I Believe In The Kjv Only!!!

[KJVO1611]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

[crazefest456]

good.

[Taste of Defeat]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

I have three questions for you. Does that mean you do not believe that you original Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek are God inspired? Do you use the original 1611 version of the KJV, complete with apocrypha? And lastly what is your logic to back up this belief?

[mtpspur]

This merits answering. I personally read the King James version because it's a favorite and I also live with the conceit that I handle Shakespearian phrarsing well. BUT with respect the New American Standard version is the best English 'translation' yet for Bible reading. The original writings are inspired and translations are an attempt to capture the Greek, Aramatic etc. There is a wealth of texture to language and we lose a lot on nuanace sometimes that further studies can bring out. I would be the last to condemn anyone for loving KJV but I would be the first to recommend other 'reliable TRANSLATIONS--not paraphrases--don't get me started on the Living Bible--that's a whole different animal. Hope this helps.

[aeroport]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

Um, welcome to the Forum...

[Pendragon]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.I use the KJV for preaching. But when I study, I often use other versions, some older, some newer, to get a real good feeling for what the words actually mean. My own KJV is a Thompson's Study Bible, and many words have alternate definitions. You must understand that in 1611 a word in English often did not mean what it does today. Usually we can catch that, and it's no problem. But there are places where the language becomes a bit of a barrier to understanding.

I would say don't kick another Bible unless you discover that they leave out verses entirely. For that I would quote Revelations 22: [18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
[19] And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

So, if it has everything in the Bible. it's the Bible!

God Bless

Pen

[NikolaiI]

My mother, who's been to seminary and studied a lot of her life, says the KJV is a very, very bad translation, and we have this thing about people making such literal translations of it; it seems the more literal you get the, further you get away from what was originally written.

[linz]

I prefer the King James Version for its beauty, but many don't speak english, and many others find its dated english difficult. I wonder how Catholics feel about the KJV, Does anyone know?

[Tosca]

Amen, for a KJV only user! You don't see too many of them anymore! My family is strictly KJV, also. My mom does a lot of studying and is able to find all errors in other translations. The KJV is a beautiful masterpiece!

[one_raven]

My mother, who's been to seminary and studied a lot of her life, says the KJV is a very, very bad translation, and we have this thing about people making such literal translations of it; it seems the more literal you get the, further you get away from what was originally written.

I agree whole-heartedly with your mother. She is a wise woman.


This merits answering. I personally read the King James version because it's a favorite and I also live with the conceit that I handle Shakespearian phrarsing well. BUT with respect the New American Standard version is the best English 'translation' yet for Bible reading. The original writings are inspired and translations are an attempt to capture the Greek, Aramatic etc. There is a wealth of texture to language and we lose a lot on nuanace sometimes that further studies can bring out. I would be the last to condemn anyone for loving KJV but I would be the first to recommend other 'reliable TRANSLATIONS--not paraphrases--don't get me started on the Living Bible--that's a whole different animal. Hope this helps.

If you haven't already, check out the New International Version.
It really is, by far, the most accurate translation I have come across yet.

[Tosca]

The New International Version is based on the Westcott and Hort/Nestley-Aland text, otherwise known as the NU which are known to be corrupt. Older manuscripts aren't always better. :)

Does your version have the "pig marathon" in it?

[one_raven]

Does your version have the "pig marathon" in it?
Pig marathon? :(
Please elaborate.

[Pendragon]

Pig marathon? :(
Please elaborate.Yes, please do, unless you refer to the devils entering the swine after the deliverance of the man we know only as "Legion." Then, yes, it is in the KJV and most other Bibles I have read, in fact I can't say I've read a version back to the Vatican Manuscript in which it does NOT appear.

God Bless

Pendragon

[Tosca]

Yes, I am talking about when the demons enter into the swine; but, in versions other than the KJV, there is a geographical error.

Gerasenes, is simply an alexandrian corruption, (transliterated into in most modern versions), in two verses, placing Jesus in Jordan/Arabia in a geographical impossibility, since
a) Gerasenes is not near the Galilee (Luke 8:28)
b) Nor does Gerasenes (Jerash) have a mountain leading to a sea for the swine finale. (Mark 5:1)

Gerasa was a city of the Decapolis (modern Jerash in Transjordan) located more than thirty miles to the southeast of the Sea of Galilee and, as Origen perceived (Commentary on John, v, 41 (24)), is the least likely of the three places.

So the pigs would have had to run somewhere around 35 miles to get to the water...a pig marathon! :) lol

[mtpspur]

Took the liberty of consulting a concordance and Luke and Mark and which seems to indicate a region the Lord is traveling in. Then consulted a Galiee map in the back of my Bible and would highly suspect that the Lord performed his miracle at Gerasenes or perhaps Gennesaret both of which appear to close to the Sea of Galiee. Not sure where your 35 miles came from. In fact Gerasenes is placed right next to the body of water. Map used is from the London Geographical Institute/George Philip & Son Ltd. Hope this helps.

Note to One Raven: Thank you I had forgotten the New International Version -- even more embarassing since it's the bible my church uses in the official capacity but I'm a dinosaur somewhat stuck in his ways and perhaps practicing a bit of not joining the crowd mentality.

[Lumino_Christi]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

The "One, True, Inspired Word of God" is found in the Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts that have been translated hundreds of times into what you know as the English Bible. No one translation is supremely better than another, because they were all translated for specific purposes. The NIV uses colloquial language and removes a lot of gender specificity. The NAB tries to be as literal as possible to the original texts, which is why its syntax can be choppy when read.

There are really two qualities that a Bible translation can be "graded on": faithfulness to the original texts, and literary smoothness. A translation that doesn't follow the original texts but reads well could be a Stephen King novel, and a translation that is completely faithful to the original texts but is difficult to read might as well be the Greek/Hebrew texts themselves.

Each translation has elements of both qualities or they would simply not be read. There is no translation that is so horrible that it shouldn't be read. However, there are distinctions that make one version better than another, many of which are subjective. Many like the KJV for its style, while others won't read it simply because of the way in which it originated. As a Catholic, I look for a literal translation that is also fairly easy to read. However, I would take accuracy over literary style any day. The message is much more important than how it is presented, although the former can get lost if the latter is substandard. I personally like the Jerusalem Bible, the NAB, and the NASB.

