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.

posthuman

Senior Member
Jul 31, 2013
37,844
13,558
113
It's interesting that you have nothing to say about the concerted attacks on the King James Bible ever since its inception.
how long after any English translation's inception before it is attacked? when do concerted attacks against any English translation end?

we should wait 300 years and get data on the ESV for example. compare the attack statistics with it and the measure of the corresponding attacks on the KJV from 1611-2011, so we have closer to a statistically unbiased scale. we'll have to factor out some other bias, but choose some characteristic variables & you go get us a databank on that for KJV, and we'll organize collection for the next 300 years, then i know how to do the math and we'll see if that's a valid point or not. :)
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
And how can you confidently avow the KJV superior? What proof do you have?

The Bishop's, Geneva, Tyndale, and Wycliffe are older than the KJV. I don't think longevity, by itself, is proof of its superiority, imo.
By it's fruit through the years is a good place to start...
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
If anyone wants to attack the king james bible then are no better than those who attack every other bible. I myself very much enjoy the kjv and the word of God is not to be slandered period. Also if you want to call them the mutilated word of God then we might as well do the same with kj. The main defence why the kjv is the only true word of God is because it is the closest to the original text yes? However it is also not the original text so it if by that logic we define the word God to be the true word of God then we all are in the same boat of reading the mutilated word of God.

Even if the kjv is close to the original text that doesn't make it the one and true word of God
If one truly believes they hold the preserved pure words of God in their hands in the KJV, then that would clearly make all other bibles false. Do you believe you have the preserved pure words of God?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
By it's fruit through the years is a good place to start...
Why so many various sectarians and weirdos use almost exclusively the KJV? Flat earth proponents, for example.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,115
1,745
113
This ^ I had been reading the NKJV and one day while walking around the Bible section in Ollie's, something deep inside of me kept nagging me to open up the KJV. After a few more minutes of walking around, I did and began reading it. I felt everything just "click" and I just felt so much happier and at peace. I bought it and haven't picked up another translation since.
I'm happy that you found a version that you like.

Just don't try to tell me that the version I like is not the "pure words of God", or some such nonsense.

I believe we all should use one of the mainstream versions... which ever one (or ones) that are easy to read and understand.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,115
1,745
113
Here's the proof from The Translators to the Reader:

...[We made] out of many good ones [translations], one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise...

And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.

In this confidence, and with this devotion did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them. If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New...

If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

Neither did we run over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did...neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once done it, like S. Jerome...neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it is written of Origen...

None of these things: the work hath not been huddled up in 72 days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy two days and more: matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity: for in a business of moment [great significance] a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness.

Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered: but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
In other words, they prayerfully did the best they could, with what they had.

Same as nearly ALL the newer translations.

Read the preface to nearly any of them, as they describe their work in translation.
 
Dec 28, 2016
9,171
2,719
113
This ^ I had been reading the NKJV and one day while walking around the Bible section in Ollie's, something deep inside of me kept nagging me to open up the KJV. After a few more minutes of walking around, I did and began reading it. I felt everything just "click" and I just felt so much happier and at peace. I bought it and haven't picked up another translation since.
So, what did you already know about the KJV and "modern versions" when this "epihany" hit you?
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,115
1,745
113
Here is the preface to the NASB.... the "proof", as it was stated to be, by Nehemiah.

The KJV took 7 years to complete. This translation took about 12 years.

[h=3]FOREWORD[/h][h=4]SCRIPTURAL PROMISE[/h]"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever." Isaiah 40:8
The New American Standard Bible has been produced with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God. Since they are the eternal Word of God, the Holy Scriptures speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom that leads to salvation, that men may serve Christ to the glory of God.
The purpose of the Editorial Board in making this translation was to adhere as closely as possible to the original languages of the Holy Scriptures, and to make the translation in a fluent and readable style according to current English usage.
[h=4]THE FOURFOLD AIM OF THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION[/h]1. These publications shall be true to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. 2. They shall be grammatically correct. 3. They shall be understandable. [previous editions read "understandable to the masses"] 4. They shall give the Lord Jesus Christ His proper place, the place which the Word gives Him; therefore, no work will ever be personalized.


