Jump to content
IGNORED

KJV vs other Bibles


TheMatrixHasU71

Recommended Posts

Guest Judas Machabeus
14 minutes ago, Giller said:

No the apostasy has got to come before the rapture takes place, and also the revealing of the Antichrist, and then the rapture can take place, which this guy that gets revealed, will be destroyed by Christ in some manner at his second coming.

I truey not intending to derail the thread. So I will just ask one quick question and not comment further. 

Can someone just list off the scripture verses that are used to support the rapture, so I can go and read them. 

Thanks

Cheers and God Bless

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Judas Machabeus
21 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

I didnt know that. What is the copyright date on yours? I have one at home (inheritance from father in law's estate and it is a 1952)

 I found a video on Youtube once, Billy Graham False prophet, that talks about the RSV bible which he often pushed and an eminent Hebrew scholar says that virgin vs young woman isn't by any means that only problem with that version. He didn't bring up any specifics but said that there are many places that were in clear violation of the Hebrew

My RSV is a digital copy from a phone app. I believe is it pretty current though. 

There are many words that fall into that category. Bishop is a common one as well. The Greek word can be translated as overseer or Bishops. So many churches that don't have bishops would have a hard time with those verses. So modern versions like the ESV have replaced bishop with overseer. 

I can understand the debate of "young woman" vs "virgin" because it can point a reader in a  certain direction.  Like the bishop vereses. Why are there Bishops in the bible and some churches have bishops but most Protestant church don't and some go so far as to deny any heiarchy of any kind. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  23
  • Topic Count:  155
  • Topics Per Day:  0.02
  • Content Count:  7,464
  • Content Per Day:  1.02
  • Reputation:   8,810
  • Days Won:  57
  • Joined:  03/30/2004
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  12/12/1952

On 3/24/2017 at 0:49 PM, shiloh357 said:

The beautiful thing about the KJV is that it preserves Greek nuances in the New Testament that modern English translations, don't.

I like my NKJ and I don't feel like a heathen for using it.  I do have a KJV and had it for many years.  It was my first Bible my parents got me for my 18th birthday.  I love it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Judas Machabeus
1 minute ago, Giller said:

There are many verses, but here is probably the most prominent one.

Thank you. Im not sure the rapture believe, but I am also pretty ignorant on the subject so it wouldn't be proper to comment either way. Thanks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  414
  • Topics Per Day:  0.12
  • Content Count:  1,273
  • Content Per Day:  0.37
  • Reputation:   518
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  09/22/2014
  • Status:  Offline

On 24/03/2017 at 10:36 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

KJV vs other bibles.

Everyone knows that the KJV is the best known translation in history. It is also the most hotly disputed between those that accept the KJV only, like myself, and others who prefer modern translations because older translations didn’t have access to the most ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because of that, there are many who believe that the KJV is riddled with errors, and I would like to prove that is just not so.

One thing I have noticed is that many people who are against the KJV are so because they really don’t understand the nature of the original texts nor the history of the KJV.

Not having a computer, I cant do as thorough a study as I would like here but I will do my best.

One thing that one does have to remember, as anyone knows anyway, is that no one translation is 100% free of error. Likewise no one original text is 100% free of error, not even the tiniest most insignificant ones.

In any text there will always be things like, misspelled words, an unimportant word added or dropped, or the Greek equivalent of not dotting some Is or crossing a few Ts.

God always has a reason for allowing this. To show ONLY GOD IS PERFECT NOT MAN. What matters is that none of these errors do anything to affect OT teaching or the Gospel message in any way.

Ironically enough the so called most ancient texts available today are sometimes the WORST. The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two that come ti mind because they drop several passages of Scripture.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

http://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

Even Origen, ironically himself a heretic, recognised that texts were already becoming corrupted.

The NIV bible today is well known for using these two Egyptian texts as well as the heavily corrupted Greek translations written by the known occultists Westcott and Hort.

Although amongst modern ENGLISH translations today, some are a fair bit better than others, they all uniformly water down scripture either to a greater or lesser degree, usually by denying the veracity of Scripture regarding the divinity or first and second comings of Christ.

I would also like to forestall another argument that many, especially non Christians, have with the KJV, and that is the numerous revisions it has undergone.

That is easily explained away by the fact that the early revisions were nothing more than the translators putting BACK into the bible words and phrases that got DROPPED, not by THEM but the PRINTERS. This was a notorious problem in the earlier days of printing, and bibles were not spared. There is, for example, an infamous KJV, nicknamed the Wicked Bible, because in it, Thou shalt NOT commit adultery drops the NOT (Some say the printer did that intentionally….hmm I wonder why lol).

