You don't need the Greek, just the KJV

[Reformedjason]

I read a post that actually said this. I am just amazed. The translation is better than what it is translated from. WOW! That type of thinking is what makes king james onlyism such a joke. Any rational thinking person would know this is crazy. That is that the Kjv is better than the TR, when the Kjv is based on the TR.

 

[Tintin]

Yes, it's a ridiculous claim but we have far too many KJV-Onlyist-related threads already. Did we really need another one?

 

[Reformedjason]

Yes, it's a ridiculous claim but we have far too many KJV-Onlyist-related threads already. Did we really need another one?

Probably not. I can agree with you, but we have not had one posted in 20 minutes.

 

[p_rehbein]

Honestly, there is SOME TRUTH to the statement............just saying.......

Consider this:

I DON'T NEED mashed tatters 'n' gravy, or French fries, or Baked tatters.........I COULD get along just fine with Boiled tatters.

 

[nathan3]

I read a post that actually said this. I am just amazed. The translation is better than what it is translated from. WOW! That type of thinking is what makes king james onlyism such a joke. Any rational thinking person would know this is crazy. That is that the Kjv is better than the TR, when the Kjv is based on the TR.

you do realize everyone, dose this for every English version. Everyone should be looking into the Hebrew and Greek the Bible is translated from. I use the kjv and know I got to look into the languages the Bible is translated from, This is not a ""kjv' only thing "" But a ""English only attitude ".

Everyone got to study .

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Honestly, there is SOME TRUTH to the statement............just saying.......

Consider this:

I DON'T NEED mashed tatters 'n' gravy, or French fries, or Baked tatters.........I COULD get along just fine with Boiled tatters.

hate to say this bro. But that is just heresy! people have been banned for less!!

 

[ChosenbyHim]

I read a post that actually said this. I am just amazed. The translation is better than what it is translated from. WOW! That type of thinking is what makes king james onlyism such a joke. Any rational thinking person would know this is crazy. That is that the Kjv is better than the TR, when the Kjv is based on the TR.

Any "rational person" would not set themselves as judges over the word of God.

And yet today you have a lot of professing Christians doing just that very thing.

Instead of them submitting to the preserved and God Honoured text of the King James Bible, they rather try to correct it with inferior translations such as the NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT, etc. That come from the Vatican! Imagine that. And the gall that these people have to pretend that they believe the Bible when they do not. If these same people who have set up their own mind as their own final authority were honest, they would just come out and say that they do not believe the Bible.

 

[2Thewaters]

The Bible wasnt written in greek. so you are correct you dont need the greek
it was written in aramaic

the KJV was written in greek and has some poor transaltions, like hell and blessed and things like that,

but every version is good in its way and if you pray God will show you the truth.

Best Bible is the one Jesus read and the ones the disciples wrote in aramaic but it is real close to KJV

Hell should have been translated grave
bless should have been translated KNEEL DOWN and worship God
And WEEK and REST should have been translated SHABBAT seventh day.

other than that kjv is fine.

 

[Maitreya]

The Bible wasnt written in greek. so you are correct you dont need the greek
it was written in aramaic

the KJV was written in greek and has some poor transaltions, like hell and blessed and things like that,

but every version is good in its way and if you pray God will show you the truth.

Best Bible is the one Jesus read and the ones the disciples wrote in aramaic but it is real close to KJV

Hell should have been translated grave
bless should have been translated KNEEL DOWN and worship God
And WEEK and REST should have been translated SHABBAT seventh day.

other than that kjv is fine.

I disagree slightly. One Aramaic term translated 'bless' is 'brikh'. God's name in some texts is 'Brikh hu', or 'blessed one', in wooden translation. But the translation is flat; the word means more than that.

Bless, culturally, has two significant meanings. To be blessed, could be synonymous with having 'prosperity', but as we know, material wealth is not what Jesus attributes to the word. Rather, this prosperity is 'wisdom', 'compassion', 'joy', things like this. So to say 'I am blessed', should really be connotative that I have peace of mind, love in my heart, joy, some form of godly mindset that gives me 'inner prosperity'.