KJV,

A word of caution- I would avoid making blanket statements and putting so much faith into one translation of the Bible. Versions of the Bible, by the very way in which they are translation, are automatically farther from the truth of the originals the minute they are translated. No translation is ever as COMPLETELY accurate as its original, simply because of human error and human choice. Sometimes we leave things out accidentally, sometimes we leave them out on purpose. If you want a fully true "translation", study Greek and Hebrew and read the original texts.

Yours In Christ,

Lumino_Christi

[KJVO1611]

KJV,

A word of caution- I would avoid making blanket statements and putting so much faith into one translation of the Bible. Versions of the Bible, by the very way in which they are translation, are automatically farther from the truth of the originals the minute they are translated. No translation is ever as COMPLETELY accurate as its original, simply because of human error and human choice. Sometimes we leave things out accidentally, sometimes we leave them out on purpose. If you want a fully true "translation", study Greek and Hebrew and read the original texts.

Yours In Christ,

Lumino_Christi[/QUOTE]
Where in the KJV is their ONE bad translation or ONE contradiction to each verse. I believe in the the KJV because it was translated from the textus receptus (received text). The other pieces of garbage you guys call Bibles like the NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.., came from liberal, limp-wristed twinkies, without a backbone, Wescott and Hort, that decided to make up their own original manuscripts and said that these were the "real" Bibles. If these are the real Bibles, why are their so many of them?:)

[mtpspur]

There are so many Bibles, if I may, is because the English language and the usage thereof has changed so much over the years. I'll toss another out to you--The Amplified Bible helps with the nuance of the language. Also, between oyu and me and the audience God provides translations for a variety of readers that may meet their level of comprehension. KJV is not everyone's cup of tea--thus the New KJ or more modern reading. As originallt posted I read KJ as a 'preference' not as an absolute. If I wasn't so lazy I could direct you to a 'literal' translation--the Marshall-Nestle text if memory serves which would show the Greek in apposition to English and maybe the dust would clear up a little. Hope this helps.

[Lumino_Christi]

Where in the KJV is their ONE bad translation or ONE contradiction to each verse. I believe in the the KJV because it was translated from the textus receptus (received text). The other pieces of garbage you guys call Bibles like the NIV, NKJV, NASB, etc.., came from liberal, limp-wristed twinkies, without a backbone, Wescott and Hort, that decided to make up their own original manuscripts and said that these were the "real" Bibles. If these are the real Bibles, why are their so many of them?:)

First of all, using an ad hominem strategy reduces the credibility of your argument to that of a three year old's. Argue the point, not the people.

Secondly, you should be reading the Bible contextually, which means you are looking for the message behind what is written. I regularly read a French Bible and I am always able to understand what the passage is trying to say (even if it's in a different language) because I am looking behind the gramatical elements and into the literary and religious sustinence it provides. Your favorite version and my favorite version have two things in common- they are NOT the originals. The originals are always the best to read from, because nuances of culture and language can effect changes in meanings, whether they are intended or not.

For example, if I went up to someone from the Middle Ages and said, "What's up?", they would point to a bird in the sky. Another meaning simply would not be in his cultural vocabulary. However, if that same person were to write a story using that phrase, and we found it 800 years later and published it today, we would assume he meant, "How's it going?", not an allusion to what is physically in the sky.

[Logos]

General Mod Note To All:

yes there are forum rules here :)

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

--

[KJVO1611]

I'm just saying that the KJV is the BEST BIBLE for the English speaking people. We have a Spanish ministry at our church that doesn't use the KJV because it was not made for their language. The other Bibles take out verses in the KJV. I guarantee you, you'll not find the word in Calvary in any other Bible but the KJV.

[Pendragon]

There are so many Bibles, if I may, is because the English language and the usage thereof has changed so much over the years. I'll toss another out to you--The Amplified Bible helps with the nuance of the language. Also, between oyu and me and the audience God provides translations for a variety of readers that may meet their level of comprehension. KJV is not everyone's cup of tea--thus the New KJ or more modern reading. As originallt posted I read KJ as a 'preference' not as an absolute. If I wasn't so lazy I could direct you to a 'literal' translation--the Marshall-Nestle text if memory serves which would show the Greek in apposition to English and maybe the dust would clear up a little. Hope this helps.Yep. Use my Amplified Bible as study material a lot, mon ami. Also an interlinear Bible with Hebrew and Greek and the Diaglot, which comes almost straight from the Vatican Manuscripts. Some of it I disagree with, but other parts are like opening a window shade and finally seeing through the window!

Pen

[KJVO1611]

You guys talk about going to the original manuscript to get the most accurate words. i agree with you on that. But the original originals don't exist anymore. Paper can't last that long to put it simply stated. The copies of the originals are there,yes, but not the true original manuscripts. And if you're looking at the manuscripts from anything but the textus receptus(received text), then it is wrong. If you can read the greek and hebrew language, that's fine but I can't read or write worth a lick of that stuff. That is why the KJV was translated. So that the common people could read it. The KJV is the only Bible that has stood the test of time throughout history, and yet all of the other Bibles are filled with contradictions.

[Lumino_Christi]

That is why the KJV was translated.So that the common people could read it.

Yes, along with the rest of the English versions. I don't think there's one English version that DOESN'T provide a medium for the common people to read and study scripture.


The KJV is the only Bible that has stood the test of time throughout history, and yet all of the other Bibles are filled with contradictions.

Is the KJV the only English translation around? No. Therefore, there are clearly other versions that have also "stood the test of time" because I can go to my local Barnes and Noble and pick one up.

As far as contradictions are concerned, could you cite some? Also, are you implying that the KJV does not have ONE contradiction? I find that incredibly hard to believe. There is no such thing as a perfect translation.

[Pendragon]

Actually, although the Catholic Church did not like it or condone it, The Bible was being translated into common tongues long before 1611. Here is the record of one instance:

PETER WALDO : Founder of the Waldenses

The sect owed its origin to Peter Waldo (d. 1216), known in France as Valdes. Little is known about Waldo's life, but it is clear that he was a prosperous merchant in Lyons who suddenly divested himself of his wealth in order to pursue a life of "evangelical perfection," which, to medieval Catholics, meant following the example of Christ, including the Savior's poverty.

