Bible Answers to Member Questions

reply to post by Iason321

Excellent, that's the most powerful way to study the Word IMO,

Strongs Concordance + Greek/Hebrew Translit + KJV = perfection

Hey, you can't go wrong with the above. I don't fault you one bit. I use the same. I just don't put ANY importance on the greek/hebrew/latin. I do use them though.

By the way, thank you for taking the time to reply back. Most people read my points and never reply, either out of anger, defeat, or indifference. Most post their opinion and then leave without discussion anything.

Hey KJV1611, I went and pulled the trigger on a KJV II Bible! I found it on Amazon, a pre-owned first edition, in the usual two-column format (I was hoping for single-column), and the paper was not top quality, but so far I like it. It's as if a thin film of scrim has been removed from the text. Vocabulary, grammar, and sentence structure are all upgraded to modern English. There are far fewer sentences beginning with "and," a feature I never did like. You may know that Jay P. Green was associated with the KJV II project, and hes is/was one of the sharpest critics of the modernist-translation camp. What do you think? Maybe I can put part of the preface in a later post.

reply to post by Lazarus Short


See what it says in Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8. I want to know if it says Jesus or Joshua. It should say Jesus if they translated it from the majority Greek texts. Also look up 1 John 5:7 and Col 1:14 and see what they say as well compared to the KJV in order to determine their stance on a few subjects I am interested in. See also if there is any margin notes in Mark 16, the last 12 verses, do they say they are not in the "originals"?

I am curious to see, and I would love to read the preface to their their bible as well. I will buy on for my collection if I can find a cheap one as well I keep my eyes peeled at thrift stores and goodwills.

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Lazarus Short

 

See what it says in Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8. I want to know if it says Jesus or Joshua. It should say Jesus if they translated it from the majority Greek texts. Also look up 1 John 5:7 and Col 1:14 and see what they say as well compared to the KJV in order to determine their stance on a few subjects I am interested in. See also if there is any margin notes in Mark 16, the last 12 verses, do they say they are not in the "originals"?

I am curious to see, and I would love to read the preface to their their bible as well. I will buy on for my collection if I can find a cheap one as well

I keep my eyes peeled at thrift stores and goodwills.

Acts 7:45 "Joshua"

Hebrews 4:8 "Joshua"

I John 5:7 "the Father" "the Word" "the Holy Ghost" KJV II has "Holy Spirit"

Colossians 1:14 both have "through His blood"

the KJV II has Mark, chapter 16, complete, with no notes

Here's the end of the preface, written by Jay Green:

"HERE ARE THE GAINS OF THE KING JAMES II VERSION:

1. A strong effort has been made to keep all the majesty, beauty and glory that is inherent in God's word, and which even its enemies admit were brilliantly incorporated in the original King James Version.

2. This Bible has been handled reverently, since we believe without any reservation that the Bible is completely inerrant, that it has a pure beginning and that it also had a special providential preservation by the divine Author through all these centuries. As we worked, we feared God, not man.

3. A pre-study of textual criticism encompassing more than 1000 hours convinced us the best text was that used by Tyndale and the KJV scholars.

4. This Bible is translated word-for-word in an attempt to give a literal rendition of each and every one of God's words. Lately, the 'translators' and paraphrasers have claimed this was impossible without destroying readability. In this Bible, you will see it is not only possible, but it is desirable.

5. All true scholarship has been used, including any late archeological finds which have thrown light on the translation problems of the Bible.

6. This Bible has easy-to-understand language. It can be read by elementary school children with relative ease. It is not, however, in basic English.

7. This Bible has far fewer words added for sense, and they are in italics.

8. The three Persons of the Trinity, and pronouns for them, are capitalized in order to help the reader distinguish them from men in the Bible.

9. Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are in quotation marks. These are the only quotation marks in this entire Bible.

10. None of God's words were left out. If Hebrew or Greek manuscripts were behind them, the evidence was considered and a translation given.

11. Only proper English is used. There is no slang in this Bible.

12. Though many improvements have been made, most well-known verses of the Bible are changed only by removing the Elizabethan English. You will not need to rememorize. In fact, this Bible can be used in either the pew or the pulpit interchangeably with the King James Version."

