KJV Only...which one!
- Thread starter Nancy
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Term was used in the creed as a direct refutation of Arianism, as the term refers to Jesus being eternal. and not a created being!With the above written work you stated here, you are not telling me anything new that I have not already believed for a very long time now. Where we disagree is in your next statement, though.
Sometimes a good ole fashioned dictionary will just simply get you out of trouble here.
Now, let's look at the Bible in how it is used.
The natural way to translate this word begat above in order for it to make sense in context would be: “gave birth to”; And it would not make any sense to translate it in the way that you suggested.
How about what It means in a Greek lexicon?With the above written work you stated here, you are not telling me anything new that I have not already believed for a very long time now. Where we disagree is in your next statement, though.
Sometimes a good ole fashioned dictionary will just simply get you out of trouble here.
Now, let's look at the Bible in how it is used.
The natural way to translate this word begat above in order for it to make sense in context would be: “gave birth to”; And it would not make any sense to translate it in the way that you suggested.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Even if Barna group has over exaggerated the statistic of 70% for some reason, the point is that a certain percentage of Christians have fallen away from the faith when they went to college. Seeing these young Christian kids were exposed to worldly people before, the most logical conclusion we can come up with is that they learned to doubt the Bible itself by believing Modern Scholarship taught at the very college itself. For that's what Modern Scholarship does. Just open up your Modern Bible and you got the serpent hissing at you on almost every page saying, “Yea, hath God said,...?" with the footnotes saying this part of Scripture does not really belong, etcetera.
Last edited:
Thanks again; MORE Excellent information. I am Very thankful
To God, JESUS ETERNALLY Saved me, And, I RAN from:
"the (27 years of) Bondage/priestly abuse of the roman religion!"
Now, (43 yrs) "running The GRACE race, In Liberty And FREEDOM!"
Amen?
GRACE And PEACE!!
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Begotten or Begat or Beget is to give birth to. This is just what is in the dictionary and what we see when we read the Bible. John 1:18 says in some Modern Bibles that Jesus is the BEGOTTEN GOD. Meaning, they are saying that Jesus is a second created God. I have ran into these types before on other Christian forums. One I ran into a few months back at Christian forums. He no doubt loves John 1:18 in certain Modern Bibles because it supports his false theology that Jesus is a second created God. Plus, there is Micah 5:2. In some Modern Bibles it states that the Messiah is not from everlasting like the KJB, but it states that he is from ancient days or ancient times, or the distant past. This again is false. They are attempting again to imply that Jesus to be like a created second God. However, Jesus is the second person of the Trinity who is eternal.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You mean you want to hide behind some original language word you really don't know to teach something that is not true or what you want to be true?
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Sometimes I find that when a person goes to the original languages, they do so as to teach a false belief because they don't like what their English Bible says. It's as if they think they know more than the 47 translators on the KJB or something (who knew multiple languages).
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Dear Modern Bible Scholarship Follower:
The next time you read your Bible, don't read it in the English if you don't trust the English words. Try reading it in the Koine Greek. Maybe that will help you to understand the Bible? But you don't know Koine Greek, do you? Therein lies your dilemma or problem. You need to have a consistent standard. If you read the Bible in English and believe it, then stick with that. If not, then you need to make your own Bible in your own image and liking that caters to your way. But I don't get the impression God wants us to make the Bible out to be like the way we want it to mean.
The Bible should change us, and we should not try to change the Bible.
The next time you read your Bible, don't read it in the English if you don't trust the English words. Try reading it in the Koine Greek. Maybe that will help you to understand the Bible? But you don't know Koine Greek, do you? Therein lies your dilemma or problem. You need to have a consistent standard. If you read the Bible in English and believe it, then stick with that. If not, then you need to make your own Bible in your own image and liking that caters to your way. But I don't get the impression God wants us to make the Bible out to be like the way we want it to mean.
The Bible should change us, and we should not try to change the Bible.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Ok, but are "christians" who Should be against pornography, aware that the
"owner of Zondervan/Harper Collins publishing," is Rupert Murdoch, and he
gets $1 for each NIV sold? And, probably not aware that he Also has a
pornography empire?
Just sayin' / thinking / meditating Prayerfully And Carefully about pleasing God
with our "stewardship of the (where it goes) money HE blessed us with"...
GRACE And Peace...
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
We are told to be born again by incorruptible seed.
“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.” (1 Peter 1:23)
The NIV is corrupted seed along with many of the modern versions out there.
