King James Version of the Bible

[Robbie_James_Francis]

I posted this in the Baptist forum too...apologies, but I'd like to get two different views. Thanks! :)

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF

[hindsey]

Robbie, I check out this forum as well. I'm shocked that nobody gave you a response here though....

[JM]

For the same reasons the RC Church believes the Latin Vulgate is the best...

[e=mv^2]

Because it is translated from the textus receptus.

Just as an FYI, there are multiple threads on this issue in this forum if you scroll down half the page. KJV is a pretty big issue around here.

[Chief117]

I've never really heard people's reasoning for liking the KJV so much. I'm personally not keen on it. In fact, one time I found an error that I disliked so much that I don't think I'll read it ever again except to compare translations, which I do frequently in word studies.

4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. [emphasis added]

The fact is, Easter is not a Christian event. Easter isn't Christian at all. Easter is a pagan holiday that is modeled after pagan beliefs and traditions. It just so happens that the majority of the U.S. thinks that Easter is the same thing as passover. In the above translation, the word should have been "Passover". To translate the word as Easter is not only a huge mistake, its an offensive one.

[TwinCrier]

I've never really heard people's reasoning for liking the KJV so much. I'm personally not keen on it. In fact, one time I found an error that I disliked so much that I don't think I'll read it ever again except to compare translations, which I do frequently in word studies.



The fact is, Easter is not a Christian event. Easter isn't Christian at all. Easter is a pagan holiday that is modeled after pagan beliefs and traditions. It just so happens that the majority of the U.S. thinks that Easter is the same thing as passover. In the above translation, the word should have been "Passover". To translate the word as Easter is not only a huge mistake, its an offensive one.I don't want to highjack this thread, but translation to Easter isn't the error, it's calling the pagan holiday referred to Passover.



The events recorded in Acts 12:3-4 occurred during the days of unleavened bread. In other words, the Passover in that particular year had passed, it was history, it had gone. Why, then, would Herod wait for an event which had already passed? Surely Herod knew that the Passover had passed and that the days of unleavened bread were in progress.

What, then, was Herod really waiting for before releasing Peter? The answer is: Herod was waiting for Easter to come and go - just as the King James Version says. We can be confident that the translators of the KJV knew full well why in this passage they rendered the word 'Pesah' as 'Easter' and not 'Passover' as at other times. Their combined knowledge of Hebrew and Greek and the vast amount of manuscript evidence before them (thousands of copies, versions, and church-father citations etc.) were allused to arrive at every word in the King James Version. Are we, whose knowledge of these languages is microscopic by comparison, to challenge their judgment? The fact is that Herod, during the days of unleavened bread, was not waiting for the Passover - which had come and gone; he was waiting for Easter just as the KJV says. source: http://www.avoiceinthewilderness.org/vital/kjv/verpart1-5.html

If you want to discuss this further, we should probably start a new topic about the supposed errors of the KJV.

[Andyman_1970]

The fact is, Easter is not a Christian event. Easter isn't Christian at all. Easter is a pagan holiday that is modeled after pagan beliefs and traditions. It just so happens that the majority of the U.S. thinks that Easter is the same thing as passover. In the above translation, the word should have been "Passover". To translate the word as Easter is not only a huge mistake, its an offensive one.

I couldn't agree with you more. The whole bunny and egg thing is carry overs from the spring fertility holiday of eastre (as eggs and bunnys were symbols of fertility in ancient pagan cultures).

[hindsey]

Did you know that "Passover" was a word coined by Tyndale in the 1500s? So, in the English language, up until that time, the "Passover" was never used. The English Bibles before the KJV (other than the Tyndale and the Geneva Bible) used the word Easter (or Ester). Coverdale's Bible for example even had Easter in Leviticus 23 when God defined the Feasts of Israel. It's just interesting...

[AuntLynnie]

I personally do not like the KJV. I do not believe it is the MOST accurate translation of the scripture. It's a translation of a translation, so therefore, it's one of my less-favored translations.

I also think that if we really want to have the most accurate version available, we should be studying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I don't exactly have that kind of time on my hands, so I prefer to use an array of translations; I mostly use NIV, NAS; but also use other translations (sometimes including KJV).

[hindsey]

I personally do not like the KJV. I do not believe it is the MOST accurate translation of the scripture. It's a translation of a translation, so therefore, it's one of my less-favored translations.

I also think that if we really want to have the most accurate version available, we should be studying Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. I don't exactly have that kind of time on my hands, so I prefer to use an array of translations; I mostly use NIV, NAS; but also use other translations (sometimes including KJV).
AuntLynnie, it's a translation out of the original tongues with the former translations diligently compared and revised. I will never be able to learn Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek enough to compare to those that translated the KJV, so to say that my learning that language would let me have a more accurate version isn't right.

[Diane_Windsor]

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF

Google Gail Riplinger (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=Gail+Riplinger+)-she wrote a book defending KJV-Onlyism called New Age Bible Version (http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0170.asp)-available on Jack Chick's site. The opposite position is presented by James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?

diane

ETA; General Theology has a thread (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=16024192#post16024192) about this subject too.

[Arc Angel]

:) After more than 50 years of Bible reading, I read the King James Version of the Holy Bible (almost) exclusively. It’s probably because of the extraordinary use of, ‘linguals’ and phonetics. Be it archaic, or not, the language of the King James Bible is far more picturesque and descriptive; mental images are easier to invoke; and passages almost seem to leap off the page at you. Show me the Twenty-Third Psalm as beautifully written in any other translation. It doesn’t exist – does it!

[Andyman_1970]

The opposite position is presented by James R. White's book The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations?


Excellent book................ :thumbsup:

[rider2]

The King James Translation, was given in the time period when England spoke this way. Shakesperean.
During that same time period when the Bible was translated into German, Spanish or other European lauguages, they translated the Hebrew and Greek directly into their language they spoke. Literally.
Europeans did not use the "thee's" and "thow's", "begottens" and "withersoevers" of the English language, of spoken England.
Working with the same Hebrew and Greek texts that was used back then to produce the KJV, todays translations are more understandable, and in most ways more accurate.
Christians that defend the KJV only Bible, and look upon other Christians who use modern translations in English as being almost "apostate" for doing so, is sad also.
Billy Graham once made the statement a few years ago, that the NIV translation has been the greatest advancement in the century, for understanding and reading the Bible.
I myself use the NIV, NKJV, the NASB, and the RSV in my studies. New Christians, and teenagers, and people in general reading the Bible for the first time, have benefited from these later English translations.
I once taught a teen age Sunday school class, and when a young man in the class, read scripture from his families KJV Bible, clearly not understanding what he read, I had him read the entire context in my NIV. His face just lit up, and he said, "Wow, so that's what it really said."

[MrJim]

What is interesting is that the original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha-why isn't it still in there? If it's good enough for the King it's good enough for me...

[Albion]

What is interesting is that the original 1611 KJV had the apocrypha-why isn't it still in there? If it's good enough for the King it's good enough for me...

The reason it was included is for the same reason that it is used even yet in the Church that translated the KJV (the Anglican Church). That is, that these books are not considered inspired but they are still worth reading for instruction in "manners and morals."

Not inspired scripture, still useful.

So if you agree with the king, and understand the proper use of the Apocrypha, not confusing these books with the books of the Bible, then that is exactly what he and the Church intended. Many, however, don't understand this.

"Why isn't it still there?" Well, it is...or it isn't, depending upon which version you want to buy. Both are available.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

The reason it was included is for the same reason that it is used even yet in the Church that translated the KJV (the Anglican Church). That is, that these books are not considered inspired but they are still worth reading for instruction in "manners and morals."

Not inspired scripture, still useful.

So if you agree with the king, and understand the proper use of the Apocrypha, not confusing these books with the books of the Bible, then that is exactly what he and the Church intended. Many, however, don't understand this.

"Why isn't it still there?" Well, it is...or it isn't, depending upon which version you want to buy. Both are available.

Some of us Anglicans actually consider the Apocrypha inspired. ;)

[MrJim]

Some of us Anglicans actually consider the Apocrypha inspired. ;)

Alright now which is it?

I've been taking the "Catholic Study Bible" to church and will stop in Sirach sometimes to read something. There is useful stuff in there.

I wonder how many Protestants (other than Anglicans;) ) actually look at the Apocrypha (since it is so "useful").

[Albion]

Alright now which is it?

I've been taking the "Catholic Study Bible" to church and will stop in Sirach sometimes to read something. There is useful stuff in there.

I wonder how many Protestants (other than Anglicans;) ) actually look at the Apocrypha (since it is so "useful").

My answer was predicated upon the position taken by the Church's Articles of Religion. Although there has been a Catholic movement within the Church in recent times, the Articles were in effect and normative at the time of the writing of the KJV. So that answers the question as regards the intent of the translators of that version of the Bible.

Luther took the same position about the Apocrypha, and my experience has been that Lutherans do make use of the Apocryphal books in a similar way to Anglicans. But of course neither is going to make the same amount of use of these books as they are with the Bible.

For other Protestants, the books are just not inspired and therefore not to be used.

[Albion]

Some of us Anglicans actually consider the Apocrypha inspired. ;)

Yes, but remember that at the time of the publication of the Authorized Version or King James Version of the Bible, no Anglicans did. Since the question was about the KJV as it first appeared, the question is easy to settle--the same church explained its position in Article VI of the Thirty-nine Articles.

[Lynn73]

I find this an excellent site to explain why the KJV is the closest to God' s word in English:

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/another.htm

[Pyrogenesis]

I use a lot of different translations; mostly because I read it on my computer with E-Sword, so I've got 20 different translations here. I find the KJV is alright, it's what my hard copy of the Bible is in. I've got the original Hebrew/Greek meanings available too though, so I quite frequently check out what words ment originally. I've found that the Good News Bible is quite accurate, containing many names and descriptions that have been translated out of many other Bibles.

