Bible Discussion Thread

A story I would like to share:

Several years ago, a coworker invited me to attend his church on Sunday. This brother and I often talked about the Lord and His word. As he was inviting me, and before I had a chance to respond, he told me to bring my Bible with me and to make sure it was a KJB. He said that they probably wouldn't let me in if I showed up with any other Bible.

I didn't commit. The only Bible I owned was a King James and that was the Bible I would have brought with me had I have gone. I chose not to show up. Had he not have said what he did, I probably would have gone.

I believe the Lord put it on my heart not to go there. That was many years ago.

I share this story because I am reminded of that time by the things I have been reading here over these past few months.

I would say that the church this brother invited me to fit the category of extremism. Does God really care what Bible version we read? Are we going to stand before God one day and be denied because we chose the wrong translation?

Before barking at me, please know that I read and study from the KJB. It is my Bible of choice. It is not important to me what translation others use. What's important to me is have you been born of God's Spirit.

The KJB is a very good translation, but I cannot say that it is a perfect one, and even though it is the Bible I study from, I do not believe it is superior to all others.

I do not adhere to KJB Onlyism. There are many of us here who choose the KJB, but we should be sensitive to the fact that there are brothers and sisters in Christ who come here that read other versions of the Bible. Should we view them any differently?

I wonder how they would have viewed me had I have shown up to the invite carrying an NIV/NASB/ASV, or any other English translation? Would they have let me in?

The Lord is going to receive all those who have surrendered their life to Him, and it's not going to matter which Bible you chose to read!

Jimbob,

Greetings, just go back form my trip and am catching up on posts here.

Not really wanting to jump full board back into this discussion but I would like to comment that the full text of the New

Testament was compiled in the first few centuries. In the 4th century (I believe) Jerome translated these manuscripts into Latin. Erasmus translated the Vulgate and the Greek text once again in 1300 A.D. (approximately). The Geneva Bible , Tyndale Bible, Wycliffe Bible, the Bishops Bible, the Great Bible, Martin Luther's German translation and others existed before the KJB.

So the full New and Old Testaments had been complied into one Bible during the millennium before the KJV was translated.

The Bible

This is a very long thread which I have not read through and do not plan to. I will just say this.

If we hope to come to truth, we must start with the understanding the Bible is the very WORD OF GOD. That is, in the original Hebrew and Greek every word and phrase is from the Mouth of God. God did not merely plant thoughts and ideas in the minds and hearts of Paul and Peter and Isaiah and Jeremiah, etc. and then guide them to write in their own style so that we cannot compare a word or phrase in Romans to Peter or Jeremiah or Isaiah. Some would teach this but it is not so. The Bible has ONE AND ONLY ONE AUTHOR. And that is God Himself.

This means that we want a translation that is as faithful on a word by word basis to the original languages as possible. Even if the translators did not understand precisely what God was teaching in a particular passage.

I am not a Bible scholar, but my understanding is that, in the English language, the King James version comes closest to this principle.

Fortunately, in our day, God had given us tools like concordances and interlinears so that we, and especially anyone that claims to be a teacher, can check out the translation of any word or phrase from the original languages where those words and phrases are used by God throughout the Bible.

In approaching the Bible we must understand that the Bible is its own interpreter as we compare scripture with scripture using the principles that God declares in the Bible itself. And that, particularly in our day, God is revealing or clarifying certain truths from the Bible that were there all the time but it had not been God's time to reveal them to believers ( Daniel 12:9).

Ultimately it is God Himself that leads us into truth as we search the scriptures applying the principles that God Himself declares in His Word.

Well said and Amen to you .

Jesse thank you for your response. I guess it all comes down to whether or not we trust God and Believe His Word Jesse!

I completely trust and believe the Words of the LORD are pure Words that are preserved for ever as we are told in ( Ps. 12:6-7).

How would you explain ( Dan. 3:25)? The Niv says "and the fourth looks like a son of the gods".

A son of the gods? What gods is the Niv speaking of here? Thats Jesus Christ they are saying looks like a son of the gods Jesse. Is that verse from the Niv Inspired by God? Please explain?

Here's a good one.

In the KJB ( Ps. 12:6-7) v6 The subject is the Words of the LORD. v7 Tells us "Thou shalt (keep) them, O LORD, thou shalt (preserve) them from this generation for ever". The word (keep) is #8104; it means to hedge about (as with thorns) i.e. guard, to protect. The word (preserve) is #5341; it means to guard (to protect, maintain, obey) The KJB verse 7 tells us God is guarding and protecting the Words of the LORD, even FOR EVER!

The Niv completely eliminates the chance to find this truth through deceptively removing the whole verse and replacing it with words of pure confusion!

In the Niv the same verses say v6 "And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times". v7 says " O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever".

Jesse how can v7 in the Niv be a translation problem when it is completely off the subject where their verse makes no sense at all? This verse is nothing but confusion! God is not the author of confusion ( 1 Cor. 14:33) The word (confusion) is #181; it means instability, i.e. disorder, inconstant, unstable. The definition of confusion fits perfectly what the Niv did with ( Ps. 12:7) and many other verses in their book.

The Words of the LORD are pure Words not confusion!

The Truth should be all that matters to ALL Believers in Jesus Christ. ( John. 8:31-32) "If ye continue in my words"

I am defending the True Word of God!

Blessings.

Jimbob,

You are not suggesting that I do not trust God and believe His Word, are you? You already know that I read and study from the same Bible you do, and I have already stated that I am not defending the NIV (nor condemning), so as far as Daniel 3:25 (NIV) is concerned, I don't feel that I need to explain anything to you concerning that verse. However, I will say that I don't agree with it.

I would like to know why you chose the NIV specifically to go after if you believe all modern English translations are corrupt? (I have my suspicion) but would like your honest answer to that. Also, there are several other modern English translations out there, which one will you go after next? Not trying to be offensive, just curious.

If you don't mind answering why you failed to mention those NIV verses I presented to you, I would truly appreciate it.

