Authorised King James Version
- Thread starter Thunderchild
- Start date
- Status
Authorized King James Holy Bible
General Information
According to most sources that I've seen, the Bible has 66 Books, 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses, 773,693 words, and 3,566,480 letters.
It was written on three different continents, over a period of about 1,800 years, by many different men from all walks of life.
It's longest chapter is Psalm 119, which consists of 176 verses. The number "176" just happens to be 16x11. Our KJV was first published in the year 1611. An accident I guess.
Psalm 117 is the shortest chapter.
Esther 8:9 is the longest verse, while John 11:35 is the shortest.
The longest word in the Bible is "Mahershalalhashbaz" (Isa. 8:1).
The middle verse is Psalm 118:8, and "the LORD" are the two middle words in that verse. Another accident.
The main subjects of the Bible are God's revelation of His character, His eternal righteous kingdom, and His plan of redemption through Jesus Christ.
The average person can read the Bible through in about seventy hours reading time. Reading three chapters per day and five on Sundays, you can read your Bible through in one year. About fourteen chapters per day will take you through in three months.
The Bible was the first Book ever printed on a press. The first one was printed on the Gutenberg press in the 1450's. The first American printing was in an Indian language in 1663.
General Information
According to most sources that I've seen, the Bible has 66 Books, 1,189 chapters, 31,102 verses, 773,693 words, and 3,566,480 letters.
It was written on three different continents, over a period of about 1,800 years, by many different men from all walks of life.
It's longest chapter is Psalm 119, which consists of 176 verses. The number "176" just happens to be 16x11. Our KJV was first published in the year 1611. An accident I guess.
Psalm 117 is the shortest chapter.
Esther 8:9 is the longest verse, while John 11:35 is the shortest.
The longest word in the Bible is "Mahershalalhashbaz" (Isa. 8:1).
The middle verse is Psalm 118:8, and "the LORD" are the two middle words in that verse. Another accident.
The main subjects of the Bible are God's revelation of His character, His eternal righteous kingdom, and His plan of redemption through Jesus Christ.
The average person can read the Bible through in about seventy hours reading time. Reading three chapters per day and five on Sundays, you can read your Bible through in one year. About fourteen chapters per day will take you through in three months.
The Bible was the first Book ever printed on a press. The first one was printed on the Gutenberg press in the 1450's. The first American printing was in an Indian language in 1663.
Upvote
0
If thats not a bunch of inflamed rhetoric and generalization I dont know what is. KJV advocates attack new "versions" not to be slanderous nor confusing, but rather out of zeal for God's Word. If the KJV says "Lord Jesus Christ" and the NIV says "Jesus" therein lies a problem, because obviously one must be wrong, and God is not the author of lies. The motivation of people such as Edjones is the belief that the KJV is correct whereas the new age versions use a faulty text and their own personal theology to fit their motives.
maybe not in your particular experiences, but overall the vast majority of english speaking Christians in the world throughout history have used a KJV. Not that its particularly relevant, but its a fact, nonetheless.
Did anyone say this or is it just your assumption? Sounds like inflamed rhetoric to me.
Is 99% of existing greek manuscripts a faulty source? It sounds here like you believe what youve been taught without checking the evidence yourself. Ive never once heard of any "scholar" who would disagree that the text used by the KJV translators was the text used by the vast majority of churches and believers throughout history. Yet people today will dig up old papyri or whatnot and alter the Bible based on them, as if the real Word of God has been trapped in the dirt or a trashcan for 1800+ years.
I happen to consider the NIV to be the Bible, as do most KJV users. Obviously people can be saved from it, However, the point of these discussions is to make known the vast differences and alterations done to the Bible. In the KJV preface, the translators state that they considered the septuagint to be scripture in spite of its deviations from the standard text (I paraphrased that, but that was the general meaning) They did not USE the septuagint in their translating, but they were aware of it.
