A brother from Nairobi, Kenya shares his conviction about the Bible Version Issue

[danschance]

ChosenbyHim,

I do not read long texts as life is too short. If you want me to answer you, make it short and sweet. Honestly the shorter the better. One point is all I will discuss.

 

[Agricola]

Typical cult behaviour again, beat people into submission from endless repetition produced in thousands of words and failing to actually discuss.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as "Final Authority Bible" never has been never will be.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Typical cult behaviour again, beat people into submission from endless repetition produced in thousands of words and failing to actually discuss.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as "Final Authority Bible" never has been never will be.

No Agricola, what I am doing is discussing this issue sir. That's why I am giving you facts. Not just some opinion that I have.

And no, the bottom line is, there is a perfect and inerrant Bible. And it is the King James Authorized Bible. You have not proven otherwise Agricola. And by the way, I know I mentioned this before. But this also bears repeating:

Nearly Every apparent contradiction that has been brought up on the King James Holy Bible has all been answered.


The Acts 4:12 argument has been answered, the 1 John 5:7 with the Johannine Comma has been answered. So has Acts 13:20 and a lot of others.

The Bible says that:


5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. - Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)


Did you get that Agricola? The Bible says EVERY WORD OF GOD IS PURE.


So it is not me that you have a problem with. It is what the Bible says that you have a problem.


So if you want to continue to go on in your unbelief of a perfect and an inerrant Bible, then that is your poor choice. But don't ever make the lame argument, that you were not given any information on this issue.

 

[Agricola]

Typical cult behaviour again, beat people into submission from endless repetition produced in thousands of words and failing to actually discuss.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as "Final Authority Bible" never has been never will be.

 

[Praus]

And no, the bottom line is, there is a perfect and inerrant Bible. And it is the King James Authorized Bible.

The Bible says that:
5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. - Proverbs 30:5 (KJV)

So it is not me that you have a problem with. It is what the Bible says that you have a problem.

So if you want to continue to go on in your unbelief of a perfect and an inerrant Bible, then that is your poor choice. But don't ever make the lame argument, that you were not given any information on this issue.

The 1599 Geneva Bible

Prov 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield to those that trust in him. (GNV)

Psalm 19:8 The statutes of the Lord are right, and rejoice the heart, the commandment of the Lord is pure, and giveth light unto the eyes. (GNV)

Geneva Bible - The Bible that Changed the World

Recognizing that the Geneva Bible and its notes were undermining the authority of the monarchy, King James I of England commissioned the "Authorized Version," commonly known as the King James Bible, as its replacement. The King James Version did not include any of the inflammatory footnotes, of course, but it also altered key translations to make them seem more favorable to episcopal and monarchial forms of government.

But the people were not fooled.

The Pilgrims and Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible over the King James Bible, not trusting the king's purported good faith. The Geneva Bible was brought over on the Mayflower, and it is not an exaggeration to say that the Geneva translation and footnotes were the biblical foundation for the American Republic.



Mayflower Compact, November 11, 1620

In ye name of God Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by ye Grace of God, of great Britaine, Franc, & Yreland, King, defender of ye Faith, &c.

Haveing undertaken, for ye Glorie of God, and advancements of ye Christian faith, and the honour of our King & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northern parts of Virginia; Doe by these presents, solemnly & mutualy, in ye presence of God, and one of another; covenant & combine ourselves together into a Civill body politick; for our better ordering, & preservation & furtherance of ye ends aforesaid; and by vertue hereof to enact, constitute, and frame, such just & equal Lawes, ordinances, Acts, constitutions, & offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meete and convenient for ye generall good of ye Colonie; unto which we promise all due submission and obedience.

In witnes wherof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cap-Codd ye 11 of November, in ye year of ye raigne of our soveraigne Lord King James, of England, France, & Yreland, ye eighteenth, and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth, Ano: Dom. 1620.

Signed:
John Carver / Edward Tilly / Digery Priest
William Bradford / John Tilly / Thomas Williams
Edward Winslow / Francis Cooke / Gilbert Winslow
William Brewster / Thomas Rogers / Edmund Margeson
Isaac Allerton / Thomas Tinker / Peter Brown
Miles Standish / John Rigdale / Richard Bitteridge
John Alden / Edward Fuller / George Soule
Samuel Fuller / John Turner / Richard Clark
Christopher Martin / Francis Eaton / Richard Gardiner
William Mullins / James Chilton / John Allerton
William White / John Craxton / Thomas English
Richard Warren / John Billington / Edward Doten
John Howland / Moses Fletcher / Edward Leister
Stephen Hopkins / John Goodman

 

