Jump to content
IGNORED

Why The KJV Bible Is One Of The Best Bible Translation


Kindle

Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  18
  • Topic Count:  8
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  7,776
  • Content Per Day:  2.42
  • Reputation:   2,729
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  06/05/2015
  • Status:  Offline

32 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Well, that may all depend on what the meaning of 'is' is. :P

I am not sure what to make out of your comment, whether it was a Hail Mary comment or it had some responsive meaning to my post. 

In any case , and by your own suggestions, we "ought to", not hang on one word, but look in the context of the message. 

Perish or not perish, 

"Apoleitai" or "mei apoleitai". 

"Apoleitai" means going to Hell. 

(Unless the apoleitai has another meaning ),

And "mei apoleitai " must mean going to opposite direction and that is Heaven, but perhaps not to all, or maybe eventually to all who believe. 

But the heart of the matter is, (is), "apoleitai", or "perish", is Hell. 

If perish is Hell, to put any kind of negative before the word " perish", it can not be the same as "perish , Hell", 

I think the heart of the matter could be that some of the Christian Coultures who hold the belief of "pergatory", or some other kind of beliefs,  may want to make the distinction, that some may be going straight to Heaven, but not all, in that manner , but that eventually will. 

But never perish, as some other groups hold the belief, that no one will perish , but let's wait and see what will happen on that "DAY", who will perish and who will not. 

Holding different kinds of beliefs. Some they say: whether someone has believe or not believe, because of their good works they will be at the Bossom of Jesus Christ, 

And some with faith in Jesus Christ and even with a place in the ministry of the Gospel, with evidence of doing great works that benefit others believers, may be surprised because Jesus Christ did not consider at all their good works and the benefits others received from their good works, and give them not even a good complement, but he JESUS consider only their works of iniquity above all, and will Judge them to perish for eternity in Hell. 

But the scripture ends by sayings that Jesus is the LIFE, the ETERNAL LIFE, and they will not perish, because no one can be perish if he has the ETERNAL LIFE. 

Jesus Christ said: 

No one can take you from me, where I am that's where you will also be. 

Jesus "is" the life 

Thank you for the "is". 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

21 minutes ago, OneLight said:

I don't get into salvation issues as I cannot read another persons heart.  Neither do I get into online debates about OSAS and Eternal Security theories.  All I do know is that as long as I continue to have faith in Christ, there is nothing ever created that can take salvation from me.

God's blessings be upon you Brother.

I said that if we believe in God's only Son, we can be sure of our salvation.  I rejoice in that.

Peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  0
  • Topics Per Day:  0
  • Content Count:  70
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   55
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/26/2005
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1989

2 hours ago, Yowm said:

Personally, I think the discussion borders on silly.

I kind of think so also. First, because the topic looks like it was supposed to be about the how good the King James Version is, at least that is what it looked like to me. Then somewhere, it came to be about the best understanding/misunderstanding on John chapter 3, verse 16. How did that happen?

One of the odder things though, is when someone asked about which Greek texts were used, and that question is answered, the asker then says the discussion borders on silly. What is silly about someone responding to a question, with the information the questioner asks for? If anything, that is silly.

Perhaps what is also silly, is why is yet another topic on the KJV needed here? I do not see the benefit, but I do find them instructive, I just think that the debat could be contained in one place, and not spread all over the forum.

Toodles!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  2
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  337
  • Content Per Day:  0.13
  • Reputation:   214
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  01/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

33 minutes ago, Yowm said:

I was referring to the  discussion of 'shall not' vs 'should not' etc., not the actual text...which for the most part is identical in each Greek text.

 As far as assurance goes, I don't pin it on one verse but a whole passage e.g. Romans chaps 1 thru 3.

Ok.  But it's not silly.  SHALL NOT means it won't

SHOULD NOT means maybe it will and maybe it won't.

But I agee with you regarding how scripture has to be seen in its entirety.  NOTHING can depend on one scripture...

