The_Patriot21 Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 28 Topic Count: 338 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 15,710 Content Per Day: 2.46 Reputation: 8,526 Days Won: 39 Joined: 10/25/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/27/1985 Share Posted December 14, 2019 5 minutes ago, WBO said: I appreciate you bringing this up. I talked about the Easter thing in the original post. The context reveals that Passover would be an incorrectly placed, because Peter is arrested during the Days Of Unleavened Bread which is after Passover and it last 7 days. S and regarding corn and unicorn I will say that the meaning of English words can change over time as we can see with the word “terrible” But clearly in the minds of the KJV writers and their audience the words were correctly placed. Time has changed the meanings that were then used. You actually just made an argument against the KJV. You are right, in 1611, the translators did indeed use the proper English words for their time. And later in the 1700s when they transliterated (I say transliterated because it's not a true translation, they just took the KJV and made it more modern) they again used the correct words for their time. However as you pointed out the meaning of English words change over time, which means quite frankly, by your logic, the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation as the words it uses no longer have the same meaning in today's English. Which would make a more modern translation such as the NASB or the ESV more accurate as a translation. First off, they use the same English words we use today, and second off they're not transliterations like the KJV that you use. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBO Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 32 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/02/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1993 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 12 minutes ago, The_Patriot2019 said: You actually just made an argument against the KJV. You are right, in 1611, the translators did indeed use the proper English words for their time. And later in the 1700s when they transliterated (I say transliterated because it's not a true translation, they just took the KJV and made it more modern) they again used the correct words for their time. However as you pointed out the meaning of English words change over time, which means quite frankly, by your logic, the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation as the words it uses no longer have the same meaning in today's English. Which would make a more modern translation such as the NASB or the ESV more accurate as a translation. First off, they use the same English words we use today, and second off they're not transliterations like the KJV that you use. Yes good point. And the meaning of words changing over time would lead to new translations. Just that those new translations have errors, big and small. The KJV doesn’t. And the meaning of words changing over time should be something solved by simply having a old English dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 hour ago, WBO said: I appreciate you bringing this up. I talked about the Easter thing in the original post. The context reveals that Passover would be an incorrectly placed, because Peter is arrested during the Days Of Unleavened Bread which is after Passover and it last 7 days. S and regarding corn and unicorn I will say that the meaning of English words can change over time as we can see with the word “terrible” But clearly in the minds of the KJV writers and their audience the words were correctly placed. Time has changed the meanings that were then used. The word unicorn has not changed meaning over the years. Nor is unicorn a valid translation for the hebrew word in the bible. I never said easter was instead of passover. I said easter is not a correct translation. Since it is in the kjv, what is easter? Does it have a meaning different than the word easter today? Since you claim the words have changed meaning over the years, then it shows that it is essentially another language. I am personally not a fan of the niv but nor am I a fan of having to learn a second language just to read the bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.88 Content Count: 43,795 Content Per Day: 6.21 Reputation: 11,243 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 The first 2 editions of the kjv, in 1611, contained errors. The second edition was to correct the errors in the first one, but instead it created more errors. If it was indeed truly perfect, it would not have contained those errors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Bought 1953 Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 13 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,726 Content Per Day: 2.88 Reputation: 6,258 Days Won: 5 Joined: 12/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 The best version of the Bible is the one that you will read.The Living Bible was the version for me - despite having some problems as ALL versions do. Any version that delivers the point that you are a sinner that must have a Savior to get to Heaven and the name of that Savior that you must turn to in order to be saved is Jesus Christ has done its essential task.The other matters are “ small potatoes” by comparison. No disrespect intended, but “ First Things First”....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blood Bought 1953 Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 13 Topic Count: 48 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 6,726 Content Per Day: 2.88 Reputation: 6,258 Days Won: 5 Joined: 12/03/2017 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 I use a version now that has four different translations side by side that can be compared immediately and easily with the KJV ..... I find it very helpful when studying Scripture..... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WBO Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 6 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 32 Content Per Day: 0.02 Reputation: 8 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/02/2019 Status: Offline Birthday: 09/05/1993 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 38 minutes ago, maryjayne said: And you are doing the same by exalting the KJV the way you are. I can understand nervousness about getting the 'right' version, but really, most versions are fine, and the Holy Spirit will help with anything you feel is doubtful. Remember salvation is through the blood of Jesus Christ, not scholarship. I use the ESV and the NKJV and they are fine. Relax, it's ok. There is no exam of understanding we need to pass to be acceptable to God. Unless a translation is using words which are clearly against Bible teachings, it's not important. I agree that it’s not a vital salvation issue topic. But when it comes to the big question that can only be answered in 2 ways it deserves honest meditation. Does the Bible contain errors? To this question you can either say yes it does. or No it doesn’t. Looks like most here don’t believe in a perfect Bible. And I’m not the expert when it comes to history and facts or evidence you can see. I accept the King James Version as being the perfect Bible first by Faith, Just as I accepted Christ by faith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walla299 Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 9 Topic Count: 92 Topics Per Day: 0.03 Content Count: 2,165 Content Per Day: 0.66 Reputation: 1,727 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/19/2015 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/10/1961 Share Posted December 14, 2019 7 hours ago, The_Patriot2019 said: You actually just made an argument against the KJV. You are right, in 