[h=3]PREFACE TO THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE[/h]In the history of English Bible translations, the King James Version is the most prestigious. This time-honored version of 1611, itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, became the basis for the English Revised Version appearing in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). The American counterpart of this last work was published in 1901 as the American Standard Version. The ASV, a product of both British and American scholarship, has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy. [earlier editions read, "it has frequently been used as a standard for other translations. It is still recognized as a valuable tool for study of the Scriptures"] Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English. Therefore, in 1959 a new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. The result is the New American Standard Bible.
Translation work for the NASB was begun in 1959. In the preparation of this work numerous other translations have been consulted along with the linguistic tools and literature of biblical scholarship. Decisions about English renderings were made by consensus of a team composed of educators and pastors. Subsequently, review and evaluation by other Hebrew and Greek scholars outside the Editorial Board were sought and carefully considered.
The Editorial Board has continued to function since publication of the complete Bible in 1971. This edition of the NASB represents revisions [previous editions read, "minor revisions"] and refinements recommended over the last several years as well as thorough research based on modern English usage.
[h=4]PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION[/h]MODERN ENGLISH USAGE: The attempt has been made to render the grammar and terminology in contemporary English. When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom. In the instances where this has been done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the notes. There are a few exceptions to this procedure. In particular, frequently "And" is not translated at the beginning of sentences because of differences in style between ancient and modern writing. Punctuation is a relatively modern invention, and ancient writers often linked most of their sentences with "and" or other connectives. Also, the Hebrew idiom "answered and said" is sometimes reduced to "answered" or "said" as demanded by the context. For current English the idiom "it came about that" has not been translated in the New Testament except when a major transition is needed.
ALTERNATIVE READINGS: In addition to the more literal renderings, notations have been made to include alternate translations, reading of variant manuscripts and explanatory equivalents of the text. Only such notations have been used as have been felt justified in assisting the reader's comprehension of the terms used by the original author.
HEBREW TEXT: In the present translation the latest edition of Rudolf Kittel's BIBLIA HEBRAICA has been employed together with the most recent light from lexicography, cognate languages, and the Dead Sea Scrolls.
HEBREW TENSES: Consecution of tenses in Hebrew remains a puzzling factor in translation. The translators have been guided by the requirements of a literal translation, the sequence of tenses, and the immediate and broad contexts.
THE PROPER NAME OF GOD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT: In the Scriptures, the name of God is most significant and understandably so. It is inconceivable to think of spiritual matters without a proper designation for the Supreme Deity. Thus the most common name for the Deity is God, a translation of the original Elohim. One of the titles for God is Lord, a translation of Adonai. There is yet another name which is particularly assigned to God as His special or proper name, that is, the four letters YHWH (Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 42:8). This name has not been pronounced by the Jews because of reverence for the great sacredness of the divine name. Therefore, it has been consistently translated LORD. The only exception to this translation of YHWH is when it occurs in immediate proximity to the word Lord, that is, Adonai. In that case it is regularly translated GOD in order to avoid confusion. It is known that for many years YHWH has been transliterated as Yahweh, however no complete certainty attaches to this pronunciation.
GREEK TEXT: Consideration was given to the latest available manuscripts with a view to determining the best Greek text. In most instances the 26th edition [previous editions read, "23rd edition"] of Eberhard Nestle's NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE was followed.
GREEK TENSES: A careful distinction has been made in the treatment of the Greek aorist tense (usually translated as the English past, "He did") and the Greek imperfect tense (normally rendered either as English past progressive, "He was doing"; or, if inceptive, as "He began to do" or "He started to do"; or else if customary past, as "He used to do"). "Began" is italicized if it renders an imperfect tense, in order to distinguish it from the Greek verb for "begin." In some contexts the difference between the Greek imperfect and the English past is conveyed better by the choice of vocabulary or by other words in the context, and in such cases the Greek imperfect may be rendered as a simple past tense (e.g. "had an illness for many years" would be preferable to "was having an illness for many years" and would be understood in the same way).
On the other hand, not all aorists have been rendered as English pasts ("He did"), for some of them are clearly to be rendered as English perfects ("He has done"), or even as past perfects ("He had done"), judging from the context in which they occur. Such aorists have been rendered as perfects or past perfects in this translation.
As for the distinction between aorist and present imperatives, the translators have usually rendered these imperatives in the customary manner, rather than attempting any such fine distinction as "Begin to do!" (for the aorist imperative), or, "Continually do!" (for the present imperative).
As for sequence of tenses, the translators took care to follow English rules rather than Greek in translating Greek presents, imperfects and aorists. Thus, where English says, "We knew that he was doing," Greek puts it, "We knew that he does"; similarly, "We knew that he had done" is the Greek, "We knew that he did." Likewise, the English, "When he had come, they met him," is represented in Greek by: "When he came, they met him." In all cases a consistent transfer has been made from the Greek tense in the subordinate clause to the appropriate tense in English.
In the rendering of negative questions introduced by the particle me (which always expects the answer "No") the wording has been altered from a mere, "Will he not do this?" to a more accurate, "He will not do this, will he?"
THE LOCKMAN FOUNDATION


