Is KJV the only real bible version?
- Thread starter beeskillet
- Start date
-
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.
U
Of course He can, which is likely how me and you learned KJV lingo in the first place.
The question would be "does God not have the ability to send a modern English translation?"
If He does, then it would certainly be a benefit.
If you don't believe such a version exists, then you should be praying for God to send one. He would not reject such a noble request.
The question would be "does God not have the ability to send a modern English translation?"
If He does, then it would certainly be a benefit.
If you don't believe such a version exists, then you should be praying for God to send one. He would not reject such a noble request.
Let me give an example of God's word. God's inerrant word says:
Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
How many different ways can I say that and still say the same thing.
I can say the following and still maintain the inerrant word of God.
God loved the world so much, he gave the only son from his loins, and whoever believes in him will live forever.
Or, I can say the following and still maintain the inerrant word of God.
God's love for the world is so great that he supernatural impregnated Mary to provide a body for his son to come into this world and die for the sins of the world so that all who believe on him would not die and go to hell but rather instead live
forever.
This could continue on quite a while, and I would still be in the bounds of the inerrant word of God. But what I can not say, and this is what the newer translation say:
John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Joh_3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
How many different ways can I say that and still say the same thing.
I can say the following and still maintain the inerrant word of God.
God loved the world so much, he gave the only son from his loins, and whoever believes in him will live forever.
Or, I can say the following and still maintain the inerrant word of God.
God's love for the world is so great that he supernatural impregnated Mary to provide a body for his son to come into this world and die for the sins of the world so that all who believe on him would not die and go to hell but rather instead live
forever.
This could continue on quite a while, and I would still be in the bounds of the inerrant word of God. But what I can not say, and this is what the newer translation say:
John 3:16New International Version (NIV)
16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
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.
M
Do you even know that most of the translation was not "new" it was taken from earlier English translations? And this might make you upset but its well know ole King James was a unrepentant homosexual...they have his love letters to other men! That many of the so called men of God who did much of the work putting it together where known to be ungodly men... That the first copy was covered in masonic/satanic symbols placed there by Fancis Bacon a well known occultist! That the first copy was so full of errors including the misquote of the commandments... "thou shall commit adultery" for which this bible got the title "the devils bible" by the Puritains...who would not even read it? So when did this bible become so correct in your view?
Say whaaat???
I tend to think that not only did God influence the original works, but that He took part in maintaining it by influencing the subsequent legitimate derivations of them. God's word does cross language barriers, human language is too finite to encompass His word in one 'translation'. The reason we have many translations is becaue He wants us to have His complete inerrant word.
No, evidently there are major portions of it you don't believe apply to you.
I tend to think that not only did God influence the original works, but that He took part in maintaining it by influencing the subsequent legitimate derivations of them. God's word does cross language barriers, human language is too finite to encompass His word in one 'translation'. The reason we have many translations is becaue He wants us to have His complete inerrant word.
No, evidently there are major portions of it you don't believe apply to you.
Ok, I get it you don't like King James, you think he was homo... big deal. I don't care about King James or any of the men that translated the KJV. I want you to show me where the KJV is wrong. I didn't say show me where it doesn't match the "original copies". Show me something in the KJV that is not biblical.
M
They have his love letters! to other men! and if you don't believe in the Greek text who can convince you of anything? So which revised version are you claiming is the correct one? The 1611? and all the later revisions are what? errors from this super-natural translation you seem to believe in? What about the evident errors in the first copies...what about the masonic/satanic markings all over the 1611? What about francis bacon...why did he (a known occultist) put all that crap on the Word of God?
and you don't know what your talking about by saying "original copies" they did not have the original copies!
and you don't know what your talking about by saying "original copies" they did not have the original copies!
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?
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?
M
Friend you don't even know what your talking about...do you even know what part of the KJV was translated or what part was just taken from earlier English bibles? do you even know what Greek text they had to work with? They had 8 partial copies of the Greek text...all of them a thousand years later than the text we have access to now... do you think a text a 1000 years older would be more or less accurate?
The Greek may be inerrant, I have no idea I don't speak Greek. My argument is for the inerrancy of the KJV, I don't know anything about other languages.
The only changes to the KJV are type setting and spelling errors and revisions. Show me an error in the KJV, show me a contradiction, show me something with substance... not spelling and type set errors.
The only changes to the KJV are type setting and spelling errors and revisions. Show me an error in the KJV, show me a contradiction, show me something with substance... not spelling and type set errors.
T
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.
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.
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.
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!
I love you brother!