Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
I wonder if there were any groups around during the old times that didn't really like the way the bible was written and did a little bit of editing to make it fit their theology. You know kind of like the GENDER NEUTRAL NIV. They didn't like all the patriarchal language so they went in and fixed for God. Do you think any of those fragments contain stuff like that?

What if there was nuclear war that destroyed society and people 2000 years in the future dug up a few thousand 20th century bibles, could they put those fragments together and come up with say an accurate rendering of the NIV or KJV or NASB? I mean if it's fragments, how would they know whether it came from an NIV, KJV or Queen James bible. Let's also say that the English language died out about 1800 years previous to their discoveries.

Kinda silly isn't it.
Both of your scenarios are ‘what-if’ speculations... and unworthy of serious consideration.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Break down my reconciliation and point out where I'm wrong?
I didn’t say ‘wrong’. I said ‘inadequate’.

You have carefully avoided the fact that the text gives two different AGES for Ahaziah at one specific point in his life. The text doesn’t give the number of years since some event happened.

I’m ‘X’ years old. I’m not ‘X’ + ‘Z’ years old since some other event. Such would be a ridiculous way of describing my age... nobody does this and there is no example in Scripture.

So, although your explanation may account for the number of years, it doesn’t account for the plain contradiction in the text!

The root of the problem though is that you think your explanation is adequate to justify the discrepancy in the KJV, but you summarily reject much simpler explanations of comparable issues in other translations and instead call them ‘lies’.

If you subjected the KJV to the same standard, you would say it is lying. You won’t because you hold to a double standard. Therefore both your criticism of other translations and your defence of the KJV on this matter are worthy of ridicule.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
What good does the original languages do if we do not have the "original" writings? Zero. By the way, how many languages are used in the "originals?" Good question since we do not have them. The world may never know.
Fallacy: red herring.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
What good does the original languages do if we do not have the "original" writings? Zero. By the way, how many languages are used in the "originals?" Good question since we do not have them. The world may never know.
The original languages are Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew. The New Testament is written in koine Judeo Greek. When Jews use a language they modify it bringing in Hebrew concepts. Greek was a bad fit for this. Paul and James each used a different method so some try to make it seem they are in disagreement when they are not. Most understand that that is not the case.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
What good does the original languages do if we do not have the "original" writings? Zero. By the way, how many languages are used in the "originals?" Good question since we do not have them. The world may never know.
We have thousands of manuscripts and manuscript fragments. A fragment can be a small piece or a manuscript with a small piece missing and anything in between. They come down to us from several paths. There are discrepancies of everything from spelling errors to some having small additional text. The former is easy to fix but the second isn't. Most reject the additional text but it is controversial.
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
I wonder if there were any groups around during the old times that didn't really like the way the bible was written and did a little bit of editing to make it fit their theology. You know kind of like the GENDER NEUTRAL NIV. They didn't like all the patriarchal language so they went in and fixed for God. Do you think any of those fragments contain stuff like that?

What if there was nuclear war that destroyed society and people 2000 years in the future dug up a few thousand 20th century bibles, could they put those fragments together and come up with say an accurate rendering of the NIV or KJV or NASB? I mean if it's fragments, how would they know whether it came from an NIV, KJV or Queen James bible. Let's also say that the English language died out about 1800 years previous to their discoveries.

Kinda silly isn't it.
Some have tried to create a new gospel. What those who tried was not understanding the fact that there is self proving things in what is written in documents that prove the place and rough date it was written. This includes mentioning vegetation, clothes, buildings etc. One fake gospel was written in France a couple hundred years ago. It takes a meticulous investigation into all known details about what it was like in that time and place. In current fiction the authors do this when creating fiction set in the past. Regency romance is one of these types of fiction.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Some have tried to create a new gospel. What those who tried was not understanding the fact that there is self proving things in what is written in documents that prove the place and rough date it was written. This includes mentioning vegetation, clothes, buildings etc. One fake gospel was written in France a couple hundred years ago. It takes a meticulous investigation into all known details about what it was like in that time and place. In current fiction the authors do this when creating fiction set in the past. Regency romance is one of these types of fiction.
Do you think the devil has ever tried to counterfeit the word of God to deceive people?
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
Do you think the devil has ever tried to counterfeit the word of God to deceive people?
Absolutely. There are many documents both centuries old and modern pushing the concept Satan is really God. He is the polished liar taking truth and twisting it into a lie. There are Satanist cults worshipping him. They have their own bibles proclaiming Satan is God or God is just jealous of Satan. He is the king of liars!!!
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
449
83
58
The original languages are Hebrew and Aramaic for the Old Testament. Aramaic is closely related to Hebrew. The New Testament is written in koine Judeo Greek. When Jews use a language they modify it bringing in Hebrew concepts. Greek was a bad fit for this. Paul and James each used a different method so some try to make it seem they are in disagreement when they are not. Most understand that that is not the case.
Do you have any sources for that statement in bold . Not that I disagree. It’ somthing I would like to check out.
Blessings
Bill
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
400
83
Do you have any sources for that statement in bold . Not that I disagree. It’ somthing I would like to check out.
Blessings
Bill
Here is the document. I didn't keep the link on the internet like I normally do.

