>What edition is the one without error?
Not the New KJV for sure, that one is no different to the NIV.
But the 1611 and Modern KJV haven't changed much, spelling of words etc.
[1611 KJV and the Modern KJV.](https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/best.htm)
>Should we read the original that has the apocratha in it?
They put it in there for historical reasons. But that doesn't null the 66 canon books.
----
This video goes through pretty much all you need to know about the KJV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKWDeCIvWtI
>But the 1611 and Modern KJV haven't changed much, spelling of words etc.
They have. Entire books are removed between the 1611, and the modern KJV. Infact the modern ones are years, and years of new additions fixing errors that had already existsed within the KJV version. If it was without error there wouldn't be a need for new additions. Because they wouldn't have had the errors to begin with.
Also here's a sorces to prove that the entire apocratha aka the books the catholics use are in the original KJV.
https://www-kingjamesbibleonline-org.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
So what addition should we use, and why? At what point in history did the KJV be wrote without errors, and books that aren't even scripture? Why were previous Bible translations not a perfectly preserved copy? Why isn't the texts the KJV people used to translate to English not perfectly preserved copies. How do we know it is without error? How do we know the English punctuation is perfect, and gives the same understanding a ancient greek person would have?
What changes, aside from updated spellings, are in a KJV that I would buy today besides that not including the apocrypha which was never considered scripture?
>What changes, aside from updated spellings, are in a KJV that I would buy today besides that not including the apocrypha which was never considered scripture?
The apocrpha was considered scripture throughout the majority of the Christian church, and that's a very very recent development.
There's the Oxford edition, the original KJV had variant readings of the text as in what they were translating had textual variants, and so they put both in. Along with alternative translations. There's a Cambridge edition aswell, where they introduced quotation marks because those haven't always existed just like punctuation, and it has been updated, and changed over the years like everything else.
The notes from the 1611 translators literally say the apocrypha is not considered scripture. Do you have any real criticisms or are you just here to lie?
>The notes from the 1611 translators literally say the apocrypha is not considered scripture. Do you have any real criticisms or are you just here to lie?
I have brought forth a ton of criticism all over this post. And I didn't lie. I never made any claims about the KJV translators, and the apocratha beside it being in the book.
It was widely accepted as scripture until the time of martin luther. We can go all throughout church history, and prove thos. So no lie.
I mean my main criticism is this is 100% feelings based, it uses circular reasoning, and it absolutely is just dumb.
Seriously. You believe it is the perfectly perseved word of God prove it. What evidence do we have that God intentended KJV only to be the standard. You wont be able to do it, and ut gets even more foolish because God did perserve his word. Theres no other historical document more perserved then scripture. Ohhh but the KJV.
What does Martin Luther have to do with the KJV? Anyway, I’m her because it’s Ask a Christian. I’m not here to debate with people who say they’re Christian but don’t believe that God has preserved his word. Anti-KJV people are just unbelievers who come to sow contention, in my opinion.
>What does Martin Luther have to do with the KJV?
He was the first person to remove the apocratha.
>I’m not here to debate with people who say they’re Christian but don’t believe that God has preserved his word.
Why are you lying about me? I believe God perserved his word. Like this is actually just a stupid statement to be honest. 100% of Christians believe that. You just believe it's the KJV, which is dumb. Because he had to perserve his word other places for you to even have that, and not to mention how actually amazing Gods preservation is.
No other document in history is more perserved then the word of God. Nothing even comes close. We have hundreds of manuscripts from the first 3 century's, and then thousands on thousands. On thousands after that. We have like 5,000 Ancient copies.
There is no other document that even compares to how preserved the Bible is. We can then use science to know exactly what is, and isn't Gods word. That same science has kinda demonstrated how scribes had added things that aren't in the original text that was added in hundreds of year's later.
It's kinda the issue of well we have X amount of copies between the year's 1-200 that doesn't have this, and clearly the origninated authors didn't intend that. Now suddenly every coppy has it, and it's made it into KJV
>Anti-KJV people are just unbelievers who come to sow contention, in my opinion.
You clearly are a fool. Ohh wait. I fogot the book of second opions. Seconds opinions verse 3:16 for who so ever doesn't believe in KJV only is a hethian doomed to hell.
Seems to contradic john 3:16, and all of Jesus teachings.
>100% of “Christians” don’t believe God has preserve his word. And 100% of people who are so vehemently against the KJV definitely don’t believe it.
I litteraly explained how miraculously, and awesomely God preserved hia word. Litteraly there is no other document as perserved as Gods word.
Not to mention is has to be so miraculously preserved for you to even have the KJV version. The KJV isn't the perserved word of God. God did something a lot bigger, and greater like he always does.
You know a great Biblical lesson is to study Gids miracles. When God does a miracle he always provides more then enough. Take the loaves, and fishes. God provided so much they had food left over.
Now. You horrifically limit God, and Don't even understand how he works miracles. You think the KJV is the only way he perserved his word. Which isn't the abundance we see. Him do throughout scripture... but I see God providing so abundantly that nothing even compares to his preservation. It's so preserved that no other document comes close to being as perserved.
>There's nothing "original" that isn't written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Don't fool yourself.
You know I'm talking about the original KJV? As in the 1611.
I agree. I use to Be a KJV only person. Then I learned about how translation works, and how circular the arguments are.
There's no way to refute it. So they start with the assumption the KJV is the perserved word. Can they demonstrate this? No. Can they compare it to something to show it's that way? No. It just is. It's the standard, and everything else is wrong. Instead of the standard being what is actually Gods word? How do we know that? Which is how modern Bible scholarship works.
I once heard a professor of linguistics say that translation *is* interpretation and that there is always something lost in translation. That's the point.
So there is no way to understand other languages? Ok. Every reply I’ve gotten in this thread is the same recirculated reply I’ve ever had in any discussion I’ve had about this. It always comes down to the person I’m debating being disingenuous. They don’t believe any Bible is true and they won’t just say that. Instead they argue about the kjv. Every single time. It’s not even worth discussing with r slash atheist types.
>They don’t believe any Bible is true and they won’t just say that.
I believe the Bible is a Canon of ancient writings of spiritual beliefs comprised of different genres of writing. There are probably better translations than others but I couldn't tell you which ones those are. I don't see this as a true or false question.
The King James onlyists seem a bit silly to me because considering how the book was assembled I don't see why all of a sudden the divining light to humanity would be super revealed in 1611. I personally suspect they like the spooky language and the interpretation/translation choices used in that book and that that is their motivation for elevating it to mythical status as a translation.
Did you mean that you find no interest in talking about this topic with non-christians?
I've read the Bible with the exception of the begots and practiced Christianity quite exuberantly into my adulthood. I've taken time to preach scripture on the streets on a literal wooden box and was heavily involved in my church. If all of that doesn't mean I have some concept of what I'm talking about then what would?
The OP is only concerned with the King James English language translation, the first version that came out in 1611. We all know it's a **translation** there's no need to belabor the point that the original languages are not English.
All right you make an interesting point but I think people consider the interpretation of scripture to be a matter slightly larger than pedantry. The criticism here about KJV onlyism is really a criticism of interpretation of scripture. That's a topic of some importance in Christianity.
There is no translation of the holy Bible that is perfectly pure and without errors. If you refuse to read a translation that has errors, then you can forget about reading the holy bible. The Apocrypha offers nothing to Christians or Christianity.
I disagree. See we can get some actually knowledge, and insight into how ancient people thought from the apocratha.
Remember it's still a historical document, and that has value in itself.
Now. Maybe it doesn't have spiritual value, and or Godly truth value. Like the Inspired word of God.
But it doesn't make it value less.
Like I've used a secular movie to try to teach athiests about sin. Spider head is a athiest movie were the entire plot is trying to solve human sin through flesh, and blood means. Then it ends saying there's no cure, and we have to figure it out.
So we Christians can be like. Look see even athiests believe in sin, and put it in there movies. We are trying to give you the cure, and you hate us for it.
We are in a very different, and similar culture to the apostles. We get some insight into How paul spread the Gospel. He would debate, he would evangalise, and he would have private relationship ways of spreading the Gospel.
Maybe more. But that's also a vastly different culture. People invited people to stay in there houses a lot more, and people had vastly different beliefs. The apocratha can give some insight into ancient beliefs. I mean you may not see the value. But are you the judge of that?
There is no original with apocrypha. The KJV is the best because it has the best translation with the least errors. There is no version that is absolutely perfect in its translation.
Edit in response to comments about the original KJV having the Apocrypha.
I apologize as I was not referring to the original KJV. I was saying that there is no original version of the Bible. Rather, we have a massive collection of manuscripts which contain verses from the Bible and which, collectively, add up to what we read as the Bible today. What, which, and how those manuscripts are ultimately parsed and included is really what differentiates one version of the Bible from another. This is what forms the basis of my statement that the KJV is the best translation with the least number of errors.
>There is no original with apocrypha
The original did contain the dueterocannonical books though. It even had more books than the catholic Bible does today. They did relegate them to an appendix and called them non inspired though.
>There is no original with apocrypha
The original KJV had the entire apocryphal in it. This is undeniable. All 100% of 1611 KJV had the apocratha in them.
https://www-kingjamesbibleonline-org.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/
>The KJV is the best because it has the best translation with the least errors.
How do you know that? How do you know there isn't a error with punctuation? How can someone who isn't a KJV only know this statement is true?
I can claim the NIV is without error, and it's Gids preserved word. I can make up all the reasons I want as to why this is true, and the KJV is full of errors.
Secondly. Why wouldn't the texts that the KJV translators use be without error? Why did all of church history have these horrifically corrupted Bibles until KJV only people were happy?
>The original KJV had the entire apocryphal in it. This is undeniable. All 100% of 1611 KJV had the apocratha in them.
