KJV vs other Bibles

[TheMatrixHasU71]

22 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

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. 

 

Many Protestant churches don't deny the hierarchy but don't have bishops because many of them are small private non denominational churches run strictly by the membership and they aren't part of a larger entity. But there are many Protestant churches that DO have bishops and archbishops.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 4:15 PM, Revelation Man said:

I love reading the KJV for its prose like passages, BUT.....It has translation errors like most other translations. And they are many, we have the original Hebrew and Greek texts via our computers, there is no excuse for us not to do our homework and supplement the KJV and other versions.........

EXAMPLE #1 Old Testament

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

 

1.) Confirm = gabar 1396 (Greek Word) meaning to be strong, to prevail or to act insolently.

2.) Oblation = minchah 4503 (Greek) A tribute or an offering

3.) Overspreading = kanaph 3671 (Greek) An edge, a Wing or Quarter (of a building) a pinnacle.

4.) Abominations = shiqquwts 8251 (Greek) Meaning, Disgusting, Filthy, Idolatrous or AN IDOL !!

5.) Desolate = shamem 8074 (Greek) Meaning to Stun, Grown Numb, to Stupefy, or to Devastate !!

So looking at these original Hebrew word Translations, what is this verse (Daniel 9:27) really telling us ? Does it match up with other end time events? Lets delve into it !! Basically this is what I get from verse 27.

 

Daniel 9:27 The Anti-Christ will FORCE and Agreement (Covenant means agreement) on Israel and others, probably the Muslims.  He does so Insolently, his agenda Prevails, he forces this peace/security deal. Then after 3 1/2 years he stops allowing the Oblation or Tribute, (I think to Jesus, who Israel accepts as their Messiah before the Day of the Lord as it says in Malachi 4:5-6) by Israel unto their God, the False Prophet places an IDOL in a Wing or a pinnacle of the TEMPLE and demands all people to worship this IDOL or else they must die. THIS STUNS/SHOCKS OR DEVASTATES Israel, then they heed Jesus' words, they Flee unto the Wilderness where they are protected by God for 1260 Days, because Elijah turned them back to the Messiah (Zechariah 12:10) before the Day of the Lord.

Daniel 9:27 shorter version........The Anti-Christ will force a Peace Deal on Israel, in the Middle of this deal he will renege on his deal, and order the False Prophet to place an Image of the Beast/Himself (IDOL) in the Temple, and will demand all mankind to worship this Image. This Stuns Israel, devastates them, they flee, and he ones who don't are Conquered. 

 

Do further scriptures agree with this account ?

Revelation 13:14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

IT MATCHES !! 

EXAMPLE #2 New Testament

The Falling Away means a Departing of the Church, not a Departing of the Faith.

“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction…” – 2 Thessalonians 2:3 (NASB) This verse is used by many and they say it implies a "Falling Away" from the faith. But a guy named Tommy Ice has shed some exceptional light on this passage.

A study I read by Mr. Tommy Ice,  has pointed out that the Greek noun, apostasia, is used only twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Acts 21:21 where it states that an accusation was made against Paul that he was “teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake [apostasia] Moses.”

The word is used in verb form a total of 15 times in the New Testament, and only three of these have anything to do with a departure from the faith (Luke 8:13, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Hebrews 3:12). In other settings, the word is used for departing from iniquity (2 Timothy 2:19), departing from ungodly men (1 Timothy 6:5), departing from the temple (Luke 2:27), departing from the body (2 Corinthians 12:8), and departing from persons (Acts 12:10 and Luke 4:13).

This insight about the use and meaning of the word was certainly compelling, but the argument Mr. Ice presented that was most convicting was his revelation that the first seven English translations of the Bible rendered the noun, apostasia, as either “departure” or “departing.”

They were as follows:

1.The Wycliffe Bible (1384)

2.The Tyndale Bible (1526)

3. The Coverdale Bible (1535)

4. The Cranmer Bible (1539)

5. The Great Bible (1540)

6. The Beeches Bible (1576)

7. The Geneva Bible (1608)

Mr. Ice also noted that the Bible used by the Western world from 400 AD to the 1500s — Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” The first translation of the word to mean apostasy in an English Bible did not occur until 1611 when the King James Version was issued. So, why did the King James translators introduce a completely new rendering of the word as “falling away”? The best guess is that they were taking a stab at the false teachings of Catholicism.

 

One other point Mr. Ice made that I think is significant is that Paul used a definite article with the word apostasia. The significance of this is emphasized by Daniel Davey in a thesis he wrote for the Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary:

Since the Greek language does not need an article to make the noun definite, it becomes clear that with the usage of the article, reference is being made to something in particular. In 2 Thessalonians 2:3 the word apostasia is prefaced by the definite article which means that Paul is pointing to a particular type of departure clearly known to the Thessalonian church.

