How is the KJV corrupt?
- Thread starter TheLearner
- Start date
-
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.
It's too late for that. You try talking to someone in Elizabethan English. "Thou art a sinner, and thou needest to cometh to repentanceth! Turneth from thy wickedeth wayeths and receiveeth the Lordeth Jesuseth".
I agree that modern western education has produced a generation of illiterates. So we have to adapt. That does not mean to talk as they do, but becoming a pseudo Shakespeare won't help either.
I agree that modern western education has produced a generation of illiterates. So we have to adapt. That does not mean to talk as they do, but becoming a pseudo Shakespeare won't help either.
-
1
-
1
-
1
- Show all
What do you mean by corrupt?
Best translation? Not?
The New Testament was originally in Koine Greek. Not easy to draft a literal second language translation given the Greek language.
I kept this link when I found it last year. I think the author gives a pretty good overview of why the KJV is a good translation of the NT Koine Greek but for obvious reasons, cannot be the most literal. No English translation could be.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-King-James-Bible-of-1611-the-most-accurate-of-all-Bibles
Is the King James Bible of 1611 the most accurate of all Bibles?
Alan Green
, former Software Development, System Development at Medicine and Healthcare
Updated Apr 10, 2018
The answer is no. But let me explain this.
If you had “literally” a literal word for word translation from the ancient languages, it would make it very hard to read and get the sense of it.
Let me give an example. I picked a [verse] (edit that, I picked a book and a chapter, then picked a verse)
Here is just one verse in Greek, from Luke 19:12.
ειπεν ουν ανθρωπος τις ευγενης επορευθη εις χωραν μακραν λαβειν εαυτω βασιλειαν και υποστρεψαι
Ok if you understand Greek! now here is the literal translation
(more than one English word may be need to replace one Greek word, to show this multiple words will be [linked] as-thus with a hyphen for each Greek word)
Greek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software
Now I think you can see the problem, a translator (more likely a group of translators) cannot just replace Greek words with the literal English equivalent.
The translators have to say it in English to give the sense and meaning of the writer to his audience. This requires not only an exquisite understanding of the Greek language, but an expert grasp of English, the ability to express words with the the nuance and beauty of a poet, with a knowledge of the background, of the idiom, of the locale, the customs and styles of the original writers.
This is not a task that a machine could do, it needs humans, with knowledge, faith, skill and respect of the words.
Now here is the English, written in the style of the beautiful Elizabethan English of the King Jame’s translation.
The KJV does have it’s problems, with it’s old fashioned word order, and some “Archaic” words (I get greatly offended as being archaic, I used to go shopping in the Shambles, Chesterfield UK, every weekend!)
To compare some other versions, here is the same verse again.
YLT - He said therefore, `A certain man of birth went on to a far country, to take to himself a kingdom, and to return
AMP - He therefore said, A certain nobleman went into a distant country to obtain for himself a kingdom and then to return
ISV - So he said, "A prince went to a distant country to be appointed king and then to return
ERV - So he said, "A very important man was preparing to go to a country far away to be made a king. Then he planned to return home and rule his people
BBE - So he said, A certain man of high birth went into a far-away country to get a kingdom for himself, and to come back
Murdock - And he said: A certain man of high birth was going to a distant place, to obtain royalty, and return again.
Most of these have problems.
Are any of these much easier to read than the KJV? not really, some are very “flat”, especially the Murdoch.
And some of them are downright inaccurate.
Jesus was giving a parable, a story, to an audience that already knew certain things. For instance, under the rule of the Romans, any authority to rule (as a proxy for the Emperor) was given to the would be ruler, after he travelled to Rome, he was given the authority there, then he would return to begin his rule.
The audience were aware of this.
So the nobleman (human well-generated) not an important person, not a prince, not a man of birth - but a man who was well-born/generated a NOBLEMAN
went to a far country to RECEIVE a kingdom, not take, not obtain, receive is PASSIVE showing that it was not of his doing, otherwise you might think he won a kingdom or title in battle!
The ERV (easy reading version) says “Then he planned to return home and rule his people” that may be exactly what he planned, but, THE GREEK TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT - none of the “planning to return and rule” exists in the Greek, it came out of the translators head. In this case it doesn’t matter so much, bit in other cases, it might change the meaning.
There is a range of accuracy in Bible translation;
From the PARAPHRASE on the one end of the scale,
and the hyper-literal WORD-FOR-WORD on the other.
BIBLICAL ACCURACY does not depend on a 100% mechanical translation, it is conveying the CORRECT SENSE of what the author was telling the audience (in their context and understanding) while trying to maintain readability and using fewer and shorter words, for simplicity and conciseness. There is NO Bible which is the most accurate.
THE BOTTOM LINE in ways explained above, the King James Bible is a very accurate translation, but not the MOST accurate.