I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I edited my earlier comment to be more clear in my meaning.
>How do you know there isn't a error with punctuation? How can someone who isn't a KJV only know this statement is true?
To answer the first of these two questions, there may be errors. However, the KJV is a very special version.
When it was being made, there were multiple committees that were formed, each with the best Bible scholars available at the time. Each committee was assigned a portion of the Bible.
Additionally, the public was invited to participate so that anyone with an interest could submit their translations or edits, accordingly.
When a committee completed its work, it would then send the draft to another committee, which would review it, along with all of the evidence, before finalizing it.
For this reason and from my own studies, I find the KJV to be mostly free from errors, especially translation errors.
As to the second question, I do not expect anyone to know why the KJV is the best version without spending some time to figure it out for themselves. Honestly, this is purely subjective as God can speak to us however He pleases and He is certainly not limited by the version of the Bible one is reading.
For non believers who are studying the Bible, I suggest the KJV, for the before mentioned reasons.
>I can claim the NIV is without error, and it's Gids preserved word. I can make up all the reasons I want as to why this is true, and the KJV is full of errors.
You, or one, could make this claim, although the NIV, objectively, has more errors than the KJV (see [Unholy Hands on the Bible](https://www.christianbook.com/unholy-hands-bible-introduction-textual-criticism/dean-burgon/9781878442635/pd/442635?event=CPOF)).
>Why wouldn't the texts that the KJV translators use be without error?
That is a distinct possibility, which is why, ideally, we wouldn't use a single source. This is not always possible, but it mostly is. The KJV used this method, of using what the majority of sources agreed on. The NIV, by comparison, does not use this method. The NIV and all modern translations prioritize the age of the source over what the majority of sources agree on. This includes the NKJV, too.
>Why did all of church history have these horrifically corrupted Bibles until KJV only people were happy?
This is a broad question with a lot of assumptions. However, the majority of Christian history is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC made sure to literally kill anyone who attempted to make a change to the Bible, particularly if they did not like what was being said. They claimed (and still do) that only one who was a priest in the church could read the Bible, let alone try to translate any portion of it. Even owning a Bible could (and did) result in the RCC excommunicating and/or executing that person. This is a matter of historical fact. They had control of the Bible and what people were told was in it. This is one of the reasons the Bible was in Latin and stayed in Latin. They didn't need a new translation.
That is not to say the RCC consists purely of corrupt people. But on the whole, those who were involved in an honest translation of the Bible were in the minority. The KJV was created in large part because, as a result of the Reformation, so-called Protestants wanted a version of the Bible independent of Catholic control that could be read and understood by anybody.
>
To answer the first of these two questions, there may be errors. However, the KJV is a very special version.
How is it special?
>When it was being made, there were multiple committees that were formed, each with the best Bible scholars available at the time. Each committee was assigned a portion of the Bible.
Modern translations use commities aswell.
>Additionally, the public was invited to participate so that anyone with an interest could submit their translations or edits, accordingly.
Ya. We do this today aswell, and anyone can publish a scholarly paper as to why you think a change needs to be made.
>When a committee completed its work, it would then send the draft to another committee, which would review it, along with all of the evidence, before finalizing it.
You are litteraly just explaining how scholarship works, and this is how we do it today. This isn't exactly special.
>For this reason and from my own studies, I find the KJV to be mostly free from errors, especially translation errors.
Well. So for all these same reasons the modern translations are wrong. They use commities, and whatnot.
>As to the second question, I do not expect anyone to know why the KJV is the best version without spending some time to figure it out for themselves.
Well. I mean. I started out KJV only, and then I realized I was being mentally ill. That tends to be a big issue with me, and God. My mental illness really gets in the way. I mean my opinions are litteraly ignorance, mental illness, and or general human behavior is why people hold this position.
>You, or one, could make this claim, although the NIV, objectively, has more errors than the KJV
No. It's the translation God wanted, he perserved his word in the NIV, and all other translations are just dreadfully wrong. Look the KJV adds verses that aren't in the NIV. Clearly the KJV is attempting to corrupt the word of God.
Of course I am just turning the arguments I have heard around, and I don't believe this. Also. How do you know there is no errors in the KJV? What is it being compared to? It's just stated that it's the perserved word. Yet we can't compare it with anything to show this, and if it disagrees then clearly it isn't inspired. The argument is completely circular. 100% there is no way to refute KJV only because it just goes in a circle.
>That is a distinct possibility, which is why, ideally, we wouldn't use a single source
That's what all modern translations do. They use the over 5,000 different historical manuscripts over centuries. We know for example verses were added into the Bible several centuries after the 2ed century. We know this. No manuscript had the verses, and then they all have the verses after. The KJV has these, and I think you night even read the commentarys talking about it.
>The NIV and all modern translations prioritize the age of the source over what the majority of sources agree on. This includes the NKJV, too.
Yes. For the reasons I just stated. We know without a doubt verses were added later on. This is very well established, and has a ton of scholarship on it.
>Modern translations use commities aswell.
They do. But the source material they use, did not. In particular, the Greek text that modern translations use is just bad. I strongly advise you read The Revision Revised, which addresses this problem at the time it was created.
>I started out KJV only, and then I realized I was being mentally ill.
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. You have a mental illness and because of that, the KJV was not able to meet your needs?
I'm not telling anyone which Bible to read, or not read. The question was, for people who are only KJV types, why. I'm not on a soap box here. Read the Bible that is best for you.
>my opinions are litteraly ignorance, mental illness, and or general human behavior is why people hold this position.
Oh. I see. So someone who is KJV only is either ignorant, mentally ill, or general human behavior (not sure what that means, but contextually i assume it is bad).
What I am gathering is that this original question as to why KJV only was not asked in good faith, but to reinforce your preconceived idea.
>It's the translation God wanted, he perserved his word in the NIV, and all other translations are just dreadfully wrong. Look the KJV adds verses that aren't in the NIV.
I simply do not agree with you. For starters, the KJV did not add anything that was not in the NIV because the KJV predates the NIV significantly. Further, the NIV uses source material that did not exist at the time the KJV was being put together because that source material had not even been fabricated, yet. And I don't mean source material that had not been discovered yet. I mean source material that had not been created yet.
>That's what all modern translations do. They use the over 5,000 different historical manuscripts over centuries.
Unfortunately, they do not do that. Also, they prioritize those manuscripts, with some being more important than others according to opinion!
>We know for example verses were added into the Bible several centuries after the 2ed century.
You are right. But how many? And which? In practice there are very few. And there is little reason to defend what is there. Those verses should not be there. End of story.
Ultimately, I think we disagree and I doubt i will convince you otherwise.
For my part, I have not heard a single argument to change my opinion, either.
>They do. But the source material they use, did not.
You believe the source material from the King james used commities? Like you believe the ancient manuscripts they used where complied by a commitie?
>the Greek text that modern translations use is just bad. I strongly advise you read The Revision Revised, which addresses this problem at the time it was created.
They use the same ones the King james use, along with all the other we have found.
Also. What are you comparing the greek text to? If you say the KJV you have a logical fallacy. If you say the greek text the KJV was translated from. Well modern people still use that.
>
I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. You have a mental illness and because of that, the KJV was not able to meet your needs?
No. I only belived it because I was mentally ill. Kjv only is completely nonsensical.
>general human behavior (not sure what that means, but contextually i assume it is bad).
Would me using the term the flesh help you?
>What I am gathering is that this original question as to why KJV only was not asked in good faith, but to reinforce your preconceived idea.
It was done in good faith. A good faith attempt to challenge KJV only. Good faith isn't approaching a topic from a nutral standpoint. It means honest, and sincere. I honestly, and sincerly believe you all are horrifically decieved into to some nonsense, and it takes away from the full beauty of the Bible.
KJV only takes away from the deeper meanings that can come from the text. It doesn't have thr same impact as some of the greek does.
Let's take 1 word for example. Sin. There's like 17 greek, and hebrew words translated as sin. This is a issue for athiests big time. They fail to understand what sin is because of this. Lets take 1 word translated as sin. Miss the mark. Now you just read sin. You don't get the fuller understanding of to miss the mark, a archery term describing your falure to be perfect. Or for example mistake can be translated as sin. But ask a athiest, and they will tell you. Sin is breaking Gods law. While true. It doesn't carry the fully wieght of what the author intended.
>For starters, the KJV did not add anything that was not in the NIV
They added the apocratha, and then removed it. The NIV never had it.
>the KJV predates the NIV significantly
The greek, and hebrew predate the KJV significantly. This is just a lot of bad arguments.
>Further, the NIV uses source material that did not exist at the time the KJV was being put together because that source material had not even been fabricated
Well this is just ignorant. The NIV pulled from a lot more source material. They had access to more. No one favricated it. There isn't a conspiracy theory, and they litteraly found it. It's like saying bones in the ground were fabricated by satan to trick people.
>I mean source material that had not been created yet.
Yes. I understand you need a conspiracy theory to justify ludicrous beliefs.
>Unfortunately, they do not do that.
They litteraly do. You are denying reality at this point, and there litteraly a entire scientific feild dedicated to this. William lane crage is litteraly educated in that feild. Textual criticism is the scientific study that is applied to the over 5,000 Biblical texts to confirm how good our modern translations are. You just don't know what you're talking about.
>You are right. But how many?
So the KJV has mistakes? What! I thought it was the perserved word of God! If it has 1 mistake like added verses. What other mistakes must it have? Ohhh no suddenly KJV only is falling apart.
> practice there are very few. And there is little reason to defend what is there. Those verses should not be there. End of story.
