BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

[The_Watchers_2017]

That was just an introduction.
Here's a little more that might be of interest my friend.

still doesn't change the fact it matches the Vulgate that is 100% most Authentic Greek!

 

[John146]

1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

2 This same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

4 in it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Before the KJV

What's the point? That was before the "originals" too.

 

[John146]

The rule of hermeneutics and exegesis is to ascertain what the original author meant in his original language in it's original context and this is what GOD was speaking through him. Authorial Intent.

If any English translation does that it is a good translation. If any Spanish translation does that it is a good translation. If any German translation does that it is a good translation.

I don't know enough yet to make too many conclusions but as I learn I am leaning toward, NIV, CSB, ESV, and several others as all being improvements over the KJV but not necessarily for every verse. There are occasions when scholars I am reading will say that the KJV did a better job on a verse than the NIV. So it always depends on the verse in question as to which is the best translation, or did the best job of accomplishing the goal of authorial intent.

The KJV is not the original source manuscripts. Let's keep it sane. God did not inspire the KJV scholars to translate any more than other born again scholars who have worked on translations since the KJV.

Translation is a science that faces the same challenges that the KJV scholars faced and can be addressed in the same way that they did it, except with even more manuscripts available than what they had, and more knowledge about other documents from the same time period than what they had.

Inventing a doctrine that the KJV scholars were inspired to not make a mistake or something like that is fanatical ignorance. They made a mistake when they called lampstands in Rev Candlesticks as in wax candles which were popular at KJV time but not invented yet in Johns time. They were oil fed lamps and lampstands that John saw and all other English translations got that.

So there goes the theory that the KJV was more accurate. They blew it on wax candlesticks. NOT ACCURATE. NOT the Greek word used. NOT WHAT JOHN SAW, NOT WHAT JOHN MEANT TO COMMUNICATE. MISTAKE on KJV scholars part. I refuse to say that John saw candlesticks. No he didn't. He saw oil fed lamps and that matters. Accuracy matters to me. That is why I prefer some of the other more ACCURATE translations than the KJV.

And also if you are having to reword the text into modern English when quoting it to someone who is not familiar with KJV it is better to use a translation that is already using modern English like the CSB. Why? I hear people trying to change a KJV verse into modern English and they make mistakes. They ought to just use a modern translation that is known for being literal to the original language while using modern English like the CSB.

So, in your scholarly opinion, we do not have have the preserved words of God, for it is impossible. I've debunked that old candlestick argument many, many times and so have others on this thread.

 

[fredoheaven]

The King James is the only translation that uses the word Easter instead of Passover. It is a pagan holiday that celebrates fertility with the rolling of the eggs, orgies in the groves Etc and God wants no part of that but the church seams to want to embrace this unholy tradition

When you say "The King James is the only translation that uses the word Easter instead of Passover." I sense you have the wrong information. Tyndale Bible, Coverdale, The Great Bible, The Bishops Bible, Luther Bible have it. When you say" It is a pagan holiday that celebrates fertility with the rolling of the eggs, orgies in the groves Etc..." you are doing the same thing. When those translations I cited on the particular, they didn't ever think of what you are saying. Passover and Easter both carry the same thing in the Old Testament and have nothing to do with paganism. Both Passover and easter are interlinked with each other, yes Christ is the Passover lamb but after his sacrificial offer he rose again which speaks of the resurrection of Christ. So in the case of Acts 12:4, Christ has already been resurrected, a fulfillment of Christ as the Passover lamb. At least for your information if I may, it was Tyndale who invented the word English Passover and Easter and he thought nothing at all of paganism. God bless

 

[Pilgrimshope]

1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

2 This same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

4 in it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Before the KJV

found in the kjv

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-5‬ ‭

found after the kjv

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:1-5‬ ‭NIV‬‬

are there some different words ?

“And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.”


“The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.”

