BIBLE VERSIONS: DEFENDING THE KING JAMES
Вставка
- Опубліковано 17 жов 2024
- Dr. Michael McDaniel discusses BIBLE VERSIONS: DEFENDING THE KING JAMES. Find out why not all versions of the Bible are "created equal," and why the version you choose is critical for right doctrine.
You nailed that one. For the second witness to your comment being true I'd point out that you can stand in a group of people and say you're a Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim, etc. and no one will react. However, if you proclaim Jesus, that group of people turns into a violent mob.
Plain and simple.... AMEN !!!
KJV wins... FLAWLESS VICTORY
This is a very well-done instruction. Thanks for sharing it with all of us.
LOL Wendi I was saved long ago by Jesus the living son of God. After having read the passages in the NIV I knew Jesus was the only way to get to Heaven and it's a wonderful thing to know.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is not the place for debate, argument or rebuttal.
FYI the English language was at it's highest level when King James authorized the translation. Not only did the translators have to have an accurate knowledge of Hebrew and Greek but they had to have an expertice in the English language as well. Since the pinnacale of English it has been dumbed down over the progression of the years.
To try to apply todays English meanings does not work.
Ever wonder why the KJV version is the only version attacked by the devil and his followers. The phony ones are never attacked.
The only translation I know of being attacked is the KJV translation. So that means you are the one that's sleeping.
You are right God inspired the originals; however, like this guy said the doctrine of preservation is where you fall apart and deny God calling Him a liar. If every word to this day is not pure that means God failed to preserve His very words and we all have corrupted Bibles. You deny preservation and hold on to the originals when we don't have them. Therefore, you believe in something no one has ever seen since then. You are also saying "now" the word of God isn't pure...
looks like the new version crew gets another beat down..!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why would you say such a thing? That's very offensive. I have known the Lord, since I was a child, and do my best to serve Him faithfully. But think about yourself for a moment. You would ask me, a virtual stranger, such a question, simply because I prefer a different bible translation than you. I would never ask you "why you hate God" because you prefer a different translation than myself. Btw, I think the KJV is a literary, 17th century masterpiece!
Good your getting ready !!
The word Lucifer is taken from the Latin Vulgate, which translates הֵילֵל as lucifer, [Isa. 14:12] meaning "the morning star, the planet Venus", or, as an adjective, "light-bringing". In Hebrew 'הֵילֵל' is transliterated hêlēl or heylel and it means "shining one, morning star". Isaiah 13 and 14 talk about Babylon and a Babylonian king that loses his reign, who is referred to as a morning star. Read the passage again and tell me I am wrong, if you dare.
NO DOCTRINE IS NEAR AS IMPORTANT AS THAT OF THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST - HIS DEATH, HIS BURIAL, AND HIS BODILY RESSURECTION - FOR ONLY IN THE GOSPEL DO WE FIND SALVATION.
IS THERE SALVATION IN INSPIRATION OR PRESERVATION? NO!
You're hearing of one now. It's not what you believe, but what God says. If you don't believe it, get off your soup box.
Sadly, there are a lot of KJV extremists that have heretical beliefs like the one you mentioned. However, you can find incorrect extremists in any and all views on just about anything. I am not a King James only type of guy myself, but I do only stick with writings from the "Antioch" line mostly because of figures like Tertullian who wrote about how people in Alexandria were corrupting the texts. Tertullian lived during the time of the earliest Alexandrian manuscripts we have.
So true!
ALL SCRIPTURE IS IMPORTANT.
EITHER MAKE A POINT OR FLEE AWAY.
Also because there are KJV onlyist who will say that I as a non exclusive KJV reader is not a Christian because I was not saved by a preacher using the KJV! That makes KJV onlyism on that level Cultic in nature!
Well done!
Also, you are trying to justify the KJV is ALONE THE BIBLE by what other bibles state as well...so you're telling me the bible that was written in hebrew and greek because that's what they were translated in first, were wrong?!
"heylel" is the Hebrew word at Is 14:12 that the KJV translators chose NOT to translate, choosing instead to go with the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate and it's latin "Lucifer" The KJV translators knew the proper translation of "heylel" and they put it in a margin note in the AV1611 "or O day Starre"
I think the woman you are talking about is the woman who later turned out to be a homosexual (lesbian) and yes that was absolutely a curse that the folks who were constructing the NIV have to live with. However she was not part of the committee. She held a position of linquistic anylist and she was the top rated stylist in the nation at the time. Her sexual orientation was not known either. But she never had the choice of changing words or anything else. All she was checked with was how words
If the KJV itself is silent about translations, why would you think that you need to make such an issue of it?
If I could respond to an outrageous accusation against me, like, "Why do I hate God" It would seem a very small thing to answer a reasonable question from a fellow follower of Christ.
Yes, it has been fun chatting with you. God bless you and I hope that you are able to open peoples eyes through the use of Gods word, be it KJV, NIV, NASB.
And how can I say that the KJV doesn't have the full rendition? Well because if you look at the MT (Majority Text) you'll see in the over 1000 parts that it differs from the TR (textus receptus) that the KJV relies upon. So no, it doesn't follow the majority text, it follows the TR and thats about it.
Why?
Not at all Virgil! What are you talking about! Most folks that you would consider to be attacking the KJV, just don't believe the same way you do about it!
The KJV is but one English translation of many! Some came before it and others have come afterward! Most folks aren't "against" the KJV, they are against "KJVonlyism" And I would be one of those!