Any words in CAPITALS or bold or italic, are for emphasis - I am not shouting at you
Robert Gibbs
, Dedicated Christian minister (1974-present)
Answered Mar 23, 2018
Far from it. The Emphatic Diaglott, (a diaglot is a two-language translation), is a translation of the Christian Greek scriptures (New Testament) by Benjamin Wilson, first published in 1864. It is an interlinear with the original Greek text and a word for word English translation in the left column, with a full English translation in the right column. The following is an excerpt from comments made by the translator in the Foreword, regarding the accuracy of the King James Version.
Best translation? Not?
The New Testament was originally in Koine Greek. Not easy to draft a literal second language translation given the Greek language.
I kept this link when I found it last year. I think the author gives a pretty good overview of why the KJV is a good translation of the NT Koine Greek but for obvious reasons, cannot be the most literal. No English translation could be.
https://www.quora.com/Is-the-King-James-Bible-of-1611-the-most-accurate-of-all-Bibles
Is the King James Bible of 1611 the most accurate of all Bibles?
Alan Green
, former Software Development, System Development at Medicine and Healthcare
Updated Apr 10, 2018
The answer is no. But let me explain this.
If you had “literally” a literal word for word translation from the ancient languages, it would make it very hard to read and get the sense of it.
Let me give an example. I picked a [verse] (edit that, I picked a book and a chapter, then picked a verse)
Here is just one verse in Greek, from Luke 19:12.
ειπεν ουν ανθρωπος τις ευγενης επορευθη εις χωραν μακραν λαβειν εαυτω βασιλειαν και υποστρεψαι
Ok if you understand Greek! now here is the literal translation
(more than one English word may be need to replace one Greek word, to show this multiple words will be [linked] as-thus with a hyphen for each Greek word)
he-said then human any well-generated was-gone into space far to-be-getting to-himself kingdom and to-under-turn.
So there you have the most accurate bible translation, many thanks to the “Inter Scripture Analyser program 3 Beta. Scripture4All PublishingGreek/Hebrew interlinear Bible software
Now I think you can see the problem, a translator (more likely a group of translators) cannot just replace Greek words with the literal English equivalent.
The translators have to say it in English to give the sense and meaning of the writer to his audience. This requires not only an exquisite understanding of the Greek language, but an expert grasp of English, the ability to express words with the the nuance and beauty of a poet, with a knowledge of the background, of the idiom, of the locale, the customs and styles of the original writers.
This is not a task that a machine could do, it needs humans, with knowledge, faith, skill and respect of the words.
Now here is the English, written in the style of the beautiful Elizabethan English of the King Jame’s translation.
Luke 19:12 KJV - He said therefore, A certain nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom, and to return.
It still captures the meaning, the rhythm of the original Greek and it is easy to read. There is a system which “scores” samples of text for “readability” and it may surprise a lot of people, but the King James Bible is rated as easier to read than most modern versions, (as far as the number of words used to communicate an idea)The KJV does have it’s problems, with it’s old fashioned word order, and some “Archaic” words (I get greatly offended as being archaic, I used to go shopping in the Shambles, Chesterfield UK, every weekend!)
To compare some other versions, here is the same verse again.
YLT - He said therefore, `A certain man of birth went on to a far country, to take to himself a kingdom, and to return
AMP - He therefore said, A certain nobleman went into a distant country to obtain for himself a kingdom and then to return
ISV - So he said, "A prince went to a distant country to be appointed king and then to return
ERV - So he said, "A very important man was preparing to go to a country far away to be made a king. Then he planned to return home and rule his people
BBE - So he said, A certain man of high birth went into a far-away country to get a kingdom for himself, and to come back
Murdock - And he said: A certain man of high birth was going to a distant place, to obtain royalty, and return again.
Most of these have problems.
Are any of these much easier to read than the KJV? not really, some are very “flat”, especially the Murdoch.
And some of them are downright inaccurate.
Jesus was giving a parable, a story, to an audience that already knew certain things. For instance, under the rule of the Romans, any authority to rule (as a proxy for the Emperor) was given to the would be ruler, after he travelled to Rome, he was given the authority there, then he would return to begin his rule.
The audience were aware of this.
So the nobleman (human well-generated) not an important person, not a prince, not a man of birth - but a man who was well-born/generated a NOBLEMAN
went to a far country to RECEIVE a kingdom, not take, not obtain, receive is PASSIVE showing that it was not of his doing, otherwise you might think he won a kingdom or title in battle!
The ERV (easy reading version) says “Then he planned to return home and rule his people” that may be exactly what he planned, but, THE GREEK TEXT DOES NOT SAY THAT - none of the “planning to return and rule” exists in the Greek, it came out of the translators head. In this case it doesn’t matter so much, bit in other cases, it might change the meaning.
There is a range of accuracy in Bible translation;
From the PARAPHRASE on the one end of the scale,
and the hyper-literal WORD-FOR-WORD on the other.
BIBLICAL ACCURACY does not depend on a 100% mechanical translation, it is conveying the CORRECT SENSE of what the author was telling the audience (in their context and understanding) while trying to maintain readability and using fewer and shorter words, for simplicity and conciseness. There is NO Bible which is the most accurate.
