Question for KJ only crowd

Matt. 8-2 And, behold, there came a leper and worshipped him, saying, Lord, if thou wilt, thou canst make me clean.

In the above scripture in KJV the phrase "worshipped Him" appears. Also in 9-18,15-25,18-26,20-20,Mark 5-6,15-19,the same phrase appears.

In the NIV it is not there.

My question is, why not? Why would the publishers of the NIV not want people to know that Jesus was worshipped??

Think about it,

Tam

 

Looks like a very intellagent man is turning down very obvious truths because they are being presented by a woman!

Oh well.

Tam

 

Hi prophecynut, these articles may enlighten you about bible versions and their mis-interpretations.

This brother has done some VERY indepth research on this subject. Take some time to read over his findings and you may come to a different conclusion about the "any bible will do" sermons.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

God Bless!

 

Brandplucked [Will Kinney] would make the interpretating/translating of Church of England scholars in 1611 into a greater authority than the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. If effect, his views undermines the very foundation on which the proper derived authority of a good translation depends. He is perhaps blinded by his inconsistent, man-made KJV-only claims and bias. Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view does not mean that a believer accepts an "any bible will do" view.

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles [Tyndale's to Bishops].
It is more of a revision than it is a new translation of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The KJV-only view undermines
the very English foundation on which the KJV was built.

 

I find that an exaustive concordance is a big help.

Mark 1:10 "And straightway coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon him:" (KJV)

I found this to be inaccurate. The word for "opened" seems to mean the sky was ripped open, violently.

Just an off-the-top-of-my-head observation.

 

What is a woman doing editing posts? How contrary to the mindset of the Apostle! How politically correct. If women are not allowed to handle the holy scriptures in the meeting, but are to 'be under subjection', and to 'learn in silence', not with 'plaited hair' or outward ornamentation, but with a 'quite and meek spirit', than what is some permed haired woman with a painted face doing making such decisions here?

 

See ya later, Deano.

 

too scared to agree with scripture bro?

 

Not scared at all. I see the love of Christ in her posts, and have a great amount of respect for her. Why attack her, for making you obey the rules ?

I'll bow out. She is more than capable of fighting her own battles.

 

She never deleted my posts. It is a principle I am affirming; a principle upheld by the apostle, and which evidently you are too weak kneed to abide by. I hope God raises some MEN, not effiminate compromises with political correctness

 

It ought not to be strange. The word "unicorn" is one of the strangest translational errors of the KJB. Where did it exactly come from, I am not sure. Most people are acquainted with the Greek unicorn that originates from pagan mythology. Is this what the Hebrews had in mind? Then why would the KJV translators use such a word? It is one of the most ambiguous words in the Bible, which even Job 39 describes more accurately as to what one could guess it could be simply by context.

Job 39:9 Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?
--God is making a comparison of a "unicorn" to a domesticated animal that can "abide by the crib." What animal stays by the crib?
That question has a limited number of answers if you have lived on a farm.

Job 39:10 Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?
--Now the comparison is narrowed down to an animal that abides by the crib when at rest, but when working pulls a plow to make a furrow, harrows the valley. Thus it is a strong animal. That narrows the animal down greatly. It must be an animal strong enough to plow a field.

Job 39:11 Wilt thou trust him, because his strength is great? or wilt thou leave thy labour to him?
--The animal God is talking about is obviuosly a wild animal that is not tame. The animal Job has is tame. Job can trust his domesticated animal to plow his field, but can he trust this wild animal with great strength to plow his field.

Job 39:12 Wilt thou believe him, that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?
--Again a farming illustration, that is continued from the above. Can the animal in question be trusted?

We look up the Hebrew word "rheem" and find that it means "wild Ox," which God has been comparing to Job's dometicated ox. Can Job trust the huge strength of the wild ox that roamed in that area, to plow his field, to make a straight furrow? to come safely back home again? Can he trust such a huge wild animal to stay resting at his crib peacefully when not a work as his domesticated ox does? The answer is obviously not!
Job doesn't know all things, and God is letting Job know this. The word unicorn does not fit in this passage at all. It is a mistranslation. One can figure out the proper translation just from reading the context of this passage.
DHK

 

This isn't church.

