1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

KJV: good site

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by brucebaptist, Jul 30, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    What's the symbol before "the Word was with God"? Of course not every single verse is totally different but the entire Bible is totally different than today. Spellings especially. Even spelling changes means that it was changed and updated, does it not?
     
  2. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Ann, I could pick any verse and show you that except for a change in typeset and spellings the KJV in use today is virtually the same as the one printed in 1611.

    I see your point, there are differences that make it impossible to say that any edition is perfect, but to say the 1611 edition of the KJT and the 1769 edition are totally difference simply is not fact based.

    BTW, that symbol was a typesetters shortcut for the word 'and' - the same word in later editions.
     
  3. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    then please tell me. which version is God's Word?
     
  4. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    If a Bible is "perfect" and "inerrant" that means even spelling. There's no need to change or update that which is "perfect".

    Remember, the OP said "i will say, God never changes and neither does His Word... it does not need to be "updated" or changed.
    its perfect the way it is."

    So where does that leave him since the modern KJVs that we have today are TOTALLY different than the original that I posted to. Missing margin notes, missing Apocrypha, very different spelling, etc. The KJV that I have (an Oxford - it's old - was my FIL's when he was a child but I don't have it here) doesn't even have the added words in italics. That's a lot of changes!
     
  5. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Similar challenge to you.

    Which rendering of 1 John 5v12 is God's word? The one rendered in 1611 (He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son hath not life) or the one rendered in 1769 (He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life)?
     
  6. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Oh that's easy. Any of the good versions today. KJV, NIV, ESV, NASB are just the 4 that I use but there are other good ones too. :)
     
  7. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I agree with all but this statement, with which I totally disagree. Yes, they are different, with even a few significant textual differences, but they are no where near as different as say, and 1769 version of the KJT and the NIV.

    Even those two translations are not totally different.
     
  8. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    incorrect. God is not the author of confusion. if a preacher is preaching from the KJ and the flock is following along in a NIV, there will be confusion.
    the NIV does not say what the KJ says. we'll just have to disagree.

    so if you dont like the KJO site... you dont have to go there... :thumbsup:
     
  9. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Uh, I hate to be the one to say it, but you can't count any better than you can evaluate a bible translation!

    1. The Lindisfarne Bible 700/950
    2. Aelfric translation 1000
    3. The Ormulum translation 1300
    4. The Wycliffe Bible 1382
    5. Tyndale's Bible 1525
    6. The Coverdale Bible 1535
    7. The Matthews Bible 1537
    8. The Great Bible 1538
    9. The Taverners Bible 1539
    10. The Geneva Bible 1560
    11. The Bishops' Bible 1568
    12. The Authorized King James Bible 1611

    So, if as you say, it was the 7th English translation (it wasn't - it was the 12th) and it was translated in 7 years (it wasn't - the first meeting of the translation committees was in 1607 and the work was completed late in 1610, which is 3 1/2 years, not 7) and "If that doesnt convince you, nothing will...." I can only surmise you are not convinced! You either believe the Matthews Bible is the "only pure, perfect word of God in English" or you are blowing KJVO smoke (again).
     
  10. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    1611.

    but i dont see a difference between these two. the meanings are the same and will not send a soul to hell... there is only 1 conclusion from these and there is no confusion.
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy Late-Administator Emeritus
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    20,080
    Likes Received:
    3,490
    Faith:
    Baptist
    You can't base a cogent argument on a false premise. "Perfect" simply means "nothing lacking necessary to the whole" and "inerrant" means unfailing in its purpose and direction. "Inerrant" isn't even a word that should be used in discussing bible. The word, historically, was "infallible" which provides a better understanding of what the word of God really is. :)
     
  12. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    They are not the same. One is not perfect. Do you use a 1611 edition or a flawed Bible?
     
  13. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    i use DA Waite's "Defined KJ"

    http://www.biblefortoday.org/kj_bibles.asp

    now, you tell me... am i using a flawed Bible?
    i think i am using a true Bible. but you may not agree.
    before i bought my Bible, i researched it and found Mr Waite's Bible to be true... am i wrong? is Waite wrong?
     
  14. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    Well, if you think the 1611 rendering is perfect and Waite uses the 1769 than your Bible is not perfect. Even one mistake would make a Bible flawed. How does Waite render 1 John 5v12?
     
  15. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    i am talking about the meaning of that verse, not the Bibles themselves. the meaning of that verse cannot be confused from either Bible. that was my point. are the versions different? i guess so.
     
  16. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    So as long as the meaning is the same differences in wording are acceptable?
     
  17. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    well, i sure hope so. since i dont know or read greek, aramaic, or hebrew, it better be or i am going to hell for not knowing the Word of God...
     
  18. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K) Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    80
    I am not talking about language differences.

    In English translations is it possible for two English translations to have the same meaning even if the words are not exactly the same? Is the site in the OP wrong for insisting that only the KJV1611 is the Word of God? Or is it okay to make some small changes as long as the meaning stays the same?

    BTW, are those your kids in your profile pic? Lovely bunch!
     
    #58 NaasPreacher (C4K), Jul 31, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 31, 2010
  19. brucebaptist

    brucebaptist New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2008
    Messages:
    122
    Likes Received:
    0
    as far as i know, yes. words can be different and mean the same or words can be different and can mean something different...
     
  20. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    This is the very complaint of KJB only, that the other English translations do not say the same thing in a great many verses.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...