The King James Bible
- Thread starter James37
- 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.
did your phone's autocorrect change "KJV-only-ists" to "flat-earthers" ??
They’re synonymous, imo.
i think i've pointed something out that makes you very uncomfortable, so you're resorting to total misuse of the word "analogy" and now to calling me personally petty.
you said "Devil is in the details" and yet you act like this detail is irrelevant. that's incongruous with the air of keen analysis you're trying to project. if details have a primacy of importance, there is no such thing as "petty" - making at least one of your statements hypocritical.
who cares about price of bread in England in 1837? 200p would not have been accurate anymore at that point either, because it wasn't the price of bread in England in 1600. and it wasn't the price of food in Israel in AD 30.
i'm more than willing to give my own analysis of this: i believe the right thing to do ((if i were a translator)) is to leave this as the Greek itself states, that Phillip said "two hundred denarii"
i believe "pennyworth" was a poor choice on the part of the translating committee. they tried to convert the literal words of the scripture to something contemporaneously relevant, but that leads to a false understanding of what the scripture actually says at all times and places other than the exact time and place that the translation was made. that only makes sense in late 16th century England, and it's simply inaccurate anywhere and any-when else.
if we're going to have to do a conversion of currency and adjust for economies in time periods, we may as well do it from the time period and currency that the apostle himself spoke in rather than arbitrarily introduce more sources of potential error by converting to "pennyworth"
that's my opinion. i ain't a-feared to state it, because it puts me to no shame.
do you agree or not?
Last edited:
i proved that it was not possible to take the KJV as word-for-word 100% perfect in this verse, or alternately, that if it is at all possible to call the phraseology 'perfect,' that 'perfection' was only momentary, at the exact earthly location and time period that the translation was made.
that i can only properly understand the KJV's rendition of Phillips comment if i work from the assumption that the KJV is imperfect.
there is an inescapable conclusion to be inferred from this fact, but you're smart, so i'll leave it to you to add two plus two
At least one mistake in the KJV - translating pasca as easter..
(Acts 12:4 KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
(Acts 12:4 KJV) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)
Acts 12:4 And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
hmm well, see, the thing is...
this isn't true, according to the text.
הַשָּׁמַ֖יִם
AFAIK, this word is undeniably plural, not singular.
of course it's not like i know Hebrew; i just know a bit about how to look up information. am welcome to be corrected - though using the KJV to correct the Hebrew is laughably poor scholarship: i mean being actually corrected by someone who knows what they're talking about with regard to the language. in fact, more than welcome -- i have no desire to walk around thinking in error if it can be helped.
yeah that's actually offensively wrong.
Easter is a transliteration of Ishtar, a filthy pagan goddess.
quite arguably blasphemously wrong.
So when the KJV changes the OT text, its OK, because its just a diversity.
But when other translations add "s", its the devil in details.
----
Do I understand you right?
There is no diversity in the gospel. There is only one gospel. There is no diversity to it.
I think you should study the pennyworth problem you discovered until its solved.
Lets see...
So far you haters don't know what Easter is, what the gospels are, what constitutes error, what pennyworth value signifies, how to figure out what God said about dividing heaven, etc...
But you want me think you know anything about understanding greek and hebrew.
Sorry but I don't believe you.
I think that you're basically googlers gladhanding one another, far as I can tell.
So far you haters don't know what Easter is, what the gospels are, what constitutes error, what pennyworth value signifies, how to figure out what God said about dividing heaven, etc...
But you want me think you know anything about understanding greek and hebrew.
Sorry but I don't believe you.
I think that you're basically googlers gladhanding one another, far as I can tell.
I don't mind discussing a ttopic and I like to be serious about it, but I am not interested in the same old googled analysis'. I already know that some folk are adamant about; not having a standard English bible text and that they see error according to their own notions and that some are paranoid about people that believe contrary to those notions.
But, I believe the Holy Bible is of God, and is thereforeb holy. And so, excuse me if I avoid posts I consider silly, petty or off topic. I want you to know I read the posts but I don't want to comment when all tjat I'll accomplish is to offend someone.
I don't discuss greek and hebrew analysis' since they are foreign languages to me. But when someone presents their finished text I'll read it and compare it with the Holy Bible in English and maybe comnent.
If and when someone is serious I'll gladly participate.
But, I believe the Holy Bible is of God, and is thereforeb holy. And so, excuse me if I avoid posts I consider silly, petty or off topic. I want you to know I read the posts but I don't want to comment when all tjat I'll accomplish is to offend someone.
I don't discuss greek and hebrew analysis' since they are foreign languages to me. But when someone presents their finished text I'll read it and compare it with the Holy Bible in English and maybe comnent.
If and when someone is serious I'll gladly participate.
I thought that was the case. Thanks for being kind enough to let me know.
So, answer this imperfection in the KJV:
----
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written."
R 2:24 KJV
"and my name continually every day is blasphemed."
Is 52:6 KJV
----
Explain to me, why did the KJV OT dropped out the meaning (that Gentiles blaspheme the name of God because of Jews).
And no, I did not google it.
Yes, which is why we have several versions of Scripture. It is impossible to convey Greek, Hebrew into English word for word, then there is the evolving of language over time, from antiquated to a modern version.
NASB, ESV, NKJV are wonderful accurate versions of Scripture, you should use them, God gave them to us for a reason.