You are assuming that these people were right in their protests. Those people probably did not want the masses to have a copy of God's word in their own language.
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.
You are assuming that these people were right in their protests. Those people probably did not want the masses to have a copy of God's word in their own language.
And situation begins to repeat because many people do not understand the KJV, its not their language anymore.
You have the same arguments Vulgate Only guys had - "so learn the words you do not know"!
A simple consistent application of your accusation is that you worship the 1611, Gipp, Ruckman and Riplinger from whom many of your false notions and doctrines come, as you pride yourself, falsely, that no man teaches you. That's the end result of your measuring stick on others; it exposes you.
You don't exalt the Savior in your campaign here, no need to bring false undue glory upon yourself; you exalt a Bible version and yourself.
How hypocritical of him to suggest we use a dictionary, a book from man. I need no man to teach me. The utter foolishness of their (double) standards is readily dismantled when applied consistently.
You couldn't be more wrong. This is a King James Version thread. I'm defending the KJV. It exposes me as a true Bible believer. I do not depend upon my vast knowledge of the Greek to change the words of God. I simply believe in what I've got. You do not believe all words of truth is attainable. You are your own final authority on what God has said.
If you want to start a thread on exalting the Savior, I'd be happy to post.
How hypocritical of him to suggest we use a dictionary, a book from man. I need no man to teach me. The utter foolishness of their (double) standards is readily dismantled when applied consistently.
I use a dictionary when studying the word of truth. It's call the KJV and it's built in dictionary using the context of the first mention principle.
And there are some great men of God who I learn from.
But your KJV defense can be used in the same way for any other translation. There is nothing in the KJV itself, objectively, that you can base your claims on.
You just believe that the KJV is the only translation of Scriptures, based on your feelings, subjective experience and probably some biased books or webpages.
I can take all or almost all your claims and make it Vulgate only proofs, if I just change the title.
Moment of irony for today:
KJVOnly people tend to be against calvinism, yet turn around and claim the translators of the KJV were inspired and every word in the KJV is inspired.
Problem is that the translators of the KJV were calvinists from the church of England. Why didn't God give them the right doctrine?
HOW IRONIC!
I remember in the rapture thread some months ago someone said "The King James Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture" yet the translators of the KJV were amillennial.
HOW IRONIC #2!
KJVOnly people tend to be against calvinism, yet turn around and claim the translators of the KJV were inspired and every word in the KJV is inspired.
Problem is that the translators of the KJV were calvinists from the church of England. Why didn't God give them the right doctrine?
HOW IRONIC!
I remember in the rapture thread some months ago someone said "The King James Bible teaches a pre-trib rapture" yet the translators of the KJV were amillennial.
HOW IRONIC #2!
I worship Jehovah God only....
To say that you would never "correct" the KJV translation, using the very texts it was translated from, is a textbook example of translation worship.
The translation has become greater, and more accurate than what it was translated from..... do you not see a flaw in that logic? The silliness of it is illustrated in Matthew 10...
I worship the Lord Jesus Christ. I exalt the Scriptures which in turn exalt the Savior. You cast doubt on the Scriptures. If the Scriptures are 100% trustworthy, why trust the Savior of the Scripture? (This has been an argument from the lost world)
There are three examples of translations in the Bible. Enoch, Saul's kingdom to David's and the rapture. In each case, the translation was better than the original.
You cast doubt on the Scriptures (Septuagint, Vulgate...)
Exactly. So trust Vulgate (used for 1500 years) or Septuagint (used for 2300 years)
Exactly. So do not attack Vulgate and Septuagint with your corrupted KJV. Right?
====
If it is not obvious, I used irony, demonstrating that all your arguments and claims are not bound to the KJV, but can be used about any other well established translation as well.
I've written this before, but you may not have caught it: if the pattern doesn't exist in the Hebrew and Greek, it is irrelevant and meaningless. For the pattern to have any meaning for all readers, it must exist in the original languages.
There are patterns that exist in the originals that don't exist in the KJV. Some things simply don't translate. If we apply your logic consistently we would conclude that the KJV is therefore not the perfect word of God.
I seldom hear out and out, blatant blasphemy on here, but that second statement certainly qualifies.
Good! Praise the Lord for that!
I didn't notice this until Willie commented on it. Frankly, I think you're taking the idea of "translation" out of its context so thoroughly that it might as well be a different word. These events have nothing to do with translation from one language to another. You did not cite examples of language translation (Joseph, Daniel, Ezra et al) which would be more consistent with and far more relevant to your point. Even if your examples were of language translation, they would do nothing to support the idea that the KJV is superior to any other version. To think otherwise is to engage in logical fallacy.
The translators of the KJV admitted in the forward that their work was not perfect and could always be edited to improve it's fidelity to the original manuscripts. This is true of any translation. Even in the original manuscripts we find technical difficulties. Linguistic drift and no complete manuscripts from which to translate.
Hebrew scholars and doctors of the law argue for centuries over a single jot or tittle in the manuscripts.
Moral of the story. Use what you got and allow God to see that you get what you need.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Hebrew scholars and doctors of the law argue for centuries over a single jot or tittle in the manuscripts.
Moral of the story. Use what you got and allow God to see that you get what you need.
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Yes, it is amazing how short we sell God's power by claiming He cannot get His message to the world except through a particular book published in 1611.