Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Daniel 3:25 CHANGE "the Son of God" TO "a son of the gods" ("He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC "Thats Blasphemy"
It seems the majority of translations prefer 'a son of the Gods'. To the KJV translation of 'like the Son of God'.

All you need to do now, is find an expert on the Hebrew language. The translation the expert provides for that sentence (Daniel 3:25) will reveal all.

Incidentally, Nebuchadnezzar was ignorant of the monotheistic God of Israel. It's more likely that Nebuchadnezzar would describe Jesus as a son of the Gods. Nebuchadnezzar was into polytheism (many Gods).

As soon as we have the correct translation, then we can proceed to an inquisition. Finally, we can purify the world of every heresy and blasphemy. We can also conduct a bible burning and rid the earth of these satanic bibles. That is, which translations are found to be wrong of course. I don't know yet because I know nothing about the Hebrew language.

Just be patient.

PS. I hope the KJV is not conducting a translation from the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. The Septuagint is the correct text. The Septuagint was the text the apostles quoted from.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
PS. I hope the KJV is not conducting a translation from the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. The Septuagint is the correct text. The Septuagint was the text the apostles quoted from.

I assume from tje rest of your post that your postscript is also a joke, because it is fairly widely known that the KJV Old Testament is based primarily on the Masoretic, although they did consult the Vulgate, the Septuagint, even the Peshitta. The KJV translators were extremely well rounded and diverse.

By the way, isn’t that part of Daniel in Aramaic? A pity we don’t have @SteveCaruso active on CF.com ; I searched for Aramaic and Syriac Christianity related discussions and found his posts interesting, and I hope he returns because I would like to meet him.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
Incidentally, Nebuchadnezzar was ignorant of the monotheistic God of Israel. It's more likely that Nebuchadnezzar would describe Jesus as a son of the Gods. Nebuchadnezzar was into polytheism (many Gods).

Certainly early on that was the case; he was a hardcore Gilgamesh-admiring, Ishtar-worshipping Chaldean Pagan with a disturbing interest in furnaces*, but after his madness and repentance I got the sense that he had possibly learned from the Holy Prophet Daniel what was up, so to speak?

*Seriously; many years ago I saw a fascinating documentary on Chaldean and Middle Eastern ceramic tiled furnaces which featured a reconstruction of the furnace in which Nebuchadnezzar intended to kill the three youths, but was stopped by our Lord, or an angel of His.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
I assume from tje rest of your post that your postscript is also a joke, because it is fairly widely known that the KJV Old Testament is based primarily on the Masoretic, although they did consult the Vulgate, the Septuagint, even the Peshitta. The KJV translators were extremely well rounded and diverse.

By the way, isn’t that part of Daniel in Aramaic? A pity we don’t have @SteveCaruso active on CF.com ; I searched for Aramaic and Syriac Christianity related discussions and found his posts interesting, and I hope he returns because I would like to meet him.
So the obvious question to be asked is; why did the KJV prefer the Masoretic text. When they knew, full well, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early church.

The Vulgate translation in the fourth century used the Septuagint for obvious reasons.

Every Protestant Bible translation after the KJV, then used the Masoretic text (tradition).

I am baffled as to why they did that. I do not understand.
 
Upvote 0

klutedavid

Well-Known Member
Dec 7, 2013
9,346
4,381
Sydney, Australia.
✟244,844.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Certainly early on that was the case; he was a hardcore Gilgamesh-admiring, Ishtar-worshipping Chaldean Pagan with a disturbing interest in furnaces*, but after his madness and repentance I got the sense that he had possibly learned from the Holy Prophet Daniel what was up, so to speak?

*Seriously; many years ago I saw a fascinating documentary on Chaldean and Middle Eastern ceramic tiled furnaces which featured a reconstruction of the furnace in which Nebuchadnezzar intended to kill the three youths, but was stopped by our Lord, or an angel of His.
I always watch those kind of documentaries.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
So the obvious question to be asked is; why did the KJV prefer the Masoretic text. When they knew, full well, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early church.

The Vulgate translation in the fourth century used the Septuagint for obvious reasons.

Every Protestant Bible translation after the KJV, then used the Masoretic text (tradition).

I am baffled as to why they did that. I do not understand.

No, the Vulgate mostly translated from the original Hebrew and Aramaic with regards to the Old Testament, with St. Jerome taking great pains to learn these languages and find reliable experts to help validate his translation.