[Deadtosin]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Geneva Version was rejected by King James, who believed it to be corrupt and deficient, and therefore entertained the suggestion that a new translation of the Bible should be made. The King James Bible is similar to the Geneva Version in many respects, which shows how much the translators really did esteem it; nevertheless, there are some differences which must be brought to general attention. [/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]1. The text of the Geneva, while close to the King James Bible, shows some variations in selection from Textus Receptus material.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]2. The translation of the Geneva, while close to King James Bible, shows some differences in rendering of ideas.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]3. That unlike the King James Bible, the helps, marginal material and other matters were biased toward a particular interpretation, because it was accomplished in the predominantly Calvinist republic of Geneva.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]This is not to say that the Geneva Version was badly done, or unusable; merely, that revision was necessary, as the King James Bible translators themselves admitted. In 1911, Hoare, author of "Our English Bible", wrote, "England might have remained up to this day distracted by the conflicting claims of rival versions of the Scripture, and we might even now be calling out, in the spirit of the Corinthian converts of St Paul, `I am of Tyndale,' `I am of Coverdale,' `I am of Geneva.'"[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]But the moderate Puritans saw the value of the King James Bible, and though some support persisted for the Geneva Version (e.g. by certain English Presbyterians), the decade of the 1650s saw the death of the Geneva Version, under the very rule of the Puritans. The Cambridge Printers in 1656, for example, were printing the King James Bible by the conferred privilege of Oliver Cromwell.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Those modern detractors make out as if the Puritans were altogether about to dethrone the King James Bible, and reinstate the Geneva, when in fact we find that the Puritans made deliberate decisions (in the Providence of God) to uphold the King James Bible.

Authorized Version Defence King James Bible Versus Geneva Bible

[/FONT]

 

[danschance]

The Geneva Bible is very similar to the king James but tends to be a bit more direct, slightly less wordy. I think it is better than the King James.

I wonder why cults prefer the KJV?

 

[Deadtosin]

-as a needle in a haystack "seek and you shall find"

ears

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Typical cult behaviour again, beat people into submission from endless repetition produced in thousands of words and failing to actually discuss.

Bottom line is there is no such thing as "Final Authority Bible" never has been never will be.

It has been discussed sir. You just don't want to accept the facts and the evidence which has been presented to you time and time again. You are without excuse sir.

Again, the real bottom line is that there is a Perfect and Absolute Standard of Written Truth. And that is the King James Holy Bible.

 

[Praus]

It has been discussed sir. You just don't want to accept the facts and the evidence which has been presented to you time and time again. You are without excuse sir.

Again, the real bottom line is that there is a Perfect and Absolute Standard of Written Truth. And that is the King James Holy Bible.

The KJV translators still disagree with you:

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (1769 spelling)
No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men--that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility--had not their hand?

 

[danschance]

Again, the real bottom line is that there is a Perfect and Absolute Standard of Written Truth. And that is the King James Holy Bible.

How can the KJV be perfect when it contains errors?

For one, Iakobus (Jacob) is not even close to James. Jacob is of Hebrew origin and James is of English origin. Now all bibles us James, which is in error.

Lucifer is another error of the KJV. Lucifer is a old Latin word for the planet Venus. Now we have people thinking satan's real name is Lucifer which is complete error which has it's roots in the KJV?

I cam list so many more errors but lets go with these two.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

Try this link. If you need more let me know.

LINK: "Why Did the Book of Jacob Get Changed to the Book of James?" - Probe Ministries

Well I actually read that article just recently, as someone else had brought up this Jacob/James issue.

Now first of all Danschance, the first thing you need to ask yourself when someone comes up with an objection, and an attack against the word of God, is this: what conclusion are they looking to get me to?


That is very important.


Do you know that the arguments that the Alexandrians bring up against the Bible are the same attacks that an atheist would use? Or a Muslim?


And do you know what they are trying to do? They are trying to get you to deny the Bible. They want you to deny Absolute Final Authority.


So just consider that the next time you hear an attack made against the King James Bible, which is the preserved, and inerrant word of God.


Now in regard to Jacob/James issue which you brought up earlier.


I actually answered this issue already.


This issue can be resolved rather quickly if you really think about it.


Simply ask yourself the four following questions:


1) Did the Lord Jesus Christ have an apostle by the name of Jacob?


2) Is there an apostle anywhere in the New Testament of the Scriptures named Jacob?


3) Who wrote the book of James?


Now the fourth question ties in with the third.


4) Who does the author identify himself as in the very first verse of the book of James?


Now as you answer these questions Danschance, keep in mind that the Scriptures are the Final Authority for all matters of faith and practice.


