The King James Bible

[3Scoreand10]

This is utter nonsense! Nestle Aland have a Greek text which differs from Westcott and Hort, because in the last 100 years or so, many, many new and earlier manuscripts have been found.

The Textus Receptus is truly the corrupt version. It uses the Byzantine only, which is rife with scribal errors and additions, with succeeding editions incorporated and passed down to succeeding generations. The only reason there are so many (hence the so-called “Majority Text”) is because the Byzantine Empire kept their Greek, and monasteries kept copying down the GNT. Now, that is not a bad thing, if it means having many copies. But the problem is that the generations of manuscripts became more and more corrupt, until you enter the early 1600’s and Erasumus and hence the KJV are using very corrupted manscripts, as compared to the original autographs, (which yes, we do not have!). But even he protested having to add certain things, because they appeared in NO manuscripts. But, the imprimatur of the RCC said, keep those errors, and he did, or his GNT would not have been published first. Yes, the publishing industry, in its fledgling state was already competitive!

We won’t even get into the fact that Erasmus, who was a good Greek scholar, was forced to kept things like the Johannian Comma in 1 John 5, because the Catholic Church demanded it. And that was found in the Vulgate, a Latin, text, which Jerome, who was NOT a good scholar, translated.

Anyway, I would be more worried about obsolete grammar and arachiac words, instead of wondering whether the lies of Riplinger and Ruckman are truth, and if you are that obsessed with the “pure” text, learn Greek and Hebrew as some of us have, and then you can understand that there are so many options for words, and that differences in the modern text arise simply and often because no language directely translates to another.

Anyone who speaks a foreign language knows that! For me, I far prefer a modern Bible, in a language I understand. Further, it is reprehensible to preach the gospel to someone in 16th century English, who wants to hear the gospel. Because what they will hear is a language that is not their own.

Finally, just for anyone reading this thread, I do NOT read long passages from the KJV, much too hard to plough through. I seriously just skip what those people have written. So, please use any other modern text, as well as your preferred version.

I really cannot believe people are really not just defending, but calling every other translation but the KJV as ”impure” or other nonsense. This doesn’t happen in other languages. I just finally found my German Bible, which is an update of Martin Luther’s translation. It is very readable, and much closer to the Greek than any English translation. That is because German uses noun cases and a complicated adjectival system. So, it can throw the nominative to the end, just like the Greek, which makes no sense in English. In fact, it is a pleasure to read and compare to the Greek. Not perfect, but one of the better translations I have read.

Let me begin by saying I am not a KJV only. While I prefer the KJV, I have several translations that I use for study.
I use the KJV in teaching and have never found anyone that I taught who had difficulty understanding the KJV.
I find it strange that those who seem to have much more education than me or those I teach would have difficulty with the KJV.
Not judging nor condemning, just don't understand the difficulty.

 

[PeterJames]

My only other beef is that I find it interesting that some adherents of modern translations (like James White) always have to speak negatively about the KJV on one hand while claiming on the other hand there are not that many variants to make study of the variants worth while.

Either the KJV is a good translation or it isn't. I'm KJV Only, not KJV crazy and do not condemn others for using modern translations ... so long as they are not doing the same with the translation I prefer.

 

[Nehemiah6]

Either the KJV is a good translation or it isn't. I'm KJV Only, not KJV crazy and do not condemn others for using modern translations ... so long as they are not doing the same with the translation I prefer.

Yes we do not have to be "KJV crazy" and Christians are not called to condemn other Christians for what they do or do not do, or which Bible version they use or do not use. Each one is accountable to God.

But there are some Christians who do not wish to condemn the corrupt Bible translations and call a spade a spade. They promote the false notion that all Bible versions in English are equally valid. Some even promote the notion that the ESV, or the NASV, or the NIV are SUPERIOR to the KJB because they have been told that "the oldest" manuscripts are "the best" (a la Westcott & Hort).

That hoax should not be allowed to go unchallenged, and we are accountable to God if we do not expose the lies of the Devil. The lie that we have been fed is that Gnostic corruptions of the Bible are better than the Bible itself, and that for over 1900 years God left the Christian world without a true Bible. F. H. A. Scrivener -- the leading textual authority of the 19th century -- totally rejected this idea, but was generally ignored.

The following is PREBENDARY SCRIVENER'S recently published estimate of the System on which DRS.WESTCOTT AND HORT have constructed their “Revised Greek Text of the New Testament”
(1881).—That System, the Chairman of the Revising Body (BISHOP ELLICOTT) has entirely adopted (see below, pp. 391 to 397), and made the basis of his Defence of THE REVISERS and their “New Greek Text.”

