The King James Bible

[posthuman]

They even have ghetto versions that call women Hoes, and Bit*hes.

Don't follow every wind of doctrine. Other versions are fine for bringing people to the Lord. But always compare your version to the Word of God the KJV.


^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

Translation from one language to another isn't a matter of 'wind of doctrine'

... and the overwhelming gist of this thread has been a demonstration of how misguided it is to make KJVonlyism a matter of doctrine.

 

[posthuman]

An anti kjv thread, Do you know who else can't stand and tried to destroy the KJV? Satan.

^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

Yeah how come a certain very cultic in behaviour crowd is out to discourage scholarship and destroy every translation other than the kjv, even to the point of attacking what manuscripts exist I'm the original language, even the very ones used in order to translate it in the first place?

Am I the only one seeing the irony in attacking all other Bibles while pointing at the fact the KJV has been criticised as some kind of evidence that it's perfect? If 'its been attacked' is justification that it's to be held in high esteem, guess what you're doing by attacking a different translation?

 

[Locutus]

Is there a King Bones Version ??

 

[SovereignGrace]

There is a King Korgi Koncoction.

 

[Tommy379]

I want the most accurate translation to the language I read. Is that too much to ask for?

 

[SovereignGrace]

I want the most accurate translation to the language I read. Is that too much to ask for?

I agree. When the KJV was written, that was the way they spoke. Now, in this time, the modern corruptions....errrr...versions are written in the way we speak today.

Go around speaking in 17th century Elizabethan English now and you'll end up committed.

 

[joefizz]

I want the most accurate translation to the language I read. Is that too much to ask for?

Not at all for you must be able to understand what is written in general to be able to decide if what is written is true or something you believe.

 

[Tommy379]

I agree. When the KJV was written, that was the way they spoke. Now, in this time, the modern corruptions....errrr...versions are written in the way we speak today.

Go around speaking in 17th century Elizabethan English now and you'll end up committed.

That's the thing.... no one spoke the way the KJV bible was written. It was a popular stylistic writing for that time. You want to hear how people talked back then, take a trip to Tangier island.

The KJV was written and edited for the Church of England. That is not a criticism of the book, but let's be clear about it.

 

[Tommy379]

Not at all for you must be able to understand what is written in general to be able to decide if what is written is true or something you believe.

I Don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Especially those languages from over two thousand years ago. No language stays the same over that length of time. Without proper education, you wouldn't understand English from a thousand years ago.

Therefore, I want the most accurate translation.

 

[joefizz]

I Don't read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek. Especially those languages from over two thousand years ago. No language stays the same over that length of time. Without proper education, you wouldn't understand English from a thousand years ago.

Therefore, I want the most accurate translation.

Yes preference can be important.

 

[Tommy379]

Yes preference can be important.

Most people in the far reaches of latin America, wouldn't be able to read the KJV. Many native english speakers probably would have trouble. All the languages of this world would need an accurate translation. They can't all be denied the word of God, because of their language.

 

[Nehemiah6]

That's the thing.... no one spoke the way the KJV bible was written. It was a popular stylistic writing for that time.

Many people have the impression the the King James Bible reflects 17th century English style. But a close comparison of the Preface (the Translators to the Reader) -- which is actually written in that style -- versus the Bible itself shows that the translators were not influenced by their current way of using English, but were following the Hebrew and Greek as closely as possible.

For example , you will notice in the Preface that sentences are actually compound sentences, and read like a paragraph. But rarely will you find that in the Bible. Those who object to "thee" and "thou" versus "you" do not understand that that is also an accurate representation of what was said, either to individuals ("thee") or several people ("you"). And this is critical for properly interpreting Scripture. Also this distinction remains in the German language (for example) to this day.

The KJV was written and edited for the Church of England. That is not a criticism of the book, but let's be clear about it.

