The Second Coming (of Jesus Christ)

There are some who believe the KJV is the only authorized translation of the Bible. Some are more fervent and believe the KJV is the actual Bible authorized by God and all the other versions including in other languages are not the Bible. If you're one of these two groups, your reason for using the KJV is religious, I won't argue with you. I, however, will not be using the KJV.

Some people argue that they use the KJV because it is no longer under copyright. This is another false claim. It is still under copyright. The ASV should be used if someone is really worried about copyright. Although, I've never seen anyone sued over copyright infringement for quoting sections of the Bible online.

The KJV was written prior to the great vowel shift. Modern readers would likely have difficulty understanding spoken English of that day. The text actually dates back to Tyndale as it doesn't vary substantially from it. Tyndale wrote his versions about 1525-1535. So, the translation is much older than most imagine. It was slightly modified over the next 250 years to become the 1769 Oxford version of the KJV. Although the English and American alphabets have changed since 1769, and the spellings have definitely changed, the words themselves have not changed substantially from the 1769 version.

The first problem with the KJV are the words that people simply don't know and are not in common usage today. Dead words actually the smallest problem. As one quickly recognizes that the word is one that he or she does not know and looks it up to try to find out what it means. For me, this seems like a silly waste of time, but you may have a lot more time on your hands to look up dead words. However, as I said before, this is the smallest problem.

The next problem is grammar. Grammar has changed since the 1500s. Although, one might be able to piece together what the intended meaning was, in many verses the wrong meaning is usually deduced unless one uses a modern translation to find out what it said ahead of time. Now you're having to look up how Grammar was used in the 16th century to make sure you understood it correctly. Do you really have that much time one your hands?

Then you have outright mistranslations in the KJV. The more silly ones include the mythical creatures - cockatrice and unicorn. Now you have no clue what the original text actually said unless you go to a modern translation. Why not use one to begin with?

Finally, the worst one are the false friends. Words which occur in our modern language but actually have a completely different meaning now and the old meaning is no longer in standard dictionaries. This is especially bad because in some cases you won't realize that there is something to look up because the newer definitions seems to work fine. Now you're having to look up every word in an unabridged dictionary to make sure. Do you have an Unabridged Oxford Dictionary? Do you know what one is? How many volumes does it have?

In textual and religious criticism, I see no to use the KJV. However, some may dishonestly use the KJV to ridicule the text and the beliefs of others. I had excellent cause to believe this is how it was being used when I made the response I did. Are you defending the use of the KJV to ridicule the text and the beliefs of others?

 

Most believe in either a immediate spirit afterlife followed by a bodily resurrection later. Or they believe in an immediate afterlife in a body in heaven.

The Gnostics believe in the "resurrection" of only the spirit and not the body. Most Gnostics actually don't believe in resurrection and only believe the spirit lives on past the mortal bodily shell. Gnosticism is a parasitic religion which will take on the name of any religion it attaches itself to. So, yes, Gnostics who claim to be Christian will all claim the Gnostic belief and declare it to be Christian.

 

The vast majority of the Christians I have encountered to not believe in a literal bodily resurrection, but in a "new, more perfect" spiritual "body."

 

Here.

What Is the Spiritual Body in 1 Corinthians 15? (logos.com)

"Under this non-competitive schema of spirit and matter, we understand the heavenly flesh of a spiritual body as flesh which is fully alive with the Spirit of God, the Lord and giver of Life. The spiritual body which Paul describes here evokes not disembodied forms or apparitions, but bodies saturated in the Spirit.soma pneumatikon (v. 44) ‘a body made up of spirit.’ … He means, rather, that the resurrection body will be animated and empowered by the Spirit, just as the present physical body (the soma psychikon) is animated and empowered by a physical life principle or force, which the creation story says God breathed into human beings.” Ben Witherington III, Conflict and Community in Corinth: Socio-rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), 308." title="" aria-describedby="qtip-0" style="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(68, 68, 6; -webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; padding-bottom: 2px; transition: all 0.15s ease-in-out 0s; box-shadow: rgba(68, 68, 68, 0.5) 0px 1px 0px;">1 Such bodies find themselves so fully vivified and empowered that their former existence seems in comparison to have been like a shadow, almost like a dead man walking or one having been perpetually exhausted. The space opened up by the operation of the Spirit enables the creature to become fully itself, and these two are not in competition."

 

Yes. I understand you have another view. Most Christians disagree. I disagree with you claiming that they aren't real Christians. I think your view has a lot of value, but disagree with your claim that those who feel otherwise are not real Christians. Again, MOST Christians believe in a spiritual, not physical, afterlife.

 

That is a quote from Logos.

Logos is as mainstream Christianity as you can get.

Oh, and I never said I said I shared this point of view.

 

You provided quotes from humans, not from Logos. And Christians stole the theological concept of Logos from the Greeks anyway.

 

Yes. And that was several centuries after Greek pagans had invoked the concept of the Logos and had actually provided philosophical details for it. Christians stole the concept from the pagans.

 

Logos is the name of the Biblical and ancient texts software which many if not most of the prominent theologians in Christianity use. In addition, theology students are commonly required to use this software in their studies.

You mentioned a " "new, more perfect" spiritual "body." " - not me. A provided a link to the most mainstream source of information describing the meaning of the phrase you provided.

