Where did King James only originate?

[justbyfaith]

Please provide three examples where "modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language".

Differences in content (words, phrases, passages) between the KJV and other translations do not meet your criteria.

Luke 9:55-56, Romans 13:9, John 8:1-11.

 

[peldom10]

Beware of the following to date;

All new age religion interpretations of scriptures have been presented since 1960.

All new age religion writings and publications of scripture have been since the 1960's.
Interpretations seem to lead the process followed by new bible editions which address those new interpretations and in most cases ...slanting God's intent and even proper wording. Example...Gods instead of God.
A very telling story.

 

[Combanitorics]

James the First lived in the fifteen hundreds, and he authorized a new English translation of the Bible. Prior to that, there was an English version by Martin Tyndale, still available in a copy with the Latin version by Leo the Fifth which he had used as his own source. Tyndale was a Catholic. As for why the KJV became the only authorized version, what that is to do with is the War of Spanish Secession. England left the Roman Catholic church, became Anglican and started having services said in it's own language. In modern times in England, at least when I was there, there is also a version called the Oxford Annotated Version, which we used in RE classes.

 

[Dino246]

Luke 9:55-56, Romans 13:9, John 8:1-11.

That's not adequate. You have not stated which translation, nor how these verses represent your claim.

 

[Dino246]

Beware of the following to date;

All new age religion interpretations of scriptures have been presented since 1960.

All new age religion writings and publications of scripture have been since the 1960's.
Interpretations seem to lead the process followed by new bible editions which address those new interpretations and in most cases ...slanting God's intent and even proper wording. Example...Gods instead of God.
A very telling story.

It looks like you are quoting some source without citing it, which is plagiarism. Also, you have not presented anything in the way of evidence to support your assertions.

 

[justbyfaith]

That's not adequate. You have not stated which translation, nor how these verses represent your claim.

In the kjv versus many of the modern translations that are based in the Westcott and Hort tradition.

words and phrases are removed from the first two verses; and in the latter passage, the entire passage is removed from the modern versions.

 

[ResidentAlien]

of course they did. they were honorable God fearing men who did the best they could with the resources they had available.
and that's the thing we do to, i pray!
and that's what is the reality of what W&H and those who went before them did, and why many new translations have appeared in the last couple hundred years. archaeology has uncovered more resources. we've realized that the Byzantine family of texts isn't as trustworthy and isn't the closest in time to the originals. many things that weren't clear before are now more clearly additions or errors, based on evidence that no one knew about in the 16th century.
that's where the kjv-only site's list of 'deletions' comes from. it's not people trying to destroy the Bible secretly. it's men doing their best to sort out how newly revealed information may add to or alter what the best men could do in the 16th & 17th centuries.

we need to bear in mind that 1611 is barely more than 400 years ago. there's been all this talk of 'oh wow kjv 4evaaa b/c 400 years & english FTW' but prior to this, the best approximation of the original scriptures ((provided you understood Latin, which if you had any education at all back then, you did)) was Jerome's vulgate translation. one man, from Hebrew & Greek into Latin from even fewer resources, around 300 AD.
the Vulgate was the 'preserved word of God' in the way kjv-ists claim for 1,300 years. the 400yr history of kjv is less than a quarter of that. so maybe we ought to all learn Latin eh???
i'm game.

I don't know. I'm of the mind that the Byzantine family may get a bad rap. I'm not a KJV onlyist, but I do think, after investigating it thoroughly, that the Byzantine/Majority text is probably more numerous because it's the one previous generations considered more reliable and were used more often. It also makes sense because of the region it comes from. The Alexandrian family seems an anomaly. Most translations these days consider everything though and put alternative readings in footnotes.

What I'd really like to find is a new translation based on the Byzantine family that uses colloquial English. Even the NKJV follows the KJV too closely to be practical.

 

[Dino246]

In the kjv versus many of the modern translations that are based in the Westcott and Hort tradition.

words and phrases are removed from the first two verses; and in the latter passage, the entire passage is removed from the modern versions.

Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. Once again, you can’t support your assertion with EVIDENCE.

 

[justbyfaith]

Dodge and weave, dodge and weave. Once again, you can’t support your assertion with EVIDENCE.

I have given the evidence but you are going to have to do your own homework on the information that I have given to you.

