Thoughts about using a KJV update?

[Eternally Grateful]

To whom much is given... much is required.
It does not negate that the Holy Bible we have (that many of the early believers did not have a complete set of Scriptures like us) does not mean we can disregard them. They are still the Holy Scriptures unless you want to say that it is not. Liberals generally reject the Bible. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine and instruction in righteousness (See: 2 Timothy 3:16-17).

Who is disregarding scripture?

 

[Bible Highlighter]

If you think that I would watch any video that you recommend you are delusional. I don't need instruction from you, as I don't consider you qualified to instruct anyone. I am in the top 1% of general intelligence and, before I retired, I was a computer programmer. The slightest mistake was flagged as an error. Unlike yourself, I know what I write.

Finally, if you refer anyone to YouTube for instruction you are citing one of the worst sources of accurate information that exists. Another, of course, being the King James Bible, which allows you and others to spin false doctrine.

It's not related to the King James Bible. I was just offering friendly helpful advice in how to multi-quote a person's post via by a video tutorial. No need to beat me up about it. It was merely educational. If you don't want to help others see the difference between a person you quote vs. your own words and you want them to simply ignore your posts or be confused by them, then by all means... you are free to do so. I was merely trying to help you out in the love of Christ. I just personally believe it is easier on the eyes to read a person's post when you see when a person is being quoted properly.

If you disagree, we can agree to disagree in love and respect.
Peace be unto you in the Lord.

In any event, may God's love and grace shine upon you.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

I believe I gave a sufficient reason that the “agapao versus phileo” excuse used by Originals Onlyists is simply not correct. No doubt, I am not surprised that Originals Onlyists will not see what I have shown. So yes. I would say that one is seeing what they want to see.

Blessings be unto you in the Lord.

The fact is, the english language only has one word (love) to interpret 4 words in the greek. Its not the interpretors fault. I can not blame them, It is the flaw of our own language.

Again, the KJV is a word for word. The ONLY word you could use was love

hence as I said, the flaw of the english language alone makes it a not perfect word..

I just used on example. there are MANY

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Who is disregarding scripture?

Robert Gwin said the Bible does not exist. You said that the early church did not have a Holy Bible like us (So as to imply that we really don't need one either).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

The fact is, the english language only has one word (love) to interpret 4 words in the greek. Its not the interpretors fault. I can not blame them, It is the flaw of our own language.

Again, the KJV is a word for word. The ONLY word you could use was love

hence as I said, the flaw of the english language alone makes it a not perfect word..

I just used on example. there are MANY

Look. We have already been over this point and I have already demonstrated that this claim is false already. We don't need to keep rehashing the same point already. You either believe the point I made with Scripture or you don't, friend.

Peace, love, and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[Jim B]

<snip>

In many ways, that is part of this on-going battle between Liberals who support the continuous Bible revisions and bogus manuscripts, vs. Conservatives who still support usage of the earlier translations like KJV Bible.

a) Equating political philosophies with Bible translation philosophies is absolute nonsense.
b) No Bible translation is perfect. The best are those which are closest to the earlies and best manuscripts, which excludes the King James Bible. Not only is it based on a limited set of manuscripts but is written in a dead form of English that is often reinterpreted by unqualified people to have it mean what they want it to mean.
c) My preference is the NET Bible, which has over 60,000 notes that often explain what the source manuscripts say, including variant readings. They are not bound by a rigid ideology that denies what research, logic, and common sense say.

The Bible should be continuously revised according to the latest discoveries, research, and scholarship. An excellent example of why this should be so is the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I feel sorry for those who cling to a 411-year-old version of the Bible as though it alone is the pure word of God. They are clearly stuck in their delusional thinking! Even the translators of the KJV based their work on earlier Englyshe translations and the limited set of source documents available at the time and => expected their work to be modified in the future <=.

The best Bible for anyone is the one that most clearly communicates God's message to them, whether it is the NLT or The Message, the NRSV or the ESV or the NASB, the NIV or the NET, or the KJV or Geneva Bible.

After all, the KJV is just that: a version, nothing more.

 

[Jim B]

Look. We have already been over this point and I have already demonstrated that this claim is false already. We don't need to keep rehashing the same point already. You either believe the point I made with Scripture or you don't, friend.

