What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Why the king james version?

BigSodaExposer said:
...It sounds ridiculous to consider the KJV as something special, but it really is when you put time into researching it, you will know why its unique from the other bibles. The spirit will reveal to you the truth.
Click to expand...
Perhaps YOU could reveal that to us? Especially in light of the fact that the original translators put a preface in the original KJV stating that they had no special inspiration from God to write scripture, but were simply common men doing the best they could with the tools and knowledge they had at the time. It's kind of a shame that modern publishers refuse to include that valuable piece of information in the KJV Bibles anymore.

It strikes me as sort of unfair to state your opinion about something and then state that if we look into it we will see it the same way you do, IF the Spirit reveals the truth to us. This is equating your opinion to the guidance and truth of the Holy Spirit, meaning that if any of us disagree with you, we are in fact disagreeing with God Himself. This is not fair as you do not speak for God.
 
BigSodaExposer said:
But I am english...its here now...available to english speaking people. I don't expect anyone thats never been to court to understand this. But I imagine after someone dies..english...and Godless............they will be in a court room of some kind and the judge will say something to the effect of "but why didn't you read the bible? It was available to ya" And thats when you shrug your shoulders and say "I dunno your honor". Its always like that in court. Something you could've,should've, did, but, you didn't. About that time is when you are found guilty because you didn't do said thing. I think reading the bible is gonna be one of those things when the lost are judged. "So you loved the world more than me?" Maybe something they get to hear. It sounds ridiculous to consider the KJV as something special, but it really is when you put time into researching it, you will know why its unique from the other bibles. The spirit will reveal to you the truth.
Click to expand...
1000 years from know and when the English language is absorbed or dies as languages do that. what will be useful? the bible that is best and closest translation as possible. even Hebrew has changed. koine greek? who speaks that? its dead. yes its able to be learned as its like archaic English. but go to Greece its not used. all languages must evolve. the ancients didn't have words for things that we do. so given that sometimes the older uses are lest common and must be looked at again or they don't change.here, for the Hebrew word from the original Syrian(Aramaic) sheol: was called shalim. but the connotation of that isn't the same as sheol.
 
Original King James Version;
Job 29:18
"And I said, I will perish with my nest, and I will multiply days as the phoenix".

A more modern version might read like this:
"I thought, I will die in my own house, my days as numerous as the grains of sand".

Now both verses are translated correctly and bring about the same meaning, but why the use of the bird phoenix, a mythologial bird?
Or was it?

The phoenix was a symbol of early Christianity as it was suppose to die and be reborn every 1000 years.
The word phoenix appeared in the original Greek prior to 1050 AD.
This bird was similar to other named birds of ancient cultures.
The great Jewish Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki says this bird did not taste of the Tree of Knowledge, therefore it regenerated itself every 1000 years.

So with what we know today, did the KJV correctly interpret the verse or did mythology and the popular use of the phoenix of the day influence the writers?
 
allenwynne said:
Original King James Version;
Job 29:18
"And I said, I will perish with my nest, and I will multiply days as the phoenix".

A more modern version might read like this:
"I thought, I will die in my own house, my days as numerous as the grains of sand".

Now both verses are translated correctly and bring about the same meaning, but why the use of the bird phoenix, a mythologial bird?
Or was it?

The phoenix was a symbol of early Christianity as it was suppose to die and be reborn every 1000 years.
The word phoenix appeared in the original Greek prior to 1050 AD.
This bird was similar to other named birds of ancient cultures.
The great Jewish Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki says this bird did not taste of the Tree of Knowledge, therefore it regenerated itself every 1000 years.

So with what we know today, did the KJV correctly interpret the verse or did mythology and the popular use of the phoenix of the day influence the writers?
Click to expand...

The1611 KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiplie my dayes as the sand."
My KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand."

So, Mr. Wayne, I don't know where you came up with that translation.


 
Chopper said:
The1611 KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiplie my dayes as the sand."
My KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand."

So, Mr. Wayne, I don't know where you came up with that translation.

Click to expand...
From John Gills, commentary...
"Some versions render it, "as the phoenix" (n), a bird of that name, spoken of by many writers as a very long lived one; some say it lived five hundred years (o), others five hundred forty (p), others six hundred sixty (q); yea, some, and so the Jewish writers, as Jarchi and others (r), make it to live a thousand years, and some say (s) more; and it is reported of it, though not with sufficient evidence, that there is never but one of the kind at a time; which, perceiving its end drawing near, it makes a nest of cassia, frankincense, and other spices, and sets fire to it, and burns itself in it, and that out of its ashes comes forth an egg, which produces another; and some of the ancient writers, as Tertullian (t) particularly, have made use of this as an emblem of the resurrection; and to which some think Job has here respect; that he should live long like this bird, and then die and rise again; but inasmuch as this seems to be a fabulous bird, and that there is not, nor ever was, any such in being, it cannot well be thought that Job should allude unto it; though his making mention of his nest, in the former clause, may seem to favour it, and which has induced some to give into it (u): others render it, "as the palm tree" (w);......"
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/gill/job/29.htm

Hmm.... Is this where the egg on the 'sedar' passover plate comes from? I have researched this and the Jews of today were not sure themselves why there was the egg on the passover plate. But then I also have read that the early Christians also used the egg, and color it red, it represent the Lord's tomb and His resurrection. :chin
 
allenwynne said:
Original King James Version;
Job 29:18
"And I said, I will perish with my nest, and I will multiply days as the phoenix".