 

Fran

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

I'm in agreement, Worthy, that the KJV is the best translation.  I have tried others but come back to the KJV because the writing style simply flows better for me when I read it.  I know there are many other opinions but I can only give you mine.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

On 1/12/2017 at 4:43 PM, GoldenEagle said:

3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?

 

I am speaking only to this question.  I think EVERYONE realizes the Apostle Paul didn't use the KJV since it didn't exist in the first century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

34 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I'm in agreement, Worthy, that the KJV is the best translation.  I have tried others but come back to the KJV because the writing style simply flows better for me when I read it.  I know there are many other opinions but I can only give you mine. 

That, is a valid argument, but of course a personal one. When I was first reading the Bible, I was also reading the NIV. One thing that I liked about the KJV, was that is just seemed more reverent. I realize now, that that is not really true, it is just that anything in the Queen's English seems more proper. and Olde English even more so. 
Another thing that was true for me, is that I seemed to be able to memorize the KJV better and get it right, when I try that with modern English Bibles, it does not seem to 'stick' as well, though I get the gist of it right.
Also, back in the early days of Bible reading, there was no internet. I used a Strong's concordance, and it was keyed to KJV English. With the internet, that advantage has all but disappeared.

The best version of the Bible, is the one that you will read. An unread Bible, is just a dust collector. If I had to other version available than the New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses corrupted version), I would even take that, over no Bible at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Graduated to Heaven
  • Followers:  57
  • Topic Count:  1,546
  • Topics Per Day:  0.21
  • Content Count:  10,320
  • Content Per Day:  1.42
  • Reputation:   12,323
  • Days Won:  9
  • Joined:  04/15/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  11/05/1951

17 minutes ago, MorningGlory said:

I am speaking only to this question.  I think EVERYONE realizes the Apostle Paul didn't use the KJV since it didn't exist in the first century.

Of course, it is just a tongue in cheek saying that those who think KJV onlyists are a bit off base, like to use in a mocking way, like:

"The King James Bible, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  1,022
  • Topics Per Day:  0.16
  • Content Count:  39,193
  • Content Per Day:  6.14
  • Reputation:   9,977
  • Days Won:  78
  • Joined:  10/01/2006
  • Status:  Offline

16 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

That, is a valid argument, but of course a personal one. When I was first reading the Bible, I was also reading the NIV. One thing that I liked about the KJV, was that is just seemed more reverent. I realize now, that that is not really true, it is just that anything in the Queen's English seems more proper. and Olde English even more so. 
Another thing that was true for me, is that I seemed to be able to memorize the KJV better and get it right, when I try that with modern English Bibles, it does not seem to 'stick' as well, though I get the gist of it right.
Also, back in the early days of Bible reading, there was no internet. I used a Strong's concordance, and it was keyed to KJV English. With the internet, that advantage has all but disappeared.

The best version of the Bible, is the one that you will read. An unread Bible, is just a dust collector. If I had to other version available than the New World Translation (the Jehovah's Witnesses corrupted version), I would even take that, over no Bible at all.

The bolded sentence says it all, O Man.  Totally agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  5
  • Topic Count:  54
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  2,369
  • Content Per Day:  0.87
  • Reputation:   1,489
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  10/05/2016
  • Status:  Offline

24 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Lately I have been profiting from parallel bible reading, something like this...

AMP ESV NASB KJV HCSB

Was wandering about the Amplified Bible and how folks gauge this work.   I like the NASB, kJV  and believe it or not the  NIRV AND AMPC when i want to get a different angle or view of how they see things.   People who are not in the upper echelons of learning, need to see things basic at first and when hit with the sermon that talks about controversies or read about them, then they go deeper and start to see what their preference is on versions ect.  

These are not bad for a basic understanding or is it not ?.   Any comments.

John 3:16New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

16 God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life.

John 3:16Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)

16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ([a]unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...