And that should help in resolving this issue.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

ChosenbyHim,

I do not read long texts as life is too short. If you want me to answer you, make it short and sweet. Honestly the shorter the better. One point is all I will discuss.

Well Danschance, I answered each of your questions. And if you really want those answers, well then you will take the time to read them. It is that simple. You want the truth, well then you need to study sir. This is not fast food Christianity.

I gave you a link to documented evidence showing why the modern versions are from the Vatican. And I even posted a video segment on the Vaticanus manuscript. Which is just more proof of the corruption that is contained in the modern versions.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

How can the KJV be perfect when it contains errors?

Danschance, the King James Holy Bible does not contain any errors.

For one, Iakobus (Jacob) is not even close to James. Jacob is of Hebrew origin and James is of English origin. Now all bibles us James, which is in error.

Danschance, I already answered this one. But let me also put in another point:

Wasn't the New Testament written in Koine Greek?

There are not any Hebrew manuscripts for the New Testament, now are there?

Lucifer is another error of the KJV. Lucifer is a old Latin word for the planet Venus. Now we have people thinking satan's real name is Lucifer which is complete error which has it's roots in the KJV?

I also answered this one already. I gave you two links to two articles showing why Lucifer is the correct translation and rendering in Isaiah 14:12.


Here are the two links again:


Should the Bible say �Lucifer� or �morning star� in Isaiah 14:12? And does it refer to Satan?



Lucifer or Morning Star? - Another King James Bible Believer

I cam list so many more errors but lets go with these two.

Danschance, a lot of the "alleged" errors that are said to be in the King James Bible have nearly all been answered already.

 

[danschance]

Danschance, the King James Holy Bible does not contain any errors.






Danschance, I already answered this one. But let me also put in another point:

Wasn't the New Testament written in Koine Greek?

There are not any Hebrew manuscripts for the New Testament, now are there?







I also answered this one already. I gave you two links to two articles showing why Lucifer is the correct translation and rendering in Isaiah 14:12.


Here are the two links again:


Should the Bible say �Lucifer� or �morning star� in Isaiah 14:12? And does it refer to Satan?



Lucifer or Morning Star? - Another King James Bible Believer





Danschance, a lot of the "alleged" errors that are said to be in the King James Bible have nearly all been answered already.

All you have done is swept it all under the rug and declared it to be not a problem. Your logic is stuck in kindergarten and let me prove that:

You calim the New Testament is not in hebrew but greek. How does that answer the problem of a latin name? Many of the names in the new testament are of hebrew origin. Not one comes from the latin. If you really understood what I said instead of just vomiting out excuses, you would see there is all kinds of errors in the king James.

You make broad brush statements and slopy conclusions and wonder why others don't get it.

 

[Praus]

Now first of all Danschance, the first thing you need to ask yourself when someone comes up with an objection, and an attack against the word of God, is this: what conclusion are they looking to get me to?

That is very important.

When the Holy Spirit is in you it neither important nor meaningful.

Do you know that the arguments that the Alexandrians bring up against the Bible are the same attacks that an atheist would use? Or a Muslim?

Formal debate has been going on in Greece since the time of Socrates and before--more than 1000 years before Muhammed was born. Aristotle wrote some very good guidelines for fair and proper debating.

And do you know what they are trying to do? They are trying to get you to deny the Bible. They want you to deny Absolute Final Authority.

So just consider that the next time you hear an attack made against the King James Bible, which is the preserved, and inerrant word of God.

ChosenByHim, we want you to seek Jesus Christ always, if that means you have to study from the King James that's fine, the rest of Christian Chat might not agree.

Now in regard to Jacob/James issue which you brought up earlier.

I actually answered this issue already.

This issue can be resolved rather quickly if you really think about it.

Simply ask yourself the four following questions:
1) Did the Lord Jesus Christ have an apostle by the name of Jacob?
2) Is there an apostle anywhere in the New Testament of the Scriptures named Jacob?
3) Who wrote the book of James?

Now the fourth question ties in with the third.
4) Who does the author identify himself as in the very first verse of the book of James?

Now as you answer these questions Danschance, keep in mind that the Scriptures are the Final Authority for all matters of faith and practice.

And that should help in resolving this issue.

The author of the book of James is Jacob or Jacobus or Jacobos from the Hebrew Yaˁaqob.

Let's look at James 1:1

KJV Pure Cambridge Edition
¶ James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

KJV 1611
¶ Iames a seruant of God, and of the Lord Iesus Christ, to the twelue Tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting.

Reina-Valera Antigua (Spanish)
JACOBO, siervo de Dios y del Señor Jesucristo, á las doce tribus que están esparcidas, salud.

