Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

  • 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.

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
#41
1. Remember that the true authority of the meaning of words is the context in which those words are used and by the intent of the one delivering those words and not by lexicons or dictionaries which only serve to define those words according to there general usage. Accuracy is assured so long as those words are used in a consistent way.

2. Remember that words often have more than one meaning, If you are under the impression that the King James Bible disagrees with the original languages take another look at the meaning of the English word, there is no doubt that you will often discover that the word is in agreement with the Greek or Hebrew according to at least one of the meanings of the English word that you were previously unaware of.

3. Remember when consulting Greek and Hebrew lexicons that the King James Translators were a far greater arsenal of knowledge in regards to the original Biblical languages than those who wrote the lexicons you are consulting and that therefore you are just as well or better off to use the King James Bible itself as your Greek and Hebrew lexicon.
White I use the KJV I also understand it's problems. As my Bible I use my smartphone to use the web browser to go to biblegateway.com and look up book and chapter. Then I can select any translation I want including foreign languages. Since I only speak English I limit myself to those translations. I usually go between NIV, ESV, KJV, and AMPC.

The problem with KJV is 2 fold. First 400 years of language changes. Second 400 years of science of nature. Here is a list of its flaws because of these issues.

Why do you keep using the now flawed KJV translation. The language and understanding of nature has changed over the 400 years since then. There are words that are no longer used. Do you know what a gold ouches is?


KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)


KJV Issues sites

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2
 

Hevosmies

Well-known member
Sep 8, 2018
3,192
2,351
113
#42
Because, after all, English is the only language on Earth.

#facepalm
The Apostles probably spoke english.

Here is proof, straight from the KJV:

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

See it says "Peter said" and then its in english.

PROOF 100%. Go look up Acts 3:6 in your KJV its not in greek!!!!!
 
Dec 28, 2016
8,143
1,745
113
#43
preacher4truth, I said that I now read the KJV instead of the NASB, due to the fact that the NASB version attributes the alienation from God due to raisin cakes (pastry).

NASB Hosea 3:1 Again the Lord said to me, "Go love a woman now in love with a paramour, herself an adulteress, besides; such is the way the Lord loves His people Israel, even though they keep turning to other gods and love raisin cakes."
Uh...hmmm...never mind. :whistle:
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
#44
Not in any english bible. Already proven (the word baptizo, which off course you did not respond to because you KNOW I am right.

The english language is flawed. That alone prevents a perfect translation.
ROFL
English language flawed? It seems you fail to understand why our language is the way it is. In Britain there originally were Celts. Then along came Romans and conquered the England and Wales portion. The Scots in the mountains were a thorn in their side so they build Hadrians Wall. This added Latin to Celtish. Then the Saxons came adding German to the mix. Last the Normans added French. This mixture is why we have all of the strange rules with exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, exceptions to those exceptions, etc. All other languages have their much simpler rules. Talking to a Mexican American when I was in Southern Texas near the border he complained about the Spanish language because of its verbose flowery way of talking. To him English was so much simpler and easier to use. He hated to be forced to use Spanish when talking to relatives in Mexico. So much for its flaws.
 

louis

Senior Member
Nov 1, 2017
1,102
86
48
#45
And as shown you. Raisin cakes was something that was pagan, and even offered to pagan Gods.

So it is easy to think that Israel was using them in this way. Of course you would have to be ther to know this. Which is why historical perspective is required in hermeneutics
The other gods the Israeli's turned to were not figures of deities to which they offered raisin cakes.
God is love (1 John 4:8 & 16).
When Israel turned to other gods, these were other loves other than the Lord/Love.
One of these other gods/loves to whom they turned were flagons of wine.
 
Mar 14, 2011
63,946
10,312
113
#46
The other gods the Israeli's turned to were not figures of deities to which they offered raisin cakes.
God is love (1 John 4:8 & 16).
When Israel turned to other gods, these were other loves other than the Lord/Love.
One of these other gods/loves to whom they turned were flagons of wine.
This could be true

But does not prove your case. It could be either

Which is why it is NOT proof the KJV got it right. And the others got it wrong.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,493
963
113
Texas
#47
Because whoever believeth on Jesus and readith this passage from the King James Bible shall be saved
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,493
963
113
Texas
#48
I find it a little bit... ironic maybe... That some of y'all were reading along in the Bible as pleased as a peach when you came to Hosea and read raisen cakes, then because that didnt seem to make sense rather than study to figure out what was being said y'all found a version that said something that made sense to you.
I'm just gonna throw this Bible away and find one that says stuff I understand because this one says stuff that I dont.
It seems to me the logical thing to do would be to do some research and find out what is being referred to. Y'all are wierd.
 