By that statement, its clear that none of the new versions are God's truth anyway since they all say something different. Truth is absolute, and if one version says "Lord Jesus Christ" one says "Lord" another says "Jesus" in the same place, obviously some, of them are NOT truth. Or in Col 1:14 the KJV reads: "In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins." The NIV reads exactly the same, except they leave out "through his blood". Either Paul wrote those words or he did not. There isnt a gray area, and one or the other (or both) is a lie.
This just shows you havent done any research yourself. If you're willing to count the numerous times the NIV leaves out the deity of Christ, virgin birth, salvation by grace, the blood of Christ, etc etc thats evidence enough of doctrinal superiority. I dont speak for EDJONES, nor do i have the inclination to post hundreds of comparitive verses for "proof" that likely wont be accepted, but the information is there and available to any reasonable person to look at.
http://www.chick.com/reading/books/158/158cont.asp
Upvote
0
In reality, the KJV-only idolaters are the ones decieved by Satan himself. You are not saved by Bible version, but by Jesus Christ. Ed says in his little tag line "Only Jesus Christ Saves". Funny but the way I see his posts, he believes the 1611 AKJV is the way to salvation. The thief on the cross never read a KJV, nor did Paul, Stephen, Barnabas, or any of the other saints. Jesus never said "Thou must readeth the 1611 KJV to be saved," but that's what people like Ed say. Sad really.
Upvote
0
I love the KJV and it is wonderful, but the FACT is that KJV-Onlyism is in fact Pagan idolatry.
Upvote
0
So now its idolatry to believe the KJV is correct while other "versions" are incorrect? Thats as absurd as saying its idolatry to say Jesus is the only way to heaven (after all, what if MY bible doesnt say that?) How many "versions" of the bible did Jesus use? How many "versions" did the Ethiopian in Acts 8 have? Like I said before, all versions are NOT the same and they cannot all be God's word. Truth is absolute, and if the KJV is in fact 100% correct, then not only are you
What motivation would Satan have to promote the KJV? After all, It doesnt throw out the deity of Christ, It doesnt throw out the blood atonement, it doesnt throw out repentance...
Tell me then, if God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) who is authoring the confusion over which Bible to use? The best purpose new versions serve is allowing people to decide for themselves what the Bible says. Every few verses in the NIV you see "Or..." or "older mss say" "some mss do not have" etc.
I guess Jesus was an idolater since he didnt practice the NIV's terminology of "Well Isaiah MIGHT have said this..." or "the hebrew COULD have meant this..."
What motivation would Satan have to promote the KJV? After all, It doesnt throw out the deity of Christ, It doesnt throw out the blood atonement, it doesnt throw out repentance...
Tell me then, if God is not the author of confusion (1 Cor 14:33) who is authoring the confusion over which Bible to use? The best purpose new versions serve is allowing people to decide for themselves what the Bible says. Every few verses in the NIV you see "Or..." or "older mss say" "some mss do not have" etc.
I guess Jesus was an idolater since he didnt practice the NIV's terminology of "Well Isaiah MIGHT have said this..." or "the hebrew COULD have meant this..."
Upvote
0
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
Rjano21,
Thanks for biting, but you were not the intended target. I used such inflamed rhetoric intentionally as rhetoric, and I think most people following this thread saw that I was poking fun at Ed Jones' format. "Handmaiden of Satan"! If you think that came out of the blue, you haven't read Ed's posts. Perhaps I laid the satire on pretty thick, but anyone who's followed these Ed postings can tell you it's probably the only way he would actually read a non-KJV-only post, since it's probably the only language he understands.
As I said, I don't think any version of the Bible has a monopoly on truth. I used the NIV as my example, not because I think IT is God's choice, but because I had one handy. I don't have a problem with the KJV, will read it and enjoy it as much as most other versions, but what I'm attacking is the philosophy that because Ed says the KJV is "the Bible God uses" (as though God needs to use the Bible) that makes it so. And that's the bottom line. Not because it was commissioned by a king (lol!), not because it sounds more poetic, but because Ed has faith in it, we must hold fast exclusively to it. I might just as well have faith in the Wycliffe Bible, which has many of the same sources (and was in fact a source for the KJV). I shudder to think what would happen if someone got stranded with only a copy of Nestle-Aland on a desert isle with a bunch of English speakers who didn't know Greek and Hebrew. He couldn't very well translate it, could he? Now that "that which is perfect has come." They would all be out of luck.