The sources indicate that Waldo became impressed with his need to follow Christ when he heard a minstrel relate the legend of St. Alexis, who had renounced riches and separated from his wife to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Waldo also accepted counsel from a priest who told him of Christ's command to a rich inquirer who had come to him seeking the way to eternal life. Jesus said:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

His personal appropriation of the Lord's teaching to the rich young man mentioned in the Gospel reflects Waldo's habit of accepting biblical injunctions literally, and it shows his great desire to conform his life to the teachings of Christ. Waldo developed a sense of urgency to become learned in the scriptures, and to that end he paid two scholars to translate the Gospels and other portions of the Bible into his vernacular tongue. History of the Waldenses

Then there was Martin Luther who translated the Bible into German.

[KJVO1611]

Yes, along with the rest of the English versions. I don't think there's one English version that DOESN'T provide a medium for the common people to read and study scripture.



Is the KJV the only English translation around? No. Therefore, there are clearly other versions that have also "stood the test of time" because I can go to my local Barnes and Noble and pick one up.

As far as contradictions are concerned, could you cite some? Also, are you implying that the KJV does not have ONE contradiction? I find that incredibly hard to believe. There is no such thing as a perfect translation.

You're taking this to another level. I'm saying that the correct manuscripts are what you have to look at to see the better translations. I'm saying also, yes, you can get Bible truths from any version. But wouldn't you want a Bible that has no contradictions, no errors. The KJV is holy and inspired and perfect. The question is not, "Can I got to any store and pick up a Bible of any version, and that is the one that stands above the rest?" I'm saying that the Bible is the only good, perfect word of God, because it was translated from the right manuscripts (received text). You're probably going to ask, "Where did the received text come from?" It came from the manuscripts that were copied from the original manuscripts. Luke 21:33 Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. The wescott and hort supposed "manuscripts" are false simply because they are not from God. they are from their own diluted manuscripts that they came up with themselves or got it from already false manuscripts. Most of the Bibles today come from this corrupt manuscript.

[KJVO1611]

Actually, although the Catholic Church did not like it or condone it, The Bible was being translated into common tongues long before 1611. Here is the record of one instance:

PETER WALDO : Founder of the Waldenses

The sect owed its origin to Peter Waldo (d. 1216), known in France as Valdes. Little is known about Waldo's life, but it is clear that he was a prosperous merchant in Lyons who suddenly divested himself of his wealth in order to pursue a life of "evangelical perfection," which, to medieval Catholics, meant following the example of Christ, including the Savior's poverty.

The sources indicate that Waldo became impressed with his need to follow Christ when he heard a minstrel relate the legend of St. Alexis, who had renounced riches and separated from his wife to undertake a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Waldo also accepted counsel from a priest who told him of Christ's command to a rich inquirer who had come to him seeking the way to eternal life. Jesus said:

"If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions, and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me." (Matthew 19:21)

His personal appropriation of the Lord's teaching to the rich young man mentioned in the Gospel reflects Waldo's habit of accepting biblical injunctions literally, and it shows his great desire to conform his life to the teachings of Christ. Waldo developed a sense of urgency to become learned in the scriptures, and to that end he paid two scholars to translate the Gospels and other portions of the Bible into his vernacular tongue. History of the Waldenses

Then there was Martin Luther who translated the Bible into German.

You're verse is wrongly quoted. In my Bible, KJV, it says:
Matt. 19:21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.

[KJVO1611]

Yep. Use my Amplified Bible as study material a lot, mon ami. Also an interlinear Bible with Hebrew and Greek and the Diaglot, which comes almost straight from the Vatican Manuscripts. Some of it I disagree with, but other parts are like opening a window shade and finally seeing through the window!

Pen
Why would you even read a Bible that you disagree with? The Bible talks about this. Luke 11:17-18 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth.
If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

[KJVO1611]

I Still Believe In The Kjv, Not A Single One Of You Can Point Out A Single Thing Wrong With The Kjv!!!

[KJVO1611]

Then there was Martin Luther who translated the Bible into German.

I'M NOT GERMAN!!!

[dzebra]

The verse you quoted after Pendragon says the same thing as the one he quoted.

And what evidence supports your theory that wescott and hort translations are not inspired? How do you know they are not copies of the originals?

[Pygmy Twylyte]

KJVO1611,

When you say there are no contradictions in the KJV, do you mean contradictions or errors in the translation?

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

[Pendragon]

KJVO1611,

When you say there are no contradictions in the KJV, do you mean contradictions or errors in the translation?

Luke 1:37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.





Judges 1:19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave[ out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron. Note what I highlight. With God everything is possible, but if a man is inspired by God, and begins to succeed, and then comes to something the man believes he can't do the man will fail.

An example is in Matthew 14:24] But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
[25] And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
[26] And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
[27] But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
[28] And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
[29] And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
[30] But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
[31] And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

See, he could do it as long as he didn't let other things bother him. But the waves scared him and he said "What am I doing?" Same as Judah. "Whoops! I wasn't counting on iron chariots. I don't think we can do this. Sound retreat!"

God Bless

Pen

[brightfame]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

I prefer the New King James Version (NKJV), as the old 1611 KJV translation uses 1611 language, and english language has changed since 1611, so some words have different meanings to what they did in 1611. Also, the 1611 KJV is much harder to understand because the grammar that it uses (...correct at the time) is different to todays english, and I don't want to miss out on anything.

I use a NKJV study Bible called "Spirit Filled Life Bible". I much prefer it to the NIV.

bright

[KJVO1611]

Note what I highlight. With God everything is possible, but if a man is inspired by God, and begins to succeed, and then comes to something the man believes he can't do the man will fail.

An example is in Matthew 14:24] But the ship was now in the midst of the sea, tossed with waves: for the wind was contrary.
[25] And in the fourth watch of the night Jesus went unto them, walking on the sea.
[26] And when the disciples saw him walking on the sea, they were troubled, saying, It is a spirit; and they cried out for fear.
[27] But straightway Jesus spake unto them, saying, Be of good cheer; it is I; be not afraid.
[28] And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water.
[29] And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.
[30] But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.
[31] And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

See, he could do it as long as he didn't let other things bother him. But the waves scared him and he said "What am I doing?" Same as Judah. "Whoops! I wasn't counting on iron chariots. I don't think we can do this. Sound retreat!"

