Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[Locoponydirtman]

I’ve already read all the stuff your talking about and found that ONE man and only one man linked Easter to the fertility goddess.

But I’m sure you like most others here are more interested in casting doubt on the accuracy of KJV than getting to the truth.

You only found one! where did you look?
It's not rocket science to figure out what's going on. What's that bunny rabbit about? What are those eggs about? why are they the universal symbols of Easter throughout the world? Even churches hunting eggs on Sunday?
Where in Christianity or Judaism is a rabbit or eggs venerated?

 

[John146]

First of all, how about the simple and basic doctrine of the infallibility of the Bible? That's the most important doctrine of them all. Can God's word be trusted, every word? It's the whole foundation of everything God has revealed to us about Himself and what we believe about our Redeemer and Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. He either told us the truth when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away but His words would not pass away, or He lied to us and cannot be trusted. You pick which option you are going to believe.

Is the Jesus Christ in your Bible the one who lied in John 7:8 as the NASB, ESV, St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible read? That would go against the most important doctrine of all. The validity of God's word.

John 7:8-10 Here we read of Jesus telling his brethren to go up unto a feast and He says: "I go NOT up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come. When he had said these words unto them, he abode still in Gallilee. But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." He did in fact go up to the feast.

Vaticanus, as well as P66, 75, and the majority of all texts read as does the KJB with: "I go not up YET unto this feast", and so do the Revised Version 1881, Geneva, Tyndale, Bishops', Coverdale, the NIV, Holman Standard, the 2005 ISV (International Standard Version), Young, Weymouth, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902.

However Sinaiticus says: "I DO NOT GO to this feast", and so do the NASB, ASV, RSV, ESV , Catholic St. Joseph NAB, New Jerusalem bible 1985, and Wallace's NET version thus making our Lord a liar. The nature of this so called "science" is also seen in that Westcott and Hort originally read "NOT YET" and so did the previous Nestle-Aland critical texts up until a few years ago. But the more recent ones have "scientifically" changed to now read "I do NOT go to this feast."

The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ thousand of times, and these are the "trusted" manuscripts of the new age versions.

Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

 

[John146]

But it's still the Passover 16, the Jews were not celebrating it the way we celebrate "Easter".

Adam Clarke's commentary:

Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text.

But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following.

Full argument

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/acts-12.html

Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. Passover had already passed over, no?

 

[KJV1611]

But it's still the Passover 16, the Jews were not celebrating it the way we celebrate "Easter".

Adam Clarke's commentary:

Intending after Easter to bring him forth - Μετα το πασχα, After the passover. Perhaps there never was a more unhappy, not to say absurd, translation than that in our text.

But, before I come to explain the word, it is necessary to observe that our term called Easter is not exactly the same with the Jewish passover. This festival is always held on the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon; but the Easter of the Christians, never till the next Sabbath after said full moon; and, to avoid all conformity with the Jews in this matter, if the fourteenth day of the first vernal full moon happen on a Sabbath, then the festival of Easter is deferred till the Sabbath following.

Full argument

https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/acc/acts-12.html

I know it was Passover. The point is that the KJV translators knew it was Passover and they also knew that at that time Jesus had already fulfilled Passover so instead of referring to the shadow they referred to the real.

Easter was originally a Christian celebration that got co-opted by pagans just like Christmas. I highly recommend reading the links below from Answers in Genesis.

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-date-of-easter-of-pagan-origin/

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

 

[John146]

I know it was Passover. The point is that the KJV translators knew it was Passover and they also knew that at that time Jesus had already fulfilled Passover so instead of referring to the shadow they referred to the real.

Easter was originally a Christian celebration that got co-opted by pagans just like Christmas. I highly recommend reading the links below from Answers in Genesis.

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-date-of-easter-of-pagan-origin/

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

If I'm not mistaken, this "Ishtar" celebration did not begin until a couple of centuries later, yes or no?

 

[Locoponydirtman]

Then, you have not studied the differences between the KJV and all the modern versions. Truth has been changed and doctrines perverted.

Why would the writter of the King James Bible do that? To appease the pope and his false doctrines?

 

[John146]

Why would the writter of the King James Bible do that? To appease the pope and his false doctrines?

The KJV came before the new age versions. Why would the new age versions pervert God's word? To appease the Pope?

 

[KJV1611]

You only found one! where did you look?
It's not rocket science to figure out what's going on. What's that bunny rabbit about? What are those eggs about? why are they the universal symbols of Easter throughout the world? Even churches hunting eggs on Sunday?
Where in Christianity or Judaism is a rabbit or eggs venerated?

