Is KJV the only real bible version?

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
M

Mitspa

Guest
#81
I know everything about Frances Bacon, the Masons, the Illuminatti, King James being a homo, using the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, Bishops bible and everything else you can bring up. I studied this out years ago and I don't need to rehash it. I need you to put your money where your mouth is lol... show me the errors in the KJV! You say it has errors but the only thing you presented so far is a type setting mistake... is that all you got?:) I love you brother!
You already said you don't believe the Greek text can judge the KJV translation? And which revised version are you claiming is without error? the modern one or the 1611? Put your money where your mouth is!
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,783
2,947
113
#82
I know everything about Frances Bacon, the Masons, the Illuminatti, King James being a homo, using the Textus Receptus, the Latin Vulgate, Bishops bible and everything else you can bring up. I studied this out years ago and I don't need to rehash it. I need you to put your money where your mouth is lol... show me the errors in the KJV! You say it has errors but the only thing you presented so far is a type setting mistake... is that all you got?:) I love you brother!
Did you miss post #79, did we cross post, or are you ignoring me because "a woman is not to have authority over a man?"

I could go into great depth about why 1 Tim 2:12 was terribly and wrongly translated by KJV, but that might open another BIG can of worms. LOL
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#83
Actually, the grammar is not convoluted, so much as it is just wrong! Hebrew comes a bit closer to English, although the verbs are totally different, and Hebrew is a verbal language. Nouns count for little in Hebrew, and they are generally cognates of the verbs.

Greek uses cases for the noun structure. Thus, the nominative case is the subject in a sentence, even though it can be thrown to the very back of the sentence. For example, the word "the" which has one word for all cases and both singular and plural in English, has 17 different words in 24 different possible positions in the Greek. This makes the language much more readable, because you know exactly what the writer is trying to say, no guessing ever necessary. (The verb structure is also much more complex, adding to the subtleties of the text.)

Unfortunately, KJV sometimes makes major mistakes, including what can result in bad theology, sometimes with only one letter being off in the Greek.

In addition, most prepositions have different meanings depending upon the case. (ie. nominative, genitive, dative or accusative) In Greek, Mark 1:5 says the following in Greek.

"καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν." Mark 1:5 Greek

"And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 KJV

The first phrase in italics also uses a preposition πρὸς αὐτὸν (pros auton) in the accusative case, which are best translated "to, towards, with" as "unto" is not a word used by anyone today other than KJV advocates. It is quite simply an archaic word.

This bolded phrase ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ (hu' autou) in the Greek, hu' is the preposition ὑπὸ, which in the genitive case should be translated "by" (or "under" in the accusative case - which it is not!) The following from the ESV is a better translation, based on current understanding of both Greek and Hebrew.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV

For that matter, there is NO "they of" Jerusalem as the KJV states, but rather all Jerusalem (technically "Jerusalem all" if you want a strict adherence to the Greek.) But NO added "they of" exists in the Greek.

I could find you examples of wrongly translated for the noun case in every chapter of the New Testament of the KJV.

As for the purportedly "flowery" language which many people feel gives the KJV some edge, most of that is because rather than using English grammar (typically, subject, verb, object and/or direct object) it tends to tightly follow the Greek grammar where subjects are thrown to the back of sentence.

Another example of a very famous phrase, incorrectly translated because the later manuscripts contained a word which lost the final sigma is Luke 2:14.

"Δόξα ἐν ὑψίστοις θεῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας" Luke 2:14 Greek

The KJV uses the word εὐδοκία (eudokia) in the nominative case as the final word of the verse, whereas the older manuscripts used to translate the more modern translations use the word εὐδοκίας (eudokias) which is in the genitive case.

Thus KJV translates Luke 2:14 as "Peace on earth, good will toward men." This is universalism at its finest, and it has spawned more than a few heresies from the simple act of losing that one final sigma. Modern versions vary a bit in translating this word, but they all agree that God must have favour, or be pleased with those upon whom rest his favour. In other words, Christ's birth did NOT bring generic, universal peace for all humanity, but "peace" is limited to those who obtain favour with God by believing in his Son, Jesus Christ.

“Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!" ESV

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” NIV

“Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favors!” NRSV

All of the modern versions correctly use the word εὐδοκίας which is the genitive case.

I could pick apart the KJV mistakes all day, but it would serve no purpose. And yes, Greek is incredibly easy to read, if you have a facility for languages. It also makes the Bible so much easier to understand. Although I do understand that many will not put the effort into learning this language, especially if their own English language skills and grammar leave something to be desired.

