye and hand to save the body teaches us that the true cause of sin must be literally sacrificed for the sake of one’s salvation.

And since Jesus teaches that the heart of man is the offender we are doomed because we must lay down our own lives to escape hell and it’s to late for that since he proved we are rotten to the core.

The parenthetical horns of the dilemma.

The conclusion is that our literal need for salvation requires us to have the body put to death and for us to be born again with a new heart.

Only Jesus Christ is able to save us from the condemnation of the law while providing us salvation by making a new man.

And this shows that salvation although true now in the spirit, is not yet true in the flesh and soul. Salvation is promised us, and our faith assures us God’s word is true. But, we a left behind on earth to work out our own salvation with fear and trembling till Jesus returns.

What does working out our salvation mean?
It means believing on the one whom God sent to save us, Jesus Christ.
To do that we must remain faithful to Jesus and love not our lives unto death through all tribulation.

It is the grace of God that secures us not our faithfulness. For we stumble in our faith being yet weak. But we are not castaways because the strength of the faith of Jesus keeps us safe in his hand. But, we fear and tremble lest our faith be found wanting.
Stand therefore in the grace of God by faith in Jesus.

In other words the words of the verse mean nothing lol. Do the words eat my flesh and drink my blood mean nothig also? What is the real meaning of that verse?