The KJV bible is the only bible that is worth reading.

[samuel]

I could disagree more!. Reading modern versions is like reading any other book, but when you read the KJV there is a sense of life in it, no other has.

Like someone else said (not me). It would make no difference if it be a 1611, or 2009 Olde English or New, if the Spirit of God doesn't guide you, you wont understand it anyway. Man! I wish, I had said that first.

 

[MISFIT]

I could disagree more!. Reading modern versions is like reading any other book, but when you read the KJV there is a sense of life in it, no other has.

Like someone else said (not me). It would make no difference if it be a 1611, or 2009 Olde English or New, if the Spirit of God doesn't guide you, you wont understand it anyway. Man! I wish, I had said that first.

And if the spirit of GOD does guide me when I read a "modern" version?

 

[samuel]

I couldn't say, that's between you and God.

 

[MISFIT]

I couldn't say, that's between you and God.

That's my point, if I get the word of GOD & understand it better from a version other than the KJV what does it matter? Doesn't it really come down to personal preference? There are three versions I would tell anyone to stay away from though they are, the New World Translation ( of the Jehovah's Witnesses), the JST ( a very flawed Mormon translation), and the TNIV.

 

[Paidion]

Thank you for your posts, you have to remember that the bible is put together specificly. And by the KJV version I'm talking about the 1611 version, and for those who say the older ones are more accurate it is the exact same thing, the KJV came from older documents.

What evidence do you have that the KJV came from older documents?

And why the King James? Why not older English versions of the Bible from the 1500s such as:
Tyndale's Bible, Coverdale's Bible, Taverman's Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishops' Bible? Or an even older one from the middle English period: Wycliffe's Bible?
Or even older, the Bible from the old English period (600 A.D. to 1150 A.D.)?

The bible was put together in a way that every word, sentence of it is relevent that composed by God, and every word in it was picked and nothing irrelevent is in it, everything in it is useful,...

Here is the Lord's prayer from an old English Bible:

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, Si þin nama gehalgod. to becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. soþlice.

Maybe that's the one which God composed, and so we should all learn old English.

How do you know that every word in the King James was composed by God? Did God compose the following sentence:

2 Timothy 4:13 The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

or in a current translation from Greek to English:

2 Timothy 4:13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, also the books, and above all the parchments.


Why would God compose this sentence? He doesn't need any books or parchments. Why not take it as a simple request from Paul to Timothy? Paul forgot his cloak, books, and parchments at Troas, and is asking Timothy to bring them when he comes. Or do you think this sentence is God's word to man, with a deep spiritual significance? Have you ever heard a sermon preached on this verse?
Maybe you have. Some preachers will preach on anything.

...that's why God told humans not to change it, and proof that it hasn't been changed is that what it says comes

When and where did God say not to change it? And if He did, how is that proof that it hasn't been changed? Actually the Greek text has been changed many times --- scribes have changed it and added to it. It was the changed copies of the Greek text that the King James translators used.

I suggest some Bible research. Here is a good place to start:

Bible Research

 

[samuel]

That's my point, if I get the word of GOD & understand it better from a version other than the KJV what does it matter? Doesn't it really come down to personal preference? There are three versions I would tell anyone to stay away from though they are, the New World Translation ( of the Jehovah's Witnesses), the JST ( a very flawed Mormon translation), and the TNIV.

You left at least one out, the NLT and the old Living Bible its predecessor.
My problem with MV's is not what they say, it is with what they leave out, and don't say. And in some cases, how they say it. This makes room for more bad doctrine, already permeating Christianity and the Church.

 

[MISFIT]

Why stop at the KJV? This one's older...http://www.bl.uk/news/2005/pressrelease20050311.html

 

[samuel]

That's the one all the MV's draw their interpretation from. And actually is not older. The Catholic Church could have put any date on it they wanted, and passed it off for real. Just like the Shroud of Turin fake.

 

[Bick]

I think it is most important to know that though there are versions which are based upon, say, the Wescott and Hort Greek Text as well as the Textus Receptus, learned Theologians have stated that positively, "while there may be a measure of uncertainty in defining the exact wording of any Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), this does not mean there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament."

Important quote from "Wescott and Hort vs Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?" on the web site Bible-Researcher. com.

"This means there will at times be a measure of uncertainty in defining precisely the exact wording of the Greek New Testament (just as there is in the interpretation of specific verses and passages), but this does not mean that there is uncertainty in the theology of the New Testament. Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg has well-stated the theological limits of the manuscript variations in the New Testament,

"Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God. Yet the providence which has preserved the divine oracles, has been special and remarkable....The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. So little, after all, do the copies differ from each other, that these minute differences, when viewed in contrast with their general agreement, render the fact of that agreement the more impressive, and may be said to serve, practically, rather to increase, than impair our confidence in their general correctness. Their utmost deviations do not change the direction of the line of truth; and if it seems in some points to widen the line a very little, the path that lies between their widest boundaries, is too narrow to permit us to stray.

