The people had the bishop or the geneva bible. He was trying to make the church in his image.
-
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.
Come on now really. You dont know the difference in joined and captured.....get off the gas man.
Once again your are displaying your ignorance. The Hebrew word sair literally means hairy and can be applied as follows:
- he-goat, buck
- as sacrificial animal
- satyr, may refer to a demon possessed goat like the swine of Gadara (Mt. 8:30-32)
All you have to do is study the history of wars. The captured were invariably joined to their captors either as slaves or spouses.
Okay continued contacts, killed or Fallen by the sword saw the people that are captured or killed by the sword not joined to them I know you got to make an excuse but come on man
Not exactly. It is true the James I was not a fan of the Geneva translation with its marginal notes especially on the subject of regicide. He also wanted to retain traditional words for things like church for congregation, bishop for overseer, Easter for Pascha and so forth. The resulting translation was largley a revision of the Bishop's bible and retained much of Tyndale's work. It became known in the UK as the Authorized version at it was the official translaition of the Anglican church.
The KJV is a monument to fine 18th century scholarship and there is nothing wrong with using this translation. In fact, I would recommend the trinitarian bible society's Westminster version from their website. That said if you struggle with the jacobean english or pershaps english is a second language then use a good modern translations like NKJV, NASB (1995), ESV or the CSB.
from the Christian Publishing House:
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
BY
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholar
Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
FACTS on the TEXTUS RECEPTUS and the KING JAMES VERSION
BY
Allan A. MacRae and Robert C. Newman
Allan Alexander MacRae was an evangelical Christian scholar
Robert C. Newman is Emeritus Professor of New Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary, and Director of the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute.
How many manuscripts agree exactly with Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament?
There is no Greek manuscript that agrees exactly with it. Erasmus made it by combining the readings of several manuscripts, none of them earlier than the tenth century A.D., and most of them still later. In some parts of the New Testament he had no manuscript at all, but simply retranslated from the Latin Bible.
Then why bother to hunt for early manuscripts? Why not simply follow the textus receptus?
God inspired the manuscripts that came from the hands of the original writers.
True and I now days prefer the New King James. I used to prefer the NASB, its not better than the New King James. In fact the New King James reads much easier and retains the integrity of the text.
I really don't know if there were prisoners of war here. They were no captives here, everything they found will be killed once and for all including those who intend to come and help them. No one will escape this slaughter. The Hebrew ספה has been used as (Hiphil) meaning to say to catch up, gather hence join. This is a definition given by Brown-Driver-Briggs' Hebrew Definitions, Strong and Gesenius and The KjV translators are far more experts in the Hebrew language than you can imagine. The Latin versions as well favor the KJB more than what you are saying as a captive.
Vulgate(i) 15 omnis qui inventus fuerit occidetur et omnis qui supervenerit cadet in gladio
Google translation of the Latin:
every one that is found shall be slain, and every one that cometh shall fall by the sword
Spanish Bible RV
ReinaValera(i) 15 Cualquiera que fuere hallado, será alanceado; y cualquiera que á ellos se juntare, caerá á cuchillo.
Google:
Anyone found will be speared; and whoever joins them will fall by the knife.
French Martin
Martin(i) 15 Quiconque sera trouvé, sera transpercé; et quiconque s'y sera joint, tombera par l'épée.
Google Translator
Whoever is found will be pierced; and whoever joins in it will fall by the sword.
I bet this is enough to chew on.
Completely irrelevant. "God's form of government" comes in several flavours, only one of which is a theocratic monarchy.
No verses have been "modified/removed etc. from newer translations". Do your homework, stop taking only one source for your information, and get your facts straight.
I would recommend that you read James White's The King James Bible Controversy... for starters.
Can you post Matthew 18:11 from your new version? It’s a great memory verse.
The modern translations were created using different manuscripts than the KJV. I attached an image that references this. Also included is a link to a thread that includes 22 pages listing verse modifications in the versions you mention. In many cases the changes distort the meaning of the original scripture; such as the deity of Jesus, existence of hell, etc.
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ersion-scripture-changes.207529/#post-4922290
Attachments
The following is a link that includes specific modifications, etc. I know what is documented to be true because I do my homework. I owned and operated a Christian Bookstore years ago and was able to confirm the information, and did so by comparing the list to the actual bibles I had in inventory. If you take the time to study them out you too may find what they reveal quite eye opening.
https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ersion-scripture-changes.207529/#post-4922290
P
persistent
Guest
When it comes to the Bible I am just interested in knowing that the translation has conveyed as accurately as possible what God by means of prophets which were inspired is telling us today. Wiki and all info sources have errors and news sources possibly still carry insurance which limit their liability for what is known as Errors and Omissions. Supposedly and possibly true is that even tabloids are difficult to indict in any way since the way the wording is done it is misleading but yet accurate. Paradox? Go Figure. Is every product you purchase exactly what you expected or do you sometime find that you were somewhat misled. Go Figure.
You may have waited until I posted the actual proof I mentioned before personally attacking me. Each of us should practice diligence before presenting information relevant to the word of God. All will one day be accountable to God for what has been expressed in word and deed.
https://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/bible-version-scripture-changes.207529/
King James was already head of church and state.
The predecessor of the King James version was the Geneva Bible, which was very popular. However, it had marginal notes which the king felt undermined his royal authority, so he instructed that the King James version was to have very minimal notes; only to explain things like uncertain meanings of words. I wouldn't say it's "slanted" toward royal authority, but it doesn't have the notes the Geneva had.
The King James version is actually the third "authorized" version. The first being the Great Bible and second the Geneva.
Thank you. It is usually translated goat or kid, which certainly "dance" or play as anyone who's raised goats could tell Dirtman. Perhaps a transliteration was chosen or they resembled satyrs/mythological goats who were known to dance. We sometimes use poetic terminology today to make a point as many Southern speak and Australians are known for. Dancing goats with a poetic flavor and a Hebrew word that sounds like a recognizable term "satyr" .....looks like a quick entomology study would reveal the choice of word here.
I will talk to a linguist I know when I get a chance, but this use appears to be transliterated from saiyr' in this case.
Like your dictionary, Strongs is in agreement.
שָׂעִיר sâʻîyr, saw-eer'; or שָׂעִר sâʻir; from H8175; shaggy; as noun, a he-goat; by analogy, a faun:—devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr.
Regardless, in my experience we can win debates with those who despise the KJV 100 times and it wouldn't matter. They are are fluent ancient Hebrew and Greek speakers that run circles around each and every one of the KJV translators those 7 years. If I could have but a James White with me at my devotionals, then I would finally understand the oh so difficult Bible.