Also, you brought up Luke 4:4 (KJB), and said that the NIV left out "but by every word of God." Have you considered the fact that Matthew 4:4 (NIV) says, "It is written: 'Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'"

I do agree that God said He would preserve His word forever. The book of Revelation was completed around 95 AD. Did we not have the complete inspired word of God with the completion of Revelation?

If so, at what point between 95 AD and 1611 AD was God's word no longer preserved and required a new English Bible to be written?

And the "holy men of God" that God inspired were Moses, the Prophets, the Apostles, and a few others (not the translators of the KJB).

God inspired and commissioned those holy men who gave us His inspired word. The KJV translators were commissioned by King James himself.

Blessings to you also, Jimbob!

Jesse Lets look at the definition of the word (sound) from ( 2 Tim. 4:3) The word (sound) is 5198; it means to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine) UNCORRUPT, TRUE IN DOCTRINE is what ((sound doctrine is)).

Now lets look at ( Dan. 3:25) from a KJB and the Niv and see which is sound, or True in doctrine?

The KJB ( Dan. 3:25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.

The Niv same verse says "He said, Look! I see four men walking around in the fire, unbound and unharmed, and the fourth looks like a son of the gods"



Was it the Son of God walking in the fire with them Jesse?

Or was it a son of the gods walking in the fire with them?

Which of these verses are True in doctrine Jesse?

That verse is sound doctrine.

The other is CORRUPT by definition!

This is the Truth, If its not Truth then Please show what's not correct.

Thank you Jesse.

Blessings.

Hello Jimbob. If I might slip a spanner in the works here in regard to Daniel 3:25: would you consider Daniel 5:14 please? "I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee." My question to you is: does this verse trouble you some? Should not the LORD God have allowed "the SPIRIT of God" be written here in the KJB? Yet in Hebrew, it is 'ruah elahin' (spirit of (the) gods).

Likewise, in Daniel 3:25, "He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God"; in Hebrew, it is 'bar elahin' (son of (the) gods). And particularly in the Book of Daniel, this is not uncommon where Nebuchadnezzar & the Chaldeans are seen referring to 'gods' (i.e. the deities that he believed had divine manifestations): see Daniel 2:11,47; Daniel 4:8,9,18; Daniel 5:11,14.

Therefore, I submit that what we see here in Daniel, are the beliefs that the king had in respect to deities. Not only to the 'gods' but also to the 'spirit of the gods' & the 'son of the gods'. In these portions, these are not God's Words related to us, but Nebuchadnezzar's & they must reflect his belief & understanding. But when we get to Daniel 3:28, we read that Nebuchadnezzar at last realized that this wasn't a 'son of the gods', in the furnace, but that the One & True God (the God of Shadrach, Meshach & Abednego) had sent His angel to deliver these faithful men.

Now the question: was this angel indeed the pre-incarnate Jesus, or were the translators exercising some liberty to show that it was the Son of God? I believe that the NIV & other translations are correct here as both the Hebrew & the context of Nebuchadnezzar's beliefs & words portray what he saw in the furnace as 'one sent from the deities'. If we then choose to read that Jesus was present there & not an angel, then that belief must be a personal choice.

Chris thank you for your response. You said "Therefore I submit that what we see in Daniel are the beliefs that the king had in respect to deities", you go on to say "In these portions, these are not God's Words related to us, but Nebuchadnezzar's and they must reflect his belief and understanding".

Chris ALL Scripture is given by Inspiration of God ( 2 Tim. 3:16), I do know that you understand that as being (God breathed)

Would a (God breathed) verse say "the Son of God" or would a (God breathed) verse say "a son of the gods"? For Believers today?

Especially sense the KJB has said the (Son of God) for over 400 years!

God's Inspired Words are written exactly as He wanted them written. ((Every Word)) of God is pure (Prov.30:5-6) ( Ps. 12:6-7) (Ps.119:140) ( 1 Pet. 1:25) ( Isa. 55:14)

You also said "I believe the Niv and other translations are correct here" you go on to say "If we chose to read that Jesus was present there and not an angel, then that belief must be a personal choice"

The KJB has said it was the (Son of God) for 400 plus years, so correct me if I'm wrong here Chris but you did say the Niv and other translations are correct, which would be sound doctrine, and which would also be the Inspired Word of God!

Do you Believe the Niv is the pure Words of the LORD?

You asked if ( Dan. 5:14) troubled me some? Why would it? That verse is speaking of Belshazzar who was the son of Nebuchadnezzar.

In ( Dan. 2:28) Daniel tells Nebuchadnezzar of the God in heaven that revealeth secrets.

Then Daniel tells him his dream which was revealed to him by God.

In ( Dan. 2:47) Nebuchadnezzar says "Of a truth it is, that your God is a God of gods, and a Lord of kings"

So had Nebuchadnezzar's beliefs changed at that point? It does sound like they did, wouldn't you agree?

Then in ( Dan. 3:25) Nebuchadnezzar says "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God"

The KJB is the correct translation Chris, not the Niv or other translations!

Scripture is Truth.

Blessing to you Chris.

Page 2.

c. Daniel 5:14. Here you wrote, "That verse is speaking of Belshazzar who was the son of Nebuchadnezzar." I'm unsure if you are at the same verse here Jimbob. My Bible shows that Nebuchadnezzar had renamed Daniel as Belteshazzar (v12). So when Daniel (Belteshazzar) was brought before Nebuchadnezzar, the king told him, "I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee, and that light and understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee" (v14). My question was, why should God Who inspired His Word, have allowed such a thing to be written? Surely, God Who presumably inspired the KJV translators to write "the Son of God" should have also inspired them to write 'the Spirit of God' & not 'the spirit of the gods'? Therefore, in the Chaldean understanding of those passages, both 'son & spirit' refer to 'their gods' not THE God.

d. In Daniel 2:47, I don't believe that Nebuchadnezzar's belief in the ONE God changed at all. Here in the verse, he admits that Daniel's God was indeed the God of gods and Lord of kings. The king wasn't about to give up on his gods at all but had relented that the demonstrations of Daniel's God showed that this God was above his other gods. At the most, he probably now had a greater respect and fear for the God of Heaven & so gave special license to Daniel & his three companions to worship their God & punishment to those who speaks against Him ( Daniel 3:28,29).