Because it is the style that I have chosen, that I both conceal (Proverbs 12:23) and disperse (Proverbs 15:7) knowledge when I dispense information.

I normally do this by merely referencing verses rather than quoting them.

In this case, I am letting you do your own homework on the verses in question; all you have to do is look them up in the kjv and then in any of the modern translations.

 

[ResidentAlien]

Thought I'd share something I found if others might be interested. It's The English Majority Text Version New Testament. The page with information about this version says:

"This translation started as a revision of the Hodges & Farstad text entitled The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text. Since then, with many revisions, I have incorporated the Robinson/Pierpont Byzantine text, entitled The New Testament in the Original Greek; Byzantine Textform 2005 edition, as well as the text prepared by Dr. Wilbur Pickering. Combining all of those resources, I have recently published The English Majority Text Version of the New Testament. (EMTV)"​

​

You can read it online (I found a couple of sites that have it) but the free The Word Bible software program has a module for it. It shows all the words not in the originals in italics like the KJV and NKJV do. The online versions don't have this.

I'm looking forward to digging into this new version!

 

[Nehemiah6]

Thought I'd share something I found if others might be interested. It's The English Majority Text Version New Testament.

Claiming this to be the "Majority Text" version may be a little misleading, since the bulk of Greek manuscripts have never been collated, and it is really an eclectic text..

"The "Majority Text" is a statistical construct that does not correspond exactly to any known manuscript. It is arrived at by comparing all known manuscripts with one another and deriving from them the readings that are more numerous than any others. There are two published Greek texts which purport to represent the Majority readings -- Hodges & Farstad 1982 and Pierpont & Robinson 1991. The reader may click on the links in the previous sentence to go to brief descriptions of these texts, and a list of all their differences is given here.
http://bible-researcher.com/majority.html

The so-called Majority Text "differs from the Received Text in about a thousand places, most of them being trivial." IOW there is nothing significant about the so-called Majority Text.

 

[ResidentAlien]

For those of you who said the 1611 KJV is God's only Bible for English speaking people: Can I assume you also believe that includes the Apocrypha?

 

[Runningman]

Where did King James only originate?

I would guess KJV only originated from an attempt to standardize English Bible interpretation among churches. When everyone is reading from the same Bible, the possibility for varying interpretations decreases I think. I also think that it standardizes the language Christians use when referencing scripture and that creates a sense of familiarity and common ground. These things are good for churches.

Now there are just so many different Bible versions and translations that it's difficult to find mutual consensus. I, myself, do read from a number of different versions and translations, but I like the idea of everyone agreeing on mutual Bible version for studies and discussions. The KJV is very consistent, in my opinion, and I think it's probably one of the best English versions available once the language barrier is overcome.

 

[fredoheaven]

not always the case. sometimes they just deferred to the Vulgate. you can see this by for example using the Latin word 'Lucifer' for the Hebrew word Helel, without even attempting to actually translate Helel to English




btw Fred you know we love each other. i'm just chatting here. i have no animosity i hope; only honesty as best i know how
i know you know & i know you love the same way. i just want it to be clear, especially to people who haven't been haunting this forum for years like you, @Nehemiah6 , @John146 and others have ♥

Yes Post, I love you with the love of the Lord and do not have a feeling of animosity. It’s just like little children having their squabbles and sometimes funs too.

Now as a growing child of God, we are going into such discernment and we need to probe all things, with all thy probing, we need to learn what is good and shun from any appearance of evil. In this example, of Lucifer, as found the KJB but not in the NIV or the NASB as they have it translated in the NIV= morning star, NASB= “star in the morning”

Of course, the KJB based text is not the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. They used the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the O.T. Yes, printed Hebrew bibles available to them. Now for the Latin translation of the Bible as in Isah 14:12 in this case KJB translator did not resort to Jeromes works. At least we, need to differentiate that there was also the ‘Old Latin’ which is untouched by Jerome. But they have never referenced the Old Latin neither of the Latin Vulgate. But the Latin tradition is a much correct rendition of the word heylel. Coverdale of 1535 has it and although worked with Tyndale, who used the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale’s work has no translation of the given passage. Coverdale is said to be an editor, not a translator, he used the German Bible and the Latin versions. Matthew’s Bible of 1537 has it before the Geneva of 1560 and the Bishops bible of 1568 hence, the early English Bibles before the KJB has it. This is also to note that the idea of Lucifer as used by the KJB translators did not come from the Catholic Doauy-Rheims. Where the KJB translators may have difficulties in translating a Greek or Hebrew word, they resorted to Latin then to English. Since the early Old English was influenced by Latin.

