KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

What do you think is more important?

a) A theoretical physical preservation of Scriptures in a perfect shape "somewhere", even if not used or known
b) A preservation of his holy people, i.e. church?

I have to go to work, I'll be back later. But I think you can't do b without a and that's what those verses in Psalms is saying in my opinion and according to the grammar in KJV. The word of God protects us from those that puff, it's our sword in battle right?

Also "a" is used and known.

 

[trofimus]

I have to go to work, I'll be back later. But I think you can't do b without a

So you agree that the ultimate goal is a preservation of Church and Bible is just one of tools God uses for it. The question is if the tool has to be physically perfect or if Church would die if one sentence was missing. I am saying - absolutely not.

and that's what those verses in Psalms is saying in my opinion and according to the grammar in KJV. The word of God protects us from those that puff, it's our sword in battle right?

I think that KJV has this Psalm wrong. Which is not as much a fault of the translation, rather a fault of wrong sources selection.

Also "a" is used and known.

Psalm says "for all generation from now for ever".

Where was a perfect word in 500 BCE, 1 AD, 200 AD, 500 AD, 1400 AD, 1610 AD?

The history says that text was changing, canon was dynamic etc. But there has always been some remnant of His people.

 

[Chester]

Evil, as defined by Scripture is the opposite of good. The first mention tells us of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

That being said, God had pronounced destruction upon Nineveh. Nineveh repented of their evil ways and God repented of the evil He said He would do unto them. God did not pronounce good unto Nineveh, but evil. Good would be a blessing. Evil would be destruction, the opposite of good.

Just as I thought, you are redefining "evil"! LOL!

If the very words of the 1611 KJV are inspired, then God would have chosen the very best word possible to describe what he meant in Jonah 3:10. But you are now telling me that the word "evil" there means "destruction"

By the way, that happens to be the very word the NIV uses:

Jonah 3:10 (NIV)

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

See posts 230,231,240
​

 

[Joseppi]

Psalms 12:1 (To the chief Musician upon Sheminith, A Psalm of David.) Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?

5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.

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.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

The plurality in verse seven, when it says, Thou shalt keep them, and, thou shalt preserve them, corresponds to the plurality of, “the words of the Lord” in the previous verse six.

The godly and ungodly aren’t pluralized.
Both are defined as singular groups referred to by use of “him”, as the godly man, and as “him” the ungodly man.

Thus “them” refers to “the words of the Lord” which words the Lord preserves.

Thus “them” doesn’t refer to either the godly man, nor the ungodly man.

 

[John146]

Just as I thought, you are redefining "evil"! LOL!

If the very words of the 1611 KJV are inspired, then God would have chosen the very best word possible to describe what he meant in Jonah 3:10. But you are now telling me that the word "evil" there means "destruction"

By the way, that happens to be the very word the NIV uses:

Jonah 3:10 (NIV)

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

See posts 230,231,240
​

I'm not redefining evil, I'm allowing Scripture to define itself. Evil is the opposite of good. Being overthrown would be a type of evil.

 

[Joseppi]

Just as I thought, you are redefining "evil"! LOL!

If the very words of the 1611 KJV are inspired, then God would have chosen the very best word possible to describe what he meant in Jonah 3:10. But you are now telling me that the word "evil" there means "destruction"

By the way, that happens to be the very word the NIV uses:

Jonah 3:10 (NIV)

When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he relented and did not bring on them the destruction he had threatened.

See posts 230,231,240
​

I asked you what evil is.
You haven’t given an answer, scriptural or otherwise.
I suggested to you that you are making the subject of evil sound simple.

Is anything in and of itself evil?
If not, why not?

 

[Dino246]

The plurality in verse seven, when it says, Thou shalt keep them, and, thou shalt preserve them, corresponds to the plurality of, “the words of the Lord” in the previous verse six.

The godly and ungodly aren’t pluralized.
Both are defined as singular groups referred to by use of “him”, as the godly man, and as “him” the ungodly man.

Thus “them” refers to “the words of the Lord” which words the Lord preserves.

Thus “them” doesn’t refer to either the godly man, nor the ungodly man.

Verse 7 in the KJV says, "Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Even if the KJV position is correct regarding the "them" referring to the words of the LORD, it is fatally flawed on the application, because the verse does not say that God will "preserve His words and make them available to a later generation".

