Which Bible?

[trofimus]

#2 I believe God chose English as He foresaw the English language ready to explode on the scene and the English speaking world ready for harvest and would use the KJV to save millions and millions through all the way through the 20th century.

Why do you believe that? What if God foresaw the Chinese language to explode in 22nd century or Russian to explode in 20th century or Spanish to explode in 18th century?

If I understand you right, you are saying that KJV is not only for English speakers, but for all.

#3 As a maturing believer I was searching for a perfect Bible. I was getting tired of Pastor after Pastor correcting their Bibles and saying "this is a better way to say this verse." The Holy Spirit led me to study the different forms of manuscripts used for translation.

So how did your study of manuscripts led you to KJV and not to other English reformation translations? Textus receptus was used by many, not just KJV translators.

#4 There are not proved errors in the KJV, only alleged errors.

Why do you think that for example this error is not proved?

"Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen (75) souls."
(Acts 7:14)

"...all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ​ten (70)"
(Genesis 46:27)

Error in Genesis 46:27 is in massoretic source. Other sources has 75, which is the right number.

 

[KJV1611]

For KJV1611:

You guys who advocate for KJV Only can be very different from each other, so can you clarify to me your positions to these questions?

1. Why do you think that translations or copying of manuscripts are inspired? And how do you decide which one?

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

3. Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

4. What do you do with errors in KJV like corrupted OT sources and therefore wrong OT texts in KJV that obviously differ from their quotations in NT?


Thanks Then I will be able to better discuss it.

Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

I started out reading the NIV and the Holy Spirit kept bringing contradictory NIV verses to my mind. So I started investigating the contradictions and then learned about the "KJV only" cult. Which I do agree is a cult, but that got me into the KJV and I started studying it. It was hard at first but the more I read it the easier it got.

Eventually God began to show me things in the KJV, I mean really cool stuff like DNA in Genesis and Psalms and the gospels. It blew me away. For once in my life I was totally excited about reading the bible. It was like I couldn't put it down. he began to show me how numbers work in the bible like the number 4. The fourth is always different. Mattew, Mark and Luke are the same but John the fourth book is different. Shadrach, Meshach and Obednigo ae the same but the fourth is like the son of God.

Anyway many many more things also but I have to go for now. See ya!

 

[trofimus]

How do I know which bible is inspired?

The one that 100% of the time reflects the image of God.

a) How do you know its KJV and not for example the Geneva Bible? How did you compare and decided between these two, for example?

The one that doesn't contradict itself nor contain errors.

b) So how do you deal with errors in KJV?

 

[trofimus]

2. Why do you think that a perfect translation has to be in English (why not Latin, Greek, Chinese or Spanish or something else)?

I don't think it has to be in English only, I believe God's perfect word is in all languages. The only language I know is English so I can't comment as to which which versions are preserved in the other languages.

OK, so I probably can say that you would prefer reformation translations (based on similar sources KJV is based on) in other languages.

What about languages that did not have any reformation translation (almost every non-european language) and have only modern ones, like in Asian countries?

Textus receptus (the source of KJV) is not used anymore for translations. Can be such translation "perfect" for example in Chinese?

 

[trofimus]

Why do you think that it is middle age KJV and not something else, what is your background reason for choosing KJV - tradition? Or some article that convinced you? How did you arrive at KJV translation as the only one good.

I started out reading the NIV and the Holy Spirit kept bringing contradictory NIV verses to my mind. So I started investigating the contradictions and then learned about the "KJV only" cult. Which I do agree is a cult, but that got me into the KJV and I started studying it. It was hard at first but the more I read it the easier it got.

Eventually God began to show me things in the KJV, I mean really cool stuff like DNA in Genesis and Psalms and the gospels. It blew me away. For once in my life I was totally excited about reading the bible. It was like I couldn't put it down. he began to show me how numbers work in the bible like the number 4. The fourth is always different. Mattew, Mark and Luke are the same but John the fourth book is different. Shadrach, Meshach and Obednigo ae the same but the fourth is like the son of God.

Anyway many many more things also but I have to go for now. See ya!

This is a nice testimony and I am glad you have found "your" Bible.

Now I would like to know why you think its not only your personal revelation that this translation is the best for you and are saying it is best for everyone else

What if somebody has the similar testimony with ESV?

