Featured Please Show the Scripture that says

Do you see the King James as a real Bible?

Quantrill

 

Yes, just not the best or only one though!

 

Bu,t why not the best?

I see our 'modern translations' as nothing but the effort of others to build a better 'mouse trap'. "I have made a better translation of the Bible". "My Greek and Hebrew understanding is superior".

I see these Modern translations as taking great liberties with the Word of God for their own edification. Not God's.

So, is it a real Bible when things are left out?

Quantrill

 

The Septuagint in the New Testament (R. Grant Jones) [LINK]

"As I proceeded to prepare side-by-side comparisons for the quotations, I noticed a tendency on the part of New Testament authors to deviate from the exact wording of the Septuagint, though they often kept the same sense, or applied the text in a novel way. For instance, they would change the person and/or number of a verb to suit their purposes. Strictly speaking, these were usually deviations from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint; thus, these deviations seemed of no consequence in the evaluation of the influence of the Septuagint on the New Testament. However, there were cases where the Septuagint and the Hebrew differed in meaning, and the New Testament followed one against the sense of the other."

 

Some translators of years back answered why modern translations should not be despised.
They even noted the reception you place upon new versions.

“Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment [reception] in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil [trivial objection] to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story [history], or have any experience. For was there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition?​

[Snip]

Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity, of the employment. Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?…Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded [thrust upon] to the people?​

Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the latter thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.“​

Original KJV Preface​

 

Some translators of years back answered to those of the historical setting of their day. To move that answer to apply to the modern setting of today is foolish.

I have given the reasons for my reception and dislike of the new versions of today.

Those who would create a translation with God expressed as having no gender could likewise use your quote to prove the validity of their translation. Or those who would have women preachers, or homosexual preachers, could do the same.

In other words, just because there was opposition to the King James Bible, didn't make the opposition wrong. Just because I oppose the new versions of today, doesn't make me wrong. The 'why', is all important. And the 'why' is something you want to gloss over in the use of this quote.

Quantrill

 

It could be that the Kjv kept things that were not originally there though!

 

It could be that Jesus never existed. Could be.

It could be that Atheist's are right. Could be.

It could be that evolution is right. Could be.

No shortage of 'could be's'.

Quantrill

 

I was reading through as someone should before joining a discussion in order to know what ofcourse is up for debate still. And points already proven. But due to God blessing me with a hightened Sense of discernment and a lack of ability to allow my hands to stay stained with the blood of others I'm forced to address a few things.

First I've seen highly intelligent looking comments that began with nonsensical statements making everything after questionable.

I've witnessed racist terminology such as referring to people of Jewish faith as "Jews" which if your unaware is not ok. Hense my attempt to cleanse my conscience tell you.

I've read things that had they been spoken and not written where there is undstanding of a typo. But spoken would have been nothing more than blatant lies. Followed by what seems like it may have been an educated argument. But following a false statement all credibility is lost and that's not personal that's what we our taught in the bible.

So I'm not going to spend alot of time proving why my understanding should be excepted on facts of written history. I'll just say the only thing God put on my heart to say on the subject. Which is do the words in these books support what Jesus was teaching or do they contradict them? Because if it's contradictory than the discussion is fruitless. If it supports his teachings and works with the same general purpose to what Jesus wanted us to learn. Well then does it matter if he himself quoted from it or if it was a mirror of what he quoted? Either way it would be for the benefit of whoever read it.
Jesus and the apostles reference Enoch and it still remains the most taboo (to most opinion) book of the bible when other books that fully contradict scripture are accepted by the same people as valuable pieces of the bible. So it doesn't matter what matters is letting God show you what is true and what is deception of his plan and then if you study it yourself or not depends on if it resonates with you or not.

And God bless the folks on here who truly had honest posts full of what I'm sure wasn't alot of effort to pull together your facts and reference points on the topic. And I apologize for my unorthodox way of debating. God is my guide and I don't second guess or question nothin he asks of me my tongue is his sword to wield

 

The Book of Enoch isn't Scripture. And it came out MUCH-LATER than when Enoch was here.

Proof?

The BOE mentions a year of 365.25 days, its current length. In Enoch's time, the year was only 360 days long, with twelve 30-day months. We see that reflected in the Jewish calendar.

Now, the people then were keen observers of the length of the year, as they were mostly agricultural, & an accurate observation of the year's length & the seasons was essential. They watched shadows at sunrise & sunset to mark the solstices & equinoxes. he whole world kept a 360-day year "back then",

The year attained its present length in the days of Hezekiah, 700s BC, when the sun reversed its course by 10 degrees on the sundial of Ahaz (We don't know its measurements.) & other cosmic disturbances at the time.

I can discuss this further if requested, but anyway, the Book of Enoch isn't genuine.

And most people of Jewish faith ARE Jews, with a few exceptions like Sammy Davis Jr.