[h=3]EXPLANATION OF GENERAL FORMAT[/h]NOTES AND CROSS REFERENCES are placed in a column adjoining the text on the page and listed under verse numbers to which they refer. Superior numbers refer to literal renderings, alternate translations, or explanations. Superior letters refer to cross references. Cross references in italics are parallel passages.
PARAGRAPHS are designated by bold face verse numbers or letters.
QUOTATION MARKS are used in the text in accordance with modern English usage.
"THOU," "THEE" AND "THY" are not used in this edition and have been rendered as "YOU" and "YOUR." [previous editions read, "...are not used in this translation except in the language of prayer when addressing Deity."]
PERSONAL PRONOUNS are capitalized when pertaining to Deity.
ITALICS are used in the text to indicate words which are not found in the original Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek but implied by it. Italics are used in the marginal notes to signify alternate readings for the text. Roman text in the marginal alternate readings is the same as italics in the Bible text.
SMALL CAPS in the New Testament are used in the text to indicate Old Testament quotations or obvious references to Old Testament texts. Variations of Old Testament wording are found in New Testament citations depending on whether the New Testament writer translated from a Hebrew text, used existing Greek or Aramaic translations, or paraphrased the material. It should be noted that modern rules for the indication of direct quotation were not used in biblical times; thus, the ancient writer would use exact quotations or references to quotation without specific indication of such. [previous editions read, "...not used in biblical times, thus allowing freedom for omissions or insertions without specific indication of these."]
A STAR (*) is used to mark verbs that are historical presents in the Greek which have been translated with an English past tense in order to conform to modern usage. The translators recognized that in some contexts the present tense seems more unexpected and unjustified to the English reader than a past tense would have been. But Greek authors frequently used the present tense for the sake of heightened vividness, thereby transporting their readers in imagination to the actual scene at the time of occurrence. However, the translators felt that it would be wise to change these historical presents to English past tenses.
[ ] = In text, brackets indicate words probably not in the original writings


[HR][/HR][TABLE="class: navbar"]
[TR]
[TD]Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century > NASB > Preface[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
This is from Wiki about the translators that worked on the NASB. They seem to have fairly impressive credentials. They were NOT, however, chosen by a British King, so that probably counts against them....:rolleyes: They only had doctorates in religious studies and languages.

The translation work was done by a group of anonymous scholars sponsored by the Lockman Foundation.[SUP][13][/SUP] According to the Lockman Foundation, the committee consisted of people from Christian institutions of higher learning and from evangelical Protestant, predominantly conservative, denominations (Presbyterian, Methodist, Southern Baptist, Church of Christ, Nazarene, American Baptist, Fundamentalist, Conservative Baptist, Free Methodist, Congregational, Disciples of Christ, Evangelical Free, Independent Baptist, Independent Mennonite, Assembly of God, North American Baptist, and "other religious groups"). [SUP][14][/SUP][SUP][15][/SUP]
The foundation's Web site indicates that among the translators and consultants who contributed are Bible scholars with doctorates in biblical languages, theology, "or other advanced degrees", and come from a variety of denominational backgrounds. More than 20 individuals worked on modernizing the NASB in accord with the most recent research.[SUP][15][/SUP]
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
I'm happy that you found a version that you like.