Therefore, to believe that the KJB is a perfect translation direct from God can't be true. No translation ever is, whether of the Bible or any other work. An examination of any Bible translation work will always reveal errors from the original, as any translation from one language to another would. Indeed, God's Word IS preserved 'from this generation forever', but I would always go back to the original writings (whenever some dispute arises in the translations) to find & learn more from that preserved Word & not the translated Word. Every blessing.

Chris again thank you for your response. You said "Therefore to believe that the KJB is a prefect translation direct from God cant be true. No translation ever is, whether of the Bible or any other work". No offence Chris but that is your opinion that has no way of being proven.

There were the manuscripts in Hebrew for the Old Testament. Right? They were written down, documented. (Thus saith the LORD) (The word of the LORD came unto me, saying) (Then came the word of the LORD) (Thus saith the LORD of hosts) (Thus saith the LORD God) The LORD spoke to them personally to document His Words.

What about the Greek the New Testament? We don't have them other than in the Bibles that we use?

God preserved His Word "from this generation for ever" so the final generations would have those pure, preserved, Inspired Words of God. The only way we could have those pure Words today is if God used men to translate those Words into another language, like the English language. (holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost)

The reason the KJB is the most printed book is because God was and is in control of His Words being translated, ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) and distributed for this time period, or else we would have nothing but deception in this time period. Satan would have a field day deceiving people without the TRUE Inspired Word of God.

( Ps. 12:6-7) v6 His Words are pure. v7 His Words are preserved for ever.

( Prov. 30:5-6) v5 Every Word of God is pure. v6 Add thou not unto His Words. (If we are told to "Add thou not unto His Words, then we would have to have His Words, Right)?

( Rev. 22:18-19) These verses clearly tell us we should not add to, nor take away from the words of the book of this prophecy.

( Jn. 17:17) "thy word is truth"

( Jn. 14:23) "If a man love me, he will keep my words"

( Rev. 1:3) "Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear ((the words of this prophecy)) and keep those things ((which are written therein))"

Thank you again, Blessing to you Chris.

Page 3. Jimbob.

And as far as the Greek NT is concerned, the translators are generally found in two camps. Those using the older Alexandrian manuscripts & those using the later Byzantine m/s (the Majority Text), of which the Textus Receptus (TR) comes. It is my understanding that the older m/s were not as reliable at the TR (from which we get our KJB), because of their inconsistencies, deletions & amendments. Even though this bodes well for the KJB, can we truly believe the KJB is a perfect Word, rather, one of the better translations to hand today? If we tenaciously hold onto the KJB as the faultless Bible from God, then we will miss those errors, however minor, in translation, inadvertently accepting error for Truth. And it is those errors, even in punctuation or incorrect word usage, that relegates all Bible translations into a place where much study & reference to the original languages is needed, which can only help us get closer to the Truth.

As for 2 Peter 1:21, I have to agree with bro Jesse, that this verse doesn't refer to Bible translators but to those men of God who were moved by God to record these precious words for us. Every blessing.

Page 2. Jimbob.

Should we then compel such folk as these Pakistani believers to learn English first, and 18th Century English at that, so that they would be subject only to the KJV & not be left in ignorance & in corrupted thought by reading their particular version? I think that would be an impossibility & therefore one should ask, 'why then should people who understand their own language, or even an easier English version, be side-lined for doing so'? If the KJV is the only true & correct Bible version fully inspired by God, then there are a great number of people all over the world who are unable to receive the Truth. Rather, God can take up His Own Word, however much other translations fall short of the true, & minister to hearts & lives.

And the KJV itself can never be that perfect translation since no modern language can always capture the intended meaning, nuances, grammar differences, etc. from the original. The KJV can come close to the original Scriptures, as does the LSV (Literal Standard Version) & its sister, Young's Literal Translation (YLT), but none are perfect. Then the question: 'how many differences must we allow between the original writings & the translated works, to make one believed to be the pure Word of God & the other a corrupt version'? This then becomes an extremely moot argument with each side basing their beliefs on what they've learnt or what they've been told to believe. Only an intensive examination will show the degree of departure from the original writings, but would both sides of the debate be willing to acquiesce to the other when based on facts?

Page 1.

To your comment now Jimbob. Your reference to the direct Words of the LORD ("Thus saith the LORD", and others): indeed, when such phrases are used, we know that the first recorders were compelled to write them down verbatim, or else the LORD would soon correct them (even as we see an example in Ezekiel 13:1-8). So here there is no problem. But what happens when these recorders such as Daniel, write down what they heard from those Babylonian kings? Do they need Divine Guidance to write, though certainly in need of God's Help to remember if the writing took place sometime after those events. So Divine Inspiration or even God's Word being wholly true & pure, must mean that God superintended over these recordings, ensuring that the recorders wrote exactly what God spoke or what they had seen or heard from others.

Now when it comes to translating the original writing to another language, it is true that God can still enable men, however much they might be lacking in some of the exacting skills to do the work, but the end product can only be the best that both language & abilities allow. A case in point but with a question first: how would you feel about the Bible (say the KJV) being translated into another language aside from English? I'm a little familiar with the Urdu Bible (the one used by Christians in Pakistan). When sharing from the Word & going through my message with my interpreter, I checked the verse 1 John 4:10 with him. I asked, 'What word would he use for 'propitiation' (a difficult seldom-used word) & what did that word mean to him & others? He said, 'the word in Urdu was 'kafara' & meant 'atonement'. I then asked if there could be any further meaning or thought to this word & he gave a definite No. I then explained to him the proper meaning of propitiation & he admitted that he had never heard of this explanation & there was no word in Urdu to describe the 'Anger of the LORD being turned aside or averted'. That was a fruitful time for all.

