King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

35 minutes 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 contraction - 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.

Regardless of all, I use the 1769 modern day slandered text not both.

I Believe that is truly the most preserved word of God, they might have had very small issues with the AV, 

I am a King James only believer.

Edited February 13, 2018 by KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

49 minutes 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 contraction - 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.

Regardless of all, I use the 1769 modern day slandered text not both.

I Believe that is truly the most preserved word of God, they might have had very small issues with the AV, 

I am a King James only believer.

............................................................

This is a Bible Translation its self with a foundation that I promise will never fade and doesn't quit. Endorsed by the Father.

Edited February 13, 2018 by KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

[OldSchool2]

3 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

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

Like happiness, most feelings can be as fallible as they are fleeting.

[Dennis1209]

19 minutes ago, OldSchool2 said:

Like happiness, most feelings can be as fallible as they are fleeting.

Okay, there's got to be some plagiarism in there somewhere 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, OldSchool2 said:

Like happiness, most feelings can be as fallible as they are fleeting.

The KJV NT is the most accurate and based on the best manuscripts.    Other translations are based on the inferior texts like the Vaticanus, Sinaticus and Alexandrinus.  

It's isn't based on feelings at all. 

[ScottA]

15 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

 

- Hebrews 4:12  (KJV)

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV).....

None of that matters.

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

Did you read everything?

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

26 minutes ago, ScottA said:

None of that matters.

Did you read all of it?

[ScottA]

39 minutes ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Did you read all of it?

If didn't open any links, but yes, I read all that you posted.

I too prefer the KJV or the NKJV, but my comment is based on the fact that God's word is under His own providence alone, and not subject to the folly of men. Regardless...it "shall not return unto Him void."

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

6 hours ago, ScottA said:

If didn't open any links, but yes, I read all that you posted.

I too prefer the KJV or the NKJV, but my comment is based on the fact that God's word is under His own providence alone, and not subject to the folly of men. Regardless...it "shall not return unto Him void."

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

Something to be aware of & think about.