And as for my supposed ignorance on the matter, I hope you will not think me arrogant for affirming my competency on the subject. Ed doesn't think much of academia, but it's good for something if nothing other than dispelling ignorant falsehoods such as the one at hand. The Textus Receptus is one faulty source among many - I doubt there is one Greek source that is perfectly identical to the original, and Ed has admitted this.
You point to passages in which modern translators have surmised (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that someone other than the author added in words or phrases that the original did not have. All rhetoric aside, I defy you to point me to a well-respected modern translation that has removed ALL references to any substantial doctrine. But then, we'd probably differ on what substantial doctrine is. Sure, maybe Paul in this ONE verse didn't say "Lord," but how many times in that same modern translation do you find "Lord Jesus Christ"? My faith in the God of the Bible says that even if it called Jesus "Lord" ONE time, I would believe it.
The sum of the matter is that there is no compelling reason found by philosophy or IN SCRIPTURE to think that the KJV or any other one version is God's only choice in translation. Period.
Thanks for biting, but you were not the intended target. I used such inflamed rhetoric intentionally as rhetoric, and I think most people following this thread saw that I was poking fun at Ed Jones' format. "Handmaiden of Satan"! If you think that came out of the blue, you haven't read Ed's posts. Perhaps I laid the satire on pretty thick, but anyone who's followed these Ed postings can tell you it's probably the only way he would actually read a non-KJV-only post, since it's probably the only language he understands.
As I said, I don't think any version of the Bible has a monopoly on truth. I used the NIV as my example, not because I think IT is God's choice, but because I had one handy. I don't have a problem with the KJV, will read it and enjoy it as much as most other versions, but what I'm attacking is the philosophy that because Ed says the KJV is "the Bible God uses" (as though God needs to use the Bible) that makes it so. And that's the bottom line. Not because it was commissioned by a king (lol!), not because it sounds more poetic, but because Ed has faith in it, we must hold fast exclusively to it. I might just as well have faith in the Wycliffe Bible, which has many of the same sources (and was in fact a source for the KJV). I shudder to think what would happen if someone got stranded with only a copy of Nestle-Aland on a desert isle with a bunch of English speakers who didn't know Greek and Hebrew. He couldn't very well translate it, could he? Now that "that which is perfect has come." They would all be out of luck.
Actually, Ed has said things very much like that. I invite you to catch up on this thread.
And as for my supposed ignorance on the matter, I hope you will not think me arrogant for affirming my competency on the subject. Ed doesn't think much of academia, but it's good for something if nothing other than dispelling ignorant falsehoods such as the one at hand. The Textus Receptus is one faulty source among many - I doubt there is one Greek source that is perfectly identical to the original, and Ed has admitted this.
You point to passages in which modern translators have surmised (sometimes correctly, sometimes incorrectly) that someone other than the author added in words or phrases that the original did not have. All rhetoric aside, I defy you to point me to a well-respected modern translation that has removed ALL references to any substantial doctrine. But then, we'd probably differ on what substantial doctrine is. Sure, maybe Paul in this ONE verse didn't say "Lord," but how many times in that same modern translation do you find "Lord Jesus Christ"? My faith in the God of the Bible says that even if it called Jesus "Lord" ONE time, I would believe it.
The sum of the matter is that there is no compelling reason found by philosophy or IN SCRIPTURE to think that the KJV or any other one version is God's only choice in translation. Period.
Upvote
0
As for most of Ed's posts I havent read all of them, mostly I just skimmed through a few and found most of them repetitive and irritating to read. I happen to believe the KJV is 100% correct, however that belief is not due to some wishful thinking or misguided zeal. Most of the changes done in new versions are not due to better "scholarship" or manuscripts, but are done to conform to some modern theology, or to make it more acceptable to people of all beliefs.