(1.) “There is little hope for the stability of their imposing structure, if its foundations have been laid on the sandy ground of ingenious conjecture. And, since barely the smallest vestige of historical evidence has ever been alleged in support of the views of these accomplished Editors, their teaching must either be received as intuitively true, or dismissed from our consideration as precarious and even visionary.”

(2.) “DR. HORT'S System is entirely destitute of historical foundation.”

(3.) “We are compelled to repeat as emphatically as ever our strong conviction that the Hypothesis to whose proof he has devoted so many laborious years, is destitute not only of historical foundation, but of all probability, resulting from the internal goodness of the Text which its adoption would force upon us.”

(4.) “ ‘We cannot doubt’ (says DR. HORT) ‘that S. Luke xxiii. 34 comes from an extraneous source.’ [Notes, p. 68.]—Nor can we, on our part, doubt,” (rejoins DR. SCRIVENER,) “that the System which entails such consequences is hopelessly self-condemned.”

SCRIVENER'S “Plain Introduction,” &c. [ed. 1883]: pp. 531,537, 542, 604.

Revision Revised by John W. Burgon, pp. iv, v

All modern critical texts follow Westcott & Hort.

 

[Locutus]

These KJV threads should be placed on the "ban" list of threads like they did with the Hyper-Grace arguments as they only cause strife.

 

[Angela53510]

Wow! A Greek scholar has trouble reading English? You should master the English language before moving to Greek.

Here's the gospel in the KJV: 3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Real tough to understand...

Not so much! Which is exactly my point! The KJV and its Early Modern English, is not the language ANY of us speak. Well, except some affected people at prayer meetings. Or maybe people don’t do that anymore? They don’t in my church!

So, what courses have you had in Early Modern English, John? Perhaps you have a BA in Shakespearean and KJV English? I assume you have had maybe a second or third year course on early modern grammar. Then a vocabulary course. Comparative literature with that era.

Because I have had this in French and Greek. And I hope to continue and do this in German, next year. As for Modern English, which I speak, I grew up in a time when we were drilled in spelling and vocabulary from grade 1 -6, then grammar from 7-12. I just remember months on subordinate clauses, in grade 7; and grade 9, the blackboards for the entire room being filled with verbs like Perfect, Imperfect Pluperfect etc. For every single verb we speak in modern English. Sorry, just being barely able to read and write doesn’t qualify you as an expert in modern English, let alone KJV English!

So, I assume you have had that kind of training, and a degree in Early Modern English. Because, I don’t! I have no background or training in a dead language that is no longer spoken, and I wouldn’t trust myself to try and figure it out. Especially since the KJV at times tries to follow the Greek, turning the actual English into a real mess. I thought maybe with Greek, I could follow some of the more convoluted and incorrect grammar and English, but what would be the point?

Why would anyone take the time to study grammar and vocabulary of an poorly translated version of the Greek and Hebrew testaments? When there are so many good English versions? Which I check against the original languages.

So, John and Fred and others! What is your background and training in this dead language, Early Modern English? I will admit, I have none, and I seriously could care less. I will never read the KJV because I prefer to read the more accurate and understandable versions.

Oh yes, John, your modern English isn’t always correct, so how on earth can you possibly understand a dead language?

Did I forget to bring up all the heresies that come out of the KJV? Do you know why that is? Well, first, there is that nonsense and brainwashing about it being the only true or inspired version. That kind of naivety doesn’t bode well. Then, there is the fact, that most people, dare I say “all” people don’t have any training in Early Modern English. So, they read something where the KJV tried to following the Greek and failed, or some obscure words that have literally changed their meanings, and then they put something together, and voilà! A brand new heresy.

Of course, an understanding of hermeneutics could probably avoid that. But then, none of you KJV Onlyists have any training in that, either. As to what heresies I am referring to - try Word of Faith. They all pull verses out of context, misunderstand the language and vocabulary, and then you have one of the most harmful cults to come along in the history of modern Christianity. I could name more. In fact, any time anyone starts a post in the BDF, and all the quotes are in KJV, I can pretty much be assured that they have come up with either a heresy, or just plan stuff and nonsense.

I’m glad I am able to admit my limitations, where understanding a dead language like Early Modern English is concerned. I wish more people were able to be objective about not truly understanding it. And no, heresies are not the actual fault of the KJV, the people who don’t understand it and read it are. But, it is the consequence of deifying an old Bible version.

Therefore, KJV should not even be allowed, unless someone is doing some kind of research on 400 year old literature, and they have proper training. But that wouldn’t be you, gentlemen, would it?

 

[Angela53510]

My only other beef is that I find it interesting that some adherents of modern translations (like James White) always have to speak negatively about the KJV on one hand while claiming on the other hand there are not that many variants to make study of the variants worth while.

