KJV translators weren't KJV only!

[Dino246]

it can''t. God's thoughts, and human's are larger and more complex than single words or even sentences.

That's inconsistent with the revelation of Scripture. While God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours, He does intend that we can understand it His word adequately to believe and follow Him. What God might mean in a given passage must be rooted in what He actually said.

 

[ResidentAlien]

I doubt since there are now 8 MORE VERSES come time around 345 A.D., [[it's clear]] Mark [did not] ADD this but a NOBODY did!

Remember though, those later manuscripts were copies of copies. Mark could still have penned the original.

 

[AandW]

We do know around 200 A.D. the Greek Bible only had 8 Verses to Mark 16.

I doubt since there are now 8 MORE VERSES come time around 345 A.D., [[it's clear]] Mark [did not] ADD this but a NOBODY did!

If we want to be more Technical, the Gospel of Mark is PETER'S Gospel. Peter spoke it in Aramaic and Mark, Peter's Disciple, translated it into Greek.

So, Mark would have no Authority to even ADD to it!

UNLESS, Peter directed him to..

 

[Dino246]

I think that I have been ministered to by the exhortation in Corinthians to "quit you like men";

While a more modern translation would render it as "Be brave."

In context, there is a special connection to the first understanding (found in the kjv); in that it is said to us that the household of Stephanas addicted themselves to the ministry of the saints.

It applies, very aptly, in a teaching that when you quit doing some behaviour that you have an addiction to, that it is wise to replace that behaviour with something holy.

But the modern translations do not give that teaching; in them "quit you like men" is rendered "Be brave."

And, even if "Be brave" is more in line with today's English, I find that I prefer the kjv's rendering here because its application is more beneficial.

Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to a common error of KJV-only adherents: the idea that a word means the same in 2021 (or whenever during your lifetime) as it did in 1611. "Quit" did not mean "stop doing" as you have interpreted it. Rather, it carries the meaning of taking (or being relieved of) responsibility. If you read through every instance of "quit" in the KJV, you will see this.

 

[fredoheaven]

Based on what the KJV translators say in their Preface, it doesn't make any sense that they were KJV finally. For example they stated the necessity of translations (plural) into a language the common people could understand. The KJV may have served its purpose, but it's out of date.

They may be outdated but still true.

But regardless, as far as the Bible is concerned, if people can't understand it it's useless.

People can’t understand it for many reasons. Perhaps, these people are unsaved so that they could not understand English KJB or people are lazy, that they won’t study the word and or if they read, they don’t ask the Holy Spirit to guide them.

Perhaps, you are outdated, KJV is still read in many churches, preach in many pulpits, and not only in the native English speaking but were also in the Asians and all over the world. It is still the most popular English Bible despite many new modern English translations.

The NKJV is an improvement, but is it the final one? Or the 1611, the 1629, the 1638, the 1762, or the 1769?

​

​

"But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him that speaketh, a Barbarian, and he that speaketh, shall be a Barbarian to me. [1 Cor 14] The Apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught a natural man to confess, that all of us in those tongues which we do not understand, are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous; so the Roman did the Syrian, and the Jew (even S. Jerome himself calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because it was strange to so many) so the Emperor of Constantinople calleth the Latin tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it: so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better than barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that always in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: so lest the Church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to have translations in a readiness. Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, Read this, I pray thee, he was fain to make this answer, I cannot, for it is sealed. [Isa 29:11]"​

Yes, Smith speaks of the need for translation to the English common tongue which has been kept during the era of dominant Catholicism when the translations/ Bibles were burned. You should know Wycliffe and some of his friends who were burned at stake with bibles tied at their necks. You should know the facts over Tyndale was tied at stake, strangle to death then burnt. It was Tyndale who in his last words prayed out loudly, “Lord, open the King of England’s eye”. Yes, translation is needed and I have it now. What about you?

 

[AandW]

If we want to be more Technical, the Gospel of Mark is PETER'S Gospel. Peter spoke it in Aramaic and Mark, Peter's Disciple, translated it into Greek.

So, Mark would have no Authority to even ADD to it!

UNLESS, Peter directed him to..

Why is it Important to know Mark is Peter's Gospel?

In the Book of Mark, there are more Aramaic Words like Talitha, Eli Eli LLAMA Sabachthani, and few others because PETER SPOKE Aramaic and some Aramaic the Greek is UNABLE to translate or make the Sound to translate..