The Masoretic text, by the Renaissance, was the only readily available edition of the Hebrew and Aramaic Old Testament; the Masoretes preserved a specific manuscript tradition which was presumed by the early reformers to be authentic, and it is close to what St. Jerome used, but it is divergent from the Septuagint, and the legitimacy of the Septuagint has been reasserted by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which provide us with evidence for much more textual diversity, and Hebraic fragments for Septuagint readings, and also Hebrew attestation of books like The Wisdom of Sirach and Tobit, which had previously only been known via Greek editions, and indeed the lack of Hebrew editions was an oft cited justification for Protestants for omitting the deuterocanonicals or deprecating their doctrinal importance. So the Dead Sea Scrolls in the Qumran Cave was quite a find, exceeding even the vast collection of heretical lost Gnostic scriptures at Nag Hammadi in Egypt.

In a sense the Dead Sea Scrolls are revitalizing Protestantism by forcing it to ecumenically re-engage with the apostolic churches, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrian Church of the East (who conveniently, are the other members of the World Council of Churches, of which the Roman Catholic Church is not a full member, but an observer; for the RCC to be a full member of the WCC it would give the impression that the RCC no longer considered itself the church but a church, and they aren’t ready to do that, despite much ecumenical progress, especially in the 1990s with Pope John Paul II at the helm and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who would become Pope Benedict XVI, at the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, which is pivotal in deciding doctrinal issues, when they managed to effectively reconcile the three main Christological factions left over in the wake of the mess Nestorius made in the early 5th century.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
11,180
5,708
49
The Wild West
✟475,582.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
I always watch those kind of documentaries.

This was one of the old, good historical documentaries one used to see on channels like Discovery and History and The Learning Channel, before they were taken over by reality shows, truckers, loggers, ancient aliens, goofy quantum mysticism of the Deepak Chopra variety and Dog the Bounty Hunter.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I don’t understand. You do realize that by the time of Christ, Hebrew was a liturgical language (most Jews spoke Aramaic, and depended on the Targumim, an Aramaic paraphrase and explanation of the Tanakh) when hearing it in the synagogue? And furthermore, that a substantial number of Jews were Hellenic Jews, who spoke Greek fluently or even as their primary or only language?


Indeed, Jewry at the time of Christ could be roughly divided into Pharisees, Sadducees, Hellenic Jews (who were Hellenized to various degrees), and the ascetic Essenes? And that at least three dialects of Aramaic were spoken by the Jews, which were different from Old Testament Aramaic which we find in Daniel and a few other places? (Judean Aramaic, Gallilean Aramaic, which our Lord would have used as his native tongue, and what became Syriac Aramaic, spoken by the Jewish merchants in Mesopotamia and India (there were Jews in Kerala since the second century BC, the Christian church was founded there by the Apostle Thomas, who was martyred by an enraged Hindu rajah around 54 AD, and within that church, there is an endogamous group descended entirely from Jews? Indeed the Kochin Jews in Kerala are probably why St. Thomas and his disciples Saints Addai and Mari set out there to begin with. And the Christians of Malankara, who were called Nasranis by the ruling Hindus, call themselves Mar Thoma (St. Thomas in Syriac) Christians? There are still a few Kochin Jews in Kerala today, but most emigrated to India, and the beautiful Paradesi Synagogue is basically a quorum, as they cannot form a minyan. The most prominent Kochin Jewish family were the Sassoons, of whom Vidal Sassoon, the famous hairstylist, is the most well known scion.


Likewise, among the Hellenic Jews, some of whom likely spoke Greek only, they existed as a discrete community, and still do, known as the Romaniotes, in very small numbers, in Greece (their Rabbis wear attire similiar to that of Greek Orthodox priests, and they use their own liturgy, which is distinct from the Sephardic, Ashkenazi, Yemeni, Ethiopic and Karaite rites (all of which are more common; they are quite endangered considering the Karaites outnumner them). They also use distinct mantles for their Torah scrolls.


The Ethiopian Jews, or Beta Israel (which means House of Israel in Ge’ez and Amharic) are another interesting case, insofar as Ethiopia was the only self-governing Jewish state at the time of Christ, but the Ethiopians mainly spoke Ge’ez, another Semitic language. The Solomonic dynasty of Ethiopia and most of the rest of their people became the fourth or fifth nation to convert to Christianity in the early fourth century, at around the same time as Georgia (the city state of Edessa was the first, followed by the Kingdom of Armenia in 306 AD, and the Roman Empire in phases, with St. Constantine and his co-emperor Licinius issuing the Edict of Milan legalizing it in 313 AD, although it was not really until the reign of Theodosius I in the 380s that Christianity truly became the state religion (for most of the fourth century, the Roman Emperors were Arian heretics, followers of Arius who insisted Christ our God was created, and not Himself God, thus denying the doctrine of the Trinity) starting with St. Constantine’s son Constantius, and St. Athanasius, the defender of the Apostolic faith at Nicaea, was exiled from Alexandria to Trier in Germany; things remained horrible into the 360s), and many Nicene Christians were severely persecuted. However, that aside, returning to Abyssinia, as Ethiopia was then often called, the Beta Israel still survive, and a few of them still live there, but after the Derg communists strangled Emperor St. Haile Selassie after he refused to renounce Christianity, they, like many communist regimes, began anti-Semitic propaganda and violence, and so most of the Beta Israel had to flee to the state of Israel, with some assistance from the CIA and Mossad, but thankfully, they survive, and their Old Testament text is interesting in that it preserves several books not in the Septuagint.

