Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Truther]

There you have it sir straight from your own mouth, any idea what the V is in KJV?

In all honesty, how many of your students can you take you to God's name?

Version.

Also, they know the NT name of God is Jesus.

My students love it when their teacher takes a stand for God's word and has convictions about it.

They hate wishy washy folks telling them stuff.

Howbout you?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

There you have it sir straight from your own mouth, any idea what the V is in KJV?

In all honesty, how many of your students can you take you to God's name?

I don't believe that changes anything. GOD can choose to preserve His Words through an English translation or an English version of of His Words. But I do prefer to use KJB when talking about the King James Bible. Why? Because of this:

Psalms 12:6-7
6 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

This truth is altered in Modern Bibles.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That article is just plain ignorant. Good comedy.

So the NIV omissions does not bother you? I can imagine it is good comedy to you because there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. For many in the Revisionist Camp or Modern Scholarship Group feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty. But there are warnings to altering God's Word in Revelation. If you are not convinced by the points I made, good day to you in the Lord, and we can agree to disagree in love and respect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

That article is just plain ignorant. Good comedy.

Before you said no doctrines are changed between the KJB and Modern Bibles, and I simply proved you wrong by this PDF article listing verses that are altered to favor the Catholic church and by my other posts (listing 9 doctrines that were changed). It looks like you are just ignoring this point that you were wrong, my friend.

In any event, peace and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[reformed1689]

Before you said no doctrines are changed between the KJB and Modern Bibles, and I simply proved you wrong by this PDF article listing verses that are altered to favor the Catholic church and by my other posts (listing 9 doctrines that were changed). It looks like you are just ignoring this point that you were wrong, my friend.

In any event, peace and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

You posted an article that claims absurdities. No doctrines were changed.

 

[reformed1689]

So the NIV omissions does not bother you? I can imagine it is good comedy to you because there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. For many in the Revisionist Camp or Modern Scholarship Group feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty. But there are warnings to altering God's Word in Revelation. If you are not convinced by the points I made, good day to you in the Lord, and we can agree to disagree in love and respect.

No, they don't bother me for two reasons.

1. They are in the footnotes.
2. They don't belong there in the first place.

What is comedy was the commentary he adds to how this somehow corrupts the message of the Bible. Take the Lucifer example for instance, he just shows ignorance not knowing what Lucifer actually means in Hebrew.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

They don't belong there in the first place.

That’s quite a gamble sir.

Dismissing words from God based on the wisdom of men.

“lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)

THIS WAS POST #1611 FOR ME

What a coincidence!

 

[reformed1689]

That’s quite a gamble sir.

Dismissing words from God based on the wisdom of men.

“lean not unto thine own understanding.” (Proverbs 3:5)

THIS WAS POST #1611 FOR ME

What a coincidence!

Or adding words (in the KJV) based on the wisdom of men. See how that works?

 

[Pearl]

carpetbagger | History, Significance, & Facts

Means nothing to me.so it's a bit pointless.

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Or adding words (in the KJV) based on the wisdom of men. See how that works?

The translation I have faith in was founded on the landmarks that the fathers had set forth in translation practices.

The men that took those words away removed that landmark. Those men responsible for dethroning the Received Text couldn’t even obey this landmark principle as taught in the scriptures:

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set...” (Deuteronomy 19:14)

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28)

I guess you’re okay with following men who are contrary to the scriptures literally and spiritually.

All modern Bibles are influenced by this ungodly tradition since the late 1800’s.

See how that works?

 

[reformed1689]

The translation I have faith in was founded on the landmarks that the fathers had set forth in translation practices.

The men that took those words away removed that landmark. Those men responsible for dethroning the Received Text couldn’t even obey this landmark principle as taught in the scriptures:

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set...” (Deuteronomy 19:14)

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28)

I guess you’re okay with following men who are contrary to the scriptures literally and spiritually.

All modern Bibles are influenced by this ungodly tradition since the late 1800’s.

See how that works?

The landmarks the Fathers set forth in translation practice? The early church Fathers didn't translate, it was already in their language. Minor detail.

