The King James Bible

[Lucy-Pevensie]

My only comment to that would be, it should not be about what comes out doctrinally stronger or better, no matter which translation we're using.

The question becomes is 'in very nature God' or 'in the form of God' the better translation of the underlying Greek text.

Never on whether a certain manipulation of the text will yield greater points to a certain teaching. For the record, I'm a Trinitarian.

What you say is true Peter but what we are dealing with is those who will spread misinformation about The Bible itself in order to serve their own prejudice. It's a serious charge to claim an entire well known translation is denying the the very deity of Christ. If people don't like the way it's worded that's one thing. They are entitled to their preference. But to make spurious claims about the truthfulness of a text is a deliberate attempt to attack and undermine that text.

 

[PeterJames]

But surely you're not saying the KJV and the KJV translators did not believe in the full deity of Christ or that because there is a variant because there is a difference between the textus receptus or critical text that the KJV is now weak and deficient? You're only asking us KJVers to drop the rhetoric that translations (other than New World Translation of JW) weaken doctrine by our or you choice of manuscripts, no?

Or lets add:

"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."
J 1:18, NIV

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son [missing part about being God], which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
J 1:18, KJV

---

Regarding deity of Christ, KJV proponents should be very careful, when attacking other versions, because it seems that the KJV is the weakest one regarding this.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Philippians 2:6-11. We, however, cannot see essence and the point of the passage is that although He was in the form of God, He also took upon Himself a form of a servant and, while both are true - both cannot necessarily be seen until we get to "and was made in the likeness of men ..." [v.7]

Paul appears to be saying that in His humanity, He still did not believe it to be 'robbery' to be equal with God because He was also in the form of God.

Form also does not necessarily mean shape but can mean beauty and or its second defintion is "the essential nature of a thing as distinguished from its matter ..."

Now I'm no expert in Greek or Hebrew and perhaps you are an expert in Greek or Hebrew.

I'm *also not* a worshiper of the KJV; but do you mean to tell me that 50+ translators together couldn't figure out that "by very nature God" would be better than "form of God". That is 50+ experts in Greek, Latin, and some of them Hebrew? I'm sure this was a point of discussion amongst them, so I hesitate to claim the KJV is 'definitively' expressing, less, that Jesus is God. Even if BOTH OF US were experts in Greek and Hebrew, I'd still hesitate since we haven't personally pulled off a translation yet.

And if you will notice (I posted the verse earlier) The NIV has a note integrated WITH the text, on the same page so the reader can see. They couldn't have been more honest about it.

Phil 2:6 ( NIV)

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
[a] or in the form of

 

[PeterJames]

I'm in agreement; a translation cannot be said to compromise on doctrine simply because it follows a certain manuscript text type rather than another kind, and as we're seeing with 1 John 1:18 - TR does not have "who himself is God" because it's not in the TR, but is in Nestle or other greek families.

The exception being the New World Translation which, frankly, changes the Greek to suit its own purposes.

What you say is true Peter but what we are dealing with is those who will spread misinformation about The Bible itself in order to serve their own prejudice. It's a serious charge to claim an entire well known translation is denying the the very deity of Christ. If people don't like the way it's worded that's one thing. They are entitled to their preference. But to make spurious claims about the truthfulness of a text is a deliberate attempt to attack and undermine that text.

 

[PeterJames]

Kudos to the footnotes ... so the conclusion here should be - either translation should be acceptable.

And if you will notice (I posted the verse earlier) The NIV has a note integrated WITH the text, on the same page so the reader can see. They couldn't have been more honest about it.

 

[Lucy-Pevensie]

Peter,

This wasn't meant to be about the NIV at all but it was under attack. The only way the KJV only fraternity can keep up the pretension that the KJV it is superior is to try to (dishonestly) discredit the other translations. They're playing a dirty game.