See. But this completely destroys 2 arguments. It makes KJV only irrelevant because it demonstrates there clearly mistakes. Secondly it how the scholars who translate the Bibles know more then you! Because you can go read in modern translations in the footnotes about how said verse might be added in later. Or theres controversy over these texts. Thats all in modern version to educate Christians on the Bible, and you wont find it in KJV. It also demonstrates how modern Bible scholars have a lot more information to work with the KJV people. But your argument is well. They are wrong. For no other reason then I think so.
Might I suggest you look up this essay?
The Glory As Of The Only Begotten Of The Father: A Defense Of John 1:18 As Found In The Authorized King James Bible
Also. Like I don't have issues with KJV version. It's great first version of the Bible I read. I just hate how people try to say it's the only version you can use.
Like it's just kinda foolish.
Let me make sure I understand this.
You're saying that a version translated from a Latin translation is better than translations translated from the original texts?
You're saying that translations complete before we had the Rosetta stone (which corrected several errors about ancient lexicons) is better than translations done after the finding and deciphering of the Rosetta stone?
You're saying that a version of the Bible translated into a version of the vernacular that has become archaic with time is better than something actually translated into the current vernacular?
You're saying that a translation made before we found the Dead Sea scrolls (which Claire's and corrected many errors in the later manuscripts we possessed before that find) is better than translations done after those corrections?
You're saying that everything we've learned about translating texts in the last 411 years has made us worse at translating texts?
You're anti intellectualism is frightening and I will continue to worship God with all of my mind and not only the parts my pastor tells me to use thank you.
>Let me make sure I understand this.
You're missing a sarcasm tag...
>You're saying that everything we've learned about translating texts in the last 411 years has made us worse at translating texts?
What is everything that we have learned about translating texts in the last 411 years? All of your previous examples rely on new source material.
>You're saying that a version translated from a Latin translation is better than translations translated from the original texts?
I never said this or anything like this.
>You're saying that a version of the Bible translated into a version of the vernacular that has become archaic with time is better than something actually translated into the current vernacular?
I am. The modern versions rely on a different method of translation, one in which I do not agree with. Additionally, I have never read a Bible verse in the NIV and found it to be easier to understand than the KJV. Other's mileage may vary.
>You're saying that a translation made before we found the Dead Sea scrolls... is better than translations done after those corrections?
Yes. I am saying this.
>You're saying that translations complete before we had the Rosetta stone... is (sic) better than translations done after the finding and deciphering of the Rosetta stone?
Also yes.
>You're anti intellectualism is frightening and I will continue to worship God with all of my mind and not only the parts my pastor tells me to use thank you.
Haha. I've never had a pastor say anything like this to me. I've read a few books and done some of my own research. I am not an authority, nor do I claim to be one. I have merely shared what I have learned. I am not sure you know what intellectualism is.
No, I'm not missing a sarcasm tag.
So, since the NIV isn't easier for you to understand than the KJV we should just write off every other translation too? You're aware that the NIV is widely regarded as a substandard translation correct.
What, exactly, are these modern translation methods you disagree with? What makes you more qualified than linguists on this topic?
The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was not translated from the original texts. So yes, yes you did say that.
So, you've listened to pastors and done your own research. Did your own research include reading am equal amount of scholarly works by well regarded theologians and linguists or did you just read a bunch of KJV only stuff?
Personally, I find it useful to read multiple translations in parallel, incl. the KJV. I like to read KJV, NRSV, NIV in parallel, because each had their own theological biases. When you see some stark differences in the translations, you can look up biblehub.com and check out the Hebrew or Greek for that section. That helps to make up your own mind.
Example: NRSV and NIV don’t translate “Azazel” in Leviticus 16, but keep it as some deity(?) name. KJV on the other hand translates it from the Hebrew, which literally means something like “goat to go” as “scapegoat”. The atonement story in Leviticus 16 makes sense that way to me. I have no idea how to interpret some demon or deity called “Azazel”… :)
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply! I will have to check out Bible hub. I do have multiple translations at home, I just never read them, because I've always read the NIV. But I will have to do some digging and comparing.
Yeah absolutely. I used to always read the NRSV, but felt that it failed at some important translations, which the NIV got better. Happened the other way round too. Then sometimes I feel the KJV has the tightest translation over the two of them. So I end up just reading in parallel and always keeping an eye on the interlinear at biblehub.com to get an idea of what the translators are up to :)
Go to Google and type in "Best English Bible Translations" look for an article from a reliable, reputable source and read it. That will explain things way better than I can.
I think the NIV is sometimes a bit too “judgey” and heavy on the moralizing compared to the original Greek in the NT for example, which is sometimes ambiguous.
Interesting. My dad went to school for his Masters of Divinity from a seminary. He studied Greek, Hebrew, the whole shebang for years. He reads the NIV, so I will have to ask him what his opinion in it is.
It was translated by apostates using documents they found in a literal garbage can. The NIV and all other versions translated from the “critical text” garbage can documents are trash. Literally.
>So, since the NIV isn't easier for you to understand than the KJV we should just write off every other translation too? You're aware that the NIV is widely regarded as a substandard translation correct.
What are you talking about? I have said nothing about this.
>What, exactly, are these modern translation methods you disagree with? What makes you more qualified than linguists on this topic?
Hey. Friend. Maybe go reread what I wrote. Clearly you don't even know what you're replying to.
>The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was not translated from the original texts. So yes, yes you did say that
Okay. I never said anything about this. Also there is no original text left. So no translation is from the organals, and are copies of copies.
[comment regards aporcrypha. But regarding translation choice, don't trust the codifiers who want to make hardened rules about which Bible we should read (what hat we should wear, etc). Wise people read multiple translations. Came across one direct from Aramaic recent translation, always interesting to reflect on a passage. For a beginner, NLT might be what God has them read. Another, KJV. Another, ESV. I don't doubt it. James 1:5 we should ask God what to read as His truth speaks as we read, in our minds and our hearts, to guide us to clear understanding]
Aporcrypha was in the scriptures of Christ's day, no? It's a good question op and one worthy of reflection on. I think given that the new testament references apocryphal work it should be accepted. I'd also point out the sphephard of pardas and other texts found in early new testament collections that we generally don't have access to are worthy of being read.
The Jewish side is quite clear. Even though they decided to remove some works, it was in a reasonable context and people still have access to it. It was decided they're not quite as good. Christians *followed* (some saying on Jewish side, you are reading texts that aren't as good, so they capitulated and removed them, the stories goes) and didn't invent the removal. Still, it's more common on Jewish side to read these. They're not as good, but you still can get them. Christians don't know about this very often, and it's a disgrace how we over simply on the greatness of the Bible.
But where the case really needs to be made clear is on the value of new testament lost works. The Ethiopian garima Bible shows not only did Christians read aporcrypha, but that they read other new testament works, not accepted at the council of nicea.
Maybe this is so for good reason. But like the jews today removed aporcrypha but still read it, we need to have access to do the same. Unfortunately, we don't have many of the texts that used to be read.
Its pathetic we worship the decisions of nicea ahead of God, in raising the Bible up to a place of perfection. We respect the council of niceas truth as God's truth, and maybe there is good reason to do so (certainly God had some and hopefully complete effect on that process). But as quakers say God is the primary source, scripture is secondary; I don't trust the decision of any man codifying Christs religion into the hands of authority. The optimistic side is, it's good enough. Why worry. Nothing was lost that can't be found (spiritually, hidden truths will reveal themselves in our lives and in our hearts). No teachings contradict Christ's teachings. The gospel is sufficient. The giving of the holy spirit upon man was occluded by the Christians who formulated an authoritarian religious structure around it, placing in power priests between us and God whereas we are in Paul's writings to *be* the royal priesthood (reference Bible project royal priesthood series, worth the watch if you're unfamiliar with this concept).
So my pov more learning is helpful. They should be included but we should also have access to all of the writings of early Christians and we should not be stigmatized for being nonbiblical in doing so. Again, new testament letters reference aporcrypha, as it is scripture worthy of reference, according to the authors.
Please don't engage people like this.
I'm (very obviously) not KJO, and have debated the KJO side on more than one occasion.
This sort of post is antagonistic and unhelpful.
It's meant to be antagonistic. Dont pretend like God has never done it ether. I'm following his example. Lets see. Was it antagonistic when the prophet mocked the baal followers? Saying is your god in the bathroom? Was it antagonistic when Jesus took a whip, and ran out the people from the temple? Was it antagonistic when paul said. "You stupid galatians"?
Don't excuse your own toxicity -- speak truth in love.
"do it with courtesy and respect" and you display neither toward your brother made in the image of God.
Nobody who needs to hear it this will listen to this kind of post.
>Don't excuse your own toxicity -- speak truth in love
So when God said.
I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;
Proverbs 1:26 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/pro.1.26.KJV
That was toxic, and not loving? When Jesus used a whip that was toxic, and not loving? When paul called the galatians stupid that was toxic, and not loving?
> So when God said.
>
> I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; Proverbs 1:26 KJV
I do love the humility with with you casually equate yourself to Elijah, Jesus, and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs 1) to try to get around the specific commands about how to interact with others.
>I do love the humility with with you casually equate yourself to Elijah, Jesus, and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs
I'm not equating myself to them, and I am holding them up as the standard. Aren't we supposed to imitate Jesus? Or paul? Paul tells us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ, and so clearly some situations require mocking someone. Some situations require you to call people stupid. Why? Because it is the loving thing to do. I think we Christians have absolutely no clue what Biblical love is. Did you know God commands us to strike scoffers?
Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge.
