Quote (DiS505 @ Feb 7 2014 10:44pm)
Judas didn't repent, he felt bad for himself and then killed himself.
To repent means to change your mind, not feel bad.
Also, I don't read the NIV much, lately I've been reading the NASB.
I used to read the New King James, and I've read a good chunk of the old KJV.
It's all the same, except the KJV is written in a way that is hard to understand for those normal people who use modern English.
Also, was there no such thing as Christianity before the KJV was printed? Because about 1600 years passed between the death and resurrection of Christ and the printing of the King James Version.
How do people who don't speak English learn the gospel? Do they have to learn English to become Christians? English didn't even begin to become a language until the 11th century.
Here's some information about the King James Version that you will doubtless cast aside as heresy and blasphemy, since you care more about defending and promoting the King James Version than actually following the teachings of Christ.
The King James Version
The first English language version of the full Bible was John Wycliffe's translation of the Vulgate in 1384. Several other English versions followed, and the beloved King James Version (KJV) was published in 1611. The King James Version, itself, has been updated several times: in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769.
Is the KJV the Best Version?
Some people believe the KJV is the most accurate or only authentic version of the Bible. Some believe the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts the KJV translators worked from were faithfully preserved by God or are the most accurate for some other reason. Others say the translators of all later versions were biased or incompetent in one way or another. Still others say the KJV is a literal and accurate translation while later versions were rewritten to suit the biases of the publishers. However, the vast majority of Bible scholars and Christians reject all these objections as being based on faulty facts and reasoning, and they do not consider the KJV to be more accurate or more sacred than other translations.
Disadvantages
The team of 47 scholars who translated the KJV did an excellent job. However, the English language has changed a lot in the nearly 400 years since it was published. Many KJV words and phrases, such as Lord of hosts, sabaoth, emerods and concupiscence, would not be meaningful to most people today. Worse, many other KJV words, such as charity, trespass, profit, cousin, and remission, have different primary meanings today than they did in 1611 and could mislead the reader. As a result, many English-speaking people find the KJV is quite difficult to read and understand.
Modern Bible Versions
Recent developments in archaeology, scientific dating methods and Biblical scholarship have made possible a number of modern, more accurate English translations of the scriptures. These newer versions are translated from the oldest and best ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, rather than from the King James version or the Latin Vulgate.
Advantages of Modern Translations
Although the newer translations are believed to be more accurate than the KJV, the differences are minor. No significant changes of belief or interpretation would result from the many minor corrections. The main advantage of the modern translations is that they are written in modern English so the reader will not be mystified or misled by the archaic English of the KJV. The mainstream modern Bible versions have been translated by teams of devout Bible scholars who have prayerfully done their very best to convey the true meaning of the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts to the modern reader. These modern translations have been adopted by many churches, both Protestant and Catholic, for use in worship.
Omitted Verses
It is often pointed out that modern translations omit a few of the verses found in the KJV, and this is sometimes believed to be an attempt to distort the Bible's teachings. However, the reason is that certain verses are not found in the oldest and best Bible manuscripts. Thus, they are omitted to accurately preserve the original Bible text. (The chapter and verse numbers were added to the Bible in the Middle Ages; they were not part of the original Bible manuscripts. Thus, an omitted verse does not mean that something was omitted from the original texts.)
Some of these extra verses were added to certain manuscript copies as margin notes or as prayers for use in public worship. Those manuscripts were then copied and recopied without making it clear that the extra verses were later additions. The most famous example is the doxology, "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen." that the KJV adds to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6:13. That phrase is not found in any of the oldest manuscripts of Matthew.
"Then Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned,
repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders" - Matthew 27:3
^^ Judas repented himself of his sins, he didnt repent before God by faith in Christ Jesus. Now you do the same thing because you refuse to submit to Christ's righteousness with faith in His blood from the cross (Romans 10:4).
All your arguments are unscriptural. The King James is not a version, it is the Bible- being the word of God perfectly preserved, containing the original masoretic&receptus texts. The vulgate is Jerome's latin translation of ~400 A.D, it is a corrupt Vaticanus manuscript inspired from the Septuagint- as are all of today's translations.
You cant make your case with scripture so you have to run to the secular authority of men that deny that of the King James text- which means your position of liberalism is already defeated.