My KJV Debate with Jeff Dollar
- Thread starter Bible Highlighter
- 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!
These changes are making the Word no easier to understand, plus they change the whole meaning. And, the last verse take, Matthew 5:44 totally missing in the NIV, ESV, NASB, LSB, NLT etc...!!
Very easy to understand and is of much importance!
You share a very important message and I pray that others will be mature enough to at least look into what you have to say HL!
Have a great day and looking forward to your new slides!
I would not attend a church or fellowship in a group of 3 or more that uses a Modern Bible.
Now, if it is was a close friend or something, I would allow them to use their own translation choice, but I see that as more of a potential outreach situation. Fellowshipping with 3 ore more calls for a situation of being on the same page in my humble opinion. 1 Corinthians 1:10 says we are all to speak the same thing. This is only possible if we have a standard. There are major differences even in the different NIV editions over the years. Earlier editions of the NIV describe Jesus healing a leper with compassion (Mark 1:41). However, one of the latest NIV edition reveals Jesus healing the leper with indignation (anger). In context, no reason is provided for Jesus' anger. This NIV update contradicts Jesus' words elsewhere. In Matthew 5:22, Jesus warns that being angry without a cause puts us in danger of the judgment.
This is not a problem if the Pastor or Christian leader of the Bible study gives the sense and or explains the uncommon words in the KJV. This is a part of the excitement of learning Gods Word. There are spiritual meanings attached to the archaic wording in the KJV that is lost in the Modern Bibles.
Proverbs 25:2 (KJV):
"It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter."
Psalm 78:2 (KJV):
"I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old."
1 Corinthians 1:27 (KJV):
"But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;"
Deborah_
Well-Known Member
I've heard this many times. It simply isn't true - as anyone who is truly familiar with the NIV will know.
If the word 'fornication' has been removed it's because it's hardly used these days. The NIV is a translation into modern English, after all! Language evolves continuously, unfortunately we Christians have a tendency to be ultra-conservative.
Yes, the KJV is God's perfect Word in English. No doubt about it. I see it settled with the Pure Cambridge KJV edition in circa 1900 (When English was standardized). As for the New Testament Greek: 99.99% of the Greek in Beza's 5th major edition (1598) is what underlies the KJV. There are only 20 or so translatable differences in the Beza Greek that does not line up with what the KJV translators chose.
I have leaned towards the Greek in the last year because of Nick Sayers channel. While I do not agree with everything Nick Sayers says, I do appreciate him going into the Greek that underlies the KJV. Nick is for defending the KJV by looking to the original languages.
The Greek while it does not contradict the KJV English, can sometimes offer an added depth or meaning that is not present in the English, which fits the context and the rest of the Bible. I mention this a little in my debate when I referred to the English word "hell" and the English word "LORD."
The original languages is sort of like an additional safeguard that we are understanding the correct meaning of the uncommon words (archaic words) in the KJV. I would love to one day do an improved version of something like the Defined King James Bible put out by D.A. Waite. Here are some pics of the Defined KJV::
As you can see in this above page, D.A. Waite (who is passed away now) has added the definitions for certain uncommon words at the bottom of the page to correspond with the bolded text with a specific number.
My hope is to do a project like this but offer the reader a deep dive into going into 17th century literature that backs up that word, and the Hebrew and Greek supporting literature (translated into English). I also would add words he did not define and improve a small number of his definitions.
Yes, I am strongly against Calvinism. There are KJV-only advocates who are Calvinist like Will Kinney, Dr. Ken Matto. They each have websites that are really exceptional, though.
If you ever need an apologetic on defending a certain verse of the King James Bible, Will Kinney's site is probably the best.
If you are looking for differences, Matto (who is passed away) has a good comparison page:
(Note: With Matto's page here, you have to scroll down a little bit to see the listing of the Old Testament and New Testament differences between the KJV and the Modern Bibles).
Last edited:
I would love to show you these differences. I plan on updating my slide from the debate involving the textual differences in the original languages that reflect changes even in the English. Once, I am finished, I will post the link to download free the Powerpoint slides, and upload a video of an improved reading of my updated slide from my debate. This way, you can properly see the changes for yourself.
May God bless you greatly in the Lord today.
I agree. One of my goals in life is to let more believers know of the major differences. Changes that do affect doctrine.
Yes, this is a wrong change. The Critical Text side will say that these truths are found elsewhere in the Bible. While this is true, it is a watering down of these very important truths we must know. There are other instances I strive to point out that are bombshells or major changes in doctrine, or missing commands in Modern Bibles like in 2 Timothy 2:15 (a translation difference), and 1 Timothy 6:5 (an underlying textual difference). Things like these should greatly disturb any truth seeker.
