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 and the modern versions

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by antiaging, Oct 2, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Top Posters
Page 6 of 20
  1. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    Absolutely true! Many scholars and professors left Consistently Christian method and join naturalistic method in many Bible colleges. They left their Bible Faith.

    See blue above -- That is true because many sources said so. History agrees with that.
     
    #101 Askjo, Oct 13, 2008
  2. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    True, many false teachers are telling us to put our faith in a Book...

    But our true faith should be in the Author of the Book... God.

    Worshipping a book is not true faith, and I see a lot of apostates making a book equal to God... like it is the 4th person in the Trinity...

    One such person used to be on here, claimed the KJV was God.. based on John 1:1

    Our faith should be in Christ.. not a version of the Bible.
    The first church didn't have the NT... and thousands were added daily.

    Why?
    They didn't worship the scriptures... they worshipped the author of the scriptures.
     
    #102 tinytim, Oct 13, 2008
  3. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    When you deny the apostasy, you deny the warning from the Bible.
    Faithful? Scholarship? You are interested in scholarship more than the Bible Faith. The scholarship does nothing with the word, “faithful.” An example is that Dr. Bruce Metzger was a scholar. Not only his scholarship, but he was an unbeliever. Dr. Metzger admitted the alteration in the Scriptures.
     
    #103 Askjo, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  4. Askjo

    Askjo New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2003
    Messages:
    3,736
    Likes Received:
    0
    See red – you are right. See blue - you are wrong.

    Morning Star in Latin? No! The Hebrew word is helel. It means “shining one” or “Lucifer.” This word, Lucifer, is a good translation for helel. Helel came from halal. Helel means ‘to shine.” Halal means to shine. “To shine” does not mean “morning star.” Lucifer means “light bearer.”

    “Morning star” is an interpretation and not a translation. This is wrong. Morning in Hebrew is boger. Star in Hebrew is kokav. Lucifer in the KJV came from Hebrew word, helel. It means “light bearer.” Lucifer in Latin means “light bearer” in Hebrew. Lucifer is a proper translation for the Hebrew word. Morning star is a false translation.
     
    #104 Askjo, Oct 13, 2008
  5. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Can you show me another case of "halal" being used as a name for Satan anywhere in Hebrew literature?
     
    #105 annsni, Oct 13, 2008
  6. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here are some word counts (a vain activity proving nothing):

    0 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the Latin Vulgate 0438
    284 - number if tunes 'Iesu' appears in the Latin Vulgate 0438
    0 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1611 Edition
    981 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1769 edition
    ---- - e-sword.com
    942 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the KJV1769 edition
    ---- - crosswalk.com
    1217 - number of times 'Jesus' appears in the NIV
    --- - crosswalk.com

    Askjo's questions, rephrased for this case:

    When God said, "Jesus", the Greek text said, "Jesus." The KJV e-sword.com said, "Jesus." WHO TOLD YOU to change Jesus to He? WHO TOLD KJV crosswalk.com edition TRANSLATORS to change the God-speaking to man's thoughts?


    Ed's question:
    What happened to the 39 occurrences of 'Jesus'?
    Was the 39 taken from e-sword to crosswalk?
    Was the 39 added from crosswalk to e-sword.

    Common truth frequently missed: the e-sword KJV1769 was not made from the crosswalk KJV1769 nor was the crosswalk KJV1769 made from the e-sword KJV1769 - both the e-sword version of the KJV1769 and the crosswalk version of the KJV1769 were made from one or more KJV1769 Versions or other Bible sources.
     
    #106 Ed Edwards, Oct 13, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 13, 2008
  7. Ed Edwards

    Ed Edwards <img src=/Ed.gif>

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2002
    Messages:
    15,715
    Likes Received:
    0
    Amen! Sister Annsni -- you are so RIGHT ON! :thumbs:


    All the major schisms of Protestantism in the 19th
    Century (1801-1900) used the KJVs:

    1. Christian Science
    2. Mormanism
    3. Jehovah's Witnesses
    4. Adventism
     
    #107 Ed Edwards, Oct 13, 2008
  8. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Belief is irrelevant. Facts and truth are what is relevant. You may believe what you want. It will not make you right.

    He is a proven liar and it has been demonstrated.

    I agree.

    I agree. You can use the KJV, the NASB, the NIV or one of a number of other versions of God's inspired Word.

    This is false. You believing it won't make it true, even if you believe it really hard.

    God will never lead you to believe against his Word, and the fact that you are doing that shows that your current belief is not from God.

    I think this is true, as compared to your previous statement about believing whatever God leads you to believe. You have chosen to make your own mind the test rather than the Word of God. You are submitting the Word to your mind, rather than your mind to the Word.
     
    #108 Pastor Larry, Oct 13, 2008
  9. Nicholas25

    Nicholas25 New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2006
    Messages:
    407
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's say that the "KJV Only" people are right and the King James Version is the only true word of God. That does not mean that those who do not use it are unsaved or do not love the Lord Jesus. I live in the tip of Northeast, TN. 9 out of 10 churches in my area use the KJV exclusively. I teach out of it because it's what my church uses, but I do not feel convicted about using other versions. We are saved by grace through faith, not grace through faith and the KJV. I do not mean that to be disrespectful or anything, but the Lord is concerned with the condition of our heart and our faith in him. Would it be better for a believer to be KJV Only, but not bear the same fruits in all other ways that somone who used the Holman Christian Standard Bible does? This is a topic that people are passionate about!
     
