How easy is the KJV to understand?

In correct KJV English...

  • God created Eve for Adam as a help meet.

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • God created Eve for Adam as a meet help.

    Votes: 3 25.0%
  • The "quick and the dead" are the "speedy and the dead."

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • The "quick and the dead" are the "alive and the dead."

    Votes: 12 100.0%
  • The "quick and the dead" are the "intelligent and the dead."

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • In Romans 1:13, "let hitherto" means "prevented hitherto."

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • In Romans 1:13, "let hitherto" means "forbidden hitherto."

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • In Romans 1:13, "let hitherto" means "allowed hitherto."

    Votes: 8 66.7%
  • In 1 Corinthians 10:25, all kinds of food are sold in a shambles.

    Votes: 6 50.0%
  • In 1 Corinthians 10:25, only meat is sold in a shambles.

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Some assume that the KJV's difficult readability is a flaw; But it's not. Jesus spoke in parables. So if God wanted everything to be perfectly understood with no work, He would have never given us any parables. He would have just spoon fed us everything clearly.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I love word studies in God's Word:

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help 1 meet 2 for him.”
(Genesis 2:18).

1. help: helper
2. meet: suitable, proper, fitting​

It is saying that God will make a helper suitable for Adam.

Sources:
Help | Definition of Help by Webster's Online Dictionary
Meet | Definition of Meet by Webster's Online Dictionary

“I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick 1 and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;”
(2 Timothy 4:1).

1. quick: living
This verse is saying that Jesus will judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom. A similar word for the word “quick” “quickened” (i.e. to be made alive).

Source:
Quick | Definition of Quick by Webster's Online Dictionary

“Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let 1 hitherto 2,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.”
(Romans 1:13).

1. let: hindered
2. hitherto: up until this time, until now​

Paul is is saying that he desired to come to the believers at Rome, but he was hindered until now. His desire was to share in the fruit (the result of the gospel, i.e. men being saved) among them.

Source:
Let | Definition of Let by Webster's Online Dictionary
Hitherto | Definition of Hitherto by Webster's Online Dictionary

“Whatsoever is sold in the shambles 1, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake:” (1 Corinthians 10:25).

1. shambles: a building where animals are butchered; butchery​

Obviously meat was only sold in shambles back in those days. The context (1 Corinthians 8:1-13) refers to meat sacrificed to idols. The word “meat” appears 3 times. So taking this into account with the fact that it was a butchery (or shambles), the “whatsoever” is in reference to meat, and not just anything. The word “whatsoever” (whatever) is not uncommon to use in this same way in our Modern English. If I talked about chocolate, and then told you to eat whatsoever was in the candy store, the context would be candy and just anything like eating the cashier, or eating the furniture or something silly. There is a point of wooden literalism and focusing a laser beam on a verse without reading the context and or looking at the meaning of the words in the sentence.

Source:
shambles | Definition of shambles by Webster's Online Dictionary


So in conclusion:

There is no problem. No poll should be needed. The KJV is not on trial. God's Word cannot be on trial by man. The difficulty of the KJV's readability does not undo the fact that it is the Word of God and it is trustworthy and inerrant. Our misunderstanding is simply our lack of wanting to study. Today, we are even more without an excuse because we can look up words within seconds with the internet.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I love word studies in God's Word:

“And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help 1 meet 2 for him.”
(Genesis 2:18).

1. help: helper
2. meet: suitable, proper, fitting​

It is saying that God will make a helper suitable for Adam.

And, of course if we were to look at the Hebrew directly we'd see how the nuance adds more depth than what simply "suitable" would mean here. God said He would make an ezer kenegedo, ezer simply means "helper", but kenegedo is more complicated, which can be translated "against him", (see Genesis 21:16 where Hagar sits "against him" in relation to her son), that is, she sat face-to-face.

Here, the meaning of kenegedo refers to an ezer, a helper, that is not just "suitable" for Adam, but rather Adam's counterpart, the one who stands "against" i.e. toward him, face-to-face; Adam's other half. "Suitable" while accurate enough when discussing the archaic meaning of the adjective "meet" in this context, can betray the nuance of the Hebrew. Adam is not to receive merely a "suitable" helper, but rather partner, a co-equal, one with whom he can share his life with and who will join with him in his human capacity.

