BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

[Amanuensis]

I would like to know your thoughts about the KJV in relation to what is being said below (I did not write this, unfortunately, I lost the link). 😕

View attachment 242653

Here are the SIX common misconceptions or false beliefs about the King James Version (KJV)

1) The KJV was the first English translation of the Bible. The KJV was not the first, but the tenth English translation of the Bible.

1. Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
2. Tyndale's Bible (1516)
3. Coverdale's Bible (1535)
4. Matthew's Bible (1537)
5. Taverner's Bible (1539)
6. The Great Bible (1540)
7. The Geneva Bible (1560)
8. The Bishop's Bible (1568)
9. The Douay-Rheims Version (1609)
10. The King James Version (1611)

2) The KJV was authorized by God.

The belief that the KJV was authorized by God to be translated is just an assumption with no biblical basis. The KJV was called the “Authorized Version (AV)” because its translation was approved and mandated by King James I, and it was appointed to be read in churches. This was stated in the original title page of the KJV:

THE HOLY BIBLE
Containing the Old and New Testaments
Translated out of the Original Tongues
And with the Former Translations
Diligently Compared and Revised

BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

3) The King James is always true to the literal words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

While the King James Version is generally a very literal translation, it is not always literal in all of its renderings. In Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4, the KJV paraphrased the Greek "me genoito" ("may it never be") into "God forbid". And in Matthew 27:44 the Greek "oneididzon auton"("they reviled him") was paraphrased by the KJV into "cast the same in his teeth".

4. The KJV is a perfect translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. The only perfect texts of the Bible were the texts that came from the hands of the Biblical writers written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Perfect translation is not possible because of the nature of language. Receptor languages, such as English, can’t always reflect perfectly the concepts or meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words. And in some cases the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words are difficult to decipher.

Translations are just approximations to the original text. The goal of each translation is to be closer as much as possible to the message of the original text, that’s why translations are continually revised to be more accurate. The King James Bible was not exempt from revisions. There were four major revisions of the KJV (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) and more than twenty minor revisions. The changes in these revisions are due to not only printing errors or spelling standardization, but also to textual or translation errors.

5) The KJV is a better translation than the modern versions.

The truth is modern versions are much better than the KJV. The KJV is not a readable version compared to many modern versions because of its archaisms and obscure literal renderings. The KJV was based on late and inferior Greek texts while the modern versions are based upon much older and much more reliable Greek texts. The so-called omissions in the NIV and other modern versions is not a conspiracy nor a malicious intent to distort the Bible, but it's due to variation in the Greek manuscripts. There are Greek manuscripts that have those verses and there are also Greek manuscripts that do not have those verses. This happened because of scribal copying errors, alterations, or emendations. Through the science of textual criticism, it is possible to determine with high accuracy which variant is reliable or not.

6) The KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are Christians who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the biblical writers. But this is denied by the translators themselves. In the original preface to the King James Version of 1611 the translators admitted that their work was not perfect and not on a par with the inspired authors of Scripture. There were instances where the translators were not absolutely sure of the original reading of the Greek or Hebrew text, and they indicated that in the margin with textual variant notes.

Those who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit must use a King James Bible with Apocryphal books because the translators, who were mostly Anglicans, added these books in their original translation. The Apocrypha was a part of the King James Bible for 274 years, until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Societies excluded them from the revised version.

The more I learn about translating the more I appreciate some of the modern works like NIV, CSB, ESV. They really do help get to the objective of authorial intent.

I think that learning Greek and Hebrew will help make things easier to decide. I use to think that the KJV were probably better scholars but I don't think that is true any longer. Today there really are some who have devoted as many years or more of their lives to the manuscripts and original languages as any of the best KJV scholars. Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.

 

[HealthAndHappiness]

I had no idea you have he actual originals! Wow! What a find! Sorry for the sarcasm…

This is JUST for YOU John.

 

[fredoheaven]

The more I learn about translating the more I appreciate some of the modern works like NIV, CSB, ESV. They really do help get to the objective of authorial intent.

I think that learning Greek and Hebrew will help make things easier to decide. I use to think that the KJV were probably better scholars but I don't think that is true any longer. Today there really are some who have devoted as many years or more of their lives to the manuscripts and original languages as any of the best KJV scholars. Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.

And many of these mss does support the Kjb more than the critical text. Only a few critical text does support of most English Bible versions. God bless

 

[fredoheaven]

God is the same yesterday today and forever. I use my 1611 KJV there is a few translation that are questionable. 1 that is down right wrong
Acts 12:4
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. Easter should be passoer.