    #109 Nicholas25, Oct 13, 2008
  10. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's not say that so we don't get involved in false teaching.
     
    #110 Pastor Larry, Oct 13, 2008
  11. Gerhard Ebersoehn

    Gerhard Ebersoehn Active Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2004
    Messages:
    9,025
    Likes Received:
    8
    Faith:
    Non Baptist Christian
    GE:
    Good explanation. Therefore I think you may be able to help me on this one: I have noticed 'allah' in hebrew means 'up / high'. I don't know anything about Hebrew; so is it possible this is the word Islam gets its 'name' for 'God' from?
     
    #111 Gerhard Ebersoehn, Oct 14, 2008
  12. antiaging

    antiaging New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    225
    Likes Received:
    0
    My educational background is science. I have a degree in physics.
    In science truth is experimentally determined before accepted.
    I know something about truth.
    If you have a book supposed to be by an author, it must be the words that he wrote.
    You can't have [over] 200 bible versions (or whatever the number is) that say 200 different things and they all claim to be the words of the same authors.
    If it is changed, then it is not their words.
    This idea that any version is inspired, when they certainly say different things in the same places, is absurd.
    It makes me wonder if the people saying that know what truth is.
    Since the versions say different things, at the same scriptures, they cannot all be the inspired words of the original authors.
    Some people need to think about what they are saying.

    If God's Word is preserved, and it is, then which bible is it?
    [They say different things; they cannot all be it.]

    Scientifically speaking:
    example: The bible that is God's true Word will have the gospel of Matthew. --those are Matthew's preserved words.
    Another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 5% changes.
    Another bible might have the gospel fo Matthew with 15% changes.
    And another bible might have the gospel of Matthew with 3% changes.
     
    #112 antiaging, Oct 14, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 14, 2008
  13. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please apply your logic to the myriads of different KJVs...

    Which one is the real KJV.. will the real KJV stand up...

    1611
    1769
    1873

    There are 3 that differ from each other...
    Using your logic, only one must be the real KJV...
    Which one?
     
    #113 tinytim, Oct 14, 2008
  14. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0

    This is the crux of the issue..

    Lucifer is a description.. not a name.

    And since Christ is the true one that can be called morning star, Satan has tried to imitate him, by appearing to be an angel of light....

    Thus we get the name Lucifer...

    It would be like me saying that both God and Lucifer are spiritual beings... It is true, but "spiritual being" is not Satan's name...

    The Bible says God is Love... That doesn't mean that God's name is "L-O-V-E"

    It describes God.

    In the same way "Lucifer" describes Satan... it is related to the fact that Satan is an angel of light.
     
    #114 tinytim, Oct 14, 2008
  15. Rippon

    Rippon Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    585
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Satan was an angel of light.But he also tries to appear as an angel of light.
     
    #115 Rippon, Oct 14, 2008
  16. Pastor Larry

    Pastor Larry <b>Moderator</b>
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 4, 2001
    Messages:
    21,763
    Likes Received:
    0
    Good, so you should be able to see through the KJVO nonsense.

    So by what experiment did you determine that the KJV is the only Word of God?

    Perhaps, but you are not demonstrating that here.

    That is false when it comes to translation. I just got done working with a translator this past week. When they repeated what I said in another language, they were giving my words. On occasion, the translator repeated my words twice, giving the second time in a different way that was more clear. So which was my words? All three were.

    It is only absurd to you because you don't understand the issues.

    I agree. You are not thinking about what you are saying.

    First, the KJV doesn't say the same thing. Even within the KJV there are differences so you must choose which KJV is the word of God, and furthermore, since the gospels do not all say the same thing about Christ, you must choose which gospel actually records the words of Christ and which are wrong ... or you must accept an alternative belief about inspiration. The latter is the better approach.

    Any Bible which is faithfully translated is the Word of God.

    I think we ought to speak theologically.

    But given that we do not have Matthew's actual writing, God has preserved Matthew's gospel for us through copies and translations which accurately preserve Matthew's words for us. In your scenario, you have no way to determine which is "Matthew's preserved words" in your belief. You have simply guessed. And in so doing you have attacked the Word of God.
     
    #116 Pastor Larry, Oct 14, 2008
  17. rbell

    rbell Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    11,103
    Likes Received:
    0
    The problem is, there are people here, like Antiaging, who do just what you describe in the first of your paragraph.
     
    #117 rbell, Oct 14, 2008
  18. tinytim

    tinytim <img src =/tim2.jpg>

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2003
    Messages:
    11,250
    Likes Received:
    0
    I sit corrected... :laugh: :thumbs: That's what I meant.
     
    #118 tinytim, Oct 14, 2008
  19. Heavenly Pilgrim

    Heavenly Pilgrim New Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2006
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    0

    HP: This notion has been raised by several not just TinyTim. Let's try and apply some common sense and logic to all of our positions.

    In all honesty, do the changes between these editions come close to the changes, omissions, and complete thought changes that occur in what some here like to denote as the ‘modern versions' following questionable discarderd texts as best, texts that have not been used before and for obvious good reasons? Do all three of these editions of the KJV follow the same basic text, or did one or more than one of them introduce differing texts to be used in their translation?

     
    #119 Heavenly Pilgrim, Oct 14, 2008
  20. annsni

    annsni Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    20,914
    Likes Received:
    706
    Actually, it's not "allah" but "alah" and it's not used to describe God at all. :) I don't know if Islam used this word to come up with their name for God but it seems kind of silly since it's not even an attribute of Jehovah.
     
    #120 annsni, Oct 14, 2008
Page 6 of 20
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...