That's why looking at the source, and not just using dictionaries to understand archaic English words, is important.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And, of course if we were to look at the Hebrew directly we'd see how the nuance adds more depth than what simply "suitable" would mean here. God said He would make an ezer kenegedo, ezer simply means "helper", but kenegedo is more complicated, which can be translated "against him", (see Genesis 21:16 where Hagar sits "against him" in relation to her son), that is, she sat face-to-face.

Here, the meaning of kenegedo refers to an ezer, a helper, that is not just "suitable" for Adam, but rather Adam's counterpart, the one who stands "against" i.e. toward him, face-to-face; Adam's other half. "Suitable" while accurate enough when discussing the archaic meaning of the adjective "meet" in this context, can betray the nuance of the Hebrew. Adam is not to receive merely a "suitable" helper, but rather partner, a co-equal, one with whom he can share his life with and who will join with him in his human capacity.

That's why looking at the source, and not just using dictionaries to understand archaic English words, is important.

-CryptoLutheran

Not doubting that the original languages can in some cases add more meaning, but this is not always the case. Also, the 1913 dictionary defines the word “meet” as suitable.
 
Upvote 0

Radagast

comes and goes
Supporter
Dec 10, 2003
23,821
9,817
✟312,047.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'll call this finished, since somebody decided to sabotage the quiz by posting the answers.

Official answers are in the O.P. About half of the responses were wrong, suggesting that the KJV is indeed in a foreign language for many people.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Sunshinee777

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2020
1,803
2,003
Finland
✟168,856.00
Country
Finland
Faith
Pentecostal
Marital Status
Single
I didn't really understand the poll itself. I have voted though. I am probably not going to discuss the KJV with anyone who views it negatively anymore on this website. No point. If on the other hand people like the KJV and want to positively discuss it I will discuss it.

At the end of the day it seems a lot of people dislike people defending the KJV but are happy for people to attack and bash it. Something not quite right there. I also don't think cherry picking difficult verses really means much.

I'm the opposite, I highly dislike many other translations because they either leave things out or it's translated so wrong that the whole meaning of verses will change. I think kjv is the best.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I'm the opposite, I highly dislike many other translations because they either leave things out or it's translated so wrong that the whole meaning of verses will change. I think kjv is the best.

Do they leave things out, or does the KJV add things in?

The problem here is the assumption that the KJV should be the standard against which translations are measured; but that is an inherently false assumption to make.

Also, the KJV does translate things poorly; though that isn't limited to the KJV. For example here is how the KJV renders Psalm 2:12,

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

The problem is that this isn't what Psalm 2:12 says.

The LXX has
δράξασθε παιδείας, μήποτε ὀργισθῇ Κύριος καὶ ἀπολεῖσθε ἐξ ὁδοῦ δικαίας.

The phrase from the Hebrew נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר (nashaqu-bar) is translated here as δράξασθε παιδείας (draxasthe paideias), "cling to education" or "yearn upbringing". It basically means "accept correction", or "earnestly desire correction/education". Which is what the Hebrew term means. Nashaq can mean "kiss" but generally means to fasten up, to equip oneself. While in Hebrew bar means "clean" or "purity". So Nashaqu-bar is somewhat literally "take up purity".

The same is true in the Latin of the Vulgate,

In the Vulgate we have Apprehendite disciplinam, "Take hold of discipline".

In fact we can keep looking at translations down through the centuries, for example here is how Wycliffe translates it,

"Take ye lore; lest the Lord be wrooth sumtyme, and lest ye perischen fro iust waie."

"Take ye lore" sounds a bit wobbly to modern English speakers, but the English word lore is related to learning, meaning "what is taught", so literally "Take up what you have learned".

So how did the KJV get "kiss the Son"? Well they didn't come up with it, there are some translations prior to it which did this, such as the Matthew Coverdale.