The Proof for the Gospel of Mark being originated in Aramaic, is by the [WORDS], that cannot be translated into Greek!!

 

[MattforJesus]

You will not have a problem with the KJV if you read through it for then you can see the harmony and if anything is out of place which could be for the new translations.

I have read through the KJV and I do not have a problem with understanding it.

 

[Dino246]

To understand that god wants translation not to be perfect and that is part of gods perfect plan.You see that as having nothing to do with the translation issues?We must seek him as a hidden treasure.[Your like what do tire have to do with cars?]

You're making assumptions that have no basis in Scripture.

 

[Dino246]

Why is it Important to know Mark is Peter's Gospel?

In the Book of Mark, there are more Aramaic Words like Talitha, Eli Eli LLAMA Sabachthani, and few others because PETER SPOKE Aramaic and some Aramaic the Greek is UNABLE to translate or make the Sound to translate..

The Proof the Gospel of Mark is Aramaic, is by the [WORDS], that cannot be translated into Greek!!

That isn't proof. It isn't even evidence, because there is nothing stating that the words "could not" be translated. To me, it's a simpler explanation that specific words originally spoken in Aramaic (as opposed to Greek) were preserved in Aramaic precisely because they were unusual.

 

[Dino246]

You will not have a problem with the KJV if you read through it for then you can see the harmony and if anything is out of place which could be for the new translations.

What, exactly, do you mean by the bolded part?

 

[Dino246]

Never chapter and vs of itself but truth And spirit.reading comprehension is determined buy Jesus,,,because he said so.

Where did Jesus say that? Which chapter and verse?

 

[Dino246]

yes i know that is true,,But the wicked bible had a misprint in it that said thou shall commit adultery it was a king James version

No Christian is claiming that either the Joseph Smith "translation" or the "wicked Bible" are sound translations. The first is an intentional corruption; the second, an unintentional misprint. You're comparing apples to elephants.

 

[fredoheaven]

You forgot to quote the part where they say those previous versions are still God's word, even with blemishes.

The main reason the KJV was made wasn't to eradicate all blemishes, but to make it more readable and understandable.

Yes, because the base text of those previous English versions is the same as what was used by the KJV translators. That’s not only the reason for readability but a new translation where the Geneva may have a slip or the Bishops Bible. Examples are withdrawn at this time but there are certainly differences in the translation that was checked and reviewed by the KJV translators from previous English Translations.

 

[John146]

God did

View attachment 231620

Look up Matthew 18:11 again...

The new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David.

 

[John146]

We don't, that's my point. But I believe God has preserved the ten commandments. Even though the copies we have may not match the originals word-for-word, God has preserved the meaning He intended to impart.

Yes, I believe God has preserved His words perfectly in the KJV. Every word is the correct word for English speakers.

 

[John146]

In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.

There are no Bible translations that have altered scripture to deny the believer's eternal security in Jesus.
There are no Bible translations that give belivers a licence to sin either.

Is that all that matters? Does not God want us to have more truth? Then why have a Bible? Just have a couple of verses about salvation and let's call it a day...

 

[John146]

Hogwash and codswollop. You're a hypocrite.

You probably should look up a term before you call people names.

 

[rayzor]

Look up Matthew 18:11 again...

The new versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David.

It was not Daaa veed it was god,,but i will look it up in the new versions

 

[John146]

What is weird in my Opinion, this is the YEAR 2021, and for the most part, Believers and Followers of God knows the Old Testament in the KJV was originally written in HEBREW and the New Testament is 90% Greek,

So, if we know the O.T. is Hebrew and the N.T. is Greek, why aren't we reading the Hebrew Tanakh for the Old Testament and the Greek Codex Sinaiticus for the New Testament?

After all, the KJV SHOULD BE REPLICATING THE TANAKH FOR THE OLD TESTAMENT AND THE CODEX SINAITICUS FOR THE NEW TESTAMENT, since the Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek Codex Sinaiticus [[EXISTED]] BEFORE the KJV by literally THOUSANDS AND HUNDREDS of years!!

The Sinaiticus is corrupt. The KJV does not use it.

I believe the KJV is the exact English words I need. I speak English. I believer God has perfectly preserved His words in the English language through the KJV. You don't. That's fine. Just don't bash me for believing I hold God's word in my hands.

 

[fredoheaven]

Yes, I believe God has preserved His words perfectly in the KJV. Every word is the correct word for English speakers.

Yes, thanks.