KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

Wait. Does that not contradict the KJV onlyism? John146 is still repeating his dichotomy "either we have one word of God or none".

KJV translators were just normal men, they, like all of us had their opinions. The KJV translators were not special.

 

[trofimus]

The KJV translators were just men, they had opinions just like all of us do but that doesn't make their bliefs true. I don't think anybody on the KJV side argues that the preface and notes are inspired nor do we argue that the KJV translators were "special" men above any other translators.

This is very strange and dangerous doctrine.

Everytime God inspired somebody, this "somebody" knew that. Paul knew he is speaking God´s word, prophet knew it.

Where do you get your view (that the KJV were inspired even when they did not believe that) from?

 

[Joseppi]

Thank you. I did not want to boast. This ability of various languages just seems natural to me, because of the history and position of my country.

I just responded to a question that seemed like he thinks I do not know what a language or translation is

I’m agreeing that it’s natural.
And there’s no need to read Greek and Hebrew to recognize the word of God in English

How come error persists in modern bibles?

How come there’s no scholar approved standard text in English without error according to the defenders of modern bibles?

 

[trofimus]

KJV translators were just normal men, they, like all of us had their opinions. The KJV translators were not special.

Can you name one example when Bible was inspired without authors knowing that?

 

[KJV1611]

Can you name one example when Bible was inspired without authors knowing that?

How could I know if a translator thought he was inspired or not? The only thing I can go on is their work.

 

[John146]

I’m agreeing that it’s natural.
And there’s no need to read Greek and Hebrew to recognize the word of God in English

How come error persists in modern bibles?

How come there’s no scholar approved standard text in English without error according to the defenders of modern bibles?

That would negate the use of all the other translations = money $$$$$.

 

[John146]

Can you name one example when Bible was inspired without authors knowing that?

When John the Baptist was approached by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it.

 

[trofimus]

How could I know if a translator thought he was inspired or not? The only thing I can go on is their work.

Every prophet in the OT used phrase like "thus says the Lord". Paul knew that he is inspired etc.

If there is no example in the Bible of authors saying "we are not specially inspired", you have no basis for your KJV inspiration. Because translators clearly said they were not specially inspired.

 

[KJV1611]

When John the Baptist was approached by the Levites in John chapter one and asked if he was Elijah (John 1:21) he answered that he was not Elijah. Yet in Matthew chapters 11:7-14 and 17:10-13 Jesus Christ plainly stated that John was Elijah.

Did John the Baptist lie? No. Did Jesus Christ lie? Of course not. The answer is very simply that John was Elijah but he didn't know it! Thus we see from our Bible example that a man can have God working through him and not know it.

Or John the baptist knew they were talking about the literal reincarnation of Elijah. John was not the literal Elijah, he was what Elijah the literal man was foreshadowing.

But I do agree with you that God can and does work through people that have no clue that he is working through them.

 

[John146]

Or John the baptist knew they were talking about the literal reincarnation of Elijah. John was not the literal Elijah, he was what Elijah the literal man was foreshadowing.

But I do agree with you that God can and does work through people that have no clue that he is working through them.

John also went around preaching that Jesus is the Lamb of God, but later was not sure.

Matthew 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

When he preached, was he being led by the Holy Spirit to say those words?

 

[KJV1611]

Every prophet in the OT used phrase like "thus says the Lord". Paul knew that he is inspired etc.

If there is no example in the Bible of authors saying "we are not specially inspired", you have no basis for your KJV inspiration. Because translators clearly said they were not specially inspired.

Did Balaam's ass know he was inspired lol? Or how about Caiaphas did he know he was prophesying when he said "it's expedient for us that one man should die for the people"? I don't think so, verse 51 says "this spake he NOT of himself".


John 11:49-52 King James Version (KJV)

49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,
50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.
51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;

 

[KJV1611]

John also went around preaching that Jesus is the Lamb of God, but later was not sure.

Matthew 11:3 And said unto him, Art thou he that should come, or do we look for another?

When he preached, was he being led by the Holy Spirit to say those words?

He was just a man so I'm sure he was inspired sometimes and sometimes not.

 

[trofimus]

[FONT=&]Did Balaam's ass know he was inspired lol? Or how about Caiaphas did he know he was prophesying when he said "it's expedient for us that one man should die for the people"? I don't think so, verse 51 says "this spake he NOT of himself".

[/FONT]
John 11:49-52 King James Version (KJV)

[FONT=&]49 And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all,[/FONT]
[FONT=&]50 Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not.[/FONT]
[FONT=&]51 And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation;[/FONT]
[FONT=&]

[/FONT]

But they did not write that down, right? Prophecy is not the same thing as the inspiration of Scriptures.

 

[John146]

But they did not write that down, right? Prophecy is not the same thing as the inspiration of Scriptures.

Are the words of Paul inspired in which he spoke, or was Demas inspired as he wrote what Paul said in the book of Romans?

I say the words are inspired, not the men. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. Men preserved the inspired words of God by writing them down.

 

[KJV1611]

But they did not write that down, right? Prophecy is not the same thing as the inspiration of Scriptures.

Inspiration is inspiration isn't it? What is the difference between saying something under inspiration verses wirting it down?

 

[KJV1611]

I just don't see what any of this has to do with judging inerrance of any bible.

 

[posthuman]

could someone who believes it is so, tell me how is KJV's rendition of Hebrews 4:8 perfect and every other version corrupt?

KJV: "if Jesus had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day"

most every other version: "if Joshua had given them rest .."

context is Israel did not receive enter into rest when they entered Canaan, because of unbelief, and then later through David in the Psalms God appoints another day for rest, "today" --- to me it looks like both a blasphemous statement in KJV to say Jesus was unable to give rest, and an obvious mistranslation given the timeline of events the context is describing.

i know some of you here say everything in KJV is 100% perfect, so how do you make sense of this?

 

[KJV1611]

could someone who believes it is so, tell me how is KJV's rendition of Hebrews 4:8 perfect and every other version corrupt?

KJV: "if Jesus had given them rest, he would not afterward have spoken of another day"

most every other version: "if Joshua had given them rest .."

context is Israel did not receive enter into rest when they entered Canaan, because of unbelief, and then later through David in the Psalms God appoints another day for rest, "today" --- to me it looks like both a blasphemous statement in KJV to say Jesus was unable to give rest, and an obvious mistranslation given the timeline of events the context is describing.

i know some of you here say everything in KJV is 100% perfect, so how do you make sense of this?

The rest in Canaan wasn't a literal rest, it was the rest we and them can recieve in Christ. The gospel was preached to them in the wilderness and they rejected it so it wasn't possible to enter into that rest because they weren't in Christ.

Edit to add: It wasn't even possible for Joshua to give them rest.

 

[posthuman]

The rest in Canaan wasn't a literal rest, it was the rest we and them can recieve in Christ. The gospel was preached to them in the wilderness and they rejected it so it wasn't possible to enter into that rest because they weren't in Christ.

Sure. So how does that mean that between the time of Moses and the days of David that Jesus of Nazareth ((not Joshua)) failed to give them rest?

Do you see the problem?

 

[KJV1611]

Sure. So how does that mean that between the time of Moses and the days of David that Jesus of Nazareth ((not Joshua)) failed to give them rest?

Do you see the problem?

No I don't see a problem, the gospel was preached to them and they rejected it.... there is no rest for them. Jesus didn't fail them, they rejected him.