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.
P

popeye

Guest
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.
The best traction available to the layman is the textus receptus.

You are wrong about interlinear.

I read the Greek word for word.
I see the English translation (literal)
I see the kjv on the opposite margin and marvel at it's accuracy.

About the best bang for your buck,without some burdensome weight of hyper purity paranoia over flyspecks,is a good Greek interlinear

I have compared my greens interlinear to several others (received text) w/o very much concern over a few minor judgement calls by the translators.
Alexandrian texts is preferred by cults like watchtower and when they say "Greek" they are referencing the Alexandrian,which was rejected due to its corruption.
 
Last edited:
P

popeye

Guest
In construction,if you need 5 or10 2x4 s cut,and you use the last cut board for your template ,each cut will be off,but the last one will be way off from the first.

That is a problem with multiple translations.
 
P

popeye

Guest
There were no "candles" ,supposedly, 2000 years ago.

Oil lamp is what needs to be there.

Oil is key in the word. Used as a type.

Candle robs the reader of the original depth.
 
P

popeye

Guest
There were no "candles" ,supposedly, 2000 years ago.

Oil lamp is what needs to be there.

Oil is key in the word. Used as a type.

Candle robs the reader of the original depth.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,431
0
I thought that even in Jesus day there were translations too ..like the Septuagint and they had some Hebrew translations too.

.there is no one translation that is "THE word of God"...that 1611 translation was great for it's time but has definite mis-translations in certain words in order to justify the society and church hierarchy that was in place at the time. We have enough of the older copies of manuscripts to translate words now more accurately.

To think that the 1611 version is the only true word of God is just spiritual ignorance gone to seed in my opinion. Given that....I read the KJV sometimes and do like it's poetry like language but I always check other translations and interlinears to make sure the words are translated correctly.
 
Sep 14, 2014
68
5
8
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
There are clear errors in the KJV and this stuff about messages in the numbers and the structure of the text, is completely unbiblical and sounds more like Jewish witchcraft...
Hey here's a novel idea for you... check things out before you speak foolish things. I would hate for you to stand before God one day and accuse him of practicing Jewish witchcraft.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
In the Bible, there is mention of something being translated three times. In each case, the translation was better than the original.

2 Samuel 3:10 - Saul's kingdom being translated to David's kingdom
Colossians 1:13 - believers being translated into the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ
Hebrews 11:5 - Enoch being translated so he should not see death.

Older is not better. They found older manuscripts because they were rejected and counted as corrupt. They were kept in store by the RCC. The received manuscripts were passed around and read. Most never survived, but only the copies. That's why the Textus Receptus is not as old.

When you use the word "I" you make yourself the final authority on what God has said. Trust God and His promise to preserve His pure words for us.


I thought that even in Jesus day there were translations too ..like the Septuagint and they had some Hebrew translations too.

.there is no one translation that is "THE word of God"...that 1611 translation was great for it's time but has definite mis-translations in certain words in order to justify the society and church hierarchy that was in place at the time. We have enough of the older copies of manuscripts to translate words now more accurately.

To think that the 1611 version is the only true word of God is just spiritual ignorance gone to seed in my opinion. Given that....I read the KJV sometimes and do like it's poetry like language but I always check other translations and interlinears to make sure the words are translated correctly.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
You go from saying it's the best translation we've got to saying it sounds like Jewish witchcraft. You or anyone else have not provided any errors in the KJV. It stands the test of time when all other versions fall away or rewritten.


There are clear errors in the KJV and this stuff about messages in the numbers and the structure of the text, is completely unbiblical and sounds more like Jewish witchcraft...
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
One thing all believers should defend is the word of God! If you don't believe you have it, then the world wins.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,465
6,722
113
Do you recall reading the Word after the Holy Spirit entered into you? The first time through I had the tendency to keep saying to myself, Wow that is right or yes, yes. I have already posted this to you in another post, but it is worth repeating.

When I read the Word in Hebrew, I did not learn a lot more than I had in English, but many things I had already know by the Holy Spirit were accentuated for me.

It is not a nice thing to belittle learning directly from God, for all who believe have learned directly from God.

Here is the best example of all. Do you believe Jesus Christ is your ord and savior? All who believe this can only know by the Holy Spirit for his is not given to any who are not come to Him in Spirit and Truth.

No, the Holy Spirit does not do what you describe for anyone, but anyone who is saved already knows this.

Praise God for His faithfulness, for it is He Who teaches all of us as we need to know and grow..

Please do not ask about the God's teaching us this way again, nor accuse any brother of being haughty about his relationship with God. You should know already.

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.
 

NayborBear

Banned Serpent Seed Heresy
That is not how the comparative approach works.

And, that is one of the problems with using multiple bible versions, division. They do not speak the same things and they are not of the same mind.