Obviously there were Jews in other countries. This is not a shocker by any means because this is what we read about even at Pentecost (Acts of the Apostles 2:5). However, this fact does not prove you are correct in any way. The point is not the existence of Jews in other nations. That’s not the standard of truth we should follow. The point of focus and standard of truth here is looking to the words of Jesus and or Scripture. Any normal reading of the gospels (without any religiously biased influence) is going to come away knowing that during the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, His primary evangelistic focus was to first save or evangelize Israel and not the Gentiles (even though Jesus would turn out in the end to save the majority of the whole world).

For Jesus said,

“These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.” (Matthew 10:5-6).

We learn that Jesus did not want to bother initially with the Canaanite woman.

“And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou Son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs.” (Matthew 15:22-26).

It was only her persistent faith that changed things. But the point here is that Jesus did not want to even deal with her initially because He was first sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. That was his ministry focus (even though Christ would die for the sins of the majority of mankind’s sins and conquer the punishment of sin [which is death] with His resurrection).

It’s why God chose Israel as His nation. They were to be a holy and separate nation that sought to be a light unto the Gentiles. The Gentiles were regarded as dogs, and the Israelites were supposed to convert them to being a Jew under God’s ways.

You said:
You forget that gentiles could convert to Judaism through circumcision, and always could, and still can. Judaism was not endogamous, unlike, say, Yazidism, where if a Yazidi girl marries a non-Yazidi, “honor killings” are known to occur. In fact St. Paul even references the great efforts the Pharisees went through to proselytize (one would expect the Sadducees didn’t care). Furthermore, the entire book of Ruth, one of the Megillot (the Five Scrolls, along with Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Esther and the Song of Solomon), which have special liturgical importance, is about a Moabite converting to Judaism.

You are arguing against a point that I never made. So you are barking up the wrong tree. I was not born again yesterday. I have been aware for a very long time about the story of Ruth, and others who were Gentiles (like the Ninevites). But the point here is that the Torah or the Holy Scriptures was never directly given to Gentiles by God during the time of Moses and the time of Christ’s earthly ministry. The Israelites were the keepers of sacred Scripture. So this is why there is no pre-Christian LXX. A few Gentiles being saved between Moses and Christ’s ministry in the Old Testament (before the cross) does not prove there was a pre-Christian LXX (if that is what you are suggesting here).

You said:
Also, the Salvation that St. Peter told the early Christians about was not generally available to anyone before Christ, regardless of whether or not one had the Torah. St. Paul teaches us “the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”* The Torah represents an absolute moral code but because of original sin, Israel could not keep it. After the Mosaic covenant, St. Elijah alone came close enough to righteousness and was spirited off to Heaven. Thus, when we reached the point as a civilization where we could appreciate what God the Son was preparing to do for us, He took our fallen humanity and restored it to its original beauty through His incarnation, transfiguration, passion and resurrection, and then He sent God the Holy Spirit, who had facilitated His conception, to convey His grace and indwell in the faithful, as our comforter and paraclete, so that the infinite love of the unoriginate Father who begat the uncreated Son before all ages and from whom proceeds the uncreated Holy Spirit, three persons in an eternal union of perfect love, could be conveyed to us.

I don’t usually lean too much on Luther, preferring greatly more gentle Protestants like St. Jan Hus or John Wesley, however, in this case I really feel that there is some didactic value to his conceptualization of the Law and Gospel, which my Lutheran friends @MarkRohfrietsch and @ViaCrucis are better equipped to explain.

(part 1 of 2)

I do not adhere to Belief Alone-ism and nor do I agree with Luther.
I believe faith has two sides to it.

Check out this CF thread here.

As for the Law: Well, the Old Testament Law (the 613 Laws of Moses given to Israel and not the Gentiles) has ended with Christ’s death. Hebrews 7:12 says the Law has changed. Certain OT laws (like ceremonial laws like circumcision, Sabbaths, holy days, dietary laws, etc.) are no longer binding or in effect for New Covenant believers. While certain moral laws from the Old Law have been carried over or remained the same (like: Do not murder, do not steal, do not lie, etc.) there are actually new moral laws given to us by Jesus and His followers. For Jesus even said He gave us a new commandment. “A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another.” To believe in the name of Jesus is even a commandment (See: 1 John 3:23).

