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.
Do you know, why Erasmus corrected this "error"? Because catholic church fabricated a greek copy having it, just for Erasmus.
Do you have a reference for this? I've heard something similar, and would like to confirm it.
Try this:
https://bible.org/article/textual-problem-1-john-57-8#_ftn3
Also, Erasmus himself made a footnote about his suspicion that the manuscript was fabricated just for that purpose.
First you claim the NIV says one thing, then another (when I called you on it), and that you don't even read it. The adjectives I listed are from various versions.
KJV: from Acts 2
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.
NIV:
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[SUP]b[/SUP] 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”13Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”
They're bewildered, no wait they're utterly amazed, no wait thy're perplexed, no wait...
Are you advocating for KJ2000?
I'm not convinced on the idea. The KJV was written deliberately with an archaic language base.
The word 'thou' is singular and 'ye' plural, which is helpful to an English reader to know whether one person or a group of people were being referred to or addressed. Also, I'm not convinced that the KJV is so old that no one can understand what is being read.
Again, I don't begrudge other people and the translations that the Lord may have used in their life; but to me,the KJ2000 is simply not staying true to the translation dynamics of the original translators. It should be named something else, just as other translations named themselves something else to distinguish from each other.
Even though I am very sympathetic to KJV, I tend to personally like the 1789 edition because its the one that is 'easier' than the original 1611 which I couldn't personally read.
I'm not convinced on the idea. The KJV was written deliberately with an archaic language base.
The word 'thou' is singular and 'ye' plural, which is helpful to an English reader to know whether one person or a group of people were being referred to or addressed. Also, I'm not convinced that the KJV is so old that no one can understand what is being read.
Again, I don't begrudge other people and the translations that the Lord may have used in their life; but to me,the KJ2000 is simply not staying true to the translation dynamics of the original translators. It should be named something else, just as other translations named themselves something else to distinguish from each other.
Even though I am very sympathetic to KJV, I tend to personally like the 1789 edition because its the one that is 'easier' than the original 1611 which I couldn't personally read.
However, I was unable to find this footnote.
But according this: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15589157.pdf, page 387, he made very similar comment in his annotations to 1 John.
Last edited:
I didn't accuse it of being the work of the devil. That is the sort of accusation that you KJVO cult followers make about all other translations. And THAT is what I was mocking. YOUR rigid belief. It was OBVIOUS. (to anyone with any trace of a SOH)
I said I own a copy of Die Bibel nach Martin Luther because I read it at the time that I was learning Deutsche. That is hardly an indication that I think it is satanic. YOU are the one suffering from an enchantment with ONE SINGLE translation. I have several good translations in my library (incl a KJV). Not one of them is satanically inspired.
Last edited:
Meany times in the dark age people had to hide their belive...to have any part of the Bible was a blessing.
The NIV has this note with that verse
[FONT="]Late manuscripts of the Vulgate [/FONT]testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
Actually, it was my understanding that Luther's work in German was a major attack not only on Rome but the devil himself who didn't want people to actually be able to read the Bible for themselves. All of a sudden, people are receiving Luther's Bible in their own language, and Rome is having a hernia!
Yeah, I meant I was unable to find Erasmus's footnote.
After reading of that paper about Erasmus and Comma by Henk Jan de Jonge, I would conclude that Erasmus did not know that the manuscript with Comma was fabricated, but just thought it is influenced by Latin readings.
It would also be very wrong of him if he would knew it and still included into TR.
But from the historical point of view, we today know it was fabricated, its in Dublin till today.
Last edited:
As many of you may know, I've concluded that there are many translations of God's word in English and that, I believe, a person should be judged by the manner of Christ's love working in them, mixed with the word of God in their lives.
Having said that, I do want you to know I am KJV-preferred [heavily]. I see there are some in this thread that also love the KJV, but can be aggressive. I want to link here to a website that I believe is a fairly solid representation of the KJV *without* being narrowminded, offensive, or not dealing with specific issues.
Not saying I agree with all of it nor saying you should agree with all of it too. But, I wanted to show you there are those who love the KJV (even exclusively) who need not be offensive or derogatory (or even circular) in everything they believe. The only caveat I would say is the website owners do tend to look down on other translations which I know is trying to be avoided here. Minus those articles, I think there are other articles that are thoughtful and genuinely amicable. Blessings.
King James Version Today
Having said that, I do want you to know I am KJV-preferred [heavily]. I see there are some in this thread that also love the KJV, but can be aggressive. I want to link here to a website that I believe is a fairly solid representation of the KJV *without* being narrowminded, offensive, or not dealing with specific issues.
Not saying I agree with all of it nor saying you should agree with all of it too. But, I wanted to show you there are those who love the KJV (even exclusively) who need not be offensive or derogatory (or even circular) in everything they believe. The only caveat I would say is the website owners do tend to look down on other translations which I know is trying to be avoided here. Minus those articles, I think there are other articles that are thoughtful and genuinely amicable. Blessings.
King James Version Today