KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authorty confirmation.

Click to expand...

You should get out more.

-CryptoLutheran

Why dont you all spend some time off the internet and actually learn Greek and then Hebrew? Then you arent working off of ANY translation!

.

ViaCrucis said:

William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale would like to have a word with you.

Click to expand...

And they're not happy.

KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Something i find in the KJV vs Modern English Translations
- KJV argument is always only strengthened while newer translations feel they are stuck defending their perversion of choice.
(not a sign from God alone? Then let it take from your spirit, leaving you unhappy)
- Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authorty confirmation.
- Because Satan is so ever working as much as God Himslef, 1 Peter 5:8 (KJV), The newer translations as a group attack the King James; usually differing doctrinely.

Please have a Blissful awakaning.

Click to expand...

Since you think that a 400+ year old book is the one for you and therefore must be for everyone else, regardless of their faith in God and love for Christ, there is no point in having any further discussion with you.

P.S. How about using a spell-checker?

KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

<snip>
- Everyone always runs to the KJV for final authorty confirmation.
<snip>

Click to expand...

True Christians run to God as their final authority (notice the spelling).

GreekOrthodox said:

Why dont you all spend some time off the internet and actually learn Greek and then Hebrew? Then you arent working off of ANY translation!

Click to expand...

Even if KingJamesVersionBibleOnly did learn Greek and Hebrew (plus Aramaic) he would still not be equipped to translate the ancient texts, as there are many nuances to any language as well as cultural understanding that he would need. I have the greatest respect for those scholars who have spent their lives in translation work. They have given us the finest possible translations in English -- and their work continues.

In 1611 King James authorized a single version (only) of the English bible. For some reason, KJVO people still accept the authority of the king of a foreign country four centuries ago instead of accepting the great advances in scholarly translation work done since. I have zero respect for them: a closed mind is nothing to be proud of.

pescador said:

In 1611 King James authorized a single version (only) of the English bible. For some reason, KJVO people still accept the authority of the king of a foreign country four centuries ago instead of accepting the great advances in scholarly translation work done since. I have zero respect for them: a closed mind is nothing to be proud of.

Click to expand...

I kinda' understand the comparison and contrast of newer English translations with a classic like the KJV. Just giving respect where it's due.
otoh the reverse, to judge ancient texts in the original language against a foreign language translation made 1600 years removed is beyond stupid.

brinny said:

That would be his "standing" as a "disciple", would it not?

It is referring to whatever "standing" he had, in accompanying Christ.

And another did take his "standing", did they not?

Click to expand...

In other words, it takes quite a bit of interpretation for it even to begin to make sense.

Why did Judas, and later Matthias, have a "Bishoprick" when none of the other Apostles are said to have a
"Bishoprick"?

I'm having trouble picturing Judas sitting in his cathedra in a Cathedral in Herod's Israel.

brinny said:

What research have you done on the word "leasing" as it pertains to that language?

In addition, what i have found is that the surrounding verses help to define and put into context what is meant by that particular word in that particular verse.

Click to expand...

You seem to be saying that it is my responsibility to know if the meanings of words have changed since 1600. It is well known that the meanings of many words have changed since then. The definitions of hundreds of words that occur in the KJV have altered. Are you aware of all these changes? Or do you notice only when it seems to you to lead to an absurd result? You could be a victim of definition drift. As long as definition drift only confirms your prejudices, you'll never notice.

KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

I think "its harder to read" is a sad excuse to risk losing your soul.

Click to expand...

You make some extraordinary claims for the King James Bible. Does the KJV keep people from falling into error?

The Seventh Day Adventists use the King James Bible. They use it because their founder, the "prophetess" Ellen White used it. Yet the errors of the SDA are endless. As I have pointed out, Ellen White taught that Moses resurrected from the dead in Old Testament times. She also teaches that Satan will die for your sins.

The Mornons also use the King James Bible. When they say they believe in the Bible, that means the King James version. They use the KJV because their founder did. Yet use of the KJV hasn't stopped the Mormons from massively supplementing the Bible with extra scriptures of their own making.

I'm not seeing any sign that the KJV keeps people from error.

Dale said:

In other words, it takes quite a bit of interpretation for it even to begin to make sense.

Why did Judas, and later Matthias, have a "Bishoprick" when none of the other Apostles are said to have a
"Bishoprick"?

I'm having trouble picturing Judas sitting in his cathedra in a Cathedral in Herod's Israel.

Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm.....the surrounding verses and words may offer some clarity into the context that is meant by the word.

Dale said:

You seem to be saying that it is my responsibility to know if the meanings of words have changed since 1600. It is well known that the meanings of many words have changed since then. The definitions of hundreds of words that occur in the KJV have altered. Are you aware of all these changes? Or do you notice only when it seems to you to lead to an absurd result? You could be a victim of definition drift. As long as definition drift only confirms your prejudices, you'll never notice.

Click to expand...

Thank you you for sharing your opinion.

I appreciate it.

How in the world did Christianity survive prior to 1611, and without the KJV?

God Bless

Till all are one.

It seems that some join this forum to force others to accept their personal ideology, no matter how extreme or illogical, or just to troll others.

brinny said:

Hmmmmmm.....the surrounding verses and words may offer some clarity into the context that is meant by the word.

Click to expand...

That certainly opens up the text to personal interpretation (or misinterpretation), one of the reasons people shouldn't use a 400+ year old bible that isn't in their native language. God isn't the author of confusion.

In my opinion KJVO people worship their translation as an idol and like feeling superior to those who don't use it. Their pharasaic self-righteousness is disgraceful.

pescador said:

That certainly opens up the text to personal interpretation (or misinterpretation), one of the reasons people shouldn't use a 400+ year old bible that isn't in their native language. God isn't the author of confusion.

In my opinion KJVO people worship their translation as an idol and like feeling superior to those who don't use it. Their pharasaic self-righteousness is disgraceful.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

You are entitled to your opinion, however, and i appreciate you sharing it.

pescador said:

It seems that some join this forum to force others to accept their personal ideology, no matter how extreme or illogical, or just to troll others.

Click to expand...

Awwwww c'mon, that's not true.

Rubiks said:

The King James Bible teaches Arianism. Here is John 3:16

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Here is the New Revised Standard Version:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him may not perish but may have eternal life.

Click to expand...

Uh, yeah; It's talking about the Incarnation or when the Word was made flesh.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?" (Hebrews 1:5).

Actually, Modern Translations fumble the ball on this one by saying "one and only Son" in John 3:16 because God the Father has many sons. Angels and believers are called sons of God. But they are different than Jesus. They are not begotten like Jesus was. They did not come down into a flesh of a man (with no human father) whereby they are a part of the Trinity or the Godhead.