The King James Bible

[Dino246]

My biggest beef with the KJV-only position (as presented here on CC, and aside from fallacies, insults, and generally un-Christian attitudes) is that the KJV proponents find (or invent) explanations for every criticism brought against the KJV, but when they bring criticisms against other translations, the same or very similar reasoning in defense is rejected outright. It's a long string of double standards, and not only do the KJV'ers not acknowledge it as wrong, they defend it as justified when applied to "false translations" (the obvious circular reasoning notwithstanding).

The same standard should be used for both: the principle presented in Deuteronomy 25:13-14 and Proverbs 20:10 is adequately clear. If a standard of measure or criticism is used for another translation, it shall be applied to the KJV. If a defense is used for the KJV, that means of defense is fully admissible for another translation.

If you think the KJV is somehow above equal consideration, you're probably only going to cause strife. Don't be that guy.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

My mother stuck to The KJV all her life. She knew I didn't enjoy reading it though and bought me a NKJV and an NIV for my 18th birthday to encourage me. We left Catholicism and I've always associated the KJV with being Catholic, boring and religious. It feels to me like regressing. Though I still keep a copy.

 

[SovereignGrace]

My biggest beef with the KJV-only position (as presented here on CC, and aside from fallacies, insults, and generally un-Christian attitudes) is that the KJV proponents find (or invent) explanations for every criticism brought against the KJV, but when they bring criticisms against other translations, the same or very similar reasoning in defense is rejected outright. It's a long string of double standards, and not only do the KJV'ers not acknowledge it as wrong, they defend it as justified when applied to "false translations" (the obvious circular reasoning notwithstanding).

The same standard should be used for both: the principle presented in Deuteronomy 25:13-14 and Proverbs 20:10 is adequately clear. If a standard of measure or criticism is used for another translation, it shall be applied to the KJV. If a defense is used for the KJV, that means of defense is fully admissible for another translation.

If you think the KJV is somehow above equal consideration, you're probably only going to cause strife. Don't be that guy.

It's called doing this...

 

[Locutus]

It's called doing this...

 

[fredoheaven]

The fact is the KJV translators acknowledged differences within the available Greek texts and made notes to the fact as do modern versions.

As can be seen they noted:

"This verse (36) is wanting in most of the Greek copies":

Stick that up yer KJV pipe and smoke it...

The marginal notes of the KJV is observed not to be the part of the Word of God or affect its inerrancy and purity of the scriptures. The modern versions does not follow what the KJV translators did. John Bois Notes prove that these marginal notes were part of the debates made by the committee and only those that are found in the text is considered in its purest form, and there always have the reasons why they did not used the word.

Even the marginal note in the given text does not say that the verse shouldn’t be there, or even question whether it is authentic or not. It just states that it is not found in most Greek copies including Vaticanus and Sinaticus., however, there is an abundance of early manuscripts, church fathers and ancient bible versions that did include the verse.



FYI, the text you just provided is given by inspiration of God. I'll stick to it...

 

[Locutus]

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Even the marginal note in the given text does not say that the verse shouldn’t be there, or even question whether it is authentic or not. It just states that it is not found in most Greek copies including Vaticanus and Sinaticus., however, there is an abundance of early manuscripts, church fathers and ancient bible versions that did include the verse.

Exactly like the notes in other translations.Thank you for demonstrating an abundantly clear example of a Double Standard. To which I might add, you are not entitled.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Exactly like the notes in other translations.Thank you for demonstrating an abundantly clear example of a Double Standard. To which I might add, you are not entitled.

And when they witness to ppl, they have to speak in 17th century Elizabethan English or it ain't the word of God they're speaking. No paraphrasing allowed.

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.[1 Peter 1:23]

I am amazed they're that brainwashed...amazed, but not surprised.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

I would like to share some information concerning the King James Bible if anyone is interested. This information concerns proof that the King James Bible is the word of God preserved for us in the English.

Here you can check each word or phrase:

6The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.




New International Version
And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver purified in a crucible, like gold refined seven times.

New Living Translation
The LORD's promises are pure, like silver refined in a furnace, purified seven times over.

English Standard Version
The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.

New American Standard Bible
The words of the LORD are pure words; As silver tried in a furnace on the earth, refined seven times.

King James Bible
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

Christian Standard Bible
The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in an earthen furnace, purified seven times.

Contemporary English Version
Our LORD, you are true to your promises, and your word is like silver heated seven times in a fiery furnace.

Good News Translation
The promises of the LORD can be trusted; they are as genuine as silver refined seven times in the furnace.