God Bless

Pen

Your exactly right. Juda or Peter could have been able to do these things, but their lack of faith restrained them. I don't see what your trying to point out though.


I prefer the New King James Version (NKJV), as the old 1611 KJV translation uses 1611 language, and english language has changed since 1611, so some words have different meanings to what they did in 1611. Also, the 1611 KJV is much harder to understand because the grammar that it uses (...correct at the time) is different to todays english, and I don't want to miss out on anything.

I use a NKJV study Bible called "Spirit Filled Life Bible". I much prefer it to the NIV.

bright

But why would you want a Bible full of errors? Wouldn't you rather have truth?

[Pygmy Twylyte]

Pendragon,

I agree that Peter was afraid:
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

But was Judah afraid? It doesn't mention his lack of faith, and Matthew doesn't say that God was with Peter.

[Pendragon]

Pendragon,

I agree that Peter was afraid:
Matthew 14:30 But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

But was Judah afraid? It doesn't mention his lack of faith, and Matthew doesn't say that God was with Peter.Pygmy, does a man walk on the water without God allowing him to? I mean, Peter asked Jesus if he was, in fact Jesus, and if it was true, to allow him to come to him walking on the water. Jesus said, "Come." By whose power if not God's?

It doesn't have to mention Judah's lack of faith, it states it--God was with him, yet he could not drive out the people who had chariots of iron. Elijah witnesses God having chariots of FIRE, and God was with Judah. Judah gave up because he didn't think he could do it. He didn't turn to God and say "They have chariots of iron, oh my God, now give me thy strength!" He just turned tail and left.

God did not loose, man did.

God Bless

Pen

[KJVO1611]

We're completely getting away from the subject of interest here.

[Redzeppelin]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

As opposed to the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek?

Have you ever studied the problems with translations and the reality that ANY translation alters (to some degree) the meaning of the original for the simple fact that many words/phrases/idioms do not translate from one language to another?

While I happen to like the language of Shakespeare, the reality is (as has been said in a few posts prior) that many words/terms in the KJV have shifted in meaning since Shakespeare's time (some to totally opposite meanings), and as such, end up confusing the modern reader.

The KJV's primary claim to fame is that it is a beautiful Bible to hear read - and that is because - after the team of scholars finished translating it - they spent approximately three years going through the translation concentrating on the beauty of its sound. (This is on the authority of a visiting professor from England who lectured in a History of the English Language class I took years ago).

The amount of Latin usage in the KJV also makes it difficult to follow. The Geneva Bible (one of the sources used in the creation of the KJV) is actually superior in terms of clarity of expression and thought.

[Whifflingpin]

KJVO1611: I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

Redzeppelin: As opposed to the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek?


It would seem that KJVO1611's view is that all previous Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin versions were merely flawed precursers that reached perfection in the KJV. An odd notion to many, perhaps, but quite consistent with the belief that God is an Englishman:D

[brightfame]

Your exactly right. Juda or Peter could have been able to do these things, but their lack of faith restrained them. I don't see what your trying to point out though.



But why would you want a Bible full of errors? Wouldn't you rather have truth?

Oh well...you know how it is...it makes it all the more challenging.


...is that a serious question?

[Pendragon]

KJVO1611: I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

Redzeppelin: As opposed to the original Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek?


It would seem that KJVO1611's view is that all previous Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin versions were merely flawed precursers that reached perfection in the KJV. An odd notion to many, perhaps, but quite consistent with the belief that God is an Englishman:DIndeed. Which I think is a problem yet today, people want God to be of their race, when God is a Spirit. Our outside bodies are simply where we live. For we are formed in the image of God and are Spirit as well. When the Spirit leaves this body, it returns to the dust from whench it is made. The color on the outside doesn't matter.

God Bless

Pen

[Whifflingpin]

Pen.: "Which I think is a problem yet today, people want God to be of their race, when God is a Spirit. Our outside bodies are simply where we live. For we are formed in the image of God and are Spirit as well. When the Spirit leaves this body, it returns to the dust from whench it is made. The color on the outside doesn't matter. "

I totally agree - which, unfortunately, leaves me stuck in the "Biblical portrayal of God is bad" mode, that I have been in on other threads. Practically the whole of the Old Testament shows God as the tribal god of the Hebrews. The Old Testament has left us a spiritually disastrous legacy in its frequent depiction of God as taking sides in wars and issuing commands about preserving the physical "purity of race."
It was Paul who seems first to have understood that if there is only one God, He is equally the God of all races. He and Peter had a hard job of convincing many of the early Christians that this had to be so.

So, while the KJV is by far my favourite translation of the Bible, I do not believe that it nor any other version, including the originals, comes close to being the Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God.

[Pendragon]

Wiff: "It was Paul who seems first to have understood that if there is only one God, He is equally the God of all races. He and Peter had a hard job of convincing many of the early Christians that this had to be so."

And yet Peter and the other disciples had seen Jesus heal the woman of Canan's daughter, go out of his way for one man, Legion, and then get kicked out of the city, go out of his way to the woman at the well of Samaria, heal the Roman Centurian's servant, etc, and couldn't understand that God was for everyone. People miss what is right under their nose.

God bless

Pen

[Redzeppelin]

Pen.: "Which I think is a problem yet today, people want God to be of their race, when God is a Spirit. Our outside bodies are simply where we live. For we are formed in the image of God and are Spirit as well. When the Spirit leaves this body, it returns to the dust from whench it is made. The color on the outside doesn't matter. "

I totally agree - which, unfortunately, leaves me stuck in the "Biblical portrayal of God is bad" mode, that I have been in on other threads. Practically the whole of the Old Testament shows God as the tribal god of the Hebrews. The Old Testament has left us a spiritually disastrous legacy in its frequent depiction of God as taking sides in wars and issuing commands about preserving the physical "purity of race."
It was Paul who seems first to have understood that if there is only one God, He is equally the God of all races. He and Peter had a hard job of convincing many of the early Christians that this had to be so.

So, while the KJV is by far my favourite translation of the Bible, I do not believe that it nor any other version, including the originals, comes close to being the Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God.

Hi Whiff -

Since you and I don't always manage to navigate our conversations "successfully," I'm going to simply list some ideas that came to mind whilst reading this post:

1. God's reasoning is known only to Him: thus, for us to make a judgment on the moral correctness of any action of His presumes that we possess enough knowledge to pass a valid evaluation. Can we do so, only possessing a sliver of the "facts"?