Actually, just comparing the Greek and KJV in Mark 1:5 alone makes me realize how many major mistakes are in the KJV. I know we compared Hebrew and KJV for several books of the Old Testament in Hebrew classes, and it was astounding how many places the KJV was just totally wrong. Another good reason to stick with the modern translations, which have a much better record than the numerous errors in the KJV.
Nice post...is this good enough to start KJV1611?
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#84
Did you miss post #79, did we cross post, or are you ignoring me because "a woman is not to have authority over a man?"

I could go into great depth about why 1 Tim 2:12 was terribly and wrongly translated by KJV, but that might open another BIG can of worms. LOL
start a thread on that sometime...I seen some things in the Greek and maybe we see some of the same things?
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
#85
What? Of course they knew God was using them to translate His Word into English. The Holy Spirit used these men of God for His purposes. It doesn't seem that you understand how the Holy Spirit works. The Preface has everything to do with God's Word. Everything. It's not inspired by God but the Preface shows the thought-processes and beliefs held by the KJV translators. So yes, it's important. And yes, you totally blew off my post. But I'm used to KJV-Onlyists doing that.
Even the translators themselves said in their commentary that the translation was not without error but they believed it was the best they could do with what they had to work with.
 

RickyZ

Senior Member
Sep 20, 2012
9,635
787
113
#86
So are you saying that to truly understand God's word, we have to take a little from this translation and little from that translation and throw in a little Greek here and some Hebrew here and ta-da we have the inerrant word of God.

Let me ask you, while your picking and choosing, how do you know you picked the right part? I know how most do it.... if it fits their doctrine then it's true... if not, well obviously the KJV translators got that one wrong.

What is your formula for deciphering the truth out of error? How do you know which part of each bible is right and which part is wrong?

See right there is the problem. You're looking for conflict where there need not be any. It's not picking and choosing which is right at what time, it's receiving several witnesses to the truth and then finding what they all say in common. Ten people witness a car crash, they'll give ten different perspectives on it. You don't point and say this guy's right the rest of you lie, it's what picture do the ten together paint? You've polarized yourself on this issue and thus all your related theology will be likewise polarized. It's only when you stand in the middle that you can see all sides of the truth.


What? Of course they knew God was using them to translate His Word into English. The Holy Spirit used these men of God for His purposes. It doesn't seem that you understand how the Holy Spirit works.
You already said you don't believe the Greek text can judge the KJV translation? And which revised version are you claiming is without error? the modern one or the 1611? Put your money where your mouth is!
Really, KJV1611, you believe that the men who wrote the KJV1611 did not seek or receive God's Spirit, embellished upon the Inspired original language, and yet produced the one and only inerrant Word of God none the less?

Wow. That is some theory I must admit.
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
#87
When I first became a Christian I hated the KJV, I couldn't understand anything I read so I turned to the NIV.... I still didn't understand anything in it either. Oh I could read the words but they didn't make much sense. Later I began to see contradictions in the NIV... that really shook my faith. If there's errors in the book then how can determine what is truth. So I heard about the inerrancy of the KJV and I put it to the test. All the errors I found in the NIV were not in the KJV. My faith in the accuracy of the KJV got more and more and I began to read more and more. The more I read the easier it was to understand. The KJV is easy for me to read now. God has already given his word in the English language, and the dialect (or whatever you want to call it) that he gave it in is way more accurate than modern English.
But most of us, if not all on this thread, agree that the NIV is one of the most liberal of the standard modern versions.

From what I've researched, even where a liberal version, like the NIV, lacks in certain verses, it does not lack as an entirety.
The NIV still supports the deity of Christ, and His "only begotten" state, and the Trinity,
just not as clearly in certain verses where the KJV makes those doctrines explicit.
If the entire text was edited to reject those doctrines, then it would be a different story.


As I said before, by your convictions, it is necessary for you to be praying for an Authorized modern translation, or working on one yourself.
That is not an option, but your very calling.
There is no excuse or reason for God to settle with "thees, thous and thines" among a generation that has never heard those words outside. The Word of God was written for the common man to understand for himself, not for the scholar and preacher to have to explain for the common man.

Just as God used the Latin Vulgate, He has used the KJV, and just as He will continue to maintain His Word to all generations and nations until the End.

I will not debate with your convictions about modern translations, but I will challenge your conviction that the KJV is the last Authorized English translation that God will use,
and challenge you to pray for and/or work on the next one.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#88
In Greek, Mark 1:5 says the following in Greek.

"καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν." Mark 1:5 Greek

"And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 KJV

The first phrase in italics also uses a preposition πρὸς αὐτὸν (pros auton) in the accusative case, which are best translated "to, towards, with" as "unto" is not a word used by anyone today other than KJV advocates. It is quite simply an archaic word.