Chris thank you for the response. Chris ( Dan. 4:37) Tells us "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase". When chapter 5 begins it speaks of (Belshazzar) the king. Belshazzar was the son of Nebuchadnezzar ( Dan. 5:2,11,18) In ( Dan. 5:12) the name is Belteshazzar. ((This is not the kings name)) The son of Nebuchadnezzar was the one who said in ( Dan. 5:14) "I have even heard of thee, that the spirit of the gods is in thee".

Many kings of Israel during the OT were good kings who served God, and many had sons to come up and reign who fell away and did not serve God. It would not be unusual to see this in the book of Daniel. As it did happen here.

Nebuchadnezzar had a son to reign after him who did not know God.

Seeing this may give you a better understanding of these chapters Chris.

This is short but I don't have time now to finish it, I will try to finish up on this later today.

I'll get back to you and also Jesse as soon as I can.

The Word of God is Amazing, it is Alive.

God Bless you.

Thanks Jimbob. Now I see what you're referring to here. You're speaking of Belshazzar, the son (some indicate, grandson) of Nebuchadnezzar (I had written Nebuchadnezzar incorrectly) & particularly in relation to Daniel 5:14. Yet, Belteshazzar was the name that Nebuchadnezzar gave to Daniel (I believe that you agree with this).

You mentioned here, "Nebuchadnezzar had a son to reign after him who did not know God". In light of what you wrote just before this, is it your assumption that Nebuchadnezzar did know the true God? Maybe I have again misunderstood you, given a verse such as Daniel 2:2. True, after Daniel interpreted the king's dream, the king developed a new understanding of Daniel's God, but in Daniel 2:47, it would be difficult for me to believe that the king rejected all his gods to believe in & serve the True God. I guess this would fall into the category of one's personal interpretation of that passage.

So Daniel 5:14 still remains confusing; as to why the LORD would permit 'the spirit of the gods' to be written here & in Daniel 3:25 He should permit "the Son of God" - regardless of which king was referred to.

I'll now get to your other comment Jimbob.

Chris ( Dan. 5:18) Daniel is speaking to Belshazzar who is the son of Nebuchadnezzar ( Dan. 5:2) Daniel tells Belshazzar "the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour". ( Dan. 5:19-20) v20 "But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him". (His kingdom was taken away from him) In ( Dan. 5:21) Daniel is telling of Nebuchadnezzar being driven from his kingdom till he knew that the most High God ruled in the kingdom of men. Here is when that happened in ( Dan. 4:34-37) v34 "I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever" v36 "At the same time my reason returned unto me; and for the glory of my kingdom, mine honour and brightness returned unto me; and mine counsellors and my lords sought unto me; and I established in my kingdom, and excellent majesty was added unto me" ( Dan. 4:37) Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven".

Now back to Daniel speaking to Belshazzar, he tells him in ( Dan. 5:22) "O Belshazzar, hast no humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this"

Daniel tells him he knew all about his father being driven from his kingdom until he knew that the most High ruled in the kingdom of men.

Nebuchadnezzar did praise and honour God in ( Dan. 4:34,37) His son knew all this and still ( Dan. 5:22-23) v23 "But thou lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven" he also said "and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, and brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified". These were his gods. That explains why Belshazzar said "the spirit of the gods".

Not my assumption or my private interpretation Chris.

Thanks and God Bless.

Page 2. Jimbob.

Yet, after writing all that, my main point in this refers to the accuracy of the KJB in Daniel 3:25. Disregarding the kings, even their beliefs, how does the LORD permit 'Son of God' to be written, yet allow 'spirit of the gods' in another passage? And we can't appeal to one king being moved by seeing a fourth being in the furnace (also Daniel 4:8,9), & the other king a non-believer speaking in Daniel 5:14. If the Bible is to reflect the Son & Spirit of God in these passages, then the wording must be consistent & not according to people's beliefs.

You wrote, "These were his gods. That explains why Belshazzar said "the spirit of the gods"". Then if this is true here, then it must be true in Daniel 3:25 (i.e. it should read 'son of the gods', since Nebuchadnezzar exclaimed what he knew at the time, that this being appeared to be a son (or angel) of one of his gods). As well, in Daniel 4:8,9, Nebuchadnezzar should not have then appealed to the 'spirit of his gods' if he believed that it was indeed the 'Son of God' in the furnace. Even if he was unsure about these divine manifestations, at least there should have been consistency with the KJB translators (either, 'Son & Spirit', or 'son & spirit). Here then is the inconsistency which hasn't been properly dealt with. Blessings.

Page 1.

Thank you Jimbob. I went through your comment & the Scriptures you provided & found no reason to fault it. Even where the Scripture shows that Nebuchadnezzar praised the God of Heaven, "Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase" ( Daniel 4:37) can indicate that he turned aside completely from his gods to serve the Living God. Therefore, I remarked that one's belief to whether he fully believed in the True God, or just lifted Him up to a higher position in his mind & worship, remains 'one's personal interpretation of that passage'.

We don't get any further explanation or detail to show his disregarding his other gods. And why I bring this to question is that, from my personal knowledge of another similar religion that has a multiplicity of gods, as well as giving greater honor to one (or some) of them, they also don't have any problem in adding another god into that mix. When a Hindu hears of the True God & His Son, maybe even receiving some 'blessing' as a result of a Christian's message or prayers for them, they can often place an image of 'Jesus' alongside other images of their deities in their puja (worship) room in their home. They will definitely give praise & worship to Jesus, probably based on what they've received or hope to further gain, but clearly are far from true knowledge & saving faith & likely never to leave their other gods to serve the True One. You may well be correct that the king truly believed, but that matter in my mind, remains open to where his heart truly was, given his position & power in an idolatrous society; in other words, how long can a regent last who commands that only the God of Heaven be worshiped by all his subjects?