2. The Biblical narrative is often like a history book - "just the facts, ma'am." What those types of narratives leave out is the thoughts, knowledge, and character of the primary actor (aka God). As such, we do not know the knowledge that God possessed about the tribes He sent Israel against - we assume (rather presumptuously) that the people's God had erradicated had an equal right to continue living. How can we make such a judgment when we are in command of only part of the facts?

3. If you are willing to accept the historical activities attributed to God, are you willing to accept the description of His character? That He is perfect in His goodness, mercy, love, compassion, kindness and justice? If these are true, then - logically - would not His choice to "take sides" or commission the end of a race be just (assuming that His justice IS perfect)?

4. Finally, is not the Creator of Life entitled to take it away for whatever reason He wills (a reason which would be - of course - consistent with His character - because God cannot act contrary to His character)?

Just some ideas.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin "Hi Whiff - Since you and I don't always manage to navigate our conversations "successfully," .."

Hi Red - We start from entirely different premises, but argue as if we started on common ground - it's not surprising that we are unsuccessful. Let's hope that between us we entertain or edify a few onlookers.

Redzeppelin: "The Biblical narrative is often like a history book - "just the facts, ma'am." What those types of narratives leave out is the thoughts, knowledge, and character of the primary actor (aka God). "

There's the basis of our difference. You argue as if you believed that the Old Testament history sections are primarily a history of how God acted through the Hebrews. I believe that those sections are primarily a history of the Hebrews written by themselves.

I see no reason to consent to their appropriation of God as their tribe's chief warrior.

I do not agree with their self-assessment as God's chosen instrument, especially since this belief of theirs serves mainly to justify their destruction of nations of peaceful pastoralists who just happened to occupy fertile land that that the Hebrews covet. Now, I have heard it argued that since the Hebrews ended up with the land, and the Midianites, Jebusites and Amalekites ended up dead, then clearly God was with the Hebrews. Frankly, I think that argument to be part of the spiritually disastrous legacy of the Old Testament - a fairly continuous thread (interrupted by some of the greater prophets) that good things go to those who deserve them, with the corollary that the poor, sick, disabled and disadvantaged are reaping the rewards of their own evil.

Redzeppelin "As CS Lewis wrote: "God cannot ravish, He can only woo." (Screwtape Letters) When God finally shows up, all will "believe" - but that will be too late, because that belief will be due to fear or awe, but not of love - because love cannot coerce or overpower - it can only gently call."

Redzeppelin: "As such, we do not know the knowledge that God possessed about the tribes He sent Israel against - we assume (rather presumptuously) that the peoples God had eradicated had an equal right to continue living. "

I guess it is a failure on my part, but I do not consider that destroying tribes root and branch can be counted as wooing, or gently calling - it seems a lot more like ravishing.

[Redzeppelin]

There's the basis of our difference. You argue as if you believed that the Old Testament history sections are primarily a history of how God acted through the Hebrews. I believe that those sections are primarily a history of the Hebrews written by themselves.

Perhaps, but the Bible claims differently. The Bible is the revelation of God's character as revealed through His relationship with His chosen people. It's not about Israel - it's about God.


I see no reason to consent to their appropriation of God as their tribe's chief warrior.

They didn't "appropriate" anything - God told Abraham that through him God would raise "His people." God established the nation of Israel, and established them as His people.


I do not agree with their self-assessment as God's chosen instrument, especially since this belief of theirs serves mainly to justify their destruction of nations of peaceful pastoralists who just happened to occupy fertile land that that the Hebrews covet.

It was not their choice to be God's people - it was His choice. When they acted of their own accord, they suffered accordingly; when they followed His leading, they were successful.



Now, I have heard it argued that since the Hebrews ended up with the land, and the Midianites, Jebusites and Amalekites ended up dead, then clearly God was with the Hebrews. Frankly, I think that argument to be part of the spiritually disastrous legacy of the Old Testament - a fairly continuous thread (interrupted by some of the greater prophets) that good things go to those who deserve them, with the corollary that the poor, sick, disabled and disadvantaged are reaping the rewards of their own evil.

But that's what the Bible says. We can't use examples of God's "misbehaviors" or "shortcomings" from a source but then continually invalidate other aspects of the source - i.e. the parts that make it clear that the Israeli victories in the OT were always due to God's intervention - not their own strength - that's the whole point of Jehrico - where the walls came down when Israel shouted (certainly a physical impossibility), or with Gideon, where his massive army was whittled down to a mere 300 soldiers - the point is that God made it abundantly clear that their victories were HIS, not theirs.


Redzeppelin "As CS Lewis wrote: "God cannot ravish, He can only woo." (Screwtape Letters) When God finally shows up, all will "believe" - but that will be too late, because that belief will be due to fear or awe, but not of love - because love cannot coerce or overpower - it can only gently call."

Redzeppelin: "As such, we do not know the knowledge that God possessed about the tribes He sent Israel against - we assume (rather presumptuously) that the peoples God had eradicated had an equal right to continue living. "

I guess it is a failure on my part, but I do not consider that destroying tribes root and branch can be counted as wooing, or gently calling - it seems a lot more like ravishing.

You make clear assumptions about the nature of the people who were destroyed. You assume that these other tribes were merely "peaceful pastoralists who just happened to occupy fertile land" - what is the basis of that assumption? It would be utterly illogical and contradictory for a God who claims to be just, merciful, kind, loving and good to destroy innocent people simply by nature of circumstances beyond their control - and that is the failure of most attacks against God: He does not consequence/punish people for what is beyond their control.

Why is it so hard to consider that perhaps the people that God eliminated were utterly depraved, wicked, and beyond redemption by very nature of their clear and insistent rejection of God - and that their only goal would have been to destroy Israel (because those who reject God tend to focus their hostilities on those who insist upon following God)?

You assume that God had not spent the 400 years Israel was in captivity in Egypt trying to "woo" the other Caananite tribes back to Him. I believe (since the NT says that God doesn't want any to perish) that He put all His efforts into bringing back the rebellious tribes - who refused and set themselves dead against Him and those who follow Him.