CharliRenee

Member
Staff member
Nov 4, 2014
4,784
5,432
113
#49
So, you read the different translations and you come up with the best words to determine the meaning? Are you ok with being the final authority on God's word?[/QUOT

Fair enough question, I suppose...

Oh no, I don't look at it that way, not even close. Me, the authority on God's word...NO. That is why I take time and examine a matter, cross reference, (scripture explains scripture), word search, pray and wait (fall short in this area), re-read, compare translations, commentaries (seeking counsel, here and church), back to the word, contextualize and repeat, lol. Still I know that the revealing comes as He sees fit. Often, He reminds me to NOT overthink it, to remain humble (teachable), to stay the course, and to NOT, never ever, lean on my own understanding.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
10,980
5,425
113
#50
3. Remember when consulting Greek and Hebrew lexicons that the King James Translators were a far greater arsenal of knowledge in regards to the original Biblical languages than those who wrote the lexicons you are consulting and that therefore you are just as well or better off to use the King James Bible itself as your Greek and Hebrew lexicon.
Actually, this is demonstrably false. The KJV translators were only aware of documents available in the early 17th century. There have been many classical Greek and ancient Hebrew documents discovered since that time (think Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library), meaning that the material available to the writers of lexicons (which are compendia of words as used in contemporary literature) is greater than that available to the KJV translators. In other words, we know far more than they did.

So... before you drink any more KJV-only Fool-Aid, do a little unbiased research.
 

CharliRenee

Member
Staff member
Nov 4, 2014
4,784
5,432
113
#51
More utter nonsense. I actually laughed reading the OP, it was so ludicrous!

Circular logic. I like the KJV so therefore it is the right version. Because the KJV is the right version, I like it!

No knowledge of lower Biblical criticism, which is an understanding of the manuscript evidence. The 6000 Greek NT manuscripts, which date from approx 125 AD to the 7 late corrupted 15th century manuscripts used by Erasmus, a Catholic priest, and the KJV translators used his translation as a basis for their 1611 KJV.

As for errors, the KJV is rife with them! From all the additions by Byzantine scribes, who like to "interpret" or embellish the text, archaic and obsolete vocabulary and grammar to this ridiculous myth of word for word translations, KJV is an error a minute! Although, none truly affect fundamental doctrine. But sadly l, most cults use KJV, grabbing onto disputed texts like the longer ending of Mark, to make false doctrine. Better the NIV. Which just eliminates the longer ending than a wrong a spurious ending!

Greek has a completely different syntax or word order than English. German is much closer, it is easier to get a match of Greek to German. Noun cases are so important in Greek. The nominative case, for example, is the subject of a sentence. You can have it at the front, middle or end of a sentence in Greek. For example:

"People from the whole Judean countryside and all of Jerusalem were going out to him, and he was baptizing them in the Jordan River as they confessed their sins." Mark 1:5 NET

"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." KJV

These are very similar, and do NOT follow Greek!

"καὶ ἐξεπορεύετο πρὸς αὐτὸν πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται [a]πάντες, καὶ ἐβαπτίζοντο ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ Ἰορδάνῃ ποταμῷ ἐξομολογούμενοι τὰς ἁμαρτίας αὐτῶν." SBL

Some will say, "But that's not Stephanus!!" Wel, other than missing all the diacritical markings, it is almost identical to SBL. Only the "ὑπ’ αὐτοῦ" is in a different position, and SBL notes by using that there are 2 possibilities, but their version has determined that the first position is stinger.

"και εξεπορευετο προς αυτον πασα η ιουδαια χωρα και οι ιεροσολυμιται και εβαπτιζοντο παντες εν τω ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογουμενοι τας αμαρτιας αυτων."

"τας αμαρτιας αυτων" is literally:
"The sin their" NO version puts it that way, because that is not good English. All versions say "their sins" dropping the tas, which is accusative feminine plural, for the definite article. We don't have gender in English nouns, and the corrrct way to say this, as both KJV and NET, (a modern functional translation) say "their sins." Which is not word for word, but corrrct in English.

Getting back to the nominative case, what is the subject of this sentence?

"ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα καὶ οἱ Ἱεροσολυμῖται"
"The Judean countryside and the Jerusalemites."

We know this because the two articles ἡ and οἱ, are nominative feminine singular and masculine nominative plural, and the two nouns are in the nominative case.

KJV handles this issue in a strange way, adding the word "there" which is not in the Greek. NET adds "they" which is a legitimate addition in terms of being the subject of the verb, understood, not written. Neither translation is able to show that the subject is "The Judean countryside and the Jerusalemites, " because by trying to cling to the word order, it means the subject, which in English is mostly defined by its position at the beginning of the sentence, which is lost in keeping to Greek word order, although it is obvious in Greek! And German!

