KJV Bible verses that may make you scratch your head in wonder

[Radagast]

I wonder why I remember these this way?

Because your memory is faulty.

Possibly you've always misread what the KJV says.

Very likely you remember the words your father and grandfather taught you, not the words as they have always existed as black ink on white paper.

 

[sunshineforJesus]

Anyone who uses the KJV had better be an expert in olde Englysh or else s/he should be using a modern translation (of which there are many good ones). IMHO it makes people feel holy and religious to translate in their minds what the Bible is actually saying.

Nobody speaks or even thinks in this archaic language.

I agree which is why I cannot stand reading King James.Its so hard to understand.

 

[disciple Clint]

Well, the scripture in Zech seems pretty gender specific to me. And I don't have much trust in commentary except for that of older baptistic commentators from pre to early 20th century. I am pretty well versed if I do say so myself, and trying my best not to boast.

You do not trust the commentaries? You are trying not to boast but you do not trust the commentaries that have been extensively researched and approved by theologians throughout the years? That says everything that needs to be said about your expertise.

 

[Radagast]

I agree which is why I cannot stand reading King James.Its so hard to understand.

There are translations, like the ESV and CSB, that are both closer to the original Greek and Hebrew and easier to read.

 

[pescador]

The most popular Bible these days is the NIV. It is very readable; it strikes a great balance between translating the ancient language words and the meaning of the text. It would help to read sections of the various translations online before you buy a print Bible. biblegateway.com is excellent. You can read sections of the Bible (or all of it) as well as many references.

 

[BlessedCreator]

Unfortunately we are living in the end times and Satan has got his hands in most modern Bibles, as is proven in this thread: Bible Corruptions

 

[fwGod]

So let me post some more interesting scriptures.

Genesis 5:2 Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created. (KJV) Called them both (Adam & Eve) Adam?

The Hebrew word Adam directly refers to the color of dirt or clay from which God made the bodies of the first humans, male and female. They together being the same species are Adam. Even as the male and female of any animal such as cat or dog are both called by that same designation.

Genesis 8:11 And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth. (KJV) Wasn't that the all famous olive branch?

It's interesting that the bird was a she and not a he. The she implies the wisdom of God (Prov.4:6). Further, the bird was a dove, having an olive leaf. Which can be interpreted to be representing the anointed savior. The olive is crushed to make oil which represents the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus .. of which he quoted from Isaiah which said "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me."

The leaf represents healing (Ezek.47:12; Rev.22:2) Therefore comes God's healing by means of the bird of flight. Which is a reminder that healing is in His wings (Mal.4:2).

I also know that when we prayed using the model prayer the Lord gave us from Matthew & Luke, the word of the Lord said Gods will was to be done where? It was ON earth, not IN earth. Yet look what the scriptures say right now.

Matthew 6:10 Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven. (KJV) And that the like passages in Luke used to be the same. Luke 11:2 And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth. (KJV) These two models only used to have the difference of Debts in Matthew, and Trespasses in Luke.

The text concerning debts.. is speaking the same as in Rom.13:8 "to owe no one anything but to love them." We are in debt to those who we owe love to but instead have not treated them as we would want to be treated (Mat.7:12). We are to love them as we have been loved by God (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10) .. regardless of whether they have earned or deserved it (Eph.4:32; Rom.3:23-26; Isa. 43:25; Heb.8:12; 2 Cor.5:19)

Again, these particular scriptures are just the tip of the iceberg that are vexing (Daniel 7:25) my spirit.

Here are my thoughts on it. The word 'in' implies the environment, even as heaven is an environment. However, when people are surprised at something, they say: "What on earth is that?" Possibly because what they have seen is not according to their normal life experience.

So it's possible to say.. The kingdom of God be done in earth as it is in heaven.. to occur in this life environment as it does in heaven. And.. the kingdom of God be done on earth as it is in heaven.. to be the normal life experience to everyone who believes.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Anyone who uses the KJV had better be an expert in olde Englysh or else s/he should be using a modern translation (of which there are many good ones). IMHO it makes people feel holy and religious to translate in their minds what the Bible is actually saying.

Nobody speaks or even thinks in this archaic language.

While I agree in theory to your last statement, if anyone asks me the Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23 I immediately start thinking in KJV because that is how I learned it. Nowadays the mind tends to blend it in with modern translations thankfully, but there is a definite poetic trend to it that makes it easier to memorise... just not easy to understand

 

[pescador]

The Hebrew word Adam directly refers to the color of dirt or clay from which God made the bodies of the first humans, male and female. They together being the same species are Adam. Even as the male and female of any animal such as cat or dog are both called by that same designation.
It's interesting that the bird was a she and not a he. The she implies the wisdom of God (Prov.4:6). Further, the bird was a dove, having an olive leaf. Which can be interpreted to be representing the anointed savior. The olive is crushed to make oil which represents the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus .. of which he quoted from Isaiah which said "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me."

