Why the king james?
- Thread starter Blain
- Start date
-
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.
Both lol. If the guys speaking Spanish to Germans then he needs a interpreter. But the interpreter for tongues is One.
Yeah, and to those who speak Greek they would sound drunk. So men (of other languages) and angels (no man would know what he was saying).
That makes sense
I don't know for sure, I mean an unkown tongue I would assume means no one knows the language. I lean that way because from my sudy of the bible, tongues is the hidden word of God... it's the message beneath the text. In other words it's the meaning of parables. The meaning of parables are understood by understanding what the symbols represent and only God can reveal what the symbols represent.
Hence that's why it's ridiculous to think that men could translate the bible without the inspiration of God.... the real meaning is not written down on paper, it's in the symbolism.
Edit to say: It would be like trying to translate a ciphered message and the translators don't know the cipher.... and do even know the cipher exists lol.
Last edited:
Thanks. Yeah, I see how its used in the scripture, and I thought if that argument would be used there you can see when they began to speak in tongues (on pentecost) they heard one another in their own tongue (and without an interpreter) but also in the midst of all that some others mocking, said they were drunken. So it would seem to be more a known tongue (even of men) even by the mens testimony concerning what they had heard. Then again some others mocked saying they were drunken, which would also seem to indicate they did not understand them. Thats how I meant it, but that could be stretching it n my part to equate the two in that way even if a truth could be found in both equally. Sticking to how its worded might be best.
It would be as someone who spoke English (and without an education) or an interpreter began to speak Hebrew would be tongues of men (known among men) even if only known by some.
And I suppose I can see where you are coming from on the other, since Paul also said he could not speak unto them as unto spiritual (but as unto carnal). So even there (in a whole another sense) seems to be the tongues of men (but as speaking as unto carnal men). Even as he said he spoke wisdom (not of this world) among them that were perfect (or as unto them who were spiritual). So it seems to show a few ways of speaking there.
God bless you
You've had and continue to have the exact same experience they had at Penetecost. Think about it, what is the bible? It's cloven testaments, one word split into two parts... A testament is words right? So every time you open up your bible, the real bible, cloven tongues sit upon you.
Honestly Acts 2 is a prophecy of men speaking with other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance.... do you geit it? Acts 2 is a foreshadow of the Holy Spirit moving men to speak the worderful works of God in all languages... In other words it's a foreshadow of the word of God given in all languages.
Strong's isn't "worthless" -- we just ought to keep in mind what it is and what it isn't. it's a concordance of the KJV Bible, not a dictionary or a lexicon. it enumerates every word in the original language manuscripts that the KJV translators used, and gives a list of how the KJV translators translated those words.
since it is a list of how the KJV translates words, it's not the tool you would want to use to see if the KJV used the best English to translate a Hebrew or Greek word. doing that is like using your own answer sheet as a key for your math test -- of course you'll get an A that way -- but it doesn't tell you if the answers were right!
but look, with regard to Yam Suph -- even Strong's recognizes that it shouldn't be "red sea" because the two individual words yam (3220) and suph (5488) are used by themselves in lots of places. as a baby, Moses was put in the Nile river among the reeds in Exodus chapter 2 -- not among the "reds" !
if you look at Strong's for 5488, it gives "reed" as the definition, with "red" as a secondary use with a little asterix -- indicating that yeah, we know this is not the proper definition, but since Strong's is not a dictionary - it's a list of how the KJV translated these words - it's "used" (mistranslated) 24 times, all when referring to the wrong sea.
so how do we find the definitions of Hebrew & Greek words?
with an actual dictionary or lexicon, like Brown-Driver-Briggs, or Thayer's, etc.
there's an abundance of literature about what Yam Suph refers to geographically, and even whther it should be Yam "Soph" instead of "Suph" - since the Hebrew doesn't actually have vowels. you could spend a lifetime reading about it and getting lost over arguing about this single word. the mistranslation goes back to the septuagint and then the latin vulgate, and the KJV translators followed the example of the vulgate, just like they did with the whole "lucifer" thing in Isaiah, and just like they do by transliterating "baptizo" instead of translating it to "immerse."
but what it is geographically is immaterial and tangential to the topic of this thread - just like all this discussion about tongues. the facts in both cases are simple: "unknown" is not in the Greek, but was added by interpretation to the KJV in the Corinthian epistle. the Hebrew translated as "Red Sea" does not at all literally mean "red" -- it most likely means "reed" but it's possible it means "(of the) end" if it should be 'soph' instead of 'suph'
you guys can argue for 50 more pages about it if you like, but you're arguing about interpretation - about whether tongues are supposed to be unknown or not, or whether yam suph is a general term for the whole marshy area separating Egypt from Arabia or a particular name for the gulf of Aquaba or Suez or whatever.
the translation issues are clear though in both cases -- "unknown" is definitely not in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 14. "yam suph" definitely does not literally translate as red sea.
i know KJV1611 and John are probably pouring over resources looking for ways to justify the KJV so they can say "aha!" -- but i'm not interested in going over and over and around and around about this anymore. spending our lives arguing over words isn't profitable. spending your life focused on touting any English translation isn't profitable. we're supposed to be touting Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected -- and you know what? even that mess of a "version" The Message preaches Christ crucified and resurrected!
millions of people have heard and believed the Word of God without ever hearing about the KJV. it's that Word of God - which persists even if the KJV translation were to disappear from the face of the earth, or never had been at all - it's that Word of God that is refined seven times, purified, and will never pass away. it's contained in the KJV, and it's also contained in the NIV, the HCSB, and all sorts of other translations in almost every language on earth -- and it's contained in the hearts of everyone who believes in the Son.
