NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
Homebound,
Would pop over to my "Simple Question" thread and enlighten me please?
Would pop over to my "Simple Question" thread and enlighten me please?
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Can you except that according to the KJVO doctrine that which is different is not the same?All we say is, the King James Bible is God's word for the English speaking people of today. Can you not accept that? It's God's word, believe it.
The King James translation of the Bible is easy to read as long as you don't include understanding as a part of readingYou cannot read the KJB?
I thought I did. The printing of the KJB had printing/spelling errors that was fixed. I believe what I know by faith that the 1769 KJB that I use is God's inspired, preserved word, just like the 1611, Geneva, Tyndale's, etc.Originally posted by skanwmatos:
Please answer it this time.
Exactly HomeBound (except for the last 4 words).God's message was not lost because of these petty errors that you cling to.
God's message is perfect. I truthfully don't know how to explain why the spelling and printing errors occured. God uses man to relay his message. Just as you witness to someone today, your witness may not be perfect, but the word of God is. Maybe as I grow, I'll have a better answer for you.Originally posted by Christ4Kildare:
But if the 1611 had errors, no matter how "petty" there were, it was not perfect!
Interesting list, as you have one, so do I. These are words in the "up-to-date" NIV.Craigbythesea:
The King James translation of the Bible is easy to read as long as you don't include understanding as a part of reading . You yourself have shown all of us that you were unable to read and understand Matt. 23:24 in the King James Version, but an eight year old could easily read it and understand it in even the most literal contemporary translation.
If Matt. 23:24 was the only problem in reading and understanding the KJV, it probably wouldn’t be very important, but the KJV is full of words that most English readers do not understand the meaning of as they are used in the KJV.
I suggest that you compare each word in your list with the Hebrew and Greek words that they are translations of and find out for yourself whether or not they are more accurate. Certainly none of the words are archaic, nor have any of them changed in meaning since the NIV was first published. However, the NIV is far from the most accurate translation of the Bible into English, and its choice of words is not always the best.The reason for new bibles is to update the language is a lie from the pits of hell. The reason for new bibles if to do away with the truth.
Then why in the world would you use it or even believe it? This is what I cannot understand.Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
However, the NIV is far from the most accurate translation of the Bible into English, and its choice of words is not always the best.
If that is how you do it, why not print a bible that has the correct words?Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
I suggest that you compare each word in your list with the Hebrew and Greek words that they are translations of and find out for yourself whether or not they are more accurate.
I'm picturing a "Geneva Version Onlyist" saying something to this effect upon publication of the KJV in 1611.The reason for new bibles is to update the language is a lie from the pits of hell. The reason for new bibles if to do away with the truth.
Somehow I don't picture this. Men then had better character.Originally posted by LarryN:
I'm picturing a "Geneva Version Onlyist" saying something to this effect upon publication of the KJV in 1611.![]()
Then why in the world would you use it or even believe it? This is what I cannot understand. </font>[/QUOTE]I did not say that the NIV is worthless; I said that "the NIV is far from the most accurate translation of the Bible into English, and its choice of words is not always the best." And I don't use it very much, but to not use it at all would be foolish because it does present to the reader translation options that are important to consider.Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
However, the NIV is far from the most accurate translation of the Bible into English, and its choice of words is not always the best.
???Men then had better character.
Can I have one?Originally posted by Craigbythesea:
[QBit does present to the reader translation options that are important to consider. [/QB]
Somehow I don't picture this. Men then had better character. </font>[/QUOTE]Since my statement was intended to be purely satirical, I would agree. It's only the recent KJVO's who see fit to belittle & attack other valid translations of God's Word.Originally posted by HomeBound:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by LarryN:
I'm picturing a "Geneva Version Onlyist" saying something to this effect upon publication of the KJV in 1611.![]()