[SUP]10 [/SUP]Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.

So, there ARE errors in the Holy Bible, aren't there? (Which was more the point I was getting to)

Does this then mean that every one who screams: "That the (any) Bible is The INERRANT, and INFALLABLE WORD OF GOD!" Be in error?

Unless, I am misunderstanding the definitions of INERRANCY and INFALLABILITY, Then, my answer, would have to be a resounding: YES!!

BASIC
I
nstructions
B efore
L eaving
E
arth


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fq39DiRybMQ
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
I thought that even in Jesus day there were translations too ..like the Septuagint and they had some Hebrew translations too.

.there is no one translation that is "THE word of God"...that 1611 translation was great for it's time but has definite mis-translations in certain words in order to justify the society and church hierarchy that was in place at the time. We have enough of the older copies of manuscripts to translate words now more accurately.

To think that the 1611 version is the only true word of God is just spiritual ignorance gone to seed in my opinion. Given that....I read the KJV sometimes and do like it's poetry like language but I always check other translations and interlinears to make sure the words are translated correctly.
Can you give some examples of mis-translations in certain words in order to justify the society and church hierarchy that was in place at that time?

Also where does the idea that the written scripture would corrupt and become full of errors come from???? Maybe it comes from the Jesuits or freemasons or maybe even the antichrist Jews.... but I'm prettty sure it doesn't come from the bible. Do you know of any scripture that supports the idea that the written word of God would corrupt and turn the Christian faith into a guessing game as to which words of the bible are right and which are wrong?
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,431
0
Here are some websites that talk about it..Angela can give you more specifics..I don't have the time nor the desire to hunt them down again..it's not needed in my opinion for me anyway...I would say that there are not major doctrinal errors in it.

I also would say that the words used are for a whole completely different set of people..like in 1611 type of people....the KJV uses some words that in my opinion have been "bastardized"....the meaning of them to us now in our culture is not the same as it was meant back then when it was written..

Any new convert I would advise them to go with ESV or NASB,..etc....to me ..to say that KJV is "the only word of God" is nonsense...even to be even talking about this is completely stupid in my opinion

It's not that the scriptures were corrupt themselves ( that is the original manuscripts ) it's the translations of some words .....


https://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html


Defects of the King James Version

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!



King James authorised the new Bible translation for political reasons.

King James believed that a single ‘authorized version’ was a political and social necessity. He hoped this book would hold together the warring factions of the Church of England and the Puritans which threatened to tear apart both church and country. Most of the translators,however, were clergymen belonging to the Church of England, but at least some had Puritan sympathies.[3]

King James issued over a dozen rules that the translators had to follow. King James disliked the Geneva Bible, the Bible used by the Puritans, because he believed that some of the commentary in the margin notes did not show enough respect for kings.[4] James’ new translation was to have no commentary in the margins.

King James favoured the hierarchical structure of the Church of England and wanted the new translation to keep words that supported a bishop led hierarchy. In keeping with James’ preferred views on church government, he specified, “The old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept; as the word church [is] not to be translated congregation.” (I personally believe that congregation is a better translation in some instances.)

King James also ruled that only his new Bible could be read in England’s churches. The translation rules of King James can be found here. The political motives of King James had a direct influence on the translation of the KJV.
 
Nov 22, 2015
20,436
1,431
0
As I said..I still read the KJV sometimes....here is how the translators were to translate certain words...to me..to think that the KJV is " the Only word of God" is on the same par as believing the Pope is the Head of the church here on earth....just can't buy inot that....sorry..

I absolutely love the word of God...I study it constantly using many different translations and greek and Hebrew helps..

KING JAMES’ INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS


(Sources: Lewis’ History of the English Bible and The Men Behind the KJV by Gustavus S. Paine).

The following set of “rules” had been prepared on behalf of church and state by Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London and high-church Anglican.

“For the better ordering of the proceedings of the translators, his Majesty recommended the following rules to them, to be very carefully observed:--

“1. The ordinary Bible, read in the church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

“2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used.

“3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept; as the word church, not to be translated congregation, &c.

“4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which has been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the analogy of the faith.

“5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

“6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

“7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for the fit references of one scripture to another.

“8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter of chapters; and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinks good, all to meet together, to confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

“9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously: for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

“10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

“11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directly by authority to send to any learned in the land for his judgment in such a place.

“12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of the clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before the king’s letter to the archbishop.

“13. The directors in each company to be deans of Westminster and Chester, and the king’s professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

“14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishop’s Bible, viz. Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Wilchurch’s,* Geneva.”
*By “Wilchurch” is meant the Great Bible, which was printed by Edward Wilchurch, one of King Henry VIII’s printers
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Here are some websites that talk about it..Angela can give you more specifics..I don't have the time nor the desire to hunt them down again..it's not needed in my opinion for me anyway...I would say that there are not major doctrinal errors in it.