Have you ever thought that your open hostility toward Christians may actually cause you not to meet Christians representative of Christianity?

You're getting off track, but the personification of God's word occurred either before Heraclitus or during the life of Heraclitus depending on when you date the books of the Old Testament. Most textual scholars will date the books personifying the word of God to before Heraclitus.

Do you believe concepts are property which can be stolen? I don't know of any law or government at any time which considered concepts to be property. Perhaps you can enlighten me about one?

 

"Logos" isn't software, and the philosophical concept predates Christianity. And, no, there is no Jewish or Christian source that talks about Logos in this manner before Heraclitus . . . especially since Heraclitus predates Christianity.

 

what "****ing language" is your bible written in, mine is English, maybe you need to buy a new "****ing Bible".

 

God, there are just so many incorrect things here. But let's just start with your claim about the vowel shift . . . you do realize that's a problem for SPOKEN language, not WRITTEN language, right? You realize that the vowel shift was about PRONOUNCIATION? No remotely educated person is going to have a hard time reading the KJV because of vowel shift. Can you even think of any verse of the KJV that is somehow difficult to understand because of vowel shift? No. You can't.

 

I believe that our Creator is infinitely ancient and has learned and in a sense "evolved" in Energy from Quantum Vacuum. I believe that there is some sort of deep spiritual meaning in every word in Zechariah 14.... that will happen literally.... and yes.... it will be broadcast on TV and the internet to all nations from Jerusalem.

I believe that our Creator is doing eight billion reality film projects with each of our lives.....
the Life Review of near death experience fame gives us an idea about how we eventually can get something far beyond an Academy Award for the role that we volunteered to play out under the sun even before we were conceived.

Zechariah 14 does not rule out possibility of Jesus going somewhere else on earth before going to Jerusalem... but what He does in Jerusalem will be the sign that he is Moshiach ben David.

Zechariah

In John chapter seven Jesus explains hidden meaning in the eighth day of the Festival of Tabernacles or Sukkot.

37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.

38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.

39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

40 Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet.

41 Others said, This is the Christ. But some said, Shall Christ come out of Galilee?

42 Hath not the scripture said, That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and out of the town of Bethlehem, where David was?

43 So there was a division among the people because of him.

 

Yes, I'm waiting for you to wow me with your reading comprehension skill. Please go ahead and give your explanation.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

 

Yes, you're using quite a bit of eisegesis. With that much eisegesis, one might wonder why you'd bother to even read the text to begin with.

But that was not the passage I was wanting to know your interpretation of. Please tell me what the following much easier passage means.

The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

 

I do not know what you want, but at least you're not swearing anymore, progress...

 

Well, since there is a semicolon, that means we have two separate, independent clauses. So a modern English speaker (assuming they know their basic punctuation) would see these as basically two different sentences. And, in fact, you can always substitute a period/full stop for a semicolon. It's more stylistic than functional.

So, first independent clause is: "The LORD is my shepherd." I'm not sure what you find confusing about this, but it's a common motif that isn't even just limited to Christianity. This is creating an analogy where God is the shepherd and his followers are the sheep, implying that God cares for his followers and takes care of their wellbeing while protecting them from threats.

The second independent clause (which, again, means it is independent from the other clause and basically serves as its own sentence) is: "I shall not want." I assume this is the one that tripped you up, though I think most English speaking adults can get this rather easily. If it helps, you can reword it in your head as "I shall not be left wanting" or "I'm not left wanting for anything. If you continue reading the verses that follow, the context is pretty clear. The author goes on listening things he's not "wanting" for because of God.

 

Well, considering what happened to him last time...

 

Even if you did actually get the meaning of "want" correct which you managed to make ambiguous, you still got it wrong. (Defining a word with the same word is circular and leads nowhere.)

There is only one meaning for "want" - to be destitute. There is no need for context - that's why I didn't give context verses. So, when you say the context is pretty clear, you completely missed the point. There was only one definition for the word at that time and everyone used the word "want" in the same way.

In today's society, whenever people say they want, no one thinks they're destitute. The old meaning is kept alive only because of the popularity of the Psalm - not because that definition is actually used by anyone in daily life.

In many of the other passages, translators were able to remove the archaic words without offending anyone in modern translations. So, no more cockatrices and unicorns.

There are harder false friends in the KJV such as

Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things.

Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing

If you just like the KJV because it was the Bible you grew up with, or it sounds poetic to you, or whatever, that's fine. But if I'm dealing with someone who is quoting the KJV and using a poor translation to ridicule the Bible, that is intellectually dishonest and I'm going to call it out.

 

The meaning for "want" here is literally what the term meant at the time. If you are going to tell me you can't read that, then I guess we can move on to cockatrices and unicorns, but so far you aren't even ready basic sentences. Why are you still claiming that you can't read the KJV? There are children who can do so. Why can't you?

 

Yes, and no one is using that in everyday speech now.

Never made that claim.

 

@yardmeat

Why do you feel the need to defend the KJV?

 

But most English speakers can figure it out rather easily. Why do you still pretend you can't read the KJV?

 

I'm not defending the KJV. I have complaints against it, especially related to the text used for translation. I'm arguing against your claim that you can't read it. I don't believe you. I think you can easily read it.