Either the KJV is a good translation or it isn't. I'm KJV Only, not KJV crazy and do not condemn others for using modern translations ... so long as they are not doing the same with the translation I prefer.

I just finished second year Greek with Bill Mounce, who is a premier scholar of Greek, having been on 3 translation committees and written numerous commentaries on the Greek NT, and the standard book for first year Greek. (His cousin, Daniel Wallace having written the best second year and Greek grammar text.)

I wish some of you could hear him rail against the KJV, picking apart all the mistakes. The more you know the original languages, you know what a fail KJV is.

Now, I don’t have anything against people who use KJV because it is familar, poetic, or they have always used it. But, when KJV Onlyist start spouting their misinformation and lies, then I have to step in.

In fact, it is the modern versions getting called names like “new age Bibles!” As if a Bible could literally EVER be new age. I was in the New Age movement. And they did use they Bible to prove their nonsense. But guess which version?

That’s right, every person I knew in the New Age movement used the KJV. Like I said, people don’t understand it, and these people used it in one place to prove that Jesus was an “ascended master.” So, it is the KJV we need to call out as being a new age bible.

And seriously, the KJV is NOT a good translation. Too much stuff added, too many places the grammar gets twisted and too much archaic and obsolete language.

It honestly makes no sense to me why anyone wouldn’t want to read the bible in their own language, instead of trying to struggle through a Bible written in 400 years ago in a very different language.

You did ask!

 

[nddreamer]

KJV Prov. 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

This is so easy to interpret. The legs of the lame are not the same length due to malformation or injury. So instead of walking in a straight line, they end up going around in circles. The interpretation is that one who doesn't understand a parable ends up going around in circles trying to figure it out.

NIV Prov. 26:7 Like the useless legs of one who is lame is a proverb in the mouth of a fool."

They missed it altogether. The reason is given.

 

[SovereignGrace]

I just finished second year Greek with Bill Mounce, who is a premier scholar of Greek, having been on 3 translation committees and written numerous commentaries on the Greek NT, and the standard book for first year Greek. (His cousin, Daniel Wallace having written the best second year and Greek grammar text.)

I wish some of you could hear him rail against the KJV, picking apart all the mistakes. The more you know the original languages, you know what a fail KJV is.

Now, I don’t have anything against people who use KJV because it is familar, poetic, or they have always used it. But, when KJV Onlyist start spouting their misinformation and lies, then I have to step in.

In fact, it is the modern versions getting called names like “new age Bibles!” As if a Bible could literally EVER be new age. I was in the New Age movement. And they did use they Bible to prove their nonsense. But guess which version?

That’s right, every person I knew in the New Age movement used the KJV. Like I said, people don’t understand it, and these people used it in one place to prove that Jesus was an “ascended master.” So, it is the KJV we need to call out as being a new age bible.

And seriously, the KJV is NOT a good translation. Too much stuff added, too many places the grammar gets twisted and too much archaic and obsolete language.

It honestly makes no sense to me why anyone wouldn’t want to read the bible in their own language, instead of trying to struggle through a Bible written in 400 years ago in a very different language.

You did ask!

When was the last time any of us assayed to go to town?

Why do we not hang out with ppl of the baser sort?

When was the last time you got stuck in your wimples with a crisping pin?

The KJV uses English words that our not in our vocabulary now.

Its antiquated language.

 

[trofimus]

KJV Prov. 26:7 The legs of the lame are not equal: so is a parable in the mouth of fools.

This is so easy to interpret. The legs of the lame are not the same length due to malformation or injury. So instead of walking in a straight line, they end up going around in circles. The interpretation is that one who doesn't understand a parable ends up going around in circles trying to figure it out.

NIV Prov. 26:7 Like the useless legs of one who is lame is a proverb in the mouth of a fool."

They missed it altogether. The reason is given.

this was good. Was it a joke, right?

But seriously, people using KJV are ending with such and similar interpretations very frequently (they must), thats why there are so many people with strange ideas between them.

 

[John146]

So, what courses have you had in Early Modern English, John? Perhaps you have a BA in Shakespearean and KJV English? I assume you have had maybe a second or third year course on early modern grammar. Then a vocabulary course. Comparative literature with that era.

Nope! I just obey the command in 2 Timothy 2:15, Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

But the command to study Scripture with a workman attitude is not found in your bible so I understand if you want an easier way out, which really is not easier. I read and study Scripture. I use Scripture and it's context to understand words that are not readily used today. You do know that the new versions use a lot of weird words that are not used today as well, so your argument does not hold water.

 

[John146]

Did I forget to bring up all the heresies that come out of the KJV?

Wow! What a statement you will be held accountable to one day. I pray that you reconsider. You do know all the great leaders and preachers of the largest worldwide, soul winning revival the world has ever seen was led by men who believed they were holding the very words of God in the KJV?

