How wrong is the KJV

[kenmaynard]

I totally agree with your statement Ned.

Interesting..

As God is the Creator and we His Creation that He so longs for a relationship with I suppose that He requires to be defined as our Father, and with the attributes given to the male species of protector and hunter gatherer, it seems fitting to look up to our Creator as a male.

A protective, nurturing Father who knows best and provides for HIs children..

Thank you Lord.



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

From what i've gathered in the Bible it says that we as humans cannot even come close to comprehending God. If such is the case we shouldn't be making statements about Him then if we have no idea of anything about Him other than what He reveals through the Holy Spirit. I believe that attempting to describe what God is or giving Him attributes is borderline idolatry if not actually being idolatry. Not accusing anyone of idolatry here as this is just my belief on this issue. I also don't think trying to describe who or what God's attributes are that He hasn't told us have any relevance to our salvation and witness, if they were important God would reveal them to us.

That was an interesting paragraph. You ascribed a sex to God while saying it is idolatry to do so. Why not just call God... God. I know that the paragraph wouldn't have the same flow by simply repeating God the whole time, but there are other words you could use that would fit. How about creator or almighty? See describing God and leaving out sex is easy.

 

[Ed the Ned]

I think seek and listen has actually hit an interesting point about idolatry. If we give God an actual image we would try and create idols and objects of him to worship him which would lead to a whole different concept of how we see God and how we worship Him.
I cannot see how we can replace Father with God in the Bible. I think it is important we see him as our heavenly Father as it is written. How did Jesus tell us to start the Lords prayer.
"Our Father......."
If we look at pagan beliefs there are more phrases towards the female diety..... such as the queen of heaven. The whole da Vinci code and some gnostic gospels lead people to believe in this female diety. Its pagan and does not fit in line with how the scripture is written. This is not just a KJV of the Bible translation, All translations I have read call God Him, He etc.

 

[kenmaynard]

I think seek and listen has actually hit an interesting point about idolatry. If we give God an actual image we would try and create idols and objects of him to worship him which would lead to a whole different concept of how we see God and how we worship Him.
I cannot see how we can replace Father with God in the Bible. I think it is important we see him as our heavenly Father as it is written. How did Jesus tell us to start the Lords prayer.
"Our Father......."
If we look at pagan beliefs there are more phrases towards the female diety..... such as the queen of heaven. The whole da Vinci code and some gnostic gospels lead people to believe in this female diety. Its pagan and does not fit in line with how the scripture is written. This is not just a KJV of the Bible translation, All translations I have read call God Him, He etc.

One can not have a father with out also having a mother. So if God is a man with man parts who did he have intercourse with in order to create us?

 

[Free]

One can not have a father with out also having a mother. So if God is a man with man parts who did he have intercourse with in order to create us?

No one is saying that God (the Father) is a man. He is described as Father for a reason. I really don't think you have thought this through which is why I haven't given a reason yet.

 

[seekandlisten]

One can not have a father with out also having a mother. So if God is a man with man parts who did he have intercourse with in order to create us?

I believe of who God is has nothing to do with the male/female aspect. He, Him, His are used in the Bible and He is Jesus Father so in relevance to my witness I believe in Him as God the Father. Jesus is God the Father's Only Begotten Son in the spiritual sense. Physically Jesus was a man like you and me. Mary was His mother and Joseph was His father. I can't say as i believe/understand the Mary being a virgin and Joseph not be Jesus biological father. I'm not saying i don't believe it either. I have not studied it enough to make an informed decision.

The topic of this thread is the accuracy of the KJV and I'm not sure as this turn in the conversation is relevant other than the obvious fact that I disagree with the virgin Mary part but that is also present in other versions as well.

 

[Steve76]

The Holy Spirit of God took the role of the Male in the conception of Jesus and Jesus called Him Father, so that is enough for me to understand how I should perceive God's role in my relationship with Him, as my Father.





http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[seekandlisten]

The Holy Spirit of God took the role of the Male in the conception of Jesus and Jesus called Him Father, so that is enough for me to understand how I should perceive God's role in my relationship with Him, as my Father.





http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

Where does it say in Scriptures that the Holy Spirit took the role of the "male" in the conception. Jesus called God Father as He is the Son of God just like we are the children of God.

 

[Free]

To be clear: there was no physical, sexual act. It was a creative act of the power of God through the Holy Spirit, just as with Creation.

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. (ESV)

Luk 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?"
Luk 1:35 And the angel answered her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy--the Son of God. (ESV)

 

[Steve76]

The Holy Spirit of God took the role of the Male in the conception of Jesus and Jesus called Him Father, so that is enough for me to understand how I should perceive God's role in my relationship with Him, as my Father.





http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

Where does it say in Scriptures that the Holy Spirit took the role of the "male" in the conception. Jesus called God Father as He is the Son of God just like we are the children of God.

Luke 1:35 - And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It was just a thought regarding the Holy Spirit taking the role of the male as we were discussing why we refer to God in male terminology... ;)



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

 

[seekandlisten]

The Holy Spirit of God took the role of the Male in the conception of Jesus and Jesus called Him Father, so that is enough for me to understand how I should perceive God's role in my relationship with Him, as my Father.





http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

Where does it say in Scriptures that the Holy Spirit took the role of the "male" in the conception. Jesus called God Father as He is the Son of God just like we are the children of God.