 

[Jim B]

I don't believe that changes anything. GOD can choose to preserve His Words through an English translation or an English version of of His Words. But I do prefer to use KJB when talking about the King James Bible. Why? Because of this:

Psalms 12:6-7
6 “The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.”

This truth is altered in Modern Bibles.

"I believe in the Bible Alone (King James Version) as my authority for all matters of faith and practice." So, good for you. Some of us know that modern translations, the ones written in our language (including your language) are better.

Here are those verses in English (NET v2.1)...

"The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable.
They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground,
where it is thoroughly refined.

You, Lord, will protect them;
you will continually shelter each one from these evil people"

This truth is altered in the King James Bible.

 

[Jim B]

Bible Highlighter said "So the NIV omissions does [sic] not bother you? I can imagine it is good comedy to you because there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. For many in the Revisionist Camp or Modern Scholarship Group feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty. But there are warnings to altering God's Word in Revelation. If you are not convinced by the points I made, good day to you in the Lord, and we can agree to disagree in love and respect."

So now he admits that there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. Of course that includes the King James Version. Saying that "Modern Scholarship Group (?) feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty" is truly bizarre, especially in light of what he wrote in the previous sentence.

It is mind boggling that anyone can say that the "modern scholarship group" -- there is no such group -- is not devoted to the best and most accurate translation into our native English -- the language that he himself uses -- is tragic. There are people who have devoted their careers to giving us the best Bibles that have ever been. It is equally mind boggling that think that a bunch of people, under orders from a secular king to produce a Bible that posited his idea of what Christianity should be, got everything perfectly. Not only did they base their translation, in part, on earlier English translations and a limited number of source texts, but stated that it was not the word of God and expected it to be modified in the future (which it has been). (Hint: try reading the original KJV and see how far you get.)

I truly feel sad for Bible Highlighter, who clearly worships an imperfect Englyshe Bible instead of regarding it and other translations as guides to our Savior.

 

[Jim B]

The translation I have faith in was founded on the landmarks that the fathers had set forth in translation practices.

The men that took those words away removed that landmark. Those men responsible for dethroning the Received Text couldn’t even obey this landmark principle as taught in the scriptures:

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set...” (Deuteronomy 19:14)

“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.” (Proverbs 22:28)

I guess you’re okay with following men who are contrary to the scriptures literally and spiritually.

All modern Bibles are influenced by this ungodly tradition since the late 1800’s.

See how that works?

Nope. Exactly how does that work?

And you think that "the ancient landmark" is the King James Bible? You cannot be serious!

 

[Michiah-Imla]

And you think that "the ancient landmark" is the King James Bible?

Your hatred of KJV proponents is blinding you to what I said.

The ancient landmark is the translation practices that the KJV translators followed.

Modern Bibles follow the new landmark brought forth in the late 1800’s.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

"I believe in the Bible Alone (King James Version) as my authority for all matters of faith and practice." So, good for you. Some of us know that modern translations, the ones written in our language (including your language) are better.

Here are those verses in English (NET v2.1)...

"The Lord’s words are absolutely reliable.
They are as untainted as silver purified in a furnace on the ground,
where it is thoroughly refined.

You, Lord, will protect them;
you will continually shelter each one from these evil people"

This truth is altered in the King James Bible.

You don’t have your facts straight, friend. The King James Bible existed long before the Revisers came and brought forth their so called superior text (Which is not superior because it teaches false doctrines and eliminates valuable truths). Westcott and Hort (the fathers of the Modern Translation camp) created their own NT Greek text based off two highly questionable manuscripts (One from a Vatican vault, and the other from an Orthodox trash can). These Revisers (Westcott and Hort) were into the occult and held to Catholicism as superior to Evangelical Bible believing Christianity. Their work was not influential upon the majority of Bible believing Christianity until way later in the 1970’s with the neutered NIV.
Before the NIV came out, generally Liberal Christian groups used the Westcott and Hort influenced translations. Now, we have the Nestle and Aland (Which uses Westcott and Hort’s work) and this Greek text is even more influenced by the Vatican (i.e. the Catholic Church). If you are Catholic, go ahead and put your trust in them. If your not, then don’t. It really is that simple. But you can ignore this type of information, my friend. We can agree to disagree in love and respect.

