King James Translators didn't knew 'JESUS'
- Thread starter iesous
- Start date
Faithful Son
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,293
What name did they use iesous? 
What you say is a complete fallacy my dear brother. Take the time to read the early chapters of the bible........Luke for example. The name Jesus was given to him at birth....and under the direction of the Holy Spirit.
Do not get side tracked seeking to discuss trivial matters.......Get to know Jesus yourself...........He is alive....and living in His church......'us'
One ounce of experience.....is to be preferred to one ton......of theory....which is what you are presenting.
You do not appear to have met the Master yet...........I wonder why....
Humble your-self and the lord will draw near you.......Humble yourself and His blessing will cheer you.....He walketh not with the proud and the scornful......Humble yourself....to walk with God.
In His LOve
Faithful Son
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,293
Great to know you're around Stephen, I actually thought Jesus had another name previously, just shows how a person can be fooled
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,077
Please don't bring false teachings here. Read the forum rules, abide by them or else you will not be allowed to participate here. No disrespect to GOD's Word nor this forum will be welcomed a second chance. Consider this a fair warning. This is actually the 2nd time you made a false statement. One more, your account will be closed for good.
Your claim that the name Jesus did not appear in KJV 1611 is wrong. Here I find a reliable online viewable KJV 1611
http://bibledatabase.net/html/kjv/index.html
I suggest humbling yourself and seeking Truth instead of your own understanding. Just like GOD taught us. You will not find a better path than Jesus Christ our GOD.
Proverbs 3:5
Trust in the LORD with all your heart,and do not lean on your ownunderstanding.
Are You serious, or is this thread a joke?
The first printing of the KJV used a gothic print type and a different spelling. As far as I know, the first English bible using the Latin print with a J letter instead of an I, for the same sound; was the Geneva bible. It was still a relatively new thing. There are a few good biographical books on the King James, Alistair Mcgraths, for instance; so you really have no excuse, apart from being a wind-up.
God bless thee,
and may you get to know the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord God and Saviour as much as many of the KJV translators did.
The first printing of the KJV used a gothic print type and a different spelling. As far as I know, the first English bible using the Latin print with a J letter instead of an I, for the same sound; was the Geneva bible. It was still a relatively new thing. There are a few good biographical books on the King James, Alistair Mcgraths, for instance; so you really have no excuse, apart from being a wind-up.
God bless thee,
and may you get to know the Lord Jesus Christ as your Lord God and Saviour as much as many of the KJV translators did.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,077
Read the forum rules. You may not post any links without my permission, neither do you need to provide any links because no link is going to prove your point worthy nor prove anything that the True Holy Bible hasn't spoken already. Do not post any more false anti-Scripture, that is the truth here.
You must get a facsimile of the 1611 KJV
Dear, How can I proof my words if I am not allowed to cite links to the 1611 KJV Facsimile?
With Love
Iesous
Dear, How can I proof my words if I am not allowed to cite links to the 1611 KJV Facsimile?
You are only allowed to post URLs to other sites after you have made 100 posts or more and asked the administrator for permission
I had to remove the link that you made in order to send this post, because it didn't go.
With Love
Iesous
Dear, it's just a photo of the first page of the New Testament
If you allow to me to show a photo of the first page of the New Testament of the 1611 King James Version, you and the readers will see
IESVS CHRIST
or some person of this forum can search and proof that my words are according to facts.
With Love
Iesous
If you allow to me to show a photo of the first page of the New Testament of the 1611 King James Version, you and the readers will see
IESVS CHRIST
or some person of this forum can search and proof that my words are according to facts.
With Love
Iesous
God bless you dear brother out in Venezaula. At this moment in time you are on the wrong track......
Jesus said "I am the door by me if any man enter in he will be saved" Salvation is in Jesus.........only. There is no other Saviour. Not the Church, not Theory, not History, not Books.....only Jesus.
I councel you to look for Jesus. If you seek Him you will find Him, if you seek with all of your heart. Sorry if we appear to be rather dogmatic....."but narrow is the way that leadeth unto lfe, and few find it, and broad is the way leading to destruction, and many therebe which go in there-at" Rather late here for me to look up the scripture ref. fopr that. But if you are thirsty.....for God.........you will find it.
God Bless You
Jesus said "I am the door by me if any man enter in he will be saved" Salvation is in Jesus.........only. There is no other Saviour. Not the Church, not Theory, not History, not Books.....only Jesus.
I councel you to look for Jesus. If you seek Him you will find Him, if you seek with all of your heart. Sorry if we appear to be rather dogmatic....."but narrow is the way that leadeth unto lfe, and few find it, and broad is the way leading to destruction, and many therebe which go in there-at" Rather late here for me to look up the scripture ref. fopr that. But if you are thirsty.....for God.........you will find it.
God Bless You
Iesvs Christ
Dear Teresa, peace
I am not allow to cite links in this forum; let's try the following way, put together the following four lines:
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
And get that link
Also in
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
With Love
Iesous
What name did they use iesous?
