Which Bible Would Jesus Use?

[abysmul]

Poe's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BryanW92]

First of all to all those that want to continue to ignore the fact of the misquote with very imaginable twist of the fact that I did not use the word “English” and that a more than a chide of inference was that I consider the King James Bible to be “the English language” if fact all you that use versions verify that you don’t really consider it English in its pure and present form.
That is why you all are correcting and adding and taking from it as a matter of your nature. You all consider it some old archaic form of English but not really the true English of today. You appose yourselves.

She misquoted me and that’s a fact.

And now to your polite question sir; what is “pure language of the King James”

1. Pure language is a phase you will find in the Holy Bible; it is a promise of God.
2. The promise is related to the pure word of God, which happens to be what is called the King James Bible; for reasons of and by many infallible proofs! (And that is your calling to rightly divide the one true word of God from versions)
3. All the words of God are pure, his word is very pure, thus a pure language.
4. The language by extension has never been spoken before, because it’s pure. (All other languages are confounded; including Hebrew and Greek)
5. The language is self-defining, because it’s pure.
6. The pure language is one and only original word of God connected to all God's promises, literally finish on the 6th day of creation, it is the work of God, purified in the furnace of earth.
7. The Holy Bible that we differentiate by calling it the King James Bible is God's pure language that he promise that contains all truth, is the truth and there is no other, it is truth, the word of truth, the word of God, wherein you can communion with God by the Holy Ghost in this world. (All others are feigned words, vain babblings that lead to more ungodliness)

Now if you want faith you must hear the word of God, if you want wisdom you must learn the language and if you want understanding well you must humble yourself and repent and believe God.

This pure language is not English; in fact, thinking you can understand God's pure language because you know how to speak English, well, you’re gravely mistaken and you hinder yourself, thinking you know something and you know nothing, it would be better if you didn’t know English, because your mind's renewing has been vexed, you literally need to be born again by the incorruptible word of God.
The devil, man, have worked very hard to redefine God's pure words, to pervert them, corrupt them and diminish them; using fleshly wisdom instead of spiritual discernment, by the same subtilty used in Eden.
The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?

And that's all I care to share right now.

God language is pure and all human languages are confounded. I can understand that.

This is why all the versions, including the KJV are not perfect copies of God's language. But, human languages are all that we have and, therefore, all of the establised versions are equally good and equally bad. The idea of choosing one version and saying that it is the the one, true word of God is just idolatry.

Your last sentence is the most troubling. You ask, "The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?" The problem is that we do believe the earthly things, such as deifying a version of a book and raising it up to be an idol. Those are earthly things indeed! The real question is: "if you are going to keep believing in earthly things, how can you ever learn to believe in spiritual things?"

The Word is not a translation. The Word has a name and that name is Jesus Christ and his words can be found in EVERY version and EVERY language and it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to suggest that he is locked into one translation of the bible.

 

[pescador]

First of all to all those that want to continue to ignore the fact of the misquote with very imaginable twist of the fact that I did not use the word “English” and that a more than a chide of inference was that I consider the King James Bible to be “the English language” if fact all you that use versions verify that you don’t really consider it English in its pure and present form.
That is why you all are correcting and adding and taking from it as a matter of your nature. You all consider it some old archaic form of English but not really the true English of today. You appose yourselves.

She misquoted me and that’s a fact.

And now to your polite question sir; what is “pure language of the King James”

1. Pure language is a phase you will find in the Holy Bible; it is a promise of God.
2. The promise is related to the pure word of God, which happens to be what is called the King James Bible; for reasons of and by many infallible proofs! (And that is your calling to rightly divide the one true word of God from versions)
3. All the words of God are pure, his word is very pure, thus a pure language.
4. The language by extension has never been spoken before, because it’s pure. (All other languages are confounded; including Hebrew and Greek)
5. The language is self-defining, because it’s pure.
6. The pure language is one and only original word of God connected to all God's promises, literally finish on the 6th day of creation, it is the work of God, purified in the furnace of earth.
7. The Holy Bible that we differentiate by calling it the King James Bible is God's pure language that he promise that contains all truth, is the truth and there is no other, it is truth, the word of truth, the word of God, wherein you can communion with God by the Holy Ghost in this world. (All others are feigned words, vain babblings that lead to more ungodliness)

Now if you want faith you must hear the word of God, if you want wisdom you must learn the language and if you want understanding well you must humble yourself and repent and believe God.

