King James Version Only...?

[ThePuffyBlob]

I would bet that you do not read the 1611 King James, but the 1769 Cambridge edition, or 1769 Oxford edition of the King James. There are at least 10 different versions of the King James, and they are all different.1611, 1612, 1613,1616,1629,1638, and two different ones in 1769. Which one is the right one?

i am just using an app not the actual book and my preacher also said the same thing he was using the 1611 kjv book

he do not know me because i am just listening and we can't talk to each other

but not sure if i am because it is an app
e-Sword: Free Bible Study for the PC

 

[DNB]

They put on every person who does not agree with their position as being kjv haters, as holding to corrupted versions, and who are probably not even saved!

Yes, that's their rhetoric right off the gate. Very accusative, and defensive before they've even substantiated their position. It incriminates them greatly, in that it's extremely childish and desperate. Like I said, I find their characters to be very peculiar, and consequently their whole approach tyo Biblical exegesis. Their very scary in fact.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

English is the language that God has chosen to be prevalent in the world at just the time the Gospel will be preached to the world just before He comes to gather His elect. That's got to mean something. Every earthly language is insufficient to fully represent God's glory. I used to believe that the King James Version of the Bible was the purest and only acceptable translation for English speakers. Although I still prefer it in many cases, I haven't believed that for the last 25 years, largely as a result of reading the very publications that promote KJV-only-ism. But to claim something that amounts to barring the common man from understanding God's word to them is nearly as ridiculous as it is unfortunate. Whatever the intentions of those who make these elitist claims, the effect is the same. Impressionable novices are discouraged from attaining their highest level of spiritual understanding. Contrary to popular belief, the greatest men and women of God over the past several centuries knew nothing of ancient Hebrew and Greek languages. More power to those who have the capacity and facility to concentrate on these things. But it is irresponsible to claim that we can understand God better if we learn the languages of people subject to like passions as we are.

English is probably the most flawed language on earth. So. Doubt what you claim is true

god had the NT written in the Greek for a reason, it is more in-depth, more precise, and really had to twist because the language has so much more

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Indeed...but compared to the KJV as a finished product in meaning.

This would be a mistake the KJV is not as complete because of flaws in the language used

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Personally I want my translation to show me as closely as possible the words used in the manuscript. I think that if we start trying to "clean up" the text to fit our ideas propriety that we can miss nuances and connects the text is making.

"Holy Spirit" is a neuter noun the way it's written in the Greek.

Much love!

I am worried about the “close as possible” aspect. Is that close enough?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

first thanks for the reply, what I stated was in the Hebrew. and second, the tense do not supersede actual scripture, if a tense change the value of the scripture before or after said scripture then the change is not of God.

my position is this, if something change the intent of the understanding of the scriptures then it's not acceptable nor profitable.


and as for John 1:12 "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"
the verse is very understandable. "But as many as received him", (past tense), "to them gave he power to become the sons of God", (present tense), "even to them that believe on his name:", (future tense).

PICJAG.

The last phrase as written would be present (them that believe) not future

The word received, become and born (vs13) are all in Aorist tense Which is not found in English

the problem is you would have to add words to make it More precise Thus it would not be considered a word for word translation. Which is why you have many use an expanded translation in their sermons when the preach from the Greek

 

[Eternally Grateful]

See,
I enjoy having reasonable conversation with people about the scriptures and having good fellowship in doing so.
Because TOGETHER we are more than the sum of our parts...
Together we can know and do more.

ONE Lord, ONE Faith, ONE Baptism...

The "Baptism" here is referencing the root of the word which is all about dying cloth...no two batches of dye are the same...but we have been forever changed by the same batch of dye...that which was made by Christ's blood.

Every believer has a personal relationship with God...no two are the same as we all are individuals...God relates to us all just a bit differently...but when getting together God himself joins us...and that's how we become more than the sum of our parts.