In light of this grammatical point, Tommy observed that “the use of the definite article would support the notion that Paul spoke of a clear, discernible notion.” And that notion he had already identified in verse 1 when he stated that he was writing about “our gathering together to Him [Jesus].” This interpretation also corresponds to the point that Paul makes in verses 6 and 7 where he states that the man of lawlessness will not come until what “restrains” him “is taken out of the way.”

And what it is that restrains evil in the world today? The Holy Spirit working through the Church. I think when the Church Departs, the Anti-Christ will be free to come to power.

I do not think this has anything to do with an apostasy of the Church. It is the Church Departing before the Anti-Christ is brought forth. The King James Bible changed the known understanding that had been around for 1100 years at the time, just to take a jab at its bitter rival, the Catholic Church. 

 

***The Falling Away means a Departing of the Church, not a Departing of the Faith.***

 

NO the falling away is the Great Apostasy. Something that is happening now, and has been happening for decades or longer, especially in Europe which has in many countries nearly completely abandoned Christianity. That passage in 2 Thess 2:3 uses apostasia which I see you have noted anyway but you wrongly assume that the translators were using Catholic teaching. Completely false for King James did his utmost to leave any and all trace of Catholics teaching out of the bible.

 

**** Jerome’s Latin translation known as “The Vulgate” — rendered apostasia with the Latin word, discessio, which means “departure.” ***

Jerome's Vulgate, at least the versions that we have access to today, is heavily corrupted. This Vulgate, unlike the very earliest ones, also says that it is the WOMAN who should bruise the head of the serpent Genesis 3:15

Daniel 9:27 says that the Antichrist shall CONFIRM the seven year treaty, which means he is affirming something that is already in place, basically putting his final signature to it.

****I love reading the KJV for its prose like passages, BUT.....It has translation errors like most other translations. And they are many, we have the original Hebrew and Greek texts via our computers, there is no excuse for us not to do our homework and supplement the KJV and other versions.........****

First of all you are only repeating something that I already said anyway. Secondly as I have already said, the KJV is the only bible that does not WATER DOWN Scripture as all the other English translations do, and especially is the only one that doesn't destroy any evidence of the divinity of Christ in the bible or any references to his first and second comings

 

 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:24 PM, Jayne said:

This is not a heresy, dear fellow believer.

As I said in the other thread -

I have no problem with Isaiah 7 translating the Hebrew word for young woman as "young woman" or as "virgin".  There's no conservative or liberal slant either way.

There was only one Virgin Birth and that was the birth of Jesus Christ as defined by the Angel Gabriel to Mary, herself, and her understanding that it would be a virgin birth.

But Isaiah 7 is a dual prophecy.

[1] In it's literal context, God is giving a sign to one of the kings of Israel that a particular young woman will have a child and before that child is very old a particular enemy will be defeated.  That immediate prophecy CANNOT be about a literal virgin birth, because - as I said and as you all know - there was only one virgin birth.

[2] In it's secondary context, it IS speaking of the birth of Christ because this prophecy is referred to in the New Testament about being about Christ, also.

Just another dual prophecy from the Bible with an immediate meaning and a long-term meaning.

YES it is a heresy sister

You are talking about something that is supposed to be a great awesome miracle and the RSV reduces it to something that happens every day. A young woman shall be with child. Whoopie- do. This is another one of those corrupt teachings which deny the divinity of Christ

Young woman is completely in error in its proper context. It works for the every day young woman but not the miracle of the virgin birth

Isaiah 7 is not a dual prophecy. Because it refers only to one particular person, Immanuel/God with us; unlike many end time prophecies which are dual in nature, referring to two separate events or people.

[TheMatrixHasU71]

22 hours ago, Judas Machabeus said:

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

Revelation 3:10 is one

2 Thess 2:7-8

1 Thess 4 :16-17

1 Cor 15:52

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎25‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:14 PM, Jayne said:

First, let me tell you that I like the King James - alot.  I was saved when a King James Bible was being preached from and I still have one by my bedside to read at night.

But it is not my primary "go to" Bible during the day or for study.  Why?  That doesn't really matter.

Now let me address what you've said here.

If, as you say in the above quote, that God would "inspire" the King James translators to use the best manuscripts, then the King James cannot be "inspired" - which it isn't.  Only the originals are inspired.  The message contained in the King James and others is inspired as the Bible itself says, but the individual English, Spanish, German, Chinese, etc. words are not.

To be "inspired" - as the Bible teaches inspiration of the Bible -  is to start with a blank page - nothing on it at all.  No previous copies, manuscripts, commentaries, translations, man-made opinion, or anything else.

A blank page.

And then the Holy Spirit of God pressed upon the writers of the original autographs what to say.  Word for word.  In Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.  Not English.

Anything other than those first three languages are translations only.  Translations are not inspired.  God leads and guides competent translators and praise God for them!  The Word is inspired - it's perfect and holy, but not the mere words of countless languages.

