KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[KJV1611]

From Vine's Expository Dictionary:

We've already ruled that out as "churchianity" BS.

 

[Dino246]

I reject your burden of proof argument.

Irrelevant. It's a logical fallacy, and makes your argument worthless. Your rejection of it carries as much weight with me as modern translations do with you.

There are reasons why I don’t show secular research.
One is, that the modern bible version lovers always wander off to trivial stuff to avoid the Authorized exposing of the corruption in the modern bibles.

What you consider "trivial" really doesn't matter, any more than your exaltation of the KJV means to me. Your generalized condemnation is irrelevant, because it doesn't address the actual statements from people with whom you disagree.

Secondly, I know that all true research will exalt the text of the Authorized because, regardless as to whether people, including heathen scholars, believe its true or not, it is God’s book not man’s.

The Bible is God's book. The KJV is simply one translation of it, and has no more authority than any other translation. You have an a priori view of its uniqueness that is indefensible on historical, logical and textual grounds.

Thirdly, I have done my research as led by the Holy Ghost. And if others don’t do their own fairminded research then they aren’t going to listen to anything I tell them that is contrary to their bias’. They aren’t interested in truth at all.

Right back atcha. You can claim until you're dead that your research is somehow more valid, but that doesn't make it more valid. You aren't the only one whose research is Spirit-led.

Fourthly, I know the Holy Ghost always helps me tell the truth.

And yet you believe differently than others who also trust the Holy Spirit is telling them the truth. It's subjective and as such is no more indicative of truth than the Mormon's burning in the bosom.

I am sure that I should grow to be a kinder, wiser, man.... It’s probably a fault of mine.

So instead of continuing with your unpleasant behaviour, making excuses for it, justifying it, or even defensively claiming that others do it, just quit it!

And I like to get others to respond to their best so as to reveal the weakness and lack of depth in their arguments against faith in the Authorized Holy Bible.

You judge the arguments of others as weak and lacking depth... I consider the same of your arguments. Your disregard of a very basic logical fallacy above is a perfect example.

But, my experience is that nevertheless, God will not let anyone off the hook that denies truth and promotes corrupt bibles, even if the try to claim the messenger is the problem.

Your sentence structure suggests that there is a "hook that denies truth and promotes corrupt bibles". Perhaps having your nose stuck in a four-century-old book hasn't done much for your understanding of English grammar.

I consider God quite capable of gently correcting those in error who are honestly seeking Him. In your self-righteous arrogance, you can't comprehend that God would do anything other than condemn those whom you condemn. Sadly, that makes you no different than the Pharisees.

 

[MarcR]

How would Greek goddess got into the language of Germans and not to any other language along the road from Greece?

Also, how is East to be Greece for Germans?

BTW now I wondered about the name of Austria and I found this:

"The name "Austria" is a latinization of German Österreich (that is, the spelling of the name Austria approximates, for the benefit of Latin speakers, the sound of the German name Österreich). This has led to much confusion as German Ost is "east", but Latin auster is "south"."


If it was influenced by Latin and not by German, it could mean South.

It is not really very important to me to be right about this. Whatever goddess Easter was she discredits unique divine inspiration of the KJV. However both the PCBE and Schafff Herzogg were highly regarded 19th century scholarship so I am ready to give credence to their research.

 

[KJV1611]

It is not really very important to me to be right about this. Whatever goddess Easter was she discredits unique divine inspiration of the KJV. However both the PCBE and Schafff Herzogg were highly regarded 19th century scholarship so I am ready to give credence to their research.

Where are you getting Easter was a goddess from, I would like to look into it. A link would be great if you could provide.

 

[Locutus]

It's more than evident that the KJV translators use of Easter is in error and another example of uninspired inconsistency as they used Passover in the following verse:

(1 Cor 5:7 KJV) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

All the irrational rationalizing of the KJV only crowd amounts to nothing.

