Reasons the King James Bible is Superior to the "Originals"

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by DelayedChristmas
heres some food for thought:

the original KJV bible that was released had masonic symbols that was affluent throughout the entire book, which were taken off in the edited version after major protests by the masses.

King James and Sir Francis were masons....

my personal opinion: don't trust a bible named after a person...
edit on 9-1-2012 by DelayedChristmas because: (no reason given)


For one you're on point in my eyes. Secondly, even before the "KJV Rendition" it just seems ridiculous to me to take it out of its original context, which in my opinion is of a "possible" historic value...not religious and not that I necessarily believe in its "biblical context".

I say possible because there are a ton of texts that existed long before the "Holy Bible" ever came into existence, long before the "Holy Bible existed"...no one can tell me different, as I have seen with my own eyes in Crypts within Upper & Lower Egypt (another story all within itself). I am not against anyone who chooses to value/partake of this particular book at its word, but I personally find it hard to believe that a "Superior G--" needs to use mere humans to do his/her evil/good biddings to get things accomplished here on earth or get his/her message across.

Like I stated before...just is very ridiculous and inferior and lacks credence of the highest human value.

There are so many inconsistencies within the "NKJ version Bible Vs. the Old Testament" that IMO, one should question, what the heck is really going on. Honestly, to me they both came out of one from one region who chose to dominate thru power....reason it's a story that spread throughout the world...and it worked, it succeeded.

Just makes no sense to me. NONE what so ever


I digress
edit on 1/9/12 by ThePublicEnemyNo1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ThePublicEnemyNo1
 

I think people put the name of God in vain a lot of times when they proclaim that a specific translated version has the highest authority over the other translations.

yes the KJV isn't perfect... but there is a reason for that.

I think KJV is inaccurate in terms of grammar translations, i think the NIV is a little too simplified to capture the true meaning of the hebrew language. i also think whenever people read the bible with the right mindset, humbled, patient, humility, etc. will have the holy spirit guiding the person, so no person goes astray.

but if your like me, and can't trust yourself, you want the most accurate stuff possible so there is no room for confusion.

i like the Septugint


ecmarsh.com... link provides debate for the authenticity and validity of the Septuagint version



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 03:43 AM
link   
The King James Bible is just as biased as 99% of the versions out there... it may contain all the books but it, just as all others except for 2 versions have broken the bible's most important rule to "not add or SUBTRACT" anything!! What have they changed you wonder? gods holy name the tetagramaton YHWH... The original transcripts contain the Tetagramaton over 7000 times...the King James version doesn't, hence its biased.... Want to find a decent translation? Check the New World Translation provided by Jehovah's Witnesses.

I am always suprised by this point, There are so many honest and pure christians out there looking for the "truth" yet none end up changing the most basic structural problems the vested religious institutions have created. Whats the use of praying to a god without his name.... Guess its really true that the road to salvation is narrow and few will find it... Matthew 7:14
edit on 9/1/2012 by faceoff85 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 04:00 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 





posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 06:42 AM
link   
King James Version is often said to be the most self-contradicting. (A fraction of the contradictions in the link are specifically because the author was using the KJV bible, though others are in all.)

I personally would not trust any particular translation. Even if I was a Christian. I tend to use Bible.cc, and see what all the translations say. If you know where each translation comes from, you can get an idea of what the original text was meant to say. If it's cryptic, or translations contradict each other too much; this is the internet. Any discrepancy can be researched. Much better than assuming a certain version is right all the time.

Then again, not being a Christian, maybe my opinion doesn't carry much weight in this situation.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
There are a number of reasons for thinking the KJV is better than the rest. One is that the scholars who did the translation work spent time in prayer, and I (at least) assume that they may well have been led by God. I think this underlies KJV1611's assertion that the Authorized Version is better than the Original Autographs, right down to the level of word choice and punctuation. I am a bit irked at all the colons, semicolons, and sentences beginning with "and," but I'll let that go as an artifact of the English of that time period.

It is very possible to build a good case for the Holy Bible, and the KJV in particular, being a supernatural book. How else to demonstrate this except by pointing out the lives of those who have read the book and accepted its message? Some on this thread will sputter and disagree with this, but these are the people who God has not yet called, so His Word is nonsense to them. For those who read the Book and understand, who pray to God and get answers back, the watermark of God is on their lives, and for those with eyes to see, it is unmistakable. When I was an atheist, the Book made no sense - now that I am a Christian, have read the Book from cover to cover, and have talked with its Author, it makes perfect sense. This happens with no other book that I know of, even those few secular books which have had a profound impact on my life.