Luther Bibel (German)
Jakobus, ein Knecht Gottes und des HERRN Jesu Christi, den zwölf Geschlechtern, die da sind hin und her, Freude zuvor!

Clementine Vulgate (Latin)
Jacobus, Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi servus, duodecim tribubus, quae sunt in dispersione, salutem.

1894 Scrivener NT - Textus Receptus (Koine Greek)
ιακωβος θεου και κυριου ιησου χριστου δουλος ταις δωδεκα φυλαις ταις εν τη διασπορα χαιρειν

So...

ιακωβος (Strong's G2385) is tranliterated to Iakōbos according to Bue Letter Bible -> Greek Lexicon :: G2385 (KJV)
... and the same link describes Strongs's G2385 as "The same as Ἰακώβ (G2384) Graecised"

So Strongs's G2384 is Ἰακώβ, transliterated to Iakōb -> Greek Lexicon :: G2384 (KJV)
... which also says Strongs's G2384 is "Of Hebrew origin יַעֲקֹב (H3290)": יַעֲקֹב (Yaˁaqob) -> Hebrew Lexicon :: H3290 (KJV)

The Name ιησου in James 1:1 is translitered to Iēsous -> Greek Lexicon :: G2424 (KJV)
... which is a good match for Iesus in the KJV 1611 and for Jesu in the Spanish, German and Latin.

The James/Jacob/Yaˁaqob issue is not an issue with the Textus Receptus, as you can assume from the Reina-Valera and the Luther Bibel.

In the KJV introduction, James and Jacob are different names, and the translators refer to one St James who is not King James. So the KJV translators knew the difference between those names.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. (KJV 1769)
While God would be known only in Jacob, and have his name great in Israel, and in none other place; ...

"Stand up higher; have a place in the Bible always," and to others of like quality, "Get ye hence; be banished forever," we might be taxed peradventure with St. James his words, namely, "To be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts."

 

[ChosenbyHim]

When the Holy Spirit is in you it neither important nor meaningful.

It is VERY important and VERY meaningful Praus. If a person has the Holy Spirit in them, then that person will have a reverence and a high regard for the Holy Scriptures.

And do not try to convince me otherwise sir, Because it is not going to work.

 

[ChosenbyHim]

All you have done is swept it all under the rug and declared it to be not a problem. Your logic is stuck in kindergarten and let me prove that:

No, I have simply given you several questions to answer for yourself and by the correct answers to each question, it should resolve that issue.

You calim the New Testament is not in hebrew but greek. How does that answer the problem of a latin name? Many of the names in the new testament are of hebrew origin. Not one comes from the latin. If you really understood what I said instead of just vomiting out excuses, you would see there is all kinds of errors in the king James.

Wrong Danschance. There are no errors at all in the King James Bible. I have only heard of this Jacob/James Issue very recently. I wonder who was the originator of this attack and allegation.

You make broad brush statements and slopy conclusions and wonder why others don't get it.

Let me ask you something, do you believe everything you hear Danschance? I hope you at least study and look up the information yourself. A lot of these attacks that are made against the King James Bible are just silly. What is really unfortunate though is that many Christians have fallen for these attacks made on the word of God and have given up their faith in God's word as the Absolute Final Authority.

 

[Praus]

I have only heard of this Jacob/James Issue very recently. I wonder who was the originator of this attack and allegation.

You have only heard of it very recently?

The Jacob/James issue dates back several hundred years and you have only heard of it very recently?

ChosenByHim, have you actually ever read the book of James, in KJV or any other translation?

James 3:1 My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation.

That's a warning from God that you will receive greater condemnation from God for teaching about things you don't understand.

It doesn't matter who originated it--I can answer it easily because I love the King James Bible and you cannot because KJV-only is a false teaching.

 

[danschance]

Wrong Danschance. There are no errors at all in the King James Bible. I have only heard of this Jacob/James Issue very recently. I wonder who was the originator of this attack and allegation.

So if you hear it recently then it does not exist? How absurd.

Iakobus (Jakobus) is the Greek word for Jacob-not James. Any fool can see that. Stop dancing around the obvious and admit it to be a mistranslated.


Same with Lucifer.

1) Lucifer only exists in the KJV and the odd spin off from the KJV.
2) Lucifer came from Jerome's Latin Vulgate to mean Venus, the morning star. (Isa. 14:12)
3) Lucifer was inserted corruptly into the KJV to make that passage be about a fallen angel, but the passage is literally about a king---NOT LUCIFER!

You do this ridiculous hand waving to make a problem go away. So in your mind the KJV remains perfect--but it is not.

If the King James is perfect, what did people use before 1611?