KJV translators weren't KJV only!
- Thread starter ResidentAlien
- 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.
That's a bit of an odd claim , the thread title, don't you think?
Those charged with creating a King's English version of the Bible would of course be referring to different works when creating the first 1611 edition of a Bible authorized by King James.
They couldn't be KJV only when a KJV didn't yet exist.
Those charged with creating a King's English version of the Bible would of course be referring to different works when creating the first 1611 edition of a Bible authorized by King James.
They couldn't be KJV only when a KJV didn't yet exist.
It is a deadly error to say that men are speaking only God's word.
God's word was given to the understanding that men had of the meaning of words over 6,000 years ago. The KJV was translated by men influenced, not by God, but by the accepted interpretations of scripture of that time, including that it was OK to be against Jews. If you accept every interpretation of the original Hebrew into the 1600's idea of English, you are saying you believe in men, not in God. That is wrong.
God's word was given to the understanding that men had of the meaning of words over 6,000 years ago. The KJV was translated by men influenced, not by God, but by the accepted interpretations of scripture of that time, including that it was OK to be against Jews. If you accept every interpretation of the original Hebrew into the 1600's idea of English, you are saying you believe in men, not in God. That is wrong.
It is my contention that the kjv is inspired and inerrant as concerning doctrine;
While in certain cases, as with certain numbers, or other minor details, that have been postulated within the text, there may indeed be error;
However there is no error in the kjv that would carry over into changing doctrine so that we would be finding unsound doctrine in the context of the kjv.
Therefore the unadulterated message of salvation is completely preserved in what we know as the authorized version.
While in certain cases, as with certain numbers, or other minor details, that have been postulated within the text, there may indeed be error;
However there is no error in the kjv that would carry over into changing doctrine so that we would be finding unsound doctrine in the context of the kjv.
Therefore the unadulterated message of salvation is completely preserved in what we know as the authorized version.
yea thats why I pointed that out
its only now that we have tonnes of other versions to choose from that KJV only comes about
However they cant say its the Authorised Version in the US so they want it to be KJV only
as it was the Church of England official version appointed to be read in all churches. The designated Head of the Church of England is the current reigning monarch.
Some people seem to not understand this. Back in the day, every single Church in England were all state owned as it were after they had kicked out the Roman Catholics and the Pope.
Before that the only Bible they had was in Latin..the Vulgate.
its only now that we have tonnes of other versions to choose from that KJV only comes about
However they cant say its the Authorised Version in the US so they want it to be KJV only
as it was the Church of England official version appointed to be read in all churches. The designated Head of the Church of England is the current reigning monarch.
Some people seem to not understand this. Back in the day, every single Church in England were all state owned as it were after they had kicked out the Roman Catholics and the Pope.
Before that the only Bible they had was in Latin..the Vulgate.
Firstly, this is not a primary matter of the Christian faith. It doesn't affect my walk with God at all.
Secondly, comparing one English translation to another English translation does not tell you which is correct; it only tells you that there is a difference. Those with an understanding of the textual issues behind the different English translations aren't overly concerned about this.
Thirdly, I have to wonder exactly who is behind this attempt to divide Christians from each other.
Secondly, comparing one English translation to another English translation does not tell you which is correct; it only tells you that there is a difference. Those with an understanding of the textual issues behind the different English translations aren't overly concerned about this.
Thirdly, I have to wonder exactly who is behind this attempt to divide Christians from each other.
-
1
- Show all
I didn't see where you pointed out my observations prior to my quoted post.
I don't know that his work drives people from the faith. Ehrman was a Christian, now turned to Agnostic.
He's a scholar and professor of NT studies and invests in the field of textual criticism.
Teaching the history of how the canon came to exist shouldn't turn people from wanting to learn about Christ.
And we know no one can take us from Christ.
I'm curious as to why you would direct anyone to an apostate whose work drives people away from Christ. 
He's a scholar and professor of NT studies and invests in the field of textual criticism.
Teaching the history of how the canon came to exist shouldn't turn people from wanting to learn about Christ.
And we know no one can take us from Christ.
Are you saying these men stopped being flawed as they translated? Do you think the word Passover can be accurately translated as Easter? That God does not pass over when blood is given on the altar?
When all does it happen that imperfect man can be trusted to be perfect? I think that is called barking up the wrong tree.
When all does it happen that imperfect man can be trusted to be perfect? I think that is called barking up the wrong tree.
-
1
-
1
- Show all
2Co 12:9
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.,,,,So your saying that he's saying?.,,,that without our weakness his strength would not be perfect?,,Rather then that god refines us until we are made perfect?
And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.,,,,So your saying that he's saying?.,,,that without our weakness his strength would not be perfect?,,Rather then that god refines us until we are made perfect?