All in all, I think it's a question of personal preference. Some people can quite happily read the NKJ, when others that would struggle through because of the language structure might prefer to read a more contempory translation. I'd stay away from The Message translation if you're looking to do an in-depth study; it's been changed around to the point of obscurity when you're trying to nail something down.

[jamesMarion]

I suggest using the KJV and supporting a pastor teacher who studies the Scriptures in the original languages. Find one that digs the truth out and shows you how to dig for yourself.

[PaladinGirl]

I couldn't agree with you more. The whole bunny and egg thing is carry overs from the spring fertility holiday of eastre (as eggs and bunnys were symbols of fertility in ancient pagan cultures).

Not everyone who celebrates Easter does the Pagan thing. For me, it is about Jesus' glorious resurrection! :clap:

[MC1171611]

Easter:

Easter was a pagan holiday observed by the Romans that has it's roots in the worship of Ishtar, the goddess of fertility (hence eggs and bunnies). The Romans practiced it, and it was a point of reference to when the apostles were supposed to be executed.

Apocrypha:

The insertion of the Apocrypha into the King James Version of the Bible is argued to be the work of Jesuit plants within the translation committee: they had apparently infiltrated in order to tamper with the translation of the Bible into the common language. In fact, thousands of people have died down through the years at the hands of the Catholic Church because they either possesed a copy, or were trying to translate the Bible into the common tongue.

King James issue:

There are two different sets of manuscripts: the Textus Receptus, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, is composed of upward of 5,500 different pieces of manuscript, and all have major discrepancies between one another. The Alexandrian mess, on the other hand, is what all of the rest of the modern translations are from. Apostates in Egypt (a picture of the world) screwed around with the Greek and Hebrew (don't forget the Chaldee) and reared up a monster that would eventually dominate the Bible translation business for close to 200 years. Other manuscripts in this set are Vaticanus, from the Vatican library, and Sinaticus, which was found in a trash can outside of a monestary.

If God has preserved His Word, like He said He would, then I can assure you that it will not be found in anything with the marks of the Roman church on it. The only surviving Bible that has not been tampered with by Catholics, is the King James Authorized Version. Take your pick.

[MC1171611]

I suggest using the KJV and supporting a pastor teacher who studies the Scriptures in the original languages. Find one that digs the truth out and shows you how to dig for yourself.

There are no problems with the KJV, ma'am. The Bible clearly says that no Scripture is of any private interpretation; by relying on a pastor, you are making him interperet the Bible privately, thereby disobeying the Bible. I would suggest that you read the works of a man named Peter Ruckman: (now everybody's running around screaming: HERETIC!!! HERETIC!!!) He has some excellent material on why the King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

[Andyman_1970]

I would suggest that you read the works of a man named Peter Ruckman: (now everybody's running around screaming: HERETIC!!! HERETIC!!!) He has some excellent material on why the King James Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

With all due respect, I've read excepts of his material, and have a hard time thinking that someone who speaks about others in a very unChristilike manner, as Mr. Ruckman does, is a reputable source for information regarding God's Holy inspired infallible Word.

[e=mv^2]

Being a jerk does not invalidate what the jerk is saying. Of course it does not help his cause or prove that he is right either....

[Andyman_1970]

Being a jerk does not invalidate what the jerk is saying. Of course it does not help his cause or prove that he is right either....

Doesn't Jesus say we will be known for our "fruits"? Paul tells us in Galatians 5 that some of those are kindness, gentleness, goodness, and self control - so even if Mr. Ruckman did think his opponents were all those terrible things he refers to them as, should he be led by the Spirit in regards to what he writes about them? If he's not led in the Spirit with regards to that, whose to say he led in the Spirit with what he writes about the Text?

[e=mv^2]

Rephrase:

If some jerk was screaming that 2+2=4 it would not make it wrong. Just because someone is a jerk does not automatically invalidate what they are saying....

Not advocating being a jerk....trying to find a bright side here....

[MC1171611]

Rephrase:

If some jerk was screaming that 2+2=4 it would not make it wrong. Just because someone is a jerk does not automatically invalidate what they are saying....

Not advocating being a jerk....trying to find a bright side here....

Dr. Ruckman (yes, he has a doctorate) simply cannot stand Bible correctors: you know, the guys who continually run to the Greek and Hebrew to prove the KJV wrong: therefore he has an attitude toward them. If you have a problem with the guy, then find out where he is wrong, and show him.

[Onesimus85]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2004-05-19-bible-typos_x.htm

the 1631 KJV had mistakes...

"Thou shalt commit adultry"... doesn't sound quite right to me...

Perhaps we should just learn the hebrew and greek and go from there.

[MC1171611]

the 1631 KJV had mistakes...

"Thou shalt commit adultry"... doesn't sound quite right to me...

Perhaps we should just learn the hebrew and greek and go from there.

Go ahead and learn Greek, Hebrew, and don't forget all of the other languages that the Textus Receptus's are written in: 5,500 different manuscripts worth.

Those were simply printers mistakes; I don't use that edition: those things were fixed, and those messed up copies burned.

[e=mv^2]

"Thou shalt commit adultry"... doesn't sound quite right to me...
Weakest argument ever.

[Onesimus85]

Then let me pose these questions.

What about the italics?

Wouldn't King James have had influence over the translators? If so, would his homosexual relationship with the Duke of Lennox, Esme Stuart, have influenced the translation?

I have heard numerous arguements of how all the other texts were influenced by liberal teachings. But the King had a homosexual relationship.

I have no problem with people who read the KJV. I do have a problem when they act as if the translators received a second revelation to translate.

[MC1171611]

Then let me pose these questions.

What about the italics?

They were words that the printers accidentally dropped.


Wouldn't King James have had influence over the translators? If so, would his homosexual relationship with the Duke of Lennox, Esme Stuart, have influenced the translation?

I have heard numerous arguements of how all the other texts were influenced by liberal teachings. But the King had a homosexual relationship.

This, as far as I can tell, is completely ludicrous, and has no true evidence to bear it up. But, what if he really was? He simply allowed it to be translated: he didn't change or dictate anything.

[e=mv^2]

Here is a good set of reasons why people that say the KJV is the best version

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html)

TwinCrier was nice enough to post that link in one of the other 6 or 7 threads on this topic.

[TwinCrier]

Then let me pose these questions.

What about the italics?

Wouldn't King James have had influence over the translators? If so, would his homosexual relationship with the Duke of Lennox, Esme Stuart, have influenced the translation?

I have heard numerous arguements of how all the other texts were influenced by liberal teachings. But the King had a homosexual relationship.

I have no problem with people who read the KJV. I do have a problem when they act as if the translators received a second revelation to translate. I italics are words added to make the sentence read clearer in Englsih. The translators of this translation didn't want to deceive.
King James didn't influence the translation at all. There is some question as to rather he ever read it.
Even if King James were homosexual (there there is no evidence of that) several translators on other translations were admitted homosexuals. There were at leat two on the NIV comittee.
I don't know of any KJV believer who claims the translators received new revelation, only the they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God. Everything was already available in the manuscripts they possessed, which they accurately translated to English.

[TwinCrier]

Here is a good set of reasons why people that say the KJV is the best version

http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html (http://www.biblebelievers.com/New_Eye_Opener.html)

TwinCrier was nice enough to post that link in one of the other 6 or 7 threads on this topic.That entire site has excellent info. It's hard to enlighten others to the power of the KJV because so often, they will dismiss anything by Ruckman, Chick or Riplinger... probably because they are so hard to contradict. ;)

[Onesimus85]

So far I have 2 answers about italics. Which is right? Or are they both right?



[/b]
They were words that the printers accidentally dropped.

I italics are words added to make the sentence read clearer in Englsih. The translators of this translation didn't want to deceive.

[cristoiglesia]

Easter:

Easter was a pagan holiday observed by the Romans that has it's roots in the worship of Ishtar, the goddess of fertility (hence eggs and bunnies). The Romans practiced it, and it was a point of reference to when the apostles were supposed to be executed.

Apocrypha:

The insertion of the Apocrypha into the King James Version of the Bible is argued to be the work of Jesuit plants within the translation committee: they had apparently infiltrated in order to tamper with the translation of the Bible into the common language. In fact, thousands of people have died down through the years at the hands of the Catholic Church because they either possesed a copy, or were trying to translate the Bible into the common tongue.

King James issue:

There are two different sets of manuscripts: the Textus Receptus, and the Alexandrian manuscripts. The Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, is composed of upward of 5,500 different pieces of manuscript, and all have major discrepancies between one another. The Alexandrian mess, on the other hand, is what all of the rest of the modern translations are from. Apostates in Egypt (a picture of the world) screwed around with the Greek and Hebrew (don't forget the Chaldee) and reared up a monster that would eventually dominate the Bible translation business for close to 200 years. Other manuscripts in this set are Vaticanus, from the Vatican library, and Sinaticus, which was found in a trash can outside of a monestary.

If God has preserved His Word, like He said He would, then I can assure you that it will not be found in anything with the marks of the Roman church on it. The only surviving Bible that has not been tampered with by Catholics, is the King James Authorized Version. Take your pick.


This post is halarious. I guess you never heard of a priest named Erasmus. Actually the AKJV is a syncretic translation with a Humanist intent. However, it is a fair translation although it is translated with obvious bias. It is certainly not in the same league with more modern translations like the NRSV. The Archaic language of the AKJV makes it difficult to read and to understand. All translations have errors and the King James is about average in this respect. I agree that Psalms in the AKJV are the most beautiful written of any English translation but they are even more beautiful in Latin.

In Christ

[TwinCrier]

What exactly does "difficult to read" mean? I hear it as the main dissent against the King James Version. I only have a public high school education myself and I have no problem with it. As for understanding, doesn't that come from the Lord?

[cristoiglesia]

What exactly does "difficult to read" mean? I hear it as the main dissent against the King James Version. I only have a public high school education myself and I have no problem with it. As for understanding, doesn't that come from the Lord?