Yes but that’s the whole point of an alternate translation. Everyone can’t grasp terms in the kjv because it was current 400 years ago to English language

people born 40 years ago , don’t speak the same as tbey did then , so when they translate it to modern English some of the words change , it’s the message of Jesus Christ that Remains the same

“He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved,

but whoever does not believe will be condemned.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭NIV‬‬

“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved;

but he that believeth not shall be damned.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭16:15-16‬ ‭

the differing words don’t change the message of what God is communicating

“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He came unto his own, and his own received him not. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:9-14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:9-14‬ ‭NIV‬‬

is it stated differently using differing terms and phrasing’s ? Yes that’s the point we don’t have to learn antiquated language and speech pattern we have modern versions translated into our way of speaking from the same original Manuscripts in Greek Hebrew and in some cases Latin and Aramaic

If we read a Bible , we’re going to hear the message of Jesus Christ

 

[fredoheaven]

this is Comedy Central at its finest!

obviously, this guy is quite unaware that the Vulgate was the first Bible using the most authentic and original Greek for the New Testament and Volumes 1 thru 6 have NEVER INCLUDED the modern day 1 John 5:7-8 nor the rest of Mark 16.

even the online version of the Vulgate, written in 400 AD, the Vulgate is done in black ink and the verses for 1 John 5:7-8 - Mark 16:9-finish are highlighted in red ink to show the Modern Text has ADDED to the Word of God!

the guy in this video is priceless.

he's blaming a Codex but refuses to look at the very first Vulgate Bible and see they match up word for word. the Vulgate has the most Authentic Greek available in 380 AD and somehow the Codex S matches that and this guy calls it a fake

Hi, actually the first Latin referred to as the Old Latin vulgate is the Clementine Vulgate, the original Latin translation from very Greek and it matches KJB. What the guy, may have referred to is the Latin translation of Jerome which is definitely not in there or could you link me to the online version of Vulgate highlighted in red ink? Thanks

 

[fredoheaven]

The original edition of the King James translation also included the apocryphal books. If the KJV has some special
providential inspiration not found in any other translation, was it inspired only after The Apocrypha was removed?

The original Title Page of the KJV does not include Apocrypha and this means it should be removed which is rightly done, being removed.

 

[fredoheaven]

1 In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God.

2 This same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made.

4 in it was life, and that life was the light of men.
Before the KJV

The "Word of God" is without doubt refers to Christ. Where the "word of God" refers to the scripture. God bless

 

[Beckie]

The rule of hermeneutics and exegesis is to ascertain what the original author meant in his original language in it's original context and this is what GOD was speaking through him. Authorial Intent.

If any English translation does that it is a good translation. If any Spanish translation does that it is a good translation. If any German translation does that it is a good translation.

I don't know enough yet to make too many conclusions but as I learn I am leaning toward, NIV, CSB, ESV, and several others as all being improvements over the KJV but not necessarily for every verse. There are occasions when scholars I am reading will say that the KJV did a better job on a verse than the NIV. So it always depends on the verse in question as to which is the best translation, or did the best job of accomplishing the goal of authorial intent.

The KJV is not the original source manuscripts. Let's keep it sane. God did not inspire the KJV scholars to translate any more than other born again scholars who have worked on translations since the KJV.

Translation is a science that faces the same challenges that the KJV scholars faced and can be addressed in the same way that they did it, except with even more manuscripts available than what they had, and more knowledge about other documents from the same time period than what they had.

Inventing a doctrine that the KJV scholars were inspired to not make a mistake or something like that is fanatical ignorance. They made a mistake when they called lampstands in Rev Candlesticks as in wax candles which were popular at KJV time but not invented yet in Johns time. They were oil fed lamps and lampstands that John saw and all other English translations got that.

So there goes the theory that the KJV was more accurate. They blew it on wax candlesticks. NOT ACCURATE. NOT the Greek word used. NOT WHAT JOHN SAW, NOT WHAT JOHN MEANT TO COMMUNICATE. MISTAKE on KJV scholars part. I refuse to say that John saw candlesticks. No he didn't. He saw oil fed lamps and that matters. Accuracy matters to me. That is why I prefer some of the other more ACCURATE translations than the KJV.

And also if you are having to reword the text into modern English when quoting it to someone who is not familiar with KJV it is better to use a translation that is already using modern English like the CSB. Why? I hear people trying to change a KJV verse into modern English and they make mistakes. They ought to just use a modern translation that is known for being literal to the original language while using modern English like the CSB.