A more modern version might read like this:
"I thought, I will die in my own house, my days as numerous as the grains of sand".

Now both verses are translated correctly and bring about the same meaning, but why the use of the bird phoenix, a mythologial bird?
Or was it?

The phoenix was a symbol of early Christianity as it was suppose to die and be reborn every 1000 years.
The word phoenix appeared in the original Greek prior to 1050 AD.
This bird was similar to other named birds of ancient cultures.
The great Jewish Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki says this bird did not taste of the Tree of Knowledge, therefore it regenerated itself every 1000 years.

So with what we know today, did the KJV correctly interpret the verse or did mythology and the popular use of the phoenix of the day influence the writers?
Click to expand...
Chopper said:
The1611 KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiplie my dayes as the sand."
My KJV reads "Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand."

So, Mr. Wayne, I don't know where you came up with that translation.
Click to expand...
I agree. Your entire post revolves around the use of the word "Phoenix" yet that is not in any english version of the Bible that I can find and as Chopper points out it is certainly not from the original King James version as you are claiming. "Phoenix" doesn't even come close to any definition of the original language in this case. It appears to have come only from ancient Jewish tradition, not from actual scripture. I assume you will let us know this was simply a mistake or that you will tell us what Bible translation your quote actually came from so we can read it for ourselves. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Deborah13 said:
From John Gills, commentary...
"Some versions render it, "as the phoenix"...
Click to expand...
Still, no one has said exactly which versions do this. I've searched through 27 english translations and none come close. I believe it is important that if we say "Scripture says..." and go on to represent our statement as an actual quote from Christian scripture that we be correct in what it actually says and that we make our sources transparent for everyone to see so we can all check it for ourselves. It's easy for any of us to make mistakes or misinterpretations, and this helps us to all check each other and keep things as close to God's truth as we can.
 
Job 29:18 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
"I said, 'I will die with my nest, and I will live as long as a phoenix;
Read Job 29 CJB | Read Job 29:18 CJB in parallel


Job 29:18 NRS
New Revised Standard
Then I thought, "I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix;
Read Job 29 NRS | Read Job 29:18 NRS in parallel

Job 29:18 WYC
Wycliffe
And I said, I shall die in my nest; and as a palm tree I shall multiply my days. (And I said, I shall die in my nest; and my days shall be numbered like the sand/like the phoenix.)
Read Job 29 WYC | Read Job 29:18 WYC in parallel
 
Chopper Sorry about the second post but Lexy just told me this and by definition in Strong's it makes some sense of it.
The legend says that when the phoenix burns it's nest and self, the ashes swirl around and it forms an egg and then there is rebirth.
Strong's - H2344
chôl
khole
From H2342; sand (as round or whirling particles): - sand.
 
reba said:
Job 29:18 CJB
Complete Jewish Bible
"I said, 'I will die with my nest, and I will live as long as a phoenix;
Read Job 29 CJB | Read Job 29:18 CJB in parallel


Job 29:18 NRS
New Revised Standard
Then I thought, "I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days like the phoenix;
Read Job 29 NRS | Read Job 29:18 NRS in parallel

Job 29:18 WYC
Wycliffe
And I said, I shall die in my nest; and as a palm tree I shall multiply my days. (And I said, I shall die in my nest; and my days shall be numbered like the sand/like the phoenix.)
Read Job 29 WYC | Read Job 29:18 WYC in parallel
Click to expand...
Yes, thanks for clearing that up! It's not the original KJV, but at least we can see where some translators used it!
 
Chopper said:
Ah Ha! So that's where it came from. Thanks Reba. :approve
Click to expand...
,

In thinking about whether there ever was such a bird that looked like the phoenix and lived a long life I think that it may have existed. If man lived a long life then it is more than possible that other animals did too. They also went forth and filled the earth.
Considering what the phoenix looks like, bright oranges, etc. and the feathers sticking up on it's head, it does remind one of fire. It looks much like the tropical birds of today and even a peacock.

I am not saying that Job believed that this bird could burn and resurrect itself but the Bible is filled with imagery using real things and places to represent other things.
 
I notice that BSE is still stirring the stew pot. :pepsiAs I have observed people, a past time my German granddad taught me, it is strange the way folks walk into the Church pulling Satan in the wagon behind them. When I discovered the NKJV, as a Primaries Teacher, I was so happy that it would require a small amount of time less to explain to the youngsters what the Old English actually meant when it said this or that. As I taught the Juniors at another Church, I discovered the NASB and saw to it my teens had a copy so they did not need to learn the Old English. As I'm preparing for my translation into the Spirit Realm, I'll likely pass over with the beautiful leather version, with13 point type, I received for Christmas a few years ago. But, were the LORD to multiply my days and if He were to tarry long enough for a more accurate English Translation to be written, I would switch again.