Actually, this is not new here if we tackle Easter passover, but let me know your thoughts why this seems an error in the Kjb. Thanks

 

[Nehemiah6]

Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.

Evidently you have not delved sufficiently into this matter. Theoretically there should have been a larger number of manuscripts collated by the 19th century, and a better understanding of the traditional texts.

But rather than go to the TOTAL MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE a few "critics" focused on just five uncials or codices -- Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and D (Bezae). And these were the most corrupt, not the best. Study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (one of the few outstanding conservative textual scholars of the 19th century).

 

[Amanuensis]

Evidently you have not delved sufficiently into this matter. Theoretically there should have been a larger number of manuscripts collated by the 19th century, and a better understanding of the traditional texts.

But rather than go to the TOTAL MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE a few "critics" focused on just five uncials or codices -- Aleph (Sinaiticus), A (Alexandrinus), B (Vaticanus), C (Ephraemi Rescriptus), and D (Bezae). And these were the most corrupt, not the best. Study The Revision Revised by John William Burgon (one of the few outstanding conservative textual scholars of the 19th century).

It's a good translation but the archaic English is not necessary. Translating from the original languages into English words that convey the same meaning that the author intended using Hebrew or Greek is better done using English that we speak with today when we try to convey such meaning.

If in a thousand years our English has changed there would be a need to translate with the newer English. Always remember that the best option would be to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and also understand what those words meant in their day which is helped by knowing how such words and sentences were used in literature from the same time period.

The objective should always be to understand what the author intended when he used those words and sentences in that context in his native language.

If I learn Hebrew and Greek and go to the manuscripts I would have no need for the KJV.

Since the authors did not speak in KJV English I have no reason to consider it as my source.

Those who consider the KJV as the source text are not thinking this through clearly.

 

[John146]

This is JUST for YOU John.

Yes, seen it before

 

[John146]

The more I learn about translating the more I appreciate some of the modern works like NIV, CSB, ESV. They really do help get to the objective of authorial intent.

I think that learning Greek and Hebrew will help make things easier to decide. I use to think that the KJV were probably better scholars but I don't think that is true any longer. Today there really are some who have devoted as many years or more of their lives to the manuscripts and original languages as any of the best KJV scholars. Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.

The problem comes from using corrupt manuscripts. They’re not all playing with the same toys.

 

[John146]

It's a good translation but the archaic English is not necessary. Translating from the original languages into English words that convey the same meaning that the author intended using Hebrew or Greek is better done using English that we speak with today when we try to convey such meaning.

If in a thousand years our English has changed there would be a need to translate with the newer English. Always remember that the best option would be to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and also understand what those words meant in their day which is helped by knowing how such words and sentences were used in literature from the same time period.

The objective should always be to understand what the author intended when he used those words and sentences in that context in his native language.

If I learn Hebrew and Greek and go to the manuscripts I would have no need for the KJV.

Since the authors did not speak in KJV English I have no reason to consider it as my source.

Those who consider the KJV as the source text are not thinking this through clearly.

Actually, at the time of the KJV translation, many of the words found were not in use, but the translators wanted to use the correct words to be precise in English.

 

[fredoheaven]

It's a good translation but the archaic English is not necessary. Translating from the original languages into English words that convey the same meaning that the author intended using Hebrew or Greek is better done using English that we speak with today when we try to convey such meaning.

If in a thousand years our English has changed there would be a need to translate with the newer English. Always remember that the best option would be to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and also understand what those words meant in their day which is helped by knowing how such words and sentences were used in literature from the same time period.

The objective should always be to understand what the author intended when he used those words and sentences in that context in his native language.

If I learn Hebrew and Greek and go to the manuscripts I would have no need for the KJV.

Since the authors did not speak in KJV English I have no reason to consider it as my s

The more I learn about translating the more I appreciate some of the modern works like NIV, CSB, ESV. They really do help get to the objective of authorial intent.

I think that learning Greek and Hebrew will help make things easier to decide. I use to think that the KJV were probably better scholars but I don't think that is true any longer. Today there really are some who have devoted as many years or more of their lives to the manuscripts and original languages as any of the best KJV scholars. Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.

Hi, have you heard any scholars of today debated words in a hebrew or greek languages to produce precise English texts? Thanks

 

[John146]

It's a good translation but the archaic English is not necessary. Translating from the original languages into English words that convey the same meaning that the author intended using Hebrew or Greek is better done using English that we speak with today when we try to convey such meaning.