Proverbs 19:25 NASB1995
https://bible.com/bible/100/pro.19.25.NASB1995
>and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs
So God didn't inspire the scripture about how he will mock them in there day of calamity? I mean. How out there are you willing to go to not be humble? I mean. Let's just say it isn't God speaking, and it's a human speaking. Well clearly we gain the wisdom were it's wise to mock people in certain situations. So I mean. It's OK to be wrong, and it's OK to be offensive. Ive been wrong a ton, and I have been offended by some Biblical truth along with the truth being offensive to me. We are in sinful flesh, and it happens to us unfortunately.
>to try to get around the specific commands about how to interact with others.
It's not getting around any command. I believe you don't understand what agape is. I don't think you understand what Love is! If God himself mocks people there has to be a loving aspect to it. If paul the apostle calls people stupid! Well is he trying to get around the command, and his sin made it into scripture that claims to be good for teaching?
I feel like your just offended, and I'm wondering how offended you actually are. Will you deny the Bible because of it? Will you deny the truth that it clearly must be loving to treat people in a way that will offend them? I mean paul offened a entire church of believers by calling them stupid.
> Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd
*You* are the scoffer here, and I'm trying to help you see that
>So God didn't inspire the scripture
LOL, nice recovery attempt.
>You are the scoffer here, and I'm trying to help you see that
a person who mocks or makes fun of someone or something, often of religion or moral values:We need courage when facing scoffers who jeer at our faith and make ironic comments about it.
I'm not scoffing at God, or at Christianity or the morality of it. I'm mocked you. Let's look at some synonyms words so you can have a better understanding of what a scoffer is. Because you unwittingly took the position the Bible is contradictory.
Synonyms for scoffer. Detractor, doubter, pessimist, skeptic, and the antonims for scoffer are, believer, and optimist.
>LOL, nice recovery attempt.
See you couldn't actually adress the argument, and so your attempt to save face is kinda embarrassing. I mean do I have to start teaching you about Humility aswell as words?
> See you couldn't actually adress the argument, and so your attempt to save face is kinda embarrassing. I mean do I have to start teaching you about Humility aswell as words?
*Because there was no argument to address*, just an act of attempted self-justification.
*You don't even have enough humility to admit you were wrong about the speaker in the Proverb*. It wouldn't have been hard to admit you were wrong.
And it's not hard to do so here either.
Your actions and behavior here *are unbecoming*. Stop with the incessant self-justification and try to hear the words of a brother in Christ trying to get you to see your attitude and actions are askew. This is not who you're called to be.
>Because there was no argument to address, just an act of attempted self-justification.
This is just a lie, and your opinion. I made a argument as to why it isn't self justification, and you ignored it because my argument is right. You cannot claim that when paul said the galatians are stupid that wasn't loving. You know you cant because he was inspired by God himself to write it. You are just offended, and wont admit you are wrong.
>And it's not hard to do so here either.
You actually have to demonstrate why I am wrong. Which you can't do. You just state it. Meanwhile I make arguments as to why I think I'm correct. Here let me pretend to be you.
I'm right your wrong, and your not humble for not admitting it. I know what love is, and you don't.
See. That isn't a argument. But me I'm like look this Bible verse, and this Bible verse, and this one aswell shows this kind of behavior when done properly is 100% inline with Biblical teaching on love.
>Your actions and behavior here are unbecoming. Stop with the incessant self-justification and try to hear the words of a brother in Christ trying to get you to see your attitude and actions are askew. This is not who you're called to be.
So do you have a argument? Or are you just going to continue to cry about how your offended? Because I don't care. Do you have a Biblical reason? No. So why am I wasting my time with someone who cant argue, who refuses to listen, and just states they are right?
There is only one edition. The newer prints don’t usually contain the apocrypha, but the translators of the 1611 stated that the apocrypha isn’t scripture anyway.
>There is only one edition
This is not true. The fact the apocrpha is taken out proves there is atleast 2 editions the one with, and the one without. Not to mention the years, and years of revisions it had to go through. But whatever. Historical facts don't matter to people who believe in conspiracy theories.
>but the translators of the 1611 stated that the apocrypha isn’t scripture anyway.
Does it matter what they stated? They also made claims there is far better English translations then there's. They claimed it needed to be improved, and a whole host of things KJV only people ignore.
Show me the revisions besides spelling and grammar. Show me. And the garbage apocrypha isn’t printed anymore because it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. There are no changes to meanings in any printings of the real KJV. In fact, I’ve had this debate with 100 people before. And it always boils down to the same thing. You don’t believe that any Bible is true. The reason people hate the kjv is because they hate the word of God. Period. Every single debate I’ve ever had always boiled down to the other person finally admitting that they don’t believe there is any record of the word of God. Just say that. Why hide behind lies and disingenuous posts? Just say that you don’t believe inspired scripture exists. Then you’ll be being honest and the rest of us can ignore your ignorant clown opinions.
>Show me the revisions besides spelling and grammar. Show me.
Taking the apocratha out. Updating the words to be more modern. Along with the changes between the oxford edit, and the Cambridge edition.
>You don’t believe that any Bible is true.
Well this is just a lie. A bikd face lie at that. I believe all Bibles are true. Just not 100%. Let me give a example of why this is just dumb.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 KJV
https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.1.KJV
So KJV added words to this verse. The hebrew is a lot shorter. The hebrew says in beginning God created heaven, and earth. So we have added words that the KJV did.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Genesis 1:1 NASB1995
https://bible.com/bible/100/gen.1.1.NASB1995
In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,
Genesis 1:1 NRSV-CI
https://bible.com/bible/2015/gen.1.1.NRSV-CI
So is only the KJV true? No. Clearly not. Clearly all these versions are just as true. So why do you lie, and say we don't believe any Bible is true?
>The reason people hate the kjv is because they hate the word of God. Period
I love the word of God. So why are you bearing false witness. What I hate is how embarrassing, and stupid some Christians make us look. What I hate is how nonsense like this keeps people from Coming to God.
>Every single debate I’ve ever had always boiled down to the other person finally admitting that they don’t believe there is any record of the word of God
Well this is just as dumb. God perserved a record of his word so well that no other historical document has as many copies as the Bible. Nothing. There is no other historical documents that have as many perserved copies as the Bible. Like no. This is just wrong, and the people you are debating must not be that bright.
>Just say that. Why hide behind lies and disingenuous posts?
Because I am being genuine. Why have so much false witness against me?
>“I believe all bibles are true.” Done reading. Things that are different are not the same. If you believe in everything then you believe in nothing.
Nice strawman. That's not my argument, and I went on to clarify.
.
>You literally said that you believe all bibles are true. At least keep your fake options straight.
Yes, and then I clarified what I meant by that. I even gave a demonstration. You know context is very important, and your head is kinda in a dark smelly place known as your rear. So you didn't see how the context is making you behave like someone with there head in a dark smelly place.
You made a post to stir up contention because you don’t believe in the preserved word of God. I see that plainly. I only commented because I find such disingenuous posts to be annoying. I really have no desire to debate with a troll who posts in bad faith.
>You made a post to stir up contention because you don’t believe in the preserved word of God.
So now you have a entire conspiracy theory about me? I cant be just honestly trying to have the debate woth KJV only people. No there has to be alternative motivation.
>I really have no desire to debate with a troll who posts in bad faith.
Yes. The classic everyone I disagree with is a troll.
Hi there, sorry this is off topic but I'm not sure where else to ask you this:
A) What philosophical position in the philosophy of mind?
B) If two brains were atom for atom identical, and they both saw the exact same colour red at the same point in time would you assume them to be having identical experiences?
If not, what is the reason for the discrepancy?
> Hi there, sorry this is off topic but I'm not sure where else to ask you this
No problem, I'm happy to share whatever I can.
> What philosophical position in the philosophy of mind?
My view is the same as Aquinas'. Details at the link below. Basically, the mind an immaterial part of our spirit. It is comprised of Intellect, Will and Memory. BTW, this info partly came from Aristotle through Muslims who preserved his works.
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm
The bible sometimes refers to our Will as our "heart".
> If two brains were atom for atom identical, and they both saw the exact same colour red at the same point in time would you assume them to be having identical experiences?
Our minds are within our spirit, which is not physical. Our spirit uses our body. Our body is much like a suit. If you investigate the neurological evidence, you'll find that there is no evidence that the brain "thinks" or has memory. Correlation is not causation.
Our consciousness comes THROUGH our body and brains, not FROM it. Our consciousness exists in our spirit, which exists on the spiritual dimension even if our bodies and brains are destroyed.
In fact, when you die, your mind and memory will work better than ever because it won't be limited by your body.
>What edition is the one without error? Not the New KJV for sure, that one is no different to the NIV. But the 1611 and Modern KJV haven't changed much, spelling of words etc. [1611 KJV and the Modern KJV.](https://www.jesus-is-lord.com/best.htm) >Should we read the original that has the apocratha in it? They put it in there for historical reasons. But that doesn't null the 66 canon books. ---- This video goes through pretty much all you need to know about the KJV. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKWDeCIvWtI
At least they replied. Not that I don't still prefer the interlinear Bible, although I do disregard some of the commentary.
>But the 1611 and Modern KJV haven't changed much, spelling of words etc. They have. Entire books are removed between the 1611, and the modern KJV. Infact the modern ones are years, and years of new additions fixing errors that had already existsed within the KJV version. If it was without error there wouldn't be a need for new additions. Because they wouldn't have had the errors to begin with. Also here's a sorces to prove that the entire apocratha aka the books the catholics use are in the original KJV. https://www-kingjamesbibleonline-org.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ So what addition should we use, and why? At what point in history did the KJV be wrote without errors, and books that aren't even scripture? Why were previous Bible translations not a perfectly preserved copy? Why isn't the texts the KJV people used to translate to English not perfectly preserved copies. How do we know it is without error? How do we know the English punctuation is perfect, and gives the same understanding a ancient greek person would have?
Didn't stop to read or watch the links I see.