 

[KJV1611]

It's more than evident that the KJV translators use of Easter is in error and another example of uninspired inconsistency as they used Passover in the following verse:

(1 Cor 5:7 KJV) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

All the irrational rationalizing of the KJV only crowd amounts to nothing.

Considering that verse is talking about Christ and not a feast observance, I would say the KJV got it right.

 

[Dino246]

I know that most people imagine it’s ok to think of scripture as under man’s control, but the legal facts prove that scripture is of God and must be secured by God lest the legal status of his Bible is ruined. He will never allow that.

So if He will never allow that, why do you keep claiming that He has allowed it? You believe that God would not allow His Scripture to be corrupted, yet you believe that is exactly what has happened with newer translations. You ignore plain and basic errors in the KJV, and retort that such claims are "attacks on God's Word". What silliness, inconsistency and hypocrisy!

Arguing against my person won’t help you.

Huh? I argue against your arguments, not your person.

The problem you confront is that the Authorized is truly Authorized by God.

The problem is that you haven't grasped the truth the the "authorization" was extremely limited in scope, and you keep trying to apply it universally. Read the front matter of your KJV: it says, "Authorized to be read in churches" or something very similar. That's the extent of it: to be read in Anglican churches.

You assume the word has some imaginary authority beyond the Anglican Church of 1611... which does not exist. The Puritans didn't accept the authorization as binding. The Huguenots didn't. The Lutherans didn't. The Catholics certainly didn't. Yet you keep using the term as though it was a universal authorization administered by God Himself... which is not the case. You claim that single "front matter" statement is somehow binding, but you ignore plain statements in the Preface that carry equal (and similarly sub-scriptural) weight as the other front matter. Your reasoning is inconsistent and therefore invalid.

 

[MarcR]

Where are you getting Easter was a goddess from, I would like to look into it. A link would be great if you could provide.

In posts 2453 and 2713 I cite my sources. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, The PCBE and the Schaff Herzogg are all hard copy; and except for the SOED, they are 10" X14" X 3" volumes; so they will not stay on my 8.5"X11" flatbed scanner. The soed is 12"X10"x2" and still very awkward.

 

[John146]

It's more than evident that the KJV translators use of Easter is in error and another example of uninspired inconsistency as they used Passover in the following verse:

(1 Cor 5:7 KJV) Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

All the irrational rationalizing of the KJV only crowd amounts to nothing.

This is the Christian point of view, "Christ our Passover" = Easter. This is what the KJV translators were pointing to, not the Jewish Passover.

 

[Dino246]

This is the Christian point of view, "Christ our Passover" = Easter. This is what the KJV translators were pointing to, not the Jewish Passover.

That doesn't follow at all. "Christ our Passover" is not what is at issue in Acts 12, wherein "Easter" is at best an anachronism and at worst the inappropriate adoption of a term denoting a pagan ritual.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Pascha means Passover. It’s not BS. That’s what it literally means. Easter was not even a word when Acts 12:4 was written by Luke.

All this talk about Easter and Passover is much ado about nothing. I believe that the KJB translators should have transliterated Pascha as Pascha, since it covers more than just the Passover. However we need to keep in mind that by the 17th century, Easter had already become an established Christian festival.

Also it would appear that "Easter" and "Pascha" had become interchangeable at the time that the KJB was translated, and "the days of unleavened bread" followed Passover (Acts 12:3). So while Pascha was for the Jews (including both Passover and the days of unleavened bread), Easter was the corresponding festival for Christians at the time of translation (since the resurrection followed the Passover). In hindsight, we could say that the King James translators should have simply transliterated Pascha.

Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.

 

[nddreamer]

Where are you getting Easter was a goddess from, I would like to look into it. A link would be great if you could provide.

goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm

 

[MarcR]

All this talk about Easter and Passover is much ado about nothing. I believe that the KJB translators should have transliterated Pascha as Pascha, since it covers more than just the Passover. However we need to keep in mind that by the 17th century, Easter had already become an established Christian festival.