But the justification for doing so is very weak, the Psalm here is clearly in Hebrew, but some translators here have chosen to ad hoc substitute the Hebrew word for the identical sounding Aramaic word, the Aramaic word "bar" does, in fact, mean "son". But this isn't Aramaic, it's Hebrew.

Now, yes, it certainly seems very good, after all, it sounds like a really great passage about piety toward Jesus Christ the Son of God. The problem is that this isn't what the text says, and it isn't what any Bible said until several centuries ago. It isn't a good translation.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Do they leave things out, or does the KJV add things in?

The problem here is the assumption that the KJV should be the standard against which translations are measured; but that is an inherently false assumption to make.

Also, the KJV does translate things poorly; though that isn't limited to the KJV. For example here is how the KJV renders Psalm 2:12,

"Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put their trust in him."

The problem is that this isn't what Psalm 2:12 says.

The LXX has
δράξασθε παιδείας, μήποτε ὀργισθῇ Κύριος καὶ ἀπολεῖσθε ἐξ ὁδοῦ δικαίας.

The phrase from the Hebrew נַשְּׁקוּ־בַר (nashaqu-bar) is translated here as δράξασθε παιδείας (draxasthe paideias), "cling to education" or "yearn upbringing". It basically means "accept correction", or "earnestly desire correction/education". Which is what the Hebrew term means. Nashaq can mean "kiss" but generally means to fasten up, to equip oneself. While in Hebrew bar means "clean" or "purity". So Nashaqu-bar is somewhat literally "take up purity".

The same is true in the Latin of the Vulgate,

In the Vulgate we have Apprehendite disciplinam, "Take hold of discipline".

In fact we can keep looking at translations down through the centuries, for example here is how Wycliffe translates it,

"Take ye lore; lest the Lord be wrooth sumtyme, and lest ye perischen fro iust waie."

"Take ye lore" sounds a bit wobbly to modern English speakers, but the English word lore is related to learning, meaning "what is taught", so literally "Take up what you have learned".

So how did the KJV get "kiss the Son"? Well they didn't come up with it, there are some translations prior to it which did this, such as the Matthew Coverdale.

But the justification for doing so is very weak, the Psalm here is clearly in Hebrew, but some translators here have chosen to ad hoc substitute the Hebrew word for the identical sounding Aramaic word, the Aramaic word "bar" does, in fact, mean "son". But this isn't Aramaic, it's Hebrew.

Now, yes, it certainly seems very good, after all, it sounds like a really great passage about piety toward Jesus Christ the Son of God. The problem is that this isn't what the text says, and it isn't what any Bible said until several centuries ago. It isn't a good translation.

-CryptoLutheran

The LXX is a fraud. Jots and tittles that Jesus mentions is Hebrew and not Greek. One does not understand the Scriptures too well if they think that Jesus referenced Greek Scriptures. Gentiles (Greek people) were not even in consideration of God's plan of missionary work when He sent out his 12 disciples before the cross. Jesus barely even spoke with a Gentile woman (i.e. a Canaanite woman).

Also, check out this article on the LXX being a fraud:

https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f4766d57c3ad/content/pages/documents/1340489728.pdf

1 John 5:7 is removed from most Modern Translations. This is the ONLY Bible verse that tells us clearly about the Trinity point blank. No other verse does this. This should not be a surprise that Modern Translations removes this beloved verse. Modern Translations stem from the manuscripts that come from Alexandria, Egypt. Arianism (i.e. Anti-Trinitarianism) also just so happens to originate from Alexandria, Egpyt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a detective to figure that God's Word was being attacked by Arianists (or Anti-Trinitarians).

The KJB was the Bible that was the final Word of authority for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations even showed up. If you lived during this time period, we would not even be having this discussion.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: Heavenhome
Upvote 0

GreekOrthodox

Psalti Chrysostom
Oct 25, 2010
4,121
4,187
Yorktown VA
✟176,292.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The KJB was the Bible that was the final Word of authority for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations even showed up. If you lived during this time period, we would not even be having this discussion.

