KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[trofimus]

That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about being pointless... if that's what you think I'm saying then you are not understanding any thing I'm writing.

Thats probable. When you come with something different than what the Church believes for 2000 years, of course there is a high risk it will take much time and explanations to be understood properly...

 

[KJV1611]

Thats probable. When you come with something different than what the Church believes for 2000 years, of course there is a high risk it will take much time and explanations to be understood properly...

In a nutshell here's what I believe.
Jesus Christ is eternal, he had no origin and he did not come out of the father.
"This day have I begotten thee" in the Psalms and in the new testament is referring to the physical earthly body that God made for him.

 

[trofimus]

In a nutshell here's what I believe.
Jesus Christ is eternal, he had no origin and he did not come out of the father.
"This day have I begotten thee" in the Psalms and in the new testament is referring to the physical earthly body that God made for him.

I understand that.

But it would need to change reading of some verses as I demonstrated in for example J 3:16. The order of events.

Do you believe that Christ was always Logos/Word?

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Trof my friend it's pointless for me to continue on this subject. I don't have any more comments related to this... I will return when the topic changes.

Awe! I thought it was just getting interesting. This is a better type of conversation than a one verses another debate.

 

[trofimus]

Awe! I thought it was just getting interesting. This is a better type of conversation than a one verses another debate.

Yes.. and now we have to return to boring "my bible is perfect and your one is corrupted"...

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Look, Here is a different subject but completely on topic. I posted this on t'other KJ thread but nobody noticed in the midst of argument. It's only 2:26 mins long. It isn't a joke. It's a reading from the Holy KJV in the original pronunciation. (the way the language would have sounded back in the day). It should be offensive to anyone. (even Joseppi) It isn't meant to be a ridicule or mockery.

[video=youtube;L1qc4rugwE8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1qc4rugwE8[/video]​

 

[trofimus]

Look, Here is a different subject but completely on topic. I posted this on t'other KJ thread but nobody noticed in the midst of argument. It's only 2:26 mins long. It isn't a joke. It's a reading from the Holy KJV in the original pronunciation. (the way the language would have sounded back in the day). It should be offensive to anyone. (even Joseppi) It isn't meant to be a ridicule or mockery.

Sounds like Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings

 

[John146]

Look, Here is a different subject but completely on topic. I posted this on t'other KJ thread but nobody noticed in the midst of argument. It's only 2:26 mins long. It isn't a joke. It's a reading from the Holy KJV in the original pronunciation. (the way the language would have sounded back in the day). It should be offensive to anyone. (even Joseppi) It isn't meant to be a ridicule or mockery.

Sounds ok to me, I guess because I've read it so many times though.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Sounds like Gandalf from the Lord of the Rings

Satan. You shall not pass.

 

[John146]

I understand that.

But it would need to change reading of some verses as I demonstrated in for example J 3:16. The order of events.

Do you believe that Christ was always Logos/Word?

Could you elaborate further what you mean? Thanks.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

It should be offensive to anyone.

That should read SHOULD NOT be offensive. Duh!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Sounds ok to me, I guess because I've read it so many times though.

I think the KJB is at it's best when read aloud. It lends itself very well to public oration.

 

[trofimus]

Could you elaborate further what you mean? Thanks.

J 1:1

"Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly,
a Son proceeds from his Father. "


https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-eternal-sonship-of-christ

 

[Dino246]

I think the KJB is at it's best when read aloud. It lends itself very well to public oration.

Aye Lass, boot then sum'll be theenkin thut it's e'en moor hooly thun it eez, an' e'en less'll be oonderstandin' eet!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Aye Lass, boot then sum'll be theenkin thut it's e'en moor hooly thun it eez, an' e'en less'll be oonderstandin' eet!

 

[Lighthearted]

Aye Lass, boot then sum'll be theenkin thut it's e'en moor hooly thun it eez, an' e'en less'll be oonderstandin' eet!

nice Dino....makes me warm and fuzzy

 

[MarcR]

So we are supposed to ignore the fact that it's a quotaion of the Psalms where the Hebrew word meaning has nothiing to do with uniqueness or one of a kindness? Should we ignore the context, which without doubt is talking about the birth of the physical body of Chrst... should we ignore those things and accept the deductions of a Lexicographer?

Not at all. You are quite right, the translators should have followed the Hebrew. My response was simply an answer to your question regarding your getting the first century definition. That is easily done by someone who reads Greek and virtually impossible for someone who doesn't. This is only because there were no first century Greek/English lexicons. There was no desire on my part to be insulting.

 

[MarcR]

So we are supposed to ignore the fact that it's a quotaion of the Psalms where the Hebrew word meaning has nothiing to do with uniqueness or one of a kindness? Should we ignore the context, which without doubt is talking about the birth of the physical body of Chrst... should we ignore those things and accept the deductions of a Lexicographer?

Two things here:

1) I took your statement thar Jas 1:18 was a quotation of a psalm at face value and went to look at the Hebrew.

I cant find that wording in any of the psalms.

2) Monogenes is NOT used in Jas 1:18. the word translated begat is apokooehoh meaning to breed or to produce sexually though the word has been used figuratively.

 

[KJV1611]

Not at all. You are quite right, the translators should have followed the Hebrew. My response was simply an answer to your question regarding your getting the first century definition. That is easily done by someone who reads Greek and virtually impossible for someone who doesn't. This is only because there were no first century Greek/English lexicons. There was no desire on my part to be insulting.

I didn't think you were being insulting at all. I was just pointing out that it doesn't matter what a lexicographer's definition of the word is, the context gives the meaning of the word. Not to mention the fact that that verse is quoting Psalm 2:7 and there is no ambiguity in the Hebrew definition. My point is the lexicographer COULD be wrong in his definition.

Psalm 2:7 King James Version (KJV)

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

 

[KJV1611]

Two things here:

1) I took your statement thar Jas 1:18 was a quotation of a psalm at face value and went to look at the Hebrew.

I cant find that wording in any of the psalms.

2) Monogenes is NOT used in Jas 1:18. the word translated begat is apokooehoh meaning to breed or to produce sexually though the word has been used figuratively.

I never referenced James at all. These are the verses I was taking about.

Acts 13:33 King James Version (KJV)

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.


Hebrews 1:5 King James Version (KJV)

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?