King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[Guest Butero]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Authorized version.

There is actually a Bible called the 1611 Edition King James Bible, and the spelling is old English.  I have read that edition 3 times.  It includes the 14 books of the Apocrypha in the center, but they were never considered canon.  That is why they aren't in logical order.  As far as the canon itself goes, the only difference between that and the Authorized Version is spelling of words.  I will give you a verse from the 1611 Edition so you can see how the spelling differs.

Genesis VII:1  ANd the LORD saide vnto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the Arke:  for thee haue I scene righteous before me, in this generation.  

The spelling was different, and they used Roman numerals.  There is a story behind me getting my hands on this Bible.  I was Pastor of a Pentecostal Holiness Church, and one Sunday, this family showed up, and the man of the family was looking for a full gospel church where the Pastor was KJV only.  I told him I was, and he presented me with this 1611 Edition Bible.  He said he was KJV only, but I think the real reason for giving me this was to show me how much it had changed so I would stop being KJV only.

At first, I was taken aback.  It looked so different from my Authorized Version Bible, but then I began to read it and compare it.  The only real difference was the spelling of words.  Still, it was difficult at first, but I pressed on through Genesis, and by the time I got through chapter 50, I had it pretty well figured out.  Since then, I have had little trouble with it.  This family kept coming to my church, and after I had familiarized myself with the 1611 Bible, I took it to church and preached from it.  You should have seen the look on his face.  I used it every Sunday after that.  

[ScottA]

4 hours ago, Giller said:

Even though God does take people were they are at, it does so matter what the bible says, God is God, but sometimes we treat his word as, oh who cares, that is not a good attitude to have, and these errors leads even people to actual false doctrine, that attitude is not of God.

There needs to be more reverence towards God, instead of not caring.

Reverence toward God is fine, but let us not forget Christ's condemnation of the lawyers ( who were so technically into the written word that they didn't understand the spirit of it).

[frienduff thaylorde]

26 minutes ago, Butero said:

There is actually a Bible called the 1611 Edition King James Bible, and the spelling is old English.  I have read that edition 3 times.  It includes the 14 books of the Apocrypha in the center, but they were never considered canon.  That is why they aren't in logical order.  As far as the canon itself goes, the only difference between that and the Authorized Version is spelling of words.  I will give you a verse from the 1611 Edition so you can see how the spelling differs.

Genesis VII:1  ANd the LORD saide vnto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the Arke:  for thee haue I scene righteous before me, in this generation.  

The spelling was different, and they used Roman numerals.  There is a story behind me getting my hands on this Bible.  I was Pastor of a Pentecostal Holiness Church, and one Sunday, this family showed up, and the man of the family was looking for a full gospel church where the Pastor was KJV only.  I told him I was, and he presented me with this 1611 Edition Bible.  He said he was KJV only, but I think the real reason for giving me this was to show me how much it had changed so I would stop being KJV only.

At first, I was taken aback.  It looked so different from my Authorized Version Bible, but then I began to read it and compare it.  The only real difference was the spelling of words.  Still, it was difficult at first, but I pressed on through Genesis, and by the time I got through chapter 50, I had it pretty well figured out.  Since then, I have had little trouble with it.  This family kept coming to my church, and after I had familiarized myself with the 1611 Bible, I took it to church and preached from it.  You should have seen the look on his face.  I used it every Sunday after that.  

I got one too.   your right the only differences are the spelling .

the f was interchangeable with both the f and s sound the u  and v and then many spellings were not the same spelling as today.  but ican read it and

it is word for word accurate with my modern KJV.   word for word , just spelled different .  but if one reads it the SOUND is identical.   Identical too.

the kjv haters are hating cause deep down they no likey its original, they likey the modern mindset that allows changes .    YEP

the haters of the kjv.  hate the honest truth , and would rather have a more WORDLY feel instead of simple truth .    Like how bout we

use where paul tells the church

and peter tells the church.................women DONT BE  adorned in gold or etc

but even in the new king james they changed it to NOT MERELY,  mean yeah its all good but also to have the inner man etc.

WORDLY ALREADY .  but KJV says NOT TOO.   I noticed far worse changes in some of them well I hate using the word bible,  but man the message is a joke its carnal as heck in spots .

niv ,  joke .     I don't know all the translations .    but the some I have tried ,  YEAH NO and it aint cause its modern, its cause they changed MEANING .  MEANIN .  MEANing .  

[4LdKHVCzRDj2]

14 minutes ago, ScottA said:

who were so technically into the written word that they didn't understand the spirit of it

Yes.