Όταν οι λαοί μου ανέπτυξαν φιλοσοφία, οι άνθρωποι σου αιωρούσαν ακόμα από δέντρα
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hazelelponi
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

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
I'm the opposite, I highly dislike many other translations because they either leave things out or it's translated so wrong that the whole meaning of verses will change. I think kjv is the best.


Translators must decide what is valid and what is not. The KJV translators included certain verses while modern translators with much better resources and understanding decided not to include them. That doesn't mean the KJV is "right".

"... it's translated so wrong that the whole meaning of verses will change." And your qualifications for saying this are..?

Why are you so enamored with a 400-year-old translation that isn't in the language that we (including you) use, making it hard to understand for many people?

(my answer to the OP)
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
The LXX is a fraud. Jots and tittles that Jesus mentions is Hebrew and not Greek. One does not understand the Scriptures too well if they think that Jesus referenced Greek Scriptures. Gentiles (Greek people) were not even in consideration of God's plan of missionary work when He sent out his 12 disciples before the cross. Jesus barely even spoke with a Gentile woman (i.e. a Canaanite woman).

Also, check out this article on the LXX being a fraud:

https://d3hgrlq6yacptf.cloudfront.net/5f4766d57c3ad/content/pages/documents/1340489728.pdf

1 John 5:7 is removed from most Modern Translations. This is the ONLY Bible verse that tells us clearly about the Trinity point blank. No other verse does this. This should not be a surprise that Modern Translations removes this beloved verse. Modern Translations stem from the manuscripts that come from Alexandria, Egypt. Arianism (i.e. Anti-Trinitarianism) also just so happens to originate from Alexandria, Egpyt. It doesn't take a rocket scientist or a detective to figure that God's Word was being attacked by Arianists (or Anti-Trinitarians).

The KJB was the Bible that was the final Word of authority for hundreds of years before the Modern Translations even showed up. If you lived during this time period, we would not even be having this discussion.

And that's why I only use the Vulgate. Because it was the authoritative Bible for hundreds of years in the West, and all modern translations, including the KJV, are wrong.

"Et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto" - Apocalypsis XXII:XIX

-CryptoLuthearn
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And that's why I only use the Vulgate. Because it was the authoritative Bible for hundreds of years in the West, and all modern translations, including the KJV, are wrong.

"Et si quis deminuerit de verbis libri prophetiae huius auferet Deus partem eius de ligno vitae et de civitate sancta et de his quae scripta sunt in libro isto" - Apocalypsis XXII:XIX

-CryptoLuthearn

First, Paul condemned the idea that we are to be called after the name of a particular follower (other than Christ).

“For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” (1 Corinthians 3:4).

Second, you quote Revelation 22:19 about the taking away of God's words. Are you referring to the removal of the Apocrypha? If so, which books of the Apocrypha do you think should be in Scripture?

Three, God's Word should be available to many by now (with today's technologies). Is your translation available in a wide variety of languages? God is concerned with people of other nations being taught the commands of Jesus. For it is a part of the great commission (See: Matthew 28:19-20).

One problem I have with the Luther Bible is that it adds the words “only” or “alone” to Romans 3:28. This sets up a contradiction with James 2:24. But of course Luther at one point regarded the epistle of James as an epistle of straw. Meaning, he didn't like it.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Όταν οι λαοί μου ανέπτυξαν φιλοσοφία, οι άνθρωποι σου αιωρούσαν ακόμα από δέντρα

Translating this from Greek to English according to Google, this says:
“When my people developed a philosophy, your people were still hovering over trees.”

Well, speaking words that nobody knows is confusion. But God is not the author of confusion. Paul said, “Seeing then that we have such hope, we use great plainness of speech:” (2 Corinthians 3:12).
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
First, Paul condemned the idea that we are to be called after the name of a particular follower (other than Christ).

“For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?” (1 Corinthians 3:4).

You forgot to include where he speaks of those who say "I am of Christ". The "I am of Christ" faction was no different than the Paul, Peter, or Apollos factions. The problem was division and factionalism in the church.

