King James vs. NIV... confusion

  • 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.
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#41
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#41
Baptistrw said:
The KJV isn't the oldest Bible.
Click to expand...
between the bibles we are speaking about it is, the thread is called " King James vs. NIV... confusion"

was there another bible such as the geneva , tyndall, mentioned here that i missed the KJb is older than the Niv Thank you , please I didn't said oldest manuscript either. don't twist my word please, I ssid the oldest Bible compared to the Niv which the thread is about
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#42
#42
The oldest commonly used translation is the KJV. While it was initially completed in 1611 it has gone through several editions. None of these was a significant revision. The most commonly used edition is a 1769 (I think). In 1881 a British revision was released called the English Revised Version with its American counterpart released in 1901 called the American Standard Version (ASV).

The ASV was revised in 1946 (NT), 1956 (OT), and complete 1971. This was the Revised Standard Version. A seperate revision of the ASV was released in the 60's called the New American Standard Bible (NASB).

The Revised Standard Version has gone through two distintict revisions.... 1990 - The New Revised Standard Version; 2000 - The Englsih Standard Version
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#43
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#43
The oldest commonly used translation is the KJV.
Click to expand...
And let's not forget, that its adoption and widespread use was mainly due to the efforts of the Church of England in banning the use of other commonly used translations eg Geneva bible and forcing people to conform to the church state. The Puritans considered the KJV a "government issued" bible.
Back then, it would be equivalent of how today the Chinese communist regime only officially recognises one state church and one state bible, and you be punished if you have the wrong version. The KJV itself is really a symbol of repression and government control over the church.
 
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#44
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#44
MahogonySnail said:
And let's not forget, that its adoption and widespread use was mainly due to the efforts of the Church of England in banning the use of other commonly used translations eg Geneva bible and forcing people to conform to the church state. The Puritans considered the KJV a "government issued" bible.
Back then, it would be equivalent of how today the Chinese communist regime only officially recognises one state church and one state bible, and you be punished if you have the wrong version. The KJV itself is really a symbol of repression and government control over the church.
Click to expand...
The King James Bible is and always have been the Word of God, and the best advice I could give you about your last comment, is please be very careful what you say about the Word of God.

see that is another thing wrong with having other translations is to get people to use them we with the say something negative about the Bible that was, that is , and will always be the english translation of the Word of God. well this new translation is better than the Word of God, it is easlier to understand, it is closer to the way people talk now, it's more modern, and by doing this we tear down what is the Word of God. we have one God, who can not lie , who is not the author of confusion, why do we feel we need twenty different translations to understand what he is saying to us, esp. if they don't even agree with another.
2ti 3:16All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

it is like saying that God didn't get it right, 400 years ago so we need to correct it, the correction in this verse means the Word of God is to correct us , not us correct it. but snail the comment you said is very dangerous comment against the 400 year old Word Of God please be careful.
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#45
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#45
Well if you know anything about your bible history (and you should if you are a pastor), what I said is factually correct.

Unless you believe King James was one of the 12 apostles lol...no, not that James. He was most likely a free-mason.
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#46
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#46
The King James Bible is and always have been the Word of God
Click to expand...
it is like saying that God didn't get it right, 400 years ago so we need to correct it
Click to expand...

Re: "it is like saying that God didn't get it right".

Then God must not have gotten it right, because here's an interesting website to read about the history of the King James Bible... where it talks about "sloppy printing" which misprinted he for she or Judas for Jesus and other mistakes made.
So according to you, if God wrote the King James Version, then God must have inspired sloppy printing and errors. What do you think about that?

http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/history_kjv_ii.html


Sloppy Printing
One printer’s error has persisted to this day: the original manuscripts read in Matt.23:34 “strain at a gnat” rather than “strain out a gnat”. Likewise, in Ruth 3:15 there were two folio editions, one reading, “he went into the city”, the other, “she went into the city”. The first set came to be known as “HE” Bibles, the others as “SHE” Bibles (the Hebrew can be read either way). Other misprints had ‘Judas’ for ‘Jesus’ in one place in the Gospels; and three entire lines repeated in Exodus
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#47
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#47
So Thaddaeus what do you think about the editing and changes which were made to the KJV?
Is Richard Bancroft (see below) going to hell for changing God's Word as it says not to do in Revelation?