The King James II project lends support to the 1611 version and to the KJV in general. The project involved inputing every available OT and NT manuscript, from all streams of translation, tradition and languages, into a supercomputer. The English specified for output was modernized slightly. The result? The KJV is 99% modern English, according to their website, and the KJV II is 100% modern English. Most of that 1% difference would by the slight upgrade in modernization. The program was run thousands of times, with the same result. Looking back, I think this vindicates the KJV completely.

For the ATS member who advocated the New World "translation," I will say this much: I have seen how the Watchtower people (I just can not call them translators!) twisted John 1:1 to fit their theology. It was enough for me, and I saw it in a copy belonging to an aunt who had just converted back to Christianity. I also note that it uses "Jehovah" as the name of God, which I don't see as any better than "Lord."

I fully support KJV1611, except for his bias of interpreting the Bible from the perspective of the Jews. He leaves out the overwhelming majority of Israel. Of the nation of Judah, only a very small fraction ever went back home after the Babylonian Captivity, but we can argue all that elsewhere.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:20 AM
link   
When I was a christian, the KJV was my bible of choice. When everyone else was switching to NIV's, including the pastor, I kept right on carrying that KJV. But it wasn't because I was of the "KJV only" crowd. It was because I had a relationship with it. I had carried it for so many years, every other translation seemed watered down in comparison. It's language syntax also made memorizing whole passages easier in my opinion. And I understood it as well as if I were reading modern english.

That same KJV still sits on my shelf. And still gets use when I need to look up something. If I were going to be a christian, the KJV would be my "weapon" of choice. And still is when I need to reference a bible for something.

S&F



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Akragon
 



Do yourself a favor....

Skip straight to Matthew... and stop at the end of John....

Haha.... KJV is gonna be pissed!!

My bad...


Blast you madcat!!! *fist shake of rage*

But what about:
Luke 4:14-17
"14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, ........

Yes it is written....
If it is good enough fro Jesus, its good enough for me!



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 

3. The originals are in dead languages. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek . . .

This shows the ignorance of the OP.
There is currently a country called Greece, where the official language is Greek, and a citizen of Greece could pick up a copy of the Greek New Testament, as written by the Apostles, and understand it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:21 AM
link   


The KJV is the only version of God's words that are laid out in a correct Biblical dispensation timeline format. (This may be way over the head of some, but I'm sure you will get some of this Laz)


Well, I have to admit that most of my research into the Christian Bible was done with the King James Version, not one of the others. I fail to understand what Christians point to this one group of stories and claim it as the "Word Of God," when the truth is God didn't really author any books, and if God "Inspired" the stories, then it stands to intelligent reason other books and stories were also inspired.

I can find that the Abrahamic God Yahweh was a Leviathan, or Dragon, it is right there in the scriptures:

Job 41:20:
"Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron."

Psalm 18:8:
"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it."

2 Samuel 22:9:
"There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it."

All of these passages are talking about the same thing, Yahweh the Leviathan, the fire breathing Dragon, called "drakon" i n the Greek tongue. There are others discovered intel here too, if one can see it, that is:

Here are these same verses in the KJV. Isaiah 14:12 - 12:

"How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!"

Job 11:17 - 17:
"And thine age shall be clearer than the noonday: thou shalt shine forth, thou shalt be as the morning."

2 Peter 1:19- -19:
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: And the same verses in the NIV Isaiah 14:12 – 12: How you have fallen from heaven, O morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations! Job 11:17 – 17: Life will be brighter than noonday, and darkness will become like morning. 2 Peter 1:19 - 19: And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Revelation 22:16: I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. Note that the term ‘morning star’ is used throughout the New Testament and is in reference to Jesus the Christ.
source

The Morning Star: Jesus or "Lucifer"?

Is Jesus Lucifer and the Devil?

Matthew 12:
22: Then was brought unto him one possessed with a devil, blind, and dumb: and he healed him, insomuch that the blind and dumb both spake and saw.

23: And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

24: But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, This fellow doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils.

25: And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

26: And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

27: And if I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your children cast them out? therefore they shall be your judges.

28: But if I cast out devils by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you.

My, the things we discover when we read it! I will say no more on this. It is from your King James Book, and then some of you wonder why I am so against it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 



my personal opinion: don't trust a bible named after a person...