I'll point out one serious doctrine that the NIV and others destroy in Matthew 5:22 wherein Jesus said "...whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment..." once again the NIV reads the same except they throw out those capitalized words. That completely changes the passage and destroys its meaning. It makes Jesus a violator of his own teaching (when he was angry with the moneychangers and cast them out of the temple)
Or 1Tim 3:16. KJV reads: "God was manifest in the flesh". whereas new versions read "he appeared in a body" Why was this done? To make their version acceptable to people who want to deny the deity of Christ?. As it stands in the KJV, nobody can logically deny that bit of doctrine. Not only does this rendering make no sense in the context, it ignores the vast majority of all manuscripts in Greek and all other ancient translations.
I guess it just boils down to your final authority. If your final authority happens to be a greek lexicon, an ancient corrupt manuscript, or a textual philosophy then you can use whatever source of scripture you like. The KJV is the only English Bible today that I see is not influenced by New Age ideas and humanistic philosophy. I used the NIV (not exclusively) for quite some time, but after a while I sensed something definitely wrong with it, and after studying the issue I found out why. Little things like calling Jesus "The One" is nothing more than New Age philosophy and/or Hinduism. Throwing out "Lucifer" and "Calvary" and even "fornication" are detrimental to anyone trying to learn the Bible.
I dont hold modern scholarship in very high regard either. Most of them seem inflated by their own "higher learning" and egotism that they cant accept anything contrary to what they learn. After all, according to Luke 10:21 God "hid these things from the wise and prudent" and revealed them unto "babes". 1Cor 1:20: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?..." Evidently God doesnt think too highly of higher education.
The TR is the easily the best collation of Greek manuscripts we have, unless you're going to support changing it based on fragments of never used papyri or uncials found in trash cans. Thats the overall summary of modern versions... pick and choose which manuscript you think might be correct. There goes faith right out the window...
I'll point out one serious doctrine that the NIV and others destroy in Matthew 5:22 wherein Jesus said "...whosoever is angry with his brother WITHOUT A CAUSE shall be in danger of the judgment..." once again the NIV reads the same except they throw out those capitalized words. That completely changes the passage and destroys its meaning. It makes Jesus a violator of his own teaching (when he was angry with the moneychangers and cast them out of the temple)
Or 1Tim 3:16. KJV reads: "God was manifest in the flesh". whereas new versions read "he appeared in a body" Why was this done? To make their version acceptable to people who want to deny the deity of Christ?. As it stands in the KJV, nobody can logically deny that bit of doctrine. Not only does this rendering make no sense in the context, it ignores the vast majority of all manuscripts in Greek and all other ancient translations.
I guess it just boils down to your final authority. If your final authority happens to be a greek lexicon, an ancient corrupt manuscript, or a textual philosophy then you can use whatever source of scripture you like. The KJV is the only English Bible today that I see is not influenced by New Age ideas and humanistic philosophy. I used the NIV (not exclusively) for quite some time, but after a while I sensed something definitely wrong with it, and after studying the issue I found out why. Little things like calling Jesus "The One" is nothing more than New Age philosophy and/or Hinduism. Throwing out "Lucifer" and "Calvary" and even "fornication" are detrimental to anyone trying to learn the Bible.
I dont hold modern scholarship in very high regard either. Most of them seem inflated by their own "higher learning" and egotism that they cant accept anything contrary to what they learn. After all, according to Luke 10:21 God "hid these things from the wise and prudent" and revealed them unto "babes". 1Cor 1:20: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world?..." Evidently God doesnt think too highly of higher education.
The TR is the easily the best collation of Greek manuscripts we have, unless you're going to support changing it based on fragments of never used papyri or uncials found in trash cans. Thats the overall summary of modern versions... pick and choose which manuscript you think might be correct. There goes faith right out the window...
Upvote
0
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
This is a judgment of motives that is completely unsustainable. I am not influenced by New Age philosophy and am in fact repulsed by even a hint of it. However, as a Greek scholar, my translation is almost invariably very similar to at least one modern translation (and not always just the NIV). I'm sorry: you cannot with any honesty before God tell me that I am influenced by new winds of false doctrine.