The Hebrew heylel as rendered in the NIV which is “morning star” is an assumption and interpolation. Noted is that from the root of heylel (1966) is from halal (1984) to shine*; hence to make a show; to boast, and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; also to stultify: - (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine. There was no morning star.

We must recognize that Isiah 14 is a personification of Satan, the devil who has been cut down and fell on the earth, the King of Babylon is the name of Satan who according to the book of Revelation may have his wife which is Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlot. If Christ had her bride which is the church, Satan too has, but this is off the topic.

Again, the NIV and the NASB failed to render Heylel since their actual Hebrew used was “Sachar kobab” which is different from the Hebrew text.

 

[John146]

For those of you who said the 1611 KJV is God's only Bible for English speaking people: Can I assume you also believe that includes the Apocrypha?

Why? The Apocrypha was not part of the KJV 1611. It was only an insert. If you look at a copy of the original 1611 KJV, (you can get a reprint from Thomas Nelson Publishers for about 20 dollars), the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout.

It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." All King James Bible contained the Apocrypha in the inter-testamental section until 1666. Then it began to be omitted in subsequent printings in 1666 (which is befitting, 666).

 

[Dino246]

Why? The Apocrypha was not part of the KJV 1611. It was only an insert. If you look at a copy of the original 1611 KJV, (you can get a reprint from Thomas Nelson Publishers for about 20 dollars), the book of Malachi ends with these words: "The end of the Prophets". Then the whole Apocrypha, which itself means "unknown, or spurious" is clearly marked off from the rest of the Scriptures by the words "Apocrypha" twice at the top of every page throughout.

It then ends with these words: "The end of Apocrypha". Then on the next page is an elaborate woodcutting and it says: "The Newe Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ." All King James Bible contained the Apocrypha in the inter-testamental section until 1666. Then it began to be omitted in subsequent printings in 1666 (which is befitting, 666).

1666 has nothing to do with 666. The latter, biblically, is the number of a man. Every other instance of the number is irrelevant.

 

[posthuman]

Yes Post, I love you with the love of the Lord and do not have a feeling of animosity. It’s just like little children having their squabbles and sometimes funs too.

Now as a growing child of God, we are going into such discernment and we need to probe all things, with all thy probing, we need to learn what is good and shun from any appearance of evil. In this example, of Lucifer, as found the KJB but not in the NIV or the NASB as they have it translated in the NIV= morning star, NASB= “star in the morning”

Of course, the KJB based text is not the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. They used the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the O.T. Yes, printed Hebrew bibles available to them. Now for the Latin translation of the Bible as in Isah 14:12 in this case KJB translator did not resort to Jeromes works. At least we, need to differentiate that there was also the ‘Old Latin’ which is untouched by Jerome. But they have never referenced the Old Latin neither of the Latin Vulgate. But the Latin tradition is a much correct rendition of the word heylel. Coverdale of 1535 has it and although worked with Tyndale, who used the Latin Vulgate, Tyndale’s work has no translation of the given passage. Coverdale is said to be an editor, not a translator, he used the German Bible and the Latin versions. Matthew’s Bible of 1537 has it before the Geneva of 1560 and the Bishops bible of 1568 hence, the early English Bibles before the KJB has it. This is also to note that the idea of Lucifer as used by the KJB translators did not come from the Catholic Doauy-Rheims. Where the KJB translators may have difficulties in translating a Greek or Hebrew word, they resorted to Latin then to English. Since the early Old English was influenced by Latin.

The Hebrew heylel as rendered in the NIV which is “morning star” is an assumption and interpolation. Noted is that from the root of heylel (1966) is from halal (1984) to shine*; hence to make a show; to boast, and thus to be (clamorously) foolish; to rave; causatively to celebrate; also to stultify: - (make) boast (self), celebrate, commend, (deal, make), fool (-ish, -ly), glory, give [light], be (make, feign self) mad (against), give in marriage, [sing, be worthy of] praise, rage, renowned, shine. There was no morning star.