 

[MarcR]

so,

Philip answered him, Two hundred pennyworth of bread is not sufficient for them, that every one of them may take a little.
(John 6:7)​

your position is that "200 denarii" is a lie, error, and misunderstanding, and the KJV corrects Phillip here, because the truth is that he actually meant to say $2 worth of bread, not 2/3 of a year's wages?

and the reason/explanation is 'because the KJV says so' ?

English coinage was not used in the Holy land until the League of Nations created the British Palestinian mandate after WW1.

200 pennyworth would have been 2 British pounds. At the time of the 1769 edition of the KJV this would have been equivalent to about $17 in USD. The Roman dinarius was a silver coin weighing slightly less than an ounce. With silver now trading at about $7/oz a dinarius would be worth about 43cents. In first century Judea it was valued at a day's wages or about $88 depending on local minimum wage.[ much more if you take current average wage instead of minimum wage]

 

[PeterJames]

A long time ago in a galaxy far far away ...

I called my friend Kevin up and told him it was KJV or nothing. He was probably amused the first time I told him, but after the 125th time, he actually rebuked me. He was using an NIV and he said "Stop judging people based on their Bible translations. Ask yourself if after you read your Bible you think I live a holy life that honors God!"

Suffice it to say, I never brought up the issue again!

We also have a genuinely humble guy that goes to my church, sits across the table from me. One time the Pastor asked him to read the Bible and the guy knew our church was a KJV-preferred church. He said "Oh no, I can't read from my Bible, it's a perverted translation!" To which I was very proud that my Pastor said, "It's okay, we get different perspectives with a different translation."

Peter,

This wasn't meant to be about the NIV at all but it was under attack. The only way the KJV only fraternity can keep up the pretension that the KJV it is superior is to try to (dishonestly) discredit the other translations. They're playing a dirty game.

 

[MarcR]

For over 400 years all they had was the KJV, how pathetic is that? i doubt any of them were actually Saved, you know, not having all the other versions to compare to and the such. God forbid. This generation has eyes but can't see.

^i^

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

DiscipleDave

Quaker Bible 1764
Thompson Translation 1808
Webster Bible 1833
Young's Literal Translation 1862
Julia Parker translation 1876
RV 1885
Webster Bible 1888
Darby Bible 1890
ASV 1901
Emphasized Bibile 1902
Moffat Bible 1926
Concordant Literal Version 1926
An American Translation 1933
Bible in English 1949

Plus all the well known and lesser known versions of the second half of the 20th century and the 21st century translations.

The KJV certainly was not the only Bible for 400 years!

 

[MarcR]

Your mockery of King James is a good indication of how low Christians can go with their insults and forget how offensive they are to God. You are forgetting the Scripture which says to give honor where honor is due.

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Rom 13:7).

God used King James for His own glory, but you cannot see that. Obviously, you have no clue about his understanding of Scripture or what he tried to accomplish at that time. And it is officially "The Authorized Version" or simply "The Holy Bible".

While The KJV is an excellent and beautiful translation the claims of unique inspiration are IMO unsupportable.

King James, despite having commissioned the KJV, is NOT known for having lived an exemplary or Godly life.

Mocking the man might well be justified on several grounds.

 

[Locutus]

Years ago when I was living in Brighton I came across a really well used NIV in a used book store that was most likely part of an estate sale:

What sickens me with these KJV only's is that they believe this dear old sister went to her grave deceived.

 

[PeterJames]

I need to go back to the book I have on the KJV and its origins.

But my understanding is that the Puritans were looking to hang their hat on a more authorized version and King James, to keep the peace, gave in.

At least that's how what I remember reading of what happened in Hampton Court when the translation was "authorized". Apparently didn't work too well as the Puritans loved their Geneva the best.

While The KJV is an excellent and beautiful translation the claims of unique inspiration are IMO unsupportable.

King James, despite having commissioned the KJV, is NOT known for having lived an exemplary or Godly life.

Mocking the man might well be justified on several grounds.

 

[PeterJames]

Gomer, Rahab, David, and others in the OT were also not known for a stellar life; yet God still used them.

