KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[Lucy-Pevensie]

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

The archaic language is just that. Archaic. You can pretend it's necessary but it isn't. And from Americans! What a load of pretentious rubbish! Why don't we write everything in a stylised Elizabethan style? And call everyone with an American accent heathen and stupid?

 

[Dino246]

People call it the KJV to cover up that it is the Holy Bible of God.

A baseless assertion. It is much quicker to type "KJV" than to type "the Holy Bible of God". Further, the way you use the phrase, "the Holy Bible of God" (or "Authorized Version") is a fallacy of equivocation, and I for one will not play that game with you.

The scriptures have always been the means of determining what is and isn’t the scripture of God.

True, but again there is an implied equivocation, as you believe that only the KJV is "the scriptures". That is demonstrably untrue, both historically and logically.

By the scripture we discover that God’s written word has certain qualities that the word of man doesn’t have. It is in the same manner in which we know the fruit of the Spirit is if God. In that case we apply the three tests assigned by scripture.

In the case of scripture we apply tests that scripture tells us to apply. It is by the measure of scripture that we validate scripture. We aren’t taught by scripture to validate scripture based a man made measure.

What, in your view, are these three tests?

 

[Dino246]

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.

That works for you, and that's fine; it's a matter of faith. When it comes to trying to convince others using that reasoning, it becomes circular reasoning.

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

Fallacy: red herring.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

What, in your view, are these three tests?

Oh you didn't!

Now he's going to tell us!

 

[Dino246]

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.

You believe that God was able to direct the KJV translators, but that He was unable to direct the NIV translators (or those for the NASB, or RSV, or any other translation). You believe that God was able to guide the KJV translators to the correct interpretation, but that He is unable to guide you to the correct interpretation. Your god is too small.

If you claim that the Bible is an incorruptible book, and then that the NIV is corrupt, you either are engaging in circular reasoning or you don't truly believe that the Bible is incorruptible.

 

[KJV1611]

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

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.

The bible says that if a prophet says one thing wrong we shouldn't listen to that prophet. Of course that doesn't apply to the bible, the bible certainly isn't a prophet lol.

 

[Chester]

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?

LOL! If we go by your own "rules" as given above, then what are you doing using or studying from the KJV? There were English translations of the Bible in place before the KJV! So "why would God update His word to satisfy lazy man if it was already in English"?

 

[John146]

You believe that God was able to direct the KJV translators, but that He was unable to direct the NIV translators (or those for the NASB, or RSV, or any other translation). You believe that God was able to guide the KJV translators to the correct interpretation, but that He is unable to guide you to the correct interpretation. Your god is too small.

If you claim that the Bible is an incorruptible book, and then that the NIV is corrupt, you either are engaging in circular reasoning or you don't truly believe that the Bible is incorruptible.

If I believe that God is behind the KJV then the same God wouldn't contradict Himself with the new versions. They oppose each other. No Scripture is of private interpretation. God said what He meant and meant what He said. It is not up to us to interpret, but believe.

 

[trofimus]

If I believe that God is behind the KJV then the same God wouldn't contradict Himself with the new versions. They oppose each other. No Scripture is of private interpretation. God said what He meant and meant what He said. It is not up to us to interpret, but believe.

You do not just believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a common meaning like behind some good stuff.

You believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a very specific and extraordinary meaning, that the KJV is totally perfect, every change is inspired, every obvious error is inspired... and that there has never beeen nor will ever be something better than the 1611 KJV. You believe that it must not be updated or corrected in any way, such a correction od update is always a "corruption".

And this belief is not based in reality.

 

[John146]

You do not just believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a common meaning like behind some good stuff.

You believe that God is "behind the KJV" in a very specific and extraordinary meaning, that the KJV is totally perfect, every change is inspired, every obvious error is inspired... and that there has never beeen nor will ever be something better than the 1611 KJV.

And this belief is not based in reality.

Amen! I accept this position. Thank you.

 

[trofimus]

Amen! I accept this position. Thank you.

Because there is no evidence for such belief, you can believe this about anything under the sun.

The KJV is objectively very average work without any extraordinary features regarding inspiration. Its special for you. But thats all.

 

[John146]

Because there is no evidence for such belief, you can believe this about anything under the sun.

The KJV is objectively very average work without any extraordinary features regarding inspiration. Its special for you. But thats all.

What is your absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice?

 

[Joseppi]

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

I figure you don’t really know what language is, since if you did you wouldn’t think translation so impossibly difficult.

The endless translation such as you seem condemned to goes on and on for the simple reason that the translators are selling books not because it’s hard do.
And they can never stop and admit they are unable to create trustworthy bibles so they pretend they can yet someday maybe reproduce as close to an imaginary standard as is humanly possible by magic.

While the whole time legal translation between nations goes on everyday all day long on earth without any legal hindrance to doing so.

 

[Dino246]

If I believe that God is behind the KJV then the same God wouldn't contradict Himself with the new versions. They oppose each other.

More subjective circular reasoning.

No Scripture is of private interpretation. God said what He meant and meant what He said. It is not up to us to interpret, but believe.

You are misquoting and therefore misinterpreting the text. 2 Peter 1:20 says "no prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation", and "of" here is in the sense of "from". Prophecy doesn't come about by man's interpretation of events. The general interpretation of Scripture is not addressed here.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

I figure you don’t really know what language is, since if you did you wouldn’t think translation so impossibly difficult.

The endless translation such as you seem condemned to goes on and on for the simple reason that the translators are selling books not because it’s hard do.
And they can never stop and admit they are unable to create trustworthy bibles so they pretend they can yet someday maybe reproduce as close to an imaginary standard as is humanly possible by magic.

While the whole time legal translation between nations goes on everyday all day long on earth without any legal hindrance to doing so.

Speaking of language, what is your first language? Because it's certainly not English.

 

[Dino246]

Amen! I accept this position. Thank you.

And so you admit that your view of the KJV is based on a subjective interpretation of assertions rather than on objective facts.

 

[Joseppi]

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?

No comment.

 

[Dino246]

I figure you don’t really know what language is, since if you did you wouldn’t think translation so impossibly difficult. ...
While the whole time legal translation between nations goes on everyday all day long on earth without any legal hindrance to doing so.

You seem to be conflating two ideas here: that of "difficult" as in "requiring much effort" and that of "impossible" as in "not possible to achieve". Translation is not "so difficult that it is nearly impossible". Rather, because of structural differences between languages, exact translation is not "difficult" in that sense; it's impossible. However, adequate translation is very possible, and not all that difficult if one knows the two languages well enough.

If you know two or more languages, you may get this concept. Otherwise, you may not, and may remain stubbornly stuck in your Anglo-centric ignorance on this matter.

 

[Joseppi]

A baseless assertion. It is much quicker to type "KJV" than to type "the Holy Bible of God". Further, the way you use the phrase, "the Holy Bible of God" (or "Authorized Version") is a fallacy of equivocation, and I for one will not play that game with you.



True, but again there is an implied equivocation, as you believe that only the KJV is "the scriptures". That is demonstrably untrue, both historically and logically.



What, in your view, are these three tests?

Your whole post is empty of thought and yet you want me to show you something as you sit back daydreaming?
You go find it.

 

[trofimus]

What is your absolute authority in all matters of faith and practice?

God the Creator.

He is the absolute and ultimate authority in everything.