I’m not here to argue, believe whatever you want but I suggest you read the truth about Easter at Answers in Genesis.

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-date-of-easter-of-pagan-origin/

https://answersingenesis.org/holidays/easter/is-the-name-easter-of-pagan-origin/

 

[KJV1611]

If I'm not mistaken, this "Ishtar" celebration did not begin until a couple of centuries later, yes or no?

Something like that, I’m not sure but the Answers in Genesis address it I think.

 

[Dino246]

Ok my bad, I assumed inherent weaknesses meant inaccuracy. Maybe you could clarify what you meant. What are the inherent weaknesses of all translations?

The main weakness of any translation is that languages don't translate perfectly. No language has a perfect representation in any other language of three key parameters: word meaning, sentence structure, and sentence meaning. Typically, the word order must change to fit the destination language, even if there are close-to-parallel words.

Consider the phrase, "the big red dog". If I am translating that phrase into French, the word-for-word translation is "le grand rouge chien". However, that is not correct French. Correct French would be "le grand chien rouge". So which is the correct translation? It depends on what the translator is trying to accomplish! Both convey the meaning adequately, and both could be called "incorrect" by some standard.

Less frequently the translator will have to deal with an idiom in the source language that simply doesn't translate. Consider the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs". In English, it has a particular meaning: It's raining heavily. If you translate the idiom, the meaning doesn't go with it. If you translate the meaning, the words don't go with it.

Translation is both art and science. To be competent, the translator must be very familiar with both languages. He or she must find the closest approximation in the destination language for the text in the source language. Some strive for word-perfect translation, while others strive for idea-perfect translation. Some use a blend, and some only attempt to get across the gist of the idea (paraphrases). Each has a different result, and all those results have their place, as long as the translators are doing honest work.

This is why most knowledgeable readers of the Bible don't fuss over exact wording; they are comfortable with an idea being presented in any of several ways. It's the KJV-only types who get stuck on particular words and disallow ANY variation. Essentially what they do is deify the translators, or in your case, deify the process of translation by claiming that inspiration is required.

 

[Locoponydirtman]

The KJV came before the new age versions. Why would the new age versions pervert God's word? To appease the Pope?

The Geneva Bible is much older than the KJV. And was the go-to Bible for the Protestant reformers.

 

[Dino246]

No it’s not presuppositional, I believe what I believe from reading the Bible. It’s beyond my ability to understand how anyone can read the Bible and conclude that God isn’t capable or wasn’t willing to give his word to everybody in all languages.

Where has anyone suggested the conclusion that God isn't capable or willing to give His word in all languages?

Setting that question aside, consider this: what God is capable or willing to do isn't necessarily what He HAS done. Rather than getting hung up on hypotheticals, let's focus on what actually happened.

 

[John146]

The Geneva Bible is much older than the KJV. And was the go-to Bible for the Protestant reformers.

1560 Geneva Bible, it was part of the purification process 7 times.

 

[John146]

The main weakness of any translation is that languages don't translate perfectly. No language has a perfect representation in any other language of three key parameters: word meaning, sentence structure, and sentence meaning. Typically, the word order must change to fit the destination language, even if there are close-to-parallel words.

Consider the phrase, "the big red dog". If I am translating that phrase into French, the word-for-word translation is "le grand rouge chien". However, that is not correct French. Correct French would be "le grand chien rouge". So which is the correct translation? It depends on what the translator is trying to accomplish! Both convey the meaning adequately, and both could be called "incorrect" by some standard.

Less frequently the translator will have to deal with an idiom in the source language that simply doesn't translate. Consider the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs". In English, it has a particular meaning: It's raining heavily. If you translate the idiom, the meaning doesn't go with it. If you translate the meaning, the words don't go with it.

Translation is both art and science. To be competent, the translator must be very familiar with both languages. He or she must find the closest approximation in the destination language for the text in the source language. Some strive for word-perfect translation, while others strive for idea-perfect translation. Some use a blend, and some only attempt to get across the gist of the idea (paraphrases). Each has a different result, and all those results have their place, as long as the translators are doing honest work.

This is why most knowledgeable readers of the Bible don't fuss over exact wording; they are comfortable with an idea being presented in any of several ways. It's the KJV-only types who get stuck on particular words and disallow ANY variation. Essentially what they do is deify the translators, or in your case, deify the process of translation by claiming that inspiration is required.

In other words, our Almighty God is bound to the "original" languages.