Second, you quote Revelation 22:19 about the taking away of God's words. Are you referring to the removal of the Apocrypha? If so, which books of the Apocrypha do you think should be in Scripture?

I simply quoted the same verse the KJV-onlyists usually take out of context for humorous effect.

Three, God's Word should be available to many by now (with today's technologies). Is your translation available in a wide variety of languages? God is concerned with people of other nations being taught the commands of Jesus. For it is a part of the great commission (See: Matthew 28:19-20).

I agree. Which is why good, modern, easily readable and faithful translations of Scripture into many languages is a good thing. Rather than clinging to archaic translations that are, to be quite frank, inferior in many ways.

One problem I have with the Luther Bible is that it adds the words “only” or “alone” to Romans 3:28. This sets up a contradiction with James 2:24. But of course Luther at one point regarded the epistle of James as an epistle of straw. Meaning, he didn't like it.

Luther does translate it as "allein durch den Glauben", "only through the Faith", and sure, fair enough the word "alone" doesn't appear in the Greek. The question of whether this genuinely problematic depends entirely on whether one believes this was the intent of the Apostle or not. If one holds that justification is a synergistic cooperation between man and God through grace, through faith and good works, then the inclusion of allein in Luther's translation would be problematic. If one adheres to justification by grace alone through faith, apart from all works of the Law--as a monergistic work of God; then the allein here is simply Luther safeguarding the doctrine of Justification.

But I'm not aware of anyone who believes that the 1545 Lutherbibel (the version I'm quoting from here) is somehow itself the final word and authority. Perhaps there are German Lutherbibel-onlyists, I wouldn't know.

Luther struggled with several books of the New Testament Antilegomena, just as he took issue with the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals.

If you have no problem with Luther's challenge to the Deuterocanonicals, then I don't see why you should have a problem with Luther's challenge to the Antilegomena--especially considering that Luther preserved the entirety of the Antilegomena in his translation, though he placed them all at the very end; whereas with the Deuterocanonicals he placed them in their own appendix between the Old and New Testaments.

As a Lutheran I don't believe Luther's opinions on this matter are authoritative or binding--it's basically the rest of the Protestant world that followed Luther here concerning the Deuterocanonicals. Lutheranism has never had a formal position on the subject. So when you asked earlier if I think the Deuterocanonical books should be in Scripture, there is no definitive answer to that question--at least from a Lutheran perspective.

Now, speaking purely from individual opinion, I quite like a lot of the Deuterocanonical books, and yes I do think that a lot of things are lost by their exclusion. For example the absence of 1 Maccabees means that many Protestants aren't as aware of the history of the Hellenistic period connecting the Persian and Roman periods of Jewish history as they could be; and 1 Maccabees provides much needed historical context and insight to what Daniel wrote. The lack of Sirach and especially its practical wisdom concerning medical care and the work of physicians means that many fringe groups feel quite free to condemn modern medicine, instead of being thankful to God for providing us with the blessings of medical science.

But does that mean I think they should be in the Canon? I don't believe my feelings or opinions should be authoritative--in the same way that I don't think Luther's opinions are authoritative. The Biblical Canon belongs to the whole Church, and thus no man has the authority to make such a determination; there instead must be the consensus of the Church. And, at present, there is no universal consensus concerning the Deuterocanonicals, and as such I don't think there is a clear answer one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Informative
Reactions: fwGod
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.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You forgot to include where he speaks of those who say "I am of Christ". The "I am of Christ" faction was no different than the Paul, Peter, or Apollos factions. The problem was division and factionalism in the church.

Christian is simply a shortened phrase of meaning Christ follower. We are followers of Christ and not Luther. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians was that we cannot say we are of Paul, or of Apollos anymore than we can say we are of Luther (Which is implied by the church name).

You said:
I simply quoted the same verse the KJV-onlyists usually take out of context for humorous effect.

You gave no indication that this was so before that such a thing was a joke.

You said:
I agree. Which is why good, modern, easily readable and faithful translations of Scripture into many languages is a good thing. Rather than clinging to archaic translations that are, to be quite frank, inferior in many ways.