Later revisions were really not revisions at all the way we might understand them but just attempts at standardizing spelling and grammar.

Some people who are against the KJV will use some horridly weak arguments like this site…

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

On it they show a page of an original 1611 with its fancy calligraphy and archaic spellings and asks Can anyone read this? Well excuse me but people in the 1600s could read that so there goes that argument….we are simply not used to reading that style of writing so the answer is simple.

DUUUH DON’T READ THE ORIGINAL!!!

They also bring up another example

The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

The simple answer to this is entirely due to the differences amongst some manuscripts. They choose according to majority rule. Though as the passage says the structure of the Hebrew can make thing a bit difficult as well.

Also this is completely irrelevant anyway as this is yet another example of one of those unimportant errors that God allows in the bible. Surely these guys can do better than this.

BTW the passage referred to here is this

19:2  And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah *, and was there four whole months

I will just let things go with this as I don’t want this to get too long winded. So I will just leave off with a few other links on the history of the KJV including info on the Tyndale bible that was used in the translation process

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/history-kjv

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament

U see. I like this type  if justification. U present facts to support your choice and acknowledge no translation is perfect. While  I'm not kjv only i can respect that. What What have encountered  is people who don't really justify why they prefer it but just try to claim other  versions are tools of satan or claim the issues in the kjv are insignificant. Good job

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Junior Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  23
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  179
  • Content Per Day:  0.07
  • Reputation:   78
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/05/2016
  • Status:  Offline

On 3/24/2017 at 4:36 AM, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

KJV vs other bibles.

Everyone knows that the KJV is the best known translation in history. It is also the most hotly disputed between those that accept the KJV only, like myself, and others who prefer modern translations because older translations didn’t have access to the most ancient texts like the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Because of that, there are many who believe that the KJV is riddled with errors, and I would like to prove that is just not so.

One thing I have noticed is that many people who are against the KJV are so because they really don’t understand the nature of the original texts nor the history of the KJV.

Not having a computer, I cant do as thorough a study as I would like here but I will do my best.

One thing that one does have to remember, as anyone knows anyway, is that no one translation is 100% free of error. Likewise no one original text is 100% free of error, not even the tiniest most insignificant ones.

In any text there will always be things like, misspelled words, an unimportant word added or dropped, or the Greek equivalent of not dotting some Is or crossing a few Ts.

God always has a reason for allowing this. To show ONLY GOD IS PERFECT NOT MAN. What matters is that none of these errors do anything to affect OT teaching or the Gospel message in any way.

Ironically enough the so called most ancient texts available today are sometimes the WORST. The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are two that come ti mind because they drop several passages of Scripture.

http://www.deanburgonsociety.org/CriticalTexts/sinaiticus.htm

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/q-arent-older-manuscripts-more-reliable

http://www.preservedword.com/content/the-unreliablitity-of-the-alexandrian-manuscripts/

Even Origen, ironically himself a heretic, recognised that texts were already becoming corrupted.

The NIV bible today is well known for using these two Egyptian texts as well as the heavily corrupted Greek translations written by the known occultists Westcott and Hort.

Although amongst modern ENGLISH translations today, some are a fair bit better than others, they all uniformly water down scripture either to a greater or lesser degree, usually by denying the veracity of Scripture regarding the divinity or first and second comings of Christ.

I would also like to forestall another argument that many, especially non Christians, have with the KJV, and that is the numerous revisions it has undergone.

That is easily explained away by the fact that the early revisions were nothing more than the translators putting BACK into the bible words and phrases that got DROPPED, not by THEM but the PRINTERS. This was a notorious problem in the earlier days of printing, and bibles were not spared. There is, for example, an infamous KJV, nicknamed the Wicked Bible, because in it, Thou shalt NOT commit adultery drops the NOT (Some say the printer did that intentionally….hmm I wonder why lol).

Later revisions were really not revisions at all the way we might understand them but just attempts at standardizing spelling and grammar.

Some people who are against the KJV will use some horridly weak arguments like this site…

http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm

On it they show a page of an original 1611 with its fancy calligraphy and archaic spellings and asks Can anyone read this? Well excuse me but people in the 1600s could read that so there goes that argument….we are simply not used to reading that style of writing so the answer is simple.

DUUUH DON’T READ THE ORIGINAL!!!

They also bring up another example

The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!

The simple answer to this is entirely due to the differences amongst some manuscripts. They choose according to majority rule. Though as the passage says the structure of the Hebrew can make thing a bit difficult as well.

Also this is completely irrelevant anyway as this is yet another example of one of those unimportant errors that God allows in the bible. Surely these guys can do better than this.

