BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

  • 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.

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,280
4,329
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
In
Wow, amazing! Thank you for this.
I'm glad that you are so interested in the Bible. We have a more sure word of prophecy.
If you didn't get a chance to watch the rest yet, the 20++ minutes section goes into techniques used to make appearance of age. The white appearance itself makes it suspect. I asked myself why would part lack appearance of oxidation?
Then I ask, why would he stain it?
 

Amanuensis

Well-known member
Jun 12, 2021
1,457
460
83
I rarely watch movies, but this one is what my Dad and I saw together before he left.
Denzel Washington's character brought a mysterious Book across the country on foot. It was revealed at the end what it was.
Warner Bros, if I remember correctly, did not want the film released with the christian influences. That's when Denzel decided to become the controlling producer to change the script to reflect his Christian views.
It's not a movie that's going to be featured in any Christian listing, but it brought me to tears for what Denzel decided to add to the story.
(Spoiler alert....last scene)
When I was backslidden and a drunk I watched that movie. It's not a good movie to watch.

At the end he says he has memorized the KJV and starts with Gen 1 and it's not the KJV. Instead of "And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." He says "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters."

But having memorized the first part of Gen in the KJV myself I caught it immediately that he was not quoting KJV. And then I wondered, how did they let that mistake go to the screen? Why didn't anyone notice that it was not KJV. Seems like if you are going to announce it as KJV someone in the studio would have made sure that it was when the script was written.
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
The point of the translation is not because biblical Greek and Hebrew are archaic.

The point of the translation is to put Gods Word into the readers own language.

So the argument that a bible retains "archaic" language is EXTREMELY silly.
I didn't say Biblical Greek & Hebrew were archaic. Though Koine Greek is most certainly archaic to a modern Greek speaker.
That is not what I was getting at. You made a sarcastic comment. (below)


The KJV wasn't archaic 400 years ago. It is archaic now.
Of course the original languages were preserved in the manuscripts we still have.
The KJV is not an original language or manuscript, it's a translation from one language to another.
If you want to read it & use it, that is not a problem. Most people don't need it now.


The KJV is not needed to make a translation from Hebrew & Greek manuscripts to English, Spanish or any other language.



I suppose if someone decided to change the Language of the original Hebrew and the original Greek because it was "archaic" most people would have a serious problem with that. It was preserved for a REASON.


My sheep hear My Voice...
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
The KJV does not name the 5800 manuscripts and fragments in extant. (Nor did the KJV scholars have access to all of them) You will have to do some research to discover them and then you will need to learn Greek to read them. About 3 years of NT Greek will enable you to read them for yourself. And you can then know what they say. Googling it will set you on the path to find images of them to look at.
No thanks, that would make me the final authority on what God has said.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
That's your opinion, I disagree, and that's not my point anyway.

"Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

"Thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."

Preserve FROM THIS GENERATION.

They (whether words or people) have been preserved FROM a wicked generation.

The verse does NOT say that "God has preserved His words"... no matter how much you want it to say that. I honestly believe that you are unable to see or comprehend the three words I have bolded, because they completely undermine your position.
That’s your opinion. I disagree. God has stated over and over about how his words abide forever.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
Frankly after all that I have learned in the past 4 years about translations I have to put KJVO folks in the same boat as antivaxxers and moon landing deniers.
Whatever, I never got the jab, no way. I trust my God given immune system that has been proven to be far superior.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
And even where the word gives two different ages for Ahaziah when he started his reign.

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Certain KJVo's hold to some convoluted two-step of an explanation that treats the plain text like a puzzle to be solved instead of clear evidence of contradiction... and therefore of imperfection.
Been debunked several times on here, you just deny to hear it.
 

birdie

Senior Member
Sep 16, 2014
532
102
43
I would like to know your thoughts about the KJV in relation to what is being said below (I did not write this, unfortunately, I lost the link). 😕

View attachment 242653

Here are the SIX common misconceptions or false beliefs about the King James Version (KJV)

1) The KJV was the first English translation of the Bible. The KJV was not the first, but the tenth English translation of the Bible.

1. Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
2. Tyndale's Bible (1516)
3. Coverdale's Bible (1535)
4. Matthew's Bible (1537)
5. Taverner's Bible (1539)
6. The Great Bible (1540)
7. The Geneva Bible (1560)
8. The Bishop's Bible (1568)
9. The Douay-Rheims Version (1609)
10. The King James Version (1611)


2) The KJV was authorized by God.

The belief that the KJV was authorized by God to be translated is just an assumption with no biblical basis. The KJV was called the “Authorized Version (AV)” because its translation was approved and mandated by King James I, and it was appointed to be read in churches. This was stated in the original title page of the KJV:

THE HOLY BIBLE
Containing the Old and New Testaments
Translated out of the Original Tongues
And with the Former Translations
Diligently Compared and Revised


BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES

3) The King James is always true to the literal words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

While the King James Version is generally a very literal translation, it is not always literal in all of its renderings. In Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4, the KJV paraphrased the Greek "me genoito" ("may it never be") into "God forbid". And in Matthew 27:44 the Greek "oneididzon auton"("they reviled him") was paraphrased by the KJV into "cast the same in his teeth".

4. The KJV is a perfect translation.

There is no such thing as a perfect translation. The only perfect texts of the Bible were the texts that came from the hands of the Biblical writers written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Perfect translation is not possible because of the nature of language. Receptor languages, such as English, can’t always reflect perfectly the concepts or meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words. And in some cases the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words are difficult to decipher.

Translations are just approximations to the original text. The goal of each translation is to be closer as much as possible to the message of the original text, that’s why translations are continually revised to be more accurate. The King James Bible was not exempt from revisions. There were four major revisions of the KJV (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) and more than twenty minor revisions. The changes in these revisions are due to not only printing errors or spelling standardization, but also to textual or translation errors.

5) The KJV is a better translation than the modern versions.

The truth is modern versions are much better than the KJV. The KJV is not a readable version compared to many modern versions because of its archaisms and obscure literal renderings. The KJV was based on late and inferior Greek texts while the modern versions are based upon much older and much more reliable Greek texts. The so-called omissions in the NIV and other modern versions is not a conspiracy nor a malicious intent to distort the Bible, but it's due to variation in the Greek manuscripts. There are Greek manuscripts that have those verses and there are also Greek manuscripts that do not have those verses. This happened because of scribal copying errors, alterations, or emendations. Through the science of textual criticism, it is possible to determine with high accuracy which variant is reliable or not.

6) The KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

There are Christians who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the biblical writers. But this is denied by the translators themselves. In the original preface to the King James Version of 1611 the translators admitted that their work was not perfect and not on a par with the inspired authors of Scripture. There were instances where the translators were not absolutely sure of the original reading of the Greek or Hebrew text, and they indicated that in the margin with textual variant notes.

Those who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit must use a King James Bible with Apocryphal books because the translators, who were mostly Anglicans, added these books in their original translation. The Apocrypha was a part of the King James Bible for 274 years, until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Societies excluded them from the revised version.
I pretty much only read the King James Bible. If I want to get more in-depth about a verse, I look up what the concordance says about the original hebrew, aramaic or latin words in that verse. Blueletterbible.org has a great concordance online, for instance. Since the Holy Spirit authored the Bible in parable form (Psalm 78:1-2, Mark 4:34) I do not want key words necessary for understanding the parable eliminated by paraphrasing the idea in modern language. Preserving the original words, which the KJV seems to be good at, even when they sound old-timey, allows a reader to see when the same words appear in other verses. The Bible tells us to compare scripture with scripture (spiritual things with spiritual things), and if a word appears in one verse, I don't want that word 'paraphased out' where it used to occur in another verse.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
I suppose if someone decided to change the Language of the original Hebrew and the original Greek because it was "archaic" most people would have a serious problem with that. It was preserved for a REASON.