Thank you again for the kind words.
I have family coming to visit, and we are planning to visit the Bible Museum, and Spy Museum in Washington, DC this week with them (if all goes well). So, I will not able to work my follow up projects until next week. So, hopefully maybe by March 5-7th I can start to make my updated works available (Lord willing).
May God bless you.
....
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Not where I teach. I use fornication in missionary work all the time as its forceful. Street evangelists use it all the time too. I asked God what bible I should use. The Holy Spirit said to me get "the red bible", and I saw it in a vision. I looked high and low for what looked like that bible. Then I found it, it is the KJV. Mind you, what Jesus says to do, I'll do. As I said in Post #15. The KJV is a supernatural book the seems to "give" you a scripture when you need it, and not even looking for it. Its one way God speaks to us.
Last edited:
===================================================================================
He should have never put it in there!
The King James Version (KJV) was originally published, in 1611, by the royal
printer, Robert Barker. In the margins of that very first edition, there
were some 8,422 notes. Several of these notes indicate that a particular
verse itself may not be exactly correct.
For example, here is Luke 17:36 as it appears in the New King James Version
“Two men will be in the field: the one will be taken and the other left.”
Here is the note that appeared in the margin of that original 1611 edition:
“This 36. verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.”
If you have a NIV, don’t bother looking this verse up. It is not in that
Translation. What the note said in essence was, “we have reason to believe that this verse should not be in here at all.”
Well, therein lies Textual Criticism, which is the study of what the
Original Autographs (these are the actual writings of the Apostles
themselves) exactly contained. In other words, before we can know what the
Bible says, we need to know what the Bible is. And this is no small task.
Once a group of Textual Critics finish their work, they turn their work over
to the printers to publish. That way, we can read the Bible.
In this article, I would like to draw our attention to some amusing mistakes
that found their way into the KJV. Fortunately, they have all been fixed
with subsequent Editions. Bear in mind, the King James Version went through
many revisions, including one the very next year in 1612. And again in 1613.
And many more after that.
Oddly enough, the KJV was translated from only about six Greek manuscripts
dating no earlier than the 10th century. Although there are more than 5,400
Greek manuscripts today, back in the 1600’s that was not the case.
The relatively few Greek manuscripts that are behind this KJV date between
the 10th and 14th centuries. Since the publishing of the first KJV, more
than 2,000 Greek manuscripts have been found. And some of these date back as
early as the 2nd century. (Remember, the earliest Greek manuscript
supporting the KJV is 800 years later.) With the new discovery of older
manuscripts, modern versions have come on the scene. The NIV is based on
different Greek manuscripts than is the KJV. That is why they differ at
places, as noted above.
Here is one example as to why they differ. When a man by the name of Erasmus
was putting together the Greek New Testament in the early 1500’s, he could
find no existing Greek manuscript that contained the words in 1 John 5:7,
which reads in the KJV, “For there are three that bear record in heaven; the
Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit: and these three are one.” It’s in the
KJV even to this day, but Erasmus refused to put it in his Greek Edition,
unless…
That was his mistake! Erasmus went on public record saying that if anyone
could produce even one Greek manuscript with the disputed passage in it, he
would put it in his next Greek Edition. (These disputed words were first
noticed in a not-so-old Latin version.) Erasmus’ first two Greek New
Testaments did not contain this passage.
Well, along comes an enemy of Erasmus, by the name of Edward Lee, and he
mysteriously produces a Greek manuscript (a very highly suspect one, I might
add) that contained these words. So, Erasmus, true to his word, yet being
convinced it would not do too much damage to sacred Scripture, unwillingly,
put it in his third Edition. Erasmus did note that he doubted its
authenticity. Right here is where my opening line fits in. He was true to
his word, but not the Word of God.
Well, no early Greek manuscript has this passage in it. Not one early
manuscript! No Greek manuscript dated in the first 5 centuries has this
passage in it. So, if we look at most modern versions, we simply will not
find that passage in it. There are a lot of these types of disputes in the
various manuscripts, practically all of them very insignificant. So, one set of Greek manuscripts read one way and another set of manuscripts say something slightly different, and that’s why we have different versions today.
These differences in Greek manuscripts are actually to be expected. Let’s
suppose, for example, you asked 100 people to copy the book, Moby Dick. Do
you think any two would be exactly alike? Of course not! And if we took the
original book away, and then tried to recreate it, using only the 100
copies, how close to the original Moby Dick do you think we could get? Real
close! If on page 28, I wrote Moby Dock, and my brother, Tiger, wrote Muby
Dick, and 98 other people wrote Moby Dick, would you consider my wording
(Dock) or my brother’s wording (Muby) correct? There is your answer to the
Greek manuscripts. The variants are about as tough to work through as this
preceding example. (In fact, I know my brother well enough to also say the
he will misspell “receive” every time. He puts the i before the e. And
remember, every time that “receive” is misspelled, that’s another variant, even though it’s the same variant each time. If, for example each time misspelled is observed, that’s 48 times, that’s 48 variants. As you can see, they add up pretty quickly.)