This bolded phrase ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ (hu' autou) in the Greek, hu' is the preposition ὑπὸ, which in the genitive case should be translated "by" (or "under" in the accusative case - which it is not!) The following from the ESV is a better translation, based on current understanding of both Greek and Hebrew.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV

For that matter, there is NO "they of" Jerusalem as the KJV states, but rather all Jerusalem (technically "Jerusalem all" if you want a strict adherence to the Greek.) But NO added "they of" exists in the Greek.

I could find you examples of wrongly translated for the noun case in every chapter of the New Testament of the KJV.
So what's the error?
The Greek is Greek to me, I have no idea what it says. Could you translate it for me... put it into your own words. Because all I see is all of Judaea and some of Jerusalem going to be baptized by John in the Jordan river and the ESV contradicting itself.

In Mark the ESV says that all of Jerusalem went out to him, but in Matthew the ESV just says Jerusalem.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV

Matthew 3:5English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,


The KJV is consistent, neither verse says all, because all of Jerusalem didn't go to him.

Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,


I don't know, what do you think, did the ESV get it wrong? I've got to go to bed, I'll address the rest of your post later.



 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
#89
Did you miss post #79, did we cross post, or are you ignoring me because "a woman is not to have authority over a man?"

I could go into great depth about why 1 Tim 2:12 was terribly and wrongly translated by KJV, but that might open another BIG can of worms. LOL
Oh your own for that one... can't wait! :)
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
#90
So what's the error?
The Greek is Greek to me, I have no idea what it says. Could you translate it for me... put it into your own words. Because all I see is all of Judaea and some of Jerusalem going to be baptized by John in the Jordan river and the ESV contradicting itself.

In Mark the ESV says that all of Jerusalem went out to him, but in Matthew the ESV just says Jerusalem.

"And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins." Mark 1:5 ESV

Matthew 3:5English Standard Version (ESV)

5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,


The KJV is consistent, neither verse says all, because all of Jerusalem didn't go to him.

Mar 1:5 And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins.

Mat 3:5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judaea, and all the region round about Jordan,


I don't know, what do you think, did the ESV get it wrong? I've got to go to bed, I'll address the rest of your post later.



Do you seriously see any error?
Do people actually preach that every single person in Judea went out to see Christ? What nonsense. It is a phrase.
If they do, by necessity, all of Jerusalem would go out too, as Jerusalem is in Judea.
There is no contradiction in any of the 4 lines you posted. It all says the same thing to the same end.

I didn't want to even discuss such semantics with you, but that division was too much to not call out. Making division for the sake of division.
 

Chopper

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
402
11
18
#91
I'm curious since Mitspa seems to be the "expert" to go to in understanding how the original writings of the New Covenant were in Greek and not Hebrew, when I'm pretty sure the spoken language at the time was Aramaic which was the main language used by Jews for both spoken and written communication.

How was it said? To the Jew first, then the Gentile.
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
#92
I'm curious since Mitspa seems to be the "expert" to go to in understanding how the original writings of the New Covenant were in Greek and not Hebrew, when I'm pretty sure the spoken language at the time was Aramaic which was the main language used by Jews for both spoken and written communication.

How was it said? To the Jew first, then the Gentile.
The Epistles were all written in Koine Greek, not Aramaic. The Gospels of Luke and John were also written in Koine Greek. There are some scholars who say that Matthew and Mark may have originally been in Aramaic, but they are a minority as no evidence exists to suggest it, only assumptions.
None of the NT was written in Hebrew, not even the Old Testement quotes they used.

Greek was the common language of Israel during the 1st century. Aramaic was only used in homes, not in public communications. Aramaic was more common in the rural areas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
9,368
2,445
113
#93
Answer me this, KJV-Onlyists. Why is it that the Preface to the KJV was excised from the KJV Bible since 1900 or so? In this preface, the translators of the KJV talk about the necessity of new translations and welcome the addition of more modern translations for the future. Hmm...
Tintin...

I think the original dedicatory is removed from most modern printings of the KJV because it rails mercilessly against the Pope.
: )
I assume most publishing companies decided that was bad for business.


Personally, I enjoy that dedicatory.
You should read it... it'll crack you up.
:)
 
Last edited:

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#94
I know so many people who prefer the KJV over any other version. Some say the KJV is the real version and the real true word of God and I heard there's some Christians who only believe in reading the only KJV and so forth. I personally have a way of believe this because I have read the NLT or NIV and found many contradictions. So, perhaps I should read the KJV. I am confused though.
OK. The OP has been banned, but surely there are scores of other people out there wondering about the same thing. And at one point sooner or later most believers will have to face the issue in question. So, I'll share my view and its quite simple. The KJV is a version of translation from the original texts into the english language. As such it has stood the time test well and (even though I don't hold it to be totally infallible) personally I haven't yet found another version in english that, as a whole, surpasses the KJV in accuracy. So, until now, I'd still say that one would be well off with the KJV. One of the reasons would be the material its translated from. There would be issues with H/W based translations such as the NIV, which then are not really good to go with.
 