This pure language is not English; in fact, thinking you can understand God's pure language because you know how to speak English, well, you’re gravely mistaken and you hinder yourself, thinking you know something and you know nothing, it would be better if you didn’t know English, because your mind's renewing has been vexed, you literally need to be born again by the incorruptible word of God.
The devil, man, have worked very hard to redefine God's pure words, to pervert them, corrupt them and diminish them; using fleshly wisdom instead of spiritual discernment, by the same subtilty used in Eden.
The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?

And that's all I care to share right now.

Please don't share any more of your idolatry. There is not a single mention of Jesus Christ and only passing reference to God and the Holy Ghost. Think about this for a while: THE WORD BECAME FLESH. Stop worshiping a book (thereby violating the second commandment) and ask God to open your eyes to his truth. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. The way to God is not by some book, not some by words, but by a person.

 

[rick357]

There is what the Spirit moved apon men to write mostly in hebrew...then to greek...Hebrew is a word poor language...which makes each word meaning rich.....so when you put a paraghraph together in hebrew it is a painting.a picture.that has a form when first looked at but the longer one looks the more details are noticed.
English is not capable of such a thing as its words have specific meaning...

Yet the teachings of scripture are not understood by learning but by revelation. Jesus was hebrew he would use a hebrew bible...that you might recieve revelation that he is the true living bible.

 

[Gunny]

"In the beginning was the Word. and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him not any thing made that was made".

John 1:1-3
KJV

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father) full of grace and truth".

John 1:14
KJV

 

[JacobLaw]

Please don't share any more of your idolatry. There is not a single mention of Jesus Christ and only passing reference to God and the Holy Ghost. Think about this for a while: THE WORD BECAME FLESH. Stop worshiping a book (thereby violating the second commandment) and ask God to open your eyes to his truth. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. The way to God is not by some book, not some by words, but by a person.

Wow that's pretty judgmental, I guess you have it figured out!
I hope your Jesus gets you saved, there must be a thousand out there by now.
I know my Jesus Christ the word of God made flesh has saved me, but I guess you have condemned me in your judgment of things you don't understand, but thank God you aren't God.

 

[JacobLaw]

There is what the Spirit moved apon men to write mostly in hebrew...then to greek...Hebrew is a word poor language...which makes each word meaning rich.....so when you put a paraghraph together in hebrew it is a painting.a picture.that has a form when first looked at but the longer one looks the more details are noticed.
English is not capable of such a thing as its words have specific meaning...

Yet the teachings of scripture are not understood by learning but by revelation. Jesus was hebrew he would use a hebrew bible...that you might recieve revelation that he is the true living bible.

Interesting!
I might add the Holy Bible in the pure language known in the King James can paint a mighty fine picture.
English is not so pretty.

 

[JacobLaw]

God language is pure and all human languages are confounded. I can understand that.

This is why all the versions, including the KJV are not perfect copies of God's language. But, human languages are all that we have and, therefore, all of the establised versions are equally good and equally bad. The idea of choosing one version and saying that it is the the one, true word of God is just idolatry.

Your last sentence is the most troubling. You ask, "The point is that if you will not believe earthly things, how are you ever going to believe spiritual things?" The problem is that we do believe the earthly things, such as deifying a version of a book and raising it up to be an idol. Those are earthly things indeed! The real question is: "if you are going to keep believing in earthly things, how can you ever learn to believe in spiritual things?"

The Word is not a translation. The Word has a name and that name is Jesus Christ and his words can be found in EVERY version and EVERY language and it is a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit to suggest that he is locked into one translation of the bible.

That jumping to some big assumptions that many Christian King James Only would say is inaccurate. But at least we can agree on something.
I disagree on:
1. This King James Bible is not a version it is the word of God.
2. The King James Bible pure language was not a language God confounded but rather a language purified in the furnace of earth.
3. Accusing Christian of Idolatry for believing the Holy Bible is the word of God, seems to be hypocritical, doesn't it...... for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
4. I'm sorry but you have it backwards, Jesus Christ has a name and it is the Word, is the correct and biblical way of articulating the point.

I am sure you are being stirred.