That may be so, but it was not *adjusted* or modified to suit the doctrines of the Church of England (or even Reformed Theology, since many of the translators were Puritans who rejected some of the Church of England's teachings). It was a serious (and successful) attempt to present a faithful translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

Those men understood that they had a solemn duty to faithfully and accurately translate the Word of God, so that out of the many English translators already in existence, they would produce a fresh translation which would be exceptional and accepted as the Authorized Version -- appointed to be read in churches.

For those who object to the archaisms of the KJB, there have already been a number of *updated* King James Bibles on the market, such as the King James 2000 Bible. Here is a comparison (Rev 1:7).

King James Bible
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and theyalso which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

King James 2000 Bible
Behold, he comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also who pierced him: and all tribes of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

 

[Tommy379]

Many people have the impression the the King James Bible reflects 17th century English style. But a close comparison of the Preface (the Translators to the Reader) -- which is actually written in that style -- versus the Bible itself shows that the translators were not influenced by their current way of using English, but were following the Hebrew and Greek as closely as possible.

For example , you will notice in the Preface that sentences are actually compound sentences, and read like a paragraph. But rarely will you find that in the Bible. Those who object to "thee" and "thou" versus "you" do not understand that that is also an accurate representation of what was said, either to individuals ("thee") or several people ("you"). And this is critical for properly interpreting Scripture. Also this distinction remains in the German language (for example) to this day.

That may be so, but it was not *adjusted* or modified to suit the doctrines of the Church of England (or even Reformed Theology, since many of the translators were Puritans who rejected some of the Church of England's teachings). It was a serious (and successful) attempt to present a faithful translation of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

Those men understood that they had a solemn duty to faithfully and accurately translate the Word of God, so that out of the many English translators already in existence, they would produce a fresh translation which would be exceptional and accepted as the Authorized Version -- appointed to be read in churches.

For those who object to the archaisms of the KJB, there have already been a number of *updated* King James Bibles on the market, such as the King James 2000 Bible. Here is a comparison (Rev 1:7).

King James Bible
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and theyalso which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

King James 2000 Bible
Behold, he comes with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also who pierced him: and all tribes of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

I have no objection to the "thee" and "thou." But their use was stylistic for the time. Many of records and logs in Virginia from that time, is a testament to that.

King James did have this bible written for the Church of England..... there were English translations before this. That is not a criticism of it. I'm sure the the scholars did as fine of a job as they could.

I want the most accurate translation possible.

 

[trofimus]

Let's put it this way. The KJB represents the UNCORRUPTED Word of God and modern bible versions represent the CORRUPTED Word of God. If it is "getting old" it is simply because this fundamental fact is not registering with Christians.

Or, nothing of it is "corrupted word of God" and there is no difference in the message of Christianity.

Once again the FALLACY which has been promoted by modern textual critics is that the age of the manuscript guarantees its purity. As a matter of FACT the oldest manuscripts are the MOST CORRUPT. As to "ancient Hebrew" and current Hebrew that is immaterial.

And oldest ones are the "most corrupt" based on what logic? Just because they differ from the KJV, in the end,right?
Then, consider that the least ancient manuscripts differ from the KJV too.

You are forgetting the doctrine of the DIVINE PRESERVATION of Scripture.

There is no such doctrine in any basic Christian creed.

The majority of copies represent the TRADITIONAL Hebrew and Greek texts while a minority of copies represent corruptions of the Bible

The majority of copies represent the text used in the Greek speaking church. That does not make it better or worse. It just makes it slightly different.
And the KJV IS NOT THE MAJORITY TEXT.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Other versions are fine to get the lost Saved, but once they are Saved, they should always compare their version to the Word of God (KJV) They will greatly error if they do not do so.


^i^

††† In His Holy and Precious Name, Jesus Christ †††

DiscipleDave

And praytell how can you quantify this statement?

 

[SovereignGrace]

The Bible itself is nothing but wood and ink.<<snip>>

This has to be one of the lowest views of scripture I have ever read. The bible IS the word of God. Those who heard God speak and told them what to write, and those who wrote as the Spirit moved them, gave us His word. None of us have ever heard His voice audibly, so when we need God to speak to us, we go to the bible, the word of God, and He speaks to us through it.