The second significant use of the word is to 'kneel down' (hebrew). But Aramaic and hebrew have subtle differences. When Jesus says 'bless those who curse you', what he means is not 'kneel down' to those who curse you, but rather, 'serve' those who curse you. Become 'least of men'. Have a humble attitude that 'gives and does good work' to those who hate you. Wish inner prosperity on those who despise you. Because, I think, in Jesus mind, if someone is to hate him, he would have compassion and pity for them, rather than anger towards them. He would be saying in his mind 'I wish that this person finds a way to alleviate their hatred and come to inner prosperity'.

So, the definition is not altogether wooden, for me at least. When people talk in philosophical terms, generally words carry particular interpretations that are slightly esoteric to the group. For instance, when Jesus speaks things to the disciples, using particular words, and the disciples understand him, yet the pharisees perhaps don't.

The word 'tubwayhun' is also translated 'blessed'. And it's meaning is similar to 'realization', or 'ripening', 'maturity', in a sense. Therefore, 'understand' people who persecute you. 'realize' them. As above, see that their hatred is in fact making 'them' suffer, because having a mind of hatred is definitely NOT having 'inner prosperity' or peace of mind.

another word translated as blessed is 'barruch'. It sort of means 'welcome' at its root.

the best example I can give is the aramaic 'Barruch haba bshem Elaw' - 'Welcome is he who comes in the name of the Father'.

This also is connotative of having 'open arms' for people. 'Welcome those who persecute you'.

Although only one of these words is used in this particular phrase, the three of them are used all throughout the bible and have very similar, subtly different meanings that can be difficult to translate into English. But the general jest of them is to have good wishes, understanding, peaceful actions, to wish prosperity, to welcome, to humble oneself and serve.Together they paint a very broad, positive picture of the kind of 'godly selflessness' that people are supposed to have for others.

 

[Maitreya]

But on the topic of the thread, to not try to find the meanings with compassion as your guide is very blind, especially considering that many of our translations were made after the crusades etc. England had failed to win the 'holy land' after slaughtering many of its inhabitants. And King James would've felt some of the same animosity towards the Easterners as his forefathers had.

Therefore, using only a bible written and translated in 1600's England under the King, who had total authority over its translation, without ever looking deeper is asking to be bogged down with the baggage of the times and culture it was written in.

The KJV uses the most inflexible, harsh, polarizing methods in its translation. It translates contextually subjective words to have absolute meanings, and it used the most catastrophizing forms of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words that should be translated altogether softer and more subtle than it portrays. And if ever the words in the KJV did have softer, more wise, inward, subtle meanings, today, in the era of modern English, they no longer do.

It doesn't give justice to the richness and depth of what Jesus says. Some phrases have a stuttered motion that doesn't portray their real meaning nor give the real subject of the sentence affluence, others are worded in such ways as to come across as insignificant, and it seems that much of what the KJV translates, at least from Jesus' speech, makes him sound hard and sometimes cruel in his dialect, when in fact, there are loads of phrases Jesus uses that equate to very, very deep sentiment and I imagine his manner of speech is much less matter of fact than the KJV claims.

Asides from that, it used Old English. The 'thou's and 'thee's and 'canst's don't have the same directional broadness of Greek and Aramaic either, nor of modern English.

I would very, very much like to see a compassionate, gentle, intelligent ancient Greek and Aramaic scholar use his compassion to write the bible in modern English in a way that gives it real justice, that paints all the same colours that Jesus did.

 

[Maitreya]

Also, the KJV was commisioned by King James, and written in the early 1600's.

Did you know that in the latter end of the 1500's, the same King James became paranoid and madly obsessed with witch-craft? He considered it a theology contradictory to that of God, and carried out witch-hunts then personally oversaw the tortures of the accused? What of that mindset gives him the compassionate authority to oversee a translation of the words of some of the most compassionate and non-violent men in human history?