Oh goodness, King James wasn't on any of the 50 translation committees.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by KJV1611
 



Blast you madcat!!! *fist shake of rage*



Or this one:

"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

John 5:39



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Lazarus Short
 




For the ATS member who advocated the New World "translation," I will say this much: I have seen how the Watchtower people (I just can not call them translators!) twisted John 1:1 to fit their theology. It was enough for me, and I saw it in a copy belonging to an aunt who had just converted back to Christianity. I also note that it uses "Jehovah" as the name of God, which I don't see as any better than "Lord."


We are not discussing interpretations of scripture here even though your "theory" on the whole trinity thing is based on something without any biblical backing whatsoever (the word trinity or anything suggesting that is nowhere to be found in the bible). The translation of the tetagramaton of YHWH into Jehovah, comes into existence after adding vowels to a language wich didn't use vowels. If you have an issue with that you should also be confused about the name Jesus... or was it Jeshua? Lord is a title Jehovah is a name. Crucial difference...

Just because you dont agree with the name doesn't take away the fact that your lord compels you to call out his name... not just some meaningless title wich could adress any number of deity's.

wiki


Jehovah (play /dʒɨˈhoʊvə/) is an anglicized representation of Hebrew יְהֹוָה, a vocalization of the Tetragrammaton יהוה (YHWH), the proper name of the God of Israel in the Hebrew Bible.[1]

יְהֹוָה appears 6,518 times in the traditional Masoretic Text, in addition to 305 instances of יֱהֹוִה (Jehovih).[2] The earliest available Latin text to use a vocalization similar to Jehovah dates from the 13th century.[3]

Most scholars believe "Jehovah" to be a late (ca. 1100 CE) hybrid form derived by combining the Latin letters JHVH with the vowels of Adonai, but there is some evidence that it may already have been in use in Late Antiquity (5th century). It was not the historical vocalization of the Tetragrammaton at the time of the redaction of the Pentateuch (6th century BCE), at which time the most likely vocalization was Yahweh. The historical vocalization was lost because in Second Temple Judaism, during the 3rd to 2nd centuries BCE, the pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton came to be avoided, being substituted with Adonai "my Lords".


Now combine that with the following scripture from offcourse KJV



Deuteronomy 4:2

King James Version (KJV)

2Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.

2 Peter 3:16 says the same as well as Revelations 22:18,19 wich adds a few warnings

So yeah a stupid source as wiki can tell us something as small as Gods name was used in the original scripts... something was clearly clouding the judgement of the writers of the KJV or they'd heed the warnings given in the very words they'd translate....

Just to complete my argument here is the scripture taken from the KJV: warning very cryptic


Acts 2:21
King James Version (KJV)

21And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.


Note how it says to call out the name of "the Lord".... wich one? Allah? Enki? Baal?

Here"s the NWT from Jehovah's witnesses:


Acts 2:21
New World Translation

21 And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.


Crypt solved.... Jehovah.

edit on 9/1/2012 by faceoff85 because: extra content


edit on 9/1/2012 by faceoff85 because: completion



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
I wanted to do a little something special to "honour" the 400th year birthday of the King James Bible in 2011.



The main reason the KJV is superior to the "originals" is the fact that:

1. God could care less about any "originals". Read Jeremiah 36 for a good example. God ADDED to His words as time moved one through out history until John wrote the last of God's "revelation" to the Earth. (Ps. God's Bible is not just for men, it is for the whole EARTH. Which includes plants, animals, waters, and the planet itself.)

2. The Originals were singular in prophetic nature and chronological timeline. With the KJV, you have the complete WORDS of God all complied into a Bible (library) for easy use. Example, Revelation would be almost impossible to understand without Daniel. Same for Song of Solomon and the Gospels.

3. The originals are in dead languages. Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek. Dead, dead, dead. Why do I consider these three languages dead? When is the last time you saw any instruction manuals with these languages on them? Or newspaper? Or Stock Market Exchanges? Exactly. Dead. English is not only alive, it the the WORLD language that all first, second, and third world nations on the planet are teaching their children as a mandatory second language. You think that was just a "coincidence" that God translated His words into English...then the ENGLISH language magically conquered the world?

4. The originals are gone. The KJV is here. Easy enough right?

5. The KJV is the only version of God's words that are laid out in a correct Biblical dispensation timeline format. (This may be way over the head of some, but I'm sure you will get some of this Laz)

---In the "originals" the Bible ends with 2 Chronicles. With the KJV, 2 Chronilces is only about half way through the Old Testament.