Blessings to you Madam,

As you have probably noticed in reading the AKJV that it is not written in todays English. It is written in Elizabethan English. Many of the words used are not used today nor was the meaning of some words the same then as they are today. There are also some serious translation errors, interfering with translation. Keep in mind that there is no translation without error, so this is not a criticism of the AKJV only. Discernment is a gift of the Spirit but understanding of Christian doctrines takes a lot of hard work best done by those who are trained and ALWAYS in community.

In Christ

[Svt4Him]

Here is a good site as well. http://www.gotquestions.org/KJV-only.html

As for the KJV being difficult to read, pray tell what this means to anyone:

and the people resort unto him again; and, as he was wont, he taught them again.

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven

Or how about words like: chambering, champaign, churl, cieled, clouted, cockatrice, collops, cotes, daysman, goodlier, firstlings, damsel, wimples, wrought, wot, wist, froward, brigadine, amerce, blains, crookbact, descry, fanners, glede, habergeon, implead, neesing, nitre, rereward, tabret, tabering and wen.

Rom 3:5-8 KJV) {5} But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) {6} God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world? {7} For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet am I also judged as a sinner? {8} And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

Should we lie to bring God glory?

And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people."

Huh?

My belief? KJV isn't bad, it's just not perfect.

[TwinCrier]

I've heard Rush Limbaugh use wont on several occasions.

As for suffer, is it not clear that means tolerate, pretty close to what it means today.

Is it not clear as day that the lie spoken of was relating to how despite people’s lies and deception, people in general still acknowledge God and his moral law and can come to a saving knowlege of Christ?

When I was in school we had this book called a dictionary we were forced to use to expand out vocabulary. Being ignorant of the meaning of certain words isn't a sin. I think too often we don't want to do the studying mentioned in 2 Tim 2:15. Very sad commentary on the current generation. Why choose a paraphrased modernization when you can hold God's very word in your hand (and usually at a lesser price).

[MC1171611]

Why choose a paraphrased modernization when you can hold God's very word in your hand (and usually at a lesser price).

Not to mention without a Copyright.

[cristoiglesia]

I've heard Rush Limbaugh use wont on several occasions.

As for suffer, is it not clear that means tolerate, pretty close to what it means today.

Is it not clear as day that the lie spoken of was relating to how despite people’s lies and deception, people in general still acknowledge God and his moral law and can come to a saving knowlege of Christ?

When I was in school we had this book called a dictionary we were forced to use to expand out vocabulary. Being ignorant of the meaning of certain words isn't a sin. I think too often we don't want to do the studying mentioned in 2 Tim 2:15. Very sad commentary on the current generation. Why choose a paraphrased modernization when you can hold God's very word in your hand (and usually at a lesser price).

From your post it sounds as if you think that the authors of the Bible wrote in Elizabethan English. For your information the word was in Koine Greek as penned. It is difficult to translate from one unrelated language to another. Believe me, I worked for Wycliffe Bible translators for years. All translations are imperfect. For the Christian of today if they are seeking a highly accurate translation in understandable English the choice should be the NRSV. For the less academically inclined their are other versions that are easier to read like the "Good News" or the NIV. If you really think that the AKJV is the best and insist on using it , go to your local university and take a course in Elizabethan English and learn Koine Greek so that you can be your own theologian. TIC

In Christ

[e=mv^2]

In the OP's case, english is not thier first language. So yes - they could have excessive difficulty in reading the older style language. For those of us that speak english as a first language it is less of a hurdle.

[TwinCrier]

From your post it sounds as if you think that the authors of the Bible wrote in Elizabethan English. For your information the word was in Koine Greek as penned. It is difficult to translate from one unrelated language to another. Believe me, I worked for Wycliffe Bible translators for years. All translations are imperfect. For the Christian of today if they are seeking a highly accurate translation in understandable English the choice should be the NRSV. For the less academically inclined their are other versions that are easier to read like the "Good News" or the NIV. If you really think that the AKJV is the best and insist on using it , go to your local university and take a course in Elizabethan English and learn Koine Greek so that you can be your own theologian. TIC

In ChristAll translations are imperfect??? Well, then, in that case, I renounce my Christianity. I don't want to follow a god who cannot even preserve something in writting. If man is so great as to fowl up what god wrote, I'll worship man instead. :mad:

[e=mv^2]

All translations are imperfect???

I would not worry so much even if they were. The message is the same even if the words used differ. Even if every translation is somehow imperfect it is nothing to freak about.

Take for example the word Bonus in latin. Bonus means good. But does "good" carry all the connotations that "bonus" originally did? Maybe not. Does that change the validity of the message of the gospel? Absolutely not.

Anyone can argue that one word should have been used or another but it really gets nowhere.

Also - have you guys forgotten that we are fundamentalists? We already have at our disposal a great resource for refuting such things. I suggest that we remember that textual criticism is also called "higher criticsm". Something that has been addressed already. So lets see..... where have we seen the term "Higher Criticism" before.......

500 blessings to the person that can find and link the information that I am referring to.

[Albion]

All translations are imperfect??? Well, then, in that case, I renounce my Christianity. I don't want to follow a god who cannot even preserve something in writting. If man is so great as to fowl up what god wrote, I'll worship man instead. :mad:

An excellent point! I shake my head at the comments so many people make to the effect that "of course the Bible is the inspired word, but we must remember that it is slanted by the customs of the time and the culture of the writers whom God inspired, etc. etc." Or that it was lost in translation somewhere. This perspective is used to debunk half the important revelation in the scriptures, yet (as you said) what kind of a God is it--and what kind of a faith is ours--if he was incapable of making his revelation known because of the failings of men getting in the way? It doesn't make sense.

[cristoiglesia]

All translations are imperfect??? Well, then, in that case, I renounce my Christianity. I don't want to follow a god who cannot even preserve something in writting. If man is so great as to fowl up what god wrote, I'll worship man instead. :mad:

He did, in the original language, Koine Greek. Unfortunately, it is impossible to translate directly from Koine Greek into English. We just do not have the words with the exact same meaning in English. So, often there is a compromise in translating where one must come as close as possible to the original word. You must remember. it was God that confused the languages to begin with.

My point is that if one is going to use Scripture alone to understand God's Word, one must remember that the Scriptures only represent a portion of God's Word. The Scriptures say that we look through a glass darkly in understanding the things of God. In cases where one has been taught to ignore the apostolic Tradition then ones reason is compromised in ones study because of the lack of the whole Word. That makes it all the more important to understand what part of the Word one trusts and a good understandable translation is very important. Not everyone is called to be a Berean and learn the Bible in its original Greek so that their teachings can be tested in God's original written Word. That is why ministers and priests are trained in Greek so they can do this for you, to point out translation errors. May the Lord be with you and bless you abundantly.

In Christ

[MC1171611]

He did, in the original language, Koine Greek. Unfortunately, it is impossible to translate directly from Koine Greek into English. We just do not have the words with the exact same meaning in English. So, often there is a compromise in translating where one must come as close as possible to the original word. You must remember. it was God that confused the languages to begin with.

My point is that if one is going to use Scripture alone to understand God's Word, one must remember that the Scriptures only represent a portion of God's Word. The Scriptures say that we look through a glass darkly in understanding the things of God. In cases where one has been taught to ignore the apostolic Tradition then ones reason is compromised in ones study because of the lack of the whole Word. That makes it all the more important to understand what part of the Word one trusts and a good understandable translation is very important. Not everyone is called to be a Berean and learn the Bible in its original Greek so that their teachings can be tested in God's original written Word. That is why ministers and priests are trained in Greek so they can do this for you, to point out translation errors. May the Lord be with you and bless you abundantly.

In Christ

(emphasis mine)

The Scriptures, if that is what they are, are of no private interpretation. I don't need someone that has been educated out of their wisdom explaining God's Word to me. I want to see a problem in the Authorized King James Bible: everyone says that it isn't inspired because of textual errors, but no one has brought forth any for proper examination. Everyone says that the KJV doesn't line up with the TR: the TR doesn't even agree with itself half of the time! We no longer have the "Inspired Originals"; if the originals were inspired, what keeps God from translating it from the stupid Greek into English perfectly?

Also, no one has come forward with any evidence to prove the other translations right. They remove important words and phrases, and substitute Jesus for Lucifer (Isa. 14:12), and don't even follow the "critical texts" that they are supposed to be translated from.

[Onesimus85]

Here is a problem I have with the KJV:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

The italicized word "men" is also italicized in the KJV.

The NLT reads:

"That night two people will be asleep in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left." Luke 17:34

[MC1171611]

Here is a problem I have with the KJV:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

The italicized word "men" is also italicized in the KJV.

The NLT reads:

"That night two people will be asleep in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left." Luke 17:34




Your problem is...?

[Onesimus85]

I have heard people use this to say that homosexuality is ok. And that because one was taken it means that a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian.

It looks like King James influenced this verse, does it not?

[MC1171611]

I have heard people use this to say that homosexuality is ok. And that because one was taken it means that a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian.

It looks like King James influenced this verse, does it not?

Excuse me, but there are dozens of cultures in which it is perfectly normal for men to sleep in the same bed; they don't have sex, they sleep!

So, what if he really was a queer? What does that change?

Furthermore, if James were "funny," he would have to be the first queer on record to write a serious commentary on the book of Revelation, as well as a devotional entitled "Meditations on the Lord's Prayer." (Final Authority, p. 149; Grady Publications, 1993

These allegations were brought forth after the king's death by a man who was angry for his dismissal. The question still remains: so what?

[TwinCrier]

It's also not uncommon to refer to females as men, such as in all men created equal. God created man. period. Male and female created He them. It was the male that decided to call the female woman. It's in Genesis. Of course since there is no evidence the King James was queer, this whole thing is moot. http://www.biblebelievers.com/Coston1.html

[Lynn73]

I have heard people use this to say that homosexuality is ok. And that because one was taken it means that a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian.

It looks like King James influenced this verse, does it not?

You know, I've read those verses many times and never once took them to be saying anything about homosexuality. Goes to show how you can read anything into the Bible you want. Two men sleeping in the same bed (or women) doesn't equal having sex. As someone pointed out, in some cultures this is normal. People do actually sleep in beds, believe it or not. It isn't always about sex nor do these verses garner approval for being Christian and homosexual. God doesn't contradict Himself.