The leaf represents healing (Ezek.47:12; Rev.22:2) Therefore comes God's healing by means of the bird of flight. Which is a reminder that healing is in His wings (Mal.4:2).
The text concerning debts.. is speaking the same as in Rom.13:8 "to owe no one anything but to love them." We are in debt to those who we owe love to but instead have not treated them as we would want to be treated (Mat.7:12). We are to love them as we have been loved by God (John 3:16; 1 John 4:10) .. regardless of whether they have earned or deserved it (Eph.4:32; Rom.3:23-26; Isa. 43:25; Heb.8:12; 2 Cor.5:19)
Here are my thoughts on it. The word 'in' implies the environment, even as heaven is an environment. However, when people are surprised at something, they say: "What on earth is that?" Possibly because what they have seen is not according to their normal life experience.

So it's possible to say.. The kingdom of God be done in earth as it is in heaven.. to occur in this life environment as it does in heaven. And.. the kingdom of God be done on earth as it is in heaven.. to be the normal life experience to everyone who believes.

Another reason not to use the KJV. Genesis 8:11a, "When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak!

"Further, the bird was a dove, having an olive leaf. Which can be interpreted to be representing the anointed savior. The olive is crushed to make oil which represents the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus .. of which he quoted from Isaiah which said "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me."

By your rule, it can be interpreted as anything, according to what the interpreter wants it to mean. For example, since a branch is made of wood it can mean that the dove is symbolic of bringing the message of the cross (which of course is a flawed interpretation). Picking and choosing isolated verses from different writings, out of context, is a way to make Scripture say what you want it to say. First of all, there are no chapters and verses in the ancient writings; they were added centuries later to enable people to reference certain places in Scripture, but they are not scripture. To pick and choose a verse from here and there, from different writings from different times, separated by thousands of years, to prove a predetermined point is nonsense.

It's not a good idea to play loosie-goosie with the Word of God, making parts of it, taken out-of-context, to mean what you want them to mean. Verses are part of chapters, which are part of "books", so they mean something in context as part of a larger work. Jumping from "book" to "book", selecting isolated verses, is to do an injustice to the authors of those "books".

"The Hebrew word Adam directly refers to the color of dirt or clay from which God made the bodies of the first humans, male and female. They together being ... cat or dog..."

"Further, the bird was ... an olive leaf"

"For the Holy Spirit rested upon ... Isaiah"

"The word 'in' implies ... heaven."

"Etcetera, etcetera etcetera" (Yul Brynner in the King and I")

 

[pescador]

While I agree in theory to your last statement, if anyone asks me the Lord's Prayer or Psalm 23 I immediately start thinking in KJV because that is how I learned it. Nowadays the mind tends to blend it in with modern translations thankfully, but there is a definite poetic trend to it that makes it easier to memorise... just not easy to understand

Fine, if that's what suits you personally. Remember though that the Psalms are a type of poetry and music that is very different from modern poetry and music, so translating properly into English, whether in 1611 or 2020, is extremely difficult. Selah!

 

[fwGod]

Another reason not to use the KJV. Genesis 8:11a, "When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak!

Birds do use their beaks so that their claws can clutch what they land on. They have wings, not arms.

(from previous post)
"Further, the bird was a dove, having an olive leaf. Which can be interpreted to be representing the anointed savior. The olive is crushed to make oil which represents the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit rested upon Jesus .. of which he quoted from Isaiah which said "the Spirit of the Lord is upon Me because He has anointed Me."

By your rule, it can be interpreted as anything, according to what the interpreter wants it to mean.

Many people have interpreted the verses in many ways.. there's nothing wrong in my interpreting it in the way that I have.

The wrong of interpretation is when someone uses a verse to say something that can't be supported in any verse of scripture whatsoever. I have interpreted along the lines of verses that connect. I have shown how they are connected.

For example, since a branch is made of wood it can mean that the dove is symbolic of bringing the message of the cross (which of course is a flawed interpretation).

Which I did not do. Nor have I heard of such an interpretation. The statement doesn't provide any scriptural support to validate the interpretation.

Picking and choosing isolated verses from different writings, out of context, is a way to make Scripture say what you want it to say.

What I did is putting text together with text. The context is not violated.

Doing such is what the Bible means when it says "line upon line and precept upon precept. I am not making the scripture say what I want it to say, I am connecting scriptural concepts within the rules of Isa.28:10. I gave scripture references for anyone to check.