╟ The end of 2 Chronicles is 36:23 "...The LORD his God be with him, and let him go up."
╟ What follows the book of 2 Chronicles? Why Ezra and Nehemiah of course! Because you know what happens in them 2 books? The Jews return to their land, as commanded to in 2 Chron. 36:23. (Restoration)
╟ Now, what book comes after Ezra and Nehemiah? Esther!! You know happens in Esther? A KING, replaces His GENTILE bride, for a JEWISH one. Esther instead of Vashti. (God stops dealing with Gentiles and returns to His wife, Israel) After that, Haman, a type of the Anti-christ tries to kill all the Jews just like will happen during the tribulation!
╟ So what book naturally follows Esther? Why Job of course! What does Job show us in type? Why the JEWS going through the tribulation. Not only that, but at the end of Jobs trails, Job is restored fully! (Just as the Jews will be after they go through their trails in the tribulation).
╟ After Job? The Millennium as shown in Psalms chapter 2 as well as Proverbs, which as any Bible student knows, Solomon was a perfect type of Jesus Christ during his millennium reign.

This is how the Old Testament is laid out. But this is not the only example at all, not by far.
Take the New Testament for example:

╟ The four Gospels and Acts are a transitional period of time from the OT to the New Testament.
╟ Then you have the Apostle to the Gentile, Paul, and his 13 letter to Christians, showing the church age.
╟ Next you have Hebrews through Jude showing the transitional period from the Church age, back to God dealing with the Jews and into the tribulation. ↓↓↓↓↓
Luke 21:24 "...until the times of the gentiles be fulfilled" Also notices that Many of these books are talking directly to JEWS and not Christians to begin with!

---Hebrews 1:1 "1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers (Jews) by the prophets (JEWS),2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us (JEWS) by his Son..." Plus the name of the book itself is HEBREWS! so yeah.....
---James 1:1 James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes which are scattered abroad, greeting. "
---1 Peter 1:1 "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the STRANGERS scattered throughout...."
These "strangers might be the people found in my other thread on
Hebrews and Muslims living Peacefully together in the Holy Bible!!!
Not sure though. However, I am sure Christians are not called Strangers in the New Testament.

╟ Then you have Revelation concluding the whole counsel of God for all races, planets, and Zodiac "houses" (another topic for later )


I'll post even more reasons later on, but its late and I am weary.


You do know who wrote and translated the King James Bible.

I'll give you a hint: he wrote over 50 plays and over 150 sonnets.

And it wasn't Shakespeare



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DelayedChristmas
 


Well said. No telling what was left out and what was added in.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by KJV1611
reply to post by Akragon
 



Do yourself a favor....

Skip straight to Matthew... and stop at the end of John....

Haha.... KJV is gonna be pissed!!

My bad...


Blast you madcat!!! *fist shake of rage*

But what about:
Luke 4:14-17
"14 And Jesus returned in the power of the Spirit into Galilee: and there went out a fame of him through all the region round about.
15 And he taught in their synagogues, being glorified of all.
16 And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.
17 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, ........

Yes it is written....
If it is good enough fro Jesus, its good enough for me!



LMAO!! sorry bro... you went to sleep...

When sleeping dogs lay.... kitty comes out to play


at least im on your side with this topic




posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by dilly1
 


No hints needed:

Who Translated the KJB?



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:28 PM
link   
How does a "King" determine what he FEELS should and should not be in the Holy Bible? The literal "WROD OF GOD".

So...this King tears a page here and there and says..."Nah! "Don't need THIS page! Or this one... or...."
I have to laugh.

It might as well be the PEE WEE HERMAN VERISON. To me...it means roughly the same thing.

Man's attempt at altering what we are told is "the LITERAL WORD OF GOD"? Yep. King Jame's VERSION.
V-E-R-S-I-O-N. Who the heck is he? An Earthly king thats it.



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LazloFarnsworth
 



How does a "King" determine what he FEELS should and should not be in the Holy Bible?


King James wasn't one of the translators.

(Link Above)



posted on Jan, 9 2012 @ 01:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by dilly1
 


No hints needed:

Who Translated the KJB?


Wrong again bud,,

Its was Sir Francis Bacon.

And FYI, don't use sources from the lying idiot Laurence M. Vance. You're gonna have to do better than that egghead.





new topics
top topics
 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join