King James Bible

  • 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.

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
The word there is.
ספה
.to sweep or snatch away, catch up, destroy, consume
to be snatched away
to sweep or snatch away
to be swept away, be destroyed
to be caught up, be captured
to catch up, gather
Thank you have captured the meaning and Kjb is not an error and thank you you catched up. Ty
 

Mem

Senior Member
Sep 23, 2014
7,230
2,208
113
Not going into any deep study of the phrase, I googled, "loyalty to a fault" and the first result shows it is defined that it, "ensures that you always have the interest of your relationship at the center of your heart; you’re interested in what’s best not just for you, but for your partner, and that spurs you to make the necessary sacrifices..."

The problem here comes in when we sacrifice the truth of God to maintain a relationship with any particular person, or translator in this case. I can't think of any reason to sacrifice truth for anyone or anything. We should be careful of our need to discern whether we are accepting the truth or rejecting it to maintain a relationship with anyone other than God, whom is Truth with a capital T.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,388
5,729
113
As I mentioned in post #55, the list of modifications I shared was confirmed via the actual bibles referenced. Your accusation of my being a liar can easily be disproven upon review of the list.
In order for the KJV to be modified. The KJV would have to be the standard by which all other Bibles are judged. It isn't.
Independent translations are not derived from the KJV. They haven't modified it. They have bypassed it.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,114
965
113
Like I said, the New King James is probably the best English translation we have. I think its better than the NASB because its readable, where the NASB reads rather awkward.
The NKJV corrects many of the errors of the OKJV .
Can you give your best shot here in the NKJV that corrects the KJV? Thank you
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,433
3,684
113
The nkjv sides with the new versions throughout. The new versions uses corrupt manuscripts. Same difference.
Okay. But if you go down that road then you paint yourself into a corner by saying only one edition of the KJV is free of corruptions, since there have been many editions with different renderings. Using your logic only one can be uncorrupted and any other wording is corrupted. Maybe that's your position, I don't know.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
I work with a guy from Lithuania. Small world huh
I had 2 uncles who were Lithuanian. Both by marriage. They were not related, but went together to visit their homeland about 20 years before they died,(Both were ESL speaking Lithuanian first!)

As for me, my DNA tests show about 5% Baltic DNA. So far, I have not determined which of the 3 countries I am, but likely Lithuanian since it is closest to Poland, and at different times one ruled the other. I have a lot of Polish blood. And Ukrainian on my father's side.

(One note about Putin's claims that Russian and Ukrainian are similar. First, although they both use Cyrillic for the letters, some letters sound completely different. As I am finding out, Polish and Ukrainian are very similar, and they can understand the other language when spoken, although Polish uses to the Latin alphabet, and a lot of accent masks!)

What does this have to do with the KJV? Just that almost every language has Bibles translated into their language, which are usually easy to read.. I'm learning Ukrainian and Polish, so I can read the Bible in those languages. Of course, the only Bible I have never gotten through is the KJV! Too many obsolete words and grammar, as well as the tendency to follow Greek word order, which translates into bad English. Greek has cases and English does not. We ordered our words usually subject-verb-predicate. Greek word order can use Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive cases with the occasional Optative. In other words, the nominative, which would likely be the subject in English, but in Greek you can start a sentence with the accusative. You can have a predicate nominative, too! Although Polish and Ukrainian have 7 cases, the word order is "flexible!"

I like that Greek has cases, and German has 4 cases. Both Ukrainian & Polish have 7 cases. I'm glad I know other languages that have cases. Hebrew has many different forms, but not cases. It is much closer to English word order than Greek. I compared Hebrew to the KJV in seminary, and the KJV was very close. Despite the translators of the KJV tendency to follow Greek word order, there are many instances where it messes up, because the English & Greek are not comparable languages.

I read Greek well, having 2 years of Master's degree courses. I only have one year of Hebrew, but I don't use it as much as Greek, so some of it has been lost. A brush-up course, perhaps? (I also read a Greek NT & German Bible daily, along with m NET Bible. I do agree footnotes can be misleading, but the 66K footnotes in the NET are mostly about translating a word from the original languages to English, or historical, geographical, or interesting scholarship about a verse. Very little bias, except being conservative. The ESV footnotes have a lot of bias, one of the reasons I stopppprd using it after a few years of reading the Bible through.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
You may want to actually review the documents. There are many changes to actual scripture as well as additions/removal of verses, etc. As I mentioned in other posts, different manuscripts were used for the modern versions. I also noted that whether intentional or not many changes distort the deity of Jesus Christ. This is serious as many new to Christianity can end up formulating the wrong ideas about the Lord Jesus Christ, the existence of hell, etc.
"Changes to actual scripture"?

If your standard against which you measure is the KJV, your arguments are baseless; all you can demonstrate is difference. By that standard, one could argue with the same authority that the KJV is wrong.

The modern versions (with the possible exception of a select few) don't distort or diminish the deity of Christ at all. Cherry-picking certain verses and highlighting changes is not sound scholarship, but rather promoting biased propaganda.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
Looks like you posted the footnotes. Are footnotes the pure, holy words of God?
There were marginal notes in the 1611 KJV. Are they the pure, holy words of God? Consider carefully before answering.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
i agree, people want sweet little lies:

3rd Century Greek Text:

1 John 5:7-8

7 For they that testify are three,

8 the Spirit, and the water, and the blood, and the three are one.


then we have the TR/KJV

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.