In my 15 years as a Christian the NIV only lasted barely a year in my walk with Christ. For 14 years I have used the KJV and it has not failed me. Moreover I had a supernatural experience while reading the KJV once.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
You imply that the KJB translators added this verse out of thin air (as if they invented it).
This just shows your own lack of knowing Bible history, my friend.
1 John 5:7 is actually found in the Textus Receptus English bibles that existed prior.
It was in Tyndale's New Testament of 1525 - "For ther are thre which beare recorde in heuen the father the worde and the wholy goost. And these thre are one.", the Coverdale Bible of 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible from 1557 to 1599 -"For there are three, which beare recorde in heauen, the Father, the Worde, and the holy Ghost: and these three are one.", the Beza New Testament 1599, and the Authorized Version of 1611.
1 John 5:7 was even found in English made by John Wycliffe in 1380 and the Douay-Rheims of 1582 (with his source text being from the Latin).
The King James Bible comes primarily from the Textus Receptus Line (Although not entirely). The King James also draws from the Syriac Peshitta, and the Old Latin, too. Anyways, the Textus Receptus (Received Text or Traditional Text) comes primarily from Erasmus was the man who laid the egg that Martin Luther hatched. In short, Erasmus was not looked upon favorably by the Catholic church. This makes sense because we can even see the Catholics forbidding their own from reading the King James Bible in their own writings.
The Critical Text by Westcott and Hort in 1881 (that came long after the King James Bible) were the ones who favored corrupted Catholic manuscripts that removed the verse. These two manuscripts were Codex Vaticanus (VATICAN) and Codex Sinaiticus. Codex basically means book. These two men (Westcott and Hort) created a New Testament Greek Text based off these two manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus & Codex Sinaiticus). This led to the Nestle and Aland Critical Text today influenced by the Vatican. But Westcott and Hort themselves favored Catholic beliefs. They even held to other heretical beliefs, too. The manuscripts themselves originated from Alexandria which is the birthplace of Arianism or Anti-Trinitarianism.
So I don't see the removal of 1 John 5:7 as a coincidence.
The Revisers (Westcott and Hort) favored Arian manuscripts that attacked the Trinity.
For Westcott and Hort even had an Arian work on the translator committee, too.
When this Arian was threatened to be taken off the committee, Westcott and Hort threatened to also quit, too.
Why would they defend an Arian or somebody who is against the Trinity?
Something is not right with that picture.
So yeah. You can have a Bible that removes the Trinity if you like.
You will have no power with God's Word in defending the Trinity against a JW and or other Arians.
Source used for one paragraph and one sentence within this post:
Another King James Bible Believer
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
No doubt that many can get saved by a Modern Translation. But the point here is when it comes to growth or the Sanctification of the believer.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
From what I remember, people of means paid to have a copy of the original writings made by hand for personal study, which is why we have thousands of manuscripts.
Most people couldn't afford to own a personal copy. In this case, churches made copies and used the copies to read in the congregation. That's all I remember from memory.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, in general I think that is true. The KJV translators, however, did not have some of the original Greek manuscripts. Some of the KJV was translated from the Latin translation of the Bible called the Vulgate. As time passed, more manuscripts were found and eventually we recovered copies of the entire New Testament.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
None of this matters. You just said that God can direct anyone, including evil people to produce an authorized Bible. Do you believe what you say or are you making this stuff up as you go along?
Your claims that the Vatican had an influence on the Nestle-Alan are irrelevant. Why? Because nothing is omitted in the "Novum Testamentum Graece" Absolutely nothing is missing. Every Greek text, and every alternate reading is included in the Novum. You are very much mistaken if you think that the Catholic church or anyone else influenced the authors of the Novem to change something or leave something out. It just isn't true. You seem to have gulped down the hogwash floating out there and haven't taken the time to research it out yourself.
You aren't proving anything. All you are doing is raising suspicion and attacking people.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
You are not using the right dictionary. The Bible was not written in English, so an English dictionary will do you no good. But more importantly, I already showed you, from Paul's letter to the Hebrews, how the term "μονογενοῦς" is used. If you don't understand, then ask.
CadyandZoe
Well-Known Member
Yes, they did. Prove they didn't. You can't, can you?
What existed in English Bibles is irrelevant. The only relevant issue is what John actually wrote. And he wrote Greek, not English.
The phrase was originally part of the Vulgate and the Vulgate was translated into Greek and inserted into some printed editions of the Greek New Testament. But there is no manuscript evidence of it. NONE. It doesn't belong in our Bibles. Period.
Similar threads