Peace and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Bible Highlighter said "So the NIV omissions does [sic] not bother you? I can imagine it is good comedy to you because there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. For many in the Revisionist Camp or Modern Scholarship Group feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty. But there are warnings to altering God's Word in Revelation. If you are not convinced by the points I made, good day to you in the Lord, and we can agree to disagree in love and respect."

So now he admits that there is no perfect or settled pure Word of God that you can hold in your hands on this planet Earth. Of course that includes the King James Version. Saying that "Modern Scholarship Group (?) feel like they can treat God's Word as if it is silly putty" is truly bizarre, especially in light of what he wrote in the previous sentence.

It is mind boggling that anyone can say that the "modern scholarship group" -- there is no such group -- is not devoted to the best and most accurate translation into our native English -- the language that he himself uses -- is tragic. There are people who have devoted their careers to giving us the best Bibles that have ever been. It is equally mind boggling that think that a bunch of people, under orders from a secular king to produce a Bible that posited his idea of what Christianity should be, got everything perfectly. Not only did they base their translation, in part, on earlier English translations and a limited number of source texts, but stated that it was not the word of God and expected it to be modified in the future (which it has been). (Hint: try reading the original KJV and see how far you get.)

I truly feel sad for Bible Highlighter, who clearly worships an imperfect Englyshe Bible instead of regarding it and other translations as guides to our Savior.

Brother. I am not really going to keep going back and forth with you if you are not at least open to the other side of the discussion.
So peace be unto you in the Lord and lets agree to disagree in love and respect.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

No, they don't bother me for two reasons.

1. They are in the footnotes.
2. They don't belong there in the first place.

What is comedy was the commentary he adds to how this somehow corrupts the message of the Bible. Take the Lucifer example for instance, he just shows ignorance not knowing what Lucifer actually means in Hebrew.

Who told you that they don’t belong there?
No doubt it was a scholar who is in support of the Revisers (like Westcott and Hort), and it was not God telling you this.

In fact, as for Lucifer: It means light bearer.
Biblical proof?

Ezekiel 28:13
“Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.”

So we see that Lucifer was covered in various gem stones.
Have you ever been to one of those museums that displayed gem stones before or have you looked up close at various different gems?
If so… you will notice that when outside light hits the gem, the gemstone lights up. They are like little light bearers. So how fitting that he is called Lucifer.

My guess is that you will simply find a way to ignore this point. If so… I think it is best we agree to disagree and move on.

Peace and love be unto you in the Lord.

 

[Jim B]

Your hatred of KJV proponents is blinding you to what I said.

The ancient landmark is the translation practices that the KJV translators followed.

Modern Bibles follow the new landmark brought forth in the late 1800’s.

He who has ears to hear, let him hear.

Your hatred of others who see the KJV as just one translation is blinding you. Do you actually think that the authors of Deuteronomy and Proverbs had any idea (in their wildest imaginations) of the translation practices that the KJV translators followed? Really? Do you understand eisegesis?

I think you should take some time out and think about what you're actually saying!

P.S. I'm curious: what do you think is "the new landmark brought forth in the late 1800’s"?

 

[Michiah-Imla]

Your hatred of others who see the KJV as just one translation is blinding you

I hate LIES. I try to warn people when I see that they believe a LIE. Some people, like yourself, will not be corrected. My stance promotes unity in the truth in its best form, yours promotes discord and no confidence in any translated Bible.

Do you actually think that the authors of Deuteronomy and Proverbs had any idea (in their wildest imaginations) of the translation practices that the KJV translators followed?

Translation and manuscripts weren’t an issue yet. Regardless, they still wouldn’t obey God anyway having his words IN THEIR OWN LANGUAGE! So it’s no surprise that men are even bolder in creating devices that allow them to continue to not obey by accepting the “translations can’t accurately produce what was written in the original languages” garbage.

what do you think is "the new landmark brought forth in the late 1800’s"?

The Alexandrian Text that all new Bibles are ultimately influenced by. And this I KNOW friend!