Why the king james?

  • 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.

kohelet

Senior Member
Feb 22, 2012
349
228
43
There's truth to be had in this verse:

Luke 10:1King James Version (KJV)

10 After these things the Lordappointed other seventy also, and sent them two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.

or


Luke 10:1New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Sends Out the Seventy-Two

10 After this the Lord appointed seventy-two[a] others and sent them two by two ahead of him to every town and place where he was about to go.

Did the Lord send out seventy or seventy-two? God's word is truth. Which one since they teach different truths? One is truth, and the other is not. Do you understand why it is important that you have the right one so God can teach you all truth?

Hi John146,

In cases like this, we look at notes that tell us something about the different manuscripts and the difficulties encountered by translators. This sort of thing (a note in the NET Bible), for example:

Text-critical NoteThere is a difficult textual problem here and in v. 17, where the number is either “seventy” (א A C L W ΘΞΨf[SUP]1, 13[/SUP] ������ and several church fathers and early versions) or “seventy-two” (������[SUP]75[/SUP] B D 0181 pc lat as well as other versions and fathers). The more difficult reading is “seventy-two,” since scribes would be prone to assimilate this passage to several OT passages that refer to groups of seventy people (Num 11:13-17; Deut 10:22; Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1 et al.); this reading also has slightly better ms support. “Seventy” could be the preferred reading if scribes drew from the tradition of the number of translators of the LXX, which the Letter of Aristeas puts at seventy-two (TCGNT 127), although this is far less likely. All things considered, “seventy-two” is a much more difficult reading and accounts for the rise of the other. Only Luke notes a second larger mission like the one in 9:1-6.

Since our salvation is not dependent on the number of people Jesus sent out, I can live with either (but prefer seventy-two).
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,959
113
Well.... I'm curious... if the KJV was translated from Greek, why would Acts 2:38 not say, "repent and be immersed...." ? The word used was "baptizo" which, as I understand it, translates to "immerse". Could it have been that good old King James believed in sprinkling for baptism, and the translators knew upon which side their bread was buttered? So in order to NOT irritate their employer, created a word to cover the incorrect method?
When did the word "baptize" come into existence? I've always been told it was around 1611 or so. I will be the first to admit I have not researched it myself, but was taught that from a very early age.

Any linguists out there?
Baptizo in Greek means "to baptize, dip, immerse." It is actually an ancient Jewish cleansing tradition, a ritual to do with ceremonial cleansing. It was very important to the Pharisees, and many rich Pharisees had a mikvah, a pool of running water, in their home so they could undergo this rite before going to the temple. John the Baptist had public baptisms in the Jordan River, including Jesus.

So no, not invented by KJV, and certainly the right word is being used in this passage in that translation.

This is not addressed specifically to you, Hornet guy, but to everyone, especially in this thread who keep misusing the Greek/Hebrew to support their points.

1. Please stop posting stuff you may have heard once, without at least googling it. We may get rid of half the errors people are presenting as fact, simple by looking up what you THINK might be true, before posting it.

2. Be careful of your sources you are using to back up your claims. Thayers, for example, is a thoroughly discredited source. And it has been since the early 20th century. It uses a lot of wrong grammar, etc. Strong's is also extremely old, and because it is based on the KJV, it is not right to use it to back up claims the KJV is right, because of course it is based on that translation. So you can't say the NIV or ESV (or any other translation!) is wrong based on Strong's. An independent Lexicon like Bauer for Greek and Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew would be a superior choice. That would require learning how to read the letters, instead of transliterating, and their order, but that would not take more than a week for each!

If this thread is still going tomorrow, I will try and advance some scholarly concerns about the KJV. However, it is better to read the KJV, than some other versions, or not read at all!

As for saying KJV is closest to the Greek, because it mirrors a parallel version, NOT!! Greek word order is completely different than English, it cannot be translated word for word, or the English would not make sense. That applies to any version.

It would be so nice if people would actually study Greek and Hebrew before making all these wild claims based in simple word studies. Biblical languages are highly complex, and extensive study of grammar, syntax, etc needs to be done to understand either Hebrew or Greek. Both languages come from cultures which are radically different than our own, and from English, and it takes a lot of work in translation, to even begin to understand the thought processes of those cultures.

BUT, as Jaume said much earlier, the central message of the Bible is the same in any language, culture or translation. Sadly, it is often the finer points of theology that get lost in translation.

My concern is always to urge people to read the Bible, in a version that makes sense! Reading the Bible has to go hand in hand with prayer, because knowing God is a heart matter, and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our heart as we read the Bible to know God better, and to follow him and do his will.
 
Last edited:
D

didymos

Guest
The only true bible is the one in which one receives the true word/message
So the ultimate test is if it speaks to someone personally? What if someone THINKS he receives the true word/message through the Queen James BIble? Would that make the QJB a true Bible?

 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
That's not the point. Then why don't we all just read the passages about salvation and put the book down. I need the word of truth to stand against the attacks of this world. Will anyone believe you about salvation if you don't even trust the book to be completely accurate? How am I to stand against the world with a book I don't trust?