My sheep hear My Voice...
Biblical Hebrew and Koine Greek are both dead languages. Hebrew mostly died before Christ. In the 3rd century BC, Alexander the Great conquered the known world, from Greece to India. As conqueror. he decided to "Hellenize" the world. He imposed Greek language and culture on everyone. While the Jews kept formal Hebrew for studying the OT, everyone began to use Aramaic for common talk, but Greek became established in business and running the empire. When the Romans conquered the world, in the century before Christ's incarnation, they used Greek as the administrative language to run the Roman Empire, not Latin.

Using Greek, the common language of the civilized world, became part of the fulfillment of prophecy, including Pax Romana, which was the peace & safety Rome brought to the Empire. They stopped pirates and smugglers on the seas. They built and made the roads safe for travellers. This is "the time" in which the gospel would be made known, and millions converted. Having a common language meant people like Paul could go on Mission trips, & be assured the message would be understood by everyone! He could also be assured of his safety from evil robbers and pirates on his journeys.

Koine Greek took over so much, that the Jews had almost lost their Hebrew. So the Jews scribes and scholars translated the OT into Greek, a book called the Septuagint or LXX. The LXX is 70 in Roman numerals, because supposedly, 70 (or 72!) translators were used to complete the translation. It really preserved the OT. When the Dead Sea scrolls were found at Qumran, there was an almost perfect Hebrew scroll of Isaiah. It is almost identical to today's Isaiah!

Jesus & his disciples used both Bibles when they quoted Scripture. The LXX and the Hebrew Bible. Because there are identifiable differences, scholars analyzed every quote of the OT that Jesus and disciples used! The LXX (the Greek OT) was used about 80% of the time, and the Hebrew version about 20% of the time.

When the Roman emperors razed Jerusalem to the ground, the temple caught fire, and all the genealogical his records were lost, that was in 70 AD. First, it meant there were no genealogies to trace back. So after 70 AD, no one could be the Messiah, because no one could confirm the genealogy of any person claiming to be The Christ! It also began the Jewish diaspora (1 Peter 1;1), spread the Jews all over Asia, the Middle East, and many went to Northern Europe -France & Germany. In the 8-10th centuries, even the scholars were losing their Hebrew. So the Masorites designed a vowel system called "vowel pointings" today. Till then, Hebrew only had consonants. But the vowels are essential for tenses and other important parts of speech. Basically, after that, Yiddish arose in Northern Europe, mostly, a combination of German and Hebrew, and some other words. Hebrew was lost, except for people wanting to read Scripture, who learned the vowel pointing system. Of course, modern Hebrew sprang back to usage in Israel. But they don't use the vowels in their written speech, and the grammar is quite different than Biblical Hebrew.

There is a whole full story on the use of Koine Greek to write the NT. Suffice it to say, it died out by 4th to 6th century, to be replaced with Byzantine Greek. And this is where the KJV gets sticky. The Byzantine is a large family of manuscripts, which suddenly arose from nowhere, in the 8th to 10th century. It was Byzantine Greek, not the Koine Greek the Bible was written in. While schools (in Byzantine & monasteries), were formed to copy the NT, with many inexperienced scribes. They made a LOT of mistakes. Most of these are documented today, but they were NOT in the 16th century. By choosing the Byzantine Greek manuscripts, copied from 1000 - 1500 AD, they had a huge error load before the KJV Bible used 7 very late corrupted versions, and many words. We're unknown who had no way of getting back up material, especially the lower numbers for the # of times appearing. Today, with over 6000 manuscripts, plus a wealth of knowledge from secular sources, it is much easier to research a hapax legomena, a word appearing only once in the whole Bible!

My point, as far as the OP's opinion, is that the KJV is responsible for a lot of mistakes in the NT & OT. The Koine (common) Greek language was changed, a 1000 years after Christ, updated to Byzantine Greek, and erroneously used as the basis of the NT in the KJV. The OP might want to Google this, or read some books on Boblical languages and developing the canon of Scripture. It is a whole very interesting world of stories and facts, in itself.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
The more I learn about translating the more I appreciate some of the modern works like NIV, CSB, ESV. They really do help get to the objective of authorial intent.