[WannaWitness]

I like the KJV -- but I like NKJV, as well.

[Albion]

I have heard people use this to say that homosexuality is ok. And that because one was taken it means that a practicing homosexual can also be a Christian.

It looks like King James influenced this verse, does it not?

Possibly, but the problem is that there are a number of other verses which even more clearly speak against homosexual activity.

[JesusPower]

The KJV is the only translation from the original Greek and Hebrew writings. Most of the other bibles or interpretations of the KJV examples NKJV, NIV, NLV, Message, Amplified.
It is important to read the introduction of your bible. Most will tell you that it is an interpretation of the KJV and is to be used with the KJV. Also other bibles have contridictions. Example. NIV John 3:16 states that God gave his one and only son instead of his only begotten son(KJV). We are all his sons.It is iportant to know who wrote your interpretation. Eugene Peterson wrote the Message Bible because he said to many people spend to much time trying to intepret the bible. I see a problem there.

Thanks

Pro

[jess91877]

I prefer to use many versions and translations of the Bible, KJV and NIV primarily. You may think that is crazy, but I like to understand, analyze, and interpret the scripture as readily, accurately, and thoughly as possible. Several versions helps one see the big picture for what it is, what may not make sense to you in one version, may make more sense is another version. That is the way I study in my career/area of expertise (science), and I find carrying that method over to the spiritual world to be helpful.

[Andyman_1970]

The KJV is the only translation from the original Greek and Hebrew writings.

The KJV was translated from several families of Greek manuscripts, the Alexandrian manuscript was not used in it's translation, but is used in the translation of the newer versions.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Here is a problem I have with the KJV:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

The italicized word "men" is also italicized in the KJV.

The NLT reads:

"That night two people will be asleep in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left." Luke 17:34




The NLT is a more gender-inclusive translation than the KJV, thus it uses a more politically correct neutral word "people" instead of "men".

Yet again whether or not it was two men or two people - that is not the issue. In the culture wherein the scriptures were written there was still a dominant Patriarchal culture. This had a huge influence on the way the scriptures were written. Yes, they are divinely inspired. Through human means, via human language and human manners.

No hint of homosexuality involved.

[SoliDeoGloria]

The KJV is the only translation from the original Greek and Hebrew writings. Most of the other bibles or interpretations of the KJV examples NKJV, NIV, NLV, Message, Amplified.
It is important to read the introduction of your bible. Most will tell you that it is an interpretation of the KJV and is to be used with the KJV. Also other bibles have contridictions. Example. NIV John 3:16 states that God gave his one and only son instead of his only begotten son(KJV). We are all his sons.It is iportant to know who wrote your interpretation. Eugene Peterson wrote the Message Bible because he said to many people spend to much time trying to intepret the bible. I see a problem there.

Thanks

Pro

I perceived a Texe Marrs and D A Whaite in the making. Or another Dean Burgon..?

Hmm...

The above assertion is far-fetched and totally incorrect. Modern versions are NOT interpretations of the KJV. They are NOT commentaries on the KJV.

It would be too lengthy to rebutt the above and I do not wish to waste my time.

Read your history on bible translations. NOT a SINGLE version is an interpretation of the KJV. They may be dynamically equivalent versions, BUT not interpretations. They may not employ a literal translation method, but they DO use up-to-date Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

I believe you have been indoctrinated by a KJV-only church.

[Albion]

I believe you have been indoctrinated by a KJV-only church.

And we need to be careful not to throw any red herrings into this discussion.

For me and my church, the KJV is the only one used, but we are not "KJV-only" as that is usually meant. For the average person, the KJV is the most beautiful and uplifting in its language of all. It is also a standard. Personal study excepted, when we get into the practice of using different versions in worship or with different preachers on different occasions, we lose something important. And since there is NO translation that is free from some textual criticism, staying with the most familiar, the most edifying, and one that is at least as good in other ways as any other that has been written since 1611 is good policy.

[CyberPaladin]

I my church use both NIV and King James. Personally I perfer to study that way to getting more than one wording can be helpful.

[SoliDeoGloria]

And we need to be careful not to throw any red herrings into this discussion.

For me and my church, the KJV is the only one used, but we are not "KJV-only" as that is usually meant. For the average person, the KJV is the most beautiful and uplifting in its language of all. It is also a standard. Personal study excepted, when we get into the practice of using different versions in worship or with different preachers on different occasions, we lose something important. And since there is NO translation that is free from some textual criticism, staying with the most familiar, the most edifying, and one that is at least as good in other ways as any other that has been written since 1611 is good policy.

Perhaps let's just rephrased my statement. Perhaps he was part of those churches who believed the KJV is THE MOST accurate English version and the rest of the modern versions are CORRUPTED and PERVERSIONS.

Personally, I have used the KJV since young and has been my prefered choice of an English translation. But that does not allow me the right to make a blatant statement that not only shows ill scholarship, but an ignorance of textual criticism and the science of biblical translation.

[mark53]

The KJV is the only translation from the original Greek and Hebrew writings. Most of the other bibles or interpretations of the KJV examples NKJV, NIV, NLV, Message, Amplified.
It is important to read the introduction of your bible. Most will tell you that it is an interpretation of the KJV and is to be used with the KJV. Also other bibles have contridictions. Example. NIV John 3:16 states that God gave his one and only son instead of his only begotten son(KJV). We are all his sons.It is iportant to know who wrote your interpretation. Eugene Peterson wrote the Message Bible because he said to many people spend to much time trying to intepret the bible. I see a problem there.

Thanks

Pro
Your first statement is not correct. The main difference (besides the language that is not spoken by people for a couple of centuries and many words have changed their meaning, e.g. "gay", rubber = false, pillows, = magical charms) is that the KJV uses what is called the "Majority Text" which is all of the manuscripts with their various variants are countered up and the one with the most variants is the one that is "in" i.e. the majority wins. The others uses the oldest 'known' manuscript and that is "in".

Why I see a problem with the KJV could be put this way, imagine copying this letter, by hand, by 1000 people and then working out which of the 1000 copies had the most agreeances and that would become my letter here, not what I've actually wrote! Some parts would be changed by those who disagreed with me and replaced it with a 'better' version, others who agreed might expand on some of it. Others again may bring in bits from other letters. (eg Mark 16:9-16)

PS name a Bible translation that says it is a translation of the KJV. Also the original KJV did not have available many of the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts so it used (much later) Latin ones. The KJV has changed a number of times and there are books written about its history and importance. Most general libraries will have at least one of them! (In Australia that is!)

Buy a Greek N T and a couple of Greek grammars and learn the language for yourself! :thumbsup:

[revmalone]

I posted this in the Baptist forum too...apologies, but I'd like to get two different views. Thanks! :)

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF

Greetings
I have always used the KJV Bible, It is the only one I know of that has stood the test of time, many of our Brothers and sisters of the past have died for there faith in this Holy Book.

I have a personal story about the most stunning evidence that confirmed my faith in the trueness and power this Holy Book.

My X-Brother in law who was a drug dealer, he would mock the Bible, disregard it. One day he was coming home in his car and there was a KJV Bible his x-wife my sister left in his car, his car broke down on the side of the road, it burst into flames, the heat was so hot that it melted the rims on the car.

The only thing that didn't burn was the Bible, I lie not and God bears me witness. There have been houses near my home burn to the Ground but the KJV never burned.

I know with all my heart this is the Bible were supposed to take our instruction from. Nobody can prove it wrong if there saved, because they'd have to lie to do it. It's a hard Book to learn because it requires study, and The Holy Spirit must be asked to teach you his Holy Book.

I'd die for my belief This is the Word of God. No other translation has had blood spilled over the content in it.No other!

God uses blood to put his approvel on Holy Thing's right, this is just another proof to me brother.

This Bible Speakes to me everyday and I have always been taught by the Holy Spirit from this Holy Book, The KJV.

The other translations, The Bible says there is no privite interpatation of the scriptures, and the KJV is the only one who keep the scriptures open.
The others have been interpatation's made by men who we don't even know was saved.

The men who wrote the Bible were in prayer and fasting in order to copy it into our language, it was Copied and not interpeted by what they thought. I read that several of them each took a copy of a page went into different rooms and would pray and write pray some more and even before they wrote the name of God they would pray and wash there hand because Truth was that important to them.

When they came out of there rooms or cells they compaired and most of the time they all wrote the same things, they were in different rooms but praying to the Same God asking guidance from the same, Holy Spirit, to hornor there saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.

No other bible has changed so many lifes as the KJV, Do you think that they prayed and fasted to produce the other translations-no, of course not there just privite interp's and were told not to do that.

This is why I can say without doubt, this is the Word of God to learn, live and Die by.

May the love of Christ keep you all
Bro Malone

I'll find that story and put it up for all to read, Lord Willing!

[revmalone]

All translations are imperfect??? Well, then, in that case, I renounce my Christianity. I don't want to follow a god who cannot even preserve something in writting. If man is so great as to fowl up what god wrote, I'll worship man instead. :mad:

I'm sorry there is no truth for you to read my ex-bro ha ha

I think God has the power to keep his word here on earth for us,he has all power right? Most educated people who choose the work of God pay for there learning and this is were they most of the time go wrong, they get pridful because they think there self to be wise and some act like there wiser then God and The Holy Spirit.

The Bible says " Study to Show thy self approved rightly dividing the Word of Truth" Nobody who has the Holy Spirit teaching them will say his word is not truth. If it is wrong it is because you learned it from a educated preacher not a God Called and Spirit taught preacher.

Bet the one that learned it has what I call cookie cutter preachers, went to collage and came out like everybody else who was before them.

Yea this is true, not saying there not good men, but they rely on what a man taught them before the'll believe in the Power of God.