Dear Teresa, peace
I am not allow to cite links in this forum; let's try the following way, put together the following four lines:
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
And get that link
Also in
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
With Love
Iesous
Dear, Stephen the intend of your is one different thing
Dear Stephen I don't doubt about the intention of your sweet heart, but that doesn't change the facts, if you put together the following parts and read that link you will see I am according to fact
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
also to
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
With Love
Iesous
Dear Stephen I don't doubt about the intention of your sweet heart, but that doesn't change the facts, if you put together the following parts and read that link you will see I am according to fact
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
also to
[edited by Chad: NO LINKS!!]
With Love
Iesous
Dear friend....here you come again with your links.......
Get this into your head that this Christian forum is entitled 'talkjesus'
Get to know Jesus......and then come back to talk......We are not interested in your 'links' You are persuing a lie. Chasing a shadow.
Meet the Master........then come back
Amen?
The King Iames (James) version was written in english for the people of England. At that time in England, there was no "J" in use. Jesus was spelled "Iesvs". There was also no "U" and a "v" was used. Further, the English didn't have a "w" and would instead print two "v's" next to each other, ie: vv=w
All this being said. iesous is correct in saying that the authors of the King James didn't know Jesus. But iesous forgot to add that they also didn't know Iesus either.
Iesous is stirring up trouble by getting all hung up on semantics rather than understanding. Funny thing is, for someone who wants to focus on the smallest of details, and blow it up to giant purportions, maybe he should have proof read the title of his post...
King James Translators didn't KNEW 'JESUS'?
Shouldn't it be KNOW? In light of this fact, it is my conclusion that the entire thread and all its contents weather written or implied are inherantly false. All this due to a faulty use of grammar. Glorious!
The following taken from wikipedia...
FYI: The Douai Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douay-Rheims Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a Catholic translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one large volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing religion in England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Catholic Reformation.
The complete Douai Bible appeared just in time to be of some use to the preparers of King James' version.
The center of English Catholicism was the English College at Douai, in France, founded (in 1568) by William Allen...for the purpose of training priests to convert the English again to Catholicism. And it was here where the officially authorized Catholic translation of the Bible into English was produced.
[The Rheims-Douai Bible also (and before the KJV) did not use a 'J', but rather an 'I'.]
So to summerize...the translators of the King James Version didn't know 'Jesus', but DID know 'Iesvs', who is the Christ, the messiah, and only begotten son of God, our redeemer, and savior. Which we (today) call 'Jesus' and they and us both pronounced the same. iesous, on the other hand, I'm not sure about.
All have a blessed day,
Nigh
All this being said. iesous is correct in saying that the authors of the King James didn't know Jesus. But iesous forgot to add that they also didn't know Iesus either.
Iesous is stirring up trouble by getting all hung up on semantics rather than understanding. Funny thing is, for someone who wants to focus on the smallest of details, and blow it up to giant purportions, maybe he should have proof read the title of his post...
King James Translators didn't KNEW 'JESUS'?
Shouldn't it be KNOW? In light of this fact, it is my conclusion that the entire thread and all its contents weather written or implied are inherantly false. All this due to a faulty use of grammar. Glorious!
The following taken from wikipedia...
FYI: The Douai Bible, also known as the Rheims-Douai Bible or Douay-Rheims Bible and abbreviated as D-R, is a Catholic translation of the Bible from the Latin Vulgate into English. The New Testament was published in one large volume with extensive commentary and notes in 1582. The purpose of the version, both the text and notes, was to uphold Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation which was heavily influencing religion in England. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics to support the Catholic Reformation.
The complete Douai Bible appeared just in time to be of some use to the preparers of King James' version.
The center of English Catholicism was the English College at Douai, in France, founded (in 1568) by William Allen...for the purpose of training priests to convert the English again to Catholicism. And it was here where the officially authorized Catholic translation of the Bible into English was produced.
[The Rheims-Douai Bible also (and before the KJV) did not use a 'J', but rather an 'I'.]
So to summerize...the translators of the King James Version didn't know 'Jesus', but DID know 'Iesvs', who is the Christ, the messiah, and only begotten son of God, our redeemer, and savior. Which we (today) call 'Jesus' and they and us both pronounced the same. iesous, on the other hand, I'm not sure about.
All have a blessed day,
Nigh
Last edited:
Heal Nations
Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2006
- Messages
- 11
You do realise iesous that it does not matter what name we call upon the Lord with as long as we know in our hearts who we call upon. "Jesus" wasn't the Lord's actual name and we should all know that by now. His original name was "Yeshuah" and was then traslated into Greek and then we translated it from the Greek spelling into "Jesus."
But anyways the point is that it doesn't matter what we call Him... Jesus is still our Lord.
But anyways the point is that it doesn't matter what we call Him... Jesus is still our Lord.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2004
- Messages
- 17,077
Excellent point. This thread is practically useless in its motive and questioning. Perhaps "interesting" to some, but I honestly find it a senseless subject. GOD knows who we call out upon and today is 2006, not 1611 nor Jesus' time. Welcome to modern english speaking world.