Side Note:

As for your mention of the word “liturgical” (i.e. liturgy): This is a word associated commonly with the Orthodox Church of which certain practices I do not find to be biblical. I just strive to follow only what is written in God’s Holy Word.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
So, aside from the fact that Arius was preceded in his heresy by Paul of Samosata, who was even worse, a full on 3rd century Unitarian, who was Bishop of Antioch until the local church begged the Roman civil governor to help them depose him, after he wasted the church treasury on an episcopal palace, and aside from the fact that Antioch is part of the Assyrian-Chaldean-Aramaean sphere of influence ruled by Babylon, which is practically a codeword for evil in the Bible, and aside from the fact that the Abomination of the Desolation first occurred under Antiochus IV Epiphanes (and would later be repeated by Caligula), and aside from the fact that there are many good instances of Egypt, your overall theory as to which text type is better makes n sense.

Firstly, the Antiochene or Byzantine text type, as most people call it (also called the Majority Text; the Textus Receptus is something else however which I am too tired to explain) refers to the New Testament, where I already do prefer it to the Alexandrian text type, so you were preaching to the choir (also, both the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria use Bibles based on the Byzantine text type).

Secondly, the differences between the three text types, the Western, which is really just the idiosyncratic Vetus Latina which preceded the Vulgate, the Majority Text, or Byzantine text, or Antiochene as some people call it, which the Greek Orthodox bible, the Peshitta, the Vulgate and the New Testament of the KJV all use, and the Alexandrian or Minority text, which some modern Bibles, like the NIV, whose prose I found elegant in the old version, but which had some bad translations, and now is infinitely worse since Zonderman came out with the new gender neutral version, use, as well as some better alternatives, but others like the NKJV retain the Byzantine text type, these differences are minor.

In fact, the differences between the Alexandrian text type and the Byzantine text type are much less doctrinally important or relevant than the politically motivated difference between the current NIV, and the older edition of the NIV that became popular in the 1980s, or between the Challoner Douai Rheims and the Geneva Bible.

Look. We can go back and forth on talking about man made historical documents all day but that really is not proof of anything because men can be liars according to the Bible. While I do use history at times, it is only secondary or complimentary to God’s Word. History is written by the victors. So I would not be surprised if particular churches or religious groups have their own history that favors them as the one and only true good guys. They can create their own version of history and claim it as true. The only pure or true standard we can fully trust 100% is the Holy Bible. So one’s case should be made with the Bible to prove their approach to God’s Word. The thing is… yours does not exist. God’s people were never told to seek out a more ancient language or dead language to understand God’s Word. We see God’s Word being preserved through copies in a language that they understood. There was no boasting of the originals and or claiming that they were the only ones to be divine or perfect while all translation copies were imperfect.

Instead, in the Bible: We can see a pattern of God preserving copies of His Word, and not the original autographs.

(a) Moses destroyed the original 10 Commandments on tablets of stone (the original autograph) (Exodus 32:19), and yet a copy was perfectly made to replace it (Exodus 34:1-4).

(b) King Jehoiakim burns the scroll of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 36:22-23), but God had Jeremiah make another copy (Jeremiah 36:27-28).

(c) Proverbs 25:1 says, “These are also proverbs of Solomon, which the men of Hezekiah king of Judah copied out.” (Proverbs 25:1).​

In the New Testament, Philip heard the Ethiopian eunuch read from a manuscript of Isaiah.

“And Philip ran thither to him, and heard him read the prophet Esaias, and said, Understandest thou what thou readest?” (Acts of the Apostles 8:30).​

Although Scripture does not specifically say this was a copy of Isaiah, and not the original autograph of Isaiah, logic dictates that the most plausible explanation is that the Ethiopian eunuch had a copy of a manuscript of Isaiah (and not the original). For the odds of him just happening to have the original would seem highly unlikely.

Philip calls this copy of Isaiah he possessed as Scripture.

“Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.” (Acts of the Apostles 8:35).​

2 Timothy 3:16 says all Scripture is given by inspiration of God.
So the copy of this Scripture was inspired by God.

So the belief of “OAO (Original Autograph Only) Proponent” that says that we need to look to the original autograph because it is perfect, and the copies are flawed and full of errors is unbiblical. Believers in God's Word can trust that God has preserved a copy of His Word for us today that is perfect (Which would be consistent in the way God operates involving the preservation of His Word). This then leads us to conclude that there must be a perfect Bible that we can find today.

You also say, “the differences between the Alexandrian text type and the Byzantine text type are much less doctrinally important or relevant”:

But this is simply not true.

