Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[eternally-gratefull]

What about the most fundamental doctrine in all the bible? The trustworthiness of God's word. God's word is truth.

Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

If you're version lies, it's not a faithful witness. If your version has Elhanan killing Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, then it's a lie and cannot be trusted.

So you can not answer the question about why the authors of your perfect bible screwed up and could not translate the word baptiso. But you want to discuss a question not even you can prove yourself.

Thats what I thought..

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How about because God wanted that word to be TRANSLITERATED not translated?

So god is the author of confussion.

Thank you..

 

[YDo]

Yep, it is

Thats why people have been getting saved and growingn in the lord whether they use the KJV, the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV and many other english bibles..

God speaks through his word.

And before the printing press? Or the quill and ink?
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and The Word was God.

Jesus chastised the Hebrews for seeking him in books while denying the one that stood before them as God in action. When God cannot be contained in structures built by the hands of man he also cannot be contained in the tomes bound by hand.

 

[kohelet]

when i see the changes in Gods word it does concern me i am greatly concerned that the evil one has come in like a Trojan horse through the back door to water down Gods word...His written word...the devil does not play fair..love in Christ Sherril..

Hi Sherril, this is what has happened. The KJV was translated in 1611, more than 400 years ago. Since that time older manuscripts have been discovered. Older ones (obviously) appear closer in time to the originals, so are more reliable, more correct, as there has been less opportunity for copyists to make errors.

This is why there are changes from what we see in the KJV. I love the KJV translation of Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." But is it a good translation? Is there good will toward men or good will only toward those who with whom God is pleased, as many (perhaps all) of the modern versions have it?

This is not a matter of the evil one coming in as a Trojan horse at all. It is one of responsibly making available a bible as close as possible to the original text.

Does this help clarify things?

 

[YDo]

Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.

You know this verse. John 1:1
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God and The Word was God.

Now read your quoted post again.

 

[YDo]

when i see the changes in Gods word it does concern me i am greatly concerned that the evil one has come in like a Trojan horse through the back door to water down Gods word...His written word...the devil does not play fair..love in Christ Sherril..

It is hard to number the versions of the Bible and all the over 2000 language translations that have been published since 1526 and Tyndale's New Testament.
As far as English translations and paraphrases of scripture published to date there are over 900.
http://news.americanbible.org/article/number-of-english-translations-of-the-bible

Many people think they know God by the book. But God is a spirit and he was The Word before anything that is created was created. His kingdom is within you.
Jesus said seek and ye shall find. "Seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well"
The kingdom is within.
God bless and protect you.

 

[YDo]

Hi Sherril, this is what has happened. The KJV was translated in 1611, more than 400 years ago. Since that time older manuscripts have been discovered. Older ones (obviously) appear closer in time to the originals, so are more reliable, more correct, as there has been less opportunity for copyists to make errors.

This is why there are changes from what we see in the KJV. I love the KJV translation of Luke 2:14, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men." But is it a good translation? Is there good will toward men or good will only toward those who with whom God is pleased, as many (perhaps all) of the modern versions have it?

This is not a matter of the evil one coming in as a Trojan horse at all. It is one of responsibly making available a bible as close as possible to the original text.

Does this help clarify things?

There are thousands of manuscripts that exist and contain inspirations from God. Thousands.
Are they of no avail? Please remember that we do not have the original writings that predate the scriptures in today's Bibles. Those were called, Autographs.
Rather, we have copies across the ages. But not the original texts or inspired words of God.

 

[kohelet]

There are thousands of manuscripts that exist and contain inspirations from God. Thousands.
Are they of no avail? Please remember that we do not have the original writings that predate the scriptures in today's Bibles. Those were called, Autographs.
Rather, we have copies across the ages. But not the original texts or inspired words of God.

Not sure the original writings = the autographs, YDo.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...tween-original-autographs-and-original-texts/

 

[Homewardbound]

This may have been brought up in an earlier comment, but translating from Hebrew or Greek to English can be problematic in some cases. I am no authority on this, but our English language has evolved over time. The copies of the original documents we do have contain what the writer intended, and translating that over to English becomes the point. The KJV was translated in 1611. Boy has English changed since then!

 

[YDo]

Not sure the original writings = the autographs, YDo.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...tween-original-autographs-and-original-texts/

Please, I would implore you to seek other sources than the Christian turned Agnostic and yet still permitted to be a tenured New Testament professor at a Christian university, Bart Ehrman.
Have you read his books, Forged and Misquoting Jesus?