Glad this came up, tho. Dean198 changed his profile after I approved his membership and is of a denomination no longer approved. He's outta here.

Diane

 

I find it strange that you would call this an error. Do you honestly believe that the 48 or so translators of the KJB all made an "error" when they agreed on "unicorn"? Aren't the odds of it being an "error" astronomical?

Is the KJB the only bible which made this "error"? It seems quite a few "scholars" thought that it was the correct word to use. But we are much wiser and smarter than those of the past, right?

Here are a few other bibles which made the same "error" I guess. I wonder where they all went so wrong...

"The word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation, Tyndale (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Geneva Bible, the so called Greek Septuagint version, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Italian Diodati as well as the Spanish of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition, the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation, the 21st Century KJB, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s 1833 translation of the Bible, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York." (Will Kinney's research)

Are you so sure it is an error?

God Bless!

 

Are you so sure it is an error?

God Bless! </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, it is an error.
There are many errors in the KJB. No translation is perfect. The only infallible, God-breathed, inspired error-free documents were the original manuscripts written by the prophets and the Apostles which we no longer have. I believe that God has preserved his Word in the existing Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have today, but not in translations, not in any translation. To say that the King James Version is error free, would mean that I, as a missionary, would have to go to a non-English speaking nation, teach the people archaic Shakespearean English before I could teach them the Word of God. How absurd! Their translations: whether Arabic or Sanskrit, are as much the Word of God as the KJB.
If God were to choose a translation to be inspired, don't you think he would be fair and just? There are more Chinese people, or more people that speak Sanskrit in this world than any other language. If God were fair and just, he would have inspired the Bible in Sanskrit and forced you and all the English speaking to learn Sanskrit, not the OE that the KJV was translated into.

Every translation loses meaning in its translation--every translation. No translation is perfect.
If I translated the first chapter of John into English, would you consider it inspired or not? Why or why not?
DHK

 

I'm just curious. Please don't take this as a provocation because I've thought about these kinds of verses often. Dean raised an objection from Scripture that is compromised and not talked about much at all. Any thoughts?

Again, not trying to push buttons, but it does appear that the body as a whole has made some odd concessions regarding the role of women in church as of late. Yes?

 

I would rather rely upon God and the Holy Spirit than to rely upon men's interpretations of the Bible and versions of the Bible to teach me.


Jesus said God reveals His truths unto babes and not unto those who think themselves to be wise.

Lk:10:21: In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.

You do not have to be a scholar to understand the very plain and simple words of the Bible.

The Holy Spirit is able to teach you what the Scriptures mean... and you are to compare scripture with scripture. The Bible is its own expositor... it explains itself.


1Cor:2:13: Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

I have learned so much by just simply taking a word such as "Faith" or "Commandments" or "Eternal Life" and so on, and looking up each place in the scriptures that uses that word and comparing the scriptures one with another.

Unfortunately, in these other versions of the Bible, the words are changed and it makes it difficult to do that.

You do not need men's interpretations of the Bible ... you do not need them to try to "simplify" the scriptures for you, they are plenty plain enough as they are... you need the Bible and the Holy Spirit to explain the Word of God to you.

I remember one time I was looking at another Bible version thinking it would simplfy my Bible studying... I ran across a verse that had the word "terebrinth" in it ... I had no idea what it meant. So I just went to my King James Bible and it said "Oak Tree"... and I KNEW what that meant! Its just sad, these men who think themselves wise and like THEY are going to interpret the Bible for you and try to take the place of the Holy Spirit.


------------------

Claudia Thompson

http://www.christiangraphics.org
http://www.countrymanordesigns.com
http://www.religiouscounterfeits.org

 

Then read the New Testament here and explain what it means to me:

John 1


No you don't need "other" translations. You don't even need the KJV, which is a translation itself. You need to know what the translation says, and why the translation says what it is saying. Why did the translators use certain words.
Why did the KJV use the phrase "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle when you know that the stainless steel needle that you are acquainted with wasn't even invented yet. So what did Christ mean?

What did Peter mean when he said "gird up the loins of your mind," What did the KJV translators have in mind when they translated the Greek in those terms? Why don't you go read the actual Greek and find out what it says. The Bible is not preserved in a translation, but rather in the Greek and Hebrew.
DHK

 

Amen, Brother DHK!