King James also commissioned the translation partly to reconcile differences between the Catholic and Protestant translations, and wished the work to be a 'masterwork of Jacobean prose'. In otherwords; it was an intellectual piece of art rather than a bible meant to portray Jesus. And it was done mostly for political positioning and the support of people.

 

[Wanderers]

The Crusades are a bit of a red herring as they were a response to Islamic imperialism. Neither side came out of well in the 'slaughter' stakes.

Whatever King James' personal issues, the KJV isn't that much different from those based on the more favoured Critical Text. And lets not forget, all translations can easily carry the mark of denominational, political, gender and cultural bias. The loose and 'flippant' style of the Message is disliked by some but there are those who love it as it speaks to a modern generation. Similarly, gender neutral translations are deemed by many to be irrelevant but there are those who feel them absolutely necessary in todays gender inclusive age. So, the argument that King James put political values above Jesus Christ is, again, a bit of a side issue.

The fact that the KJV underwent revisions speaks highly of those who sought to preserve God's word to the best possible translation from sources available at that time.

And lets not forget, as I have posted elsewhere, many mighty men and women of God not to mention revivals have had the KJV as their only source of the word of God. God does not favour a particular bible translation any more than He does a particular denomination.

 

[Reformedjason]

The Bible wasnt written in greek. so you are correct you dont need the greek
it was written in aramaic

the KJV was written in greek and has some poor transaltions, like hell and blessed and things like that,

but every version is good in its way and if you pray God will show you the truth.

Best Bible is the one Jesus read and the ones the disciples wrote in aramaic but it is real close to KJV

Hell should have been translated grave
bless should have been translated KNEEL DOWN and worship God
And WEEK and REST should have been translated SHABBAT seventh day.

other than that kjv is fine.

You are in error. The New Testament was written in greek.

 

[Maitreya]

The Crusades are a bit of a red herring as they were a response to Islamic imperialism. Neither side came out of well in the 'slaughter' stakes.

Whatever King James' personal issues, the KJV isn't that much different from those based on the more favoured Critical Text. And lets not forget, all translations can easily carry the mark of denominational, political, gender and cultural bias. The loose and 'flippant' style of the Message is disliked by some but there are those who love it as it speaks to a modern generation. Similarly, gender neutral translations are deemed by many to be irrelevant but there are those who feel them absolutely necessary in todays gender inclusive age. So, the argument that King James put political values above Jesus Christ is, again, a bit of a side issue.

The fact that the KJV underwent revisions speaks highly of those who sought to preserve God's word to the best possible translation from sources available at that time.

And lets not forget, as I have posted elsewhere, many mighty men and women of God not to mention revivals have had the KJV as their only source of the word of God. God does not favour a particular bible translation any more than He does a particular denomination.

Certainly, people can read the KJV and see the underlying message, no doubt about it. And you're right too, that any translation can be given a bias by the people translating it. It's just that, so many take the exact method of delivery of a certain bible to be the pure words of God, when in fact, English translation doesn't totally allow for the broadness of what is meant.

Take a particular word for example; the greek word often translated as 'end'. That same word can mean 'conclusion'. 'End' brings about a sense of 'nothingness thereafter', whereas 'conlusion' brings about a sense of completion, and then a moving forward from that completion.

That's just one example, and although it may seem insignificant, little things like that have profound implications to those who read it; particularly those who take it for granted that the translation they're reading can't be skewed. I know many people think 'God wouldn't let his word be corrupted', but I don't inherently believe that to be true.

However, for those willing to look and read deep enough, their is every chance the meaning will become exposed.

But I don't think King James' character is a side issue at all. If a person tortures, surely they can't be said to have Jesus' spirit, and thus, they'll not be able to see the subtleties of his truth.

Similarly, political power and unity as a motive isn't exaclty the right reason to translate a bible, however, the example you give; gender equality, is already there in the Greek and Aramaic. When the term 'man' is used, it generally refers to 'a member of mankind'.