Page 1.

Thank you for your response Jimbob. Going through the points you raised:

a. Yes, I do believe that the Holy Scriptures are God-breathed; but I also believe that what was given as written records were direct words that people spoke, just as the Words that the LORD Himself spoke. So here in Daniel, we read the words that Nebuchadnezzar spoke. Should I then dismiss the king's words because various translations reveal something different? I cannot accept that the king said, "the form of the fourth is like the Son of God" (KJV), when the original texts show, "the fourth looks like a son of the gods" (NIV). I understand God-breathed as both what was directly spoken by God/what He put upon the heart & mind of the prophets to write & what the prophets recorded when hearing or receiving the words of man. If you spoke some words to me & I wrote them down exactly as given, I don't believe that I need any external intervention to help me write those words. If I recorded your words correctly as I heard them, then that remains as truth - what a copyist or language translator does after that will either correctly bring out that word or else presents it as an error.

b. You wrote, "The KJB has said it was the (Son of God) for 400 plus years". You are correct here, even as I checked the 1611 KJB that shows it. But I'm not referring to a 400 year old translation, but to a 2,500 year old Book/Prophecy written in Aramaic & Hebrew, from which the manuscripts have been preserved. Even the Tanakh (the Hebrew Scriptures) record it (in an English translation): "He called out and said, "Behold, I see four free men walking in the midst of the fire, and there is no wound upon them, and the form of the fourth one is like [that of] an angel." Even here, the difference in recording is seen. But in all cases, to assume that 'the fourth one is like the Son of God, i.e. Jesus', is quite inaccurate & demonstrates a certain liberty taken by the KJV translators.

Hello Chris,

I was thinking upon this phrase as you have explained here. I think that the speaker are Babylonians who worshipped many deities and this is why it is said that the fourth is as a son of the gods.

I think that this explanation is an accurate translation because it was the pagans who were expressing their beliefs. But as believers we can recognize that it was not some pagan deity in the fire with the the three Israelites, but either an archangel or pre-incarnate Christ-the Angel of the Lord.

Thank you so much for bringing this view forward in this discussion. Going to the original Hebrew and Greek helps us to find a meaning closer to what was intended by those who wrote the words as they were inspired by God.

Indeed GiGi. Even though, as I've learned, that in Hebrew, even a plural word doesn't always imply plurality, but the word must also be seen in context of the verse or passage. As in Genesis 1:1: some might maintain that 'Elohim' here must refer to other gods apart from Yahweh - but the context of the whole passage speaks about a single God Who created & spoke into being all things. So 'Elohim' is both a single & plural word of 'God, gods, judges, rulers, etc.'; then we can know who is being spoken about as we connect the word with the rest of the passage. Then in Daniel 3:25, alongwith the other references I gave in that Book, it indicates that in context with the beliefs & understandings of the Babylonians, they can't have normally envisaged a single Almighty God to the rejection of their own gods. But as we go through the Book of Daniel, we do see instances where Nebuchadnezzar relented, as far as acknowledging the greatness & power of Daniel's God against his own gods (e.g. Daniel 2:47; Daniel 3:26,28; Daniel 4:37; etc.).

And I saw your other post, about you leaving on your short holiday to Arizona. Have a safe & lovely time with your friend - I'm sure you would have wanted to have a longer time away. We have friends in Bullhead City, just across from the Nevada border - and we spent some time with them a while ago, before Covid struck, traveling together in that great State. My prayers are with you & your dear husband left on his own. And what a great opportunity you had to minister to that couple who missed their bus - may the Lord take them further in their journey in life, experiencing what great things God can do for them & in them. Blessings.

Thanks Chris,

You have explained this well.

My trip was great! The Lord was with us and He brought several people into our sphere who were friendly and helpful. Look forward to going there again. My friend and her husband will be moving there after their house is built in Florence area.

I much preferred the mountains to the valley. But each has its own beauty. The different climate zones was very interesting to see how the topography, vegetation, and temperature varied so much at different elevations. Such a treat to be able to experience all this.

Jesse Please answer this. Do you believe ( Ps. 12:6-7) is True? You say you don't agree with ( Dan. 3:25) in the Niv book, yet you think it is sound doctrine? It is either sound doctrine or its not sound doctrine, there are no in betweens. If its not then that is what we are warned about in ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) Its that simple, its either sound doctrine or its corrupt! The reason I compare the Niv is that I happen to have one from years ago that's why I compare it. But I believe ALL modern versions are corrupt (changed) words of men. Modern versions are all private interpretation. I didn't mention those verses you presented because my KJB has over 2000 pages, the Niv has over 2000 pages. I've not gotten around to all of it yet, give me a little more time Jesse. Truth stands!

About when God preserved His Word? ( Ps. 12:7) Tells us "from this generation for ever" It sounds like that means from the time period, or the generation the book of Psalms was written FOR EVER! So that means we have to have that preserved Word today. From all these comparisons you have seen, you still doubt the KJB is the True Word of God. That is truly disheartening Jesse.

You mentioned ( Mt. 4:4) in the Niv saying "but on every word that comes from the mouth of God". Do you see that as a positive in this discussion? I completely disagree. If one said it why is the other not saying it? (confusion) Both said the same thing in the KJB! Thats ((another reason to doubt)) the Niv not trust it.

You said "God Inspired and commissioned those holy men who gave us His Word". He did in ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) ((prophecy)) is the subject in those verses. Thats how we got the pure, Inspired Word of God today. (The prophecy).

You said the KJB translators were commissioned by King James himself. How could you possibly know that God didn't use him like God used so many others to fulfill His Word? After all God cannot lie, He said He would preserve His Word for ever

( Ps. 12:6-7) And He did! No offence Jesse. Blessings.

