Bible Translation Discussion Place
- Thread starter KJV1611
- Start date
-
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.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I have stayed away from this subject thus far, because the more I study the matter, the more I believe that King James was a megalomaniac, he made himself head of the church, and then as you read how they forced others to use the KJV, penalizing and punishing people in horrific ways for using other Bibles, taking away Bibles that Christians had been using for years prior, and the way they targeted the people who tried to hang on to the Geneva Bible; I begin to despise the KJV, and I hate to think that way about any version of the Bible. I believe God protects the integrity of his word regardless of what evil men do, and then there is the JW Bible, purposefully deceptive in subtle ways, and the message Bible completely interpreted for a certain theology, then the KJV that I want to accept is legitimate, except the events surrounding it, and the bad translation, and the use of such words that were not used, like Easter.
I don't want to have animus toward a Bible verse that has been the standard for so many for so long.
I don't want to have animus toward a Bible verse that has been the standard for so many for so long.
L
Locoponydirtman
Guest
I have found so much clarity comparing translations. KJV, ESV, CJB, NASB, AMP, ASV, WMB, TLV, GW, and even the message bible, though that last one is often for entertainment because It is funny sometimes. To be honest, though, it has helped too, as long as I use it correctly (in comparison).
I think using different translations can help with memorization too because in taking one verse and comparing it with many translations, one starts meditating on the words. I do not compare every verse, just when I do not understand, which some days has me comparing often and regular, lol.
I trust the spirit will get me where I need to be, as I do not put my faith in a particular translation, but in His guidance, opening up the word to me. Of course, my pastor and other commentators help too. I appreciate how the bible is not left to any one person's interpretation.
I think using different translations can help with memorization too because in taking one verse and comparing it with many translations, one starts meditating on the words. I do not compare every verse, just when I do not understand, which some days has me comparing often and regular, lol.
I trust the spirit will get me where I need to be, as I do not put my faith in a particular translation, but in His guidance, opening up the word to me. Of course, my pastor and other commentators help too. I appreciate how the bible is not left to any one person's interpretation.
Okay... does your pastor rail against anyone who uses a version other than the KJV? Does your church's statement of faith have anything about the KJV in it (particularly near the top)? Would you be anathematized if you showed up at church with an NIV?
If the answer to any of the questions is 'yes', you're in a cult.
i dont live in america so none apply friend. i dont live in english speaking country maybe you can tell from my english. but i think KJV is best still. not worshiping it, its just my opinion i like it, whats wrong wit that? nothing i say.
The same argument can be applied to modern translations, if you are claiming that the KJV is the sole word of God for English speaking peoples...there is no evidence to claim that each language group can only have one authorized version, especially if it was authorized by a dude who wore bloomers and pink hose, whose source NT was written by Erasmus, a Roman Catholic priest who wrote romantic letters letters to a young monk.
By the way the KJV went through multiple revisions. In some ways I would consider ESV to be, basically, a revision of the KJV too. The KJV is in its lineage.
Nothing is wrong with thinking it is the best version. I don't agree but there's no problem with that view.
I've never heard of that.
I like the Zondervan NIV Biblical Study Bible but I would prefer it if the text was ESV.
I don't see how not living in America is relevant to any of my questions. I also don't see how having poor English would suggest that you don't live in an English-speaking country. Unfortunately, some of those with the poorest English on this site are from such countries.
The KJV is a decent translation, but it is definitely not perfect. The problem with some (not all) KJV-only advocates is that they think it is perfect.
why did the KJV change this?
For we are not as many, which make merchandise of the word of God:
but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
but as of sincerity, but as of God in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
(2 Corinthians 2:17 1560 GNV)
Sorry lady, the logic you have cannot comprehend God's word. Your out! The scripture cannot be broken. I think the one needing some integrity is .... you have fallen into your own ditch.
John 10:35 King James Version (KJV)
35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
2 Corinthians 2:17 King James Version (KJV)
17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.
It’s pretty good and especially Like it’s free it is not copy righted, here’s a link to it. it’s got ton of info to the translation and how other translations word passages
https://nheb.net/
Umm, If you can't see that, I just don't know. Explain to you in detail what that the passage tells us also of preservation and as expected you won't see it. My other try :
In the previous verse (v. 15) Paul told Timothy that he HAD the SCRIPTURE in his possession. Not only this but in Acts 8:32 the Ethiopian Eunuch had “the scripture” in his hands. Now, did Timothy and the Eunuch have the “original manuscripts” in their possession? NO, THEY DIDN’T! They had copies of copies of copies of the originals. Yet they were “scripture” according to the “scripture” itself. So in the direct context of 2 Timothy 3:15-16 “the scripture” is not in reference to the originals but preserve copies called scripture. Now we know that the “originals” were “given by inspiration, but the direct context of the passage is not referring to them.
So I guessed, it's your turn to try explaining these verses why preservation is not in here. Give a try...or simply be classified as circular reasoning, the thing I learned from you...
that argument seems either only good for the version Timothy had ((septuigant?)) or for all faithful translations, not KJV in particular or in singularity.
I ain't a lady, and you're being **edited**.
I'm a Christian, the same as you. I have the Holy Spirit of God within me, the same as you. I hold the word of God as the supreme authority (next to God Himself), the same as you. You have no trump card to play against me, so stop trying to do so.
You have made assertions that you have not defended. Although we are discussing Christian and scriptural subjects, that fact does not absolve you of basic intellectual responsibility. Either you can defend your assertions, or you can't. If (when) you can't, you don't win the debate by accusing me of being non-Christian. That's fleshly, stupid, and holds absolutely no water whatsoever.
So, step up, defend your assertions with evidence, or withdraw them.
Last edited by a moderator:
That is interesting, that could be applied today sort of, a lot bibles are not free they can only begotten with money lol
It is not the KJV which changed that word καπηλεύοντες (kapēleuontes), but the modern translations which gave people a misleading translation since peddling was not applicable in this context.
Thayer's Greek Lexicon
STRONGS NT 2585: καπηλεύω (kapéleuó)
...καπηλεύειν τί was also used as synonymous with to corrupt, to adulterate (Themistius, or. 21, p. 247, Hard. edition says that the false philosophers τόθειοτατον τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἀγαθῶν κιβδηλεύειντέ καί αἰσχύνειν καί καπηλεύειν); and most interpreters rightly decide in favor of this meaning (on account of the context) in 2 Corinthians 2:17, cf. δολουντόν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, 2 Corinthians 4:2. (Cf. Trench, § lxii.)