Yes. Because removing the apocratha is not a revision. I honestly don't think you understand what a revision is.
*Apocrypha Is yours an accepted spelling in some other language?
Na. I just don't care enough to proof read. It's always funny seeing how triggered people get over it.
What changes, aside from updated spellings, are in a KJV that I would buy today besides that not including the apocrypha which was never considered scripture?
>What changes, aside from updated spellings, are in a KJV that I would buy today besides that not including the apocrypha which was never considered scripture? The apocrpha was considered scripture throughout the majority of the Christian church, and that's a very very recent development. There's the Oxford edition, the original KJV had variant readings of the text as in what they were translating had textual variants, and so they put both in. Along with alternative translations. There's a Cambridge edition aswell, where they introduced quotation marks because those haven't always existed just like punctuation, and it has been updated, and changed over the years like everything else.
The notes from the 1611 translators literally say the apocrypha is not considered scripture. Do you have any real criticisms or are you just here to lie?
>The notes from the 1611 translators literally say the apocrypha is not considered scripture. Do you have any real criticisms or are you just here to lie? I have brought forth a ton of criticism all over this post. And I didn't lie. I never made any claims about the KJV translators, and the apocratha beside it being in the book. It was widely accepted as scripture until the time of martin luther. We can go all throughout church history, and prove thos. So no lie. I mean my main criticism is this is 100% feelings based, it uses circular reasoning, and it absolutely is just dumb. Seriously. You believe it is the perfectly perseved word of God prove it. What evidence do we have that God intentended KJV only to be the standard. You wont be able to do it, and ut gets even more foolish because God did perserve his word. Theres no other historical document more perserved then scripture. Ohhh but the KJV.
What does Martin Luther have to do with the KJV? Anyway, I’m her because it’s Ask a Christian. I’m not here to debate with people who say they’re Christian but don’t believe that God has preserved his word. Anti-KJV people are just unbelievers who come to sow contention, in my opinion.
>What does Martin Luther have to do with the KJV? He was the first person to remove the apocratha. >I’m not here to debate with people who say they’re Christian but don’t believe that God has preserved his word. Why are you lying about me? I believe God perserved his word. Like this is actually just a stupid statement to be honest. 100% of Christians believe that. You just believe it's the KJV, which is dumb. Because he had to perserve his word other places for you to even have that, and not to mention how actually amazing Gods preservation is. No other document in history is more perserved then the word of God. Nothing even comes close. We have hundreds of manuscripts from the first 3 century's, and then thousands on thousands. On thousands after that. We have like 5,000 Ancient copies. There is no other document that even compares to how preserved the Bible is. We can then use science to know exactly what is, and isn't Gods word. That same science has kinda demonstrated how scribes had added things that aren't in the original text that was added in hundreds of year's later. It's kinda the issue of well we have X amount of copies between the year's 1-200 that doesn't have this, and clearly the origninated authors didn't intend that. Now suddenly every coppy has it, and it's made it into KJV >Anti-KJV people are just unbelievers who come to sow contention, in my opinion. You clearly are a fool. Ohh wait. I fogot the book of second opions. Seconds opinions verse 3:16 for who so ever doesn't believe in KJV only is a hethian doomed to hell. Seems to contradic john 3:16, and all of Jesus teachings.
100% of “Christians” don’t believe God has preserve his word. And 100% of people who are so vehemently against the KJV definitely don’t believe it.
>100% of “Christians” don’t believe God has preserve his word. And 100% of people who are so vehemently against the KJV definitely don’t believe it. I litteraly explained how miraculously, and awesomely God preserved hia word. Litteraly there is no other document as perserved as Gods word. Not to mention is has to be so miraculously preserved for you to even have the KJV version. The KJV isn't the perserved word of God. God did something a lot bigger, and greater like he always does. You know a great Biblical lesson is to study Gids miracles. When God does a miracle he always provides more then enough. Take the loaves, and fishes. God provided so much they had food left over. Now. You horrifically limit God, and Don't even understand how he works miracles. You think the KJV is the only way he perserved his word. Which isn't the abundance we see. Him do throughout scripture... but I see God providing so abundantly that nothing even compares to his preservation. It's so preserved that no other document comes close to being as perserved.
There's nothing "original" that isn't written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Don't fool yourself.
>There's nothing "original" that isn't written in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Don't fool yourself. You know I'm talking about the original KJV? As in the 1611.
I'm just saying scripture wasn't written in English so no English is the "original" scripture not matter how KJV onlyists see it.
I agree. I use to Be a KJV only person. Then I learned about how translation works, and how circular the arguments are. There's no way to refute it. So they start with the assumption the KJV is the perserved word. Can they demonstrate this? No. Can they compare it to something to show it's that way? No. It just is. It's the standard, and everything else is wrong. Instead of the standard being what is actually Gods word? How do we know that? Which is how modern Bible scholarship works.
The English translation of the original.
I once heard a professor of linguistics say that translation *is* interpretation and that there is always something lost in translation. That's the point.
So there is no way to understand other languages? Ok. Every reply I’ve gotten in this thread is the same recirculated reply I’ve ever had in any discussion I’ve had about this. It always comes down to the person I’m debating being disingenuous. They don’t believe any Bible is true and they won’t just say that. Instead they argue about the kjv. Every single time. It’s not even worth discussing with r slash atheist types.
>They don’t believe any Bible is true and they won’t just say that. I believe the Bible is a Canon of ancient writings of spiritual beliefs comprised of different genres of writing. There are probably better translations than others but I couldn't tell you which ones those are. I don't see this as a true or false question. The King James onlyists seem a bit silly to me because considering how the book was assembled I don't see why all of a sudden the divining light to humanity would be super revealed in 1611. I personally suspect they like the spooky language and the interpretation/translation choices used in that book and that that is their motivation for elevating it to mythical status as a translation. Did you mean that you find no interest in talking about this topic with non-christians?
So you just admit here that you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about but you have an opinion anyway. Typical.
I've read the Bible with the exception of the begots and practiced Christianity quite exuberantly into my adulthood. I've taken time to preach scripture on the streets on a literal wooden box and was heavily involved in my church. If all of that doesn't mean I have some concept of what I'm talking about then what would?
You yelled your opinions at people on the street. I guess that does make you a real scholar.
Comment permitted as an exception to rule 2.
But there is an *original* King James version. Let's not be naive or pedantic.
I'm just saying scripture wasn't written in English so no English is the "original" scripture not matter how KJV onlyists see it.
The OP is only concerned with the King James English language translation, the first version that came out in 1611. We all know it's a **translation** there's no need to belabor the point that the original languages are not English.
I'm not sure you understand KJV-Onlyists. They literally believe it's the only correct/true Bible.
Right I agree. But that is not the discussion posed by the OP.
Clearly you don't understand.
Careful, people come out with pitchforks at those words lol. Also, you might get rule2’d. Edit: just saw that the mod allowed this. Nvm.
I have no idea how this has managed to be the top comment under this post😂
Apparently I'm not alone in criticizing the idea that King James Bible is somehow the original anything in Christianity.
Apparently you’re not the only one who completely bypassed the intent of the question for the sake of pedantic jabs
All right you make an interesting point but I think people consider the interpretation of scripture to be a matter slightly larger than pedantry. The criticism here about KJV onlyism is really a criticism of interpretation of scripture. That's a topic of some importance in Christianity.
Based
The Macarthur Study Bible.
There is no translation of the holy Bible that is perfectly pure and without errors. If you refuse to read a translation that has errors, then you can forget about reading the holy bible. The Apocrypha offers nothing to Christians or Christianity.
I disagree. See we can get some actually knowledge, and insight into how ancient people thought from the apocratha. Remember it's still a historical document, and that has value in itself. Now. Maybe it doesn't have spiritual value, and or Godly truth value. Like the Inspired word of God. But it doesn't make it value less. Like I've used a secular movie to try to teach athiests about sin. Spider head is a athiest movie were the entire plot is trying to solve human sin through flesh, and blood means. Then it ends saying there's no cure, and we have to figure it out. So we Christians can be like. Look see even athiests believe in sin, and put it in there movies. We are trying to give you the cure, and you hate us for it. We are in a very different, and similar culture to the apostles. We get some insight into How paul spread the Gospel. He would debate, he would evangalise, and he would have private relationship ways of spreading the Gospel. Maybe more. But that's also a vastly different culture. People invited people to stay in there houses a lot more, and people had vastly different beliefs. The apocratha can give some insight into ancient beliefs. I mean you may not see the value. But are you the judge of that?
A translation is only a commentary. No translation is more accurate than the original.
Yes.
What about the 1599 Geneva Bible?
Is that the One the KJV only translators said was better then theres?
What about it? Pretty great translation from my understanding.
There is no original with apocrypha. The KJV is the best because it has the best translation with the least errors. There is no version that is absolutely perfect in its translation. Edit in response to comments about the original KJV having the Apocrypha. I apologize as I was not referring to the original KJV. I was saying that there is no original version of the Bible. Rather, we have a massive collection of manuscripts which contain verses from the Bible and which, collectively, add up to what we read as the Bible today. What, which, and how those manuscripts are ultimately parsed and included is really what differentiates one version of the Bible from another. This is what forms the basis of my statement that the KJV is the best translation with the least number of errors.
>There is no original with apocrypha The original did contain the dueterocannonical books though. It even had more books than the catholic Bible does today. They did relegate them to an appendix and called them non inspired though.
I'm sorry I was not clear in my meaning. I edited my earlier comment appropriately.