Jimbob,

Are you seriously asking me if I believe Psalm 12:6-7 is true? Well, I must say that I am humored by that question. I'm sorry, but I'm not even going to answer that one. I said that I didn't agree with Daniel 3:25, but unless I specifically said anything about it being sound doctrine, please do not tell me what I think because you have no idea what I think.

Jimbob, I have never once said that I doubt the KJB is the True Word of God. That is an assumption on your part, and a poor one at that! In fact, I've said that the KJB is the only Bible I own, the one I read and study from, and my Bible of choice, so your assumption falls completely flat!

I'll answer one more question, and then I am done with this conversation. You ask me how can I possibly know that God didn't use King James like God used so many others to fulfill His Word?

I have no way of knowing that, just the same as you have no way of knowing that He did. So where does that leave us? Should we just make assumptions?

Jimbob, if it makes you feel any better, I have no plans on trading in my King James Bible. But if you are wanting me to believe that "ALL" modern versions are corrupt, I need something more solid as proof, not just telling me they are all corrupt.

There are a few other "modern" versions that I find to be very solid. There is no reason for me to list them since your mind is already made up that they are all corrupt!

If you're not angry with me yet, I would like your thoughts on the Geneva Bible.

Jimbob, I do wish you well. You seem a little too extreme for me, but that's okay. I admire your zeal.

May the Lord continue to bless you, and may you continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Good night!

Jesse I'm not angry with you. Yes I did ask if you Believe ( Ps. 12:6-7) is True. If you do then you see God's Words as (pure) Words. The word (pure) is #2889; it means pure (in a physical, ceremonial or moral sense) clean, ((sound)) unadulterated, uncontaminated, innocent or holy.

God tells us in ( 2 Tim. 3:16) that ALL Scripture is given by Inspiration of God. That would be the Scripture that is (sound) doctrine.

We clearly do have doctrine today that is not (sound) doctrine as told in ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) The word (sound) is #5198; it means to be uncorrupt (true in doctrine).

Then how can the doctrine in the KJB and the Niv both be (sound) doctrine? in ( Dan. 3:25)?

One says "the Son of God" We all know who that is! the other says "a son of the gods".

We cant have it both ways Jesse.

The KJB was translated by men who were called holy men of God who were moved by the Holy Ghost ( 2 Pet. 2:19-21) Which has said the same thing for more than 400 years, ( 1 Cor. 1:10) then we have an explosion of other bibles being translated by just men which would be the (private interpretation) spoken of in ( 2 Pet. 1:20).

You said you need something more solid as proof not just telling you they are all corrupt.

I have used Scripture over and over showing you that modern versions are corrupt but you seem to already have your mind made up that this is not the truth.

( Jer. 23:36) The word (perverted) is #2015; it means ((to change)) So this verse is telling us they (changed) the Words of the living God. Who changed those Words Jesse? All modern versions have changed their words didn't they? Some of them change them many times. (How is that Inspired by God?) I can list at least 25 different modern versions, there are many more than that. Are they all the Inspired Word of God?

God was in control of translating His pure Words, He is also in control of it being the most printed book of all time.

( Prov. 30:5-6) ( Rev. 22:18-19) We clearly should not add to His Words.

Blessing to you Jesse.

Hello again, Jimbob

Again, I agree fully with jesse.

Jimbob, you claimed Jesse already had his mind made up on this topic. The same is true of you. It is you who are continuing to "convert" people to your King James Onlyism viewpoint here and continuing this conversation long past the point of being unresolvable.

Jimbob, there is so much we can agree on concerning God's Word. I think it is time to lay this conversation to rest and go on to another topic so this forum can be more beneficial to the many on this forum, both those who post and those who are mostly readers. This conversation is at a standstill and so, let's move on to another topic unrelated to the KJV and into the what the KV teaches on matters of faith, doctrine, and conduct.

Jimbob,

(Part 3):

Jimbob, if the KJB is the most printed book of all time, I am okay with that. But what would you say if you found out that the KJB is not the bestselling translation? You're probably not going to like this, but if you do on-line research, you will see that the NIV is the best-selling bible translation. And no, before you ask again, I do not see that as a positive in this discussion. In fact, I'm not too sure if there is a positive in going back and forth with this. We both read the KJB. Again, it is my bible of choice, but I am not a King James Only believer. I do believe there are some "corrupt" translations out there (not ALL as you say). I also believe there are some very good translations out there that can be trusted.



Instead of continuing this conversation trying to show how corrupt you believe the NIV is, perhaps we can discuss what the KJB translators had to say. Why did King James commission them? Did any of them ever claim inspiration from God? If the translators claimed inspiration, which version of the KJB did they claim to be inspired? Did any of them ever say that the KJB was superior to all previous English translations, or that all translations written afterward should be considered invalid?

Have a great day, Jimbob!

p 2 Jesse Again thank you for your response. You said "The KJB was not written as a standard to be used to prove the validity of other Bible translations". What if the KJB is the True Inspired Word of God? What then Jesse?

You asked me "But what would you say if you found out that the KJB is not the bestselling translation?"

I would say the Word of God is being fulfilled more everyday. These verses tell us that will happen in the Lastdays.

( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) and also ( 1 Tim. 4:1)

You said "I do believe there are some "corrupt" translations out there (not ALL as you say) I also believe there are some good translations out there that can be trusted"

My question to you would be this, How do you know the difference then between the two?

We have to use the Word of God to show us the Truth from the deception. The difference between the good and the bad. If there are doctrines of devils, and doctrine that is not "sound doctrine" then we should rely on God's Word to show us the difference between His True Word, and the doctrine thats not sound!

Thats what I'm doing when I use ( Jer. 23:36) Any Scripture that changes their words would be corrupt, not sound doctrine.

Its not my opinion its from the Word of God.

And ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) The (prophecy) came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

If this is the translators in 1611 (which it is) (bringing forth) the (prophecy, the pure, preserved Word of God) then that makes the KJB the True Inspired Words of the LORD preserved for ever.

