The Bible contains the words of God, reveals God, his will and his salvation to us and is inspired and true.
Its books were written in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Greek and Latin and then English. The KJV was not the first Bible to be translated into English. Many people became Christians and had, believed, taught, and lived by, God's word long before the KJV came along - like the Apostles, for example.
There were a number of discoveries made after the KJV was written, and language has changed a lot since then.
Jesus is THE Word of God.
All I've seen from Bible Highlighter here is horse feathers. First, the thrice-married Riplinger is a quack. Her work has been mostly discredited, even by other KJVOs.
Next, the KJV is wrong in Daniel 3. The Aramaic reads "son of the gods". And Nebuchadnezzar could not have known who Jesus is; not even Daniel knew then.
And, of course, the KJV has many other goofs & booboos. "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a glaring one. there are many more mistranslations , such as 1 Tim. 6:10, whSHOULD read "the love of silver (money) is A root of ALL SORTS of evil." And the KJV's Ex. 20:13 reads "Thou shalt not KILL", when it SHOULD be "murder".
And the KJV's language is outdated & archaic. It was written for the British of 400 years ago, in THEIR English. Since then, God has caused updated English Bible translations to be made, just as He caused the KJV to be made to replace then-archaic versions such as the "Great Bible" of 1539. (Named for its physical size)
And there's absolutely NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth. Without Scriptural support, no doctrine of faith/worship can be true.
Call it an attack if you wish, Sir. For all I care, you can call call it a yellow bluebell. But, whatever ya choose to call it, it's the **TRUTH** !
The Bible contains the words of God, reveals God, his will and his salvation to us and is inspired and true.
Its books were written in Hebrew and Greek, translated into Greek and Latin and then English. The KJV was not the first Bible to be translated into English. Many people became Christians and had, believed, taught, and lived by, God's word long before the KJV came along - like the Apostles, for example.
There were a number of discoveries made after the KJV was written, and language has changed a lot since then.
Jesus is THE Word of God.
Nobody speaks KJV English anywhere in the world.All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This means that all of the words of Scripture are from God.
They are literally God breathed words to us.
Jesus says jots and tittles will not pass away from the Law (the Torah or the five books of Moses) until all be fulfilled. This means that the most smallest things like the crossing of a "T" or the dotting of an "I" will not pass away until all of the things within the Torah will be fulfilled. The Law of Moses (the 613) are fulfilled, and Jesus brought us a New Covenant with New Commands (with a certain portion of His commands being similar to the Old Covenant).
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25).
If I did not have the luxury of hindsight knowledge, the one of two ways I see this happening is if:
(a) God preserved the language of Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek within our Modern Day world by groups of people still speaking and writing these languages with no real break or interruption of time in them being dead languages. There would be no major changes in the language over time.
(b) God preserved His Word (Scripture) in a Global Language or the World Language of today.
Now, with hindsight knowledge, for me: It seems like "Option (b)" is what took place. Psalms 12:7 says that God's Word would be preserved for all generations. This generation no longer speaks and writes Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek (as a part a living culture), so it technically would not be preserved specifically for this generation unless it was translated into the world language of our day (Which is English).
World language - Wikipedia
Side Note:
Oh, and yes; A person needs to know the "Living Word" and know that the Scriptures are all about the "Living Word," but Jesus also taught us many things and principles as a part of knowing Him and or having a relationship with Him (See: 1 John 2:3-4, and John 15:10). Jesus said to the Pharisees that they sought to kill him because His word had no place within them (John 8:37).
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
This means that all of the words of Scripture are from God.
They are literally God breathed words to us.
Jesus says jots and tittles will not pass away from the Law (the Torah or the five books of Moses) until all be fulfilled.
This means that the most smallest things like the crossing of a "T" or the dotting of an "I" will not pass away until all of the things within the Torah will be fulfilled. The Law of Moses (the 613) are fulfilled, and Jesus brought us a New Covenant with New Commands (with a certain portion of His commands being similar to the Old Covenant).
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25).
If I did not have the luxury of hindsight knowledge, the one of two ways I see this happening is if:
(a) God preserved the language of Biblical Hebrew, and Biblical Greek within our Modern Day world by groups of people still speaking and writing these languages with no real break or interruption of time in them being dead languages. There would be no major changes in the language over time.
