King James Version Only...?
- Thread starter LC627
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Modern translators know REDEFINED Greek and Hebrew!
They reject the KJV template and make up their own newfangled definitions.
They misrepresent God's pure word thousands of way from Sunday.
Modernists cannot ACCURATELY know these meanings.
Ancients only understood ancient meanings accurately.
You missed what I said.
As a matter of fact, all that is left of the originals is NOTHING.
All we have is copies and copies of copies.
It is all about WHO understood their ancient translational meanings.
Modernists need not apply. It was done for them 400 years ago.
Ronald Nolette
Well-Known Member
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Not us, them. But I almost didn't notice the dodge of the point that it applies to other translations EQUALLY.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
Why do people believe that? It seems to me that Adam and Eve were clearly individual people, Adam was the first MAN but not the first human. I see no indication that there is any reiteration. Eve became the mother of all living after the fall. Before the fall humans were just animals but God wanted to make them into His image and He started His amazing plan to accomplish that. If you look at what historians and scientists have found there was a fantastic leap for humanity about 6000 years ago with modern farming, writing and the first cities all coming from that time. The invention of the plough was about then and Adam was a farmer and before him there was not a man to till the ground. It all fits perfectly!
Last edited:
GEN2REV
Well-Known Member
The problem with MODERN discoveries of 'said-to-be' older manuscripts that supposedly contradict the KJV is that those who wish to corrupt the sacred words of God can very easily use such a hoax to do so.
I use a variety of translations in my Bible studies, and recommend new Bible readers to do so as well, but the KJV is the most accurate version that I put my trust in. It's good to use a KJV and a modern translation to better understand certain concepts, with the KJV as the default authority on the matter. A NIV or NLV is a pretty fair supplement while studying the KJV, but if one is honest, and paying attention, you will find many altered verses and concepts in the NIV. The NLV is a bit closer to the original sincere intent of the KJV while the wording is more modern.
And even if the KJV is not 100% accurate to the original aramaic words of God, I believe it to be the closest we've got today. Unless you have a multi-$1000 Geneva or a Leningrad Codex Bible, a KJV is about as good as it gets today. And if there are parts of it that are corrupted, I believe the Holy Spirit gives discernment in that regard.
Also, the Dead Sea scrolls were found to be like 99.9% exactly parallel in wording and concepts to the modern 1611 KJV so ... you can't ask for more confirmation than that. And they also contained Apocryphal books that are still shunned by the modern churches so ... go figure.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
I posted this in one of Marks' threads, but it's more relevant here:
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in Qumran in 1946. One of the scrolls was a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah. This predated any existing manuscript by several centuries. The scroll was almost letter-by-letter identical to the Masoretic Text, with one notable exception in Isaiah 53:11. Since this exception is confirmed by the Septuagint, the NIV translators decided to use the DSS instead of the MT in their translation:
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
(Isaiah 53:8-11 NIV)
The Suffering Servant song is thought by almost all Christian interpreters to be about Christ's atoning death. The Masoretic Text that was used in the Textus Receptus (and almost all translations) does not contain "see the light (of life)". There was an extant version of Isaiah which prophesied the resurrection of Christ long before the Masoretic Text. Would you cover up this prophesy?
The Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in Qumran in 1946. One of the scrolls was a complete scroll of the book of Isaiah. This predated any existing manuscript by several centuries. The scroll was almost letter-by-letter identical to the Masoretic Text, with one notable exception in Isaiah 53:11. Since this exception is confirmed by the Septuagint, the NIV translators decided to use the DSS instead of the MT in their translation:
8 By oppression and judgment he was taken away.
Yet who of his generation protested?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was punished.
9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.
10 Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand.
11 After he has suffered,
he will see the light of life and be satisfied;
by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.
(Isaiah 53:8-11 NIV)
The Suffering Servant song is thought by almost all Christian interpreters to be about Christ's atoning death. The Masoretic Text that was used in the Textus Receptus (and almost all translations) does not contain "see the light (of life)". There was an extant version of Isaiah which prophesied the resurrection of Christ long before the Masoretic Text. Would you cover up this prophesy?
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Of course I can!
The version that lodges in the memory is the one that you have most exposure to.
DuckieLady
Well-Known Member
Do any of you read in Greek or Hebrew?
Trying to get the time to learn Hebrew to read the OT but haven't made the time to get past so much as writing past Bet.
Trying to get the time to learn Hebrew to read the OT but haven't made the time to get past so much as writing past Bet.
Last edited:
@FluffyYellowDuck Best wishes with your studies...
JohnPaul
Soldier of Jehovah and Christ
I only speak and read in English, so when I first read the KJV it was a bit hard for me to understand because of the Olde English it was written in, I can't even speak Spanish let alone Greek or Hebrew.
Lambano
Well-Known Member
But you mastered אֵ (Aleph), right?
I can read a little bit of Greek. My brother who's working on his Masters degree in Theology sent me a couple of textbooks to keep me occupied while I recovered from open heart surgery. You may have just inspired me to go back and complete my studies.
I helped my wife put together a poster for our church's Vacation Bible School showing the Hebrew alphabet (or should I say, aleph-bet?) and the Hebrew rendering of the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). Our Associate Pastor ran it past a Rabbi friend of hers; the Rabbi blessed it and said my wife did a superb job with the lettering. However, the Rabbi took issue with the KJV translation of the Shema which I used for the source:
6:4 שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָֽד
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD:
should read
4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one:
That took a little bit of white-out to fix.
The Rabbi asked to keep the chart after VBS was over. My wife was so proud!
Last edited:
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
Oh, it is!
There are some verses that I could quote from the KJV (well-known ones that I probably picked up from school assemblies). But not whole chunks.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Yes, they reject the KJV template because it is wrong.
One of the biggest misconceptions of KVJ-only-ism is the idea that modern translations start with the KJV and go down hill from there.
That is not what happens in modern translations. They go back to the beginning. Not only do we know much more than half a millennia ago, the language we speak today is not what was spoken half a millennia ago. The introductions to some translations talk about how language has changed even since the 1960's.
Similar threads