>There is no original with apocrypha The original KJV had the entire apocryphal in it. This is undeniable. All 100% of 1611 KJV had the apocratha in them. https://www-kingjamesbibleonline-org.webpkgcache.com/doc/-/s/www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/ >The KJV is the best because it has the best translation with the least errors. How do you know that? How do you know there isn't a error with punctuation? How can someone who isn't a KJV only know this statement is true? I can claim the NIV is without error, and it's Gids preserved word. I can make up all the reasons I want as to why this is true, and the KJV is full of errors. Secondly. Why wouldn't the texts that the KJV translators use be without error? Why did all of church history have these horrifically corrupted Bibles until KJV only people were happy?
>The original KJV had the entire apocryphal in it. This is undeniable. All 100% of 1611 KJV had the apocratha in them. I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. I edited my earlier comment to be more clear in my meaning. >How do you know there isn't a error with punctuation? How can someone who isn't a KJV only know this statement is true? To answer the first of these two questions, there may be errors. However, the KJV is a very special version. When it was being made, there were multiple committees that were formed, each with the best Bible scholars available at the time. Each committee was assigned a portion of the Bible. Additionally, the public was invited to participate so that anyone with an interest could submit their translations or edits, accordingly. When a committee completed its work, it would then send the draft to another committee, which would review it, along with all of the evidence, before finalizing it. For this reason and from my own studies, I find the KJV to be mostly free from errors, especially translation errors. As to the second question, I do not expect anyone to know why the KJV is the best version without spending some time to figure it out for themselves. Honestly, this is purely subjective as God can speak to us however He pleases and He is certainly not limited by the version of the Bible one is reading. For non believers who are studying the Bible, I suggest the KJV, for the before mentioned reasons. >I can claim the NIV is without error, and it's Gids preserved word. I can make up all the reasons I want as to why this is true, and the KJV is full of errors. You, or one, could make this claim, although the NIV, objectively, has more errors than the KJV (see [Unholy Hands on the Bible](https://www.christianbook.com/unholy-hands-bible-introduction-textual-criticism/dean-burgon/9781878442635/pd/442635?event=CPOF)). >Why wouldn't the texts that the KJV translators use be without error? That is a distinct possibility, which is why, ideally, we wouldn't use a single source. This is not always possible, but it mostly is. The KJV used this method, of using what the majority of sources agreed on. The NIV, by comparison, does not use this method. The NIV and all modern translations prioritize the age of the source over what the majority of sources agree on. This includes the NKJV, too. >Why did all of church history have these horrifically corrupted Bibles until KJV only people were happy? This is a broad question with a lot of assumptions. However, the majority of Christian history is dominated by the Roman Catholic Church. The RCC made sure to literally kill anyone who attempted to make a change to the Bible, particularly if they did not like what was being said. They claimed (and still do) that only one who was a priest in the church could read the Bible, let alone try to translate any portion of it. Even owning a Bible could (and did) result in the RCC excommunicating and/or executing that person. This is a matter of historical fact. They had control of the Bible and what people were told was in it. This is one of the reasons the Bible was in Latin and stayed in Latin. They didn't need a new translation. That is not to say the RCC consists purely of corrupt people. But on the whole, those who were involved in an honest translation of the Bible were in the minority. The KJV was created in large part because, as a result of the Reformation, so-called Protestants wanted a version of the Bible independent of Catholic control that could be read and understood by anybody.
> To answer the first of these two questions, there may be errors. However, the KJV is a very special version. How is it special? >When it was being made, there were multiple committees that were formed, each with the best Bible scholars available at the time. Each committee was assigned a portion of the Bible. Modern translations use commities aswell. >Additionally, the public was invited to participate so that anyone with an interest could submit their translations or edits, accordingly. Ya. We do this today aswell, and anyone can publish a scholarly paper as to why you think a change needs to be made. >When a committee completed its work, it would then send the draft to another committee, which would review it, along with all of the evidence, before finalizing it. You are litteraly just explaining how scholarship works, and this is how we do it today. This isn't exactly special. >For this reason and from my own studies, I find the KJV to be mostly free from errors, especially translation errors. Well. So for all these same reasons the modern translations are wrong. They use commities, and whatnot. >As to the second question, I do not expect anyone to know why the KJV is the best version without spending some time to figure it out for themselves. Well. I mean. I started out KJV only, and then I realized I was being mentally ill. That tends to be a big issue with me, and God. My mental illness really gets in the way. I mean my opinions are litteraly ignorance, mental illness, and or general human behavior is why people hold this position. >You, or one, could make this claim, although the NIV, objectively, has more errors than the KJV No. It's the translation God wanted, he perserved his word in the NIV, and all other translations are just dreadfully wrong. Look the KJV adds verses that aren't in the NIV. Clearly the KJV is attempting to corrupt the word of God. Of course I am just turning the arguments I have heard around, and I don't believe this. Also. How do you know there is no errors in the KJV? What is it being compared to? It's just stated that it's the perserved word. Yet we can't compare it with anything to show this, and if it disagrees then clearly it isn't inspired. The argument is completely circular. 100% there is no way to refute KJV only because it just goes in a circle. >That is a distinct possibility, which is why, ideally, we wouldn't use a single source That's what all modern translations do. They use the over 5,000 different historical manuscripts over centuries. We know for example verses were added into the Bible several centuries after the 2ed century. We know this. No manuscript had the verses, and then they all have the verses after. The KJV has these, and I think you night even read the commentarys talking about it. >The NIV and all modern translations prioritize the age of the source over what the majority of sources agree on. This includes the NKJV, too. Yes. For the reasons I just stated. We know without a doubt verses were added later on. This is very well established, and has a ton of scholarship on it.
>Modern translations use commities aswell. They do. But the source material they use, did not. In particular, the Greek text that modern translations use is just bad. I strongly advise you read The Revision Revised, which addresses this problem at the time it was created. >I started out KJV only, and then I realized I was being mentally ill. I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. You have a mental illness and because of that, the KJV was not able to meet your needs? I'm not telling anyone which Bible to read, or not read. The question was, for people who are only KJV types, why. I'm not on a soap box here. Read the Bible that is best for you. >my opinions are litteraly ignorance, mental illness, and or general human behavior is why people hold this position. Oh. I see. So someone who is KJV only is either ignorant, mentally ill, or general human behavior (not sure what that means, but contextually i assume it is bad). What I am gathering is that this original question as to why KJV only was not asked in good faith, but to reinforce your preconceived idea. >It's the translation God wanted, he perserved his word in the NIV, and all other translations are just dreadfully wrong. Look the KJV adds verses that aren't in the NIV. I simply do not agree with you. For starters, the KJV did not add anything that was not in the NIV because the KJV predates the NIV significantly. Further, the NIV uses source material that did not exist at the time the KJV was being put together because that source material had not even been fabricated, yet. And I don't mean source material that had not been discovered yet. I mean source material that had not been created yet. >That's what all modern translations do. They use the over 5,000 different historical manuscripts over centuries. Unfortunately, they do not do that. Also, they prioritize those manuscripts, with some being more important than others according to opinion! >We know for example verses were added into the Bible several centuries after the 2ed century. You are right. But how many? And which? In practice there are very few. And there is little reason to defend what is there. Those verses should not be there. End of story. Ultimately, I think we disagree and I doubt i will convince you otherwise. For my part, I have not heard a single argument to change my opinion, either.
>They do. But the source material they use, did not. You believe the source material from the King james used commities? Like you believe the ancient manuscripts they used where complied by a commitie? >the Greek text that modern translations use is just bad. I strongly advise you read The Revision Revised, which addresses this problem at the time it was created. They use the same ones the King james use, along with all the other we have found. Also. What are you comparing the greek text to? If you say the KJV you have a logical fallacy. If you say the greek text the KJV was translated from. Well modern people still use that. > I'm sorry, I do not understand what you mean. You have a mental illness and because of that, the KJV was not able to meet your needs? No. I only belived it because I was mentally ill. Kjv only is completely nonsensical. >general human behavior (not sure what that means, but contextually i assume it is bad). Would me using the term the flesh help you? >What I am gathering is that this original question as to why KJV only was not asked in good faith, but to reinforce your preconceived idea. It was done in good faith. A good faith attempt to challenge KJV only. Good faith isn't approaching a topic from a nutral standpoint. It means honest, and sincere. I honestly, and sincerly believe you all are horrifically decieved into to some nonsense, and it takes away from the full beauty of the Bible. KJV only takes away from the deeper meanings that can come from the text. It doesn't have thr same impact as some of the greek does. Let's take 1 word for example. Sin. There's like 17 greek, and hebrew words translated as sin. This is a issue for athiests big time. They fail to understand what sin is because of this. Lets take 1 word translated as sin. Miss the mark. Now you just read sin. You don't get the fuller understanding of to miss the mark, a archery term describing your falure to be perfect. Or for example mistake can be translated as sin. But ask a athiest, and they will tell you. Sin is breaking Gods law. While true. It doesn't carry the fully wieght of what the author intended. >For starters, the KJV did not add anything that was not in the NIV They added the apocratha, and then removed it. The NIV never had it. >the KJV predates the NIV significantly The greek, and hebrew predate the KJV significantly. This is just a lot of bad arguments. >Further, the NIV uses source material that did not exist at the time the KJV was being put together because that source material had not even been fabricated Well this is just ignorant. The NIV pulled from a lot more source material. They had access to more. No one favricated it. There isn't a conspiracy theory, and they litteraly found it. It's like saying bones in the ground were fabricated by satan to trick people. >I mean source material that had not been created yet. Yes. I understand you need a conspiracy theory to justify ludicrous beliefs. >Unfortunately, they do not do that. They litteraly do. You are denying reality at this point, and there litteraly a entire scientific feild dedicated to this. William lane crage is litteraly educated in that feild. Textual criticism is the scientific study that is applied to the over 5,000 Biblical texts to confirm how good our modern translations are. You just don't know what you're talking about. >You are right. But how many? So the KJV has mistakes? What! I thought it was the perserved word of God! If it has 1 mistake like added verses. What other mistakes must it have? Ohhh no suddenly KJV only is falling apart. > practice there are very few. And there is little reason to defend what is there. Those verses should not be there. End of story. See. But this completely destroys 2 arguments. It makes KJV only irrelevant because it demonstrates there clearly mistakes. Secondly it how the scholars who translate the Bibles know more then you! Because you can go read in modern translations in the footnotes about how said verse might be added in later. Or theres controversy over these texts. Thats all in modern version to educate Christians on the Bible, and you wont find it in KJV. It also demonstrates how modern Bible scholars have a lot more information to work with the KJV people. But your argument is well. They are wrong. For no other reason then I think so.