Peace, love, and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

So for once we agree!

We have already been over this point (and others) and I have already demonstrated that your claim is false. We don't need to keep rehashing the same point already. You either believe the point I made with Scripture or you don't, friend.

Peace, love, and blessings be to you in the Lord.

 

[Grailhunter]

Not actually sir, we were speaking about God's name in what is referred to as the New Testament.

You know I have always been puzzled why the translators rendered Yeshua Jesus, rather than Joshua, yet all seem to do it.

Wonder no more!
Pull out your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and lookup pretty much any word for a person, place, or thing that starts with the letter J. What you are going to find is that it is pronounced as a Y. If you get on the internet and ask for the pronunciation of words like Job, or Joshua, or Jericho or Jesus, you will find it sound like e-Y because the Hebrew Y has an e tang to it.

Why is this? The Letter J nor it pronunciation did not exist in any language until 1400 AD and did not catch on until the 1500's.

So then again why did they change all the Y's to J's. Some call it the Great Consonant Shift, I call it the J slam. People disagree on why.... What it was, was the final step of removing God the Father's name and God the Son's name from the Bible. No one knows were the word Jesus came from. God the Father's name Yahweh at one time was in the Old Testament nearly 6,000 times. They removed His name and replaced it with the Tetragrammaton---YHWH. And then they removed that and inserted either the words God or Lord nearly 6.000 times and rearranged the words in the verses to accommodate the wording.

Can not blame the KJV for the shift from Y's to J's but you can see the shift if you study the history of the KJV, because up to the middle of the 1600's the KJV used the Greek name for Christ---Iēsous and then removed that and inserted the word Jesus.

One other thing, Christ in Greek is Christos which means Messiah. LOL Jesus Christ....it should read Yeshua the Messiah....Christ or Messiah is not His last name.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Robert Gwin said the Bible does not exist. You said that the early church did not have a Holy Bible like us (So as to imply that we really don't need one either).

No,

I stated the early church had to go someplace to have the word read to them.

Please get it right.

was i wrong??

and how is that disregarding scripture?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Look. We have already been over this point and I have already demonstrated that this claim is false already. We don't need to keep rehashing the same point already. You either believe the point I made with Scripture or you don't, friend.

Peace, love, and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

well you did not do any such thing.

You did not explain why Peter could not tell Jesus he agaped him

All you did was convince yourself you have the truth regarding this issue.

 

[Jim B]

Wonder no more!
Pull out your Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and lookup pretty much any word for a person, place, or thing that starts with the letter J. What you are going to find is that it is pronounced as a Y. If you get on the internet and ask for the pronunciation of words like Job, or Joshua, or Jericho or Jesus, you will find it sound like e-Y because the Hebrew Y has an e tang to it.

Why is this? The Letter J nor it pronunciation did not exist in any language until 1400 AD and did not catch on until the 1500's.

So then again why did they change all the Y's to J's. Some call it the Great Consonant Shift, I call it the J slam. People disagree on why.... What it was, was the final step of removing God the Father's name and God the Son's name from the Bible. No one knows were the word Jesus came from. God the Father's name Yahweh at one time was in the Old Testament nearly 6,000 times. They removed His name and replaced it with the Tetragrammaton---YHWH. And then they removed that and inserted either the words God or Lord nearly 6.000 times and rearranged the words in the verses to accommodate the wording.

Can not blame the KJV for the shift from Y's to J's but you can see the shift if you study the history of the KJV, because up to the middle of the 1600's the KJV used the Greek name for Christ---Iēsous and then removed that and inserted the word Jesus.

One other thing, Christ in Greek is Christos which means Messiah. LOL Jesus Christ....it should read Yeshua the Messiah....Christ or Messiah is not His last name.

The KJV was changed? Really? There are those who claim that the 1611 KJV was/is perfect in every detail. Well there you have it! The King James translation was modified!!! And the name of the Savior was changed, no less! How about it, KJVOs? What say you to this change???

 

[Grailhunter]

The KJV was changed? Really? There are those who claim that the 1611 KJV was/is perfect in every detail. Well there you have it! The King James translation was modified!!! And the name of the Savior was changed, no less! How about it, KJVOs? What say you to this change???