THE BOTTOM LINE in ways explained above, the King James Bible is a very accurate translation, but not the MOST accurate.
Any words in CAPITALS or bold or italic, are for emphasis - I am not shouting at you
Robert Gibbs
, Dedicated Christian minister (1974-present)
Answered Mar 23, 2018
Far from it. The Emphatic Diaglott, (a diaglot is a two-language translation), is a translation of the Christian Greek scriptures (New Testament) by Benjamin Wilson, first published in 1864. It is an interlinear with the original Greek text and a word for word English translation in the left column, with a full English translation in the right column. The following is an excerpt from comments made by the translator in the Foreword, regarding the accuracy of the King James Version.
This translation [The King James Version] was perhaps the best that could be made at the time, and if it had not been published by kingly authority. it would not now be venerated by English and American protestants, as though it had come direct from God. It has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors. Nearly 700 Greek MSS. are now known, and some of them very ancient; Whereas the translators of the common version had only the advantage of some 8 MSS., none of which were earlier than the tenth century.
A thought: Modern Bible translators say that the earliest MSS (manuscripts) are the best, since they "must be" (assumption) the closest match to the autographs (original Scriptures which we don't have any longer).
But they miss something: that in the modern era, while we now have some very old MSS, the TRANSLATORS themselves are farther removed from the original languages and cultures of the MSS.
And are the translators today more competent, more purely motivated, and more spiritual than the translators of old who risked and even lost their lives to render God's Word into the common tongues? Hmmm...
(Oh, yeah, and BTW the earliest manuscripts are garbage. Study up on the "Great Uncial Codices" and their origins, especially Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.)
-
1
-
1
- Show all
I agree, it is not "corrupt". It is a wonderful translation.
But it is wrong to say we must not look to see if it is the most accurate or test it in any way. Language HAS changed since it was written, we are not to ignore that.
At that time antisemitism was so accepted that Jews were often murdered, especially in Spain. This translation reflects that belief. The word Passover is translated with the word Easter. Passover is about death passing over us through the blood of Jesus. The word Easter includes fertility beliefs.
But it is wrong to say we must not look to see if it is the most accurate or test it in any way. Language HAS changed since it was written, we are not to ignore that.
At that time antisemitism was so accepted that Jews were often murdered, especially in Spain. This translation reflects that belief. The word Passover is translated with the word Easter. Passover is about death passing over us through the blood of Jesus. The word Easter includes fertility beliefs.
Translations are of men trying to be perfect, but man cannot be perfect. I don't think it is right to say a translation must be perfect in every way or it is all to be tossed out as corrupt.
I have proved to you that the word Passover is translated as Easter, that is not perfect. I don't think it is possible to believe that is a perfect translation. Yet the KJV has done wonders for the kingdom of heaven, it has been a blessing and a wonder.
I have proved to you that the word Passover is translated as Easter, that is not perfect. I don't think it is possible to believe that is a perfect translation. Yet the KJV has done wonders for the kingdom of heaven, it has been a blessing and a wonder.
A better question , actually a couple, would be, why do some translations use the corrupted alexandrian text vs the more accurate textus receptus (received text)?
Another would be, is God able to place in our hands his AUTHENTIC WORD?
Another good question would be what translation mirrors the textus receptus?
Another would be, is God able to place in our hands his AUTHENTIC WORD?
Another good question would be what translation mirrors the textus receptus?
-
2
- Show all
Now we are coming to the heart of the matter. As others (including sound, conservative textual scholars) have noted Satan hates the true Word of God and has used textual critics to attack the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts and elevate the corrupt minority text found in the following uncials (capital letter manuscripts) -- Aleph, A, B, C, and D. They have also indicated that Gnostic heretics were behind the serious corruptions (which occurred very shortly after the Bible was completed).
But because God has not only inspired but also preserved His Word through faithful copyists and a multitude of manuscripts, the traditional texts have been found to represent the original manuscripts, and we can rest assured that the Reformation bibles (including the KJV) have given us the true Word of God. Up until about the end of the 19th century the English-speaking world never questioned the reliability of the Authorized Version. Then a major hoax was perpetrated by Westcott & Hort (along with their co-conspirators) and modern corrupted bible versions began to proliferate.
But because God has not only inspired but also preserved His Word through faithful copyists and a multitude of manuscripts, the traditional texts have been found to represent the original manuscripts, and we can rest assured that the Reformation bibles (including the KJV) have given us the true Word of God. Up until about the end of the 19th century the English-speaking world never questioned the reliability of the Authorized Version. Then a major hoax was perpetrated by Westcott & Hort (along with their co-conspirators) and modern corrupted bible versions began to proliferate.
-
2
-
1
- Show all
And it's one word, not the whole language. English no longer uses "ye", "thee", and "thou". If you tried to use those words today with their 16th-century meanings with most English speakers with average or better understanding of the language, they would not catch the distinctions. It's not deterioration, it's simply change.
-
1
- Show all