(b) God preserved His Word (Scripture) in a Global Language or the World Language of today.
Now, with hindsight knowledge, for me: It seems like "Option (b)" is what took place. Psalms 12:7 says that God's Word would be preserved for all generations. This generation no longer speaks and writes Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek (as a part a living culture), so it technically would not be preserved specifically for this generation unless it was translated into the world language of our day (Which is English).
Nobody speaks KJV English anywhere in the world.
The KJV more so than some others. There are more than 800 words in the KJV which have changed in meaning or dropped out of use altogether.The Scriptures can be misinterpreted in the KJV just as easily as in any other English version or any other language for that matter.
This is not true at all. Most people who have English as a second language would have great difficulty with KJV English. I'm a native speaker of English and I have difficulty with it.If I asked a person to read a page of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, they are not going to understand it. If I asked them to read 1600's English, they will be able to read it, and they could understand it in many places. Granted, in certain instances, they may have to look at a Modern Translation and updated those words (But they can see that the KJV says the same thing as the Modern Translation). They are not taking it by blind faith that *$%# means a particular thing based on some scholar. For folks can read 1600's English and understand it in many places in the Scripture (without a dictionary or Modern Translation), but this is not the case if they were to do so with Biblical Hebrew and Greek. So while nobody today does not speak 1600's English, it is understandable based on the fact that we know Modern Day English. They are close enough to each other so that we can understand 1600's English. It is still technically English. We can see the correlation between the two and connect the dots.
The Scriptures can be misinterpreted in the KJV just as easily as in any other English version or any other language for that matter.
This is not true at all. Most people who have English as a second language would have great difficulty with KJV English. I'm a native speaker of English and I have difficulty with it.
Despite what you claim is missing or not faithfully translated in other English versions, those differences only affect a tiny percentage of the Scriptures, and what you claim is missing in those parts is found in other parts of the Scriptures, so the Gospel message is found unchanged in the whole of the Scriptures.
ALL?
God inspired Paul to write that false teachers should castrate themselves, and this somehow edifies us?
Paul's advice to Timothy to stop drinking water and drink wine instead because of his illnesses, is advice to us as well?
Paul's request that Timothy bring him the cloak and scrolls that he left behind, is for us .... how?
Paul told people to treat their slaves well. We do not have slaves as they did then - so how do we keep those words?
Yes, the Bible is true; true in what it reveals about God, his character, his will and his salvation, and that can never be changed nor added to. But the Bible also contains poetry, personal letters and advice from Paul for the problems that the churches wrote to him about. Today we have different issues - and the words of Paul to a first century church do not necessarily apply to us also in the 21st century.
No, it probably won't.
But I'm a Gentile; I was not given the Jewish law and have never been under it.
Jesus said he came to fulfil the law.
I do not have the law - I am in Jesus, who has fulfilled it.
I never said it wasn't, and it has been preserved for all generations.
Clearly this is not a reference to the KJV, which was produced only 400 years ago. Scripture was around long before King James was even born.
Greek was, for years, the common language of that generation; then it was Latin.
English is a common language in the generation, and part of the world, in which we live; but the English language itself is constantly changing. It was only about 40 years, or so, ago that "Gay" meant "happy" - at school, we all wrote stories about people feeling gay. What does that word mean today; or what do most people immediately think of when they hear it?
Teenagers today use the words "wicked" and "sick" to mean something amazing, or great. What do you think they will think if they read a Bible which says that all men are wicked? Or if anyone is sick they should pray?
Unfortunately, many people have built their theology on these verses without taking into consideration the multitude of Scriptures which detail what it means to believe in Him, and arrive at a false gospel.The point is that you can read and understand John 3:16 and a ton of other verses just fine without a dictionary in the KJV, but this is not the case if you were to read Hebrew or Greek on John 3:16, and or other verses. You would have no clue what they were saying.
Unfortunately, many people have built their theology on these verses without taking into consideration the multitude of Scriptures which detail what it means to believe in Him, and arrive at a false gospel.