No matter the Nay Sayers and their pride driven exuberance, God does want us mired in man's traditions.
 
I would never ascribe to the idea of King James Only-ism, but I will tell you that the King James versions are my preference; And not because I think it's translation was inspired any more so or any less so than the other versions available. In fact I do not hold any translation of the Bible to be infallible: they were after all translated by men, and they are continually interpreted by men, but I trust the Spirit of the Lord to be able to teach me His meaning despite the translations of men.

It is easy to see when first taking a glance at the different translations of the same passage how you can make a case that the meaning can seem change based upon the translation, but I wonder if that is due more to the prose? When you compare versions side by side, you are focusing only on the translation of that one word, and in comparing the translation of that one word, you have given no indication if the translators were consistent in their translation throughout the scriptures. I grew up and learned from a King James Bible, so when I read a verse from one of the other versions, it does seem strange to me. But I am sure if I had learned using one of the other translations of the Bible, the Spirit of the Lord would still be able to instruct me.

When we get too tied up focusing on the meaning of a single word, we tend to loose focus on the true meaning of the message; We focus on the meaning of the letter instead of the understanding that comes from the spirit. Yet the scripture tells us that the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. You should not have to differentiate from one translation to the next to understand the moral of the story.

I personally prefer the King James version because of is prose and grammar. The King James version to me is more like poetry. It's phrases and terminology may be difficult for some, but to me they are memorable. If I am thinking about or trying to understand something, a word or a phrase from a scripture will often come to mind, that allows me to do a word search to find that passage again. We can read from a technical manual and learn how to do something, and even when we have mastered the task seldom do we recall the words from the technical manual that you could quote them. But poetry, they are the words that we hold to because they inspire us.

Which ever translation of the Bible you use, if you are comfortable with its words, and they are memorable to you and can inspire you, then I see no reason that you should change. The Israelites carried around the Spirit of God in a box, and many act as if they carry around the Spirit of God in a book. The Spirit of the Lord is not found within a book, the Spirit of the Lord resides in our hearts.
 
ezrider said:
I would never ascribe to the idea of King James Only-ism, but I will tell you that the King James versions are my preference; And not because I think it's translation was inspired any more so or any less so than the other versions available. In fact I do not hold any translation of the Bible to be infallible: they were after all translated by men, and they are continually interpreted by men, but I trust the Spirit of the Lord to be able to teach me His meaning despite the translations of men.

It is easy to see when first taking a glance at the different translations of the same passage how you can make a case that the meaning can seem change based upon the translation, but I wonder if that is due more to the prose? When you compare versions side by side, you are focusing only on the translation of that one word, and in comparing the translation of that one word, you have given no indication if the translators were consistent in their translation throughout the scriptures. I grew up and learned from a King James Bible, so when I read a verse from one of the other versions, it does seem strange to me. But I am sure if I had learned using one of the other translations of the Bible, the Spirit of the Lord would still be able to instruct me.

When we get too tied up focusing on the meaning of a single word, we tend to loose focus on the true meaning of the message; We focus on the meaning of the letter instead of the understanding that comes from the spirit. Yet the scripture tells us that the letter kills, but the spirit gives life. You should not have to differentiate from one translation to the next to understand the moral of the story.

I personally prefer the King James version because of is prose and grammar. The King James version to me is more like poetry. It's phrases and terminology may be difficult for some, but to me they are memorable. If I am thinking about or trying to understand something, a word or a phrase from a scripture will often come to mind, that allows me to do a word search to find that passage again. We can read from a technical manual and learn how to do something, and even when we have mastered the task seldom do we recall the words from the technical manual that you could quote them. But poetry, they are the words that we hold to because they inspire us.

Which ever translation of the Bible you use, if you are comfortable with its words, and they are memorable to you and can inspire you, then I see no reason that you should change. The Israelites carried around the Spirit of God in a box, and many act as if they carry around the Spirit of God in a book. The Spirit of the Lord is not found within a book, the Spirit of the Lord resides in our hearts.
Click to expand...
I'm disagreeing before I finish the first paragraph. God is omnipotent and, like it or not, there is nothing that happens in the Universes that is not, either, at the hand of God or in His permissive will. Right now there is a translation of the scriptures that, being fairly new, has not even began the test of time and has failed, the NWT. The KJV, The ASV and many others, on the other hand, except for a hand full of extra-biblical and small groups, have, indeed, stood. God teaches us that He will not allow us to pervert His Word and God is always true to His word. If we read the Bible, any version, without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit guiding us, God' s Word is a mystery to us. The reason i choose easier to read versions is because I have learned that as I begin to explain plain English passages to anybody that has studied the same, plain English passages see their light go on as I teach and as a result they hunger for the presence of God in their lives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top