Ehrman's purpose in his teaching New Testament studies today at the Christian college that permits him tenure is to lead his students to atheism.

Try Dr. Daniel Wallace. Dan has known Bart for decades and they debate frequently. Dr.Wallace is a Senior Research Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Can you explain a little more? I'll try to address this. Thanks.

The word baptize is not an english word, it is a greek tansliterated.

Why was it not interpreted?

 

[kohelet]

Please, I would implore you to seek other sources than the Christian turned Agnostic and yet still permitted to be a tenured New Testament professor at a Christian university, Bart Ehrman.
Have you read his books, Forged and Misquoting Jesus?

Ehrman's purpose in his teaching New Testament studies today at the Christian college that permits him tenure is to lead his students to atheism.

Try Dr. Daniel Wallace. Dan has known Bart for decades and they debate frequently. Dr.Wallace is a Senior Research Professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. He is also the Executive Director of the Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts.

Good grief. This is from The Gospel Coalition and is not quoting Bart Ehrman favourably. The article disagrees with him. I'm not going to continue this. It's getting silly.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Instead of personal attacks, you could have simply replied none, I do not believe any English bible to be the word of God.

You refuse God's ability to have His word translated into any language He chooses, and that translation be the the holy word of God for those people who read and speak that language.

See. You attack me, then tell me not to say anything against you.

I believe God can if he wanted. I KNOW the KJV is not a completed translation. it is a word for word translated which is limited by the english language, and also biased according to the interpretors beliefs.

 

[preacher4truth]

Why would the sodomite King James aka Queen James (look it up) want baptizo rendered immerse when they were sprinkling babies? Let's just transliterate it and hide what it means!! Lol!

And kjvo cultists don't bat an eye even when they're vehemently against sprinkling.

Just another of their fluctuating standards.

 

[YDo]

Good grief. This is from The Gospel Coalition and is not quoting Bart Ehrman favourably. The article disagrees with him. I'm not going to continue this. It's getting silly.

Thank you.

 

[YDo]

Why would the sodomite King James aka Queen James (look it up) want baptizo rendered immerse when they were sprinkling babies? Let's just transliterate it and hide what it means!! Lol!

And kjvo cultists don't bat an eye even when they're vehemently against sprinkling.

Just another of their fluctuating standards.

Lord save us from LGBTQ slander against King James. One day.

Clearly church of Satan has pulpits too.

 

[preacher4truth]

Lord save us from LGBTQ slander against King James. One day.

Clearly church of Satan has pulpits too.

Pretty hypocritical of you, isn't it, to ascribe someone of the church of Satan while you cry about someone using "lol?"

Grow up callow one.

That Queen James was a sodomite is well documented.

 

[YDo]

Good grief. This is from The Gospel Coalition and is not quoting Bart Ehrman favourably. The article disagrees with him. I'm not going to continue this. It's getting silly.

And to make it more clear as I will not indulge your behavior again in this thread, there is not one thing in my original remarks to you concerning Bart Ehrman that comports with your criticism of those here.
In fact, my remarks coincided with the conclusions of the GC concerning Ehrman. Which is why I suggested a more qualified source, who offers free Bible study on the web also, Dr. Daniel Wallace.

 

[kohelet]

And to make it more clear as I will not indulge your behavior again in this thread, there is not one thing in my original remarks to you concerning Bart Ehrman that comports with your criticism of those here.
In fact, my remarks coincided with the conclusions of the GC concerning Ehrman. Which is why I suggested a more qualified source, who offers free Bible study on the web also, Dr. Daniel Wallace.

Right, so why the additional information about Ehrman? Doesn't make sense. I shared something by TGC opposing Ehrman and you scolded me for using him as a source!

 

[kohelet]

Yup.

Which Calvinist guy would this be btw?

I wish there were continuationist calvinists. I know of two, both of which I like, naturally.
Sam Storms is one and Matt Slick is another (he runs the CARM website which will pop up if you google anything christian related most of the times)

Oh, Wayne Grudem. See his Systematic Theology and The Gift of Prophecy in the New Testament and Today (which is spoken highly of in the blurb by J. I. Packer!).

Tell me, do you have anything to do with Hengen uudistus kirkossamme?