LOL I am sure Yeshua came down and signed off on it! LOL The letter J did not catch on at first and it is my opinion that the reason it finally became popular was because of the poet Shakespeare used it and it became "the in" thing to use.

 

[Grailhunter]

The KJV was changed? Really? There are those who claim that the 1611 KJV was/is perfect in every detail. Well there you have it! The King James translation was modified!!! And the name of the Savior was changed, no less! How about it, KJVOs? What say you to this change???

Another funny....I am not sure if you have read my other posts about it....The Gutenberg Press was a type set printing press--movable-type printing press and it was hard to work with and time consuming. So the KJV would occasionally be published with errors and the publishers would be punished...these Bibles are valuable. The Adulterer's Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murmur's Bible, the Wife hater's Bible are collector's items.

 

[Jim B]

Another funny....I am not sure if you have read my other posts about it....The Gutenberg Press was a type set printing press--movable-type printing press and it was hard to work with and time consuming. So the KJV would occasionally be published with errors and the publishers would be punished...these Bibles are valuable. The Adulterer's Bible, the Vinegar Bible, the Murmur's Bible, the Wife hater's Bible are collector's items.

Interesting! It baffles me why any sane person can consider a printed early 15th Century Bible to be the Word of God. It's a translation that was printed, as you pointed out, on a problematic printing press. KJVOs remind me of the tenants that threw out God's messengers.

 

[Behold]

Actually the KJV was spell checked, which became the edition you can buy for the last 4-500 yrs.

So, if you are told by liars that the KJV was "revised", then you are dealing with a liar.
Its was not revised, it was spell checked, and this means that the spelling of some "old english" words in the 1st edition, was updated, but not changed.
Not one word was changed, not one verse was altered.
But, the committee did spell check and update the spelling of many words that became the KJV that you can buy today.
Or, if you prefer, you can just print your own copy for free, as there is no Copyright charge on a KJV, as they are free to print for the last 4-500 yrs by anyone and everyone.

 

[Grailhunter]

Actually the KJV was spell checked, which became the edition you can buy for the last 4-500 yrs.

So, if you are told by liars that the KJV was "revised", then you are dealing with a liar.
Its was not revised, it was spell checked, and this means that the spelling of some "old english" words in the 1st edition, was updated, but not changed.
Not one word was changed, not one verse was altered.
But, the committee did spell check and update the spelling of many words that became the KJV that you can buy today.
Or, if you prefer, you can just print your own copy for free, as there is no Copyright charge on a KJV, as they are free to print for the last 4-500 yrs by anyone and everyone.

IESUS was the name in all early versions of the Bible including the first edition of the King James Bible published in 1611 and the Geneva Bible. This was later changed to JESUS. In supporting this claim here are extracts from the first edition of the King James version (KJV) Bible in 1611.

Matthew 1:18
"Now the birth of IESUS Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Ioseph (before they came together) shee was found with childe of the holy Ghost".

Luke 2:52. "And IESUS increased in wisedom and stature, and in fauour with God and man".

Romans 1:1 "Paul a seruant of IESUS Christ, called to bee an Apostle, separated vnto the ,Gospel of God",

 

[Bible Highlighter]

well you did not do any such thing.

You did not explain why Peter could not tell Jesus he agaped him

All you did was convince yourself you have the truth regarding this issue.

I explained why these words do not always mean what you think it means by pointing out verses that have them that does not support your viewpoint. You simply chose to ignore the points I made.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

So for once we agree!

We have already been over this point (and others) and I have already demonstrated that your claim is false. We don't need to keep rehashing the same point already. You either believe the point I made with Scripture or you don't, friend.

Peace, love, and blessings be to you in the Lord.

I have no idea how to decipher between your words vs mine in this post. Please learn to properly quote others. Thanks.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

well you did not do any such thing.

You did not explain why Peter could not tell Jesus he agaped him

All you did was convince yourself you have the truth regarding this issue.

Disproven here:

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Disproven here:

Matthew 23:6 "LOVE the uppermost rooms at feasts" Phileo

Luke 11:43 " ye LOVE the uppermost seats in the synagogues" Agapao

Jesus: "Do you agape me?"

Peter: "I phileo you"

Bible Highlighter: "both are saying the same"

the means people will go to to try to prove their idol bible is perfect is just astonishing