Luther does translate it as "allein durch den Glauben", "only through the Faith", and sure, fair enough the word "alone" doesn't appear in the Greek. The question of whether this genuinely problematic depends entirely on whether one believes this was the intent of the Apostle or not. If one holds that justification is a synergistic cooperation between man and God through grace, through faith and good works, then the inclusion of allein in Luther's translation would be problematic. If one adheres to justification by grace alone through faith, apart from all works of the Law--as a monergistic work of God; then the allein here is simply Luther safeguarding the doctrine of Justification.

But I'm not aware of anyone who believes that the 1545 Lutherbibel (the version I'm quoting from here) is somehow itself the final word and authority. Perhaps there are German Lutherbibel-onlyists, I wouldn't know.

Luther struggled with several books of the New Testament Antilegomena, just as he took issue with the Old Testament Deuterocanonicals.

If you have no problem with Luther's challenge to the Deuterocanonicals, then I don't see why you should have a problem with Luther's challenge to the Antilegomena--especially considering that Luther preserved the entirety of the Antilegomena in his translation, though he placed them all at the very end; whereas with the Deuterocanonicals he placed them in their own appendix between the Old and New Testaments.

As a Lutheran I don't believe Luther's opinions on this matter are authoritative or binding--it's basically the rest of the Protestant world that followed Luther here concerning the Deuterocanonicals. Lutheranism has never had a formal position on the subject. So when you asked earlier if I think the Deuterocanonical books should be in Scripture, there is no definitive answer to that question--at least from a Lutheran perspective.

Now, speaking purely from individual opinion, I quite like a lot of the Deuterocanonical books, and yes I do think that a lot of things are lost by their exclusion. For example the absence of 1 Maccabees means that many Protestants aren't as aware of the history of the Hellenistic period connecting the Persian and Roman periods of Jewish history as they could be; and 1 Maccabees provides much needed historical context and insight to what Daniel wrote. The lack of Sirach and especially its practical wisdom concerning medical care and the work of physicians means that many fringe groups feel quite free to condemn modern medicine, instead of being thankful to God for providing us with the blessings of medical science.

But does that mean I think they should be in the Canon? I don't believe my feelings or opinions should be authoritative--in the same way that I don't think Luther's opinions are authoritative. The Biblical Canon belongs to the whole Church, and thus no man has the authority to make such a determination; there instead must be the consensus of the Church. And, at present, there is no universal consensus concerning the Deuterocanonicals, and as such I don't think there is a clear answer one way or another.

-CryptoLutheran

Okay. Is there a perfect Bible in existence today? If so, where is it? What is it called exactly? Do you have a link to it? How does it differ to the KJB?
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Christian is simply a shortened phrase of meaning Christ follower. We are followers of Christ and not Luther. Paul's point in 1 Corinthians was that we cannot say we are of Paul, or of Apollos anymore than we can say we are of Luther (Which is implied by the church name).

This is exceedingly off topic. However it should suffice for me to say that I follow Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther. Lutherans aren't Luther-followers, we're followers of Jesus Christ. We weren't the ones who called ourselves "Lutheran", our opponents called us that. Which is why even today in German we are called Evangelische--"Evangelical", for we sought to be known by our confession of the Gospel. But since both we and our opponents were Christians, and we both confessed the same Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, to designate ourselves (in contrast to our opponents from Rome), we called ourselves by the name of the Holy Gospel.

You gave no indication that this was so before that such a thing was a joke.

I used Roman numerals.

Okay. Is there a perfect Bible in existence today? If so, where is it? What is it called exactly? Do you have a link to it? How does it differ to the KJB?

There's never been such a thing as a "perfect Bible". There's just the Bible. And because the Scriptures are divinely inspired and given to us for our benefit, we can trust that they never fail in proclaiming the word of God to us.