but what it is geographically is immaterial and tangential to the topic of this thread - just like all this discussion about tongues. the facts in both cases are simple: "unknown" is not in the Greek, but was added by interpretation to the KJV in the Corinthian epistle. the Hebrew translated as "Red Sea" does not at all literally mean "red" -- it most likely means "reed" but it's possible it means "(of the) end" if it should be 'soph' instead of 'suph'
you guys can argue for 50 more pages about it if you like, but you're arguing about interpretation - about whether tongues are supposed to be unknown or not, or whether yam suph is a general term for the whole marshy area separating Egypt from Arabia or a particular name for the gulf of Aquaba or Suez or whatever.
the translation issues are clear though in both cases -- "unknown" is definitely not in the Greek of 1 Corinthians 14. "yam suph" definitely does not literally translate as red sea.
i know KJV1611 and John are probably pouring over resources looking for ways to justify the KJV so they can say "aha!" -- but i'm not interested in going over and over and around and around about this anymore. spending our lives arguing over words isn't profitable. spending your life focused on touting any English translation isn't profitable. we're supposed to be touting Christ, and Him crucified and resurrected -- and you know what? even that mess of a "version" The Message preaches Christ crucified and resurrected!
millions of people have heard and believed the Word of God without ever hearing about the KJV. it's that Word of God - which persists even if the KJV translation were to disappear from the face of the earth, or never had been at all - it's that Word of God that is refined seven times, purified, and will never pass away. it's contained in the KJV, and it's also contained in the NIV, the HCSB, and all sorts of other translations in almost every language on earth -- and it's contained in the hearts of everyone who believes in the Son.
We already have had this out, we have no "Final Authority" version, you can not prove that such a thing was meant to exist. The logic of having a Final Authority version is flawed, as we have to have a "final authority" version in every language, and then we get problems of do they mean the same thing.
Gods word has been successfully preserved from the original authors through the thousands of years with an unprecedented number of copies and translations in existence, no other work from antiquity can touch the Bible texts for age and quantity.
Most of the history we know about Roman empire comes from a copies of which the earliest in existence a just a single copy that was published hundreds of years after the original came out.
The errors you speak of in NIV etc are not really errors, just as the "errors" pointed out to you in the King James, they are not errors as such, just difference in interpretation. These so called errors are not exactly damaging to Gods word anyway.
The issues of number of days someone did something or quoting Nebuchadnezzar are not damaging to the Word of God, if a new Bible comes out that says something like - "Jesus spoke to the people and told them that although they rejected him they would still get into eternal life if they did good things", then we know that is false as we have dozens of other versions all telling us something different.
If we have a single Bible that we can only use, then that is dangerous as things can get re-written and no one will know, but by having dozens of different versions spanning hundreds and hundreds of years we can clearly see the heresy and the attempts to corrupt Gods Word.
I see no Heresy or attempt to pervert Gods Word in the NIV nor do I see it in the King James.
Finally I will end with the point that you have not proved there really should be a perfect Bible we should all read, that is before we even get to the King James being that perfect Bible.
All so called errors in the KJV have been cleared, however, the errors in truth, facts in the NIV are clear and proven. Having a single Bible we as Christians all read, study from, and believe would only help our cause against this world. A Bible that we stick with, never change, and believe every word without question.
Without a final authority to appeal to, man becomes his own final authority about what God has said. Man can pick and choose what sounds best to them.
Without a final authority to appeal to, man becomes his own final authority about what God has said. Man can pick and choose what sounds best to them.
There you go with your blinkered cult brainwashing again, that is the problem here, you are so deluded with your own cults "truth" that you instantly go into the defence rhetoric. Saying there are no inaccuracies with the King James is false. there are inaccuracies, many have been pointed out, the inaccuracies with the NIV have all been cleared up as well, they are not false lies, no more than the King James.
OK so you pick and choose what sounds best, but if the other 100 bibles all say opposite, then its clear that is wrong.
You still have not come up with any evidence to support this "perfect Bible" theory and never will.
Proverbs 26:4 is really good and so is the next one too...
Proverbs 26:4-5 (NASB)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
( it is always good to take all scripture in "context" or that "text" will "con" you ) - in any "version" of the scriptures we use...
Proverbs 26:4-5 (NASB)
[SUP]4 [/SUP] Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.
( it is always good to take all scripture in "context" or that "text" will "con" you ) - in any "version" of the scriptures we use...
Yes, but when you argue with a fool too long, sooner or later, people will start wondering whose the fool.
I think we are all fools for arguing over such a spiritual ignorance gone to seed thing as one "version" of the scriptures is the "only word of God"....it is the scriptures that are the word of God and they are in the thousands of manuscripts...and out of those manuscripts people translate them into a "version".....some are word for word translations ..some are paraphrases..etc...I read mostly the word for word ones but use a Greek/Hebrew interlinear as my #1 source.
There are so many nuances to the Greek words and language - verb tenses which we do not have in English.
My NASB translation "version" comes alive when I read it. It is the Holy Spirit that illuminates His word to us. The King James "version" is as good as some of the others. They all have bias when the translators are translating them.
Ok..this is definitely the last time I'm posting in here ....
( I know I said that at least 3x times before..lol )
There are so many nuances to the Greek words and language - verb tenses which we do not have in English.
My NASB translation "version" comes alive when I read it. It is the Holy Spirit that illuminates His word to us. The King James "version" is as good as some of the others. They all have bias when the translators are translating them.
Ok..this is definitely the last time I'm posting in here ....
( I know I said that at least 3x times before..lol )
Thanks for the info but the Reed Sea makes no sense from a spiritual point of view. Like I said, who cares that God parted the literal Red Sea, it's pretty much useless information. The spiritual signifacance is what matters. Do a KJV bible search on the "Red Sea" and see what you come up with... good spiritual info.