We must recognize that Isiah 14 is a personification of Satan, the devil who has been cut down and fell on the earth, the King of Babylon is the name of Satan who according to the book of Revelation may have his wife which is Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlot. If Christ had her bride which is the church, Satan too has, but this is off the topic.

Again, the NIV and the NASB failed to render Heylel since their actual Hebrew used was “Sachar kobab” which is different from the Hebrew text.

the Septuagint uses Strong's G2193 for Heylel, but Revelation 22:16 has ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός
which is pretty interesting eh



however, Jerome's own commentary on Isaiah 14:12:

Pro eo quod nos interpretati sumus ob facilitatem intelligentiae: Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, lucifer, qui mane oriebaris, in Hebraico, ut verbum exprimamus ad verbum, legitur: Quomodo cecidisti de cælo, ulula fili diluculi. ​

Interpretatio sacrae scripturae per omnes Veteris et Novi Testamenti libros ab Joanne Nep. Alber. PAGE 408​

​

Jerome's comment in English:

Because of that which we have interpreted for ease of understanding: "How have you fallen from heaven, Lucifer, who rose in the morning." In Hebrew, when we express it literally, it is read: "How have you fallen from heaven! Wail, son of the dawn!" ​

​

so if the kjv translators weren't just appropriating Jerome's interpretive change ((which he himself calls it)) from the literal to something he thought 'more understandable' then they were at the least using the very same argument to agree with him and do the same thing.
Lucifer is still a Latin word, not a Hebrew one, so we are still at the question 'is his name Daniel or is his name Belteshazzar?'

 

[posthuman]

the Septuagint uses Strong's G2193 for Heylel, but Revelation 22:16 has ὁ ἀστὴρ ὁ λαμπρὸς ὁ πρωϊνός
which is pretty interesting eh

forgot to finish that thought -- i rather think the 70 most God-fearing & greatest scholars in Israel who could be found to translate the OT from Hebrew to Greek, who fluently spoke both, know better how to translate Hebrew to Greek than anyone living today.
they put εωσφόρου for heylel in Isaiah 14:12.
they put εωσφόρου also in these places, even tho they are not heylel in Hebrew:

• 1 Samuel 30:17
• Job 3:9
• Job 11:17
• Job 38:12
• Job 41:18
• Psalms 110:3

i guess it could be argued that non-native speakers of either language ~ 2,000 lving in a far-away pagan land years later knew the languages better, or that the 70 must have been wicked pharisees & lying scholars determined to corrupt the scripture ((tho there's no way they foresaw Revelation 22 being written)). but there is still evidence here that the Jews understood Heylel to have a reference/association to/with the brightness of the morning ((alternately interpreted/translated as 'twilight' in English)), and Isaiah being a Jew writing to Jews strongly suggests that the Jewish reading of this passage is an important thing to consider.


but Isaiah 14:12 is one word in one language, and Revelation 22:16 is 6 words in another language.
Isaiah 14:12 is Heylel, whatever that means
Revelation 22:16 is literally The Brightness, The Morning, The Star



we are thinking too much about the pagan language called English when we approach this, IMO
no scripture is written in English

 

[Dino246]

I have given the evidence but you are going to have to do your own homework on the information that I have given to you.

Because it is the style that I have chosen, that I both conceal (Proverbs 12:23) and disperse (Proverbs 15:7) knowledge when I dispense information.

I normally do this by merely referencing verses rather than quoting them.

In this case, I am letting you do your own homework on the verses in question; all you have to do is look them up in the kjv and then in any of the modern translations.

Your claim is this:

"Because the translation accurately portrays Christ where many of the modern translations remain faulty in their execution of the language."

The "evidence" you cited does not even remotely match your claim, let alone support it. There is no "faulty execution of the language" in the examples you have given, and further, you haven't identified any particular translations.

Once again, you have failed miserably to substantiate your assertion. I must conclude that your assertions have no merit until you consistently demonstrate otherwise.

 

[Dino246]

I have given the evidence but you are going to have to do your own homework on the information that I have given to you.

Because it is the style that I have chosen, that I both conceal (Proverbs 12:23) and disperse (Proverbs 15:7) knowledge when I dispense information./QUOTE]
Dude, you give yourself far too much credit. You just aren't that smart... and given your rampant arrogance on this board, you aren't that wise either.