I think is all stink to be what about the other side of the world they don't have king james version and just as good as the king james The Greek word Nomos has nearly always been translated Law, even when used for the Hebrew word Torah. Torah does not mean Law. It means Teaching. When you see Torah in this translation, do not think Law, but of the Loving God teaching His children, offering an outline to guide them for a better way of life.
This translation has as its goal to be a very readable text that flows from one book to another while preserving much of the Jewish flavor, especially the Jewishness of Y’shua, and much of the power in the Hebrew and Greek expressions( one new man bible) is better. from a Hebrew mind set.
He continually refers to the revealed knowledge of God as found in a "single" book, however that is NOT the way God preserved His word! His WORDS "original manuscripts" were copied by various people of different languages, and spread out all over the world. Jo17:17 was "inspired" in Greek, NOT English! Men made a choice to use those words in Jn17:17! Same with Pr 30:5 "Every word of God is pure.." Indeed, yes they are, but that verse was inspired in Hebrew! MEN made a choice to use these words!
Greg Settle would have you believe that one of the character traits of Satan is that he hates the Word of God. And he is right. Greg Settle also hates the King James Bible, which IS the Words of God in the English language. What does this tell you about Greg?
Food for thought.
LOL No. I am Shultman, who does alot of textual study and scholarly work on translational differences. Greg Settle however is not wrong in his points. He demonstrates a little more passion then I do when confronting those who are KJVonlyists.
I disagree. I don't think that man made religions come from Satan. People, especially during those days, liked to deify objects or phenomena that were so majestic to them that it had to be a deity or from a deity (i.e. thunder by Zeus).
If the Bible really talked about a supernatural entity, the whole passage makes no sense and 'heylel' would have been a terrible form of getting the message across. Nowhere in the Hebrew OT is 'heylel' used to describe Satan and neither does it in Isaiah 14.
Again you are mixing up preservation with inspiration. God says he will preserve the word, and he has, he has done so with the KJV, the NIV and the NASB. All point to Jesus, and ALL point to salvation. You and the rest cannot show any evidence to support they deny Jesus. You try with Luke and fail there, you try with john but you fail there too. If you did any kind of historitical work or could speek Greek you would see your errors. However you can't and don't do the work. (shrug) I can't make u
were paired and if it was true to the original language of the time. And I do give credence to it, but always leave everything in suspect until it is proven of God. The NIV and the NASB both are constructed with the Nestle-Aland as one of it's valitity sources. The Nestle as I'm sure you are aware is the most comprehensive greek text that looks at the TR, Westcott & Hort and papri to make a true construction. So I don't see anything wrong with the NIV to be honest.
Give ONE verse that supports the myth of KJVonlyism! If you are unable to (and you are) then perhaps you could understand you are merely parrotting a man-made myth!
Actually you are incorrect here and this is the reason why. If you use the KJV as your translation basis, then you discount all the papri found that show clearly that the KJV doesn't have the fully constructed words of God. The NASB is the closest thing we have to the Literal words of God. But even then if you use it as the basis to translate you'll end up with errors in language translation. It's always best to use the originals, the Greek and Hebrew to translate.
Virgil, Satan hates the word of God, not some specific translation of that word!
Sounds like you might have been reading some Samuel "Bullgipp" Gipp material, that stuff is good for only one thing, fertilizer!
Apparently you've never watch Zeitgeist Refuted. This is from a Buddhist site: Buddha's father was Suddhodana, king of the Sakhyas.
Jesus had no earthly father.
Note: Some Buddhist say she was a virgin. There are buddhist scholars who say she wasn't. Remember, she was married to the king before this conception, and kings weren't known to wait around to consummate the marriage.
These toy religions have become more like Christianity over time due to its popularity, and not the other way around.
Okay first off in the first 5:40, The KJV is a bible translation and that is what we are trying to argue here. The bible is the true word of God, however, the KJV is incomplete (the apocrypha) and not properly translated (ie. Martin Luther's insertion "alone" in Romans 3:28) where do you think we got bibles in the first place? The Catholic Church started making them!
Hey, wake up,....shake...shake....Wake up....Hey WAKE UP!
You must have fallen asleep Virgil, you were dreaming again. God's word is attacked by the devil...............not a particular translation!
ALL religions have a virgin birth?????
The King James has 'Lucifer' in it as a name. Nuff said.
It appears you have believed a bunch of lies like those that Samuel "Bullgipp" Gipp spills every chance he gets. It's really funny though because it's you that doesn't believe that God can preserve His word, you see you hold this preservation to one 17th century English translation done by Anglicans, and I believe this preservation is to all GOOD bible translations, including foreign language ones. Why didn't God's perfection carry over to the printers? Couldn't God have done that as well?
Is 1 John 5:7 in the 5,000+ manuscripts that make up the majority text? Nope. Hypocrite.
LoL
Funny how you think the KJV needs to be defended, but the KJV itself doesn't defend itself!
I stand in defense of the perfectly holy and flawless King Yahshua who died for Me NOT the homoerotic king James!
First, research King James sexuality, I can provide you with 20 or so books that document the King's bi-sexuality, in fact one of the books even has quotes from the actual letters from James to three of his male lovers, the book is "King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire" by David M. Bergeron.
Yes God can use anyone or indeed anything to advance His word, this is obviously the case with this very wicked King James!