My belief is that almost any of the major translations, KJV, RSV, ASB, NIV, NLT, Jerusalem, yada, yada are ALL God's word. So there are minor discrepancies in translations? Tell me... does ANYONES' salvation depend on getting it "right" on whether there were 70 or 72 sent out? My goodness, folks... talk about straining gnats and swallowing camels! Or, the ever-critical question of "Just how many angels CAN dance on the head of that pin?"
Show me a translation that says "salvation is through your good works.." and I'll toss that translation on the bonfire faster than any of you. Nearly all the major translations have the words of God correctly written down for us to read.
This argument about which one is "best", or "most accurate" is just another way to say "see there, I'm right, and YOU are wrong" nanny nanny boo boo....
Let's get back to trying to live like Jesus, loving each other and not trying to out do each other on being "right", the same way the Pharisees were "right". I believe the Word says we are saved by grace, NOT by what version of the book we read.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
So now I am to trust man's notes over what God has said. No thank you.


Hi John146,

In cases like this, we look at notes that tell us something about the different manuscripts and the difficulties encountered by translators. This sort of thing (a note in the NET Bible), for example:

Text-critical NoteThere is a difficult textual problem here and in v. 17, where the number is either “seventy” (א A C L W ΘΞΨf[SUP]1, 13[/SUP] ������ and several church fathers and early versions) or “seventy-two” (������[SUP]75[/SUP] B D 0181 pc lat as well as other versions and fathers). The more difficult reading is “seventy-two,” since scribes would be prone to assimilate this passage to several OT passages that refer to groups of seventy people (Num 11:13-17; Deut 10:22; Judg 8:30; 2 Kgs 10:1 et al.); this reading also has slightly better ms support. “Seventy” could be the preferred reading if scribes drew from the tradition of the number of translators of the LXX, which the Letter of Aristeas puts at seventy-two (TCGNT 127), although this is far less likely. All things considered, “seventy-two” is a much more difficult reading and accounts for the rise of the other. Only Luke notes a second larger mission like the one in 9:1-6.

Since our salvation is not dependent on the number of people Jesus sent out, I can live with either (but prefer seventy-two).
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
I'll repeat, please show me all those errors in the KJV.
 
E

ember

Guest
ANGELA

"As for saying KJV is closest to the Greek, because it mirrors a parallel version, NOT!
Greek word order is completely different than English, it cannot be translated word for word, or the English would not make sense. That applies to any version.*"

*********************


I have said exactly that in similar threads in this forum...you cannot translate word for word

That would be a very simple rule to apply before plunging in to score points for personal bias

That being said...we should all appreciate what you have to say here regarding original languages of the Bible and how to apply unbiased research

A great post!
 
M

Mitspa

Guest
I'll repeat, please show me all those errors in the KJV.
One very obvious error is that they translate the word for passover to easter ...

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


Now anyone should be able to figure out that the Jews was not celebrating "easter" ...in fact the whole concept of easter came much, much later than at the time this passage represents ....

Its a clear error!
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,431
0
Well said!.....I have one question about Thayers being discredited as a source for the meanings of greek words. Where does that discrediting come from? I ask because it is a part of my bible software and once in awhile I look at it and to me it seems to say basically the same thing as the others.

I also find that some of them give their "commentary" of what the words means which could be just them giving their thoughts based on their own particular belief from the denomination they belong to. It's similar to what translators did for some words in the KJV.

What do you think of the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament? It seems to be thorough albeit somewhat tedious to read.

Thanks for your input and I always enjoy your posts on these topics.


Baptizo in Greek means "to baptize, dip, immerse." It is actually an ancient Jewish cleansing tradition, a ritual to do with ceremonial cleansing. It was very important to the Pharisees, and many rich Pharisees had a mikvah, a pool of running water, in their home so they could undergo this rite before going to the temple. John the Baptist had public baptisms in the Jordan River, including Jesus.

So no, not invented by KJV, and certainly the right word is being used in this passage in that translation.

This is not addressed specifically to you, Hornet guy, but to everyone, especially in this thread who keep misusing the Greek/Hebrew to support their points.

1. Please stop posting stuff you may have heard once, without at least googling it. We may get rid of half the errors people are presenting as fact, simple by looking up what you THINK might be true, before posting it.

2. Be careful of your sources you are using to back up your claims. Thayers, for example, is a thoroughly discredited source. And it has been since the early 20th century. It uses a lot of wrong grammar, etc. Strong's is also extremely old, and because it is based on the KJV, it is not right to use it to back up claims the KJV is right, because of course it is based on that translation. So you can't say the NIV or ESV (or any other translation!) is wrong based on Strong's. An independent Lexicon like Bauer for Greek and Brown-Driver-Briggs for Hebrew would be a superior choice. That would require learning how to read the letters, instead of transliterating, and their order, but that would not take more than a week for each!

If this thread is still going tomorrow, I will try and advance some scholarly concerns about the KJV. However, it is better to read the KJV, than some other versions, or not read at all!

