KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLES

[John146]

Facts don't matter to KJVO's for the most part. Magic does. For instance, the KJV corrects the Greek and Hebrew. Oxford and Cambridge word differences are still "perfect" bibles, because they say so.

Fact: David killed Goliath not Elhanan. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. All modern versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David. Only the updated NIV changes it to be correct lining up with the KJV.

2 Samuel 21:19

KJV - 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV - 19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

NASB - 19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

 

[dcontroversal]

It is Easter not passover.

Acts 12:3 And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

Note that Passover was already over in Acts 12:3.

Acts 12:4 And 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.

And so, Herod waited till after Easter since Passover was over.
The word translated as Passover in modern versions refers to Jesus as the passover lamb.

I suggest you look the word up in the Greek and embrace the truth!

 

[dcontroversal]

English Standard Version
And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people.

Berean Study Bible
He arrested him and put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

Berean Literal Bible
whom also, having seized, he put in prison, having delivered himto four sets of four soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

New American Standard Bible
When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

King James Bible
And 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.

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.

pascha: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb​

Original Word: πάσχα, τό
Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
Transliteration: pascha
Phonetic Spelling: (pas'-khah)
Short Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb
Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb

 

[trofimus]

Fact: David killed Goliath not Elhanan. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath. All modern versions have Elhanan killing Goliath, not David. Only the updated NIV changes it to be correct lining up with the KJV.

2 Samuel 21:19

KJV - 19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

ESV - 19 And there was again war with the Philistines at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, the Bethlehemite, struck down Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

NASB - 19 There was war with the Philistines again at Gob, and Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

These "problems" you are trying to find in "other translations" are so insignificant and changing nothing that I do not know what is the goal...

 

[Joseppi]

They all say "origins”.

Because they all are corrupt and present a false antichrist prophecy that is contrary to the truth about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Origins refers to lineages via a man’s father and mother.

And you know that Jesus’ lineage isn’t definable as old and/or ancient because Jesus was before Abraham. For example.

Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

 

[John146]

These "problems" you are trying to find in "other translations" are so insignificant and changing nothing that I do not know what is the goal...

One contains the truth, all the others contain a contradiction of the truth. If a version contradicts itself, it cannot be trusted. The word of truth never contradicts itself.

 

[Nehemiah6]

These "problems" you are trying to find in "other translations" are so insignificant and changing nothing that I do not know what is the goal...

If the problems were insignificant do you really think people would make an issue out of them? Obviously you have not familiarized yourself with the problems, since that would be an eye-opener and you would change your stance 180 degrees.

Start by reading The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills (a conservative scholar in his own right). It is available at Amazon. https://www.amazon.ca/King-James-Defended-Edward-Hills/dp/0915923009.

Here is one review of the book by D. T. Kleven:

I've studied this subject for years, and read a dozen books on it. This book by Ed Hills remains the best, most thorough, most compelling explanation of the issues surrounding the different Greek texts of the Bible. I've read James White's book, I've read articles by Daniel Wallace, I've discussed this with pastors who believe strongly in their ever changing series of eclectic texts. This book remains unanswered.

It is so much more than a defense of the King James Version. What makes the King James Version worth defending is that it is the only (besides the NKJV and Greens) translation of the traditional, Majority, preserved Greek text. All of the other translations use a different text - and they either translate that other text well or not so well.

It seems like much of the KJV criticism is leveled at Riplinger/Ruckman, and then the whole position is dismissed on their account. I've heard several times that Edward Hills' book is indispensable in understanding this issue, and I certainly found it very helpful. One thing that I resonated with very strongly was his "logic of faith." The idea is that we start with faith in God and His word as our foundation and then use that as our basis for constructing a framework which explains the facts. This approach should be applied to astronomy, geology, philosophy, and, as Hills argues strongly in this work, textual criticism. I read a quote from someone that said, "to say you believe in Biblical preservation and yet read a modern translation is like saying you believe the 1st chapter of Genesis is literally true while accepting the theories of Darwin." In this work Hills gets into many of the historical and textual issues and, for me anyway, clears away some of the cobwebs and lays bare the facts. Hills has no axe to grind, he avoids name-calling, and there is no new age conspiracy theory exposed here. In all this was a straightforward presentation of the facts. I found this to be a compelling argument and a powerful defense of the Word of God, as well as THE epistemology for a believer spelled out and put into practice (I haven't found it stated this clearly anywhere else). Highly recommended.