Also it would appear that "Easter" and "Pascha" had become interchangeable at the time that the KJB was translated, and "the days of unleavened bread" followed Passover (Acts 12:3). So while Pascha was for the Jews (including both Passover and the days of unleavened bread), Easter was the corresponding festival for Christians at the time of translation (since the resurrection followed the Passover). In hindsight, we could say that the King James translators should have simply transliterated Pascha.

Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.

Paska was indeed an established Christian observance by the 17th Century. However the KJV translators were the first to call it Easter; thereby confounding it with fertility rites as seen in many stores today.

 

[MarcR]

How would Greek goddess got into the language of Germans and not to any other language along the road from Greece?

Also, how is East to be Greece for Germans?

BTW now I wondered about the name of Austria and I found this:

"The name "Austria" is a latinization of German Österreich (that is, the spelling of the name Austria approximates, for the benefit of Latin speakers, the sound of the German name Österreich). This has led to much confusion as German Ost is "east", but Latin auster is "south"."


If it was influenced by Latin and not by German, it could mean South.

How does goddess of the dawn connect Easter with fertility symbols? The PCBE and Schaff Herzogg both do a better job of explaining the connection.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Paska was indeed an established Christian observance by the 17th Century. However the KJV translators were the first to call it Easter; thereby confounding it with fertility rites as seen in many stores today.

No there was no confounding with fertility rites at that time. If you check the original KJV and the tables of Christian feasts and festivals provided, Easter is shown as a Christian festival, and had been so for over a thousand years.

From the 5th century onward this cycle set its equinox to 25 March and fixed Easter to the Sunday falling in the 14th to the 20th of the lunar month inclusive.

(Wikipedia)

True that the origins of Easter were pagan, but the whole Christian world celebrates Easter as the resurrection of Christ to this day. So harking back to the pagan origins does not cut any ice.

 

[KJV1611]

goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/holidays2.htm

Thanks for the link.

 

[Dino246]

Those who are trying to diminish the value and integrity of the King James Bible by citing this example prefer to ignore the fact that this was not an issue for anyone until the anti-KJV propaganda started. On the other hand, the errors and omissions of the modern versions are so overwhelming, that this is totally insignificant. Any preacher worth his salt would simply clarify the issue instead of trying to beat down the KJB because of this word.

You seem blind. You consistently attack other translations (the evidence is seen above), and then turn and write this tripe. You ignore the repeated statements that nobody is attacking the KJV, and instead are defending against the attacks on other translations by KJV-only proponents.

Stop the indefensible KJV exaltation and attacks on other translations, and the strife will cease. Keep promoting the exclusivity of the KJV while attacking other translations and the strife will continue.

Anyone who claims that a reasoned criticism of the KJV is an "attack" and criticizes newer translations on comparable issues or in similar ways hasn't got their head on straight on this matter. It is the same attitude of millennials who perceive anything short of wholehearted agreement with their views as "offensive"... and is similarly ridiculous... and unbalanced.

 

[KJV1611]

No there was no confounding with fertility rites at that time. If you check the original KJV and the tables of Christian feasts and festivals provided, Easter is shown as a Christian festival, and had been so for over a thousand years.

(Wikipedia)

True that the origins of Easter were pagan, but the whole Christian world celebrates Easter as the resurrection of Christ to this day. So harking back to the pagan origins does not cut any ice.

Easter's origin being a pagan is a myth. Check the facts and do the research... you can find all kinds of unsusubstantiated claims but there is ZERO proof of any of it.

 

[Locutus]

Adam Clarke's commentary stated the use of Easter was absurd and has nothing to do with an attack on the KJV as his whole series of commentaries is based on the KJV - he just had the integrity and fortitude of honesty to state so.


"Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text."

But to admit this is an error by the KJV only crowd would be to knock the KJV off the pedestal they created for it in their minds.

 

[nddreamer]

Thanks for the link.

You're welcome.