Chopper

Senior Member
Nov 8, 2014
402
11
18
#95
[video=vimeo;8974400]http://vimeo.com/8974400[/video]
 
U

Ukorin

Guest
#96
[video=vimeo;8974400]http://vimeo.com/8974400[/video]
The Aramaic Original theory is rejected by all serious scholars.
It is just a tradition passed down by the Assyrian Church, and not a credible historical fact.
The Aramaic texts used are very "late" manuscripts compared to the Greek texts found in Israel and surrounding countries.

The AENTB website is the only place you will find scholastic support of this theory, and all that research is from one man, George Lamsa, and his team. They are all members of the Assyrian Church, and are firm Nestorianists.
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,213
3,188
113
#97
No bible version will be completely 100% accurate. I think its pretty bad to only stick to one version. I'm in the process of comparing bible versions now. Its good to compare them. Especially when looking over a verse for example, see how other versions say this same verse. Also you don't have to be a professional or an expert but when reading/studying the bible its good to kind of get a good idea of the original Greek as well.


I grew up with the KJV and the NKJV. I was told to stay away from the NIV or that other versions were not 'acceptable' enough. But that is so far from the truth.
The best solution is to get into a good Hebrew school and read more than one translation. My opinion anyway :D
 
Jul 22, 2014
10,350
51
0
#98
I know so many people who prefer the KJV over any other version. Some say the KJV is the real version and the real true word of God and I heard there's some Christians who only believe in reading the only KJV and so forth. I personally have a way of believe this because I have read the NLT or NIV and found many contradictions. So, perhaps I should read the KJV. I am confused though.
Logic dictates there can only be one Word of God and not many Word's of God. For God is not the author of confusion. I believe the KJV to be the divinely inspired Word of God for our world language today (Amongst a long line of perfect Word's in different languages thru out history (i.e. English, Latin, Greek, and Hebrew). For the Scriptures say that God's Word is perfect and that it would be preserved forever. Something that has errors in it is not perfect. It's either God's perfect Word or it is not.

Now, that said, while I believe the KJV is the perfect Word for today, it is written in Old English of the 1600's. So for the new student who is not familar with this language and it's symbolic language and how English words we use today were used slightly different back then, one can easily misunderstand what is truly being said. So I recommend in making the KJV your final Word of authority but do not force Modern English upon Old English, though. For one must realize that words change with the passage of time and that words can look the same but have different meanings or usages. In other words, use Modern Translations or look at various different Parallel Translations ( Bible Hub: Search, Read, Study the Bible in Many Languages ) and compare it with the KJV and look at the original languages with a Strong's Concordance with an Interlinear Comparison ( Blue Letter Bible is a good site for this). Also, always make sure your understanding of a passage or verse lines up with the context (i.e. the surrounding passages). Furthermore, it is also good to look for cross references, too (Check out Bible Cross References ). In addition, ask the Lord for understanding when you read the Scriptures (Jeremiah 33:3).
 
May 2, 2014
1,060
12
0
#99
I know so many people who prefer the KJV over any other version. Some say the KJV is the real version and the real true word of God and I heard there's some Christians who only believe in reading the only KJV and so forth. I personally have a way of believe this because I have read the NLT or NIV and found many contradictions. So, perhaps I should read the KJV. I am confused though.
No, the KJV is not the only real Bible. Like all translations the KJV too has it's share of mistranslations.
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
See right there is the problem. You're looking for conflict where there need not be any. It's not picking and choosing which is right at what time, it's receiving several witnesses to the truth and then finding what they all say in common. Ten people witness a car crash, they'll give ten different perspectives on it. You don't point and say this guy's right the rest of you lie, it's what picture do the ten together paint? You've polarized yourself on this issue and thus all your related theology will be likewise polarized. It's only when you stand in the middle that you can see all sides of the truth.
Your analogy doesn't match what you say you believe. In your analogy you have each one of the 10 witnesses giving 10 accurate TRUE accounts of the car crash. I agree with that, and that is what the bible does in the 4 gospel accounts of the resurrection.

But that's not what you believe. You believe that there is some truth in all bibles but all bibles contain errors. That's like one of your 10 witnesses saying the car that wrecked was blue, and another says the car was red, and another says it was white. Obviously either one or more of the witnesses got it wrong or the car was red and blue with white stripes. Either way, it is impossible to know the real truth of that story, the best you can do is pick the story that you best fits your needs.