-CryptoLutheran
 
  • Like
Reactions: fwGod
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
This is exceedingly off topic. However it should suffice for me to say that I follow Jesus Christ, not Martin Luther. Lutherans aren't Luther-followers, we're followers of Jesus Christ. We weren't the ones who called ourselves "Lutheran", our opponents called us that. Which is why even today in German we are called Evangelische--"Evangelical", for we sought to be known by our confession of the Gospel. But since both we and our opponents were Christians, and we both confessed the same Holy Catholic Church of Jesus Christ, to designate ourselves (in contrast to our opponents from Rome), we called ourselves by the name of the Holy Gospel.

It still looks like a violation of 1 Corinthians to me, but you can believe as you wish of course.

You said:
I used Roman numerals.

Not sure how that makes it obvious that it was a joke.

You said:
There's never been such a thing as a "perfect Bible". There's just the Bible. And because the Scriptures are divinely inspired and given to us for our benefit, we can trust that they never fail in proclaiming the word of God to us.

-CryptoLutheran

If one word in the Bible is not true, then the rest of the words are not true. For if there are errors in the Bible, then who gets to decide which words are true and untrue? Are we the arbiters of truth in God's Word? I don't believe we should try to correct God's Word, but we should let God's Word correct us.
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,339
26,779
Pacific Northwest
✟728,043.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
It still looks like a violation of 1 Corinthians to me, but you can believe as you wish of course.



Not sure how that makes it obvious that it was a joke.



If one word in the Bible is not true, then the rest of the words are not true. For if there are errors in the Bible, then who gets to decide which words are true and untrue? Are we the arbiters of truth in God's Word? I don't believe we should try to correct God's Word, but we should let God's Word correct us.

You're confusing the words of Scripture with the word of God. The ink and paper words that biblical authors wrote are very much theirs, it's that through these by the power and work of the Holy Spirit is God's word; through these Christ Himself speaks to us His loving word of grace and salvation by His Gospel, and also gives us the corrective word of the Law to chastise us and bring us to repentance.

The Scriptures are the word of God because by these things God proclaims His Word to us--Christ.

The Scriptures are not going to fail us in bringing to us Christ and His Gospel, which is received through the faith granted to our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether or not the Comma Johanneum is there or not, regardless of whether 1 Timothy 3:16 says hos or theos. There is still Christ, Christ born of Mary, suffering under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and coming back to judge the living and the dead and bring with Him His everlasting kingdom. That doesn't change. That never changes. The word of the Lord endures forever.

-CryptoLutheran
 
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.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
You're confusing the words of Scripture with the word of God. The ink and paper words that biblical authors wrote are very much theirs, it's that through these by the power and work of the Holy Spirit is God's word; through these Christ Himself speaks to us His loving word of grace and salvation by His Gospel, and also gives us the corrective word of the Law to chastise us and bring us to repentance.

Not at all. It is written...

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17).​

All Scripture (not just some) is given by inspiration of God. So they are God's very words to us because they were inspired by God.

You said:
The Scriptures are the word of God because by these things God proclaims His Word to us--Christ.

The Scriptures are not going to fail us in bringing to us Christ and His Gospel, which is received through the faith granted to our hearts by the Holy Spirit. Regardless of whether or not the Comma Johanneum is there or not, regardless of whether 1 Timothy 3:16 says hos or theos. There is still Christ, Christ born of Mary, suffering under Pontius Pilate, crucified, dead, buried, descended into hell, risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, and coming back to judge the living and the dead and bring with Him His everlasting kingdom. That doesn't change. That never changes. The word of the Lord endures forever.

-CryptoLutheran

While the faith starts with the gospel, the faith is more than the gospel, friend.
There are many instructions in God's Word for us to do by having the right set of Scriptures.
Commands are changed in Modern Translations.

A List of Commands Changed in God's Word:
(Between the KJV and Modern Translations):

#1. One Aspect of the Great Commission Command Is Changed.
As a part of the great commission: Matthew 28:19 in the Modern Translations slightly alters the command of Jesus to say: “make disciples.” The original words in Matthew 28:19 in the KJV say: “teach all nations,” and not “make disciples. ” We cannot make disciples. Only God can truly do that. For one person plants, another person waters, but it is God that gives the increase (See: 1 Corinthians 3:6). We cannot force a person to be a disciple. We cannot truly mold and make a disciple. It is God who works upon the hearts of men to follow Him. We simply teach (i.e. we plant and water) but it is God that gives the increase.