"who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant,
not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." - 2 Corinthians 3:6

"And my speech and my preaching were not with persuasive words of human
wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power,
that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God." - 1 Corinthians 2:4-5

[Guest Butero]

39 minutes ago, ScottA said:

Reverence toward God is fine, but let us not forget Christ's condemnation of the lawyers ( who were so technically into the written word that they didn't understand the spirit of it).

That is not what he got onto the lawyers about.  The Pharisees and lawyers were supposed to be in Moses' seat, and they were supposed to teach the law.  Most of their accusations were about accusing Jesus and his disciples.  They were not done out of sincerity.  There were instances where they were gotten onto for traditions outside of the law, like washing their hands before they ate, but most of the problem with the religious leaders had nothing to do with them not understanding the spirit of the law.  Why in the world would Jesus make light of his own Word, and be just fine with them getting it only 90 percent right?  What kind of sense would that make?  

[Guest Butero]

8 minutes ago, Davida said:

That is not exactly right , and that has nothing to do with what we are speaking of. The Bible is GOD-Breathed and it is very important to go by the best translation.   God was not just wanting someone to get the general essence of it.

I can just see Jesus over there getting onto the religious crowd for getting things too accurate.    

[Guest Butero]

37 minutes ago, frienduff thaylorde said:

I got one too.   your right the only differences are the spelling .

the f was interchangeable with both the f and s sound the u  and v and then many spellings were not the same spelling as today.  but ican read it and

it is word for word accurate with my modern KJV.   word for word , just spelled different .  but if one reads it the SOUND is identical.   Identical too.

the kjv haters are hating cause deep down they no likey its original, they likey the modern mindset that allows changes .    YEP

the haters of the kjv.  hate the honest truth , and would rather have a more WORDLY feel instead of simple truth .    Like how bout we

use where paul tells the church

and peter tells the church.................women DONT BE  adorned in gold or etc

but even in the new king james they changed it to NOT MERELY,  mean yeah its all good but also to have the inner man etc.

WORDLY ALREADY .  but KJV says NOT TOO.   I noticed far worse changes in some of them well I hate using the word bible,  but man the message is a joke its carnal as heck in spots .

niv ,  joke .     I don't know all the translations .    but the some I have tried ,  YEAH NO and it aint cause its modern, its cause they changed MEANING .  MEANIN .  MEANing .  

I agree with you wholeheartedly that the modern translations change the meaning in a lot of passages.  At the same time, one of the things mentioned in the passage you are speaking of is "putting on of apparel."  God has got to be making the point that putting on Godliness is more important than what you have on the outside, like jewelry, or the way you plait your hair, etc.  I used to take it that it was saying no jewelry until I examined it more closely, plus I looked at Old Testament scriptures where God says he actually gave jewelry to his people, and there is one scripture about a bride and her adornments.  He can't be telling women not to put on apparel, which is the biggest reason why I know that those of us in the Holiness churches were taking that passage wrong.  

As far as modern translations go, they alter the meaning in a lot of very serious things.  Take John 3:16 for instance.  Might is changed to shall in some translations, which is a huge difference.  I am going to stick with my KJV Bible, and as I said before, if we are ok with these wholesale changes, adding and taking away of portions of the established canon, then the canon is not closed, and everything should be up for debate, including the possibility of adding entire new books and removing other books.  The canon will have lost it's significance, as will us seeing the Bible as God's Word.  

[simplejeff]

31 minutes ago, Butero said:

I can just see Jesus over there getting onto the religious crowd for getting things too accurate.  

As in "the letter of the law" that kills ?  (too accurate/ sacrificing truth and mercy and grace inappropriately)

... what does "over there" refer to?  Where ?

[Guest Butero]

2 minutes ago, simplejeff said:

As in "the letter of the law" that kills ?  (too accurate/ sacrificing truth and mercy and grace inappropriately)

... what does "over there" refer to?  Where ?

Among the religious leaders of his day when he was on this earth.  What are they supposed to do?  Get it wrong on purpose?  I don't want a Bible that is 5 or 10 percent wrong so it isn't to the letter perfect.  I want an accurate Bible I can trust.  

When you are dealing with people in various situations, you will at times have to understand that sometimes things are out of their control, like an ox falling into a pit on the Sabbath.  

[simplejeff]

29 minutes ago, Butero said:

Among the religious leaders of his day when he was on this earth.  What are they supposed to do?  Get it wrong on purpose? 

The religiouis leaders of His day when He was on this earth did get it wrong, often.  Yes, maybe on purpose.

Same today.