1611, the translators did indeed use the proper English words for their time. And later in the 1700s when they transliterated (I say transliterated because it's not a true translation, they just took the KJV and made it more modern) they again used the correct words for their time. However as you pointed out the meaning of English words change over time, which means quite frankly, by your logic, the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation as the words it uses no longer have the same meaning in today's English. Which would make a more modern translation such as the NASB or the ESV more accurate as a translation. First off, they use the same English words we use today, and second off they're not transliterations like the KJV that you use. Seems a good place to add a point or two here: I've run into new believers in Christ who were given a KJV and couldn't read it and their walk with Christ suffered because of that - until they found out about newer translations (ESV, NKJV, NASB, etc.) that use modern English. I know from personal experience that trying to read a KJV without prior exposure to it is like trying to read a newspaper in a foreign language. KJV was all that was available in our home - so I had to read that and have a dictionary handy . . . at least until we started on Shakespeare in school . . . Before anyone freaks out: I'm not saying the KJV is bad. I'm saying modern folks (especially new believers!) usually need to get their feet on the ground first. The "best" Bible translation is one that someone can read and understand. The Lord will lead them from there. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhchristian Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 9 Topic Count: 136 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 2,488 Content Per Day: 1.41 Reputation: 1,325 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/29/2019 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 8 hours ago, The_Patriot2019 said: You actually just made an argument against the KJV. You are right, in 1611, the translators did indeed use the proper English words for their time. And later in the 1700s when they transliterated (I say transliterated because it's not a true translation, they just took the KJV and made it more modern) they again used the correct words for their time. However as you pointed out the meaning of English words change over time, which means quite frankly, by your logic, the KJV is no longer the most accurate translation as the words it uses no longer have the same meaning in today's English. Which would make a more modern translation such as the NASB or the ESV more accurate as a translation. First off, they use the same English words we use today, and second off they're not transliterations like the KJV that you use. Patriot, Does how the Word for Unicorn or Great Aurochs or rhino and how it is translated as affect any Doctrine Of Scripture? Look at the link I posted and the omissions of some of the Modern versions.... These are not minor changes, but ones that affect serious doctrines, By removing the Deity of Christ and the Blood of the Lamb, and the removal of "The Lord" from in front of Jesus approximately a Hundred times. Here is an example, of a verse that is a test of the Spirit, and notice what they do with the definitive article "The" Lord in the versions. Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. (1 Cor 12:3, KJV) Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking in the Spirit of God ever says “Jesus is accursed!” and no one can say “Jesus is Lord” except in the Holy Spirit. (ESV) Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking [fn]by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is [fn]accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except [fn]by the Holy Spirit. (NASB) The Word for Lord is Kyrios which means Lord and master, By placing the definitive article "The" In Front of Kyrios this verse is saying that Jesus is the LORD as in God without a doubt, But without the definitive article there is doubt as to meaning. How does this test of the Spirit work, if you ask a non-believer (A wolf in sheep's clothing) can you say that "Jesus is the Lord", they will respond back Jesus is Lord, or Jesus is my Lord, But they will not nor cannot say "Jesus Is the Lord". This is by no means the only test of the Spirit given us, but this does weed out most of the cults out there who have an issue with the deity of Christ. They see Jesus as a lesser Lord.... or another lord, hence the Words of Jesus where he says "Lord, Lord" together in the often quoted verse of the works teachers. If You look at all the places where this dual "Lord, Lord" is placed you will see that these verses are pointing to a false understanding of Jesus' Deity. Not to the conditional security many of these works Christians promote and use these verses to Promote. In Other words, many who use these verses are condemning themselves without realizing it. Here is the Link to those verses and notice the theme of them all. https://www.blueletterbible.org/search/search.cfm?Criteria=Lord+Lord&t=KJV#s=s_primary_0_1 Jesus is the LORD, Not another Lord of a Pantheon. The trinity is One God, Not three Gods. Our God is One. Here again is the link I posted earlier, take the time and read it, this list is not exhaustive by any means. https://helpersofyourjoy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/THEKJVvsModern.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadyKay Posted December 14, 2019 Group: Royal Member Followers: 12 Topic Count: 385 Topics Per Day: 0.10 Content Count: 7,692 Content Per Day: 1.93 Reputation: 4,809 Days Won: 3 Joined: 05/28/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted December 14, 2019 1 hour ago, Cletus said: so please tell me, exactly what versions is it you speak of that are more complete? Do you mean more complete than the King James? Well let me see here......The New American Standard Bible was first published in 1963, with the most recent edition published in 1995. It holds the reputation for being the “most accurate” Bible translation in English. But I don't expect you to believe that and it really makes no difference to me if you believe me or not . I was just answering your question. I think what is most important here is that no matter who you are, you have a Bible that is written in a language that you understand. For instance, I really love my Holman Student Bible. Understanding of the Bible just open right up for me when I started reading it. I really do not think that the NIV was made by satanists or the Freemasons so I do not know where you got that information from. The NIV was translated by a team of biblical scholars who worked from the oldest copies of reliable texts, variously written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Quote "newer more updated version" has come about churches are polluted with all sorts of false teachings, I don't know about that. My church uses the NIV and it has not been polluted with false teachings. I don't think you understand what it meant by "translation". A translation should not change the meaning of something. It should only change the language that is being spoken. For example One is Uno in Spanish. But Uno means the same as One. While I would agree that there are bible version out there that change the whole meaning of the word by trying to make it less offensive to sinners, and give out false information. The NIV is not one of those. Quote look no further than mark 16... the resurrection narrative is missing Missing from the NIV? I just looked up Mark 16 in my NIV Bible and it is there. Verse 1 to 19. It says "The Resurrection" John 8 is also in my NIV. Well I think I cover everything. If you have any more questions feel free to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts