King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles 2

[Guest Butero]

3 minutes ago, Yowm said:

The Canon was the Books agreed upon by the Church as being divinely inspired...and those were not written in KJ. It was not the actual text as by that time they already had several copies of the original letters/epistles in circulation and most likely some of those were in different languages.

You have no credibility saying a book is inspired but not the text.  

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

True, if we had the originals as a standard. Otherwise through archaeology they continue to find new fragments and can refine even those small differences..,

With over 25000 manuscripts to compare, we can figure out what was in the originals and pretty much have.  There are only a couple of verses where there is genuine confusion over the Greek. 

But God has preserved His Word for us in the Greek copies sufficient that we don't have to worry.   Those "variants" are things like misspelled words or word reversals like "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ."   Nothing about the originals would have any meaningful effect on that.   Only if there was a doctrinal problem between the copies would the originals be of any value.  But none of those problems exist.   So, we don't really need the originals.

[Guest Butero]

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

We don't have the originals, which  is a major part of my point. We have to compare what we have. And as Shiloh mentioned early commentators, we have differences in translations of what they said.

Those who established the canon did have them and approved them contents and all.  A book consists of it's contents.  They didn't approve part of Esther, but with an open canon, it could be put back.  We are free to add or subtract from any book in the canon and say the book is canon, not the text.

[LadyKay]

1 hour ago, Yowm said:

The KJV was a ‘modern’ version back in the 1600’s, so how did the poor Church survive before the 1600’s without the King James being stuck with ‘inferior’ versions? 

I do recall reading somewhere that there were people upset when the KJV came into being. They consider the Bible being translated into the modern language of the time to be  heresy or something like that.  

[hmbld]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yes, there are textual variants, about 150,000 of them.   But they do not change or add or subtract from the text.   They don't change the meaning of the text at any point.   So they don't affect either the inerrancy or infallibility of Scripture.

I would argue that some of the modern translations do not change the meaning of the texts, and many who would not read kjv would benefit from at least reading one of the better modern versions than not reading at all. 

[Guest shiloh357]

9 minutes ago, Yowm said:

We don't have the originals, which  is a major part of my point. We have to compare what we have. And as Shiloh mentioned early commentators, we have differences in translations of what they said.

No, that is not what I said.  I said there are textual variants, not differences in "translations."  They are all Greek, so there would not "translations. They agree completely on all points of comparison in the text in terms what the text actually says.

[frienduff thaylorde]

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

True, if we had the originals as a standard. Otherwise through archaeology they continue to find new fragments and can refine even those small differences..,

Be on guard yowm.    some of these NEW FINDS will conveiniently POINT to another JESUS.    just be on guard .

From all the bibles I have personally read the King james is by far the best .  

And lots of this so called greek many use to try and make new copies,   yeah they greek seems to point to ANOTHER JESUS.   JUST be on guard . 

[Guest Butero]

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Take that up with the Council. Otherwise which text did they use?...surely not the KJV.

Next time you quote scripture, it can be ignored because that is just text, and only an empty folder with the book title is canon.

[Guest shiloh357]

Just now, hmbld said:

I would argue that some of the modern translations do not change the meaning of the texts, and many who would not read kjv would benefit from at least reading one of the better modern versions than not reading at all. 

They do change the meaning and they leave out key doctrinal words, and while that might not be a problem for seasoned believers, it does pose a problem when trying to teach doctrine.   And when most of the translations don't agree with each other, that adds another layer.   How many times have you been in a Bible study and everyone has as different translation and everyone's Bible is saying something different?   I have been to many like that.   When the modern translations have different things in different verses, which modern version do you accept?   

[Guest shiloh357]

2 minutes ago, Yowm said:

 

 

And the same holds true with most versions today as well (but not all versions ).

 

If modern versions agreed with each other, yes.  But they don't.  And in some cases, they are missing verses.   So I don't think you can make that comparison.