 

[trofimus]

The plurality in verse seven, when it says, Thou shalt keep them, and, thou shalt preserve them, corresponds to the plurality of, “the words of the Lord” in the previous verse six.

The godly and ungodly aren’t pluralized.
Both are defined as singular groups referred to by use of “him”, as the godly man, and as “him” the ungodly man.

Thus “them” refers to “the words of the Lord” which words the Lord preserves.

Thus “them” doesn’t refer to either the godly man, nor the ungodly man.

KJV1611 knows that I was talking about Septuagint, we were discussing this before. So I did not consider it necessary to mention that.

"For the end, A Psalm of David, upon the eighth.
Save me, O Lord for the godly man has failed; for truth is diminished from among the children of men.
Every one has spoken vanity to his neighbour: their lips are deceitful, they have spoken with a double heart.
Let the Lord destroy all the deceitful lips, and the tongue that speaks great words:
who have said, We will magnify our tongue; our lips are our own: who is Lord of us?
Because of the misery of the poor, and because of the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord, I will set them in safety; I will speak to them thereof openly.
The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles; as silver tried in the fire, proved in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
Thou, O Lord, shalt keep us, and shalt preserve us, from this generation, and for ever.
The ungodly walk around: according to thy greatness thou has greatly exalted the sons of men. "
Psalm 11

 

[MarcR]

I'm not very learned regarding this subject at all, and yes, I know we shouldn't go by feelings, but the KJV just feels right to me. It's something I can't explain.

I certainly use other translations as well during research, but that old KJV speaks to my soul in a way the others simply don't.

Just my opinion, and it doesn't count for much. Especially regarding the scholarly discussion going on in this thread. I certainly admire the knowledge displayed here.

You guys rock!

The KJV is a very beautiful translation. I use and prefer it myself. The question on the thread is whether it is uniquely inspired to such an extent that other translations are not God's word. My answer is NO! While I love the KJV and I am glad to have it; I can't justify claims of unique inspiration.

 

[Angela53510]

There are many regional English accents. This is a Yorkshire accent with the thees and thous still in use.



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

He’s a Blue Jays fan?? Now we KNOW the English language is corrupted! (Western Canadian joke!) I also got the word “Jersey” out of this video. Perhaps because he grabbed his jersey when he said it? Or maybe because that is a very familar word, my kids having been in hockey for years and years. (One still coaching hockey, and a grandson with a complete Canadian NHL Jersey set to wear to daycare every day!)

And why on earth does my autocorrect keep capitalizing jersey!? Do they not know it is something players on a sports team wear, and not necessarily a place?

 

[SovereignGrace]

Jersey? New Jersey mayhap? That might be why autocorrect capitalizes the ‘j’ in Joisey. That said with Depleted in mind.

#IsayJerseyDepletedsaystatersalad

 

[Angela53510]

i don't know Greek so I would have to let someone tell me what it means I guess. Seems like God wouldn't do it that way.

Greek is so easy to learn, if you just take a course on it. Now, finding a grammar and vocabulary course on Early Modern English, that is the challenge.

Or, if you know French, German, Spanish, etc, you can read it in second person singular.

It always amazes me how people can just read the Bible in a language that is so far away from what we speak, and think they understand it, but yet, they can’t learn the languages the Bible was written in, nor any other common European language. (If you are Asian, or something like that, feel free to ignore this post!)

Which of course, the key is, ”thinking they understand it.” The Bible is important to me, so I want to read it in languages I understand, not in fome old, ftrange and no longer used language.

Forty, I am so far behind on thif thread. So bufy with life, I am behind on every thread!

 

[SovereignGrace]

Greek is so easy to learn, if you just take a course on it. Now, finding a grammar and vocabulary course on Early Modern English, that is the challenge.

Or, if you know French, German, Spanish, etc, you can read it in second person singular.

It always amazes me how people can just read the Bible in a language that is so far away from what we speak, and think they understand it, but yet, they can’t learn the languages the Bible was written in, nor any other common European language. (If you are Asian, or something like that, feel free to ignore this post!)

Which of course, the key is, ”thinking they understand it.” The Bible is important to me, so I want to read it in languages I understand, not in fome old, ftrange and no longer used language.

Forty, I am so far behind on thif thread. So bufy with life, I am behind on every thread!