Just don't try to tell me that the version I like is not the "pure words of God", or some such nonsense.

I believe we all should use one of the mainstream versions... which ever one (or ones) that are easy to read and understand.
Whatever makes it easiest on us right? Do you really believe the modern bible you use is the preserved pure words of God? You do know that would mean without error, every word?
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,130
3,689
113
Here is the preface to the NASB.... the "proof", as it was stated to be, by Nehemiah.

The KJV took 7 years to complete. This translation took about 12 years.
You do know the number 7 is the biblical number for completion...
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,115
1,745
113
Whatever makes it easiest on us right? Do you really believe the modern bible you use is the preserved pure words of God? You do know that would mean without error, every word?
Yes, I do believe that the translation I use contains/is the pure words of God.

I do NOT believe as you that every word is exactly the way it was written down by the original writers.

I especially do not believe that the KJV fits that description, either.
 

hornetguy

Senior Member
Jan 18, 2016
7,115
1,745
113
You do know the number 7 is the biblical number for completion...
So, did it take EXACTLY 7 years? Otherwise, it cannot be "complete".

Using your strange numerology, we would have to conclude that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not "complete", since there are only 3 of them.

Just how far down the "grasping at straws" road are you willing to go?
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
You do know the number 7 is the biblical number for completion...
So, a 7years old child is a perfect mature personality, right? Because 7 is the biblical number for completion!
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
It's interesting that you have nothing to say about the concerted attacks on the King James Bible ever since its inception. Also you cannot rightly call the modern versions "the Word of God", but you can certainly call them "the MUTILATED Word of God".
Mutilated? Much IMPROVED in some cases. Must you be sanctimonious about everything?

There isn't an NIV Only movement. Or an ESVO, or Amplified Only. The King James is the only English translation with a fanatic group followers trying to restrict the word of God and keep it from the mainstream.

Who tells you you aren't good enough if you read the KJV? No one. It's people like you though who are trying to force your tastes on others. And that is ALL it is. Personal preference. Does it make you feel holy & superior only using the KJV?

Perhaps we shouldn't have moved on from parchment either?
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
This ^ I had been reading the NKJV and one day while walking around the Bible section in Ollie's, something deep inside of me kept nagging me to open up the KJV. After a few more minutes of walking around, I did and began reading it. I felt everything just "click" and I just felt so much happier and at peace. I bought it and haven't picked up another translation since.
I had the same experience in reverse. Reading the KJV seems so Catholic to me. Stuffy, boring and religious. Reading the NIV lifted the weight.
I like poetic language, prose and poetry rather a lot, I love Shakespeare. But there comes a time for serious study and the KJV doesn't cut it.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,487
13,793
113
Footnotes or sidenotes/marginal note?

Thanks
The 1611 KJV contained marginal notes.

If one truly believes they hold the preserved pure words of God in their hands in the KJV, then that would clearly make all other bibles false. Do you believe you have the preserved pure words of God?
If someone believed that they held the "preserved pure words of God in their hands" in the NASB, or HCSB, or any other translation, that would clearly make all other bibles false.

Once again, your reasoning is faulty.
 
Dec 28, 2016
5,455
236
63
By it's fruit through the years is a good place to start...
Well, others have come to saving faith using other versions.

When was the last time you heard someone say krisping pin or wimples? When was the last you you assayed to go to town? When was the last time you were confronted by men of the basor sort?

The KJV was written in the same way they spoke at that time. The newer versions are written in the same way we talk now. Languages change over time. Look at Greek. Koine Greek is a little different than classical, and modern Greek is different than those other two.

If time goes on, I would imagine english will be different in 300 years than it is now.
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,487
13,793
113
They both serve the same purpose, whether in the margins or the bottom of the page. The translators were showing others words were viable as well.
... which makes the KJVo denigration of marginal notes in modern translations quite ironic, or quite pathetic, or both.