1 John 5:7-8

7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

from 3rd Century TRUE GREEK TEXT to the 16th Century KJV that Scholars proven Erasmus totally messed up...just in 1 John 5:7-8 we have the difference of 25 words and a brand new meaning that the Apostle John never wrote about.
Actually, Erasmus did not mess up!! He found no late Greek manuscripts that had 1 John 5:8. It was added to the Latin Vulgate. He begged the pope to allow him to eliminate verse 8, which scholars agree is 100% spurious. The Pope would not allow Erasmus to delete it, because it seemed so important for Yrinitarian theology! Plus, Erasmus was in a hurry to get his translation out before his competitor did. It was worth a great deal of money and prestige, publishing first. In order to get the Imprimatur stamp of approval, he had to leave verse 8 in. Erasmus was a Catholic priest, and didn't want to disobey someone higher up in hierarchy. So he sacrificed accuracy for get his version printed first! This is a definite mistake in the KJV.
 
P

persistent

Guest
I had 2 uncles who were Lithuanian. Both by marriage. They were not related, but went together to visit their homeland about 20 years before they died,(Both were ESL speaking Lithuanian first!)

As for me, my DNA tests show about 5% Baltic DNA. So far, I have not determined which of the 3 countries I am, but likely Lithuanian since it is closest to Poland, and at different times one ruled the other. I have a lot of Polish blood. And Ukrainian on my father's side.

(One note about Putin's claims that Russian and Ukrainian are similar. First, although they both use Cyrillic for the letters, some letters sound completely different. As I am finding out, Polish and Ukrainian are very similar, and they can understand the other language when spoken, although Polish uses to the Latin alphabet, and a lot of accent masks!)

What does this have to do with the KJV? Just that almost every language has Bibles translated into their language, which are usually easy to read.. I'm learning Ukrainian and Polish, so I can read the Bible in those languages. Of course, the only Bible I have never gotten through is the KJV! Too many obsolete words and grammar, as well as the tendency to follow Greek word order, which translates into bad English. Greek has cases and English does not. We ordered our words usually subject-verb-predicate. Greek word order can use Nominative, Accusative, Dative and Genitive cases with the occasional Optative. In other words, the nominative, which would likely be the subject in English, but in Greek you can start a sentence with the accusative. You can have a predicate nominative, too! Although Polish and Ukrainian have 7 cases, the word order is "flexible!"

I like that Greek has cases, and German has 4 cases. Both Ukrainian & Polish have 7 cases. I'm glad I know other languages that have cases. Hebrew has many different forms, but not cases. It is much closer to English word order than Greek. I compared Hebrew to the KJV in seminary, and the KJV was very close. Despite the translators of the KJV tendency to follow Greek word order, there are many instances where it messes up, because the English & Greek are not comparable languages.

I read Greek well, having 2 years of Master's degree courses. I only have one year of Hebrew, but I don't use it as much as Greek, so some of it has been lost. A brush-up course, perhaps? (I also read a Greek NT & German Bible daily, along with m NET Bible. I do agree footnotes can be misleading, but the 66K footnotes in the NET are mostly about translating a word from the original languages to English, or historical, geographical, or interesting scholarship about a verse. Very little bias, except being conservative. The ESV footnotes have a lot of bias, one of the reasons I stopppprd using it after a few years of reading the Bible through.
Any idea what language the word Velyku could be? My 1910 Lithuanian Bible, printed in Berlyne (old spelling for Berlin?) uses that word for easter at Acts12:4. I don't find that word in my 1910 printed in Chicago Lithuanian dictionary and the Google search I did about a year ago came up with possibly the word being Belarus for Great Day.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,606
13,863
113
In many places, the nkjv ignores the writing of the KJV in favor of the perverted new versions. The first example of this error in the NKJV is found in the first verse. "In the beginning God created the HEAVEN and the earth." Notice it is heaven - singular. However the NKJV, RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, Youngs, and the Holman Standard have the HEAVENS - plural.
Scripture tells us that there is more than one, confirming the modern translations:

2 Corinthians 12:2
I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.
 

Beckie

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2022
2,516
939
113
Speaking about this verse or that verse not being, or being, in this translation or that translation. The originals did not have chapter or verse .

I am very glad some one put them there.
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,433
3,684
113
The introduction of the critical Greek text was planned long ago by Catholic popes. Laugh all you want; anyone who knows anything about the true history of the critical text knows this is a fact.

The Popes have hated the textus receptus and the KJV since it was introduced in 1611. Because of its popularity, it solidified and unified Protestants. Ever since they've been plotting a way to undermine it and get Protestants back under their thumb. Even the Catholic Bible used today is no longer based on Latin but on the UBS-NA critical text.
 
P

persistent

Guest
My neighbor just came back from a trip to Vatican City and I think he only recently purchased a Catholic Bible while visiting some shrine in Pennsylvania and when we discuss something he always is coming up with, "what Bible are you using". I tell him any Bible is o.k. even your Catholic Bible. I think he is finally realizing that the Imprimatur may not be that important
 

ResidentAlien

Well-known member
Apr 21, 2021
8,433
3,684
113
My neighbor just came back from a trip to Vatican City and I think he only recently purchased a Catholic Bible while visiting some shrine in Pennsylvania and when we discuss something he always is coming up with, "what Bible are you using". I tell him any Bible is o.k. even your Catholic Bible. I think he is finally realizing that
persistent, I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but it's becoming painfully obvious you're not on the side of truth.