The Error of KJV-Onlyism
- Thread starter presidente
- 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.
The Lord wants all his words to be spoken and none diminished. Jeremiah could have taken what God said and toned it down a little, maybe a little less harsh, to make it more acceptable in the people’s ears, but it would not have been acceptable to God. Words are important to God, not just the thought.
Jeremiah 26:
1 In the beginning of the reign of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah king of Judah came this word from the Lord, saying,
2 Thus saith the Lord; Stand in the court of the Lord's house, and speak unto all the cities of Judah, which come to worship in the Lord's house, all the words that I command thee to speak unto them; diminish not a word:
3 If so be they will hearken, and turn every man from his evil way, that I may repent me of the evil, which I purpose to do unto them because of the evil of their doings.
God‘s not asking for “different ways of saying the same thing.” He desires his pure, holy words to be spoken. He is seeking people to simply believe his words, plural. Words matter to God. Words help make connections to other parts of scripture. When the right words are not used, one loses the connections.
My favorite actor was also British.
He not only sang and acted, but also read books. I wish he read the Bible though.
I prayed for a chance to witness to him and lead him to Christ before he died. Then I found an old movie he stared in. He was a martyr who the pagans captured and were going to burn alive in a wicker man idol. He was their sacrifice. It was a windy day and if I remember correctly, the cue card holder lost the script that he was suppose to read, so Edward Woodward improvised instead. That would begin in the second scene. If he believed what he preached, 17:25 second video, I hope to meet him some day in heaven.
This is just a reenactment of what the wicked pagans and Bible burners did, but is accurate according to history that survived.
I hope the hit job against the Word of God doesn't phase any new believers or undermine unbelievers here from getting saved. The Critical Sceptic's Text arguments don't phase me in the least knowing what our ancestors went through below for the Word of God.
"Pure, holy words" might be valid if God had inspired the Bible in English. He didn't. English is a translation, and the decisions made by the KJV translators don't come with the stamp of the Almighty rendering them indelible, despite your treatment of them as such.
Like "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt do no murder"? Yup, connection lost completely.
smh...
The Bible is its own best interpreter.
Numbers 35:30
"Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of witnesses: but one witness shall not testify against any person to cause him to die."
It's a good thing this thread wasn't started as a KJV hit piece.
I never would have learned that there's but one definition for the word "kill" and the OT translators didn't know how to translate like highly evolved modern Calvinists James White.
N
Niki7
Guest
Kindly give proof of your fact. I notice you do not do that.
For example I posted and gave links to the source material. You are not an expert on the subject and while I am not either, at least I give credit to those who are rather than make some comment as though it was an original thought.
N
Niki7
Guest
this is simply...painful. should a person decide for whatever reason, to put their head in a vise and commence to tighten it, they might possibly believe they understand what that post actually attributes to reason
The turn of the 17th century was a time for stability of the English language. It had so many influences as a melting pot language that it changed drastically for generations leading up to that period. I agree with you if you're saying People no longer commonly spake the exact way that the KJV was written in 1611, but the terminology was established. People understood it. That style was settled with chosen vocabulary.
Unlike major popular scholars the critics of our Bible say, it was Not written in Old English or even Middle English. Even as a Junior, my highschool teacher, a liberal United Methodist with feminist background taught us correctly the fact that the KJV is modern English. If she understood that pray tell why can't the most popular critics know that?
Anyhow, the translators used precise language that is 99% in use today.
Our Bible is probably the main reason that the English language has not changed more over the centuries.
KJB Acts 8:9 says ”bewitched”, while the newer versions might go with the word “amazed”, ”astonished”, “astounded”, or “thrilling” which cannot correspond to the word “sorcery”. We can be amazed, astonished, astounded, or thrilled by some other things other than the use of magic or sorcery. The KJB outdated word “bewitched” however, I believe is still accurate among the entries because of its context.
King James Bible
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bewitched
https://biblehub.com/acts/8-9.htm
Yes, she doesn't speak Hebrew. what about John? Surely he does.
I suppose proto means it was first and paleo just means ancient so until anyone talks about either form we may never know...
I read your post on your reply to Poster John146 too fast. My bad. I Just reread it, and I get it now.
What Poster John 146 is saying is that if the right words (that he believes are the true words of God in the KJB) are not in our Bible, then other parts of the Bible are not going to make any sense. We see an example of this in Modern Bibles.
Galatians 3:16 says: “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.” Now, if we were to look back at one of the Old Testament references for Galatians 3:16, we can see that the King James Bible correctly refers to Abraham’s seed (singular - which is a reference to Christ), and yet the Modern bibles change this reference in Genesis 12:7 with using the word “descendants” instead of the word “seed” (Which destroys the whole point Paul was making in Galatians 3:16). So yes. The changing of words by Modern Bibles does affect the rest of Scripture indeed. That’s why the King James Bible is superior. There is another Messianic reference that Modern Bibles mess up, as well.
You can now have the Bible separated into separated books as a box set instead of one big volume which is a great idea.
It might be a tad more expensive than a one volume bible printed on very thin on tissue paper but it will get more use.
I like those Bibles with Giant Large Print as oldies can read those. But you can also obtain very cheap paperback editions printed on newsprint. Of course all Bibles are now digitised and accessible online, but I reckon a printed edition is essential and handy.
the KJv wasnt written in elizabethan english. It was just translated into english from the Hebrew. The Hebrew used second person singlular pronouns that were specific. The equivalent in english would have been thee thou and thine. We dont use them now in everyday speech but some english dialects use them and many other languages use them too.
A lot of hebrew and greek words would have been archaic and equivalent achaic words would have been used in English simply because the Bible was compiled over hundreds of years. I wouldnt expect it to be modern, and people who complain about it just are being whiny. lol
It might be a tad more expensive than a one volume bible printed on very thin on tissue paper but it will get more use.
I like those Bibles with Giant Large Print as oldies can read those. But you can also obtain very cheap paperback editions printed on newsprint. Of course all Bibles are now digitised and accessible online, but I reckon a printed edition is essential and handy.
the KJv wasnt written in elizabethan english. It was just translated into english from the Hebrew. The Hebrew used second person singlular pronouns that were specific. The equivalent in english would have been thee thou and thine. We dont use them now in everyday speech but some english dialects use them and many other languages use them too.
A lot of hebrew and greek words would have been archaic and equivalent achaic words would have been used in English simply because the Bible was compiled over hundreds of years. I wouldnt expect it to be modern, and people who complain about it just are being whiny. lol
of course it wasnt, you just seem to like pointing out the obvious.
I think most people are saying it was an inspired TRANSLATION. This is not to say Hebrew is a Holy Language any more than Greek is.
The words of God, especially the words or sayings of Jesus in many Bibles are in red. God does speak a lot in the Bible, hadnt you heard, He's always saying stuff.... He just communicates in a way people will listen and at the time, He wanted to communicate with his chosen people...in the langauge they would hear...and write down, and read.
Jesus was always saying 'it is written' because He knew that Satan cant defeat scripture. He can twist it, cut things out or add but it doesnt fool anybody who already knows that scripture...as it is written.