If in a thousand years our English has changed there would be a need to translate with the newer English. Always remember that the best option would be to learn ancient Hebrew and Greek and also understand what those words meant in their day which is helped by knowing how such words and sentences were used in literature from the same time period.

The objective should always be to understand what the author intended when he used those words and sentences in that context in his native language.

If I learn Hebrew and Greek and go to the manuscripts I would have no need for the KJV.

Since the authors did not speak in KJV English I have no reason to consider it as my source.

Those who consider the KJV as the source text are not thinking this through clearly.

Do you believe that God can speak English? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the English language and that translation be the pure words of God for the English language? Think this through clearly.

 

[Thewatchman]

Actually, this is not new here if we tackle Easter passover, but let me know your thoughts why this seems an error in the Kjb. Thanks

Do you believe that God can speak English? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the English language and that translation be the pure words of God for the English language? Think this through clearly.

Actually, this is not new here if we tackle Easter passover, but let me know your thoughts why this seems an error in the Kjb. Thanks

The King James is the only translation that uses the word Easter instead of Passover. It is a pagan holiday that celebrates fertility with the rolling of the eggs, orgies in the groves Etc and God wants no part of that but the church seams to want to embrace this unholy tradition

 

[Beckie]

Do you believe that God can speak English? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the English language and that translation be the pure words of God for the English language? Think this through clearly.

Do you believe that God can speak every language? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the all languages and those translations be the pure words of God for those languages? Think this through clearly.

 

[Thewatchman]

Here is one reason I use the King James version of the bible it is Ezekiel 13.18-20

English Standard Version
and say, Thus says the Lord GOD: Woe to the women who sew magic bands upon all wrists, and make veils for the heads of persons of every stature, in the hunt for souls! Will you hunt down souls belonging to my people and keep your own souls alive?

Berean Study Bible
and tell them that this is what the Lord GOD says: Woe to the women who sew magic charms on their wrists and make veils for the heads of people of every height, in order to ensnare their souls. Will you ensnare the souls of My people but preserve your own?

King James Bible
And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Woe to the women that sew pillows to all armholes, and make kerchiefs upon the head of every stature to hunt souls! Will ye hunt the souls of my people, and will ye save the souls alive that come unto you? English Standard Version
You have profaned me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, putting to death souls who should not die and keeping alive souls who should not live, by your lying to my people, who listen to lies.

Berean Study Bible
You have profaned Me among My people for handfuls of barley and scraps of bread. By lying to My people who would listen, you have killed those who should not have died and spared those who should not have lived.

King James Bible
And will ye pollute me among my people for handfuls of barley and for pieces of bread, to slay the souls that should not die, and to save the souls alive that should not live, by your lying to my people that hear your lies?

English Standard Version
“Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Behold, I am against your magic bands with which you hunt the souls like birds, and I will tear them from your arms, and I will let the souls whom you hunt go free, the souls like birds.

Berean Study Bible
Therefore this is what the Lord GOD says: See, I am against the magic charms with which you ensnare souls like birds, and I will tear them from your arms. So I will free the souls you have ensnared like birds.

King James Bible
Wherefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against your pillows, wherewith ye there hunt the souls to make them fly, and I will tear them from your arms, and will let the souls go, even the souls that ye hunt to make them fly.




God is against those that teach His people to fly to save their soul. He is against the rapture doctrine.

 

[Beckie]

When this topic comes up .. Brother Andrew comes to mind, seems he taught himself English from reading KJ .https://www.opendoorsuk.org/about/our-history/brother-andrew/

 

[Dirtman]

This is JUST for YOU John.

Who is this ?

 

[Gideon300]

And who pray-tell-me authorized Mister James?



This in no way indicates that they were not aided by the Hoy Spirit. We are still aided by the HS every time we read it. God does not sleep or slumber. Neither does His Spirit.

The KJV is sufficient to be used by God to speak to me.

That's fine if you have a grasp of 17th century English. Not everyone does. I've managed without the KJV for 50 years.

 

[John146]

Do you believe that God can speak every language? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the all languages and those translations be the pure words of God for those languages? Think this through clearly.

Absolutely! However, I'm talking about the English language.

 

[John146]

Do you believe that God can speak every language? Is he limited? Can God have his words translated into the all languages and those translations be the pure words of God for those languages? Think this through clearly.

Btw, God never promised to preserve his words in all languages, but that his words would be preserved. I believe he accomplished this in the KJV.

 

[Beckie]

Btw, God never promised to preserve his words in all languages, but that his words would be preserved. I believe he accomplished this in the KJV.

And some folks wonder at others saying KJOnly is a cult