If the King James is inspired by God - the nothing before it was and nothing after it was.

In fact, if anyone says that any translation is inspired, then there are two or more different Bibles - and that's chaos.  The original autographs and whatever translation in whatever language they are defending.

There is only one inspired Word of God and even my beloved King James on my nightstand is not it.  It's message it, but not the Old English words.

***If, as you say in the above quote, that God would "inspire" the King James translators to use the best manuscripts, then the King James cannot be "inspired" - which it isn't.  Only the originals are inspired.  The message contained in the King James and others is inspired as the Bible itself says, but the individual English, Spanish, German, Chinese, etc. words are not.***

Please don't twist my words around ok? First of all my meaning was clear. God would inspire, or lead the KJ translators to use the best manuscripts. This is just being nitpicky here

Secondly the translations, provided they are translated as accurately as God's hand will lead men, are just as inspired as the originals. You cannot separate the translations from the originals. This sounds a lot like Muslims who believe that the only way to read their Koran is in Arabic and that all other translations are merely watered down commentaries.

Same sort of idea, I mean.

 

[TheMatrixHasU71]

On ‎26‎/‎03‎/‎2017 at 1:37 PM, RustyAngeL said:

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.

Well God certainly doesn't condemn a person for not reading the Authorised KJV. As long as you know and accept the full spirit of the message, that is what really matters the most. But there are many bad English bibles out there that can, and have destroyed many who are weak in the faith.

As I pointed out to someone in another thread, the NIV for example (I started with that one as a newbie in the faith) has these really annoying footnotes saying The most "ancient and reliable" manuscripts do not contain such-and-such a verse - in particular those verses about Christ, His first and second comings and His divinity.

Being so new to the faith at that time I was starting to have my doubts too. Then my mentor lead me to the KJ and I have never looked back.

And I have done some reading up on what the NIV translators considered to be the most "ancient and reliable" and found out the text they were using, while many of them were among the oldest available, they were far from reliable as they were using some highly corrupted text by Origen and others.

The 4th century Codexes Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for example, are horrendous for their corruption. Sinaiticus for example was found in the 1850s at a monastery on a trash pile about to be burnt. The official story is that the copyist monks would throw away old manuscripts (after having copied them) that were just far too worn out to be used any longer but there is some evidence on one of the links I posted that they were thrown out because the monks saw them for the heavily corrupt texts that they were.

 

Edited April 1, 2017 by TheMatrixHasU71
Had to correct a minor error in my history

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

2 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Many Protestant churches don't deny the hierarchy but don't have bishops because many of them are small private non denominational churches run strictly by the membership and they aren't part of a larger entity. But there are many Protestant churches that DO have bishops and archbishops.

Yes I understand that some do have bishops. I'm not an expert when it comes to each individual denomination so I couldn't list off which ones do and don't.  I know Anglicans do and that's the only one I know of. I'm sure there might be others. 

**Edit**

the reason I said what I said is because of a conversation I had with a Protestant friend that claimed the word bishop never appeared in the bible therefore bishops were unbiblical.

so here I agree that translating it young woman instead of Virgin does matter. Because the door is now open for someone to deny the  prophecy of Jesus being born of a virgin

 

Edited March 27, 2017 by Judas Machabeus
Added a thought to my post

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

53 minutes ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said:

Secondly the translations, provided they are translated as accurately as God's hand will lead men, are just as inspired as the originals. You cannot separate the translations from the originals. This sounds a lot like Muslims who believe that the only way to read their Koran is in Arabic and that all other translations are merely watered down commentaries.

Interesting comparison with the Muslims, I think it's very different but I can kinda see how you got there. 

Heres my take on the translation inspired or not conversation  

I believe the original autographs where 100% inspired and infalliable.  We no longer have the autographs so it doesn't matter what language you read the bible in... it's either a copy or translation. So the Muslim thing is out.

i believe that the Holy Spirit guides us in everything we do. So it would not be any different for a group trying to be as dedicated to producing the best translation. 

But there is a difference between being inspired by the Holy Spirit and guided. I'm not sure how to articulate it. 

I believe our English translation is an accurate representation of the original autographs. Thus I believe our English translations is the word of God. I however do not believe that any translation carries the same authority as the original autographs.

this is just my never to be humble opinion

Cheers and God Bless 

 

[Guest Judas Machabeus]

18 hours ago, creativemechanic said:

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

This happens here to often. People will tell you how wrong you are and all the reasons why your beliefs are of the devil. But when you ask them to defend their position or back up thier accusations they move onto to other dribble and wilder accusation. 

Ive enjoyed this thread because Matrix accepted my challenge to her position and thus created this thread. And because if this thread I'm in the process of reevaluating my original position on the topic. 

This is what a forum should be. 

Great thread Matrix!!!

[Jayne]

I tried.....c'est la vie.