Results 1 - 3 of 3
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Hank | 98674 | ||
justanotherchristian - Something I've never quite understood and on which perhaps you can cast some light: If God preserves His word via the KJV, which is in English, what about the billions of people round the world who don't read a word of English? And what happens, should the world stand another thousand years, when the English speaking peoples will understand no more of the Elizabethan-age English of the King James Bible than the modern reader of today understands of early English, which predates the KJV by at least 500 years and is all but incomprehensible to the reader of English who is not specifically trained in it? [Try reading "Beowulf" in its original Old English and tell me how you liked it. :-) ] --Hank | ||||||
2 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | justanotherchristian | 98689 | ||
God preserved His Word in the 1769KJV for this time. There was a 1611 KJV (and I have a copy) and it does contain language forms that are SO outdated that it is nearly inscrutable. What we commonly read as the KJV is #13 in a series of major and minor revisions of the 1611 KJV, and none of those revisions affected ANY doctrine in the least way. If the world were to last another 1000 years and language should change so much that even the 1769 revision was inscrutable, then God would providentially provide us with yet another updated revision to replace the 1769KJV. I wish it would happen, now. As to the other part of your question - there are foreign equivalents to the KJV available now in most major languages. and again - where there is no equivalent to the KJV, that is where the population is so isolated from the endless chatter of apostate Christendom that they do not NEED such a rigidly codified record of the Word of God to protect The Saints among them from being decieved by slick and clever false prophets and teachers. In the Middle Ages, people who could not read Latin had no access to any Bible at all - but the custom was to provide a reading from the Gospels at every mass - and if that soul grabbed onto that bit of gospel and took it seriously, that soul would be adequately guided into all connected truths. Every part of The Word of God is like a part of a single Person or Object. If you touched Jesus' hand, you touched Jesus Himself. Jesus said that the bare grain brought forth fruit after it's own kind - and so that little snatch of Gospel Truth (if not meddled with or bent to fit something) will extrapolate itself out into all other Gospel truths. That man in the Midle Ages was NOT subjected to the torrent of disinformation that we are, and thusly he was left with hs conscience, the Holy Ghost, and the few people he had fellowship with. We (today) are being POUNDED from every direction by a flood of DISinformation which all conspires to convince us that the Bible is either a sham, or simply cannot be understood. The 1769KJV is just the latest faithful and reliable update on the language of revelation that we have. How much do you really know about how we got the KJV and how we got the other versions? Will you suggest that the more centuries we are REMOVED AWAY from the originals, the more likely we are to identify what WAS the original? It is unfortunate that MOST ALL of the KJV ONLY crowd are barely more than superstitious people - but that does not change the underlying reality - that the KJV Bible has in the past and still today accompanies the most potent and sober Saints. I am NOT a "KJV only" person - I am a "KJV PRIMARILY" person. I will and do consult other versons, and somethimes (rarely) will quote them. But the practice of "version jumping" is the spirit of infidelity. Each one OF US ought to say "You can correct me and reprove me with the language in THIS Bible" and then pick a version. I remain publicly subjected to the language of a single version - the 1769KJV. If you "get me" with a quote from the 1769KJV, I do not jump off to another version whch better suits my fancy. I allow for definitions and clarifying commentary (and it's somethimes necessary) - so no, I do not think that the language of the 1769KJV is inviolate: but I will and do nsist that the *contents and message* of the 1769KJV IS inviolate. While the 1769KJV may be weak or obscure in some places, it is (at least) not misleading. I can show you numerous places where the language needs to be tidied up or updated. But I simply CANNOT CANNOT DARE NOT AND WILL NOT offer as "authority" some Bible that rejects the doxology at the end of the Lord's prayer (and all the other deletions which I absolutely ABOMINATE). The new text replaces the words "Day of Christ" with "Day of The Lord" in 2 Thessalonians 2:2. That "little"(?) change makes a mountain of difference in the implications of that verse. I have the "death bed confession" of one of the (very) men who instigated and sponsored the creation of the NASB - and IS HE EVER SORRY for what he did! He tells us to go back to the KJV and fears for his fate! The Lockman Foundation does not want you to see this! E-mail me at jac@jacglobal.net and I will send that "confession" to you. |
||||||
3 | put 1Jn 5:7 BACK where it belongs! | 1 John 5:7 | Makarios | 98800 | ||
JustAnotherChristian, You know, your arguments would have a lot in common with those who vociferously fought against the KJV in favor of the Latin Vulgate. Blessings to you, Makarios |
||||||