Doctrine that is important has been changed. A simple side by side comparison between the KJB (Textus Receptus) vs. Modern Translations (Alexandria, Egypt Bibles) will tell a person this.

You can check out the changed doctrine here.

You can check out the changed commands here.

The devil’s name is placed in Modern Bibles where they do not belong, too.
You can check that out here.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I'll be honest, I only made it to the end of the first sentence. Because at that point I realized this was basically just going to be KJV-Only copypasta.

So simple and short: The KJV is neither the best nor the most accurate translation we have. It was a very good translation four hundred years ago, and it is still a very beautiful translation. But the reason it was a good translation four hundred years ago is because the KJV was built on top of the work of others who came from before. And we have continued to do what the translators of the KJV did, continue the work of Biblical scholarship and striving to present the best translations we can.

-CryptoLutheran

The thing is that there can only be one Word of God and not many. God is not the author of confusion. Also if someone claims that the originals were perfect, that does not make any sense because we don’t have them. So is there no perfect Bible in existence today? So if there is no perfect Bible in existence, who gets to determine what is true or false in the Bible they prefer? Does one have a truth detector machine?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Site Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,508
7,861
...
✟1,194,503.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
It seems the majority of translations prefer 'a son of the Gods'. To the KJV translation of 'like the Son of God'.

All you need to do now, is find an expert on the Hebrew language. The translation the expert provides for that sentence (Daniel 3:25) will reveal all.

Incidentally, Nebuchadnezzar was ignorant of the monotheistic God of Israel. It's more likely that Nebuchadnezzar would describe Jesus as a son of the Gods. Nebuchadnezzar was into polytheism (many Gods).

As soon as we have the correct translation, then we can proceed to an inquisition. Finally, we can purify the world of every heresy and blasphemy. We can also conduct a bible burning and rid the earth of these satanic bibles. That is, which translations are found to be wrong of course. I don't know yet because I know nothing about the Hebrew language.

Just be patient.

PS. I hope the KJV is not conducting a translation from the Masoretic text for the Old Testament. The Septuagint is the correct text. The Septuagint was the text the apostles quoted from.

This is simply ripping Daniel 3:25 out of context. In Daniel 3:26, we read (even in Modern Bibles) how Nebuchadnezzar refers to the God of Daniel’s three friends as, “ye servants of the most high God,” (singular).
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,457
26,886
Pacific Northwest
✟732,154.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The thing is that there can only be one Word of God and not many. God is not the author of confusion. Also if someone claims that the originals were perfect, that does not make any sense because we don’t have them. So is there no perfect Bible in existence today? So if there is no perfect Bible in existence, who gets to determine what is true or false in the Bible they prefer?

This sounds like it's only a problem if one requires a "perfect Bible" in order to be able to trust in the trustworthiness of Scripture.

That's not a position I share.

The more important question is this: Does your faith in Jesus Christ require you to believe in a "perfect Bible". It seems like this is the case, but why? Why build your faith on anything other than the solid rock and foundation of Jesus Christ and His Gospel?

We believe the Scriptures for Christ's sake, not the other way around.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Hark

Active Member
Dec 12, 2021
141
20
60
Pennsylvania
✟16,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
What did God say about changing his words?
Be careful now i tell thee, most modern versions of the bible are from hell itself, if your truly Born again, pray that the Holy spirit guide you in all truth.
Changing 1 word and could mean many things.

It was Tyndale that coined the word "passover" from pascha in the Hebrew and Easter from pascha in the Greek because generally, the word pascha was usually left untranslated. So Tyndale had meant for Easter to mean the same thing as Passover. Unfortunately, Easter fell out of use and began to mean only the pagan reference rather than a reference to Spring time.

The KJV translators had all changed it over to passover except for Acts 12:4. Unsubstantiated report that some head bishop, Richard Bancroft, had changed it from passover back to Easter, albeit, he did not change the other N.T. references of passover back to Easter for wh the KJV translators had nothing to do with it. Again, it is an unconfirmed report and should be circumspect.

There is a German Bible around that time that had translated pascha into ester or Easter, and even has clarified "esterlambe" when referring to the Passover lamb.

So Passover can mean the specific passover day which is the 15th which they also eat unleavened bread but the following days after the 15th is the actual 7 days of unleavened bread because they do not eat the lamb then. So Acts 12:4 should have been written as instead of "after Easter", to have it written as "after the 7 days of unleavened bread" to avoid all confusion with how pascha should be applied in scripture in English.

Is the truth still found in His words in the KJV? Yes, providing the knowledge of that Easter was originally meant by Tyndale as the same as Passover. There is a report that Tyndale was executed but his work was credited as what the KJV drew from.