I also highly recommend English Bible Translations: By What Standard?, and Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism.

Here's a smattering of quotes from the text:

For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. (1)

He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6b). If I truly believe in God, then God is more real to me than anything else I know, more real even than my faith in Him. For if anything else is more real to me than God Himself, then I am not believing but doubting. I am real, my experiences are real, my faith is real, but God is more real. Otherwise I am not believing but doubting. I cast myself therefore on that which is most real, namely God Himself. I take God and Jesus Christ His Son as the starting point of all my thinking. (61)

Because these eight omitted readings have been found to occur in Papyrus 75, critics are now changing their minds about them. Kurt Aland (1966), for example, has restored these Western omissions to the text of the Nestle New Testament. Hence the RSV, the NEB, and the other modern versions which omit them are already out of date. And this rapid shifting of opinion shows us how untrustworthy naturalistic textual criticism is. Christians who rely upon it for their knowledge of the New Testament text are to be pitied. Surely they are building their house upon the sands. (125)

Naturalistic textual critics will never be able to answer this question [why did the Traditional Text triumph?] until they are ready to think "unthinkable thoughts." They must be willing to lay aside their prejudices and consider seriously the evidence which points to the Traditional (Byzantine) Text as the True Text of the New Testament. This is the position which the believing Bible student takes by faith and from which he is able to provide a consistent explanation of all the phenomena of the New Testament. (183)

In the text there are verses in black letter which a sinner is to believe to the saving of his soul, while at the bottom of the page are frequent notes which destroy all confidence in the sacred text, stating that such and such readings are not found in the best manuscripts, etc. How can such a Bible convert a thinking college student? No wonder it has to be supplemented by much music and mysticism, fun and frolic. (228)

 

[trofimus]

One contains the truth, all the others contain a contradiction of the truth. If a version contradicts itself, it cannot be trusted. The word of truth never contradicts itself.

So, Ethanan killed some Goliath.

What exactly does this change on anything?

 

[dcontroversal]

One contains the truth, all the others contain a contradiction of the truth. If a version contradicts itself, it cannot be trusted. The word of truth never contradicts itself.

You just alleviated the King James as a valid source of truth by your logic

 

[Joseppi]

English Standard Version
And when he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him over to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out to the people.

Berean Study Bible
He arrested him and put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

Berean Literal Bible
whom also, having seized, he put in prison, having delivered himto four sets of four soldiers to guard him, intending to bring him out to the people after the Passover.

New American Standard Bible
When he had seized him, he put him in prison, delivering him to four squads of soldiers to guard him, intending after the Passover to bring him out before the people.

King James Bible
And 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.

ὃν καὶ πιάσας ἔθετο εἰς φυλακήν, παραδοὺς τέσσαρσιν τετραδίοις στρατιωτῶν φυλάσσειν αὐτόν, βουλόμενος μετὰ τὸ πάσχα ἀναγαγεῖν αὐτὸν τῷ λαῷ.

pascha: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb​

Original Word: πάσχα, τό
Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
Transliteration: pascha
Phonetic Spelling: (pas'-khah)
Short Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb
Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb

See...”the Passover lamb” is what is referred to, as proven by Passover having been over before Peter was even arrested.
And it doesn’t say, “after the feast of unleavened bread”.

 

[John146]

So, Ethanan killed some Goliath.

What exactly does this change on anything?

Elhanan killed some Goliath? David killed Goliath. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.