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Thank you for your VERY timely response Laz, wish I could have said the same, been busy though. I would like to take a moment and put my two cents worth in just from the info I asked which you provided:

Acts 7:45 "Joshua"

Hebrews 4:8 "Joshua"

This worries me some.....In the majority text as found in the Textus Receptus, the word found in this passage is the same word "JESUS" as found in the four Gospels.....every time the word Jesus shows up.... Look it up. This means the editors of the KJV 2 have no manuscript evidence to change the word Jesus, into "Joshua" as they clearly did..... Now granted, the word Joshua is found in 4 very corrupt manuscripts....I bet you can guess which ones The KJV 2 transliterated Joshua, from the original greek word Jesus. They did this thinking they knew what was best for God and His Bible. They are wrong. The best word for both passages is JESUS, since it was Jesus who led the Jews in the wilderness and into the promise land don't you know....(Joshua 5:14-15)

I John 5:7 "the Father" "the Word" "the Holy Ghost" KJV II has "Holy Spirit"

They are interchangeable.....but not sure why they would change it from the Authorized version? Still looking for a copy of a KJV 2 online..nothing yet. Please provide a link if you can find one.

Colossians 1:14 both have "through His blood"

Excellent. ALL new bible perversions change that verse. As you well know apparently....or you wouldn't have quoted just the last of the verse.

the KJV II has Mark, chapter 16, complete, with no notes

That's a first.

continued.....

reply to post by Lazarus Short

Here's the end of the preface, written by Jay Green:

"HERE ARE THE GAINS OF THE KING JAMES II VERSION:

1. A strong effort has been made to keep all the majesty, beauty and glory that is inherent in God's word, and which even its enemies admit were brilliantly incorporated in the original King James Version.

...then why change it? If it ain't broke.......don't "fix" it. I have a bone or two to pick with their comments here Laz.

2. This Bible has been handled reverently, since we believe without any reservation that the Bible is completely inerrant, that it has a pure beginning and that it also had a special providential preservation by the divine Author through all these centuries. As we worked, we feared God, not man.

Then why make a new version with a COPYRIGHT attached to it then fellows? And if the Bible is "completely inerrant" what did you think you needed to fix it children?

3. A pre-study of textual criticism encompassing more than 1000 hours convinced us the best text was that used by Tyndale and the KJV scholars.

The "best" text my foot. It is the MAJORITY TEXT!!! 5000 manuscripts from Byzantine Antioch, compared to 4 from Alexander Egypt. 4!!! The choice isn't that hard children. 5,000 to 4. It isn't "best"...its MAJORITY! Unless you live in America where the minority clearly rule....hints all new bibles use the minority text as their foundation. Typical.

4. This Bible is translated word-for-word in an attempt to give a literal rendition of each and every one of God's words.

No it is not either. Refer to Acts 7:45 and Heb 4:8 to prove this lie. They did no such thing as translating word for word. Its impossible.

Lately, the 'translators' and paraphrasers have claimed this was impossible without destroying readability. In this Bible, you will see it is not only possible, but it is desirable.

It is impossible to have a word for word translation from ANY language to another language. They told a BOLD face lie. This is why there is italic words in the Authorized Version of the Bible. This point of theirs contradicts their own point down in number 7 ↓ amazing...

5. All true scholarship has been used, including any late archeological finds which have thrown light on the translation problems of the Bible.

..."All true scholarship has been used" signifying there is such a thing as FAKE scholarship.

6. This Bible has easy-to-understand language. It can be read by elementary school children with relative ease. It is not, however, in basic English.

This is the same argument ALL modern versions try to make. And ALL of them turn out to be at a HIGHER reading level than a KJV. The KJV is the Standard of BASIC English. It is in fact the very foundation of BASIC English. Modern English is NOT BASIC English....modern English is slang trash not worthy to be placed in ANY Bible.

7. This Bible has far fewer words added for sense, and they are in italics.

Wouldn't that make it harder to understand?? I happen to hold to the belief that the very italic words the KJV translators inserted into the text is just as inspired as the TEXT itself! And I have scripture proof for that as well if you want to journey down that road Laz, it is interesting.

8. The three Persons of the Trinity, and pronouns for them, are capitalized in order to help the reader distinguish them from men in the Bible.

BAD idea.......thus leaving the editors the final authority as to what they think God was "meaning" in His words. I can think of two places right now where they probably screwed up and put a capital S in the place of a lower case s in "spirit" thinking it was the spirit of God causing this person to do something.....when in fact it was the person's spirit.

9. Old Testament quotations in the New Testament are in quotation marks. These are the only quotation marks in this entire Bible.

Another dumb idea. ALMOST every time in the New Testament when someone quotes a Old Testament passage.....it is NOT a word for word quote. Thus putting these occurrences in quotation marks are misleading as it is not a QUOTE. A simple reference where the event took place would work fine.

10. None of God's words were left out. If Hebrew or Greek manuscripts were behind them, the evidence was considered and a translation given.