 

[hornetguy]

The words in Isaiah don't match the words of Luke in any of the translations because Jesus didn't read the book of Isaiah, he opened the book to Isaiah 61 and began speaking to the audience.

Does it say he spoke to the audience?

 

[hornetguy]

#4 There are not proved errors in the KJV, only alleged errors.

Herein lies the crux of this disagreement/discussion.

You are completely convinced that the KJV is "error free"... even though there have been numerous errors pointed out in this thread, and in many other threads recently. You either ignore, or dismiss out of hand anything that is seen as an error..... while at the same time condemning to the ash-heap any other translation that has a similar error.

You are like the person with their fingers in their ears going "lalalalalala" when errors are pointed out.

And, don't get me wrong, the errors pointed out are not "deal breakers" for most normal people. They realize the fallibility of translators, and allow for occasional differences in translated words.

It's your obsessive insistence that every word, punctuation mark, and smudge has to be "preserved" for it to be the words of God. That idea is simply not taught in scripture. The scriptures you guys keep bringing up are talking about the contrast of God's pure words versus man's lies and impure words. The Psalms scriptures are merely extolling the "wonderfulness" of God's truth in His words to us. They are songs/poems of praise...

They NEVER say "every word that God spoke or inspired will be preserved exactly the way He spoke it"

It is your legalistic mindset that tells you that you have to have the 100% pure/accurate words of God, instead of realizing that God HAS preserved His words in many translations, and if there is a word or two that are different, the Spirit leads us to understanding, whether in the NIV or the KJV.

You love the KJV... I get it. I have no problem with that. Making it a salvation issue is wrong.

 

[John146]

Why do you believe that? What if God foresaw the Chinese language to explode in 22nd century or Russian to explode in 20th century or Spanish to explode in 18th century?

If I understand you right, you are saying that KJV is not only for English speakers, but for al

I'm only talking about English. The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did - the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene!

 

[trofimus]

I'm only talking about English. The greatest missionary work in church history occurred between 1700 and 1900, so it makes perfect sense that God would have a Bible ready for this great work, and He did - the KJV. Unfortunately, the new translations appeared a bit LATE on the scene!

OK,lets say the greatest missionary work occurred between 1700-1900 even though I do not know what you mean by that.

But we live in the 21st century and English speaking countries are less and less Christian. So is it time for 'Chinese Only' or 'Korean Only' now?

 

[John146]

OK,lets say the greatest missionary work occurred between 1700-1900 even though I do not know what you mean by that.

But we live in the 21st century and English speaking countries are less and less Christian. So is it time for 'Chinese Only' or 'Korean Only' now?

God promised to preserve His words. He never promised to preserve His words in every language. However, the gospel can be easily administered in every language. If God has chosen to preserve His words in another language then great. Praise the Lord. I am talking about English.

 

[trofimus]

God promised to preserve His words. He never promised to preserve His words in every language. However, the gospel can be easily administered in every language. If God has chosen to preserve His words in another language then great. Praise the Lord. I am talking about English.

He also never promised to preserve His words in English.

Maybe its only French or German? And not English,because He did not promise to preserve it in every language.

BTW can you react to my example of KJV error?

 

[John146]

He also never promised to preserve His words in English.

Maybe its only French or German? And not English,because He did not promise to preserve it in every language.

BTW can you react to my example of KJV error?

Correct, that's just my faith and belief.

Sure. Are you searching for truth or searching to prove God has not preserved His words like He said? Big difference. This is the way I clear up any "apparent contradictions" in the two accounts:

In Acts 7 Stephen states, "Then sent Joseph, and called his father Jacob to him, and all his kindred, threescore and fifteen souls." The number which Stephen gives is 75. However, the passage in Genesis 46:27 totals 70. There we read, "And the sons of Joseph, which were born him in Egypt, were two souls: all the souls of the house of Jacob, which came into Egypt, were threescore and ten." The truth is that Stephen is not quoting anything, he is referring to something.

These two texts reflect two ways of numbering Jacob's family. Jacob's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Gen. 46:8-26). Adding Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy. If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob's sons (Judah's and simeon's wives were dead; Joseph could not be said to call himself, his own wife, or his two sons into Egypt; and Jacob is specified separately by Stephen), we have seventy-five persons, as Stephen states in Acts 7.

The passage in Acts clearly shows that Stephen was referring to events in Genesis 46 and not quoting the passage.

 

[trofimus]

Correct, that's just my faith and belief.