There is a problem with the Greek language expressing Hebrew concepts. Paul and James struggled to do this. The Greek of the New Testament is really koine Judeo Greek not koine Greek.

Do Paul and James Disagree About “Faith”?
By Dr. Yeshaya Gruber
October 22, 2018

The question of “faith vs. works” has often baffled—and even enraged—biblical interpreters. Different Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) proclaim different views, sometimes fighting with each other over the correct interpretation. All of them contrast their own position with the “old” Jewish way of thinking. So where does all this conflict and confusion come from?

An apparent contradiction lies at the root of the controversy. Saul/Paul of Tarsus writes, “For we hold that one is justified by faith (πίστις; pistis) apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28, ESV; cf. Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11, 3:24). But then Jacob/James of Jerusalem says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith (πίστις; pistis) alone” (2:24, ESV). Some Christian theologians take one side or the other in this “debate,” while others try to show that the apparent contradiction is not really a contradiction.

Yet for all the argument and discussion, one of the most important factors is often neglected completely. Both Jacob/James and Saul/Paul were actually first-century Jews who lived in a hybrid Hebrew-Greek environment. Like others in this situation, they struggled to express and discuss Hebrew ideas in the Greek language. Just before Jacob/James states that becoming “just” involves “works” rather than merely “faith alone,” he exclaims, “You foolish fellow, can’t you see that ‘faith’ apart from works is useless?!” (2:20). This outburst reflects the fact – difficult to convey in Greek – that the Hebrew word for “faith” (אמונה; emunah) means a lifestyle of steadfast reliability.

Saul/Paul was no less frustrated with his audience when it came to understanding the Jewish idea of “faith” – he even calls the Galatians “mindless” (Gal 3:1) with regard to this topic. In context, he was arguing that the way to be considered “just” is to live a lifestyle of steadfast reliability in the way of truth, and that this doesn’t depend on whether one is Jewish and follows the Torah of Moses, or is a Gentile and therefore not obliged to keep all the same commandments.

Both authors found themselves limited by the language they had to use. Each chose a different angle or tack in employing Greek words to express Hebrew/Jewish ideas. This created the impression of a major contradiction, one that would even cause religious schisms! Thankfully, today we have many tools for understanding the original Jewish-Greek context and decoding the deep meanings of such ancient letters.
 

Laish

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2016
1,666
449
83
58
Thanks I will give this a long look . Looks interesting so far thankyou again.
Blessings
Bill
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,171
3,699
113
Here is the document. I didn't keep the link on the internet like I normally do.

There is a problem with the Greek language expressing Hebrew concepts. Paul and James struggled to do this. The Greek of the New Testament is really koine Judeo Greek not koine Greek.

Do Paul and James Disagree About “Faith”?
By Dr. Yeshaya Gruber
October 22, 2018

The question of “faith vs. works” has often baffled—and even enraged—biblical interpreters. Different Christian groups (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, etc.) proclaim different views, sometimes fighting with each other over the correct interpretation. All of them contrast their own position with the “old” Jewish way of thinking. So where does all this conflict and confusion come from?

An apparent contradiction lies at the root of the controversy. Saul/Paul of Tarsus writes, “For we hold that one is justified by faith (πίστις; pistis) apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:28, ESV; cf. Rom 5:1; Gal 2:16, 3:11, 3:24). But then Jacob/James of Jerusalem says, “You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith (πίστις; pistis) alone” (2:24, ESV). Some Christian theologians take one side or the other in this “debate,” while others try to show that the apparent contradiction is not really a contradiction.