May God help us to seek him, not ours.
May the peace of God keep you all amen
Bro Malone

[mark53]

One of the problems with the KJV is besides not having all the Greek manuscripts and often using the Latin ones is some of the translations into English
e.g. Matt 26:27 "drink ye, all of it" which is more corectly translated as "drink from it, all (of you)". This has lead to many funny stories being written over the centuries!

It is certainly NOT perfect as is any translation. A translation is depended on the skills (and the doctrine) of the translaters and there are many Hebrew words and some Greek words which are very hard to translate. What they have to go by is where and how the particular word is used elsewheer and if there is no other use of this word, or it varies, it is hard to translate.

[revmalone]

That is a very good site, it is so true, but as you said many don't listen to warnings anymore, about those false interps to bad being wrong will carry such a high price God Bless you for giving the link.

Peace to all in Christ
Bro Malone

[BigNorsk]

Here is a problem I have with the KJV:

"I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left." Luke 17:34

The italicized word "men" is also italicized in the KJV.

The NLT reads:

"That night two people will be asleep in one bed; one will be taken, and the other will be left." Luke 17:34




The comment is a very interesting one, because his understanding is actually typical for people of his age group in the US. If they see the word men they think only of male individuals. It is the very reason more gender neutral wording has been used in many translations because to use "men" communicates something to them that isn't accurate.

If you look at the use of the term "people" in the KJV, it is used in the sense of say a tribe, some sort of group, but not for mankind.

In the verse used, the word men, being italicized means there is no corresponding Greek word in the text, it was added to aid understanding of the reader, which today is having the opposite effect.

We see the usage of men or man as a gender neutral reference survive somewhat to this day in words such as chairman. A chairman can be either a man or a woman, but because people have lost that understanding, we see people using chairperson, or chairwoman. The verse in question in the KJV does not have the meaning that there are two males in bed, though that situation would be included, it means that there are two human beings in bed and one is taken.

Actually the word translated bed could be translated couch. So you could translate there are two people on a couch, one is taken.... The piece of furniture had a dual function of sitting and sleeping much like a modern couch does. Most homes at the time of the KJV did not have a couch to use it would have carried some implication of wealth that we wouldn't see today.

The KJV translators could have just translated it there are two, without the word men, except that would not have been the way it would have been said in English at the time, and whatever one's position on the KJV those guys knew their English. So it is much like the insertion of the word "only" in reference to scripture in the German translation of Martin Luther. As Luther explains in his tract "On Translating" (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt) the word "only" isn't so much a matter of it being there as a separate word in the Greek, but to leave it off would be poor German, and would carry a meaning not consistent with the Greek.

Translators have a difficult problem and there is no translation which someone won't misunderstand in places because their language is different than that used for the translation. Two people might both speak English, but their English is different.

Anyway, I thought the post brought up an interesting point pertinent to both the quality of the KJV translation and the current issue of gender neutral language. The KJV uses gender neutral language in quite a few places using for instance children when the Hebrew is sons but which due to context is clearly understood as young people of both sexes.

Marv

[mark53]

In "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language:Second edition" I would like to quote some stuff which might be interesting; pp64-65.
"The origins of the work are well-documented ... King James was presented with the "millenary Petition', in which 750 reformers from within the Church of England requested a new translation of the Bible. In a conference the following year, the King proposed a panel of university scholars who would carry out a preliminary translation, and thwen this would be submitted to the bishops for revision. The 54 translators were divided into six 'companies', each working on a seperate section of the Bible. ...
Translors were to use the Bishop's Bible where possible but were permitted to consult Tyndale and other earlier versions if necessary (and in fact they did so to a considerable extant). .... Disagreements were to be formally discussed, and external opinions sought if requires. Never had there been such a translation by committee. ...
They show themselves well aware of the dangers of consensus language:
An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of that wee haue not tyed our selues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradenture would wish that we had done.... (nothing wrong with the typing - the "u" and the"v" were the other way round back then)
The translators were consciously conservative, and frequently introduced archaism and traditional readings, especially from Tyndale and Coverdale.
Their text ... does not contain large numbers of new words, as Shakespeare's plays did. ...
Similarly, the King james Bible looks backwards in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere.

(e.g.) digged ('dug'), gat ('got') and gotten, bare ('bore'), ... holpen ('helped')

To finish here is a bit from the original 1611 printing of Luke 15:29-32

And he answering said to his father, loe, these many yeeres doe I serue thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandement, and yet thou neuer gauest mee a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soone as this thy sonne will come, which hath deuored thy liuing with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calfe. And he said vnto him, Sonne, thou art euer with me, and all that I haue is thine. It was meete that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is aliue againe: and was l ost, and is found." (boy that was hard to type!)

If one believes that they should only use the KJV why don't they use the original 1611 one and not the updated, changed one?

[jayleav]

We must be careful with any translation, I have been under teaching of any number of translations, and have been the most blessed when our group has had people with several different versions. My biggest complaint would be the "Gender neutral" translations. Jesus was and is a MAN. NOT a "gender neutral" being. He had to be a man to fulfill prophesy. Also the word love I know to be replaced with the word "charity" in the N.I.V., and also I think the N.LV. when the original word was Agape'. I'm am for comparative text study, BUT I still believe that the authorized, un copyrighted original KJV is the most blessed AND most accurate.


Blessings to all;

Jayson :wave:

[ascribe2thelord]

I posted this in the Baptist forum too...apologies, but I'd like to get two different views. Thanks! :)

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF

IN any case, the King James Version is a VERY accurate, VERY resourceful, VERY useful way to teach God's Word to anyone.

It has established its usefulness in that it was the Bible used during the Great Awakening in the 1740s in America.

It is the version of the Bible most people use when memorizing key verses such as John 3:16 and Psalm 23.

It is direct, authoritative in its use of language, and easy to read with a little experience.

It helps in trying to understand Shakespeare's writings.

Many advantages.

Those who try to replace it with modern versions don't know what they're doing ... it's polluting God's word by crowding it out with multiple "versions" of what it ought to be ... and saying that the King James Version is politically motivated and corrupt/incorrect is an affront to God himself.

[ascribe2thelord]

Greetings
I have always used the KJV Bible, It is the only one I know of that has stood the test of time, many of our Brothers and sisters of the past have died for there faith in this Holy Book.

I have a personal story about the most stunning evidence that confirmed my faith in the trueness and power this Holy Book.

My X-Brother in law who was a drug dealer, he would mock the Bible, disregard it. One day he was coming home in his car and there was a KJV Bible his x-wife my sister left in his car, his car broke down on the side of the road, it burst into flames, the heat was so hot that it melted the rims on the car.

The only thing that didn't burn was the Bible, I lie not and God bears me witness. There have been houses near my home burn to the Ground but the KJV never burned.

I know with all my heart this is the Bible were supposed to take our instruction from. Nobody can prove it wrong if there saved, because they'd have to lie to do it. It's a hard Book to learn because it requires study, and The Holy Spirit must be asked to teach you his Holy Book.

I'd die for my belief This is the Word of God. No other translation has had blood spilled over the content in it.No other!

God uses blood to put his approvel on Holy Thing's right, this is just another proof to me brother.

This Bible Speakes to me everyday and I have always been taught by the Holy Spirit from this Holy Book, The KJV.

The other translations, The Bible says there is no privite interpatation of the scriptures, and the KJV is the only one who keep the scriptures open.
The others have been interpatation's made by men who we don't even know was saved.

The men who wrote the Bible were in prayer and fasting in order to copy it into our language, it was Copied and not interpeted by what they thought. I read that several of them each took a copy of a page went into different rooms and would pray and write pray some more and even before they wrote the name of God they would pray and wash there hand because Truth was that important to them.

When they came out of there rooms or cells they compaired and most of the time they all wrote the same things, they were in different rooms but praying to the Same God asking guidance from the same, Holy Spirit, to hornor there saviour the Lord Jesus Christ.

No other bible has changed so many lifes as the KJV, Do you think that they prayed and fasted to produce the other translations-no, of course not there just privite interp's and were told not to do that.

This is why I can say without doubt, this is the Word of God to learn, live and Die by.

May the love of Christ keep you all
Bro Malone

I'll find that story and put it up for all to read, Lord Willing!

I believe you ... that shouldn't have happened.

[ascribe2thelord]

The comment is a very interesting one, because his understanding is actually typical for people of his age group in the US. If they see the word men they think only of male individuals. It is the very reason more gender neutral wording has been used in many translations because to use "men" communicates something to them that isn't accurate.

If you look at the use of the term "people" in the KJV, it is used in the sense of say a tribe, some sort of group, but not for mankind.

In the verse used, the word men, being italicized means there is no corresponding Greek word in the text, it was added to aid understanding of the reader, which today is having the opposite effect.

We see the usage of men or man as a gender neutral reference survive somewhat to this day in words such as chairman. A chairman can be either a man or a woman, but because people have lost that understanding, we see people using chairperson, or chairwoman. The verse in question in the KJV does not have the meaning that there are two males in bed, though that situation would be included, it means that there are two human beings in bed and one is taken.

Actually the word translated bed could be translated couch. So you could translate there are two people on a couch, one is taken.... The piece of furniture had a dual function of sitting and sleeping much like a modern couch does. Most homes at the time of the KJV did not have a couch to use it would have carried some implication of wealth that we wouldn't see today.

The KJV translators could have just translated it there are two, without the word men, except that would not have been the way it would have been said in English at the time, and whatever one's position on the KJV those guys knew their English. So it is much like the insertion of the word "only" in reference to scripture in the German translation of Martin Luther. As Luther explains in his tract "On Translating" (http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-translate.txt) the word "only" isn't so much a matter of it being there as a separate word in the Greek, but to leave it off would be poor German, and would carry a meaning not consistent with the Greek.

Translators have a difficult problem and there is no translation which someone won't misunderstand in places because their language is different than that used for the translation. Two people might both speak English, but their English is different.

Anyway, I thought the post brought up an interesting point pertinent to both the quality of the KJV translation and the current issue of gender neutral language. The KJV uses gender neutral language in quite a few places using for instance children when the Hebrew is sons but which due to context is clearly understood as young people of both sexes.