Remember baptism is not even an English word it is a Greek word where they change the o (baptiso) to an e (baptize)

and because they have done this we have had numerous beliefs about baptism created out of that mistake

 

[101G]

The last phrase as written would be present (them that believe) not future

The word received, become and born (vs13) are all in Aorist tense Which is not found in English

the problem is you would have to add words to make it More precise Thus it would not be considered a word for word translation. Which is why you have many use an expanded translation in their sermons when the preach from the Greek

GINOLJC, to all.
First no need to add anything, THANK GOD WE'RE BORN AGAIN. fine with the tenses, but to know that I'm REDEEMED that's the tense I'm grateful of.

PICJAG.

 

[BarneyFife]

I am worried about the “close as possible” aspect. Is that close enough?

It is. God's word is unstoppable. The Holy Ghost indwells It. I know I don't need to tell you that, but it bears saying and repeating. Textual criticism is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The original manuscripts (which we don't even have) are no more inspired than the most imperfect translation. It is God's word, not man's. Man can twist and obscure It, yet It remains. The job of the Word is to make men wise unto salvation, not to satisfy scholastic pursuits. It is written for the common man. Sorry for the rant.

 

[Truther]

This would be a mistake the KJV is not as complete because of flaws in the language used

What flaws are you speaking of?

 

[BarneyFife]

English is probably the most flawed language on earth. So. Doubt what you claim is true

god had the NT written in the Greek for a reason, it is more in-depth, more precise, and really had to twist because the language has so much more

And what you are claiming is elitist and of no consequence to 99+% of the earth's population.

 

[marks]

I am worried about the “close as possible” aspect. Is that close enough?

Not for me! I like to study as deep as I am able.

Much love!

 

[YeshuaFan1]

Yes, that's their rhetoric right off the gate. Very accusative, and defensive before they've even substantiated their position. It incriminates them greatly, in that it's extremely childish and desperate. Like I said, I find their characters to be very peculiar, and consequently their whole approach tyo Biblical exegesis. Their very scary in fact.

According to their viewpoint, God did not even have the word of the Lord given to us until 1611, so what did Missionaries use before that?

 

[YeshuaFan1]

What flaws are you speaking of?

Easter?

 

[BarneyFife]

Easter?

Don't forget "unicorn." lol

 

[Eternally Grateful]

It is. God's word is unstoppable. The Holy Ghost indwells It. I know I don't need to tell you that, but it bears saying and repeating. Textual criticism is a dangerous thing in the wrong hands. The original manuscripts (which we don't even have) are no more inspired than the most imperfect translation. It is God's word, not man's. Man can twist and obscure It, yet It remains. The job of the Word is to make men wise unto salvation, not to satisfy scholastic pursuits. It is written for the common man. Sorry for the rant.

Man has a responsibility to understand gods word. He is not held accountable if someone tells him wrong he is held responsible if he gets it wrong

it is more dangerous to misunderstand a word because the English word or lack of language rules are misunderstood then to use textual criticism to understand more deeply what the word or words are really saying

baptismal regeneration as a means of salvation is proof if this if the word was translated and not transliterated no one would misunderstand what was being said about immersion (baptism)

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What flaws are you speaking of?

I already mentioned some

the lack of the proper form of the word love in Jesus talk with peter (Peter do you love me)

Failing to interpret the Greek baptizo which has caused many a division

if the Bible was translated correctly using all tools the nt would be almost twice as large as it is

 

[Eternally Grateful]

And what you are claiming is elitist and of no consequence to 99+% of the earth's population.

I am not the one touting one English translation as the only one the world can trust

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Not for me! I like to study as deep as I am able.

Much love!

I want precise. Close enough could not be close enough. You could be missing important info that’s all I meant

 

[Enoch111]

Easter?

Trying to beat a dead horse. But under the circumstances "Easter" was more comprehensible than "Pascha" at that time. This is trivial and childish, compared to the damage done by modern versions (to which you have simply turned a blind eye).