King James Only

[reformed1689]

Cool story bro.

Glad someone here can speak for Nebuchadnezzar. I was beginning to worry.

It's cultural and if you had a shred of honesty about you, you would know that. But hold on to your IDOL called the KJV if you want.

 

[Base12]

So no, you were never going to get your own huge house, not even in the KJV.

Meh.

Tell that to the Judge.

 

[reformed1689]

Meh.

Tell that to the Judge.

Now you are just being willfully ignorant.

 

[Base12]

It's cultural...

Oh I see. I need to look outside of the Bible to understand it because it doesn't have all the answers.

 

[Base12]

Now you are just being willfully ignorant.

Next you'll be saying...

"What Jesus should have said was..."

... and then add your own spin to it and call it Gospel.

I mean, why not? You already went there with Nebuchadnezzar.

It's always the same thing when One tries to re-translate the Bible.

It eventually turns into...

"I know Jesus said that, but what he really meant to say was..."

or...

"That's a bad translation, what God really said was..."

I'm just not buying it. Sorry.

 

[Base12]

In order for newer translations to receive a Copyright and make $$$, they need to change enough of the words so that their Bible becomes a work of Fiction.

In some cases, if One copies and pastes too many verses onto a Forum or paper handout, they have to pay money to the Copyright holder.

 

[reformed1689]

Oh I see. I need to look outside of the Bible to understand it because it doesn't have all the answers.

When it comes to understanding the original context? Absolutely.

 

[Taken]

I wonder who that fourth person was in the fire along with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego?

Let's consult the NIV on this matter...

Daniel 3:25 (NIV)
"He said, "Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods"

Welp... it can't be Jesus since Jesus is the Son of God and not 'a Son of the Gods'.

I guess it was Zeus that saved them.

Thanks for clearing that up NIV!

KJV -
Dan 3:
[25] He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

One God..One Son, that Only Applies throughout Biblical Scripture, God the Heavenly Father and Gods Only begotten Son Jesus.

Correct...the NIV gives a quote of Implying Perspective/ thoughts of Nebuchadnezzar of "a son of some god" walking safely and providing safety from the fire TO 3 men, which "some son of some Greek mythical god"; is NOT, the three men's God!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[reformed1689]

KJV -
Dan 3:
[25] He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

One God..One Son, that Only Applies throughout Biblical Scripture, God the Heavenly Father and Gods Only begotten Son Jesus.

Correct...the NIV gives a quote of Implying Perspective/ thoughts of Nebuchadnezzar of "a son of some god" walking safely and providing safety from the fire TO 3 men, which "some son of some Greek mythical god"; is NOT, the three men's God!

Glory to God,
Taken

Do you know what it says in this verse in the Septuagint?

And the king said, “Look, I see four unbound men walking about in the fire and no harm has come to them, and the outward appearance of the fourth is similar to a messenger of a god!”

Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Da 3:92.

 

[Taken]

Sorry, I didn't delete that fast enough.

My statement was in a pragmatical sense just the same. God is bigger than translations. Will you get the right theology from the New World translation? No. But can you find Jesus in it? Yes, I believe so.

One thing, my trust is in God, not in my ability to select and understand the correct version of the Bible. But I do like the King James.

Much love!

I personally lean toward preferring the KJV.

When one acknowledges How Scripture was Revealed...When it was written...That it WAS copied and Distributed...Times it WAS Destroyed...Times it WAS REWRITTEN from memory...AND the individual Accepting Lord God Almighty's ONE CORE Theme Throughout Scripture...HE IS Creator AND Maker of All Things.

Acknowledgement, Credit, Trust, Belief Given TO, anything, anyone Other Than the Lord God Almighty ... IS a Corrupt Perversion OF Gods OWN Revelations and Teachings.

In Brief -
A Translation using Other words WHILE maintaining Gods TRUTH is simply paraphrasing.
However paraphrasing in a manner WHICH Changes Gods TRUTH, Becomes A LIE.

Those individuals Who have Christ IN Them, Have an Advantage...over individuals (Still trying to Decide IF they want to make that Commitment, or Not).

Individuals WHO Have Christ IN Them...NO LONGER Have to Rely on the Logic of their Carnal Mind, trying to Cipher Which Translation makes the Most Sense To Trust To Believe.

