Jump to content
IGNORED

King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles 2


Recommended Posts


  • 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

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

 

- Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

 

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

 

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

 

- Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)

 

Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

 

 

Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

 

Here is our History:
The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Through God's will a breakthrough for the Protestant Reformation, for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

 

 

The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.

 

 

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

 

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
 

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

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.
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

Oh goody! Another thread about the same topic from the other thread. :41:

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Diamond Member
  • Followers:  4
  • Topic Count:  48
  • Topics Per Day:  0.01
  • Content Count:  2,491
  • Content Per Day:  0.55
  • Reputation:   1,457
  • Days Won:  1
  • Joined:  10/23/2011
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  02/02/1971

4 minutes 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? :sarc:

I’ve been worried about all the people in the world who can’t read English. 

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 minutes 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? :sarc:

Being unhappy Catholics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes 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? :sarc:

For a very long time, people had no Bible readily available to them in English, so I don't understand this line of reasoning.  Those were the dark ages for the church, and only a privileged through had the Word of God.  That is not something to lift up.  

My biggest objection to most of the modern English Bibles is the fact they destroy the credibility of the canon by removing portions of text that was said to be the Word of God.  If it is a closed canon, and you start changing the contents of the text and discrediting the validity of verses you chose to include, you re-open the canon to scrutiny.  If we are going to debate Mark 16:9-16, and whether or not that belongs, why not debate entire books?  If you are going to add text to one of the Psalms, as one translation did, what about adding additional text to books in the canon, like including Rest of Esther in Esther?  

As far as I am concerned, anyone that defends this removing and adding to the text should be willing to consider making other changes to the canon.  Maybe we should have a thread about that, where we can consider which books we think should be removed or added.  Those defending the modern translations that remove and add to the text should be ok with that.  How about the Epistle to the Laodiceans?  Maybe it was an oversight it isn't in the Bible.  Lets discuss that.  What about Enoch?  How about Ecclesiasticus, a book of wisdom I like, but can't consider in light of a closed canon, but if the canon is no longer closed, why not place it after Proverbs?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Yowm said:

The early Church was made up of non English speaking peoples...nor was there a KJV before the 1600s. The texts used were mainly Greek, Aramaic and Latin. So the reasoning goes, wasn't the Church that much more impoverished not having the KJV? (again sarcasm).

When you say 'removed portions of the text' I would ask, 'which text'? There are many many manuscripts and portions of manuscripts found but none are the 'original' text. Our best hope at drawing out the originals is by continually comparing both the earliest texts and those that have the majority witnessing in their favor. It is no easy process.

I would also say that when compared to many early manuscripts, the KJV itself has left out and added words of their own. And I am not speaking about extra biblical writings outside the Canon.

The words that were added are clearly identified and only added to cause it to make sense.  An example would be like Luke 10:2  "Therefore said he unto them, the harvest truly (is) great, but the labourers (are) few.  That is necessary when you go from one language to another, but the words "is" and "are" can be clearly identified.  There are more Greek words to English, so that means sometimes you must use the same English word to 3 Greek words.  Sometimes you must add a word because of English composition, but that is not what I am talking about.  I am saying we have an established canon.  It is supposed to be closed, and ministers have believed this is God's Word.  I have heard messages preached from the last part of Mark 16, but rarely anymore because the entire passage has been discredited.  Which text?  The established text of our closed canon.  

I feel like we need an offshoot thread to seriously debate the canon.  Clearly others don't view the canon with the same respect I do.  Maybe we should really debate whether scriptures like Mark 16:9-16 belong.  While we are at it, people can choose any scriptures they want to consider for removal, even John 3:16,17.  The canon is no longer closed, so lets have that discussion.  I will spend some time considering the best course to take in this regard.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Yowm said:

Again, without the original texts, what standard are you using to determine if something has been added or ignored? To say the KJV is the standard would be a circular argument.

BTW, I believe the KJV is a good text and one I was weaned on.

The standard is the closed canon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
3 minutes ago, Yowm said:

Again, without the original texts, what standard are you using to determine if something has been added or ignored? To say the KJV is the standard would be a circular argument.

BTW, I believe the KJV is a good text and one I was weaned on.

IN terms of the original texts, there are over 25,000 Greek texts of the NT in existence and they agree on all points of comparison for a span of 400-500 years.   

So we have enough manuscript evidence to know that nothing has been added.

Furthermore, many of the Greek manuscripts are quotations from early Christians who DID have access to the originals in the early 2nd century, and those quotations make a significant number of the 25,000 NT Greek copies.

There are enough quotations of the Greek NT that we could reproduce the Greek NT from the quotations, even if we didn't have the actual Greek NT manuscripts.   But again, those quotations completely agree with the Greek NT Scripture manuscripts.

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

27 minutes ago, Yowm said:

The early Church was made up of non English speaking peoples...nor was there a KJV before the 1600s. The texts used were mainly Greek, Aramaic and Latin. So the reasoning goes, wasn't the Church that much more impoverished not having the KJV? (again sarcasm).

But what we are saying here is not that the KJV is the best bible in existence, even better than the original Greek/Hebrew/Syrian texts, which are of course far superior being closer to the Source than any English bible, but that the KJV uses the best of the originals and is more accurately translated than other English version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest shiloh357
Just now, Yowm said:

I'm not a Greek expert, but I can read Greek well enough to see variations in many of the Greek manuscripts.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...