Luke 1:35 - And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

It was just a thought regarding the Holy Spirit taking the role of the male as we were discussing why we refer to God in male terminology... ;)



http://getwiththeword.blogspot.com/

I see where you are coming from now and free is correct in making the point that sex was not involved in the Holy Spirits' role in the conception of Jesus. My belief is that Jesus was conceived just as any other baby is conceived other than God and the Holy Spirit were involved in the spiritual aspect of this baby's life as it was to unfold. Joseph being Jesus physical father.

 

[Free]

Joseph was not the biological father:

Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:19 And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.
Mat 1:20 But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
Mat 1:21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."
Mat 1:22 All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:
Mat 1:23 "Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall call his name Immanuel" (which means, God with us).
Mat 1:24 When Joseph woke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him: he took his wife,
Mat 1:25 but knew her not until she had given birth to a son. And he called his name Jesus. (ESV)

 

[turnorburn]

Do we really need yet another thread on which Bible is right and which is wrong?

Nope!

 

[veteran]

C'mon folks, assigning all our fleshy attributes to God's Nature is backwards, don't ya think? Afterall, Who's Image did God say He created man in? (Gen.1). Likewise the angels have the image of 'man', because it began with God's Own Image and likeness.

And when the blind Pharisees asked Jesus about the woman who had seven husbands that died, who would she be married to in Heaven when she died, what did Christ answer? They don't take or give in marriage in Heaven, for they are as the angels of God in Heaven. That means leave sexual organs out it, for that's only an operation God setup to happen on earth. That includes The Holy Spirit causing Mary's immaculate conception too, afterall without sexual intercourse is why the word 'immaculate' used to describe the birth of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

 

[veteran]

The 1611 KJV is a TRANSLATION. Yes it has some small errors of translation, as all... translations do. The KJV translators themsevles warned the reader about that in a Letter To The Reader within the first edition, a Letter that has been removed from later 1611 KJV editions. The KJV translators ALSO gave alternate readings in the side margins of the first edition. The non-believers here need to do their homework before trying to attack the KJV Bible.

Yet it's still the infaliable Word of God. Why? Because God did not give His Word to only one man, but to His servants whom He chose and called. And yet all the Books of the KJV Bible weave together with multiple examples as The Holy Spirit spoke through God's chosen to write it down. The KJV maintains the Holy Spirit markings of subject and object better than any other English translation to date. Later translations take much license in paraphrasing, which changes that structure of alternation which only occurs in one type of literature known to man, The Bible.

So to discover the alternate readings and translation notes by the KJV translators in the side margins, it means getting a first edition copy in Old English. And to help further, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (prefer pre-1991 editions) will get the job done.

 

[JudaicChristian]

God is not a man, but a male spirit. He is the Father of Creation, He is self existent and needs no counterpart. He is the First and the Last, Beginning without Ending, The Eternal. His personal name is Yahwah, which means "Life Began."

 

[follower of Christ]

Exodus 20:1-17

It has been brought up in other threads that the commandment of though salt not kill is a mistranslation, and that it is more properly stated though salt not murder.

To me that is a big difference, and profoundly alters the commandment.

The article I posted about the church burning bibles other than the KJV got me thinking. If the KJV can't even get the 10 commandments right what good is it, and what other major errors are there? Also, how can one claim it is the absolute word of God if there is at least one obvious major mistranslation?

eh...I have yet to see a bible translation that doesnt mess something up. Thats why I use so many.
In the end, however, we can see the overall idea of Gods plan and know what we have to do to be saved.
Thats all that really important.

 

[follower of Christ]

Do we really need yet another thread on which Bible is right and which is wrong?

Apparently.
Ugh.
Dig them up from the grave...
.

 

[Physicist]

The 1611 KJV is a TRANSLATION. Yes it has some small errors of translation, as all... translations do. The KJV translators themsevles warned the reader about that in a Letter To The Reader within the first edition, a Letter that has been removed from later 1611 KJV editions. The KJV translators ALSO gave alternate readings in the side margins of the first edition. The non-believers here need to do their homework before trying to attack the KJV Bible.

Yet it's still the infaliable Word of God. Why? Because God did not give His Word to only one man, but to His servants whom He chose and called. And yet all the Books of the KJV Bible weave together with multiple examples as The Holy Spirit spoke through God's chosen to write it down. The KJV maintains the Holy Spirit markings of subject and object better than any other English translation to date. Later translations take much license in paraphrasing, which changes that structure of alternation which only occurs in one type of literature known to man, The Bible.

So to discover the alternate readings and translation notes by the KJV translators in the side margins, it means getting a first edition copy in Old English. And to help further, a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (prefer pre-1991 editions) will get the job done.

Considering the date of the date of the original KJV (1611), I think it is an amazingly accurate translation. Some newer translations seek to re-write the words for what can only be called political correctness. The KJV translators did not do this.

Of course, we have additional textual research since 1611. I would recommend that anyone concerned about a particular passage look at multiple translations (easy to do through the Internet) to get a better feel for its meaning.