A man Who has Christ IN Them...Has A New Heart, A New Absolute TRUTH ...Gods TRUTH, WRITTEN IN Their New Heart.
And as Jesus' Disciples would Privately ASK Jesus WHAT things MEANT...and Jesus Would Privately Tell Them...
So Also, is a man WITH Christ Jesus IN Him..."supposed" To be Privately Asking Christ Jesus what is the Meaning and Understanding Of His Words, His Truths.

God is bigger than translations.

Amen!

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Taken]

Do you know what it says in this verse in the Septuagint?

And the king said, “Look, I see four unbound men walking about in the fire and no harm has come to them, and the outward appearance of the fourth is similar to a messenger of a god!”

Rick Brannan et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2012), Da 3:92.

Did you know things WERE kept Secret from Men, Until Jesus was sent from Heaven TO Earth To Reveal things That HAD been Kept Secret ?

Duet. 29:
[29] The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children...

Col 1
[26] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

The Secret things previously Hidden...is Still Hidden...from men...who have Not been MADE one of Christ's "saints".

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[reformed1689]

Did you know things WERE kept Secret from Men, Until Jesus was sent from Heaven TO Earth To Reveal things That HAD been Kept Secret ?

Duet. 29:
[29] The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us and to our children...

Col 1
[26] Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

The Secret things previously Hidden...is Still Hidden...from men...who have Not been MADE one of Christ's "saints".

Glory to God,
Taken

What does that have to do with translation?

 

[Truther]

sorry, im not too hip on ancient fertility rites bro; and wadr i think you're getting played. Did they do the bunnies and eggs back then, too? But i cant imagine why they wouldnt tbh. Near as i can tell the mistaken/intentional conflation of "Easter" and Passover goes back a lot further than the 16th century, but i do not know. What i do know is that "Passover" as an English term goes back further than that? So, why not use "Passover" there, again? See, the answer is really pretty simple i guess; bc then the pagan fertility goddess would not be invoked, yeh?

It is simple.
The early church taught "Christ our passover(pascha).

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


They had a feast the same day as the Jews did have their type of pasha feast...the "Christ our pascha feast".
This is the feast of 1 Cor 11.
This is what "Easter" meant to the KJV translators in Acts 12:4.


Killing the leader of the new pascha movement would have pleased the Jews.

 

[DPMartin]

I am posting this excellent article by David Cloud, since it expresses my own position perfectly.


[8] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the King James Bible’s antiquated language is holy and unchangeable or who believes the KJV could never again be updated, I am not “King James Only.” I doubt the KJV will ever be replaced in this apostate age, but to say that it is wrong to update the language again after the fashion of the several updates it has undergone since 1611 is not reasonable. Having dealt extensively with people who speak English as a second or third language, I am very sympathetic to the very real antiquation problem in the King James Bible. At the same time, I am not going to trade an excellent Bible with a few problems due to old language for a Bible filled with error due to a corrupt text and/or a corrupt translation methodology (e.g., dynamic equivalency).

[9] If “King James Only” defines one who believes that he has the authority to call those who disagree with him silly asses, morons, and jacklegs, and to treat them as if they were fools because they refuse to follow his (or her) peculiar views, or if it defines one who threatens to sue those who challenge him (or her), I am not “King James Only.”
Copyright 2013, Way of Life Literature

one would think a British subject would get KJV. if you have a full blown OED then you would get KJV as the reliable version. also if you knew much about English translations all most all are based on the KJV. the reason for mentioning the OED is that using it one is able to see what the translators of the day 1600's were translating it to. the word saw for example isn't used as anything associated to seeing. but Shakespeare who was an expert of the same language used it as to mean to declare. hence:

Gen 1:4　 And God saw the light, that it was good: would mean God declared the Light that is was good: which brings the understanding that only God knows what is good, and is the judge of what is good in His creation.

(but you would actually have to look that up to know that. seeing that the English language was one of the most used languages in recent history its uses have been modified changing the meaning of the words but again using OED not Greek or Hebrew (unless you're expert at such) works. if you notice Italian used to day is different to "latin" used by the Vatican. though the source of both are the same. the church stays to the Latin so as not to experience the changes of the words used in scripture.

anyway its understood two teams of 20 scholars using Hebrew Greek and Latin (the three languages inscribed on the Cross) were commissioned by King James. so if you use the language of the day to read the translation of the day you got it. but you want paraphrased bibles and modern versions then you risk one the change of the meaning of the words that remain the same, and the future change to come without a solid reference to fall back on.