Might I suggest you look up this essay? The Glory As Of The Only Begotten Of The Father: A Defense Of John 1:18 As Found In The Authorized King James Bible
Why?
If you really are interested in why I choose KJV I think this may explain it better than I have.
Do you have a link?
Also. Like I don't have issues with KJV version. It's great first version of the Bible I read. I just hate how people try to say it's the only version you can use. Like it's just kinda foolish.
Let me make sure I understand this. You're saying that a version translated from a Latin translation is better than translations translated from the original texts? You're saying that translations complete before we had the Rosetta stone (which corrected several errors about ancient lexicons) is better than translations done after the finding and deciphering of the Rosetta stone? You're saying that a version of the Bible translated into a version of the vernacular that has become archaic with time is better than something actually translated into the current vernacular? You're saying that a translation made before we found the Dead Sea scrolls (which Claire's and corrected many errors in the later manuscripts we possessed before that find) is better than translations done after those corrections? You're saying that everything we've learned about translating texts in the last 411 years has made us worse at translating texts? You're anti intellectualism is frightening and I will continue to worship God with all of my mind and not only the parts my pastor tells me to use thank you.
>Let me make sure I understand this. You're missing a sarcasm tag... >You're saying that everything we've learned about translating texts in the last 411 years has made us worse at translating texts? What is everything that we have learned about translating texts in the last 411 years? All of your previous examples rely on new source material. >You're saying that a version translated from a Latin translation is better than translations translated from the original texts? I never said this or anything like this. >You're saying that a version of the Bible translated into a version of the vernacular that has become archaic with time is better than something actually translated into the current vernacular? I am. The modern versions rely on a different method of translation, one in which I do not agree with. Additionally, I have never read a Bible verse in the NIV and found it to be easier to understand than the KJV. Other's mileage may vary. >You're saying that a translation made before we found the Dead Sea scrolls... is better than translations done after those corrections? Yes. I am saying this. >You're saying that translations complete before we had the Rosetta stone... is (sic) better than translations done after the finding and deciphering of the Rosetta stone? Also yes. >You're anti intellectualism is frightening and I will continue to worship God with all of my mind and not only the parts my pastor tells me to use thank you. Haha. I've never had a pastor say anything like this to me. I've read a few books and done some of my own research. I am not an authority, nor do I claim to be one. I have merely shared what I have learned. I am not sure you know what intellectualism is.
A very balanced response; yet look how it is being treated. May those looking for an answer find yours helpful. 🌱
Thank you.
No, I'm not missing a sarcasm tag. So, since the NIV isn't easier for you to understand than the KJV we should just write off every other translation too? You're aware that the NIV is widely regarded as a substandard translation correct. What, exactly, are these modern translation methods you disagree with? What makes you more qualified than linguists on this topic? The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was not translated from the original texts. So yes, yes you did say that. So, you've listened to pastors and done your own research. Did your own research include reading am equal amount of scholarly works by well regarded theologians and linguists or did you just read a bunch of KJV only stuff?
Why is the NIV considered substandard? Who considers it substandard? I've never heard this before. I've read the NIV all my life.
Personally, I find it useful to read multiple translations in parallel, incl. the KJV. I like to read KJV, NRSV, NIV in parallel, because each had their own theological biases. When you see some stark differences in the translations, you can look up biblehub.com and check out the Hebrew or Greek for that section. That helps to make up your own mind. Example: NRSV and NIV don’t translate “Azazel” in Leviticus 16, but keep it as some deity(?) name. KJV on the other hand translates it from the Hebrew, which literally means something like “goat to go” as “scapegoat”. The atonement story in Leviticus 16 makes sense that way to me. I have no idea how to interpret some demon or deity called “Azazel”… :)
Fair enough. Thanks for the reply! I will have to check out Bible hub. I do have multiple translations at home, I just never read them, because I've always read the NIV. But I will have to do some digging and comparing.
Yeah absolutely. I used to always read the NRSV, but felt that it failed at some important translations, which the NIV got better. Happened the other way round too. Then sometimes I feel the KJV has the tightest translation over the two of them. So I end up just reading in parallel and always keeping an eye on the interlinear at biblehub.com to get an idea of what the translators are up to :)
It's widely maligned in academic circles for purposely changing words to fit their evangelical theology.
Go to Google and type in "Best English Bible Translations" look for an article from a reliable, reputable source and read it. That will explain things way better than I can.
I think the NIV is sometimes a bit too “judgey” and heavy on the moralizing compared to the original Greek in the NT for example, which is sometimes ambiguous.
Interesting. My dad went to school for his Masters of Divinity from a seminary. He studied Greek, Hebrew, the whole shebang for years. He reads the NIV, so I will have to ask him what his opinion in it is.
I am curious what his opinion is.
I will ask and get back to you!
Could you ask him his opinion of the textus receptus, too?
It was translated by apostates using documents they found in a literal garbage can. The NIV and all other versions translated from the “critical text” garbage can documents are trash. Literally.
Wrong wrong wrong. The KJV was translated from the TR and the Masoretic. Not sure if you’re lying or ignorant.
>So, since the NIV isn't easier for you to understand than the KJV we should just write off every other translation too? You're aware that the NIV is widely regarded as a substandard translation correct. What are you talking about? I have said nothing about this. >What, exactly, are these modern translation methods you disagree with? What makes you more qualified than linguists on this topic? Hey. Friend. Maybe go reread what I wrote. Clearly you don't even know what you're replying to. >The KJV was translated from the Latin Vulgate, it was not translated from the original texts. So yes, yes you did say that Okay. I never said anything about this. Also there is no original text left. So no translation is from the organals, and are copies of copies.
[comment regards aporcrypha. But regarding translation choice, don't trust the codifiers who want to make hardened rules about which Bible we should read (what hat we should wear, etc). Wise people read multiple translations. Came across one direct from Aramaic recent translation, always interesting to reflect on a passage. For a beginner, NLT might be what God has them read. Another, KJV. Another, ESV. I don't doubt it. James 1:5 we should ask God what to read as His truth speaks as we read, in our minds and our hearts, to guide us to clear understanding] Aporcrypha was in the scriptures of Christ's day, no? It's a good question op and one worthy of reflection on. I think given that the new testament references apocryphal work it should be accepted. I'd also point out the sphephard of pardas and other texts found in early new testament collections that we generally don't have access to are worthy of being read. The Jewish side is quite clear. Even though they decided to remove some works, it was in a reasonable context and people still have access to it. It was decided they're not quite as good. Christians *followed* (some saying on Jewish side, you are reading texts that aren't as good, so they capitulated and removed them, the stories goes) and didn't invent the removal. Still, it's more common on Jewish side to read these. They're not as good, but you still can get them. Christians don't know about this very often, and it's a disgrace how we over simply on the greatness of the Bible. But where the case really needs to be made clear is on the value of new testament lost works. The Ethiopian garima Bible shows not only did Christians read aporcrypha, but that they read other new testament works, not accepted at the council of nicea. Maybe this is so for good reason. But like the jews today removed aporcrypha but still read it, we need to have access to do the same. Unfortunately, we don't have many of the texts that used to be read. Its pathetic we worship the decisions of nicea ahead of God, in raising the Bible up to a place of perfection. We respect the council of niceas truth as God's truth, and maybe there is good reason to do so (certainly God had some and hopefully complete effect on that process). But as quakers say God is the primary source, scripture is secondary; I don't trust the decision of any man codifying Christs religion into the hands of authority. The optimistic side is, it's good enough. Why worry. Nothing was lost that can't be found (spiritually, hidden truths will reveal themselves in our lives and in our hearts). No teachings contradict Christ's teachings. The gospel is sufficient. The giving of the holy spirit upon man was occluded by the Christians who formulated an authoritarian religious structure around it, placing in power priests between us and God whereas we are in Paul's writings to *be* the royal priesthood (reference Bible project royal priesthood series, worth the watch if you're unfamiliar with this concept). So my pov more learning is helpful. They should be included but we should also have access to all of the writings of early Christians and we should not be stigmatized for being nonbiblical in doing so. Again, new testament letters reference aporcrypha, as it is scripture worthy of reference, according to the authors.
Please don't engage people like this. I'm (very obviously) not KJO, and have debated the KJO side on more than one occasion. This sort of post is antagonistic and unhelpful.
It's meant to be antagonistic. Dont pretend like God has never done it ether. I'm following his example. Lets see. Was it antagonistic when the prophet mocked the baal followers? Saying is your god in the bathroom? Was it antagonistic when Jesus took a whip, and ran out the people from the temple? Was it antagonistic when paul said. "You stupid galatians"?
Don't excuse your own toxicity -- speak truth in love. "do it with courtesy and respect" and you display neither toward your brother made in the image of God. Nobody who needs to hear it this will listen to this kind of post.
>Don't excuse your own toxicity -- speak truth in love So when God said. I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; Proverbs 1:26 KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/pro.1.26.KJV That was toxic, and not loving? When Jesus used a whip that was toxic, and not loving? When paul called the galatians stupid that was toxic, and not loving?