The bible is our sole authority on how to live in peace with our neighbors, how to love our wife, how the wife is to give reverence to her husband, how to raise our children, how to treat our Brothers and Sisters in Christ, how to obey those who are in authority, to pray for all, including our enemies, how children are to be in obedience to their parents, how church is to be structured, &c.

It's not just wood and ink, but the word of God.


Without it, we would have no way of knowing about a triune God and how to be saved.

 

[Coolbeans]

i should have added a few smileys for good measure i guess. Just been hearing a lot of kjames only diatribes lately n find the concept "interesting"

Do you want to build a tower up to the heavens as well?

 

[fredoheaven]

The Holy Bible reveals in the narrative that there was one heaven, which is not yet capitalized in the first verse. Then that heaven was divided in such manner that a new heaven was named Heaven, and two others; one wherein the sun, moon and stars are, and one wherein birds fly.
You either; are referring to a corrupt text, or to corrupt scholarship.
I know its corrupt because it is contradictory to the narrative.

[TABLE="align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]8064. shamayim ►
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from an unused word
Definition
heaven, sky
NASB Word Usage
astrologers* (1), compass (1), earth (1), heaven (191), heaven and the highest (2), heaven and the highest heavens (1), heaven of heavens (1), heavenly (3), heavens (151), heavens and the highest (1), highest heaven (1), highest heaven (1), highest heavens (4), horizons (1), other* (1), sky (50).
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Hebrew 8064. שָׁמַ֫יִם (shamayim) -- heaven, sky

1. NASEC will give us a proper view why the KJV is still correct as the usage of the Hebrew is concerned. Translation of the Hebrew is by far 191x as against 151x heavens. This would give the edge of KJV over NASB by its own admission.

2. According to Strong as a reference, the Hebrew word used in the text of Genesis 1 is used 398x and only a few “heavens” as translated words. The English plural word we know about heaven is heavens but the KJV used the word firmament usually used in plural relative to the Hebrew word being dicussed.
[h=2]Definition of heaven[/h]1: the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome : firmament —usually used in plural
· the brightest star in the heavens
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/heaven

Is there plurality of heaven?

Yes God created the 3 heavens

1. the creation of heaven #1 as stated clearly in the Gen.1:1, this is the abode of God.
2. The creation of heaven #2 as shown in Gen. 1:7 called firmament, the outer space
3. The creation of heaven #3 as shown in Gen. 1:20, the clouds where the fowls may fly.

So that we have heavens designed and created by God though it was not necessarily to have been divided. To say on the other hand that the KJV is false, in error in rendering the heaven in Genenesis 1:1 is quite ignorance of the truth that in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Heavens is sad to say is an error on the parts of many new English Bibles.

 

[posthuman]

which one is "the heaven of the heavens" ?

 

[posthuman]

which one is "the heaven of the heavens" ?

ex.

Lo, to Jehovah thy God [are] the heavens and the heavens of the heavens, the earth and all that [is] in it;
(Deuteronomy 10:14, YLT)

Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.
(Deuteronomy 10:14 KJV)
​

Young's more often than the KJV gives a literal, word-for-word translation, eschewing variation in vocabulary and interpretive phrasing in translation for its sake. note how "heavens" is plural in each instance here in the YLT but KJV's decision was to vary the translation of the same word. ((thus citing Strong's instances of plural forms in the English for this word is meaningless & circular; Strong's specifically and singularly lists how words are used in KJV))

so anyway it looks to me like at least 4 heavens - because if there's 3, there's also heaven(s) of those heavens, and they belong to God.

also He doesn't fit in those heavens; He's bigger:

But, is it true? -- God dwelleth on the earth! lo, the heavens, and the heavens of the heavens do not contain Thee, how much less this house which I have builded!
(1 Kings 8:27 YLT)

But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?
(1 Kings 8:27 KJV)​

well of course He doesn't
how can the One who created the heavens be constrained within them? neither is He constrained by time any more than space, but above all things