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.

laymen

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2014
680
102
43
faithlife.com
Unless you have thorougly investigated the matter and determined that there is a very significant difference. Perhaps its time for you to do some independent investigation.
I have meany bibles different language different translations all them
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
That does not make it "a work of the devil". Erasmus (and therefore Luther) made honest mistakes, but Erasmus did correct his mistakes.
Do you know, why Erasmus corrected this "error"? Because catholic church fabricated a greek copy having it, just for Erasmus.
 

laymen

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2014
680
102
43
faithlife.com
Unless you have thorougly investigated the matter and determined that there is a very significant difference. Perhaps its time for you to do some independent investigation.
I have meany bibles and translations all I find good use for .
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,487
13,792
113
Do you know, why Erasmus corrected this "error"? Because catholic church fabricated a greek copy having it, just for Erasmus.
Do you have a reference for this? I've heard something similar, and would like to confirm it.
 

Musicus

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2017
314
39
28
Dino246,
Are you offended when a modern bible like the niv states that God authored confusion at Pentecost?
If not, why not?
The NIV doesn't state that God authored confusion at pentecost, and I cannot explain why it doesn't, other than I don't think God did. I couldn't find a version that does state this, including the kjv. That leads me to continue to believe that God DIDN'T author confusion there. People were "confounded (most popular adjective), amazed, bewildered, yes confused, surprised, agitated, startled" but nowhere does any version say God was the "author" of the confusion, but that confusion was their reaction to what God had done regarding the many languages.
The scripture says that God is not the author of confusion.
The niv agrees in that same passage
. Since, I suspect they know better than to lie too boldly.

If my memory serves me, the niv, then turns around and states that at Babel, God "confused" the languages. (I don't read the niv, correct me aboutitif I'm wrong)
And, the niv states that at Pentecost, the hearers were "confused."
But, the Holy Bible states "confounded" in both instances regarding what he did in each circumstance.
Confound, means that a perso is puzzled. They are puzzled because of something they can't yet comprehend.
A confused person is presented with something which wisdom can't correct because confusion results in noise not information.
First you claim the NIV says one thing, then another (when I called you on it), and that you don't even read it. The adjectives I listed are from various versions.

KJV: from Acts 2
5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. 6Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his own language. 7And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these which speak Galilaeans? 8And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? 9Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, 10Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, 11Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. 12And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to another, What meaneth this? 13Others mocking said, These men are full of new wine.

NIV:
5Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven. 6When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. 7Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? 8Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? 9Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia,[SUP]b[/SUP] 10Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome 11(both Jews and converts to Judaism); Cretans and Arabs—we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!”12Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?”13Some, however, made fun of them and said, “They have had too much wine.”

They're bewildered, no wait they're utterly amazed, no wait thy're perplexed, no wait...


 

PeterJames

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2017
112
13
18
Are you advocating for KJ2000?

I'm not convinced on the idea. The KJV was written deliberately with an archaic language base.

The word 'thou' is singular and 'ye' plural, which is helpful to an English reader to know whether one person or a group of people were being referred to or addressed. Also, I'm not convinced that the KJV is so old that no one can understand what is being read.

Again, I don't begrudge other people and the translations that the Lord may have used in their life; but to me,the KJ2000 is simply not staying true to the translation dynamics of the original translators. It should be named something else, just as other translations named themselves something else to distinguish from each other.

Even though I am very sympathetic to KJV, I tend to personally like the 1789 edition because its the one that is 'easier' than the original 1611 which I couldn't personally read.


Well then you should get acquainted with it.

The idea for the King James 2000 version was conceived in the mind of the editor over 50 years ago. It is written especially for those who have memorized and want to preserve the tradition and beauty of the King James Version.

Original Preface to the complete King James 2000:

When the editor was a teenager and modern translations were just becoming popular, he often thought, “Why don’t they just update the KJV, so that those who have memorized from it will not ‘lose’ their long hours of work.” In the nearly fifty years since this thought surfaced, no one has ever attempted this specific task.

The King James 2000 is not a new version. It is a King James Version brought forward 400 years. Several categories of words are brought up to 21st century language. Pronouns such as thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. are put into current language usage form. Verbal endings such as -eth, -est, -st, etc. are given equivalent forms of today’s language. Words so archaic as to be unknown, such as wist, wot, froward, etc. are rendered as their current synonyms. Some words considered entirely proper in 1611, but which may be considered “coarse” today, are changed to equivalent intentions (such as bowels to heart). The common Biblical beast of burden is rendered donkey.

The intent of King James 2000 is to keep every KJV word the same, unless a misunderstanding or a gross word order “error” (in today’s usage) must be averted. All punctuation is left the same, including omission of quotation marks, in order to keep the rhythm and pattern of KJV memorization intact. Even the interpolative KJV words (normally in italics) are kept the same if possible. No “corrections” or “textual considerations” are taken into account, since the King James 2000 intent is to preserve the KJV “as is,” except for truly necessary changes. Pronouns addressing Deity are not set apart by capitalization, but are kept just as found in the KJV, with lower case letters (neither is distinction made in the original languages).

The King James 2000 will provide a version which has been, to some extent, verbally composed already. Many pastors and other Bible readers have already exchanged “show” for “shew,” “you” for “ye,” and “know” for “wot” in their private and public readings. Some of these “corrections” have already appeared in the various KJV printings. The King James 2000 will make these common exchanges “official.”