 

[rick357]

Please don't share any more of your idolatry. There is not a single mention of Jesus Christ and only passing reference to God and the Holy Ghost. Think about this for a while: THE WORD BECAME FLESH. Stop worshiping a book (thereby violating the second commandment) and ask God to open your eyes to his truth. Jesus said I am the way, the truth, and the life. The way to God is not by some book, not some by words, but by a person.

Your bolded the word became flesh is a good point...to what word was this vsrse refering
The word given to Moses wich was in Hebrew...not english...the very best translation into english is still only a translation.
Now I myself am not able to speak or read that language but I do study it...he gave us the written to teach us who he is...the living word...so in regaurd to op none of the english translations we use...but regaurdless the Spirit leads us into all truth

 

[JacobLaw]

Total malarkey. The assertion that the King James Version is "pure language" is nonsense - particularly when coupled with the assertion that Hebrew and Greek are "confounded" languages - the latter of which was what the KJV translators um, translated. It seems to be your contention that God's inspired word didn't come to mankind in written form until the 17th century, which is beyond absurd. You further contend that God's word wasn't spoken prior to the 17th century, which is borderline heresy.

The only thing that's "self-defining" here are your unfounded opinions.

Haveth thou thineself a fine day.

Your short sightedness has you blinded, look without the bias of your ingrained programing, please.
But I have never know you to say a kind word to me anyway, so what you said I expected.

 

[Boidae]

When I asked in prayer for the Holy Spirit to guide me to the version of the Bible that He wanted me to read, neither time was I guided to the KJV of the Bible. Rather, I was guided to the NKJV of the Bible.

You have probably seen my post this before, but the KJV is distracting to some. I never could read Shakespeare in school as the language was distracting to me. The KJV is distracting because of the Old English. It is not the vernacular that I use today. Perhaps this is the reason I was lead to a Bible that I can read and retain what I read.

Perhaps when looking for a Bible, all should prayerfully ask what Bible He wants us to read from.

 

[NannaNae]

Have you read the new book "Which Bible Would Jesus Use"

the Torah!

 

[miamited]

Have you read the new book "Which Bible Would Jesus Use"
It's pretty good; lays out subject like were was the bible before 1611?
Why there is only one bible.
Dirty secrets of versions
Showing for over 400 years the King James Bible has never been changed.
And many other controversies the conintelpro has thrown at God's word.
I gave it 98% agreeable. But 100% King James Bible.

Hi JL,

Just thought I'd add my two cents here. I'm not sure that Jesus would use any bible. As far as we know he never used the actual written Scriptures when he was here. He did one time stand and read a piece of Isaiah in the temple, but as far as we know that is the only time he actually held the Scriptures in his hands.

He merely knew all that was in the Scriptures. I believe that if he were here today in an english speaking country that he would speak exactly the same quotes from the Scriptures that he spoke when he was here, only he would say it in english. He wouldn't say, have you not read the KJV or the NIV or the NRSV, but he would merely say, "Have you not read in the Scriptures...", and then go on to point out what we should have read in the Scriptures. It is my firm conviction that any particular piece of Scripture that he might mention would be found in all of the reliable translations. I also doubt seriously that he would use 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye' in his reciting of the Scriptural truth that he wanted to point out. He would merely speak in plain ordinary common english that would be in use at the time he was here.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[rick357]

Hi JL,

Just thought I'd add my two cents here. I'm not sure that Jesus would use any bible. As far as we know he never used the actual written Scriptures when he was here. He did one time stand and read a piece of Isaiah in the temple, but as far as we know that is the only time he actually held the Scriptures in his hands.

He merely knew all that was in the Scriptures. I believe that if he were here today in an english speaking country that he would speak exactly the same quotes from the Scriptures that he spoke when he was here, only he would say it in english. He wouldn't say, have you not read the KJV or the NIV or the NRSV, but he would merely say, "Have you not read in the Scriptures...", and then go on to point out what we should have read in the Scriptures. It is my firm conviction that any particular piece of Scripture that he might mention would be found in all of the reliable translations. I also doubt seriously that he would use 'thee', 'thou' and 'ye' in his reciting of the Scriptural truth that he wanted to point out. He would merely speak in plain ordinary common english that would be in use at the time he was here.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

There are some good points there but Jesus laid aside his diety and came as a man so he still had to learn....admitted since what he was reading was his nature It came easy....but that would make an interesting thread. There was only one version of scripture in his day....well no there was a greek version....but few owned their own especially those in his economical class...yet they were required by education to memorize large portions study penetuche then prophets ect in addition to synagogue daily prayer and recital family discussions feast days and temple worship....
When formal education started at five the first book required to be memorized was deuteronomy...which happens to also be the book Jesus quoted the most.