Marv

In Biblical times wasn't it normal for two men to sleep in the same bed, without the implication of a homosexual relationship? I mean if they were poor and related to one another, and the only other choice was sleeping on the floor ... it seems logical to me, in a way.

It could also mean wife and husband of course, since that arrangement is most common today - "men" is generally understood to be gender-neutral in the English of the KJV.

Their text ... does not contain large numbers of new words, as Shakespeare's plays did. ...

Shakespeare, by the way, used a lot of crude slang terms, and racial slurs ex. "a black calf is tupping with your white ewe" - referring to (I think) Isabella, and her husband Othello, who was Moorish. If you consider that new language ... why not allow people in these forums to say the modern word we use for "tupping" ... ?

People hate on the KJV way too much these days!!! :doh:

[mark53]

We must be careful with any translation, I have been under teaching of any number of translations, and have been the most blessed when our group has had people with several different versions. My biggest complaint would be the "Gender neutral" translations. Jesus was and is a MAN. NOT a "gender neutral" being. He had to be a man to fulfill prophesy. Also the word love I know to be replaced with the word "charity" in the N.I.V., and also I think the N.LV. when the original word was Agape'. I'm am for comparative text study, BUT I still believe that the authorized, un copyrighted original KJV is the most blessed AND most accurate.


Blessings to all;

Jayson :wave:

Do you mean the original 1611 version which is very different in words and spelling to the most common version used today?

[mark53]

I've never really heard people's reasoning for liking the KJV so much. I'm personally not keen on it. In fact, one time I found an error that I disliked so much that I don't think I'll read it ever again except to compare translations, which I do frequently in word studies.



The fact is, Easter is not a Christian event. Easter isn't Christian at all. Easter is a pagan holiday that is modeled after pagan beliefs and traditions. It just so happens that the majority of the U.S. thinks that Easter is the same thing as passover. In the above translation, the word should have been "Passover". To translate the word as Easter is not only a huge mistake, its an offensive one.

My NIV (both copies) has "Passover". So which edition you have (seen) has this? Or have you been told this by someone else and it is second hand information?

[mark53]

Here is what I have posted elsewhere:-

In "The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language:Second edition" I would like to quote some stuff which might be interesting; pp64-65.
"The origins of the work are well-documented ... King James was presented with the "millenary Petition', in which 750 reformers from within the Church of England requested a new translation of the Bible. In a conference the following year, the King proposed a panel of university scholars who would carry out a preliminary translation, and thwen this would be submitted to the bishops for revision. The 54 translators were divided into six 'companies', each working on a seperate section of the Bible. ...
Translors were to use the Bishop's Bible where possible but were permitted to consult Tyndale and other earlier versions if necessary (and in fact they did so to a considerable extant). .... Disagreements were to be formally discussed, and external opinions sought if requires. Never had there been such a translation by committee. ...
They show themselves well aware of the dangers of consensus language:
An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of that wee haue not tyed our selues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradenture would wish that we had done.... (nothing wrong with the typing - the "u" and the"v" were the other way round back then)
The translators were consciously conservative, and frequently introduced archaism and traditional readings, especially from Tyndale and Coverdale.
Their text ... does not contain large numbers of new words, as Shakespeare's plays did. ...
Similarly, the King james Bible looks backwards in its grammar, and preserves many of the forms and constructions which were falling out of use elsewhere.

(e.g.) digged ('dug'), gat ('got') and gotten, bare ('bore'), ... holpen ('helped')

To finish here is a bit from the original 1611 printing of Luke 15:29-32

And he answering said to his father, loe, these many yeeres doe I serue thee, neither transgressed I at any time thy commandement, and yet thou neuer gauest mee a kid, that I might make merry with my friends: But as soone as this thy sonne will come, which hath deuored thy liuing with harlots, thou hast killed for him the fatted calfe. And he said vnto him, Sonne, thou art euer with me, and all that I haue is thine. It was meete that we should make merry, and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is aliue againe: and was l ost, and is found." (boy that was hard to type!)

If one believes that they should only use the KJV why don't they use the original 1611 one and not the updated, changed one?

[Project 86]

Do you mean the original 1611 version which is very different in words and spelling to the most common version used today?

I am not a KJV only person but I really dislike this argument against them. Most people that use this argument have not even researched what they are talking about. I have both the KJV 1611 and today's version. Also I recommend you research why the spelling and changes were made. I believe after you research those things you'll find that this argument isn't very good. There are much better arguments that can be used to show that the KJV only stance is a wrong stance to take.

[Project 86]

My NIV (both copies) has "Passover". So which edition you have (seen) has this? Or have you been told this by someone else and it is second hand information?

I think Chief is talking about the KJV using the word Passover, not the NIV.

[mark53]

I think Chief is talking about the KJV using the word Passover, not the NIV.

My humble apologies! :doh:

[Cajun Huguenot]

I posted this in the Baptist forum too...apologies, but I'd like to get two different views. Thanks! :)

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF


Because it is the tradition they and their parents grew up with. You know it's kinda like the vulgate in the Late Middle Ages, over time it picked up a mystical quality in the minds of some evangelicals.

I love the language in it it is beaustiful, but it is not our language there are better translations out there these days.


In Christ,
Kenith

Ps. Even St. Augustine complained to St. Jerome, when Jerome's New Latin translation (the Vulgate) was beginning to replace the Old Latin translation. Augustine felt that the older translation was somehow sacred:scratch: . I guess its human nature.

[mark53]

The best version(s) is still the Greek and Hebrew! Be like Martin Luther:-

"And let us be sure of this we will not long preserve the gospel without the (original) languages. The languages are the sheath in which this sword of the spirit is containes; they are the casket in which this jewel is enshrined; .... If through our neglect we let the languages go (which God forbid!), we shall ... lose the gospel....
On the other hand, now that the languages have been revived, they are bringing with them so bright a light and accomplishing such great things that the whole world stands amazed and has to acknowledge that we have the gospel just as pure and undefiled as the apostles had it, ....

(a simple preacher, and others) has so many clear passages and texts avaqilable through translations that he can know and teach Christ {remember that before the printing press vitually noone had a Bible!!} lead a holy life, and preach to others. But when it comes to interpreting Scripture, and disputing with those who cite it incorrectly, he is unequal to the task; that cannot be done without languages. .... A saintly life and right doctrine are not enough. Hence languages are absolutely and altogether necessary in the Christian Church ...."

[Pherious]

THE KJV IS THE ONLY TRUE VERSION! THE DEMONS OF THIS WORLD TRY TO PUSH OTHER "VERSIONS" ON US, TAKING OUT THE WORDS HELL AND ETERNITY, AND TRYING TO MAKE US BECOME LIBERAL! I urgently call to those Christians who are using other translations, to get back on the right path, ASAP. The KJV is the most correct of any translation: NO OTHER translation will do!

[Cajun Huguenot]

THE KJV IS THE ONLY TRUE VERSION! THE DEMONS OF THIS WORLD TRY TO PUSH OTHER "VERSIONS" ON US, TAKING OUT THE WORDS HELL AND ETERNITY, AND TRYING TO MAKE US BECOME LIBERAL! I urgently call to those Christians who are using other translations, to get back on the right path, ASAP. The KJV is the most correct of any translation: NO OTHER translation will do!

At 16 you still have time to grow and learn. Hopefully some day you will realize just how silly that statement you have made is.

Coram Deo,
Kenith

[mark53]

THE KJV IS THE ONLY TRUE VERSION! THE DEMONS OF THIS WORLD TRY TO PUSH OTHER "VERSIONS" ON US, TAKING OUT THE WORDS HELL AND ETERNITY, AND TRYING TO MAKE US BECOME LIBERAL! I urgently call to those Christians who are using other translations, to get back on the right path, ASAP. The KJV is the most correct of any translation: NO OTHER translation will do!

Yeah! What abouth all those who lived prior to 1611AD and to those who do not read English? And are also not Anglican as the translators wrote this version with the Anglican view point in mind? The only true version, of which we don't have, is the original manuscripts. All that we have is copies done some hundreds of years later. The oldest complete O T, the Leningrad Codex is about 1000 AD! the oldest complete manuscripts are about 500 years earlier. There are also that many different manuscripts as the copyists made mistakes added bits (from other places , esp Gospels) and deleted and changed what they did not like. This actually happened and is available to any who want to see.

I know you are young and are probably taught this but if you can, later, learn the Hebrew and greek languages yourself and try to understand the difficulties in translating words from one language to another. :thumbsup:

[Servant4Jesus]

I like the KJV bible, however i donot thin kit is the "only" version to use. I use the New World translation, which btw the people whom translated it, got the Master text from Westcott& Hort Yext whom also translated into English the American Standered Version, revised version etc... God said in 2tim 3:16 that ALL scripture is inspired by God.
*************
I like that translation, but we donot speak Shakesperian language anymore therefore it is appropriate for todays modern language, btu no it is not "the "only bible accepted.

[ThaiDuykhang]

I'm a Catholic but I really like KJV, that should says it all.
I use 2 English Bibles, KJV and DRB along with some non-English translations

[VividViolet]

I like to use NKJV on a daily basis, the KJV for deeper Bible study along with NASB, NIV, and NRSV. I really like the NRSV by the way... I don't know why, but it seems to really bring out the idea of what is behind it very well. The idea that the KJV is without copyright is good. You cannot copy but a few verses of any of the others without getting into legal trouble. :o

[revmalone]

I posted this in the Baptist forum too...apologies, but I'd like to get two different views. Thanks! :)

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I hope it is. If not, I apologise. May I ask why many people believe that the King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate version? Some even say that the fulness of truth is only available in this version of the Holy Bible, and no other...why is this?

Peace in Jesus' Name,
RJF

The 1769 edition is the true one, most of the ones copied today have been changed also. I use the 1769 edition of Thompson, no body on earth can prove it to be wrong, I'd bet my life on it.