Let me show you why some people are initially shocked when they begin their
study of Textual Criticism. The Greek New Testament has roughly 138,162
words. Taking all the 5,800 Greek manuscripts together, there are somewhere
between 400,000 and 500,000 variations. That’s about 3+ variants PER WORD!
Maybe this will help. Let me give you a couple of those variants in one
small phrase in the Bible:
In John 4:1 some manuscripts read, “Then when Jesus knew.” Some other
manuscripts read, “Then when the Lord knew.” One manuscript has, “Then when
Jecus knew.” So, some say “Jesus” and some say “the Lord” and one misspelled
“Jesus.” (There are actually a few more that misspell “Jesus”)
So, how many variants do you see? Are you concerned with any of them? Here’s
the good news: That is just about the extent of the vast majority of
variants in the New Testament. As you can see, not knowing the history of the Bible makes us vulnerable to every wind of doctrine, or false claims against the Word. But when we add up all the ‘discrepancies’ and ‘variants’ there is absolutely nothing to be concerned with. Absolutely nothing! The preservation of the Word of God over the years, one could argue, has a supernatural element to it.
I mentioned earlier that since the first publication of the KJV of 1611, of
which there have literally been thousands of corrections to it, many Greek
Manuscripts have been discovered. How one or two of those manuscripts were
discovered are interesting stories.
More than 200 years after the first KJV, in the Spring of 1844, a man by the
name Count Konstantin von Tischendorf, a man (genius) fluent in classical
languages and dialects, took a trip to Mount Sinai to visit a monastery. He
took this trip in hopes of discovering ancient biblical documents. The
monastery he visited was called St. Catherine’s, then occupied by Russian
monks. Initially, he was a bit disappointed when he was unable to find what
he was looking for. However, as he looked in a small room near the Library,
he noticed something very unusual in the trash can, of all places! His heart
began to race as he approached this waste basket. The contents, sheets of
‘paper’ written on animal skin, seemed all too familiar to him. He was well
aware that ancient documents were written on the very kind of “trash” he was
looking at. Well learned in Koine Greek, he picked up a sheet and began
reading it. It was the Old Testament! As he kept digging deeper, the New
Testament was also there. There were 129 pages of the oldest known
recordings of the Bible, written almost 1,500 years earlier. Who knows how
many pages had already been burned to warm those Russian monks.
Con't
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
Historical statement.....
The Jews probably said that about the Christians.....
The Catholics said that the Tyndale and Geneva Bible was evil.
The Puratians said that the King James Version of the Bible was of the devil.
Scholars that actually know the scriptures commend the King James Version of the Bible for having the most errors.
The King James Version of the Bible is so different that you could start a religion separate from the scriptures.
Many blame the King James Version of the Bible for the reason that there are 30,000 Protestant denominations because so many could not understand it.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Yet the KJV has been around for 3 great revivals and is the bible of choice for millions. Translations are for profit books and of course, for profit books are going to say the KJV has errors, but there is not any. All the great Preachers used the KJV. All the translations have errors. 300 yrs of the KJV with no updates since 1769. So, I see the typical bashing of the KJV all the time. I have many translations in my library and read them. The KJV is the gold standard to measure translations by.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
LOL Ask those people what the King James Version means and most will not know. Most will not be able to understand it even if they read it. Getting people to read the Bible is like getting them to go to church.
The King James Version is great for reading in public because of it poetic style where understanding and truth are not important. Or if you are a collector like me, who collects old King James Version of the Bible.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Yes, my friend, I too am a collector. I once told a man that reading the KJV was like reading medical journal, you have to study it. My Sunday bible study, people have every bible known to man. But in my men's bible study its KJV only. I have to use the New King James on Sunday. Even reading the KJV at meeting, I translate it as I speak.
Grailhunter
Well-Known Member
I am a Theologian and I call myself a speaker. Some people call me an evangelist. I am more of a substitute. I speak and fill in as a Sunday School teach or youth pastor or assist with plays…Christmas, Good Friday, Easter.
One thing I learnt is that I should speak at the level or way that people understand. The KJV does not do that. Since we are talking about God and salvation it is important to do that.
Rockerduck
Well-Known Member
Yes, I get that, I like the KJV, but the Holy Spirit speaks to me in plain English, so why shouldn't we teach and read the bible in plain English.
Similar threads