You have been educated right out of your belief in God's word. I wouldn't give two cents for your education. I'll stick with studying Scripture. You can stick with your scholarship only beliefs.

 

[hornetguy]

I think we all know what you will "stick with".... sad to say.

 

[John146]

The KJV uses English words that our not in our vocabulary now.

Its antiquated language.

Whose fault is that? We as a people are spiraling downward and so is our language. We speak such watered down, silly, not even correct form of English today and you want to the bible to follow suit? No thank you.

Pretty soon some money hungry committee is going to translate the bible using emojis.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Wow! What a statement you will be held accountable to one day. I pray that you reconsider. You do know all the great leaders and preachers of the largest worldwide, soul winning revival the world has ever seen was led by men who believed they were holding the very words of God in the KJV?

You have been educated right out of your belief in God's word. I wouldn't give two cents for your education. I'll stick with studying Scripture. You can stick with your scholarship only beliefs.

Where has she stated she does not believe God's word?
If you believe ONLY a SPECIFIC TRANSLATION, it's you who are doubting God's word and his ability to effectively communicate with man. Don't expect everyone to put the same prominent church elders of the past on a pedestal as you do. Great leaders and teachers are/were as fallible as the rest of us.

 

[John146]

Where has she stated she does not believe God's word?
If you believe ONLY a SPECIFIC TRANSLATION, it's you who are doubting God's word and his ability to effectively communicate with man. Don't expect everyone to put the same prominent church elders of the past on a pedestal as you do. Great leaders and teachers are/were as fallible as the rest of us.

Ask her yourself. She believes in her ability to translate. She does not trust any bible to be the final authority on what God has said. She does not believe it is possible for a translation to be the very words of God.

What about you? Can you hold the very words of God in your hands? Do you have a bible you can trust every word to be the pure, holy words of God?

 

[Joseppi]

As you use the term, "Holy Bible" to mean the KJV, the answers, in order, are No, No, Yes, and No.

I would suggest that nobody has ever been "ordained" by God to translate or publish the Bible. Has He enabled and guided humans to do so? Certainly.



All this to establish what, precisely? Your statement was refuted, yet you didn't acknowledge that it was refuted.

You claim "accurate quotes" when it's convenient for you, despite the fact that they contradict. Your reasoning is inconsistent, and rationalized ... which is what you accuse me of doing.

no comment.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Ask her yourself. She believes in her ability to translate. She does not trust any bible to be the final authority on what God has said. She does not believe it is possible for a translation to be the very words of God.

What about you? Can you hold the very words of God in your hands? Do you have a bible you can trust every word to be the pure, holy words of God?

I have no worries in that area. Stop trying to foster your own religious constraints in others.

 

[SovereignGrace]

no comment.

The best post you have posted on here.

#kudos

 

[Joseppi]

On the day of Pentecost the Holy Ghost translated into many languages and dialects, and did so instantaneously.
This reveals two things.
That God can and does easily translate into any language perfectly.
And that God knows what he said in the past.
Therefore, the only thing hindering the publishing of the Holy Bible is finding obedient men to serve him for that purpose.

Hornetguy asked me, What is the point, regarding the above quote.
The point is....
Considering that it is God who confounded all the languages at Babel, and resulted in the nations, and that God reversed that first confounding of man at Babel by confounding the hearers on the day of Pentecost, and did so instantaneously: therefore, God can ordain man to translate as pleases God.
So, the notion some folks have that the original texts can't be reproduced nor translated correctly is falsified.

This lays bare the false notion that man can ordain man to attempt to do what only God can accomplish.

I believe that God ordained the publishing of the Holy Bible via King James the First king of all English speaking people on earth.

Some say they don't believe God did this. But let me point out further, that the scripture teaches that God appoints kings and turns their hearts likeva river as pleases the Lord.

Believing that God published his Holy Bible by whatever means and that he gave it to me to read and trust what God says in his book is natural for my faith. The reason I don't accept other bibles published past or present as I do the Holy Bible is due to discovering in them falsehoods and weaknesses that I have not found present in the Holy Bible. My faith in the Holy Bible as God's written word is based on my experience with under the guidance of the Holy Ghost exactly as Jesus promised he would lead us into all truth.
That why I conclude by saying that since God is leading me into all truth as he promised, it is clear to me that that promise God made requires a completely trustworthy holy book to establish the truth of God.

If it were not do then I would be left with the nonsense men generate according to the vagaries of man's ever changing philosophies.
I consider the such man ordained notions about scripture result in man attempting to build their houses on sand instead of rock.

 

[John146]

I have no worries in that area. Stop trying to foster your own religious constraints in others.

Dodge ball...what version do you read and do you believe it to be the word of God? Remember, the word of God is pure, holy and without error.