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/6th-october-1536-remembering-william-tyndales-execution/

Still, it seems a mystery why only Acts 12:4 was kept at Easter while the other references in the N.T. was changed to passover.

There are other verses in the KJV that could be translated better in English as it seems to me something is lost in translation like Luke 17:37 for how those taken are being received with hospitality with wing like flights, and Revelation 3:5 as a double negative where no one will have their name taken out of the Book of Life as that can never happen per John 6:37-40.

I believe the KJV has the meat of His words for us to discern good & evil with the Lord's help whereas other Bible versions change the message in His words and thus sows doubts to His words that it prevents one from correcting others of false teachings and false spirits.
 
Upvote 0

Hark

Active Member
Dec 12, 2021
141
20
60
Pennsylvania
✟16,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Nonsense, and the Daniel 3 reference is not blasphemy as the speakers are not Jewish/Hebrew and did not know or worship the One True God, they would not be expected to say "son of God", using the translation "son of the gods" is by far more accurate to the language they would have used, and by most manuscripts did use.

These types of "proofs" that the KJB is the only true version are nonsense and only drive people away from the Word. The truth is that most versions are so similar that they all teach the truth of the Gospel, the differences, while interesting and important, do not teach a different Gospel. It behooves us to use more than one version from different text families when doing serious study, but in the end the one that we actually will pick up and read is the most important version to the reader.

*edit*
Side note, I have a fascimile copy of an original KJB 1611, it is really fascinating, but if you think that it is actually readable to modern English speakers, then you have not read a real KJV Bible from 1611. One can work through it, but the language, spellings, and words do not make for an easy read.

Changed messages in modern Bibles do sow doubts in His words in that modern bible version.

Save for example John 16:13 in the NIV which testifies how the Holy Spirit will speak and not speak as in He cannot speak from Himself but speak only what He hears; hence the words of Christ, the Head of the Church. All Bibe versions testify to that truth, but not all modern bibles align with that truth when it comes to Romans 8:26-27 in the NIV as it testify that wordless groans are being uttered; hence sounds.

But the KJV maintains that testimony of John 16:13 in Romans 8:26 in that not even His groanings can be uttered; hence no sound at all. Romans 8:27 is a testimony about Jesus Christ as He is the One that searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16 & thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit and this is in the will of God because Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man.

What does that mean? Jesus alone is at that throne of grace and by the Lamb of God we have access to the Father in prayer. Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by per John 14:6 and that Jesus alone answers prayers after getting the Father's approval per John 14:13-14

That means there is no praying TO the Holy Spirit and that means the Holy Spirit does not turn God's gift of tongues around from speaking unto the people and turn it back to God for His own use in prayer.

Yet modern Bibles would suggest that per their Romans 8:26-27. So is it a lie? Yes. And misleading believers into thinking God's gift of tongues can also be for private use, but that would make God the author of confusion which He is not so therefore tongues for private use is not of Him at all.

There are a few modern bibles that is the same as the KJV but with all those KJV only prejudices out there, it is no wonder why no one can hear His words for why faith is hard to find in these latter days.

Indeed, 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the KJV testify that we are saved whereas modern Bibles seem to cast doubts in His words in thinking we are in the process of being saved.

Although I agree that the KJV can be better translated in some places like Luke 17:37 in how those taken are being received with hospitality to entertain & resort in Heaven by wing like flight, or how there is a double negative in Revelation 3:5 for how no one will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life... but in comparing to other modern Bibles, the KJV has the meat of His words for us to discern good & evil with the Lord's help whereas modern Bibles sows doubts to any reproofs in that Bible version especially when they have verses in that modern bible going to the contrary to sow doubt.

Basically modern Bibles has been to me.. "Did God really said that?" for why the Lord led me to the KJV to see what He had really said. The Lord has to do this for all those that rely on Him as their personal Good Shepherd to seek the truth in His words and since lost books are not in the Bible because they run contrary to scripture, so will believers have to lean on Him for when scripture goes against scripture in the modern Bibles but find it aligning in the KJV to see the truth as kept in His words in the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,191
Yorktown VA
✟176,342.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
So the obvious question to be asked is; why did the KJV prefer the Masoretic text. When they knew, full well, the Septuagint was the Old Testament of the early church.

I am baffled as to why they did that. I do not understand.