Perhaps you would have been one of those scribes who added that phrase to alleviate a difficult reading. Sometimes, Jesus said things we don't understand, but adding words to Matthew's won't help matters. And that's what was done here. You don't have to understand why Jesus said that, but if this one verse makes Jesus a liar, you don't have much faith in Jesus and his wisdom. As though you can understand everything he ever said if you just add in enough "clarifying" words.
Here you exhibit your disregard for doing real research to find out what God meant. The Greek word which is translated correctly in the KJV as "was manifest" in no way disagrees with the word "appeared:" it does not mean he just seemed to be in the flesh (or a body - same stinkin' word for both, although "flesh" is archaic in English), but that he was "made visible." You can only arrive at your warped view because you are looking for it to mean something else.
Once again, a little ignorance goes a long way. Tell me what the difference is in saying "He who/that" instead of "The One who," besides the obvious outdatedness of the former. In modern English, there's no better way of representing a substantive participle, and I challenge you to disprove that.
WHAT?! There is ONE KJV verse that mentions "Lucifer." It was translated from the Hebrew "heylel," meaning "shining one," signifying the morning star (Venus), and became "Lucifer" ("light-bearer") only by translating it into Latin. And as for "Calvary," Easton's Bible Dictionary says it is from "the Latin name Calvaria, which was used as a translation of the Greek word Kranion, by which the Hebrew word Gulgoleth was interpreted, the place of a skull. And "immorality" and "sexual immorality" cover more ground than "fornication" does today; today, in ENGLISH, it carries the primary connotation of sex outside of marriage, although the Greek word and the 1611 word "fornication" both mean every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse, or, as modern translations often say, "immorality."
You cannot excuse laziness or inability to be educated by making such ridiculous statements. "Where is the wise?" Is this the same "wise" that Proverbs was talking about, telling us that we are to pursue wisdom? No, it's talking about the wisdom and knowledge of those trying to oust God from his position. If God thought so lowly of education and learning, why did he choose one of the best educated men of his day to be the most influential Christian of all time (Paul of Tarsus)? Aren't we to be as crafty as serpents? When God redeemed me, he redeemed my mind as well as my soul. If I use that mind to ignore his wisdom, only then am I using the "wisdom of this world." That wisdom has to do with bad philosophy, not good scholarship.
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
John 3: 1-10 NAS - Flesch reading ease 83% : Flesch Kinkaid grade scale 6.1
John 3:1-10 AKJ - Flesch reading ease 74.7% : Flesch Kinkaid grade scale 7.6
John 3:1-10 AKJ - Flesch reading ease 74.7% : Flesch Kinkaid grade scale 7.6
Upvote
0
Job 38:35 - Electric telephone and TV??????????? Like I said, claiming the Bible says things that it does not say.
Upvote
0
The original King James did not have 66 books - it included the apocrypha.
If one loves to believe that the AKJV is the only version of the Bible approved by God, there are only two options. Either that is true (and THAT is disproven by the fact, as EdJones pointed out, that the translators altered the contents of at least one passage during the translation) or the people making the claim believe and love the lie.
If one loves to believe that the AKJV is the only version of the Bible approved by God, there are only two options. Either that is true (and THAT is disproven by the fact, as EdJones pointed out, that the translators altered the contents of at least one passage during the translation) or the people making the claim believe and love the lie.
Upvote
0
And to add to what has already been stated by Lucifer is Latin for the morning star, otherwise known as the planet Venus. The ENGLISH translation for the Hebrew is properly rendered in the more modern versions.
Upvote
0
GreenEyedLady
My little Dinky Doo
You guys are so MEAN to each other!
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...im right your wrong...BLAH BLAH BLAH?? no...BLAH BLAH BLAH!
BLLLLLLLAH.
*gel thinks she is going to get sick*
It doesn;t matter how many fact are brought up to prove the KJV is correct. Most of the people on this thread are more into reading their own writing rather than reading someone elses!
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clapping for the BLAH BLAH's!
BLAH BLAH!!
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH...im right your wrong...BLAH BLAH BLAH?? no...BLAH BLAH BLAH!
BLLLLLLLAH.