In the like passage, 1 Chronicles 20:5, we get the truth which should match 2 Samuel 21:19:

KJV - 5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

NASB - 5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear waslike a weaver’s beam.

ESV - 5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The new versions contradict themselves concerning truth. They cannot be trusted.

 

[Joseppi]

So, Ethanan killed some Goliath.

What exactly does this change on anything?

David killed Goliath.
Are the translators of modern bibles stupid or what?

Do you believe David killed Goliath?

 

[trofimus]

Elhanan killed some Goliath? David killed Goliath. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.

In the like passage, 1 Chronicles 20:5, we get the truth which should match 2 Samuel 21:19:

KJV - 5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

NASB - 5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear waslike a weaver’s beam.

ESV - 5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The new versions contradict themselves concerning truth. They cannot be trusted.

What does it change on anything? Why is it such an issue like the deity of Christ, almost?

The word "brother" is not in the text. Its explanation/intepretation of translators, only. Maybe its truth, maybe not.

 

[dcontroversal]

See...”the Passover lamb” is what is referred to, as proven by Passover having been over before Peter was even arrested.
And it doesn’t say, “after the feast of unleavened bread”.

See what....the word is PASSOVER not EASTER.....end of story!

 

[MarcR]

Elhanan killed some Goliath? David killed Goliath. Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath.

In the like passage, 1 Chronicles 20:5, we get the truth which should match 2 Samuel 21:19:

KJV - 5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam.

NASB - 5 And there was war with the Philistines again, and Elhanan the son of Jair killed Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear waslike a weaver’s beam.

ESV - 5 And there was again war with the Philistines, and Elhanan the son of Jair struck down Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.

The new versions contradict themselves concerning truth. They cannot be trusted.

The words 'the brother of' are indeed missing in the Hebrew text in both 2Sa 21:19 and 1Ch 20:5.

It can be argued that the Hebrew text was damaged and the correction was justified

Other translations correctly omit the missing words.

I t can be argued that it is a translator's job to translate the text not to repair it.

Most translations add a footnote stating that the words 'the brother of' are missing from the Hebrew text

Bringing this up over and over will not change the truth. The only thing corrupt is your own mind!

 

[MarcR]

Because they all are corrupt and present a false antichrist prophecy that is contrary to the truth about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Origins refers to lineages via a man’s father and mother.

And you know that Jesus’ lineage isn’t definable as old and/or ancient because Jesus was before Abraham. For example.

Hebrews 5:6 As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.

Hebrews 7:1 For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him;
Hebrews 7:2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace;
Hebrews 7:3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

The only thing corrupt is your own mind! If you continue attacking God's Word you are likely to also find yourself BANNED; and deservedly so!

 

[MarcR]

If the problems were insignificant do you really think people would make an issue out of them? Obviously you have not familiarized yourself with the problems, since that would be an eye-opener and you would change your stance 180 degrees.

Start by reading The King James Bible Defended by Edward F. Hills (a conservative scholar in his own right). It is available at Amazon. https://www.amazon.ca/King-James-Defended-Edward-Hills/dp/0915923009.

Here is one review of the book by D. T. Kleven:

I've studied this subject for years, and read a dozen books on it. This book by Ed Hills remains the best, most thorough, most compelling explanation of the issues surrounding the different Greek texts of the Bible. I've read James White's book, I've read articles by Daniel Wallace, I've discussed this with pastors who believe strongly in their ever changing series of eclectic texts. This book remains unanswered.

It is so much more than a defense of the King James Version. What makes the King James Version worth defending is that it is the only (besides the NKJV and Greens) translation of the traditional, Majority, preserved Greek text. All of the other translations use a different text - and they either translate that other text well or not so well.