Imagine an atagonist who makes it clear that he will kill you unless you kill him - that there is no escape and he will never let you live in safety or peace. At that point, what are your options?

[Whifflingpin]

Whiff: "There's the basis of our difference. You argue as if you believed that the Old Testament history sections are primarily a history of how God acted through the Hebrews. I believe that those sections are primarily a history of the Hebrews written by themselves."

Redzeppelin: "Perhaps, but the Bible claims differently. The Bible is the revelation of God's character as revealed through His relationship with His chosen people. It's not about Israel - it's about God."

That is just a restatement of the belief that I attributed to you - a belief that you may hold, but which I certainly do not share. Your subsequent arguments depend on that belief, and are otherwise meaningless.

The only phrase that I will challenge is "We can't use examples of God's "misbehaviors" or "shortcomings" from a source..." Since I do not believe that the Old Testament is a description of God's behaviour, I have not ever suggested that God misbehaves or has shortcomings. My quarrel is with the all-too-human writers, not with God.

[Redzeppelin]

Whiff: "There's the basis of our difference. You argue as if you believed that the Old Testament history sections are primarily a history of how God acted through the Hebrews. I believe that those sections are primarily a history of the Hebrews written by themselves."

Redzeppelin: "Perhaps, but the Bible claims differently. The Bible is the revelation of God's character as revealed through His relationship with His chosen people. It's not about Israel - it's about God."

That is just a restatement of the belief that I attributed to you - a belief that you may hold, but which I certainly do not share. Your subsequent arguments depend on that belief, and are otherwise meaningless.

The only phrase that I will challenge is "We can't use examples of God's "misbehaviors" or "shortcomings" from a source..." Since I do not believe that the Old Testament is a description of God's behaviour, I have not ever suggested that God misbehaves or has shortcomings. My quarrel is with the all-too-human writers, not with God.

OK - I'll keep this short because we'll probably get caught in a loop. As I have said before, once we decide that the Bible is subject to human error, then its validity in term of who God is and the truths He has given us become nothing. Period. The only strength the book has is its Diving Authority. Once we allow human error to conatminate it, it becomes virtually worthless.

[Whifflingpin]

Redzeppelin: "OK - I'll keep this short because we'll probably get caught in a loop. As I have said before, once we decide that the Bible is subject to human error, then its validity in term of who God is and the truths He has given us become nothing. Period. The only strength the book has is its Divine Authority. Once we allow human error to contaminate it, it becomes virtually worthless."

I would agree with that if I thought that human effort was worthless.

I believe that...
As an "Authority" the Bible is worthless. As I have said before, there are no Authorities, you have to find and face God on your own.
Taken as an "Authority" it has proved pernicious, having been used to justify all manner of human evil in God's name.

As a history of the human quest for God, and as a guide, it is one of the great collections of thought and writing.

[Redzeppelin]

I would agree with that if I thought that human effort was worthless.

Human effort is not worthless; but claiming that the truth of the Bible is a product of human effort means that its truths are not transcendant - and that makes the book worthless only because it claims to be the revelation of God's character. Human beings are imperfect registers of reality - if the truth about the Divine comes from our own minds instead of Divine illumination, then we've merely magnified ourselves and called us divine.


I believe that...
As an "Authority" the Bible is worthless. As I have said before, there are no Authorities, you have to find and face God on your own.
Taken as an "Authority" it has proved pernicious, having been used to justify all manner of human evil in God's name.

As a history of the human quest for God, and as a guide, it is one of the great collections of thought and writing.

And, we've covered these tracks before. Sorry, once we invalidate the Bible, then God becomes whatever I'd like Him to be - as opposed to some clear-cut, objective statements as to the character of God (and everything hinges on the character of God. Everything).

[desopny]

You guys talk about going to the original manuscript to get the most accurate words. i agree with you on that. But the original originals don't exist anymore. Paper can't last that long to put it simply stated. The copies of the originals are there,yes, but not the true original manuscripts. And if you're looking at the manuscripts from anything but the textus receptus(received text), then it is wrong. If you can read the greek and hebrew language, that's fine but I can't read or write worth a lick of that stuff. That is why the KJV was translated. So that the common people could read it. The KJV is the only Bible that has stood the test of time throughout history, and yet all of the other Bibles are filled with contradictions.

I'll bite. It always seemed strange to me that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not killed" (Exodus 20, among other places), yet David killed ten thousand (1 Samuel 18 and other places). David is refered to by Samuel as a man after God's own heart ("But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee" - ! Samuel 13:14). This seems to contradict the Ten Commandments. But if the verse is translated "Thou shalt not commit (premeditated) murder", the difficulty disappears. ("Premeditated" is in parentheses because the Hebrew word translated kill refers to murder, and usually premeditated murder.) I will admit to not being a Bible scholar, but it seems to me that there is a better translation of the term. Don't get me wrong; I love the KJV for its poetry (Isiah 53 springs to mind), but it is a translation just like my NIV or my New Jerusalem Tanakh (Old Testament to those unfamilar with the Jewish scriptures). What do you think?

[El Viejo]

I prefer the King James Version for its beauty, but many don't speak english, and many others find its dated english difficult. I wonder how Catholics feel about the KJV, Does anyone know?

How I feel about the KJV has changed over time:

When I was a Catholic I had issues with the KJV because it left out essentials like Tobit and I & II Maccabees. I considered it outdated and abridged.

Later, as a Charismatic, and eventually an evangelical fundamentalist, I decided the Catholic version was embellished and tainted.

Today I agree with those who've voiced their preference for the KJV. Despite the issues relating to the evolution of our language, the KJV has a compelling richness that other versions lack. And I no longer worry about the 'missing' books.

[Whifflingpin]

"When I was a Catholic I had issues with the KJV because it left out essentials like Tobit and I & II Maccabees. I considered it outdated and abridged. "

Odd that, since the KJV actually includes the apocryphal books. It was later that they tended to be left out.