As for saying KJV is closest to the Greek, because it mirrors a parallel version, NOT!! Greek word order is completely different than English, it cannot be translated word for word, or the English would not make sense. That applies to any version.

It would be so nice if people would actually study Greek and Hebrew before making all these wild claims based in simple word studies. Biblical languages are highly complex, and extensive study of grammar, syntax, etc needs to be done to understand either Hebrew or Greek. Both languages come from cultures which are radically different than our own, and from English, and it takes a lot of work in translation, to even begin to understand the thought processes of those cultures.

BUT, as Jaume said much earlier, the central message of the Bible is the same in any language, culture or translation. Sadly, it is often the finer points of theology that get lost in translation.

My concern is always to urge people to read the Bible, in a version that makes sense! Reading the Bible has to go hand in hand with prayer, because knowing God is a heart matter, and the Holy Spirit will enlighten the eyes of our heart as we read the Bible to know God better, and to follow him and do his will.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,465
6,722
113
Note: Passover is already translated to English from pesach in Hebrew. Jesus Christ is the Passover Lamb for all who believe Him, therefore the death curse of the law does not touch any of us. Praise God for His Only Begotten, amen.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
Study to shew thyself approved unto God...here are some notes on a study I went through years ago. The word Easter is the perfect word and should not be Passover. Herod is the one that waited to arrest Peter. Do you think Herod was being sensitive to the Jews? Nonsense. Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened bread. The days of day of Passover takes place the day before the days of unleavened bread.

Exodus 12:13-18:"And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.
14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
15 Seven days shall ye eat unleavened bread; even the first day ye shall put away leaven out of your houses: for whosoever eateth leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that soul shall be cut off from
Israel.
16 And in the first day there shall be an holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the
land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even."
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13, 14),we find that seven days shall be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th through the 21st. This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers 28:16-18:
"And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall unleavened bread be eaten.18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation;ye shall do no manner of servile work therein:"

In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the 14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of unleavened bread."

We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the subject that the order of events went as follows:

  1. On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover. No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
  2. On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread, also known as the feast of unleavened bread.


    One very obvious error is that they translate the word for passover to easter ...

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


    Now anyone should be able to figure out that the Jews was not celebrating "easter" ...in fact the whole concept of easter came much, much later than at the time this passage represents ....

    Its a clear error!
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
Did he not say, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Did God not promise to preserve His words for all generations? If they are not in the KJV, then where are God's pure words without mixture? I want to know because that's what I want to read and study.


Where did GOD say that the KJV doesn't have any errors?
 
Sep 4, 2012
14,424
692
113
Did he not say, "Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth." Did God not promise to preserve His words for all generations? If they are not in the KJV, then where are God's pure words without mixture? I want to know because that's what I want to read and study.
Click on the two left-most links in my signature. That will be a start.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
Unless I missed something, I have to learn Greek. Are these the originals? If that's the case, everyone should learn Greek. Why have an English Bible full of errors. If I can't trust them, get rid of all of them.


I trust God's promise of preservation, that He can preserve His pure words in the English language without mixture.

Click on the two left-most links in my signature. That will be a start.
 

p_rehbein

Senior Member
Sep 4, 2013
30,750
6,913
113
Unless I missed something, I have to learn Greek. Are these the originals? If that's the case, everyone should learn Greek. Why have an English Bible full of errors. If I can't trust them, get rid of all of them.


I trust God's promise of preservation, that He can preserve His pure words in the English language without mixture.

Except for a few Translations which are certainly not "of God," I fully trust that God can preserve the essence of His Word in more than just the KJV. I just happen to enjoy the KJV..........and the CJB.

To suggest that God can not do this is to suggest that God Sovereign in my opinion.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,465
6,722
113
No man is able to seize the truth from God, but He does give truth to all who seek in spirit and truth.
When we learn anything that is truth, that is to say, eternal, even though it be by means of the Book or another person, the source is God, specifically His Holy Spirit.

We learn truth from God, and any instrument He chooses to convey truth, be it another person speaking by the Holy Spirit or from dead words given life by His Spirit.. As for KJV only, I did not realize there was such a group, but I suppose there is a a group somewhere for just about any idea or agenda. No one should be surprised at that having come out of the darkness into the Light that is Jesus Christ.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
So as your reading through your Bible, the Holy Spirit points out all the wrongs and teaches all the correct ones? You could never go against the world if you don't have a perfect Bible to point to, when you yourself don't trust. That's a bad deal in my opinion.

No man is able to seize the truth from God, but He does give truth to all who seek in spirit and truth.
When we learn anything that is truth, that is to say, eternal, even though it be by means of the Book or another person, the source is God, specifically His Holy Spirit.

We learn truth from God, and any instrument He chooses to convey truth, be it another person speaking by the Holy Spirit or from dead words given life by His Spirit.. As for KJV only, I did not realize there was such a group, but I suppose there is a a group somewhere for just about any idea or agenda. No one should be surprised at that having come out of the darkness into the Light that is Jesus Christ.