"Und es ging zu ihm hinaus das ganze jüdische Land und die von Jerusalem und ließen sich alle von ihm taufen im Jordan und bekannten ihre Sünden." Luther Bible

Both KJV and NET must use dynamic equivalent, or because it is impossible to understand the subject without adding word in English.

So, translating from Greek yo English can never have the same word order. As for using 16th century English, I can only wonder why anyone would want to read the Bible in a language that is not their own? But, if that work for then, keep in reading!
BAM, how fun it must be to know what you know. I am not talking about pride, no, I'm not exalting you, just, that I can only imagine... it has to so rewarding and enjoyable. Thank You Lord, for the capacity to learn, and also thank You Adonai for Your revealing.
 

Locoponydirtman

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2018
1,493
963
113
Texas
#52
Because, after all, English is the only language on Earth.

#facepalm
Because Jesus was a blue-eyed blonde haired fellow from England, and hung out mostly in the Whitehall area of London. He also personally invented the language of English just so the King James version could be written. King James was just regular James back then until he got his Bible written then everybody was like hey man that's awesome James you going to be the king!
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
8,089
3,457
113
#53
The problem with using multiple translations, specifically modern translations is that in an unnecessary attempt to improve upon the Bible they corrupt the language of Christianity. If Christians had stuck with the tried and tested for 400 years King James Bible then the language of Christianity would be better harmonized which I think would have prevented much of the division that has occurred in Christianity since the 1800's. Translations can now be tailored to peoples preferences so as to improve sales thereby making men their own authority, rather than following God's word men become their own authority on what God said.
Inaccuracy in translations can also cause confusion in doctrine such as in the New King James Bible which says that we are "being saved":

18 For the [g]message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV)

This is false as salvation is not a process, the King James Bible on the other hand is correct when it tells us that as Christians we are saved:

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

I do however agree that God can and does use the modern translations to bring people to Christ and work in the lives of Christians in spite of the flaws that they contain. God bless.

what is the 'language' of Christianity exactly?

forsooth please advise

18 For the [g]message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. (1 Corinthians 1:18 NKJV)

This is false as salvation is not a process, the King James Bible on the other hand is correct when it tells us that as Christians we are saved:
actually, you are DETRACTING from those verses by what you say

we are saved when we accept Christ, but salvation is not an historical event in that sense.

we are saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. salvation in the fullest sense

do you not agree that sanctification, after the moment of salvation, is an ongoing process?
 

7seasrekeyed

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2017
8,089
3,457
113
#54
As been proven to me? Not so, brother. People have to come with a stronger argument than the use of the word "Easter". That's laughable.

I also believe God can use a false bible to bring people to the truth of the gospel. It's all truth contained within for the believer to live by that's in question.

The non KJV movement has brought about the current Laodicea Age.

this leaves me like




a false Bible would have a false gospel which would lead to a false salvation and please forgive the contradictory words in this sentence :rolleyes:
 

Endoscopy

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2017
4,028
397
83
#56
The other gods the Israeli's turned to were not figures of deities to which they offered raisin cakes.
God is love (1 John 4:8 & 16).
When Israel turned to other gods, these were other loves other than the Lord/Love.
One of these other gods/loves to whom they turned were flagons of wine.
Try again.
They also made sacrices to Baal etc. They became enamored with the gods of those they allowed to live in Israel contrary to the order given by God to kill them. They were supposed to cleanse the land when moving in to Israel. They failed to do what God commanded them to do!!!
 

Deade

Called of God
Dec 17, 2017
11,083
5,769
113
73
#58
what is the 'language' of Christianity exactly?

forsooth please advise



actually, you are DETRACTING from those verses by what you say

we are saved when we accept Christ, but salvation is not an historical event in that sense.

we are saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. salvation in the fullest sense

do you not agree that sanctification, after the moment of salvation, is an ongoing process?
I agree, and I might add: Our salvation will not be complete until we are raised immortalized and glorified. :cool:
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
9,406
3,096
113
#60
Then the 1611 version has 80 books and the king James I have now only 66... Why did they remove so many books from the all holy 1611 version?
This is about as lame an excuse for mocking the KJB as any. The Apocrypha had been incorporated into the Septuagint (c 200 BC), and then into the Latin Vulgate (c 400 AD). But at the time of the Reformation, the Reformers recognized that it was not Scripture.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 AD)

However all the English translations continued to include it within their pages, since it was believed that those books had instructive and historical value. The King James translators separated it from the OT and NT and also noted that it was not Scripture. So eventually it was removed from Protestant Bibles.