Thif & bufy? You’re typing with your mouth full of food again, ain’t you AngelaBR549?

 

[SovereignGrace]

water into shine

i like that

go to town to a fork in the road. Hunt for a feller that has a jug of water and tell him yer boss needs yer attic for some lodging. Now, go on! Git!

 

[Angela53510]

Not kidding at all, I asked God about the Bible issue years ago and he showed me through studying several versions that the KJV was his inerrant word.

I think you are on the wrong thread!

The “I spoke to God and he told me so” people are over on the Word of Faith threads.

The only inspired versions were the original autographs. God told you no such thing. In fact, you admit in the last half of your sentence, it “came out of your studies.” More or less.

I’ll take modern English, translated from the copies that are closest to the autographs. The KJV was translated from 7 much later, corrupted (because they were copies of copies of copies, and don’t even agree with the earliest Byzantine copies) manuscripts.

So much delusion in the BDF. Imagine trying to justify your “revelation” by saying God told you it was a “revelation.” The KJV never says it is the only inspired version, and neither should you.

Shame on you!

 

[KJV1611]

Greek is so easy to learn, if you just take a course on it. Now, finding a grammar and vocabulary course on Early Modern English, that is the challenge.

Or, if you know French, German, Spanish, etc, you can read it in second person singular.

It always amazes me how people can just read the Bible in a language that is so far away from what we speak, and think they understand it, but yet, they can’t learn the languages the Bible was written in, nor any other common European language. (If you are Asian, or something like that, feel free to ignore this post!)

Which of course, the key is, ”thinking they understand it.” The Bible is important to me, so I want to read it in languages I understand, not in fome old, ftrange and no longer used language.

Forty, I am so far behind on thif thread. So bufy with life, I am behind on every thread!

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have a problem reading KJV english.

I'm glad you chimed in because you're a very smart person and I would like to get your opinion on the context of Luke 1. What do you think Luke is trying to get across to the reader in the first three verses?

 

[Angela53510]

Luke 17:9


Doth he thank that servant because he did the things that were commanded him? I trow not.

Lucy-P, I loved your treasure trove of bizarre KJV verses.

I always say, I don’t understand the archaic and obsolete language, and you certainly proved exactly the reason it is almost dangerous to read in a language that is no longer used.

I guess that is why so many heresies seem to come out of the KJV? Because people can’t tell what on earth the KJV is saying so why not make up stuff as you go along?

 

[KJV1611]

I think you are on the wrong thread!

The “I spoke to God and he told me so” people are over on the Word of Faith threads.

The only inspired versions were the original autographs. God told you no such thing. In fact, you admit in the last half of your sentence, it “came out of your studies.” More or less.

I’ll take modern English, translated from the copies that are closest to the autographs. The KJV was translated from 7 much later, corrupted (because they were copies of copies of copies, and don’t even agree with the earliest Byzantine copies) manuscripts.

So much delusion in the BDF. Imagine trying to justify your “revelation” by saying God told you it was a “revelation.” The KJV never says it is the only inspired version, and neither should you.

Shame on you!

No no, don't put me in that group lol. I said the Lord SHOWED me through studying SEVERAL translations that the KJV was inerrant. I never said God told me anything.

Edit: Forgot to add shame on you for not reading what I wrote.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would have a problem reading KJV english.

I'm glad you chimed in because you're a very smart person and I would like to get your opinion on the context of Luke 1. What do you think Luke is trying to get across to the reader in the first three verses?

I cant, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want a bible that has antiquated 17th century Elizabethan English. The KJV was written the way ppl spoke in 1611 AD.

Fast forward to 2018. We don’t speak that way anymore. The modern versions are written the way we speak today. Same concept the 1611 translators employed.

 

[KJV1611]

Lucy-P, I loved your treasure trove of bizarre KJV verses.

I always say, I don’t understand the archaic and obsolete language, and you certainly proved exactly the reason it is almost dangerous to read in a language that is no longer used.

I guess that is why so many heresies seem to come out of the KJV? Because people can’t tell what on earth the KJV is saying so why not make up stuff as you go along?

17:9 μὴ ἔχει χάριν τῷ δούλῳ ὅτι ἐποίησεν τὰ διαταχθέντα

This is much easier to understand than the KJV lol.