BTW the passage referred to here is this

19:2  And his concubine played the whore against him, and went away from him unto her father's house to Bethlehemjudah *, and was there four whole months

I will just let things go with this as I don’t want this to get too long winded. So I will just leave off with a few other links on the history of the KJV including info on the Tyndale bible that was used in the translation process

http://www.christianity.com/church/church-history/timeline/1601-1700/story-behind-king-james-bible-11630052.html

http://www.bibleinfo.com/en/questions/history-kjv

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/william-tyndale.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version#Old_Testament

Would the book 'Origen' have mistranslations also then? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  3
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  156
  • Content Per Day:  0.02
  • Reputation:   35
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  07/29/2003
  • Status:  Offline

It is important to know that there are no originals in the Greek translations. The codexes used have already been mentioned here and so I won't repeat. The KJV was translated from different texts than the new modern bibles. Also the KJV has been translated literally (word for word)where the modern bibles use what is called "Dynamic Equivalence". This means that the translator attempts to bring out the meaning of the text in an easier to read format. By doing that, his thoughts are able to enter in and the translation can become biased to that person's doctrine.

NIV is dynamic equivalent in it's translation. In many NKJV bibles this process is explained very well.

Great thread, usually swords have been drawn by this time. KJV is really under attack and I have become quite self conscious in using it. Will continue though. :D

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  12
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  4,042
  • Content Per Day:  1.41
  • Reputation:   546
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/01/2016
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, Giller said:

First of all, it is not true that the King James bible, was the first English translation to use the word "falling away".

In fact here is a bible that was before the King James version that used this word:

(The Bishop's bible (1568))

(2Th 2:3

(3)  Let no man deceaue you by any meanes, for [the Lorde shall not come] excepte there come a fallyng away first, & that that man of sinne be reuealed, the sonne of perdition,)

Now the Tyndale bible, and these other bibles, may have used the word "departure", but that does not mean it was not talking about an apostasy, or a departure from the faith.

Here is the Geneva bible, on this.

(Geneva bible)

(2Th 2:3

(3)  Let no man deceiue you by any meanes: for that day shall not come, except there come a departing first, and that that man of sinne be disclosed, euen the sonne of perdition,)

And then we have to take things in context.

Here is what it says, in context:

(King James bible)

(2Th 2:1-4
(1)  Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
(2)  That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
(3)  Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
(4)  Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.)

Now verse 1, if you compare it with the 1 Thessalonians rapture scripture, and also compare it with second coming scriptures, it fits more with the rapture scripture.

And verse 1 is talking about 1 day, not 2 days,  for that day (singular) shall not come, except there come a falling away first.

It would not make sense for the word falling away to mean a departure from earth to meet the Lord in the sky, when that day is referring to the rapture.

For it would be saying that the rapture cannot come except the rapture happens first, which makes no sense.

No the apostasy has got to come before the rapture takes place, and also the revealing of the Antichrist, and then the rapture can take place, which this guy that gets revealed, will be destroyed by Christ in some manner at his second coming.

And also, Jerome's Latin Vulgate is known to be a very corrupt translation.

And the Strong's concordance shows the word in the Greek to be Apostasia, and the King James people did translate from the original Greek and Hebrew.

 

The FIRST SEVEN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS USED Departing..............The KJV is the MOST NOTABLE to use the word FALLING AWAY. It doesn't change the fact that the Departing being spoken of is about the Church. It doesn't change the facts the the KJV rendering is wrong.

 

The passage is speaking about the "Gathering together unto Christ Jesus" (Rapture). Not about the FAITH !!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,573
  • Content Per Day:  0.52
  • Reputation:   723
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2015
  • Status:  Offline

6 hours ago, Revelation Man said:

The FIRST SEVEN ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS USED Departing..............The KJV is the MOST NOTABLE to use the word FALLING AWAY. It doesn't change the fact that the Departing being spoken of is about the Church. It doesn't change the facts the the KJV rendering is wrong.

 

The passage is speaking about the "Gathering together unto Christ Jesus" (Rapture). Not about the FAITH !!

The KJ rendering is NOT wrong. the departing might not have been the best choice of word to use but anyone who fully understands scripture can see that he meant the apostasy, the falling away, leaving the faith, however you want to put it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  6
  • Topic Count:  21
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  1,573
  • Content Per Day:  0.52
  • Reputation:   723
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/10/2015
  • Status:  Offline

16 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

U see. I like this type  if justification. U present facts to support your choice and acknowledge no translation is perfect. While  I'm not kjv only i can respect that. What What have encountered  is people who don't really justify why they prefer it but just try to claim other  versions are tools of satan or claim the issues in the kjv are insignificant. Good job

Thanks bro :wub:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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