KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

  • 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.
Lucy-Pevensie said:


Exactly! The same for the NIV. Which is what you've been told again and again and again. You can't have a double standard!
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that the NIV is right or wrong. My arugment is that the NIV goes backward, it takes something was given in the KJV (The Son of God) and goes backward into a more obscure meaning.
 
trofimus said:
If I understand KJV1611 correctly, he is not saying that the babylonian king said "son of God", he thinks that the KJV fixed it to be a better reading, even though not historically correct.

But I may be wrong, I have a problem understanding what is the supposed theological problem for us with wrong ideas of a pagan king :)
Click to expand...

You pretty much have understood correctly. I have no idea what the original writings had but it doesn't matter because if it was son of the gods in the original then we gained more clarity in the KJV.
 
KJV1611 said:
Come on man I know you don't think the apocrypha is part of the bible do you? :confused:
Click to expand...

Why? Because you do not have them in your modern print?

It was in the infallible KJV 1611, it was in the infallible KJV 1769.

Thats your standard. You must read them.
 
KJV1611 said:
You pretty much have understood correctly. I have no idea what the original writings had but it doesn't matter because if it was son of the gods in the original then we gained more clarity in the KJV.
Click to expand...

I do not think that something that is not true should be in the Bible.

If the king said "son of gods", it should not be "fixed" later. Such a fix is a lie.

But, because the LXX has also "son of God", I accidentaly agree with the KJV, although I do not consider this to be so important. The words of babylonian king are not our creed.
 
trofimus said:
Why? Because you do not have them in your modern print?

It was in the infallible KJV 1611, it was in the infallible KJV 1769.

Thats your standard. You must read them.
Click to expand...
No Christian that I know of believes the apocrypha is inspred or ever was inspired. The word of God is the 66 books of the cannon and no more.
 
trofimus said:
I do not think that something that is not true should be in the Bible.

If the king said "son of gods", it should not be "fixed" later. Such a fix is a lie.

But, because the LXX has also "son of God", I accidentaly agree with the KJV, although I do not consider this to be so important. The words of babylonian king are not our creed.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with the words of a babylonian king, it has to do with taking something that was clear in the KJV and obscuring.
 
KJV1611 said:
The phrase Holy Spirit is mentioned 7 times in the KJV and Holy Ghost is mentioned 90 times. Pure coincidence I'm sure lol.
Click to expand...

Holy Spirit is mentioned 10 times. And the Holy ghost 91 times in the KJV. Yes, Ezra is a part of the KJV.
 
KJV1611 said:
This has nothing to do with the words of a babylonian king, it has to do with taking something that was clear in the KJV and obscuring.
Click to expand...

"Clarity" cannot be attained by changing historicity. If that king truly said "son of gods", then any Bible should represent his words truthfully.
 
KJV1611 said:
I'm not asking you a question about any translation nor any tradition. :)

The Question - What is more accurate to the facts - Jesus was a son of the gods OR Jesus was The Son of God?
Click to expand...

This is an interesting issue... there are truly at least two ways to define "accuracy" in this case:

- what Nebuchadnezzar actually said
- what is objectively accurate, regardless of what Nebuchadnezzar said

Neither is more "accurate" than the other; they are simply accurate in different ways! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the king saying "a son of the gods" because that is consistent with his worldview. Claiming that he "must have said 'the son of God'" because the fourth person was Jesus is eisegetical and anachronistic. There is also the possibility of it having been angel, in which case "the son of God" would be inaccurate.

In my view, asserting that the correct wording must be "the son of God" solely on the basis that Jesus is the Son of God is indefensible and unnecessary. We don't make doctrine from the words of pagans. While they sometimes get it right, it's not worthwhile to argue that Nebuchadnezzar did in this case. Either way, it certainly doesn't affect the overall trustworthiness of a translation.
 
trofimus said:
"Clarity" cannot be attained by changing historicity. If that king truly said "son of gods", then any Bible should represent his words truthfully.
Click to expand...
If a person looks at the bible as history book instead of a book to know Jesus Christ then I would agree but the bible isn't a history book to record a pagan Babylonian kings words.
 
KJV1611 said:
There were 66 knops, bowls and candles on the candlestick in Exodus... I'm pretty sure we can safely conclude that the bible only contains 66 books.
Click to expand...

The infallible KJV has apocrypha. Sorry, you do not hold to your own standard.
 
KJV1611 said:
There were 66 knops, bowls and candles on the candlestick in Exodus... I'm pretty sure we can safely conclude that the bible only contains 66 books.
Click to expand...

Correlation does not indicate intentional design. In the Hebrew Bible, Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are one book each. The minor prophets are grouped together in one book.
 
Dino246 said:
This is an interesting issue... there are truly at least two ways to define "accuracy" in this case:

- what Nebuchadnezzar actually said
- what is objectively accurate, regardless of what Nebuchadnezzar said

Neither is more "accurate" than the other; they are simply accurate in different ways! There is absolutely nothing wrong with the king saying "a son of the gods" because that is consistent with his worldview. Claiming that he "must have said 'the son of God'" because the fourth person was Jesus is eisegetical and anachronistic. There is also the possibility of it having been angel, in which case "the son of God" would be inaccurate.

In my view, asserting that the correct wording must be "the son of God" solely on the basis that Jesus is the Son of God is indefensible and unnecessary. We don't make doctrine from the words of pagans. While they sometimes get it right, it's not worthwhile to argue that Nebuchadnezzar did in this case. Either way, it certainly doesn't affect the overall trustworthiness of a translation.
Click to expand...

So who do you think it was, a son of the gods or the Son of God?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back