This was in part due to the Renaissance and the fall of Constantinople. The Greek intelligentsia fled to Venice, Rome, and other western cities bringing with them Greek and Arabic texts. There was tremendous availability of ancient texts that included not only Scripture but also philosophy, science, medicine, and natural philosophy being translated from Greek and Arabic into Latin for the first time. For example, prior to the 15th century, the only Platonic dialogues available in Latin were the Timaeus, Phaedo, Meno, and part of the Parmenides. So for scholars to have the Hebrew texts to translate the OT rather than the LXX, this was revolutionary. The first printed Rabbinical Bible was in Venice in 1517 and the second printing was the source material for the KJV translation team. However, these printings also included not only the Scriptures but also various Rabbinical commentaries, providing additional information for various translators.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: The Liturgist
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hark

Active Member
Dec 12, 2021
141
20
60
Pennsylvania
✟16,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
If you really want to read a truly worded version of scripture, you're going to have to knuckle down and learn how to efficiently read the Hebrew and Koine Greek manuscripts.

You have any scripture testifying that is what each and every believer is to do? Learn the Greek & Hebrew?

That does not exists in scripture.

Indeed the Greek word pneuma has other definitions besides referring to the Holy Spirit and it cannot always be referring to the Holy Spirit because of those different definitions like vital principle, mental disposition, ghost, demons, and etc.

So when there is a question in John 6:63 & 2 Corinthians 3:6 about whether the spirit should be capitalized or not, many so called Biblical scholars fail as those in the early church history did for why the modified Nicene creed of 381 A.D. was wrong to give the credit & glory of that title as the Giver of Life to the Holy Spirit.

What does scripture testify that scripture points readers to go to for life?

John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. 40 And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life.

So any question as to John 6:63 & 2 Corinthians 3:6 cannot be about the Holy Spirit as giving life?

John 6:30-36 testify to Jesus being the bread of life that gives life to the world.

1 John 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. 11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. 13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.

I have seen those prejudiced against the KJV from seeing the truth in His words and some of them refer t learning Greek & Hebrew to see the truth in His words, but since they fail at translating John 6:63 & 2 Corinthians 3:6, as running against scriptures testifying of going to the Son that gives eternal life, it will have to be a miracle from God to see the truth in His words to repent of this error.
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
It was Tyndale that coined the word "passover" from pascha in the Hebrew and Easter from pascha in the Greek because generally, the word pascha was usually left untranslated. So Tyndale had meant for Easter to mean the same thing as Passover. Unfortunately, Easter fell out of use and began to mean only the pagan reference rather than a reference to Spring time.

The KJV translators had all changed it over to passover except for Acts 12:4. Unsubstantiated report that some head bishop, Richard Bancroft, had changed it from passover back to Easter, albeit, he did not change the other N.T. references of passover back to Easter for wh the KJV translators had nothing to do with it. Again, it is an unconfirmed report and should be circumspect.

There is a German Bible around that time that had translated pascha into ester or Easter, and even has clarified "esterlambe" when referring to the Passover lamb.

So Passover can mean the specific passover day which is the 15th which they also eat unleavened bread but the following days after the 15th is the actual 7 days of unleavened bread because they do not eat the lamb then. So Acts 12:4 should have been written as instead of "after Easter", to have it written as "after the 7 days of unleavened bread" to avoid all confusion with how pascha should be applied in scripture in English.

Is the truth still found in His words in the KJV? Yes, providing the knowledge of that Easter was originally meant by Tyndale as the same as Passover. There is a report that Tyndale was executed but his work was credited as what the KJV drew from.

https://www.theanneboleynfiles.com/6th-october-1536-remembering-william-tyndales-execution/

Still, it seems a mystery why only Acts 12:4 was kept at Easter while the other references in the N.T. was changed to passover.

There are other verses in the KJV that could be translated better in English as it seems to me something is lost in translation like Luke 17:37 for how those taken are being received with hospitality with wing like flights, and Revelation 3:5 as a double negative where no one will have their name taken out of the Book of Life as that can never happen per John 6:37-40.

I believe the KJV has the meat of His words for us to discern good & evil with the Lord's help whereas other Bible versions change the message in His words and thus sows doubts to His words that it prevents one from correcting others of false teachings and false spirits.

You do realize that the KJV is a translation of some of the early source documents, don't you? We don't have the original source documents, although we have many more and better sources than they did in 1611. Saying that "other Bible versions change the message in His words and thus sows doubts [sic] to His words" has no basis. How have translations other than the KJV changed the message "in His words" when they're all translations into English from the early languages?

I am always puzzled by people who swear by the KJV as having the "true meaning" when their command of the English language is obviously lacking (judging by what they write).
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Site Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My understanding is that the term was used interchangeable, much as it is now, with "King James Bible". The "Version", to my understanding is more in relation to it being an English Bible, but "version" is used in conjunction with Authorized Version to differentiate it from the Bishops Bible and Geneva Bible, two other English Versions of the time, of which the KJV was the only "Authorized Version" to be used.