The 1769 is the only one that has stayed true, it is a perfect Book, not these cheap'o kjv copies. My Thompson was a gift, but I think you can get one for about $125.00 . In the one sold today as being the authorized versions are different.

If you have a Modren translation you may have one of those counterfiet copies of the KJV, if you would like to check it out, look up Genesis 1:2

If it is a counterfiet your will have a little (s) and not the Big(S) when it reads
The good KJV= And the Spirit of God moved

The counterfiet reads= and the spirit of God.

To change the capital S in the word Spirit to a lower case s is an attack against the Godhead, the most powerful threefold cord in heaven and earth: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Cambridge has made this critical error in the following places:

Genesis 1:2, 41:38,
Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14,
1 Samuel 10:6, 10:10, 11:6, 16:13, 16:14, 19:20, 19:23,
2 Samuel 23:2,
1 Kings 18:12, 22:24,
2 Kings 2:16,
2 Chronicles 15:1, 18:23, 20:14, 24:20,
Job 33:4,
Isaiah 40:13, 48:16, 61:1, 63:10, 11, 14,
Ezekiel 11:5, 24.

these verses were with a capital S, to begin with but now in the twenty-first century it has been changed. Actually this so called standard text edition first hit the market in 1993 and is being endorsed by many King James Bible believing websites to day. I assume that they are not aware that it has been modernized.

Check your KJV out and make sure yours is the Real Deal.
Bro Malone

[mark53]

The 1769 edition is the true one, most of the ones copied today have been changed also. I use the 1769 edition of Thompson, no body on earth can prove it to be wrong, I'd bet my life on it.

The 1769 is the only one that has stayed true, it is a perfect Book, not these cheap'o kjv copies. My Thompson was a gift, but I think you can get one for about $125.00 . In the one sold today as being the authorized versions are different.

If you have a Modren translation you may have one of those counterfiet copies of the KJV, if you would like to check it out, look up Genesis 1:2

If it is a counterfiet your will have a little (s) and not the Big(S) when it reads
The good KJV= And the Spirit of God moved

The counterfiet reads= and the spirit of God.

To change the capital S in the word Spirit to a lower case s is an attack against the Godhead, the most powerful threefold cord in heaven and earth: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Cambridge has made this critical error in the following places:

Genesis 1:2, 41:38,
Judges 3:10, 6:34, 11:29, 13:25, 14:6, 14:19, 15:14,
1 Samuel 10:6, 10:10, 11:6, 16:13, 16:14, 19:20, 19:23,
2 Samuel 23:2,
1 Kings 18:12, 22:24,
2 Kings 2:16,
2 Chronicles 15:1, 18:23, 20:14, 24:20,
Job 33:4,
Isaiah 40:13, 48:16, 61:1, 63:10, 11, 14,
Ezekiel 11:5, 24.

these verses were with a capital S, to begin with but now in the twenty-first century it has been changed. Actually this so called standard text edition first hit the market in 1993 and is being endorsed by many King James Bible believing websites to day. I assume that they are not aware that it has been modernized.

Check your KJV out and make sure yours is the Real Deal.
Bro Malone
I posted an answer to this statement of your on the thread with this as the issue.

Basically there are many different manuscripts available and the translators task is to sort all this out. Also in Hebrew my furst sentence would looke like this (remember it is written backwards)

sshesshthtwdrhthtnryf etc etc Written backwards no word spaces and no vowels. Imagine the difficulties in translating it. Even today's Hebrew doesn't use the vowels. Just imagine the difficulties with learning the language!

[Logos1560]

remember that at the time of the publication of the Authorized Version or King James Version of the Bible, no Anglicans did.

The actual high regard that the Church of England of the 1500's and 1600's had for the Apocrypha can also be seen in The Books of Homilies. These books were a collection of "authorized sermons" that were intended to be read aloud in the state churches. The first book of twelve homilies was issued in 1547 with authority of the Council. A second book with twenty-one homilies was issued in 1571 under Queen Elizabeth. Davies observed that "the first book of homilies was issued as a standard of Biblical doctrine and preaching for the nation" (Worship and Theology, I, p. 231). Hughes noted that King James I laid down that "preaching ministers are to take the Articles of 1563 and the two Books of Homilies 'for a pattern and a boundary'" (Reformation
in England, p. 399). Does that suggest that the KJV translators were required to accept them as a boundary or standard? Peirce pointed out that in the Church of England's Homilies: "Baruch is cited as the Prophet Baruch; and his writing is called, 'The word of the Lord to the Jews'" (Vindication, pp. 537-538). Peirce also claimed that in the Homilies "the book of Tobit is attributed to the Holy Ghost" (p. 538).

This regard is also clearly evident in the views of Church of England Archbishop John Whitgift (1530-1604), who crowned James I as the king of England. Thomas Smith cited Archbishop Whitgift as stating at a 1583 conference the following: "The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the scriptures; they have been read in the church in ancient times, and ought to be still read amongst us" (Select Memoirs of the Lives, p. 327).

The 1611 KJV had no disclaimer concerning the canonicity or inspiration of the Apocrypha. In the 1611 edition of the KJV on the same page with the table that gives the order how the Psalms are to be read, there is also this heading: “The order how the rest of holy Scripture (beside the Psalter) is appointed to be read.“ On the next pages of the 1611 that lists the lessons from the “rest of holy Scripture” are included some readings from the Apocrypha. Thus, these pages of the liturgical calendar in the 1611 KJV assigned portions of the Apocrypha to be read in the churches. In addition, the cross references in the 1611 KJV cross reference the Apocrypha with the rest of the Bible as though it may have the same authority.

In contrast to the KJV, some of the earlier English Bibles had a clear disclaimer stating that the Apocrypha books were not inspired. Thomas Holland acknowledged that the 1611 KJV did not have “an explicit disclaimer, as in the Geneva Bible” (Crowned, p. 94). Before the Apocrypha in the 1560 Geneva Bible, the translators’ disclaimer began with the following: “These books that follow in order after the prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion.“ Did the 1611 KJV indicate the same clear distinction or separation between the Old Testament and the Apocrypha as it indicated between the Old Testament and the New Testament with its separate title page? D. A. Waite wrote: “I do not believe in a perfect situation with the King James Bible because of the original printing of the Apocrypha in 1611. If it had been perfect and spotless and if God was behind it, they never would have included that Satanic Apocrypha in the Old Testament” (Fundamentalist Deception, p. 110).


Marion Simms maintained that "the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, and KJV, all Episcopal in origin, gave a more favorable place to the Apocrypha than any other [Protestant English] Bibles" (Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183). Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views had even more regard for it.

[Logos1560]

The 1769 edition is the true one, most of the ones copied today have been changed also. I use the 1769 edition of Thompson, no body on earth can prove it to be wrong, I'd bet my life on it.
Bro Malone

Have you ever examined an actual copy of the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV or any Oxford KJV editions printed between 1769 and 1880?

While your edition of the KJV may be based on the 1769, it is not every word the same in text as the 1769 Oxford.

I have examined a copy of the 1762 Cambridge edition and have examined several Oxford and Cambridge editions printed from 1790 to 1880.

All spelling updating was not finished by 1769. The 1762 Cambridge edition, the 1769 Oxford edition, and even later Oxford editions printed in 1795, 1799, 1804, and even as late as 1810 still have a character shaped like “f” for long “s” in many words. A few examples of the use of this character in the 1795 Oxford KJV edition: “fin” (Ps. 32:5), “fee” (Ps. 34:12), “chafe” (Ps. 35:5), “wife” (Ps. 36:3), “flay” (Ps. 37:14), “feed” (Ps. 37:26), “fore” (Ps. 38:2), “foul” (Ps. 42:1), and “fake” (Ps. 44:26). The spelling of other words was also changed or updated after 1769, some after 1840, and some even after 1880. The change in several words may have been made after 1804 [“befel“ to “befell“ (2 Sam. 15:12), “Judea” to “Judaea” (Matt. 2:1), “Lebbeus” to “Lebbaeus” (Matt. 10:3), “Arimathea” to “Arimathaea” (Matt. 27:57), “Idumea” to “Idumaea” (Mark 3:8), “Alpheus” to “Alphaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Thaddeus” to “Thaddaeus” (Mark 3:18), “Bartimeus” to “Bartimaeus” (Mark 10:46), “Cesar’s” to “Caesar’s” (Mark 12:17), “vail” to “veil” (Mark 15:38), etc.] although some present KJV editions have gone back to the earlier spelling in same cases. Some words were changed after 1840 in Oxford editions [“houfhold” or “houshold” to “household” (Gen. 18:19), “houfholds” or “housholds” to “households” (Gen. 42:33), “houfholder” or “housholder” to “householder” (Matt. 13:27), “broidered” to “broided” (1 Tim. 2:9), “injoined” to “enjoined” (Heb. 9:20), etc.]. A few spelling changes were made after 1880 in Oxford editions: [“enquire” to “inquire” (Gen. 24:57), “ax” to “axe” (Deut. 19:5), “ancles” to “ankles” (Ezek. 47:3), “sope“ to “soap“ (Mal. 3:2), “ancle” to “ankle” (Acts 3:7), “enquired” to “inquired” (1 Pet. 1:10), etc.].

Besides the spelling changes made after 1769, the 1769 Oxford edition had several other renderings that differ from today's Oxford KJV editions.

[TwinCrier]

LOL, Logos even resurrected a topic nearly a year old to spout his anti-KJV Propaganda! ^_^

[Logos1560]

Providing accurate information to answer inaccurate or false claims about Bible translations or editions is not propaganda. Disagreeing with the inconsistent, man-made KJV-only theory is not being anti-KJV. My view of Bible translation is the same view as that held by William Tyndale, Miles Coverdale, John Rogers, the translators of the Geneva Bible, and even the KJV translators.