I think that learning Greek and Hebrew will help make things easier to decide. I use to think that the KJV were probably better scholars but I don't think that is true any longer. Today there really are some who have devoted as many years or more of their lives to the manuscripts and original languages as any of the best KJV scholars. Accumulated knowledge about the manuscripts and language translation challenges are something that was not available to the KJV scholars as it is for today's scholars. To ignore this is to wallow in, and celebrate raw ignorance, and I am not for that.
This was going to be my point!

First, the best Bible that anyone can use is the one they read, understand and obey. I've never studied Early Modern English. I've never conjugated 2nd person singular. In English. I use the two forms of you in Greek, Spanish, German, Greek and Ukrainian. I know what the endings/exceptions are for tu & vous are (French); du and Sie (German), and all the other languages I have studied and speak. I will even agree that having a singular "you" can be very helpful. But, we do NOT have this word in English anymore! We have not learned the grammar for the verbs that go with it. That is a huge barrier for me.

I have 2 years Seminary Greek, studied under Bill Mounce. His dad was also a Greek scholar, and he was learning Greek at 4! He was a brilliant man, excellent teacher, and really found a systematic & easy way to teach Greek. I also read my Greek NT daily, and I read current books and literature in the formation of the Bible. I have a year of Seminary Hebrew. I've lost my Hebrew, because I just don't have enough time to review 3 or 4 languages daily. I also read Martin Luther's updated translation. German is very similar grammatically to Koine Greek. It makes it a lot easier both to translate and read. None of the convoluted twisting that has to be done with every translations to Rnglish, including the KJV.

I use BDAG (Bauer) for a lexicon, and an excellent short logistical book by Rogers Jr & Rogers III. It was recommended by the Greek prof at my seminary, I have other tools, and lots of commentaries, including from the Greek NT. Great depth in those! There is no point in comparing translations. You really need the word in the original language, where else it is found in the Bible, and contemporaneous sources. Like a bill of sale in the first century. Or a love letter to mistress. (A wife?)

Because I have read the Bible so many times, I have read many translations. I read the NASB (an older version!) for 25 years. It got so wooden and stiff. I started reading other translations, that were less wooden, like the HCSB. I even read most of the Message, and the Living Bible, which had some major translational errors, which affected doctrine. Then I read ESV a few times, felt trapped in that wooden mess! My prof was on the translation committee for ESV. They were told it was to be, "a fresh, new look at the Bible!" When they got to the Lord's Prayer in Matt 6, they were told they didn't want it too free, and to follow the traditions of the KJV.

So I heard about the NET, and started reading it on my next read through. What attracted me, was the 66,000 footnotes. Plus they use the original letters for Hebrew and Greek, but also transliterate the words into the English alphabet. Loads of references, too! There were others too! But the only Bible I have not been able to get through is the KJV, because of the archaic & obsolete words and different grammar. I used the KJV as a child in Sunday school, memorized many verses. When God saved me, I remembered John 3:16! It didn't matter what language it was in!

Anyeay, neither the KJV nor any other English translation is perfect, or inspired, like the original manuscripts. Find a translation that speaks to you, and read it! They only thing I disapprove of, is people who insist that their translation is perfect, inspired and the only real Bible. If you like the KJV, and you use it very regularly, then great! Just don't tell me that your version is better than my Koine Greek NT! It simply is a lie, and I don't understand how godly men & woman, can lie, or accept such illogical support for the KJV being the only real Bible.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
6 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Funny! It doesn't say, "the words of the KJV are pure words," it might say, "The words of the NET are pure," or "the words of the NIV are pure!"
But it says "the Lord!"
Those were the inspired original manuscripts. Those words! You are using circular logic to prove your point! But then, the KJV Onlyists don't have Greek or Hebrew, so maybe they think "The Lord"
Should have been translated as KJV? Is T that biblio-idolatry?