 

[Dino246]

Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

This is the essence of your position. You take such a starkly black-and-white view of the KJV that your worldview cannot bear the possibility of the KJV being wrong about anything, for then it would be completely false.

I say this without meaning it to be insulting: your mind is closed. There really is no point in discussing this matter further with you. I don't think you are capable of rationally processing any serious challenge to your position.

 

[Dino246]

1560 Geneva Bible, it was part of the purification process 7 times.

Absolute hogwash, well refuted, and ridiculous. That verse has nothing to do with the KJV.

 

[Dino246]

In other words, our Almighty God is bound to the "original" languages.

Your words, not mine. Better start learning Greek.

 

[John146]

The main weakness of any translation is that languages don't translate perfectly. No language has a perfect representation in any other language of three key parameters: word meaning, sentence structure, and sentence meaning. Typically, the word order must change to fit the destination language, even if there are close-to-parallel words.

Consider the phrase, "the big red dog". If I am translating that phrase into French, the word-for-word translation is "le grand rouge chien". However, that is not correct French. Correct French would be "le grand chien rouge". So which is the correct translation? It depends on what the translator is trying to accomplish! Both convey the meaning adequately, and both could be called "incorrect" by some standard.

Less frequently the translator will have to deal with an idiom in the source language that simply doesn't translate. Consider the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs". In English, it has a particular meaning: It's raining heavily. If you translate the idiom, the meaning doesn't go with it. If you translate the meaning, the words don't go with it.

Translation is both art and science. To be competent, the translator must be very familiar with both languages. He or she must find the closest approximation in the destination language for the text in the source language. Some strive for word-perfect translation, while others strive for idea-perfect translation. Some use a blend, and some only attempt to get across the gist of the idea (paraphrases). Each has a different result, and all those results have their place, as long as the translators are doing honest work.

This is why most knowledgeable readers of the Bible don't fuss over exact wording; they are comfortable with an idea being presented in any of several ways. It's the KJV-only types who get stuck on particular words and disallow ANY variation. Essentially what they do is deify the translators, or in your case, deify the process of translation by claiming that inspiration is required.

Joseph spoke in Egyptian and yet the "originals" have what he spoke translated into Hebrew. What gives? Does God have a problem with language to language translation, and that translation be inspired by God? Nope.

 

[Hevosmies]

The main weakness of any translation is that languages don't translate perfectly. No language has a perfect representation in any other language of three key parameters: word meaning, sentence structure, and sentence meaning. Typically, the word order must change to fit the destination language, even if there are close-to-parallel words.

Consider the phrase, "the big red dog". If I am translating that phrase into French, the word-for-word translation is "le grand rouge chien". However, that is not correct French. Correct French would be "le grand chien rouge". So which is the correct translation? It depends on what the translator is trying to accomplish! Both convey the meaning adequately, and both could be called "incorrect" by some standard.

Less frequently the translator will have to deal with an idiom in the source language that simply doesn't translate. Consider the saying, "It's raining cats and dogs". In English, it has a particular meaning: It's raining heavily. If you translate the idiom, the meaning doesn't go with it. If you translate the meaning, the words don't go with it.

Translation is both art and science. To be competent, the translator must be very familiar with both languages. He or she must find the closest approximation in the destination language for the text in the source language. Some strive for word-perfect translation, while others strive for idea-perfect translation. Some use a blend, and some only attempt to get across the gist of the idea (paraphrases). Each has a different result, and all those results have their place, as long as the translators are doing honest work.

This is why most knowledgeable readers of the Bible don't fuss over exact wording; they are comfortable with an idea being presented in any of several ways. It's the KJV-only types who get stuck on particular words and disallow ANY variation. Essentially what they do is deify the translators, or in your case, deify the process of translation by claiming that inspiration is required.

This is true, and to add to this: Nobody speaks koine greek.

Im not gonna lie that was a shock to me. I think it was sister Angela here who told me that. I asked her if she spoke koine greek and she said (if i remember right) that nobody speaks it anymore, its a dead language.

Now could someone please tell me HOW can we go back to a dead language nobody has spoken for centuries and know what it means and how that language works?
Sounds impossible.

 

[John146]

The main weakness of any translation is that languages don't translate perfectly. No language has a perfect representation in any other language of three key parameters: word meaning, sentence structure, and sentence meaning. Typically, the word order must change to fit the destination language, even if there are close-to-parallel words.

This sounds like to me you don't think it's possible for God to have His "originals" translated into another language, and that translation contain the exact wording that particular language needs. Is this your view?