Yup ! But one some one quotes John 3:16 and it aint JV i bugs me.

 

[Dino246]

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.

We have discussed this passage at length. I’m surprised that you try to use it to defend your statement. You still don’t know what that verse says.

 

[Beckie]

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.

Do you believe every word in the KJB are God's Holy Words

 

[Amanuensis]

Yup ! But one some one quotes John 3:16 and it aint JV i bugs me.

When you tell it to someone do you say "believeth?"

 

[fredoheaven]

Inventing a doctrine that the KJV scholars were inspired to not make a mistake or something like that is fanatical ignorance. .

Any real KJVO would certainly agree with you with that statement above. KJV scholars were not inspired!

 

[Amanuensis]

So, in your scholarly opinion, we do not have have the preserved words of God, for it is impossible. I've debunked that old candlestick argument many, many times and so have others on this thread.

We have the inspired words of God in the copies in the original languages. Translating into English is just one of the many languages one can translate them into. Then KJV is just one of many attempts to translate to English.

 

[Amanuensis]

still doesn't change the fact it matches the Vulgate that is 100% most Authentic Greek!

Vulgate was Latin.

 

[Dino246]

“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭24:14‬ ‭KJV‬‬

“And the gospel must first be published among all nations.”
‭‭Mark‬ ‭13:10‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Gods plan is to speak his word to all nations this requires it to be spoken on every language , translated into every language

several translations are part of Gods plan to reach everyone regardless of what language they speak , regardless of their level of education and ability to understand complex translations with complex words they don’t use or understand well

there are versions with simpler words but they say the same things to the reader who understands the simpler words

there are versions in many languages and varying degrees of complexity of the terms used to translate the message into English

if God determined the gospel would be preached to everyone of all nations , then he’s said he would preserve his word until the end as tbat first quote there

“Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28:19-20‬ ‭KJV‬‬


the Hebrew Aramaic and Greek are just the starting point , the latter translations are also a required part of the plan to reach people with Gods word no matter what thier language or education is


Gods word is still the same as always since he spoke his words we still can hear them in the gospel even today we know what Jesus said nearly 2000 years ago someone in Israel knows and can know someone in Australia knows and can know , ASIa France Europe Germany South Africa Africa anywhere and however you speak me where near you is a Bible or someone who’s preaching the message from the Bible in your own language

in order for all man to hear the gospel God has caused it to be spoken to then in ways they can hear and grasp it and be saved

Thanks. John146's argument relates to specific words, not the message in general.

 

[Beckie]

When you tell it to someone do you say "believeth?"

YUP My thoughts on KJ are emotional so they likely will not make sense to most guys. After saying it that way for about 70 years it kinda sticks . A few are like that to me. For thou art with me.

I am not a KJO person .

 

[Amanuensis]

The problem comes from using corrupt manuscripts. They’re not all playing with the same toys.

I am reading about 10 commentaries as I study Luke and Acts. From the many explanations from all these different scholars on why a certain text should be translated a certain way in English I learn things. So far I have learned that the CSB seems to often be more in line with what they are saying than the KJV. The NIV also but the CSB seems to have that more literal wording that the KJVO people say they want. the CSB seems to be doing a better job of that than the KJV did.

But these scholars behind the NIV, CSB, ESV are not refusing to use the best manuscripts or resources. There is no conspiracy.

They aren't stupid.

 

[Amanuensis]

YUP My thoughts on KJ are emotional so they likely will not make sense to most guys. After saying it that way for about 70 years it kinda sticks . A few are like that to me. For thou art with me.

I am not a KJO person .

I agreeth with you.

 

[Nehemiah6]

But these scholars behind the NIV, CSB, ESV are not refusing to use the best manuscripts or resources. There is no conspiracy.

If there was no conspiracy, why would these people attack and denigrate the KJV in order to exalt their corrupt translations?

All they had to do is say "Although there is absolutely nothing wrong with the King James Bible, we wish to introduce a modern translation based on corrupt ancient manuscripts, so that you can compare the differences". That would be the honest truth, and hardly anyone would bother with these new bibles.