[El Viejo]

I'll bite. It always seemed strange to me that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not killed" (Exodus 20, among other places), yet David killed ten thousand (1 Samuel 18 and other places). David is refered to by Samuel as a man after God's own heart ("But now thy kingdom shall not continue: the LORD hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the LORD hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the LORD commanded thee" - ! Samuel 13:14). This seems to contradict the Ten Commandments. But if the verse is translated "Thou shalt not commit (premeditated) murder", the difficulty disappears. ("Premeditated" is in parentheses because the Hebrew word translated kill refers to murder, and usually premeditated murder.) I will admit to not being a Bible scholar, but it seems to me that there is a better translation of the term. Don't get me wrong; I love the KJV for its poetry (Isiah 53 springs to mind), but it is a translation just like my NIV or my New Jerusalem Tanakh (Old Testament to those unfamilar with the Jewish scriptures). What do you think?

Anyone who has tried to make a few simple household rules for their kids knows it's not that simple. Their unwilling-to-be-shackled little wills prompt them to look for exceptions to the rule, or for reasons to invalidate it.

So when God makes a household rule like 'Thou shalt not kill,' we speculate about the original text and its usual meaning, and hunt for exceptions to the rule.

God wants us to view Him as our Father, and ourselves as His children. Given that, I can't think of a scenario when I would be OK with one of my kids killing another of my kids.

Of course, inquisitive minds wonder next "but which children are God's children?"

[El Viejo]

"When I was a Catholic I had issues with the KJV because it left out essentials like Tobit and I & II Maccabees. I considered it outdated and abridged. "

Odd that, since the KJV actually includes the apocryphal books. It Mwas later that they tended to be left out.

Nothing odd about it. My copy, a 1972 edition, doesn't include them, and I've never seen a KJV that did. It appears that, except perhaps in special cases, the KJV hasn't included the apocrypha for over one hundred years. That could be why one has never crossed my path.

I had left Catholicism to find the truth. It seemed that only Catholic Bibles contained the apocrypha, so I concluded that they'd been inserted into the Bible by a misguided Holy See. The Christians I knew regarded the apocrypha as probably satanic, so I had no interest in finding out any more about them.

I'd left the One True Church, but I kept the One True Church mentality for a long time.

[desopny]

True enough (making general rules for children, I mean). I don't see a problem with extending the rule to not killing in general. My point was simply that there are errors in every translation, even the KJV. Sometimes tradition takes priority to scholarship. I tend to use what I call my 4-way - it has 4 different translations side by side so I can see how the verse is translated. Add to that my Tanakh, and I get a pretty good idea of the intent of the verse. And before anyone asks, no, I don't pick and choose my version, mostly because something like 95% of the different translations really say the same thing, just in slightly different language...

[Cezar_TheScribe]

I Believe There Is Only One, True, Inspired Word Of God And That Is The Kjv.

So, do I. ;)

[sonofaslan]

I agree with whomever said that the Scriptures in their original manuscripts are God's true Word. And all English translations are just that... translations.

Having said that, I admit that most of my Bible reading is in the KJV and Amplified.

I would like to ask a question to KJV-only people. What about archaic words? Let me give you an example. I was raised in a KJV-only church. Frequently, the church would justify their somewhat unusual antics by citing the verse that says, "My people are a peculiar people."

Now it wasn't until I started cross-referencing with the original wording that I learned that "peculiar" in this verse didn't necessarily mean "strange" or "unusual", but rather denoted ownership through a transaction. The modern equivalent would be "My people are a purchased people".

And yet, because of the uneducated nature of my childhood church demographic, coupled with their indignation at the mere thought of reading another English version, most have a completely skewed and inaccurate concept of that verse's meaning.

How is this to be resolved?

[Pendragon]

sonofaslan:

In cases like this, I tend to tell people what the original word actually meant. The translation was sometimes poor, and even if correct, the word may have changed meaning since 1611. I study other Bibles, although I preach from the KLV, and thus try to get a clearer picture of the Word. Some of the Bible's have changes I cannot agree with, but I try hard not to argue the Bible. I would rather be right in my spirit and wrong in my doctrine than the most learned theologian and have a wrong spirit towards my brothers.

God Bless

Pen

[Whifflingpin]

"How is this to be resolved?"

The main motivation for the KJV, as for any valid translation, was to provide the scriptures in, to quote the Book of Common Prayer, a "language understanded of the people."

When the translation becomes archaic, there are two choices: educate the people (as Pen does) or get a new translation. There comes a point where the translation is so archaic that educating the people ceases to be an option, and the translation passes into the domain of scholars and antiquarians.

The KJV is approaching the state where it is kept because of natural conservatism, and because no new translation has yet emerged that matches it for accuracy and readability.

Moreover, mere "understanding" was not the only consideration for the writers. They were trying to produce, and they succeeded, a work that was a kind of tribute in prose to God that matched, for instance, the tributes in stone offered by the great cathedrals. Probably no new translation ever could replace it for power, beauty or dignity, so maybe it will stay in use for as long as people can understand the language of Shakespeare.

[Cezar_TheScribe]

Probably no new translation ever could replace it for power, beauty or dignity, so maybe it will stay in use for as long as people can understand the language of Shakespeare.

Shakespeare read from the Geneva Bible, which is also a fine version. I like the KJV and Geneva. The Geneva uses even older English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

[Bethany_Argyros]

vleblaldlalkdfj sadfkadj fdak king james makes my head hurt. i use the same version i got in when i started confirmation training when i was like fourteen. its a catholic youth bible, but its ridiculously easy to read :blush:

[Poetess]

What is the Kjv?

[Cezar_TheScribe]

What is the Kjv?

av1611.com/kjbp

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

[Logos]

Fully searchable :)

The Holy Bible - King James Version

http://www.online-literature.com/bible/bible.php

--

[Poetess]

Thank you all.

[KJVO1611]

The KJV is very easy to understand, when taught how. Hence the reason for the local church. Now I'm not going to go into denominations because the rules say not to but if I were I would say that you all are not Baptist. Simply because all of you are ripping up the KJV. I am a independent, fundamental Baptist christian that believes that there is only one way to Heaven, and that is through Jesus Christ ONLY!!! Now I know for you liberals that go to churches that have no standards(rock music in church, ladies wear pants and also preach:eek2: ) this is probably redundant to you because I believe that a lot of churches that are not Baptist still give out some sort of salvation message. But a lot of you go to watered down churches that you only go to because you feel that your giving THE ALMIGHTY, ALL-POWERFUL GOD a favor because you packed yourself up and went to church!! But anyway, the Baptist are pretty much the only, I don't want to say religion because religion takes you straight to hell, church that preaches and teaches out of the KJV!!! So if you really want to learn about the REAL BIBLE,KJV, then go to a church that teaches and preaches out of it!!!