First of all, there are no chapters and verses in the ancient writings; they were added centuries later to enable people to reference certain places in Scripture, but they are not scripture.

Are you saying that nothing in the Bible is scripture just because there are chapters and verses to reference now?

In any case, having all the verses numbered is an aid, not a violation of anything. Neither does your pointing out that all the scripture has been numbered have anything to do with my referencing the verses that I connected.

Your objection to my interpretation has not been validly proved.

To pick and choose a verse from here and there, from different writings from different times, separated by thousands of years, to prove a predetermined point is nonsense.

How can a point to be made be predetermined? Such as your point for example.

But again you are wrong.. or else the apostle Paul is wrong in what he did when he connected the teaching on speaking in tongues with (Isa.28:11) relying on a verse from centuries ago to compare speaking in tongues with people speaking foreign languages. He took text and his revelatory teaching on speaking in tongues without violating the context of each.

It's not a good idea to play loosie-goosie with the Word of God, making parts of it, taken out-of-context, to mean what you want them to mean.

I agree, and that is why I didn't do it.

Verses are part of chapters, which are part of "books", so they mean something in context as part of a larger work. Jumping from "book" to "book", selecting isolated verses, is to do an injustice to the authors of those "books".

You are mistaken. Context is not being violated.

My own Bible gives scripture references from other books, chapters, verses etc. They don't violate the context by making verse connections either.

(from my previous post)
"The Hebrew word Adam directly refers to the color of dirt or clay from which God made the bodies of the first humans, male and female. They together being ... cat or dog..."

"Further, the bird was ... an olive leaf"

Now here is an example of isolating. Such shortening of what I said is an attempt to make it seem to be in violation and therefore fitting your objections. Which is your interpretation to make it seem to say whatever you want it to say.

"For the Holy Spirit rested upon ... Isaiah"

"The word 'in' implies ... heaven."

More deliberate isolating of what I said.

Therefore you are in violation of the context of my post.

"Etcetera, etcetera etcetera" (Yul Brynner in the King and I")

That comment regarding my post is out of context with the dialogue that Yul Brynner said in the movie.

I would guess that someone at some point corrected you for having wrongly interpreted some scripture so you take it as your duty to attempt to correct others whom you think are practicing wrong interpretations. However, you perhaps think that every use of more than one scripture to interpret a text is always a violation.

But you are only managing to show how erroneous your attempts are.

 

[pescador]

Birds do use their beaks so that their claws can clutch what they land on. They have wings, not arms.

Many people have interpreted the verses in many ways.. there's nothing wrong in my interpreting it in the way that I have.

The wrong of interpretation is when someone uses a verse to say something that can't be supported in any verse of scripture whatsoever. I have interpreted along the lines of verses that connect. I have shown how they are connected.
Which I did not do. Nor have I heard of such an interpretation. The statement doesn't provide any scriptural support to validate the interpretation.
What I did is putting text together with text. The context is not violated.

Doing such is what the Bible means when it says "line upon line and precept upon precept. I am not making the scripture say what I want it to say, I am connecting scriptural concepts within the rules of Isa.28:10. I gave scripture references for anyone to check.
Are you saying that nothing in the Bible is scripture just because there are chapters and verses to reference now?

In any case, having all the verses numbered is an aid, not a violation of anything. Neither does your pointing out that all the scripture has been numbered have anything to do with my referencing the verses that I connected.

Your objection to my interpretation has not been validly proved.
How can a point to be made be predetermined? Such as your point for example.

But again you are wrong.. or else the apostle Paul is wrong in what he did when he connected the teaching on speaking in tongues with (Isa.28:11) relying on a verse from centuries ago to compare speaking in tongues with people speaking foreign languages. He took text and his revelatory teaching on speaking in tongues without violating the context of each.
I agree, and that is why I didn't do it.
You are mistaken. Context is not being violated.

My own Bible gives scripture references from other books, chapters, verses etc. They don't violate the context by making verse connections either.

(from my previous post)
"The Hebrew word Adam directly refers to the color of dirt or clay from which God made the bodies of the first humans, male and female. They together being ... cat or dog..."
Now here is an example of isolating. Such shortening of what I said is an attempt to make it seem to be in violation and therefore fitting your objections. Which is your interpretation to make it seem to say whatever you want it to say.
More deliberate isolating of what I said.

Therefore you are in violation of the context of my post.

That comment regarding my post is out of context with the dialogue that Yul Brynner said in the movie.

I would guess that someone at some point corrected you for having wrongly interpreted some scripture so you take it as your duty to attempt to correct others whom you think are practicing wrong interpretations. However, you perhaps think that every use of more than one scripture to interpret a text is always a violation.