*gel thinks she is going to get sick*
It doesn;t matter how many fact are brought up to prove the KJV is correct. Most of the people on this thread are more into reading their own writing rather than reading someone elses!
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Clapping for the BLAH BLAH's!
BLAH BLAH!!
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
Didaskomenos
Voiced Bilabial Spirant
GEL,
Au contraire, we aren't the ones ignoring the other person's replies. Of course, you might know that if you were reading our posts.
The KJV is correct a lot of times. One chief problem is that KJV advocates don't know how to read Elizabethan English, or they'd know that many of these passages are saying the same thing as in modern translations, just using words that have evolved in meaning. But I guess I all these posts will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Au contraire, we aren't the ones ignoring the other person's replies. Of course, you might know that if you were reading our posts.
The KJV is correct a lot of times. One chief problem is that KJV advocates don't know how to read Elizabethan English, or they'd know that many of these passages are saying the same thing as in modern translations, just using words that have evolved in meaning. But I guess I all these posts will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Upvote
0
To find what the scriptures say about these matters one does not have to go more than three chapters into the book of Genesis. It is not by accident the subject of God's word and how it is treated by different individuals is found at the very beginning of the scriptures. God wants man to learn before he reads in them any farther that there are forces at work who question His word and attempt to corrupt it. This is clearly seen in Genesis chapters two and three where God is found speaking WORDS to man (2:16), man hears these words spoken (2:16-17), and then someone QUESTIONS whether God really said them (3:1)! Here we are introduced to the first Bible revisorSatan (Revelation 12:9). Clearly he has great interest in the what God says, not because he loves His words, but because he knows they are the words of life (John 6:63)the words that deliver captives from his kingdom (1 Peter 1:23).
Upvote
0
Nice circular argument there. When you use the same lexicons and other similar reference works to do a translation as these new versions do, the result is a given.
Not you in particular, but the new versions exhibit this to perfection. If the people educating you are influenced by it, then you may not realize it at all.
Any evidence this was added and not subtracted? Once again, the manuscripts are heavily in favor of this phrase being included.
I just told you the difference. Read just about any popular New Age or Hindu book and you'll find them mention "The One" and other vague titles for their supposed gods or messiahs. Most of the time this is used in the NIV, it is not a substitute for He or Him, but rather used to replace the name of Christ.
I wonder if you missed my point on purpose or not. The problem isnt "manifest" vs "appeared" or "flesh" vs "body" Nobody cares about that. The problem is substituting "he" or "who" for God. Its a faulty and absurd translation no matter how you look at it.
I dont have to do research to find out what "God was manifest in the flesh" means. Its crystal clear the way its written until people tamper with it. It seems like you constantly imply that God's word must be subject to a self proclaimed "scholar" to tell us what it means, as if theres some hidden meaning to it.
Wrong. Immorality is a subjective, relative term whereas fornication has only one meaning, being "sex outside of marriage" Whats considered immoral to me, might not be considered immoral to you. If society says 2 unmarried people having sex is OK, then its not immoral and the "Bible" doesnt condemn it. Ask any kid today what is "immoral" I can almost GUARANTEE you he/she will NOT say "sex outside marriage" because of this culture we live in.
As for Lucifer, its going to be a circular argument when you start trying to define "Helel" as morning star as if thats a fact which it isnt. Jesus Christ is the morning star, not Satan.
Precisely my point. Appointing yourself as a Bible corrector outs God from His position as the corrector of YOU. Anyone can create a faulty lexicon and produce counterfeit manuscripts and do exactly like the Serpent in Gen 3. "Yea hath God said..."
True, but who's to say what "good scholarship" is? . I can go down to any university and have a Scholar tell me my great grandpa was an ape. I can find a scholar who will tell me the Bible is nothing but stories of men. Why is the assumption that education has somehow evolved and gotten better in the past 400 years? Are you smarter, more learned, and more qualified than the KJV translators? Thats the basic assumption you have to go into Bible correcting school with. Since you're evidently educated by Bible correctors, you're going to think like one too and assume that what you're taught is correct.
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
- Status