A large percentage of English speaking people still prefer the KJV, whether because of their trust in its truthfulness or their enjoyment of its beauty of language. Many others, who use one of the many modern versions, still quote from that which was long ago “hid in their heart,” the KJV. To these saints of God the King James 2000 is presented, that they may hold to the old with confidence, yet move into the future without fear. The intent of the King James 2000 is to “look, sound and feel” like the KJV.

Since completing the King James 2000 New Testament in 1993, the editor has finally completed the Old Testament.The comments in the New Testament Preface apply also to the Old Testament, with the following two exceptions: (1) The statement that the King James 2000 is not a new version may not hold true to some readers. This will depend on the reader’s definition as to what constitutes a new version. The intent of the King James 2000 Bible remains the same, that a very minimum necessary change will be made to the KJV to make it readable and understandable. (2) The red letter editions put the words of Deity in red throughout the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament. The New Testament includes not only the words of Jesus in red, but also the words of the Father, the Holy Spirit, and appropriate quotations from the Old Testament. This particular red letter edition is, to my knowledge, unique in the history of Bible editions.


The editor’s hope is that the KJ2000 may replace the KJV in Christian School curricula, relieving little children of the frustration of using and memorizing the scripture in a language , at times, almost unintelligible to them.

As with editors of many versions of the past, the desire of this editor is that the KJ2K, as well as "everything we do," may honor and glorify the Sovereign God of eternity.

Dr. Robert A. Couric, ThD, Editor (1929-2011)
May 1999
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
Last edited:

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
That does not make it "a work of the devil". Erasmus (and therefore Luther) made honest mistakes, but Erasmus did correct his mistakes.
I didn't accuse it of being the work of the devil. That is the sort of accusation that you KJVO cult followers make about all other translations. And THAT is what I was mocking. YOUR rigid belief. It was OBVIOUS. (to anyone with any trace of a SOH)

I said I own a copy of Die Bibel nach Martin Luther because I read it at the time that I was learning Deutsche. That is hardly an indication that I think it is satanic. YOU are the one suffering from an enchantment with ONE SINGLE translation. I have several good translations in my library (incl a KJV). Not one of them is satanically inspired.
 
Last edited:

laymen

Senior Member
Apr 6, 2014
680
102
43
faithlife.com
Meany times in the dark age people had to hide their belive...to have any part of the Bible was a blessing.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
However, I was unable to find this footnote.

But according this: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/15589157.pdf, page 387, he made very similar comment in his annotations to 1 John.
The NIV has this note with that verse

[FONT=&quot]Late manuscripts of the Vulgate [/FONT]testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
 

PeterJames

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2017
112
13
18
Actually, it was my understanding that Luther's work in German was a major attack not only on Rome but the devil himself who didn't want people to actually be able to read the Bible for themselves. All of a sudden, people are receiving Luther's Bible in their own language, and Rome is having a hernia!

I didn't accuse it of being the work of the devil. That is the sort of accusation that you KJVO cult followers make about all other translations. And THAT is what I was mocking. YOUR rigid belief. It was OBVIOUS. (to anyone with any trace of a SOH)

I said I own a copy of Die Bibel nach Martin Luther because I read it at the time that I was learning Deutsche. That is hardly an indication that I think it is satanic. YOU are the one suffering from an enchantment with ONE SINGLE translation. I have several good translations in my library (incl a KJV). Not one of them is satanically inspired.
 

trofimus

Senior Member
Aug 17, 2015
10,684
794
113
The NIV has this note with that verse

[FONT="]Late manuscripts of the Vulgate [/FONT]testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the fourteenth century)
Yeah, I meant I was unable to find Erasmus's footnote. :)

After reading of that paper about Erasmus and Comma by Henk Jan de Jonge, I would conclude that Erasmus did not know that the manuscript with Comma was fabricated, but just thought it is influenced by Latin readings.
It would also be very wrong of him if he would knew it and still included into TR.

But from the historical point of view, we today know it was fabricated, its in Dublin till today.
 
Last edited:

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
Actually, it was my understanding that Luther's work in German was a major attack not only on Rome but the devil himself who didn't want people to actually be able to read the Bible for themselves. All of a sudden, people are receiving Luther's Bible in their own language, and Rome is having a hernia!
I shall resist the temptation to make any jokes about Latin hernias. ;)
 

PeterJames

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2017
112
13
18
As many of you may know, I've concluded that there are many translations of God's word in English and that, I believe, a person should be judged by the manner of Christ's love working in them, mixed with the word of God in their lives.

Having said that, I do want you to know I am KJV-preferred [heavily]. I see there are some in this thread that also love the KJV, but can be aggressive. I want to link here to a website that I believe is a fairly solid representation of the KJV *without* being narrowminded, offensive, or not dealing with specific issues.

Not saying I agree with all of it nor saying you should agree with all of it too. But, I wanted to show you there are those who love the KJV (even exclusively) who need not be offensive or derogatory (or even circular) in everything they believe. The only caveat I would say is the website owners do tend to look down on other translations which I know is trying to be avoided here. Minus those articles, I think there are other articles that are thoughtful and genuinely amicable. Blessings.

King James Version Today
 

Dino246

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2015
25,487
13,792
113
As many of you may know, I've concluded that there are many translations of God's word in English and that, I believe, a person should be judged by the manner of Christ's love working in them, mixed with the word of God in their lives.
Thanks for this part ^^; I agree completely. :)

I will check the link further.