( 2 Tim. 3:16) Tells us All ((Scripture is given by inspiration of God)) (Scripture)) (is God breathed). If the KJB is that Scripture then that makes all other scripture corrupt words, or changed words of men. Those men were not inspired by God but they were (moved) by the Holy Ghost. The word (moved) is #5342; it means to "bear" or carry, bring (forth).

They brought forth the Words of the LORD in the KJB.

Blessing to you Jesse.

Dear Jimbob,

Sorry to interject once again., but Jesse has asked you some very valid questions and, since you are perpetuating this thread with your assertions that the the KJV is the ONLY true word of God, then you should be able to answer Jesse's sincere requests. Instead you are deflecting back to your original position. Because you do not give reasonable answers to Jesse's questions, but instead continue to repeatedly state the same belief you hold concerning the KJV, it is clear that you what you believe about the KJV is a position you hold by faith. Go and read an original of the introduction and preface of the KJV by the translators and you will find that they did not state anywhere that their translation was re-inspired by God and that it was error-free. They did not denounce other translations as corrupt, nor did they claim that the KJV was the ONLY preserved and God-inspired translation.

Since these men did not claim what you claim about the translation they created, then what you say about the KJV is based on faith influenced by personal bias and not on facts.

GiGi Welcome back. You said Jesse asked me valid questions and I only deflect. Thats not true GiGi. I cant tell you what the translators were thinking in 1611. Can you? You also said I don't give reasonable answers? All I can do is provide Scripture which is where I get my understanding of the KJB being the True Word of God. There are verses that show us things that can't be ignored, here's an example of one I have provided several times but nobody has commented on it having any meaning other than what I have said it means ( Jer. 23:36) The word (perverted) is #2015; it means ((to change)) What does this verse mean GiGi? This is not my opinion its Scripture written to pastors who feed God's people. ( Jer. 23:1-2) Scripture provided! (What do pastors feed God's people)? That verse is saying someone ((changed)) the words of the living God!

They CHANGED THE WORDS OF THE LIVING GOD! ( Prov. 30:5-6) ( Rev. 22:18-19) We should not change the Words of God.

How can it get any more clear than that? ALL modern versions have changed the Words of the living God.

You said the translators did not state anywhere that their translation was re-inspired by God? Would they have to say it was inspired by God for you to believe it was?

Some have said the prophets and the Apostles were inspired by God. ( 2 Tim. 3:16) Tells us All (scripture) is Inspired by God. Not people!

Can you provide any Scripture that tells us the prophets or Apostles were (Inspired) by God?

You said "Since these men did not claim what you claim about the translation they created, then what you say about the KJV is based on faith influenced by personal bias and not on facts".

I would also disagree with that statement GiGi. If you are provided with Scripture from the Word of God that should be fact enough. Again it is not my opinion! Please disprove ( Jer. 23:36)?

This subject is very important GiGi if the KJB is the Inspired Word of God! And it is!

Blessing to you.

Hello Jimbob,

If you look back on the post you first asked about Jeremiah 23:46 i did give what I believed the Scripture was referring to-those in that day who proclaimed to be prophets but were not called by God do to so and what they prophesied was erroneous and not from God, thus Jeremiah states that they pervert what God has truly said. I stand by that interpretation.

It is stated in 2 Tim. 3:15 that all scripture is God=breathed )or inspired by God_ And in 2 Peter 1:20 it speaks of the apostles and prophets being inspired by the Holy spirit to speak and write the word of God.

Other than referring to these scriptural references, I don't have much more response for you om this subject at this time.

GiGi thank you for responding. You did give your understanding of ( Jer. 23:36) as being spoken of the prophets in the days of Jeremiah. Do you think that chapter could possibly be prophecy for this time we live in now? I believe it is prophecy for today!

You said "And in ( 2 Pet. 1:20) it speaks of the apostles and prophets being inspired by the Holy Ghost to speak and write the Word of God"

This verse does not mention apostles or prophets.

Should we believe that God preserved His Words in the Hebrew manuscripts as the Old Testament.

Then God preserved His Words in the Greek, which would be the books that were written during the time of Christ.

Then all His Words would have been preserved in the time period before the KJB was translated.

Is it logical to believe that God would not want His Word preserved for the time period when there would be much more evil in the world, more corruption, more deception, and more false doctrine and false prophets than ever before?

And even the time period of the Lastdays when Satan will soon be cast to the earth to deceive the whole world?

Is it logical to believe that God would not preserve His Word for this time period?

You said "there is so much we can agree on concerning God's Word"

Are we really looking to "agree" on all things GiGi, or is it more important for us to deeply discuss topics to find the Truth in Scripture?

You also said "go on another topic so this forum can be more beneficial to the many on this forum".

If the KJB is the True Inspired Word of God then it is truly beneficial for all others in this forum to see that Truth whether it be the many who do post, or those who only read the posts. Or especially those new Christians who are searching for the Truth.

The Truth does matter GiGi.

I do not wish to offend you GiGi, I do have respect for you and all others who post here, but I will not stop posting what is the Truth from the Word of God.

I don't expect a response unless you feel lead.

God Bless you GiGi.

Dear Jimbob,

to answer concerning the Jeremiah 23:36 verse and the entire chapter-I do not believe that it is prophecy for today or to verify the KJV.

As to seeking to discuss things that are true, I agree.

As to continuing this thread, I think that you have stated your view multiple times and so those who read along or have posted have a clear understanding of your position. Because of this, I recommend moving on to another topic, not because I don't think it is important to discuss this topic, but because it has been fairly thoroughly presented with in depth explanations already.

Therefore, I would hope to see another topic discussed by those on this forum at this time. I don't have any sense of urging to introduce another topic at this time. Hopefully, others do. I welcome a fresh topic at this time. But this does not necessitate that you do so either.

have a wonderful day today Jimbob. I will be reading, but don't wish to engage in this topic further unless urged to do so by the Holy Spirit because I want to keep this thread from belaboring the point of view of those who participate or to have this thread appear quarrelsome in any way.