I know its your belief, I was just wondering if you can prove it as an objective truth. If you have claims that can be verified.

The truth is that Stephen is not quoting anything, he is referring to something.

I agree, its not a quotation. He refers to the number in Genesis.

These two texts reflect two ways of numbering Jacob's family.

Jacob's children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren amounted to sixty-six (Gen. 46:8-26).

Adding Jacob himself, and Joseph with his two sons, we have seventy.

If to the sixty-six we add the nine wives of Jacob's sons, we have seventy-five persons, as Stephen states in Acts 7.

Nice work with numbers but how do you explain that Septuagint has 75 in Genesis?

Can you prove that there were two ways of counting 'souls'?

 

[Dan_473]

The words in Isaiah don't match the words of Luke in any of the translations because Jesus didn't read the book of Isaiah, he opened the book to Isaiah 61 and began speaking to the audience.

Luke says it was written.

 

[Dan_473]

Are these Massoretic texts?

Luke 4:18New American Standard Bible (NASB)

[FONT=&][FONT=&]18 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon Me,
Because He anointed Me to preach the gospel to the poor.
He has sent Me to proclaim release to the captives,
And recovery of sight to the blind,
To set free those who are oppressed,

[/FONT]
Isaiah 61:1New American Standard Bible (NASB)

[FONT=&]61 The Spirit of the Lord [a]God is upon me,
Because the Lord has anointed me
To bring good news to the [b]afflicted;
He has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
To proclaim liberty to captives
And [c]freedom to prisoners;[/FONT]

[/FONT]

Masoretic is just the ot, so no, Luke isn't in there.

 

[Dan_473]

Why would I believe otherwise? It's either the son of God or a son of the gods. A son of the gods would be a Nephilim wouldn't it? It don't think a Nephilim would be in the fiery furnace to protect them.

Nebuchadnezzar would probably describe Jesus as a son of the gods.

 

[Dan_473]

That's sounds nice, but if what you say is true then ALL of us would be on the same page. Some say the Holy Spirit tells them that "holy laughter" is the Spirit of God, some say the Holy Spirit tells them that "holy laughter" comes form the devil. Same with almost any doctrine you can come up with. Some will say the Spirit says this and some will say the Spirit says the opposite.

The only true image of Christ and who he is comes from the bible. Anything outside of that is not trustworthy.

we are on different pages because we start from different places.

but the destination is the same

ROMANS 8:29 This is true because he already knew his people and had already appointed them to have the same form as the


image of his Son.


Therefore, his Son is the firstborn among many children.

 

[Oncefallen]

Why is this plural? It just says God or god, not Gods or gods. Again I don't know anything about Aramaic.

אֱלָהּʼĕlâhh, el-aw'; (Aramaic) corresponding to H433; God:—God, god.

I do not know. KJV says "son of God" and NASB says "son of the gods".

This is an easy one. The reason for the difference between the KJV and the NASB is that the KJV translators........






wait for it








it's coming






made an error in translation.

The Aramaic word used is elahin (the plural of elah) therefore son of the gods would be the correct translation. You have to remember that Nebuchadnezzar would have been a polytheist therefore believing that the fourth being on the furnace was a son of one of the numerous gods that he believed in. He was not referencing the Son of God. As Hornetguy already said though the KJV's error in no way substantially changes facts of the story as it pertains to Christian theology.

 

[NarrowRoadDisciple]

I know its your belief, I was just wondering if you can prove it as an objective truth. If you have claims that can be verified.


I agree, its not a quotation. He refers to the number in Genesis.



Nice work with numbers but how do you explain that Septuagint has 75 in Genesis?

Can you prove that there were two ways of counting 'souls'?

One thing to remember is that Luke wrote both Luke and ACTS and was a Gentile physician. His method of accounting for things would be different than say the apostles who would view things in the Hebrew understanding. He would have penned things down from a logical and analytical standpoint.

 

[trofimus]

One thing to remember is that Luke wrote both Luke and ACTS and was a Gentile physician. His method of accounting for things would be different than say the apostles who would view things in the Hebrew understanding. He would have penned things down from a logical and analytical standpoint.

Not sure what does Luke have to do with it.

It was Stephen talking. And remember, Septuagint (OT used by the first church) has 75 which is the right number referred by Stephen.

So no "two different countings" (how can you count 'all souls' differently? All means all), but two different text sources.