[KJVO1611]

You'll also notice that this site uses only the KJV for Bible searches. HMM, I wonder why that might be??? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE KJV IS THE HOLY, INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, PERFECT WORD OF GOD!!! There's a concept for you!!!

[Logos]

:goof: Hmmmmm, actually, maybe it's because I have not had time to add more religious texts to the site, but believe me my list is long and varied :D

[pbmn]

Everyone has their own view on the Bible or other religious text, but you cannot come out and say, "This book is the only book" and then be deaf to other's opinions. I don't know, something about the way you handle your opinion with other's, it just bothers me a little.

I personally like the New American Bible, it's what we use in school and Church, so that definitely has some affect on my opinion. However, I don't think it hurts to read other religious texts, I personally have read the KJV, and the New Jerusalem, as well the Torah and Qu'ran (Koran, Quran?) and a few others. I just think that one should keep an open mind to others.

Little side-note: Can you explain the creation of the KJV? When it was written and why? Also, what is so wrong with women wearing pants (I'm Catholic, so women priests aren't exactly common [more like nonexistent])? And rock music?!?! I think its a little weird, but its a way to bring younger adults to God and Christ! And again, how does RELIGION bring you to hell? Do you believe that if a person from another religion dies, that can only go to Hell? Sorry, but to me, that doesn't make any sense. What if a child in a country where, first of all, any religion other than your native one is unknown, and secondly, if you were to convert, you would die almost instantly, and that person died, they are going to Hell? I believe that choices bring you to heaven, not religions.

[Redzeppelin]

You'll also notice that this site uses only the KJV for Bible searches. HMM, I wonder why that might be??? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE KJV IS THE HOLY, INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, PERFECT WORD OF GOD!!! There's a concept for you!!!

Any scholar who has taken even an undergraduate level course on literature in translation knows that any translation does violence to meaning. Nothing can be translated with 100% accuracy - something is always lost in the process. If you wish to seriously gaze upon the true meanings of the Bible, learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; otherwise you are reading something that - while still the "Holy, Inspired, Infallible, Perfect Word of God" - is essentially a bit "watered down" and inexact in its meanings.

The Latin usage in the KJV, by the way, tends to not only obscure some texts, but actually confuse people because many of the words from King James' time period have shifted meanings, some to opposite meanings (like "cleave" for example).

I admire your tenacity, but the KJV is little more than a particulary beautiful sounding translation - it does not possess any higher degree of truth than any other accurate translation. Sorry.

[dzebra]

I don't agree that religion sends a person straight to hell. Religion is taking care of widows and orphans and keeping oneself unblemished by the world.

[Redzeppelin]

I don't agree that religion sends a person straight to hell. Religion is taking care of widows and orphans and keeping oneself unblemished by the world.

Right: nobody gets "sent" to hell: hell is choosen - in the end there will be those who said to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God will say "thy will be done."

[NikolaiI]

Any scholar who has taken even an undergraduate level course on literature in translation knows that any translation does violence to meaning. Nothing can be translated with 100% accuracy - something is always lost in the process. If you wish to seriously gaze upon the true meanings of the Bible, learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek; otherwise you are reading something that - while still the "Holy, Inspired, Infallible, Perfect Word of God" - is essentially a bit "watered down" and inexact in its meanings.

The Latin usage in the KJV, by the way, tends to not only obscure some texts, but actually confuse people because many of the words from King James' time period have shifted meanings, some to opposite meanings (like "cleave" for example).

I admire your tenacity, but the KJV is little more than a particulary beautiful sounding translation - it does not possess any higher degree of truth than any other accurate translation. Sorry.

(Removed.) Not important, just voiced an agreement.

[sonofaslan]

You'll also notice that this site uses only the KJV for Bible searches. HMM, I wonder why that might be??? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE KJV IS THE HOLY, INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, PERFECT WORD OF GOD!!! There's a concept for you!!!

Most versions are under copyright, and the King James Version is the probably the easiest English version to read in the public domain.

I love the KJV. But I am not brave enough to say it is the preserved Bible for all subsequent generations. The already misunderstood and misinterpreted nature of some of the more archaic words proves that. For years, I sat in a backwoods Baptist church, and listened to them justify unusual behavior with 1 Peter 2:9.

It wasn't until I glossed it against the Greek that I really began to understand what that passage meant.

[El Viejo]

You'll also notice that this site uses only the KJV for Bible searches. HMM, I wonder why that might be??? MAYBE BECAUSE THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE KJV IS THE HOLY, INSPIRED, INFALLIBLE, PERFECT WORD OF GOD!!! There's a concept for you!!!
I'm kind of new to the online forum environment, so when I see outrageous stuff I don't know if I'm catching a glimpse of America's illiterate underbelly (http://xkcd.com/202/), or if I'm seeing the work of a wag baiting naive newbies (like myself).

I've tried using The Force, but find it's of no help whatsoever.

[KJVO1611]

I don't know if this is going to blow you away or not but their is actually a verse in the Bible that forbids simplifying the Bible. It's in Revelation 22:18-19 say, " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

So that kind of shuts up any argument.

[KJVO1611]

Sorry, I said kind of. I meant it DID shut up any argument!!!

[kilted exile]

I don't know if this is going to blow you away or not but their is actually a verse in the Bible that forbids simplifying the Bible. It's in Revelation 22:18-19 say, " For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

So that kind of shuts up any argument.

Just one problem, what about the apocrypha that is in the catholic bible, but not the KJV. Surely if this verse is true, God should've smoted the writers of the KJV & they should all currently be in the "bad fire".


Sorry, I said kind of. I meant it DID shut up any argument!!!

Well, if it wasnt for the arrogance it might have....

[KJVO1611]

Just one problem, what about the apocrypha that is in the catholic bible, but not the KJV. Surely if this verse is true, God should've smoted the writers of the KJV & they should all currently be in the "bad fire".



Well, if it wasnt for the arrogance it might have....

The apocrypha was never really believed as the apart of the Bible. It was put in there for historical reference. And as for my "arrogance", your critical attitude stinks!:lol:

[Logos]

Closed because there seems to be a few people in this thread who have forgotten to read the Religious Texts Forum Rules:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

--