Jump to content
IGNORED

King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles


Recommended Posts


  • 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

22 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God

If this was not God's will then God would never have allowed it to happen. so that is not for you to judge. 

The KJV WAS God's will. And it was also God's will that the KJV became the most widely read english translation and has been since it first started taking hold around the mid 1600s

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

18 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

, I feel like the King James Version Bible is a flawless and 100% whole and perfect translation of God

You really cant say that as only God is perfect. Not man. Man will always make mistakes and God allows them in all translations, the KJV included, to show only God alone is flawless and perfect. The only thing that matters with Him is that these 'errors' do nothing to change the message. Some bibles are better than others, and some do change the Word of God most dreadfully, like the Message bible and the JWs New World bible. Such bibles should most definitely be avoided.

I stand by the KJV and it is the only one I will ever read because it makes the fewest errors. 

I call into play one example that comes to mind, As anyone knows the KJV makes mention of unicorns. 

Now keeping in mind that likely very few people in 16-17th Century Western Europe had ever seen a Rhinoceros, so the error is understandable but its still an error regardless.

There are also a few mentions of girls wearing EARRINGS in the bible that later commentators have said were probably actually NOSE rings. 

 

Edited by TheMatrixHasU71
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  21
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/13/2018
  • Status:  Offline

22 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God.

I would personally compare this to

Acts 5:34-42 (KJV)

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

2 hours ago, hmbld said:

I am a Jesus Christ only believer!

not attacking any kjvonly’s, but there are many non English speaking people who know Jesus without kjv. 

But we are speaking only of the English translations at the moment. There are plenty good translations in other languages written with the same accuracy as the KJV and there are translators out there who do their best to write foreign translations with the same style and truthfulness as the KJV. 

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

2 hours ago, OldSchool2 said:

Someone based their feelings on it.

You would need to prove that

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

1 hour ago, LadyKay said:

What? ??

Happens all the time, as I explained above. There are plenty of modern translations which do their best to shoot God's message all to hell

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

1 hour ago, GandalfTheWise said:

 It is by far another to make claims that English speaking Christians should not use any other version or to claim that the majority of differences are due to satanic, heretical, or sinful activities.

Sorry but its the truth that many of them ARE corrupted due to Satanic activity. Its known, for example, that the JW "bible" was written with the inspiration of an occultist.

The NIV bible is based largely on corrupt Westcott/Hort texts and these two men themselves were known occultists

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members
  • Followers:  0
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  21
  • Content Per Day:  0.01
  • Reputation:   0
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  02/13/2018
  • Status:  Offline

18 hours ago, Jayne said:

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

  • 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contradiction - a context and meaning error.

  • Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
  • Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Old English writing had U to V vice versa,

I don't recall it having u to w vice versa, 

do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  12
  • Topic Count:  385
  • Topics Per Day:  0.10
  • Content Count:  7,692
  • Content Per Day:  1.94
  • Reputation:   4,809
  • Days Won:  3
  • Joined:  05/28/2013
  • Status:  Offline

Look at ourselves. Arguing about what translation of the Bible we should read. The world is full of lost, hurting soils, and we are arguing over if we should say "Thy or Your''. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Senior Member
  • Followers:  3
  • Topic Count:  10
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  552
  • Content Per Day:  0.21
  • Reputation:   104
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  12/24/2016
  • Status:  Offline

8 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Matt. 20:20 & Acts 12:4, show different scripture in these two different translations.

Something to be aware of & think about.

As I said, it doesn't matter:

A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps.

...So, whether he reads one translation or another it does not change where the Lord directs his steps. The difference then, is only the result of God confounding all language at the tower of Babel, which confounding is of no consequence to those who are His, for He directs them regardless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...