I would be curious to test this statement out...I can show you where multiple places in the Textus Receptus there are variations on the text.......how you going to put ALL the manuscript evidence in when there are sometimes 4-10 different accounts giving...? Guess you would just go off the already proven Authorized version, huh guys?

reply to post by Lazarus Short

11. Only proper English is used. There is no slang in this Bible.

Or in other words, they are saying there WAS slang in the Authorized version.......wonder what "slang" they were refering too?

Psalms 12:6-7
6.The words of the LORD are PURE WORDS: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

They appear to ALL be PURE according to GOD. And either verse 7 is a LIE, or GOD did preserve His words...and we still have them.

12. Though many improvements have been made, most well-known verses of the Bible are changed only by removing the Elizabethan English.

And replaced with WHAT?!?! The trash we talk with today?!?! This statement also contradicts there statement in point number 1. Hypocrites. You take the "Thee, thou, shalt, shall, ye, and other words out and replace them with generic This, that, you, and such, you have DESTROYED the meaning of the words. READ ANY government document of Air traffic control manuals. They are LITTERED with SHALL and SHALT all through them because they have different meanings then the generic terms. You might as well buy a New King James version.

You will not need to rememorize. In fact, this Bible can be used in either the pew or the pulpit interchangeably with the King James Version.

For a deaf, blind, ignorant, ebonic talking American....sure it can. Now I am angry.... Just more paper for the fire.....or in other words, more money to be made off disenchanted Christians.

reply to post by KJV1611


The name "Joshua" comes from Chirst's hebrew/aramaic names Yahshua or Yehoshua and the aramaic Yeshua. Jesus is the english incarnation of the greek Iesous. Jesus means the same thing as Joshua "He will save" or "He rescues". There's alot of things that Joshua does that reflects in Jesus. Joshua is also known amoung jews as the "Uncrowned King" which also reflects on Jesus who is the King of Israel but has yet to be crowned or recognized by the orthodox. The unorthodox messianics already know who he is.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Thank you sir. Now go look up Joshua 5:14-15 for a blessing and for the reason why Jesus should be the word used in Acts 7:45 and not Joshua. Also, the Cambridge Edition of the Authorized version of the KJV Bible uses the word Joshua instead of Jesus, because the editors in Cambridge thought it was a mistake.........but good old Oxford left the word as it stands in the majority Greek text....they left it as Jesus, which is the correct rendering.

The bible corrects just thought since it was physically Joshua that led the children of Israel, that the Bible must be in error.....they were wrong. There has never been a error proven in the Bible, and as Joshua 5:14-15 shows us, it was really JESUS that led the children of Israel through out their journey.

Just a little "English" truth that most over look

reply to post by KJV1611


Yeshua has always been the King of Israel. The true King of Israel has always been spirit until he incarnated for the second Covenant. He is what we call God. Who do you think is sitting on the throne in heaven? For 2000 years the jews have had no revelation, because they do not recognize the NT. God stopped talking to them and he will not return until they all say "worthy is he who comes in the name of YHWH"

reply to post by lonewolf19792000

Jesus is the english incarnation of the greek Iesous.

Which is the name of Jesus according to the Bible.
You apparently don't believe in the Bible since you do not take its word for it that this is Jesus' name.
Jesus was a Hellenized, Greek speaking Alexandrian Jew who moved with his family to gentile Galilee.
Paul was a Hellenized, Greek speaking Jew also, and wrote about Jesus, along with the other writers of the NT, who had no problem substituting in Hebrew or Aramaic words into their text when appropriate, and never gave a different variation of his name other than the Greek form. So it should be concluded that the name of Jesus is exactly what it says in the Bible, Jesus, even though it is a version of a name derived from the earlier Hebrew name, Joshua.

Originally posted by Lazarus Short

 

 

Sometimes, it's really difficult to get traction on this site...

So, no more questions? All the mysteries of the Bible been solved or something?

a reply to: KJVBible
Just out of curiosity, are you related to either KJV1611 or AV1611KJV?
You three are cousins, perhaps?

a reply to: DISRAELI

I plead the 5th (is that allowed on an intentionally used web site?).

Either way, soon there will be an international law system for every citizen of the world to follow; complete with an international tax (Luke 2:1), an international identification system (Revelation 13:16), and am international religion (2 Thessalonians 2:4). So I guess I'll use the 5th amendment while I have it.

I've got a question:

Is there a compelling reason to believe in eternal torture in Hell for temporal sins, in view of Jesus the Christ being the Savior of the world?

a reply to: Lazarus Short

haha... I KNEW it was him by his picture...

Banned long ago...

IF I recall correctly, you had quite the different set of beliefs when he was toting his style of fire and brimstone BS