But you are only managing to show how erroneous your attempts are.

Obviously you consider your interpretations to be correct; IMHO they are flawed, not using reasonable exegesis. You take things completely out of context from all parts of the Bible then use them to write your own unfounded opinions.

There are many writings about false teachers throughout the Bible. Here is just one of them...

"But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies ... Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words."

You can twist God's Word to suit yourself, but that doesn't invalidate what it actually says.

 

[fwGod]

Obviously you consider your interpretations to be correct; IMHO they are flawed, not using reasonable exegesis.

You have called them 'interpretations'.. but I have not made interpretations, I've put text with text without violating context.

You take things completely out of context from all parts of the Bible then use them to write your own unfounded opinions.

My post shows that I haven't. My response to your previous post shows that I haven't. So it's pointless for you to reiterate your view again.

There are many writings about false teachers throughout the Bible. Here is just one of them...

"But false prophets arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. These false teachers will infiltrate your midst with destructive heresies ... Because of these false teachers, the way of truth will be slandered. And in their greed they will exploit you with deceptive words."

You have only used your opinions and this one incorrectly used verse to try to give your opinion some biblical authority.

Where is any destructive heresy in what I posted? Missing.
Who is a false teacher? Not I.. on both counts.
Where is greed, where is exploitation, where is deceptive words? Missing.

If I have slandered the word of truth then so has the apostle Paul and all Bible scholars who use references to connect one scripture to another.

Your attempt to show me in the wrong has only shown how wrong you are.

You can twist God's Word to suit yourself, but that doesn't invalidate what it actually says.

The issue is not 'what it actually says' the issue is 'use of text from other verses that do not violate the context of any of the verses used'.

You have not proved that I or the apostle Paul or all Bible scholars have twisted any truth.

Your objection to my valid, scripturally sound use of several texts, is faulty and inaccurate.

 

[The Parson]

Please continue on. It's interesting to read what's being said. I'll catch up with you when you've all had your stab at me.

 

[BlessedCreator]

@The Parson I'd be interested to hear your response for my #17 post on page one if you have time

 

[The Parson]

That is good to hear but your original post comes off as anti-KJB to me, perhaps a bit of explanation as to your goal with the thread is would be good to know? Please do finish explaining what you mean by the KJV we have now is not the KJV we had before.

Edit: I read a post in your profile that indicates you think that the KJV has been supernaturally altered by ?Satan?Demons?The coming antichrist?

(Amos8 site post I saw)
On that site it lists supposed supernatural alterations to the KJV but gives no evidence of anything?? Wheres the proof?

Edit 2: also I briefly looked at the amos8 forums which openly deny the flat earth and are pushing the globe earth deception...if they deny such things that have much proof as the flat earth how can anyone trust their claims without evidence that the KJV has been supernaturally altered. Looks like another end times deception by Satan's ministers, propagating not one deception but possibly many.

What response? The no flat earth thingy, or the who done it thingy, or the being glad that I'm not anti-kjv thingy?

I haven't even considered the flat earth/globe question. And being uninformed about it, it does seem silly.

The who done it? That would have to be the spirit of anti-christ. It can't be him in the flesh one would reason. If he were in the world today, I don't believe the church would still be here. He has to be revealed first. No, I didn't say that to open another debate!!!

Now back to catching up with everybody's having their stab at me.

 

[The Parson]

Genesis 8:11a, "When the dove returned to him in the evening, there was a freshly plucked olive leaf in its beak!

Gee, I always believed it was an Olive Branch, not an "Olive Leaf"! Go figure...

 

[Radagast]

Gee, I always believed it was an Olive Branch, not an "Olive Leaf"! Go figure...

Every translation I've checked, including the KJV, ESV, CSB, etc. has "olive leaf."

ESV: And the dove came back to him in the evening, and behold, in her mouth was a freshly plucked olive leaf. So Noah knew that the waters had subsided from the earth.

KJV: And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

I am reinforced in my belief that you are going by what your father and grandfather told you, and not by the actual words of the KJV or any other Bible.

 

[The Parson]

Every translation I've checked, including the KJV, ESV, CSB, etc. has "olive leaf."

Oh, I don't doubt that one bit.

I am reinforced in my belief that you are going by what your father and grandfather told you, and not by the actual words of the KJV or any other Bible.

Well then, there's another belief we would have to question. Those dear men of God always told me to take what the Bible said above all things.

 

[Radagast]

Oh, I don't doubt that one bit.
Well then, there's another belief we would have to question. Those dear men of God always told me to take what the Bible said above all things.

But, in fact, the KJV says, and has always said "olive leaf."