It seems like much of the KJV criticism is leveled at Riplinger/Ruckman, and then the whole position is dismissed on their account. I've heard several times that Edward Hills' book is indispensable in understanding this issue, and I certainly found it very helpful. One thing that I resonated with very strongly was his "logic of faith." The idea is that we start with faith in God and His word as our foundation and then use that as our basis for constructing a framework which explains the facts. This approach should be applied to astronomy, geology, philosophy, and, as Hills argues strongly in this work, textual criticism. I read a quote from someone that said, "to say you believe in Biblical preservation and yet read a modern translation is like saying you believe the 1st chapter of Genesis is literally true while accepting the theories of Darwin." In this work Hills gets into many of the historical and textual issues and, for me anyway, clears away some of the cobwebs and lays bare the facts. Hills has no axe to grind, he avoids name-calling, and there is no new age conspiracy theory exposed here. In all this was a straightforward presentation of the facts. I found this to be a compelling argument and a powerful defense of the Word of God, as well as THE epistemology for a believer spelled out and put into practice (I haven't found it stated this clearly anywhere else). Highly recommended.

I also highly recommend English Bible Translations: By What Standard?, and Logical Criticisms of Textual Criticism.

Here's a smattering of quotes from the text:

For in the realm of New Testament textual criticism as well as in other fields the presuppositions of modern thought are hostile to the historic Christian faith and will destroy it if their fatal operation is not checked. If faithful Christians, therefore, would defend their sacred religion against this danger, they must forsake the foundations of unbelieving thought and build upon their faith, a faith that rests entirely on the solid rock of holy Scripture. (1)

He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6b). If I truly believe in God, then God is more real to me than anything else I know, more real even than my faith in Him. For if anything else is more real to me than God Himself, then I am not believing but doubting. I am real, my experiences are real, my faith is real, but God is more real. Otherwise I am not believing but doubting. I cast myself therefore on that which is most real, namely God Himself. I take God and Jesus Christ His Son as the starting point of all my thinking. (61)

Because these eight omitted readings have been found to occur in Papyrus 75, critics are now changing their minds about them. Kurt Aland (1966), for example, has restored these Western omissions to the text of the Nestle New Testament. Hence the RSV, the NEB, and the other modern versions which omit them are already out of date. And this rapid shifting of opinion shows us how untrustworthy naturalistic textual criticism is. Christians who rely upon it for their knowledge of the New Testament text are to be pitied. Surely they are building their house upon the sands. (125)

Naturalistic textual critics will never be able to answer this question [why did the Traditional Text triumph?] until they are ready to think "unthinkable thoughts." They must be willing to lay aside their prejudices and consider seriously the evidence which points to the Traditional (Byzantine) Text as the True Text of the New Testament. This is the position which the believing Bible student takes by faith and from which he is able to provide a consistent explanation of all the phenomena of the New Testament. (183)

In the text there are verses in black letter which a sinner is to believe to the saving of his soul, while at the bottom of the page are frequent notes which destroy all confidence in the sacred text, stating that such and such readings are not found in the best manuscripts, etc. How can such a Bible convert a thinking college student? No wonder it has to be supplemented by much music and mysticism, fun and frolic. (228)

NOBODY here objects to your finding the KJV to be superior or even inspired. That is certainly your right.

The teaching that other versions are corrupt is the point of contention. It is opposed because of its potential to damage the faith of a new or ungrounded believer.

 

[Joseppi]

See what....the word is PASSOVER not EASTER.....end of story!

See what?
See what you posted.

Pascha: the Passover, the Passover supper or lamb

Original Word: πάσχα, τό
Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
Transliteration: pascha
Phonetic Spelling: (pas'-khah)
Short Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb
Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb

The passover lamb.

 

[dcontroversal]

See what?
See what you posted.

Original Word: πάσχα, τό
Part of Speech: Aramaic Transliterated Word (Indeclinable)
Transliteration: pascha
Phonetic Spelling: (pas'-khah)
Short Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb
Definition: the feast of Passover, the Passover lamb

[/QUOTE]

And the word is translated and used the ways implied.....it is no where equivalent to EASTER......wake up!

 

[trofimus]

I am noticing some real enmity and personal attacks here... sadly.

We, as cultivated persons used to internet discussions, should be able to address the issue without comments about the person on the other side.