In the spring of 1611 the translators had produced an agreed, final text, which they then submitted to the printer. However, finishing touches were now added which together made the new translation the monument it later became. Richard Bancroft performed some last-minute editing to emphasise the place of bishops in the early church (as opposed to Puritan views), while Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester and ecclesiastical politician, most likely wrote the obsequious and flattering Epistle Dedicatory
Click to expand...
So why is it OK for the creators of the KJV to edit, make changes ,corrections, and improvements, revisions, as they most certainly did.

But according to you it isn't OK for modern day translators to improve the interpretation of God's Word with new (and in many cases, better) translations?
 
B

Baptistrw

Guest
#48
#48
Thaddaeus said:
between the bibles we are speaking about it is, the thread is called " King James vs. NIV... confusion"

was there another bible such as the geneva , tyndall, mentioned here that i missed the KJb is older than the Niv Thank you , please I didn't said oldest manuscript either. don't twist my word please, I ssid the oldest Bible compared to the Niv which the thread is about
Click to expand...
That would be written as the KJV is the older Bible (not the oldest), which was not what you wrote. Knowledge of simple grammar will fix that problem for ya.
 
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#49
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#49
MahogonySnail said:
Well if you know anything about your bible history (and you should if you are a pastor), what I said is factually correct.

Unless you believe King James was one of the 12 apostles lol...no, not that James. He was most likely a free-mason.
Click to expand...
if you knew your bible history KING James did not actually have anything to do with the translation part of the Bible but only to order for it to be translated. he was not one of the translators . regardless of what you think,or what you said, I would never agree to blaspheme God's Word like that or even agree with someone who did, sorry u are in that boat without me. I'll have no part of that blaspheme statement, I know enough about biblical History, that I would never say that it is not the Word of God but rather some word of a king( man ) it is refferred to as the Holy Scriptures, this is the way I beleive, and this is the why I will do what I can to keep it that way, HOLY!!!
Ro 1:22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,Ro 1:23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.Ro 1:24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:Ro 1:25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

again I plead please be very careful, for yoursake not mine
 
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#50
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#50
Baptistrw said:
That would be written as the KJV is the older Bible (not the oldest), which was not what you wrote. Knowledge of simple grammar will fix that problem for ya.
Click to expand...
so it has come down to, you can prove that you are the smartest, excuse me the smarter one. let me give you some helpful advice it is not about you or me.ok so u know grammer better than me, u win!!!

the nasb has been mentioned also so really it was ok for me to say the oldest.

Ac 4:13Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.



ok you can be the sharpest tool in the tool shed, I just hope that one day someone will say , He may not be the sharpest tool in the tool sheld, but we know that he is walking with Jesus!
 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#51
#51
Where did God himself state the the 1611 KJV of the Bible was THE official and only legitimate English Bible?

Where was the Word of God for all those hundreds of years before the KJV?

Where is the Word of God for all of the other languages on Earth?

The KJV was translated by numerous scholars representing both the Anglicans and the Puritans.
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#52
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#52
if you knew your bible history KING James did not actually have anything to do with the translation part of the Bible but only to order for it to be translated. he was not one of the translators . regardless of what you think,or what you said, I would never agree to blaspheme God's Word like that or even agree with someone who did, sorry u are in that boat without me. I'll have no part of that blaspheme statement, I know enough about biblical History, that I would never say that it is not the Word of God but rather some word of a king( man ) it is refferred to as the Holy Scriptures, this is the way I beleive, and this is the why I will do what I can to keep it that way, HOLY!!!
Click to expand...
King James ordered for it to be translated and yet also ordered that a certain denominational slant be put with in it, to better suit the Church of Englands agenda. Very minor changes but still changes nonetheless.

I never said it was the word of a king, the contents may be expressed as the translation of the Word of God. But I do think it is strange that you ignore the fact that the name of King James is written all over the cover. Why isn't God's name on the front cover? The name King James on the front shows that it was a government -sanctioned bible. Perhaps that is why new translations may be better because they are free from some of the bias of King James and the Church of England?
 