Oh! The KJV was only translated 400 years ago, not 2000 years earlier, when the original autographs were written! In fact, English didn't even exist when the original autographs were written!
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
Funny! It doesn't say, "the words of the KJV are pure words," it might say, "The words of the NET are pure," or "the words of the NIV are pure!"
But it says "the Lord!"
Those were the inspired original manuscripts. Those words! You are using circular logic to prove your point! But then, the KJV Onlyists don't have Greek or Hebrew, so maybe they think "The Lord"
Should have been translated as KJV? Is T that biblio-idolatry?

Oh! The KJV was only translated 400 years ago, not 2000 years earlier, when the original autographs were written! In fact, English didn't even exist when the original autographs were written!
You've been educated right out of your belief that God has preserved his pure words for us to have in the English language. You rely on your education.
 
R

RichMan

Guest
I comment all who took advantage of the opportunity to study the original languages.
Most of us were to busy making a living and raising kids.
Probably true of those who taught and preached the Gospel that lead untold millions to Jesus.
I have known unlearned men whose understanding was second to none, and I have known very educated men that did not have a clue of the truth.
I never base my acceptance of a person's understanding on his education and would suggest all to do likewise.
 

Angela53510

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2011
11,786
2,957
113
You've been educated right out of your belief that God has preserved his pure words for us to have in the English language. You rely on your education.
I rely on the Holy Spirit. And the Bible is also what I rely on. That is why I study and read the Bible. I am hungry to know more! I don't care which gloss is used in a translation. No Bibles are perfect. I rely on the Holy Spirit showing me when something doesn't feel right.

As far as education, it was God who told me to go to seminary and learn more about God, his Word and how to help his people. Not a voice, but an idea, which suddenly was being confirmed over and over by people, a television show, a Christian song, a part of a sermon, etc. I never would have made it through 7 years of intense study without knowing I was in God's will and obeying him.

But I guess someone who has a "perfect" Bible doesn't need to study, or learn from Christian teachers who have studied and served God, most of their lives!
 

Lucy-Pevensie

Senior Member
Dec 20, 2017
9,386
5,725
113
You've been educated right out of your belief that God has preserved his pure words for us to have in the English language. You rely on your education.
English! What an unholy waste of time. Hebrew script was used to write down holy words.
I refuse to read anything that isn't chiseled on stone, right to left, in Paleo-Hebrew.
Those words were not to be meddled with.
 
Sep 15, 2019
9,991
5,546
113
Frankly after all that I have learned in the past 4 years about translations I have to put KJVO folks in the same boat as antivaxxers and moon landing deniers.
Lol. I can't tell if this means you acknowledge that KJVO folks have been right for so long despite many disbelieving them, or if you must be one of the few who still goes along with the Lame Stream Media beliefs that vaccines are safe/effective and that NASA aren't liars...

I myself think the KJV is useful, but other versions (or original text) can be helpful where the meaning isn't so clear from the translation.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
As far as education, it was God who told me to go to seminary and learn more about God
Where did God tell you this? Is there more truth to be had outside of his word? Therein lies the problem...his word is not sufficent.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,128
3,689
113
I rely on the Holy Spirit. And the Bible is also what I rely on. That is why I study and read the Bible. I am hungry to know more! I don't care which gloss is used in a translation. No Bibles are perfect. I rely on the Holy Spirit showing me when something doesn't feel right.

As far as education, it was God who told me to go to seminary and learn more about God, his Word and how to help his people. Not a voice, but an idea, which suddenly was being confirmed over and over by people, a television show, a Christian song, a part of a sermon, etc. I never would have made it through 7 years of intense study without knowing I was in God's will and obeying him.

But I guess someone who has a "perfect" Bible doesn't need to study, or learn from Christian teachers who have studied and served God, most of their lives!
And these great bible scholars taught you not to trust any bible, but trust in your education.