I don't see gender equality as being the same as political maneuvering.

 

[Dwark]

You are in error. The New Testament was written in greek.

Except the book of Matthew, which probably was written in Aramaic. The witness testimony is that Matthew was the first gospel written and it was written in the "native tounge". (I'm doing this from memory, a long time ago.)

 

[RedTent]

Also, the KJV was commisioned by King James, and written in the early 1600's.

Did you know that in the latter end of the 1500's, the same King James became paranoid and madly obsessed with witch-craft? He considered it a theology contradictory to that of God, and carried out witch-hunts then personally oversaw the tortures of the accused? What of that mindset gives him the compassionate authority to oversee a translation of the words of some of the most compassionate and non-violent men in human history?

King James also commissioned the translation partly to reconcile differences between the Catholic and Protestant translations, and wished the work to be a 'masterwork of Jacobean prose'. In otherwords; it was an intellectual piece of art rather than a bible meant to portray Jesus. And it was done mostly for political positioning and the support of people.

You can still read a copy of the book he wrote on witchcraft. The guy was nuts.

 

[Angela53510]

The Bible wasnt written in greek. so you are correct you dont need the greek
it was written in aramaic

the KJV was written in greek and has some poor transaltions, like hell and blessed and things like that,

but every version is good in its way and if you pray God will show you the truth.

Best Bible is the one Jesus read and the ones the disciples wrote in aramaic but it is real close to KJV

Hell should have been translated grave
bless should have been translated KNEEL DOWN and worship God
And WEEK and REST should have been translated SHABBAT seventh day.

other than that kjv is fine.

Jesus read the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament texts. That is what he quotes in the New Testament- both the Septugint and the Masoretic text (yes, I know the vowel points were added later!). The Bible was written in Greek. Aramaic is only found in a few passages of the Old Testament, like Daniel and Esther - during the Babylonian captivity.

I read the Bible in Greek, Hebrew, English and French. My goal is to get to the point where I can also read it in Spanish and German. So how exactly is reading a version which is out of date linguistically, which used later manuscripts that were full of tampering by scribes better than reading the original languages and other languages for that matter?

Wait - don't answer that! It isn't! God can communicate through any version of his Word. I got saved reading a Catholic version of the Bible because it was modern and I could understand it. I have read many versions, and they all say the same thing to me.

Jesus died on the cross for my sins. Jesus rose from the dead. Jesus is coming again! (Only once!)

 

[RedTent]

Except the book of Matthew, which probably was written in Aramaic. The witness testimony is that Matthew was the first gospel written and it was written in the "native tounge". (I'm doing this from memory, a long time ago.)

The latest in history research is that the original of the original was in Hebrew.

Frankly, the bible is expressing spiritual thoughts that are difficult to put into any language man has used. The best way of understanding this language is to compare many translations. The devil does not want us to understand God, so of course he would try to get Christians to say we must only go by one translation.

It is also a wonderful help in knowing what God wants us to know when we learn about the people God uses to explain at different times, like what people thought about in Abrahams time, or in Paul's time. It helps us understand God, so of course the devil is against us learning any of this, too.

 

[Agricola]

Jesus read the Hebrew and Greek Old Testament texts.

DOnt forget all the 17th century literature his Dad teleported from the future for him to read as obviously 17th century English is the native language of God and Jesus.

 

[Reformedjason]

I do not set myself up to judge Gods word. I do think that every Christian should be concerned with what was originally inspired. As we find more mss and they are older than the ones that we have had we are closer to the original. We can use textual criticism and get closer to the original. There are no greek ms support for 1 john 5:7 before the 14th century. The rational mind will believe if it is not in the older mss, then it must have been added. To accept blindly that the Kjv is perfect is to not be responsible. Kjv onlyist don't care. You can show them these things and they refuse to listen. They say you can not find any mistakes in the Kjv , but when you show them these things they ignore you. It is a loosing battle, full of double standards.