[KJVB]

Are you aware there are many different "Bible" versions today claiming to be the Word of God. Each one tells us that it is the most reliable, most accurate, etc. etc.. But which of them is God’s Word? Since they all disagree with one another, we can’t possibly say that they all are. Can we? Are we to suppose that God has written more than one Bible and that he makes statements in one and then disagrees with himself in another? No, of course not. God only wrote one Bible. How, then, do we go about determining which "Bible" is the Bible? If we look to human opinion for the answer, we will find nearly as many opinions as we find people. One person will like one. Another person will prefer another. Yet a third person will assure us that it really doesn’t matter, telling us that any of them will do just fine. Since we aren’t interested in human opinion here, we need to look to scripture for help in resolving this issue. There are two questions that we will need to consider. (1) Which are the correct manuscripts?
(2) Which is the proper translation of those (the correct) manuscripts?

1. God promised to preserve His words (Psa. 12:6-7; Mat. 24:35). There has to be a preserved copy of God’s pure words somewhere. If it isn’t the KJV, then what is it?
2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it’s duplication. This is not true with the modern perversions.
3. The KJV produces good fruit (Mat. 7:17-20). No modern translation can compare to the KJV when it comes to producing good fruit. For nearly four hundred years, God has used the preaching and teaching of the KJV to bring hundreds of millions to Christ. Laodicean Christians might favor the new versions, but the Holy Spirit doesn’t.
4. The KJV was translated during the Philadelphia church period (Rev. 3:7-13). The modern versions begin to appear rather late on the scene as the lukewarm Laodicean period gets underway (Rev. 3:14-22), but the KJV was produced way back in 1611, just in time for the many great revivals (1700-1900). The Philadelphia church was the only church that did not receive a rebuke from the Lord Jesus Christ, and it was the only church that "kept" God’s word (Rev. 3:8).
5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we’d know the difference. This is not the case with many new translations.
6. All new translations compare themselves to the KJV. Isn’t it strange that the new versions never compare themselves to one another? For some strange reason they all line up against one Book--the A.V. 1611. I wonder why? Try Matthew 12:26.

[Logos1560]

. God only wrote one Bible. How, then, do we go about determining which "Bible" is the Bible?

Are you claiming that the one Bible that God directly inspired and wrote was in English and did not exist until 1611?

The one Bible that God wrote was given to the prophets and apostles in the original languages. That one Bible existed before 1611. The words given to the prophets and apostles by direct inspiration of God in the original languages and preserved are the clear standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations. Thus, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority for determining which "Bible" is the Bible. One Bible was given in the original languages, but there have been many translations of that one Bible. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The truth is consistent. The KJV-only view was not true before 1611. On what scriptural basis can it be claimed to be true after 1611?

[Logos1560]

5. The KJV translators were honest in their work. When the translators had to add certain words, largely due to idiom changes, they placed the added words in italics so we’d know the difference.

Along with their own statements in their preface and their marginal notes, another evidence that the KJV translators did not consider their translation to be inspired is their use of italics. F. H. A. Scrivener noted that the 1611 translators were inconsistent in their use of italics and that the later editors of editions of the KJV made many changes in their use. Scrivener observed: "There is really no serious attempt to avoid palpable inconsistencies on the same page, in the same verse; and those who have gone over this branch of their work will be aware that even comparative uniformity can be secured only in one way, by the repeated comparison of the version with the sacred originals" (Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 63). E. W. Bullinger commented: “The italics were used very loosely and inconsistently in the A. V.“ (Figures, p. 985). J. R. Dore also pointed out the many differences in the number of words in italics in various KJV editions. In his book entitled Old Bibles, Dore presented a table with the number of words in italics in the Gospel of Matthew in some KJV editions (p. 340).

Place of Publication Year No. of Italic words
London 1611 43
Cambridge 1629 165
Cambridge 1638 224
Cambridge 1762 352
Cambridge 1870 583

If the use of italics is supposed to show the honesty of the KJV translators, why were they so inconsistent in their use? Why did later editors have to change so many more words into italic type? Were either the KJV translators or later editors such as Paris and Blayney inconsistent or wrong in their use of italics? Do KJV-only advocates consider those later editors who changed the italics to be very presumptuous?

Would any words need to be placed in italics in a perfect translation? Glenn Conjurske, a defender of the KJV, observed: If the translation, no less than the original, is verbally inspired of God, then it were both
unnecessary and impertinent to set off some of those words from the rest, as though they were not of equal authority with the others. This being so, the italics which meet us everywhere on the face of the King James Version constitute a standing proof that the producers of that version did not believe it to be inspired in the same sense as the original texts (Olde Paths and Ancient Landmarks, Oct., 1994, p. 224).

Conjurske also suggested: “an apparent disadvantage of the practice of distinguishing added words by different type may be that it increases the temptation to add such words, where they are certainly unnecessary” (p. 230). Arthur T. Pierson (1837-1911) wrote: "In the judgment of many scholarly exegetes no italics should be used in a translation. They represent words supplied by translators; if the original implies such words they need not be italicized; if it does not, to supply them is unwise, perhaps irreverent, for it may obscure and even pervert the sense" (Knowing the Scriptures, p. 58). E. W. Whitten, a KJV-only author, asserted: “The fact of the matter is that the italicizing of words is just as slanderous and unnecessary as coloring the letters” (Truth, p. 82).

[1057]

[SIZE=2]2. It has no copyright. The text of the KJV may be reproduced by anyone for there is no copyright forbidding it’s duplication.
In the United Kingdom the Authorized King James Version (KJV) remains in Crown Copyright under laws which predate any modern copyright legislation. The rights in this Version of the Bible are a Crown prerogative which continues unaffected by changes in secular legislation.

The rights of the Sovereign in the (KJV)version of the Bible (and in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer) in the United Kingdom are controlled on behalf of the Crown in England, Wales and Northern Ireland by the holder of royal letters patent, The Queen's Printer. The present holder is Cambridge University Press, the world's oldest printer and publisher of Bibles. In Scotland the rights of the Sovereign are administered by the Scottish Bible Board, which may license an approved publisher: currently Harper Collins.

Should you require permission to quote from the KJV for publication in the UK, you should write giving details to Cambridge University Press, contact details are as follows:... link (http://www.speroforum.com/site/wiki.asp?id=KingJamesVersionCopyright)

Crown Copyright law was simply ignored in the U.S. after the Revolution and the KJV has been printed here without permission ever since.

[TwinCrier]

Are you claiming that the one Bible that God directly inspired and wrote was in English and did not exist until 1611?

The one Bible that God wrote was given to the prophets and apostles in the original languages. That one Bible existed before 1611. The words given to the prophets and apostles by direct inspiration of God in the original languages and preserved are the clear standard and greater authority for the making and evaluating of all translations. Thus, the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the authority for determining which "Bible" is the Bible. One Bible was given in the original languages, but there have been many translations of that one Bible. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611. The truth is consistent. The KJV-only view was not true before 1611. On what scriptural basis can it be claimed to be true after 1611?For the millionth time, KJV supporters do not think the bible didn't exist until 1611. It would be more accurate to say that the bible hasn't been accurately translated SINCE 1611. The KJV is the only accurate translation available today in the English language. Since then, publishing companies have churned out paraphrases, altered to conform to specific denominational theology instead of relying on manuscript evidence.
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/why_use.htm

[Logos1560]

The KJV is the only accurate translation available today in the English language.

Where do the Scriptures teach your claim? Where is the consistent valid evidence that proves your statement?
Can you prove that the KJV is more accurate at every rendering at every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles. Some of these Bible are still available today: some in original spelling and some in updated spelling like the KJV. A modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's was available, and I have seen a copy of it in a public library. A modern-spelling edition of the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible is now available [www.TolleLegePress.com] (http://www.TolleLegePress.com]). Text reprints of several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are available. I obtained a copy of a 1535 Coverdale's Bible and a 1540 Great Bible this past year. Do you claim that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were not good, accurate translations?

[TwinCrier]

Where do the Scriptures teach your claim? Where is the consistent valid evidence that proves your statement?
Can you prove that the KJV is more accurate at every rendering at every verse when compared to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages?


There is truth outside of scripture, and it's rather strange to demand proof from a book you claim isn't infallible anyways.

The KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles. Some of these Bible are still available today: some in original spelling and some in updated spelling like the KJV. A modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's was available, and I have seen a copy of it in a public library. A modern-spelling edition of the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible is now available [www.TolleLegePress.com] (http://www.tollelegepress.com]/). Text reprints of several of the pre-1611 English Bibles are available. I obtained a copy of a 1535 Coverdale's Bible and a 1540 Great Bible this past year. Do you claim that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were not good, accurate translations?Again, neither I nor anyone else on this forum has ever stated that the bible didn't exist before 1611. I'm sure there are copies of scripture that are equal to the KJV in accuracy, however, if the 1611 is too arachaic, how can you begin to make claims that the older stuff is better? And if newer is better, why do all the newer translations brag about being translated from "older" manuscripts? I don't understand your reasoning. When I look at the world since the generating of all these new versions and revisions, I don't see the world becoming a better place for it. The world is accelerating into the depths of sin.

[twistedsketch]

I'm sure there are copies of scripture that are equal to the KJV in accuracy, however, if the 1611 is too arachaic, how can you begin to make claims that the older stuff is better? And if newer is better, why do all the newer translations brag about being translated from "older" manuscripts? I don't understand your reasoning.
There's a BIG difference between the KJV's English being too archaic to be understood and the virtues of going to older Greek manuscripts. The Bible should be both easily readable and accurate. Updating the KJV's English makes it more readable, and going back to the oldest, most solid manuscripts is done for the sake of accuracy. It's a far more accurate method than a revision of an already translated work, and it provides for more accountability.

When I look at the world since the generating of all these new versions and revisions, I don't see the world becoming a better place for it. The world is accelerating into the depths of sin.
So the Bibles are causing that? Seriously. If you don't judge the Reformation by that criteria (with the 30 Years War and all), don't judge the NIV, the NASB or any of the other good, new translations that way.

[Logos1560]

I'm sure there are copies of scripture that are equal to the KJV in accuracy

Would you accept the 1560 Geneva Bible as being equal to the KJV in accuracy?

Would you accept Luther's German Bible as being equal to the KJV in accuracy?