I also would say that the words used are for a whole completely different set of people..like in 1611 type of people....the KJV uses some words that in my opinion have been "bastardized"....the meaning of them to us now in our culture is not the same as it was meant back then when it was written..

Any new convert I would advise them to go with ESV or NASB,..etc....to me ..to say that KJV is "the only word of God" is nonsense...even to be even talking about this is completely stupid in my opinion

It's not that the scriptures were corrupt themselves ( that is the original manuscripts ) it's the translations of some words .....


https://watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html


Defects of the King James Version

"KJV Only" advocates refuted!



King James authorised the new Bible translation for political reasons.

King James believed that a single ‘authorized version’ was a political and social necessity. He hoped this book would hold together the warring factions of the Church of England and the Puritans which threatened to tear apart both church and country. Most of the translators,however, were clergymen belonging to the Church of England, but at least some had Puritan sympathies.[3]

King James issued over a dozen rules that the translators had to follow. King James disliked the Geneva Bible, the Bible used by the Puritans, because he believed that some of the commentary in the margin notes did not show enough respect for kings.[4] James’ new translation was to have no commentary in the margins.

King James favoured the hierarchical structure of the Church of England and wanted the new translation to keep words that supported a bishop led hierarchy. In keeping with James’ preferred views on church government, he specified, “The old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept; as the word church [is] not to be translated congregation.” (I personally believe that congregation is a better translation in some instances.)

King James also ruled that only his new Bible could be read in England’s churches. The translation rules of King James can be found here. The political motives of King James had a direct influence on the translation of the KJV.
Here's argument 1 from the website. This according to them is an error in the KJV.

"St. Paul says, in the Authorized Version (1 Cor. iv., 4), 'I know nothing by myself, yet am I not hereby justified.' This seems incongruous, because 'to know nothing by one's self' means 'to know nothing originally or independently.' In the older English, 'to know nothing by one's self' meant 'to know nothing lying at one's door,' and this is the only sense of which the Greek words in the passage which seems so incongruous are susceptible.
"To know nothing by one's self" means exactly what it says in yesterdays language and in todays language, there is nothing incongruous about the statement. I've never read that verse and understood it to say "to know nothing lying at one's door". In 1611 the statement meant exactly the same, the word of God does not change.

Seriously, have you read anything on that webiste? I haven't seen an anti-KJV website yet where their arguments weren't ridiculous and completely wrong... basically lies that are easily seen through with an ounce of discernment.

You people have got to stop putting your faith in morons with PHD behind their name. News Flash... there are wolves in sheep clothing out there trying to take your sword away from you. DON'T LET THEM TAKE IT! And by all means stop trying to help them disarm everybody else by bashing the KJV.... study things out before you make statements.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,176
3,700
113
Yea, hath God said? Where do you all think Satan will attack even from the beginning? The word of God. If he can get people doubting the word of God, then he's won. Multiple versions creates doubt and the question, Yea, hath God said?
 
Nov 23, 2013
13,684
1,212
113
Yea, hath God said? Where do you all think Satan will attack even from the beginning? The word of God. If he can get people doubting the word of God, then he's won. Multiple versions creates doubt and the question, Yea, hath God said?
Multile versions = Creating your own gospel and your own god.
 

JaumeJ

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2011
21,465
6,722
113
Family in Christ, forgive me for pursuing an on-going ruse in this thread. God bless all who are in Jesus Christ, amen.
 
Nov 25, 2014
942
44
0
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?

Yeah...what you were told was wrong, and likely agenda-driven. The whole "we couldn't use the word 'immerse' because it might tick off the King" is a nice myth, I guess, but there's no evidence for it.

Just FYI, you don't have to be a LINGUIST to find out when a word was first used in English. You simply have to know how to READ A DICTIONARY. This is from dictionary.com.

c.1300, from Old French batisier (11c.), from Latin baptizare, from Greek baptizein "to immerse, to dip inwater," also used figuratively, e.g. "to be over one'shead" (in debt, etc.), "to be soaked (in wine);" in GreekChristian usage, "baptize;" from baptein "to dip, steep,dye, color," from PIE root *gwabh- "to dip, sink."Christian baptism originally consisted in full immersion.Related: Baptized ; baptizing.

So you can see that BAPTIZE entered English in around 1300. It came from the FRENCH, who derived their version from LATIN which got the word from the GREEK. (As an aside, English has a lot of words that are from the French because of the Norman invasion and the back-and-forth ownership of Normandy by France and England. In fact, UK spelling conventions of colour, honour, etc. come from French spellings).

If you wanted a more thorough view, you could pay a visit to your local library and look up the word BAPTIZE in the OED. They would have a record of the very first usage in English.