I've looked at the English of that century.. their f's are actually s'. their j was the letter i.. the letter v is u instead. And so on.If I asked a person to read a page of Biblical Hebrew and Greek, they are not going to understand it. If I asked them to read 1600's English, they will be able to read it, and they could understand it in many places.
Not always so. For instance, "ague". Now I'd just as soon not have to look up what an archaic English word is because it is unnecessary when reading a modern English Bible.Bible Highlighter said:Granted, in certain instances, they may have to look at a Modern Translation and updated those words (But they can see that the KJV says the same thing as the Modern Translation).
I've just proven with examples that the 1600 Bible would not be easy for the average reader. It seems that you're reaching too far in the effort to defend the KJV.Bible Highlighter said:They are not taking it by blind faith that *$%# means a particular thing based on some scholar. For folks can read 1600's English and understand it in many places in the Scripture (without a dictionary or Modern Translation),
For some English people, the 1600 Bible might as well be Greek or Hebrew.Bible Highlighter said:..but this is not the case if they were to do so with Biblical Hebrew and Greek. So while nobody today does not speak 1600's English, it is understandable based on the fact that we know Modern Day English.
Maybe. But why go through those extra hoops, or jump over those hurdles.. when all the while, there are the modern Bibles that don't give the reader such a mystery to figure out on top of all of the metaphorical verses to have to be figured out?Bible Highlighter said:They are close enough to each other so that we can understand 1600's English. It is still technically English. We can see the correlation between the two and connect the dots.
I've looked at the English of that century.. their f's are actually s'. their j was the letter i.. the letter v is u instead. And so on.
http://ww.swapmeetdave.com/Bible/Bibles/1635 Douay-Job-26-13-28-25-a.jpg
..a little help.. Job 25:5 "iuft" is "just". I would've had a difficult time figuring that out if the word iuftification had not been close by. Maybe someone can figure out Vs.7, what "aduerfarie" means.. could it be "adversity"?
I'd really be interested in seeing you read a passage from a Bible like that.. without cheating to check what each sentence reads in modern English.
Not always so. For instance, "ague". Now I'd just as soon not have to look up what an archaic English word is because it is unnecessary when reading a modern English Bible.
This archaic old English word means “fever.” It is used in the King James Version only once (Leviticus 26:16). Modern English translations use the word “fever.”
Or "amerce" which means 'to impose a fine'. It's used once in the King James Bible, Deuteronomy 22:19.
Then there's this really difficult one to figure out.. 'bewray'.. it means, to reveal or disclose. The old English word is equivalent to “betray” (Proverbs 27:16; 29:24, Revised King James Version, “uttereth;” Isaiah 16:3; Matthew 26:73).
The list goes on.
I've just proven with examples that the 1600 Bible would not be easy for the average reader. It seems that you're reaching too far in the effort to defend the KJV.
For some English people, the 1600 Bible might as well be Greek or Hebrew.
Maybe. But why go through those extra hoops, or jump over those hurdles.. when all the while, there are the modern Bibles that don't give the reader such a mystery to figure out on top of all of the metaphorical verses to have to be figured out?
It's entirely different when it's Hebrew or Greek. It's reasonable not to know what those languages are saying. But, it shouldn't be the case for English speaking people to struggle with archaic English.
The Bible says that "the entrance of His word gives light and understanding to the simple." But how can God's word be understandable to the simple.. one on the grade school level, if there are outdated puzzling words in it?
The modern Bibles remove any ancient linguistic hurdles so the reader can have a smooth path of learning what God is saying as you walk. Instead of trying to understand what the KJV achaic words are saying.
There have been printed Bibles with even easier English to better understand. The Common English. The Contemporary English. The Easy-to-Read. .. for example.
The argument that the KJV is the best for comprehension, is not accurate.
You may have a preference of Bible version but that doesn't make it any more 'divinely inspired' than any other printed Bible.I believe the Cambridge Edition (circa 1900) is the divinely inspired Word.
I take it that you have no interest in responding to my previous post #458?Bible Highlighter said:Also, when I refer to 1600’s English, I am referring to the updated English version of the KJV that updated spelling, and perfected the printing process.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?