 

[bbyrd009]

It is simple.
The early church taught "Christ our passover(pascha).

Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


They had a feast the same day as the Jews did have their type of pasha feast...the "Christ our pascha feast".
This is the feast of 1 Cor 11.
This is what "Easter" meant to the KJV translators in Acts 12:4.


Killing the leader of the new pascha movement would have pleased the Jews.

bro if you think buying kids candy and rolling eggs and buying bunnies and participating in obvious Fertility Rites best represents Passover then bam do that imo, but again i would be careful that you dont find yourself kidding yourself, is all im saying.

Surely the meal is much more pleasant, indulgent even, i purposely buy mutton for Passover bc i dont like it, but if you want to relate pascha to Ishtar rather than Passover for whatever reason and even call it Christian then at least you have a broad following i guess, and if it includes the KJV translators then wadr i gotta say i am hardly taken aback by that. I grew up KJV only, i got bunnies and rolled eggs, and hey i even went to Luby's after i got "baptized," so who am i to judge right

 

[Truther]

bro if you think buying kids candy and rolling eggs and buying bunnies and participating in obvious Fertility Rites best represents Passover then bam do that imo, but again i would be careful that you dont find yourself kidding yourself, is all im saying.

Surely the meal is much more pleasant, indulgent even, i purposely buy mutton for Passover bc i dont like it, but if you want to relate pascha to Ishtar rather than Passover for whatever reason and even call it Christian then at least you have a broad following i guess, and if it includes the KJV translators then wadr i gotta say i am hardly taken aback by that. I grew up KJV only, i got bunnies and rolled eggs, and hey i even went to Luby's after i got "baptized," so who am i to judge right

Man, everything I said went over your head

 

[Truther]

one would think a British subject would get KJV. if you have a full blown OED then you would get KJV as the reliable version. also if you knew much about English translations all most all are based on the KJV. the reason for mentioning the OED is that using it one is able to see what the translators of the day 1600's were translating it to. the word saw for example isn't used as anything associated to seeing. but Shakespeare who was an expert of the same language used it as to mean to declare. hence:

Gen 1:4　 And God saw the light, that it was good: would mean God declared the Light that is was good: which brings the understanding that only God knows what is good, and is the judge of what is good in His creation.

(but you would actually have to look that up to know that. seeing that the English language was one of the most used languages in recent history its uses have been modified changing the meaning of the words but again using OED not Greek or Hebrew (unless you're expert at such) works. if you notice Italian used to day is different to "latin" used by the Vatican. though the source of both are the same. the church stays to the Latin so as not to experience the changes of the words used in scripture.

anyway its understood two teams of 20 scholars using Hebrew Greek and Latin (the three languages inscribed on the Cross) were commissioned by King James. so if you use the language of the day to read the translation of the day you got it. but you want paraphrased bibles and modern versions then you risk one the change of the meaning of the words that remain the same, and the future change to come without a solid reference to fall back on.

Indeed.
The KJV is the plum line for all translations. Including foreign language translations.

 

[bbyrd009]

Man, everything I said went over your head

but youre still coloring eggs and hiding them and whatnot, right; buying chocolate bunnies for your kids, attending "Easter" masses, etc? So imagine how i feel there if you would lol. Yes, you are over my head totally bro, and imo a Bible translated for you by a homosexual royalty is really a foregone conclusion i guess? For now anyway? I have no prob with queers myself, so i dunno if this is being read the way i mean it; im not judging.

I sang "When We All Get to Heaven" too!
After all why leave the camp and bear reproach when you can have candy?

 

[bbyrd009]

i guess Passover has never been an easy sell lol, even the Jews turn it into a celebration

so bam observe the Fertility Goddess and read your whoreson's Bible, and even call it Christianity if you like, but imo understand what you are doing ok, dont kid yourself. Bc you are allowed to believe that Enoch went to heaven too, if you like, even though your own KJV will assure you that that is not true. You will be forgiven too i guess

 

[Base12]

When it comes to understanding the original context? Absolutely.

If that which is Without the KJV, matches that which is Within the KJV, then I know I can trust that Source.

If there isn't a match, then the KJV is always the Final Authority as far as I'm concerned.

Speaking of Without and Within...

Luke 17:21
"Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you"

The KJV has it correct.