King James is neither a god or someone worse off than the rest of humanity. Even if the only thing he was to do was to authorize a new translation, he did what it appears God wanted him to do in that time period and in that place. Just like other translators who believe the Bible is God's word may do it today because they feel that is what God is calling them to do.

Again, I have to find that book I have on the origins of the KJV - but even one of the translators struggled with alcoholism. We all have our unique faults.

While The KJV is an excellent and beautiful translation the claims of unique inspiration are IMO unsupportable.

King James, despite having commissioned the KJV, is NOT known for having lived an exemplary or Godly life.

Mocking the man might well be justified on several grounds.

 

[preacher4truth]

Your mockery of King James is a good indication of how low Christians can go with their insults and forget how offensive they are to God. You are forgetting the Scripture which says to give honor where honor is due.

Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. (Rom 13:7).

God used King James for His own glory, but you cannot see that. Obviously, you have no clue about his understanding of Scripture or what he tried to accomplish at that time. And it is officially "The Authorized Version" or simply "The Holy Bible".

1) Your own insults of others on here, calling the Reformed lost, bearing false witness, slandering those who employ MV's, slandering of the scholars behind them is all well noted, not only here on earth, but in the presence of God. You also use the Reformed in a positive sense to promote your out of context erroneous teachings when needed, but then call them lost when you need them for something else. Basically, it is all about you being right, no matter your sanctimonious double standards used to achieve it. Guess what? We're way smarter than you give us credit, and we see through this tactic of yours.

2) Your standards are an unjust balance, which is a lack of integrity on your part. Before anyone believes you about honoring King James, you owe the same to other scholars who have worked on the more accurate modern versions we have today. Your double standard won't allow this type of honor to take place due to your KJVO cultic mindset.

3) You follow men, namely King James, Erasmus and other KJVO proponents. You also protect them from due criticism and all the while slander many godly men and scholars of today and recent years. Such behavior is called hypocrisy.

4) I do see, though you slander me and make a false accusation, that God does use even the profane to accomplish his purposes. That said, however, I do not worship the men behind a bible version, and do not worship any version of Scripture, but the God of Scripture. KJVO's, such as yourself in fact do worship a version.

5) I pray someday God will awaken you from your blindness to truth and hatred of others.

 

[MarcR]

English coinage was not used in the Holy land until the League of Nations created the British Palestinian mandate after WW1.

200 pennyworth would have been 2 British pounds. At the time of the 1769 edition of the KJV this would have been equivalent to about $17 in USD. The Roman dinarius was a silver coin weighing slightly less than an ounce. With silver now trading at about $7/oz a dinarius would be worth about 43cents. In first century Judea it was valued at a day's wages or about $88 depending on local minimum wage.[ much more if you take current average wage instead of minimum wage]

43cents should read $6.43. Pardon the typo!

 

[Locutus]

1) Your own insults of others on here, .

I thought this deserved framing.

 

[iamsoandso]

I thought this deserved framing.

lol, now the last time someone took a fragment and you and them walked word for word with it you do remember it went one word to the next and compared to the words in the KJV right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_115

 

[Nehemiah6]

I thought this deserved framing.

Locutus is an expert at framing others (just like Donald Trump was framed and now its all coming out). At least now we have the evidence. As for Preach 4 NOT Truth, once he really starts focusing on truth, there might be some hope.

 

[Locutus]

lol, now the last time someone took a fragment and you and them walked word for word with it you do remember it went one word to the next and compared to the words in the KJV right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_115

It's more than likely sosandso - I have a very powerful mid 1990's KJV bible program which I use, beats most modern programs hands down.

That, and I have the KJV memorized because it was the bible version I started with back in 1979.

You can call me Locutus Van Impe....

 

[Locutus]

Locutus is an expert at framing others (just like Donald Trump was framed and now its all coming out). At least now we have the evidence. As for Preach 4 NOT Truth, once he really starts focusing on truth, there might be some hope.