Authorized by the King to insure that his version of Protestantism was the "official" one. The Puritans who came to the US came in large part for religious freedom: obeying Christ not the secular king. It was a blatant attempt to change Christianity into what he wanted it to be instead of what it truly was -- and is -- God's word to His people in their own language. Since the Englyshe of the early 1600s is long dead -- it's not used anywhere on earth outside of fundamentalist sects -- nobody should claim it is still valid. Especially by people who lack a good understanding of their current, modern language.

Take a look at the postings by KJVOs and see how many of them have vocabulary and grammar errors. These same people claim to understand 1611 Englyshe perfectly yet communicate imprefectly in modern English.
 
Upvote 0

Hark

Active Member
Dec 12, 2021
141
20
60
Pennsylvania
✟16,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
You do realize that the KJV is a translation of some of the early source documents, don't you? We don't have the original source documents, although we have many more and better sources than they did in 1611. Saying that "other Bible versions change the message in His words and thus sows doubts [sic] to His words" has no basis. How have translations other than the KJV changed the message "in His words" when they're all translations into English from the early languages?

I am always puzzled by people who swear by the KJV as having the "true meaning" when their command of the English language is obviously lacking (judging by what they write).

Changed messages in modern Bibles do sow doubts in His words in that modern bible version.

Save for example John 16:13 in the NIV which testifies how the Holy Spirit will speak and not speak as in He cannot speak from Himself but speak only what He hears; hence the words of Christ, the Head of the Church. All Bibe versions testify to that truth, but not all modern bibles align with that truth when it comes to Romans 8:26-27 in the NIV as it testify that wordless groans are being uttered; hence sounds.

But the KJV maintains that testimony of John 16:13 in Romans 8:26 in that not even His groanings can be uttered; hence no sound at all. Romans 8:27 is a testimony about Jesus Christ as He is the One that searches our hearts per Hebrews 4:12-16 & thus the One that knows the mind of the Spirit and this is in the will of God because Jesus Christ is the only Mediator between God and man.

What does that mean? Jesus alone is at that throne of grace and by the Lamb of God we have access to the Father in prayer. Jesus is the only way to come to God the Father by per John 14:6 and that Jesus alone answers prayers after getting the Father's approval per John 14:13-14

That means there is no praying TO the Holy Spirit and that means the Holy Spirit does not turn God's gift of tongues around from speaking unto the people and turn it back to God for His own use in prayer.

Yet modern Bibles would suggest that per their Romans 8:26-27. So is it a lie? Yes. And misleading believers into thinking God's gift of tongues can also be for private use, but that would make God the author of confusion which He is not so therefore tongues for private use is not of Him at all.

There are a few modern bibles that is the same as the KJV but with all those KJV only prejudices out there, it is no wonder why no one can hear His words for why faith is hard to find in these latter days.

Indeed, 1 Corinthians 1:18 in the KJV testify that we are saved whereas modern Bibles seem to cast doubts in His words in thinking we are in the process of being saved.

Although I agree that the KJV can be better translated in some places like Luke 17:37 in how those taken are being received with hospitality to entertain & resort in Heaven by wing like flight, or how there is a double negative in Revelation 3:5 for how no one will have their names blotted out of the Book of Life... but in comparing to other modern Bibles, the KJV has the meat of His words for us to discern good & evil with the Lord's help whereas modern Bibles sows doubts to any reproofs in that Bible version especially when they have verses in that modern bible going to the contrary to sow doubt.

Basically modern Bibles has been to me.. "Did God really said that?" for why the Lord led me to the KJV to see what He had really said. The Lord has to do this for all those that rely on Him as their personal Good Shepherd to seek the truth in His words and since lost books are not in the Bible because they run contrary to scripture, so will believers have to lean on Him for when scripture goes against scripture in the modern Bibles but find it aligning in the KJV to see the truth as kept in His words in the KJV.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Hark

Active Member
Dec 12, 2021
141
20
60
Pennsylvania
✟16,490.00
Country
United States
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Single
Authorized by the King to insure that his version of Protestantism was the "official" one. The Puritans who came to the US came in large part for religious freedom: obeying Christ not the secular king. It was a blatant attempt to change Christianity into what he wanted it to be instead of what it truly was -- and is -- God's word to His people in their own language. Since the Englyshe of the early 1600s is long dead -- it's not used anywhere on earth outside of fundamentalist sects -- nobody should claim it is still valid. Especially by people who lack a good understanding of their current, modern language.

Take a look at the postings by KJVOs and see how many of them have vocabulary and grammar errors. These same people claim to understand 1611 Englyshe perfectly yet communicate imprefectly in modern English.

Hardly the same as errors that support false teachings which modern bibles do.
 
Upvote 0