 

[pescador]

Your bolded the word became flesh is a good point...to what word was this vsrse refering
The word given to Moses wich was in Hebrew...not english...the very best translation into english is still only a translation.
Now I myself am not able to speak or read that language but I do study it...he gave us the written to teach us who he is...the living word...so in regaurd to op none of the english translations we use...but regaurdless the Spirit leads us into all truth

"The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us" is John 1:14

 

[pescador]

the Torah!

Correct!

 

[miamited]

There are some good points there but Jesus laid aside his diety and came as a man so he still had to learn....admitted since what he was reading was his nature It came easy....but that would make an interesting thread. There was only one version of scripture in his day....well no there was a greek version....but few owned their own especially those in his economical class...yet they were required by education to memorize large portions study penetuche then prophets ect in addition to synagogue daily prayer and recital family discussions feast days and temple worship....
When formal education started at five the first book required to be memorized was deuteronomy...which happens to also be the book Jesus quoted the most.

Hi rick,

So, you don't agree that Jesus, the person, has existed since before the creation? I ask that because you say that he had to learn as a child and as he grew up to know the Scriptures. If Jesus, the person, has existed since the foundations of the the world were set in place, then no, I'm not willing to agree that all that he knew in his mind as a child were new things that he didn't previously know.

I believe that Jesus, the person and in what ever form we care to consider that he existed before his human incarnation, has always known the Scriptures. He was there when the foundations of this realm were established and he was there throughout all of the time that the Holy Spirit was revealing to men the things that the Father would have them to write, which became the 'Scriptures'.

Therefore, Jesus would have no need of any written copy of the Scriptures to make the claims about them that he did and to quote them in his speaking as he did. We never once, in the entire accounting of Jesus earthly life, have evidence that he ever read the Scriptures for learning. We only have the one account where he stood in the temple and read the passage of Isaiah and then immediately declared that that passage was speaking of him. He didn't have to study it. He didn't have to sit down and think about it. He merely immediately declared that the people in his hearing were seeing the fulfillment of that very passage. I really don't see why Jesus would have ever studied the Scriptures if my understanding is correct. Jesus already knew what they said, what they meant, and how they were to be applied in our lives. Everyone else does need to study them because we are learning from the position of an infant. We have to consider and discuss and determine what any particular passage of Scripture means. We have to read the Scriptures to understand what God is doing. As I understand it, Jesus never had need of any of this learning, studying and accepting the Scriptures.

So, Jesus wouldn't today, need to handle any translation of the bible that we have today. He would merely speak about them and reference them in his speaking. Of all the passages of Scripture that Jesus did ask about for which we have record, we can today find those passages in the KJV, NIV, NRSV, ASV and many, many others.

I believe that the OP is going about this the wrong way. What he really wants to say is that Jesus would make derogatory remarks about many of the translations that we have, but not the KJV. I don't agree. I honestly don't believe that the name of a translation would ever cross his lips.

That's what I believe.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted.

 

[kiwimac]

There are some good points there but Jesus laid aside his diety and came as a man so he still had to learn....admitted since what he was reading was his nature It came easy....but that would make an interesting thread. There was only one version of scripture in his day....well no there was a greek version....but few owned their own especially those in his economical class...yet they were required by education to memorize large portions study penetuche then prophets ect in addition to synagogue daily prayer and recital family discussions feast days and temple worship....
When formal education started at five the first book required to be memorized was deuteronomy...which happens to also be the book Jesus quoted the most.

Interestingly it is from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Torah) that Jesus most quotes.

 

[rick357]

Interestingly it is from the Septuagint (the Greek version of the Torah) that Jesus most quotes.

The authors of NT quoted from the greek because of their audiance...would I quote the king james to a chinese congregation....in the same way Jesus was not quoting greek to a congregation of Hebrews.

 

[kiwimac]

Actually Jesus DID quote from the LXX.