Yet for all the argument and discussion, one of the most important factors is often neglected completely. Both Jacob/James and Saul/Paul were actually first-century Jews who lived in a hybrid Hebrew-Greek environment. Like others in this situation, they struggled to express and discuss Hebrew ideas in the Greek language. Just before Jacob/James states that becoming “just” involves “works” rather than merely “faith alone,” he exclaims, “You foolish fellow, can’t you see that ‘faith’ apart from works is useless?!” (2:20). This outburst reflects the fact – difficult to convey in Greek – that the Hebrew word for “faith” (אמונה; emunah) means a lifestyle of steadfast reliability.

Saul/Paul was no less frustrated with his audience when it came to understanding the Jewish idea of “faith” – he even calls the Galatians “mindless” (Gal 3:1) with regard to this topic. In context, he was arguing that the way to be considered “just” is to live a lifestyle of steadfast reliability in the way of truth, and that this doesn’t depend on whether one is Jewish and follows the Torah of Moses, or is a Gentile and therefore not obliged to keep all the same commandments.

Both authors found themselves limited by the language they had to use. Each chose a different angle or tack in employing Greek words to express Hebrew/Jewish ideas. This created the impression of a major contradiction, one that would even cause religious schisms! Thankfully, today we have many tools for understanding the original Jewish-Greek context and decoding the deep meanings of such ancient letters.
Let's keep in mind that Paul and James did not write their opinions or thoughts on the matter, but the words of God as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is faith? God clearly has taught us what is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith requires substance. Faith requires evidence. Faith is not only believing, but acting upon that belief. Faith is the testimony of believing.

What most do not understand is that the believer after the cross, is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. The OT saint was justified by their own individual faith. Christ's faith which justifies the believer after the cross was made known through His obedience even unto death, the death of the cross. Christ's life and death was the evidence, the substance of His faith. The OT saint's testimony of obedience is the evidence of his/her faith.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,602
13,861
113
Let's keep in mind that Paul and James did not write their opinions or thoughts on the matter, but the words of God as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is faith? God clearly has taught us what is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith requires substance. Faith requires evidence. Faith is not only believing, but acting upon that belief. Faith is the testimony of believing.

What most do not understand is that the believer after the cross, is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. The OT saint was justified by their own individual faith. Christ's faith which justifies the believer after the cross was made known through His obedience even unto death, the death of the cross. Christ's life and death was the evidence, the substance of His faith. The OT saint's testimony of obedience is the evidence of his/her faith.
That's a KJV-specific reading and does not line up with the rest of Scripture.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Let's keep in mind that Paul and James did not write their opinions or thoughts on the matter, but the words of God as revealed to them by the Holy Spirit.

What exactly is faith? God clearly has taught us what is faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith requires substance. Faith requires evidence. Faith is not only believing, but acting upon that belief. Faith is the testimony of believing.

What most do not understand is that the believer after the cross, is justified by the faith of Jesus Christ. The OT saint was justified by their own individual faith. Christ's faith which justifies the believer after the cross was made known through His obedience even unto death, the death of the cross. Christ's life and death was the evidence, the substance of His faith. The OT saint's testimony of obedience is the evidence of his/her faith.
Faith does not require evidence or acting on that faith. This is what the problem with so many in the church is.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for. the evidence of things not seen.

If you TRUST someone, You will go with that person. This causes action. This causes what God calls fruit.

Works are not REQUIRED to prove faith, they are the RESULT of faith. If people could get this basic principle. there would be so less self righteous gospels out there
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,171
3,699
113
That's a KJV-specific reading and does not line up with the rest of Scripture.
Do you know why? The faith of Jesus Christ was not made available until after the resurrection.

Galatians 3
22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
23 But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.
24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.
25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,171
3,699
113
Faith does not require evidence or acting on that faith. This is what the problem with so many in the church is.

Faith is the substance of things hoped for. the evidence of things not seen.

If you TRUST someone, You will go with that person. This causes action. This causes what God calls fruit.

Works are not REQUIRED to prove faith, they are the RESULT of faith. If people could get this basic principle. there would be so less self righteous gospels out there
The problem in many churches are those preachers who preach that those who aren't showing evidence of their faith, they're probably not saved. That's not necessarily true because it's not our individual faith that justifies, but the faith of Jesus Christ. The one who is in Christ and has been justified has been called now to live out the faith through their obedience to the word. Some go on to have great faith, some do not.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
The problem in many churches are those preachers who preach that those who aren't showing evidence of their faith, they're probably not saved. That's not necessarily true because it's not our individual faith that justifies, but the faith of Jesus Christ. The one who is in Christ and has been justified has been called now to live out the faith through their obedience to the word. Some go on to have great faith, some do not.
Smh

I shoudl have known better.


This is just a bad an argument as the KJV argument..


And funny how you support both.