GiGi

The 23th chapter of Jeremiah is no doubt prophecy. I'm sorry but I honestly don't see how someone as smart as you are, and as knowledgeable in the Word of God as you are, cannot see that. If we get certain areas of Scripture wrong with our interpretation then that could and will throw off other parts of Scripture so we also get those parts wrong, especially in the prophecies for the Lastdays, which we are living now. Not meaning anything here other than trying to be helpful GiGi.

I just want to make one more point.

I'm not really concerned about people understanding my position, I think most here, if not all do already know my position on the KJB. Among other things. It's much more important to me that I share the truth.

No need for a response unless you feel led.

God Bless you GiGi.

Please re-read ( Jer. 23).

Dear Jimbob,

Sorry to interject once again., but Jesse has asked you some very valid questions and, since you are perpetuating this thread with your assertions that the the KJV is the ONLY true word of God, then you should be able to answer Jesse's sincere requests. Instead you are deflecting back to your original position. Because you do not give reasonable answers to Jesse's questions, but instead continue to repeatedly state the same belief you hold concerning the KJV, it is clear that you what you believe about the KJV is a position you hold by faith. Go and read an original of the introduction and preface of the KJV by the translators and you will find that they did not state anywhere that their translation was re-inspired by God and that it was error-free. They did not denounce other translations as corrupt, nor did they claim that the KJV was the ONLY preserved and God-inspired translation.

Since these men did not claim what you claim about the translation they created, then what you say about the KJV is based on faith influenced by personal bias and not on facts.

(Part 2):

Jimbob,

Did you know that there were other English translations before the KJB? Were they also corrupt? Were the KJB translators King James Onlyists? Did they think that their translation alone was the word of God. Did they think that all previous translations were corrupt? Did they think that any translation written after theirs should be automatically discarded and labeled as being corrupt? I think these are valid questions. Can you please answer these?

You also ask me how would I know the difference between a corrupt translation and one that can be trusted? First of all, I will say that I trust the KJB. But there is no way that I can tell you that the KJB is a perfect word for word (no errors) translation without taking the same materials the translators used and testing putting them to the test. After all, we are told to test all things. But since I am not the one trying to prove that the KJB is the only translation that is the pure perfect word of God, and that all others are corrupt, perhaps maybe you can take this task on? And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but 2 Timothy 4:3-4, 1 Timothy 4:1, and Jeremiah 23:36 have nothing to do with bible translations. You are also misapplying those verses.

Blessings to you also!

p2 Jesse again thank you for your response. You said "And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but ( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) ( 1 Tim. 4:1) and ( Jer. 23:36) have nothing to do with bible translations. You are also misapplying those verses".

( 2 Tim. 4:3-4) v3 Tells us "For the time will come when they will not endure (sound) ((doctrine))

v4 Tells us "And they shall turn their ears ((from the truth))

The word (sound) is #5198; it means to be uncorrupt (TRUE IN DOCTRINE)

The word (doctrine) is #1319; it means instruction (the function or the information) doctrine, learning, teaching.

Where do we get our ((instruction)) or our ((information)) from the LORD? In the Bibles we read, and learn from, and teach from. Right?

That is our doctrine.

The time ((will come)) (future tense, as in today) when they will not endure sound doctrine but will turn from the truth as ( 2 Tim. 4:4) tells us.

If the KJB is that truth then all modern versions are causing many to turn from that truth.

( 1 Tim. 4:1) Tells us in the latter times some will depart from the faith giving heed to seducing spirits and ((doctrines of devils)) The latter times would be the time we live in right now, Right?

(doctrines) would be where we get our ((instruction)) from our God. It is the Bibles we use today.

So according to this verse some doctrines, or Bibles many use today would be doctrines of devils.

As for you saying ( Jer. 23:6) has nothing to do with Bible translations, I completely disagree.

Would you please explain what the meaning of that verse is if it has nothing to do with Bible translations?

I have provided Scripture with an explanation to everything I believe to be true on this subject as to show why I believe it to be the truth. We must keep Scripture in context to find the Truth, the above Scriptures are in context.

This is Not just my opinion Jesse.

Thank you again, and God Bless you.

Jimbob,

Where in the Bible do you read that the KJV translators were "inspired" by God so that the translation is without any error of any kind?

David0921 ( 2 Pet. 1:19-21) v20 Tells us "that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation".

The word (prophecy) is #4394; it means ("prophecy") prediction (scriptural or other) This prophecy is the Word of God, mainly the NT and this verse tells us it came not in old time by the will of men: but holy men of God spake as they were ((moved)) by the Holy Ghost.

The word (scripture) is #1124; it means a document, i.e. holy Writ (or its contents or a statement in it) to write, to describe.

This clearly tells us the (scripture) is a written document. You might say in a Bible.

This prophecy is a written document that came in old time by men who were ((moved by the Holy Ghost))

Then there's ( Ps. 12:6-7) v6 "The words of the LORD are pure words"

The word (pure) is 2889; it means pure (in a physical, chemical, ceremonial or moral sense) sound, unadulterated, uncontaminated, morally innocent or holy.

v7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt ((preserve them)) from this generation ((for ever)).

The word (preserve) is #5341; it means to guard, to protect, maintain, obey.

If we didn't have those pure, unadulterated, uncontaminated, sound words today then this verse would be a lie.

( Prov. 30:5-6) v5 ((Every word)) of God is pure.

v6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

If we didn't have those pure words today then what is this verse saying we should not add unto?

( Rev. 22:18-19) We are not to add to or take away from the words of the ((prophecy)) of this book.

God came to this earth in a flesh body as Jesus Christ ( Jn. 1:1-3,14)

How can we believe that God didn't want ((His Words)) to be written down and documented exactly as He spoke them, and preserved them for the Last generations? (holy men of God spake as they were ((moved)) by the Holy Ghost) in 1611.

God is not the author of confusion.

Thanks for your comment David.

Blessings.