"To this may be added the testimony of Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, the pre-eminent British authority on New Testament manuscripts at the turn of the twentieth century. In discussing the differences between the traditional and the Alexandrian text-types, in the light of God's providential preservation of His word, he writes,

"We may indeed believe that He would not allow His Word to be seriously corrupted, or any part of it essential to man's salvation to be lost or obscured; but the differences between the rival types of text is not one of doctrine. No fundamental point of doctrine rests upon a disputed reading: and the truths of Christianity are as certainly expressed in the text of Westcott and Hort as in that of Stephanus."

Bick

 

[Bick]

Further, I would encourage all Bible students to use all the tools possible, especially a complete concordance, such as Strong's or Young's.

I have found that only through finding the literal meaning, from a concordance or lexicon, can I then more fully understand God's Revelation, the Holy Bible.

There are words whose literal meaning, practically all the English Versions mistranslate, giving what must be the compilers interpretations.

So, may God bless your search for the closest translation to the truth.

 

[MISFIT]

That's the one all the MV's draw their interpretation from. And actually is not older. The Catholic Church could have put any date on it they wanted, and passed it off for real. Just like the Shroud of Turin fake.

Interesting, could you post a link with proof it's not as old as they say?

 

[samuel]

I don't care how old they say it is, if its 10k old, its still a fake. Read about the tomb in Johns Gospel, see if his description of the Grave Cloths matches the Shroud??.

All the fuss over it can be settled from the Bible, in just a minute.

Are you familiar with how the Jews prepared their dead, it aint like the shroud.

 

[MISFIT]

*post removed by MISFIT due to his mistake, see I can admit if I'm wrong. ;)

 

[samuel]

Everyone always wants a link, as if the internet spoke for God. I told you to check the description, of the Grave Cloths in Johns Gospel. You will find by his description, it is impossible for the Shroud of Turin to be Christs.

 

[MISFIT]

Everyone always wants a link, as if the internet spoke for God. I told you to check the description, of the Grave Cloths in Johns Gospel. You will find by his description, it is impossible for the Shroud of Turin to be Christs.

I'm not talking about the Shroud of Turin, I know that's a fake, I'm talking about the Codex Sinaiticus and your claims that it's not as old as they say.

*Correction: I see this is my mistake I took the wrong quote from you, my apologies I will fix it.

 

[samuel]

The Codex Sinaiticus, that is just a speculation on my part, but it could be true?. You do know! that it was found in a trash Dump?. Speaks volumes for it.

 

[oneisgod]

Josh said:

The kjv bible is indeed the first english bible ever written, and 100% percent accurate, because at that time there were no atheist or other crap that would try to twist the bible, correct me if i'm wrong, the nest version of the bible came out in 1890 something, way after the king james.


At this time it was very different, so no wonder people believe the bible isn't true, few people read the KJV version.



Here is a free resource to the KJV version in a audio mp3 format available for download...


http://www.audiotreasure.com/indexKJV.htm


As of March 6 I'm still on Deuteronomy 25. Have to get caught up, and have about 3 books to go.

Post your thoughts and opinions, this is an open discussion and forum. ;)


And enjoy the mp3 bible.


Don't be decieved, Josh

The KJV is a usefull but for from a 100% right as it was translated in 1611; since then understanding of Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek has advanced thus todays Bibles are far more accurate!

 

[Lewis]

The KJV is the standard, use the KJV and the Amplified only. I had many translations but I gave most of them away. All Bibles should be judged by the KJV.

 

[sheshisown]

Hi happy posters~

May I add one small insight to this discussion? From interpretation of the scriptures as a whole~ I think we who believe it to be the inspired word of God can recognise that though many translations and interpretations exist...

The gospel is held intact with all the power and authority of God Himself... and His most Holy words are readily communicated to any heart seeking truth by His grace alone. :yes

For God is Able. No matter what man, or satan, or confounding interpretation may try to accomplish to overturn His word... to keep it. For in Him all wisdom resides and without His presence by the Holy Spirit not a jot or tittle may be known or applied to my tiniest darkened understanding. Knowing Him and ministering to Him are the first requisites of all bible study. :nod

In the light of Christ... as He so graciously shines the Fathers will and words out to us. bonnie :shades

 

[Paidion]

Although the Scriptures were originally penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit, it does not follow, that a continued miracle has been wrought to preserve them from all error in transcribing. On the contrary, we know that manuscripts differ from each other; and where readings are various, but one of them can be correct. A miracle was needed in the original production of the Scriptures; and, accordingly, a miracle was wrought; but the preservation of the inspired word, in as much perfection as was necessary to answer the purpose for which it was given, did not require a miracle, and accordingly it was committed to the providence of God.

Let's consider the New Testament. What was the purpose of it being "penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit"? For at no time did the church possess it in this form. The early church disagreed as to which books were to be included. In those days some believed that Clement's letter to the Corinthians should be read in the churches (the concept of a "canon" did not present itself in those days), and many believed that 2nd and 3rd John, 2nd Peter, Jude, and Revelation should NOT be included. So at the time the original manuscripts existed, the church never possessed the "exclusively inspired" New Testament. In later centuries, though the church possessed the the "exclusively inspired canon", they didn't possess the original manuscripts.

Conclusion: There was never a time in the history of the church when the church had in its hands the New Testament in the form it took when it was "penned under the unerring guidance of the Holy Spirit". So at no time were the writings which the church possessed and used in its meetings, completely reliable! Seems like a catch-22 situation.