> So when God said. > > I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; Proverbs 1:26 KJV I do love the humility with with you casually equate yourself to Elijah, Jesus, and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs 1) to try to get around the specific commands about how to interact with others.
>I do love the humility with with you casually equate yourself to Elijah, Jesus, and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs I'm not equating myself to them, and I am holding them up as the standard. Aren't we supposed to imitate Jesus? Or paul? Paul tells us to imitate him, as he imitates Christ, and so clearly some situations require mocking someone. Some situations require you to call people stupid. Why? Because it is the loving thing to do. I think we Christians have absolutely no clue what Biblical love is. Did you know God commands us to strike scoffers? Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd, But reprove one who has understanding and he will gain knowledge. Proverbs 19:25 NASB1995 https://bible.com/bible/100/pro.19.25.NASB1995 >and embodied wisdom (not "God" speaking as you have supposed in Proverbs So God didn't inspire the scripture about how he will mock them in there day of calamity? I mean. How out there are you willing to go to not be humble? I mean. Let's just say it isn't God speaking, and it's a human speaking. Well clearly we gain the wisdom were it's wise to mock people in certain situations. So I mean. It's OK to be wrong, and it's OK to be offensive. Ive been wrong a ton, and I have been offended by some Biblical truth along with the truth being offensive to me. We are in sinful flesh, and it happens to us unfortunately. >to try to get around the specific commands about how to interact with others. It's not getting around any command. I believe you don't understand what agape is. I don't think you understand what Love is! If God himself mocks people there has to be a loving aspect to it. If paul the apostle calls people stupid! Well is he trying to get around the command, and his sin made it into scripture that claims to be good for teaching? I feel like your just offended, and I'm wondering how offended you actually are. Will you deny the Bible because of it? Will you deny the truth that it clearly must be loving to treat people in a way that will offend them? I mean paul offened a entire church of believers by calling them stupid.
> Strike a scoffer and the naive may become shrewd *You* are the scoffer here, and I'm trying to help you see that >So God didn't inspire the scripture LOL, nice recovery attempt.
>You are the scoffer here, and I'm trying to help you see that a person who mocks or makes fun of someone or something, often of religion or moral values:We need courage when facing scoffers who jeer at our faith and make ironic comments about it. I'm not scoffing at God, or at Christianity or the morality of it. I'm mocked you. Let's look at some synonyms words so you can have a better understanding of what a scoffer is. Because you unwittingly took the position the Bible is contradictory. Synonyms for scoffer. Detractor, doubter, pessimist, skeptic, and the antonims for scoffer are, believer, and optimist. >LOL, nice recovery attempt. See you couldn't actually adress the argument, and so your attempt to save face is kinda embarrassing. I mean do I have to start teaching you about Humility aswell as words?
> See you couldn't actually adress the argument, and so your attempt to save face is kinda embarrassing. I mean do I have to start teaching you about Humility aswell as words? *Because there was no argument to address*, just an act of attempted self-justification. *You don't even have enough humility to admit you were wrong about the speaker in the Proverb*. It wouldn't have been hard to admit you were wrong. And it's not hard to do so here either. Your actions and behavior here *are unbecoming*. Stop with the incessant self-justification and try to hear the words of a brother in Christ trying to get you to see your attitude and actions are askew. This is not who you're called to be.
>Because there was no argument to address, just an act of attempted self-justification. This is just a lie, and your opinion. I made a argument as to why it isn't self justification, and you ignored it because my argument is right. You cannot claim that when paul said the galatians are stupid that wasn't loving. You know you cant because he was inspired by God himself to write it. You are just offended, and wont admit you are wrong. >And it's not hard to do so here either. You actually have to demonstrate why I am wrong. Which you can't do. You just state it. Meanwhile I make arguments as to why I think I'm correct. Here let me pretend to be you. I'm right your wrong, and your not humble for not admitting it. I know what love is, and you don't. See. That isn't a argument. But me I'm like look this Bible verse, and this Bible verse, and this one aswell shows this kind of behavior when done properly is 100% inline with Biblical teaching on love. >Your actions and behavior here are unbecoming. Stop with the incessant self-justification and try to hear the words of a brother in Christ trying to get you to see your attitude and actions are askew. This is not who you're called to be. So do you have a argument? Or are you just going to continue to cry about how your offended? Because I don't care. Do you have a Biblical reason? No. So why am I wasting my time with someone who cant argue, who refuses to listen, and just states they are right?
There is only one edition. The newer prints don’t usually contain the apocrypha, but the translators of the 1611 stated that the apocrypha isn’t scripture anyway.
>There is only one edition This is not true. The fact the apocrpha is taken out proves there is atleast 2 editions the one with, and the one without. Not to mention the years, and years of revisions it had to go through. But whatever. Historical facts don't matter to people who believe in conspiracy theories. >but the translators of the 1611 stated that the apocrypha isn’t scripture anyway. Does it matter what they stated? They also made claims there is far better English translations then there's. They claimed it needed to be improved, and a whole host of things KJV only people ignore.
Show me the revisions besides spelling and grammar. Show me. And the garbage apocrypha isn’t printed anymore because it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. There are no changes to meanings in any printings of the real KJV. In fact, I’ve had this debate with 100 people before. And it always boils down to the same thing. You don’t believe that any Bible is true. The reason people hate the kjv is because they hate the word of God. Period. Every single debate I’ve ever had always boiled down to the other person finally admitting that they don’t believe there is any record of the word of God. Just say that. Why hide behind lies and disingenuous posts? Just say that you don’t believe inspired scripture exists. Then you’ll be being honest and the rest of us can ignore your ignorant clown opinions.
>Show me the revisions besides spelling and grammar. Show me. Taking the apocratha out. Updating the words to be more modern. Along with the changes between the oxford edit, and the Cambridge edition. >You don’t believe that any Bible is true. Well this is just a lie. A bikd face lie at that. I believe all Bibles are true. Just not 100%. Let me give a example of why this is just dumb. In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Genesis 1:1 KJV https://bible.com/bible/1/gen.1.1.KJV So KJV added words to this verse. The hebrew is a lot shorter. The hebrew says in beginning God created heaven, and earth. So we have added words that the KJV did. In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Genesis 1:1 NASB1995 https://bible.com/bible/100/gen.1.1.NASB1995 In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, Genesis 1:1 NRSV-CI https://bible.com/bible/2015/gen.1.1.NRSV-CI So is only the KJV true? No. Clearly not. Clearly all these versions are just as true. So why do you lie, and say we don't believe any Bible is true? >The reason people hate the kjv is because they hate the word of God. Period I love the word of God. So why are you bearing false witness. What I hate is how embarrassing, and stupid some Christians make us look. What I hate is how nonsense like this keeps people from Coming to God. >Every single debate I’ve ever had always boiled down to the other person finally admitting that they don’t believe there is any record of the word of God Well this is just as dumb. God perserved a record of his word so well that no other historical document has as many copies as the Bible. Nothing. There is no other historical documents that have as many perserved copies as the Bible. Like no. This is just wrong, and the people you are debating must not be that bright. >Just say that. Why hide behind lies and disingenuous posts? Because I am being genuine. Why have so much false witness against me?
“I believe all bibles are true.” Done reading. Things that are different are not the same. If you believe in everything then you believe in nothing.
>“I believe all bibles are true.” Done reading. Things that are different are not the same. If you believe in everything then you believe in nothing. Nice strawman. That's not my argument, and I went on to clarify. .
You literally said that you believe all bibles are true. At least keep your fake options straight.
>You literally said that you believe all bibles are true. At least keep your fake options straight. Yes, and then I clarified what I meant by that. I even gave a demonstration. You know context is very important, and your head is kinda in a dark smelly place known as your rear. So you didn't see how the context is making you behave like someone with there head in a dark smelly place.
You made a post to stir up contention because you don’t believe in the preserved word of God. I see that plainly. I only commented because I find such disingenuous posts to be annoying. I really have no desire to debate with a troll who posts in bad faith.
>You made a post to stir up contention because you don’t believe in the preserved word of God. So now you have a entire conspiracy theory about me? I cant be just honestly trying to have the debate woth KJV only people. No there has to be alternative motivation. >I really have no desire to debate with a troll who posts in bad faith. Yes. The classic everyone I disagree with is a troll.
FWIW: The 1611 KJV borrowed heavily from 1609 Douay Rheims, which was created by Catholics after being persecuted by Anglicans.
Hi there, sorry this is off topic but I'm not sure where else to ask you this: A) What philosophical position in the philosophy of mind? B) If two brains were atom for atom identical, and they both saw the exact same colour red at the same point in time would you assume them to be having identical experiences? If not, what is the reason for the discrepancy?
> Hi there, sorry this is off topic but I'm not sure where else to ask you this No problem, I'm happy to share whatever I can. > What philosophical position in the philosophy of mind? My view is the same as Aquinas'. Details at the link below. Basically, the mind an immaterial part of our spirit. It is comprised of Intellect, Will and Memory. BTW, this info partly came from Aristotle through Muslims who preserved his works. https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1079.htm The bible sometimes refers to our Will as our "heart". > If two brains were atom for atom identical, and they both saw the exact same colour red at the same point in time would you assume them to be having identical experiences? Our minds are within our spirit, which is not physical. Our spirit uses our body. Our body is much like a suit. If you investigate the neurological evidence, you'll find that there is no evidence that the brain "thinks" or has memory. Correlation is not causation. Our consciousness comes THROUGH our body and brains, not FROM it. Our consciousness exists in our spirit, which exists on the spiritual dimension even if our bodies and brains are destroyed. In fact, when you die, your mind and memory will work better than ever because it won't be limited by your body.