1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

The King James Version

Discussion in 'King James Version' started by CoreIssue, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Repent of what? :scratch:

    Sure. Every word from God is pure. But none of the versions are the original autographs. The very act of translating is a problem for meaning and 'purity,' as you are using the word.

    The KJV is a human edited compulation of manuscripts that, in the earliest parts, do not date back to prior to 400 AD. There are additions and bad translations.

    So, Bible, yes it is. Pure, absolutely not.

    Later. :tiphat:
     
  2. roman8

    roman8 Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Female
    I was reading through this thread , because the people in my bible study are KJV only users . They do have some very convincing arguments, but I tend to get stuck on things and have to look it up in other translations.

    I have read a little and watched a video by a woman named Gail Ripplinger, "New Age bible Versions" is the name of the book and the video. I realize she has had no formal training , but I dont consider that to be a good argument. She claims the KJV is the only one other than the original Hebrew and Greek that you can find Bible codes in Equidistant letter sequence.
    I find it all very interesting , just wondering if any one here knows anything about her, and what they think of her work.

    funny enough though , I committed my life to Jesus through reading the "message" which is way off.
     
  3. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Bible codes is really a farce.

    The principal of the spacing is self defeating.

    The word sequence, words used, structure, punctuation and lack thereof bear absolutely no resemblance between the Hebrew, Greek and English. None.

    And which Hebrew? Ancient OT, NT Hebrew, modern Hebrew?

    Same with the English.

    And it is amazing that somehow the KJV, that has know added words and even verses, from 3 to 500 AD, somehow conforms to these so-called Bible codes?

    If she is making a claim they correlate, then she does not have a clue about languages.

    The claim alone that the KJV corresponds exactly to the originals tells it all. There are NO copies of the original autographs. There have been NONE for the OT for centuries before Christ was born.

    I will see if I can pull a little more info for you on her and these Codes.
     
  4. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    I believe this article not only shows how wrong she is, but it shows how wrong the whole KJVO movement is, in fact.
    Any student of history and Bible manuscripts know the claims of the KJVO is not based on fact or evidence, but desire.

    The main stay of their delcaration is faith. The just know they are right.
     
  5. kay-gee

    kay-gee Banned

    Messages:
    267
    New American Standard Version rules!.......................all the best...........
     
  6. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    NIV for general reading and study. NIV and NASB for deeper study.

    Cross referencing is always good.
     
  7. kay-gee

    kay-gee Banned

    Messages:
    267
    Of each, it is good to also have a little pocket size for taking to the beach or where-ever! NIV is good...........all the best........
     
  8. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Yep.

    Back when the NIV first came out, I listened to the debates.

    They actually had panels of top linquists, on TV, debating it.

    They said that the best for closests to word for word was the NASB, at that time.

    But, for meaning, the NIV was supurb.

    The really got into the KJV and its issues.

    While none said the KJV was not a Bible or that it had not served well, they acknowleded that the multitudes of gain in manuscript evidence showed its flaws. As did history, as well.

    Further, they said that now, there is actually better understanding of the ancient Greek and Hebrew than there was in 1611.

    Weird how things like that go.

    Think about it. When Man moved into a time of greater knowledge, all these manuscripts suddenly started being found.

    That took away the issues of tampering and such. As with one of the oldest finds actually having been buried and hidden for close to 2,000 years.

    Amazing how God proides when it is needed.
     
  9. kay-gee

    kay-gee Banned

    Messages:
    267
    All that WE need to do is READ BELIEVE APPLY....................all the best
     
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    As Christians, yes.

    But for non-Christians, you have to give a reason to do that.
     
  11. kay-gee

    kay-gee Banned

    Messages:
    267
    NIV is great for public reading I find. KJV is far too tongue twisting, unless you've had a longer time in advance to rehearse the passage. Easier on the listeners too. all the best....
     
  12. roman8

    roman8 Advanced Poster

    Messages:
    74
    Gender:
    Female

    Thanks for taking the time to get that info , I like the King James , but i do have difficulty with it . thanks again , very helpful
     
  13. kay-gee

    kay-gee Banned

    Messages:
    267
    Dear roman8, Get yourself a copy of the New American Standard Bible, and you'll be in good shape. Get one large enough to colour up with pens, and make yourself little notes in the margins, and such...........all the best...........
     
  14. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    I say NASB AND NIV, then cross reference. Get a much deeper understanding that way.
     
  15. 2404

    2404 New Member

    Messages:
    20
    Gender:
    Male
    A number of years ago I did my four years at N.A.B.C. (Taylor University and Seminary) and at that time if my memory serves me the claim was that the New American Standard was the most accurate translation.
    I appreciate theology and all the good work that is done but the Word never did come nor will come to a theologian (by theological means).
    The LORD can use the KJV as well as any and I'm good with that.

    Excuse me for my 'out of context post' as I confess I did not read all of them - be they as good as they are.
     

Share This Page