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#53
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#53
MahogonySnail said:
Re: "it is like saying that God didn't get it right".

Then God must not have gotten it right, because here's an interesting website to read about the history of the King James Bible... where it talks about "sloppy printing" which misprinted he for she or Judas for Jesus and other mistakes made.
So according to you, if God wrote the King James Version, then God must have inspired sloppy printing and errors. What do you think about that?

http://www.adamthwaite.com.au/html/history_kjv_ii.html


Sloppy Printing
One printer’s error has persisted to this day: the original manuscripts read in Matt.23:34 “strain at a gnat” rather than “strain out a gnat”. Likewise, in Ruth 3:15 there were two folio editions, one reading, “he went into the city”, the other, “she went into the city”. The first set came to be known as “HE” Bibles, the others as “SHE” Bibles (the Hebrew can be read either way). Other misprints had ‘Judas’ for ‘Jesus’ in one place in the Gospels; and three entire lines repeated in Exodus
Click to expand...
here is a quote from your own web site that you asked me to look at :
Sloppy Printing
One printer’s error has persisted to this day: the original manuscripts read in Matt.23:34 “strain at a gnat” rather than “strain out a gnat”. Likewise, in Ruth 3:15 there were two folio editions, one reading, “he went into the city”, the other, “she went into the city”. The first set came to be known as “HE” Bibles, the others as “SHE” Bibles (the Hebrew can be read either way). Other misprints had ‘Judas’ for ‘Jesus’ in one place in the Gospels; and three entire lines repeated in Exodus

i will tell you as i tell all my other friends be very careful what you read on the web. my friend any bible scholar( which I am not) will tell you, that we don't have the orginal manuscripts, the other point you brought up sir, is I wished you would quit trying to twist what I say, I never said God wrote the Kjb but the scriptures says that He inspired the Word. yeah the printers in those days had problems, the v's and the u's were often mistaken for the other, and that is why the scriptures has been revised. and you have attacked the Word twice now and I would rather not carry on any more with you on this subject if the Kjb is of God which people believed this for 400 years now, then you are fighting against God himself, when you attack His Word please stop , I will not respond to you anymore about this.

Ac 5:39But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.
 
T

Thaddaeus

Banned
#54
Jan 31, 2009
2,225
11
0
#54
MahogonySnail said:
King James ordered for it to be translated and yet also ordered that a certain denominational slant be put with in it, to better suit the Church of Englands agenda. Very minor changes but still changes nonetheless.

I never said it was the word of a king, the contents may be expressed as the translation of the Word of God. But I do think it is strange that you ignore the fact that the name of King James is written all over the cover. Why isn't God's name on the front cover? The name King James on the front shows that it was a government -sanctioned bible. Perhaps that is why new translations may be better because they are free from some of the bias of King James and the Church of England?
Click to expand...

My Bible Has God's name on the Cover THE HOLY BIBLE
 
MahogonySnail

MahogonySnail

Banned
#55
Jan 8, 2009
7,576
23
0
#55
and that is why the scriptures has been revised
Click to expand...
If the KJV was so perfect 400 years ago there would be no need for revisions would there? So what's the problem with making a new version which fixes up a lot of the mistakes and reads better?


you have attacked the Word twice now
Click to expand...
I haven't really attacked anything, only been trying to get some common sense into you about how the King James bible was made, by pointing out its history, the issues it has, and why new versions or translations are desirable. I understand if you want to stop this discussion, but if you want to explore further, here is a list of additions, obscure and misleading renderings, and things that could have been done better in the KJV to read at your leisure..

http://www.ibsstl.org/niv/mct/14.php#MORE



 
S

Slepsog4

Guest
#56
#56
ROFL....

Holy Bible is NOT God's name.

No one in this thread has attacked the Word of God... at all. To assert that the KJV of the Bible is anything more than one of several VERSIONS (part of its very name) is to say more than the translators themselves said. I love the KJV, I believe it has some superior elements to it.

Few people today speak or often read Elizabethan English. What makes you think that the English of any particular era is the Lord's preference for communicating His will. The Bible does not change (in the original languages.. they are dead... frozen in time) but the English language is living and fluid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.