#2. The Details of the Command of The True Way To Test a Spirit of Antichrist is Changed:
The command says, “Believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God” (1 John 4:1); Many of your Modern Translations fail the details of this test that is explained in verse 3. The KJV says “every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist,” but Modern Translations do not say this. Therefore, they fail to pass this test by not admitting this truth. Why is admitting that Jesus is come in the flesh important? Because it is about the Incarnation. Can a person deny the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and be of God? Modern Translations water down the Incarnation in 1 Timothy 3:16, as well. The King James correctly says "God was manifest in the flesh," and yet the watered down version bibles say "He was manifested in the flesh." Here again, many Modern Translations fail the test of how we check to see if a spirit is of the spirit of Antichrist or not by denying how God was manifest in the flesh (i.e. a denial of the Incarnation). How does this affect us? Well, if I wanted to show forth the truth to a person who denied the Incarnation, my battle would be severely crippled if I had a Modern Translation. Also, if Rick ran into a false spirit claiming to be Jesus, then Rick could test this spirit with the proper test from 1 John 4:3 in the KJV. But if Rick was a Modern Translations fan and he hated the KJV, he could potentially be deceived because he did not have the proper test.

#3. The Command To Study God's Word To Show Yourself Approved Unto God is Changed:
2 Timothy 2:15 says, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." Modern Translations are confusing on this point and they say "work hard to present yourself approved unto God." The context is rightly dividing the Word of truth (Scripture). Why is this important? Well, we are living in the last days where men of God are questioning the Bible, or they are looking to something extra in addition to the Bible (like visions, dreams, revelations, prophecies, other holy books, etc.). God's people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hosea 4:6).

#4. The Command To Not Exercise Authority Like the Gentiles Do is Subtly Altered.
The Command:
“It shall not be so among you:”
"let him be your minister"
"let him be your servant.”

Matthew 20:25-27 says, “You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.”
Matthew 10:27 correctly says in the King James “whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” Modern Translations say, “and whoever would be first among you must be your slave,” Okay. There is a big difference between a ”servant” and a “slave.” One is obligated to do servitude and the other is a servant by choice. I can imagine how this verse could be misused by certain Christian cults, or really bad people, etc.; How is this possible? Because they would be using a Modern Translation as the basis for their authority and not the King James.

#5. The Command “Do violence To No Man” in Luke 3:14 is Changed.
The King James Bible correctly says “Do violence to no man” in Luke 3:14. Yet, Modern Translations say, ““Do not extort money from anyone…”; The Bible already covers the topic of extortioners and how we are not to have fellowship with any brother who is an extortioner (1 Corinthians 5:9-11), for extortioners will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10). It is no surprise that when I bring up the teaching of Non Resistance to a Christian today, they are appalled by the idea. I believe this is because most of them (not all) are reading from a Modern Translation, and or they are influenced by their experience in the army, or their use of physical combat, etc.

Bonus: A Doctrine That Relates to the Lord’s Commands is Changed:

#1. A Doctrine on the Lord’s Commands in 1 Corinthians 14:37 is Subtly Altered.
In the King James it is correctly stated, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 14:37) (KJV). The King James Bible says “commandments” plural, and Modern Translation Bibles say “commandment” as in reference to a singular command. The Modern Translations are erroneously suggesting that Paul’s most recent discussion is a command of the Lord here when in reality the truth (according to the KJV) is that all of Paul’s writings should be regarded as the commandments (plural) of the Lord (and not just one command based on his most recent discussion). This is important to understand because some Christians today falsely think that Paul writings are not always backed by the authority of our Lord (Note: Yes, I am aware of 1 Corinthians 7. I believe Paul in this instance is merely relaying the difference between the Lord’s specific command that He gave us vs. what Paul commanded us. This does not mean some of Paul’s teachings are not authoritative Scripture).
 
Upvote 0