One might think from your posts today that you base your faith on your own ideas about what God "could", "would" or "wouldn't" do. That isn't biblical Christianity, it's ignorant speculation.
The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- Start date
-
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.
One might think from your posts today that you base your faith on your own ideas about what God "could", "would" or "wouldn't" do. That isn't biblical Christianity, it's ignorant speculation.
It is saddening that some people refuse to grasp the fact that other languages cannot be represented in a word for word translation into other languages. The KJV isn't a word for word translation. Since they know this they then must work a little magic to spin the KJV as "the pure word of God."
If every single word had to be "preserved" then those words would only be those in the original language, therefore the only "true, pure word of God" would exist only in the original language in which it was spoken.
But some people are ensnared with KJVO nonsense, and turn the KJV into a magical book that corrects Hebrew and Greek, and a myriad of nonsensical myths are taught and believed about this version.
It is also of note that when you tell a KJVO'er they rarely speak of Christ, but incessantly about their version, the retort comes like this: "Jesus IS the Word of God, and the KJV represents him because IT is the Word of God. The KJV is the pure Word of God...the KJV this, the KJV that and blah blah blah blah blah" to ad absurdium.
Yep. It goes immediately from a token mention of Christ when they are called on this, and then immediately back to speaking about the KJV.
If every single word had to be "preserved" then those words would only be those in the original language, therefore the only "true, pure word of God" would exist only in the original language in which it was spoken.
But some people are ensnared with KJVO nonsense, and turn the KJV into a magical book that corrects Hebrew and Greek, and a myriad of nonsensical myths are taught and believed about this version.
It is also of note that when you tell a KJVO'er they rarely speak of Christ, but incessantly about their version, the retort comes like this: "Jesus IS the Word of God, and the KJV represents him because IT is the Word of God. The KJV is the pure Word of God...the KJV this, the KJV that and blah blah blah blah blah" to ad absurdium.
Yep. It goes immediately from a token mention of Christ when they are called on this, and then immediately back to speaking about the KJV.
I'm still waiting on the flat-earthers to respond to the Peter Ruckman quotes I posted where he openly avowed the KJV correct the Greek.
#whereareyouatflat-earthers?
#whereareyouatflat-earthers?
Now it seems you are changing your tone... any citation for a real deal that PR correct the originals?
Thanks
I am not changing anything. Read the quotes made by Peter Ruckman. Those who quoted him also quoted where it was he wrote them. Look those sources up for yourself.
Here's is PR's quote...
To blazes with “THE GREEK TEXT.” It is so inferior to the English text they are not worthy of standing on the same shelf. I put Nestle, Hort, Aland, Metzger, Alford, Souter, Erasmus, Stephanus, Elzevir, and the rest on a shelf below my original edition of the Authorized Version from 1613. (Ruckman, Peter. The Christian’s Handbook of Biblical Scholarship. Pensacola, Bible Baptist Bookstore, 1988, p. 338)
There is the name of the source from which he wrote it right there for you to go to and read it for yourself.
Again, you're being obtuse here. The texts the KJV translators used is what PR said the KJV improved, made better. He said the KJV improved the Greek, the language the NT was written in.
Own it. PR was a loon.
to be fair ((at least here in the forum)) you don't really hear about how KJV-only most KJV-onlyists are except in threads where "which Bible version?" is being discussed or threads specifically about KJV-onlyism. so you kind of don't get a representative sample of what they talk about, just what they talk about in a particular context.
. . . and "KJV" threads themselves are simply in general very rarely about Christ at all. =|
He is discussing a Greek text and nothing about about the originals. Well, I know someone who is a graduate of PBI and said this is just only a misquotes about the originals being corrected by the KJV. Sure this might be a fantasy of yours.
Thanks any way.
i got kind of a weird question, maybe..
Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
(John 6:7 KJV)
$2 worth of bread is certainly not going to feed 5,000 people!
adjusting for inflation and currency conversion, my back-of-the-envelope estimate is that we're talking about $1500 more or less in 2018 USD.
when i read this in John 6 right now, tonight, this year, should i be thinking that Phillip is talking about $2 worth of bread or should i be thinking that Phillip is talking about closer to $2,000 worth of bread?
do i take the KJV to be word-for-word 100% perfect for as long as there is a language called "English" or do i allow that language - individual words - were not just changed at Babel but continue to change over time? are "two hundred" and "pennyworth" still the perfect words to be written in John 6:7 today? will they be 100 years from now? should it just say whatever the actual Greek monetary term is, in Greek, and let the reader or a marginal note ((lol not a footnote!!)) be directed to do the currency and time period conversion for themselves?
do i imagine Phillip commenting about not enough money to buy a large box of french fries from mcdonald's[SUP]®[/SUP] or the budget of a buffet for hundreds? duh! so shouldn't a "perfect" translation reflect that?
Last edited:
Exposed your hero and you keep being obtuse. PR said that the KJV corrected the Greek texts.
#I'mNOTfooled
#Exposed
#Shelluplikeaturtle
"Obtuse", I don't want that word to say the same of you. I am speaking of your originals that both conservative and critical scholars know of is no longer with us. Well, this is off the topic, I only did challenge your post about originals being corrected by the KJV is irrelevant. KJV being corrected the greek text is another story.
That's all folk...
thank you for posting that! i had never heard it. does my very untrained ear detect some Celtic influence?
you know, it was my grasp of Chaucer at 13 that wasn't pretty, though re-reading some as an adult, i enjoyed very much.
but i must say, Chaucer's English was a lot easier to read and understand than some selections from Beowulf we were given. i wonder what the language will look like in the future, should the Lord tarry? probably all text message shorthand.
Chaucer was really Middle English. The Anglo Saxon is older & has hardly any Latin influence so it does sound rather more like the indigenous British, Cymraeg (Welsh).thank you for posting that! i had never heard it. does my very untrained ear detect some Celtic influence?
you know, it was my grasp of Chaucer at 13 that wasn't pretty, though re-reading some as an adult, i enjoyed very much.
but i must say, Chaucer's English was a lot easier to read and understand than some selections from Beowulf we were given. i wonder what the language will look like in the future, should the Lord tarry? probably all text message shorthand.
When the Lord returns I'm hoping to learn Hebrew! But he is the master of language so I think what he did at Babel he can restore to us in an instant. We have so much to look forward to!
Last edited:
The evidence that the Holy Bible is God's holy book is seen in that it corrects all errors found in other bibles.
My approach is simply to point out the truth found in the Holy Bible and the errors it corrects.
It was interesting reading this thread because it revealed what and how many that post on this board believe and think.
My approach is simply to point out the truth found in the Holy Bible and the errors it corrects.
It was interesting reading this thread because it revealed what and how many that post on this board believe and think.