 

[LibrarianLeo]

And when they witness to ppl, they have to speak in 17th century Elizabethan English or it ain't the word of God they're speaking. No paraphrasing allowed.

I would think speaking in only in greek or hebrew would be best.

 

[fredoheaven]

Exactly like the notes in other translations.Thank you for demonstrating an abundantly clear example of a Double Standard. To which I might add, you are not entitled.

Umm, the explanatory notes/footnotes from the most of the Modern versions is somewhat different as to the KJV is concerned. These “modern footnotes” of the modern versions including KJV Study Bibles that promote critical footnotes like The New Schofield Reference Bible, the Criswell Study Bible, KJV Study Bible are but a few examples and has to be noted these are mere commentaries and the opinions of men. These footnotes, side notes or marginal notes is/are not given by inspiration of God . Accordingly the given text was omitted in the NIV then it was restored back, perhaps a blunder unknown to the many. A set of examples of these restoration by the most modern English were on the other previous thread on ESV of its newest edition but even going back to the “old, obsolete” King James wording. Of course, I go to “Doable Standard.”

 

[fredoheaven]

I would think speaking in only in greek or hebrew would be best.

The only problem with these ones like the "koine greek" and the ancient "hebrew' language were no longer used in this forum as a medium of understanding. They can be used for references found in many Lexicons and Bible Dictionaries.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Umm, the explanatory notes/footnotes from the most of the Modern versions is somewhat different as to the KJV is concerned. These “modern footnotes” of the modern versions including KJV Study Bibles that promote critical footnotes like The New Schofield Reference Bible, the Criswell Study Bible, KJV Study Bible are but a few examples and has to be noted these are mere commentaries and the opinions of men. These footnotes, side notes or marginal notes is/are not given by inspiration of God . Accordingly the given text was omitted in the NIV then it was restored back, perhaps a blunder unknown to the many. A set of examples of these restoration by the most modern English were on the other previous thread on ESV of its newest edition but even going back to the “old, obsolete” King James wording. Of course, I go to “Doable Standard.”

Sorry pal, you don't get to establish the parameters for which the KJV uses side/footnotes and that's okay, but the modern versions are, well devilish for having the same marginal/footnotes.

#doublestandard
#movingthegoalposts
#seebelow

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Umm, the explanatory notes/footnotes from the most of the Modern versions is somewhat different as to the KJV is concerned. These “modern footnotes” of the modern versions including KJV Study Bibles that promote critical footnotes like The New Schofield Reference Bible, the Criswell Study Bible, KJV Study Bible are but a few examples and has to be noted these are mere commentaries and the opinions of men. These footnotes, side notes or marginal notes is/are not given by inspiration of God . Accordingly the given text was omitted in the NIV then it was restored back, perhaps a blunder unknown to the many. A set of examples of these restoration by the most modern English were on the other previous thread on ESV of its newest edition but even going back to the “old, obsolete” King James wording. Of course, I go to “Doable Standard.”

I was not referring to study editions of Bibles. Footnotes on the pages like 'not in the earliest manuscripts' or 'Masoretic text' have nothing to do do with inspiration. King James superiority is a myth.

 

[BillG]

You're supposed to be able to take the ones in hotels, right?

Yes I think so.
But this was bibles stolen from shops

 

[John146]

I've always associated the KJV with being Catholic, boring and religious.

What part of the KJV is boring and religious? I'm sorry you feel that way. Is it because it may make you study to shew thyself approved unto God?

 

[trofimus]

What part of the KJV is boring and religious? I'm sorry you feel that way. Is it because it may make you study to shew thyself approved unto God?

And do you study? Do you know historical facts about Textus Receptus, Erasmus, text transmision and families of Greek manuscripts?

Do you know what the first Church used?

And I mean really studying, not reading some KJVO propaganda.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Yes I think so.
But this was bibles stolen from shops

Some people are just SOOO hungry for the word of God! Lol!

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

What part of the KJV is boring and religious? I'm sorry you feel that way. Is it because it may make you study to shew thyself approved unto God?

Are you joking? ANYONE reading King James English MUST translate it. You CAN'T possibly understand it all without translating it yourself. No one in this day and age automatically understands what being 'girt about the paps with a golden girdle' means without looking it up or asking someone. You MUST translate it. Or you won't understand.

You can read a text that has been translated directly from the original languages to modern English by scholars. Or you can read one that is translated at a time when the language was very different and translate it again for yourself.

I'm not afraid of Bible study, I love it. I started studying more than 30 years ago. I didn't do it with King James English because it isn't necessary.

 

[Budman]

While I do reference other translations, there really is something special about the KJV. It seems to radiate power and authority.

Call me crazy...