Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

White I use the KJV I also understand it's problems. As my Bible I use my smartphone to use the web browser to go to biblegateway.com and look up book and chapter. Then I can select any translation I want including foreign languages. Since I only speak English I limit myself to those translations. I usually go between NIV, ESV, KJV, and AMPC.

The problem with KJV is 2 fold. First 400 years of language changes. Second 400 years of science of nature. Here is a list of its flaws because of these issues.

Why do you keep using the now flawed KJV translation. The language and understanding of nature has changed over the 400 years since then. There are words that are no longer used. Do you know what a gold ouches is?


KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)


KJV Issues sites

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2

The Apostles probably spoke english.

Here is proof, straight from the KJV:

Acts 3:6 Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk.

See it says "Peter said" and then its in english.

PROOF 100%. Go look up Acts 3:6 in your KJV its not in greek!!!!!

Uh...hmmm...never mind.

ROFL
English language flawed? It seems you fail to understand why our language is the way it is. In Britain there originally were Celts. Then along came Romans and conquered the England and Wales portion. The Scots in the mountains were a thorn in their side so they build Hadrians Wall. This added Latin to Celtish. Then the Saxons came adding German to the mix. Last the Normans added French. This mixture is why we have all of the strange rules with exceptions, exceptions to the exceptions, exceptions to those exceptions, etc. All other languages have their much simpler rules. Talking to a Mexican American when I was in Southern Texas near the border he complained about the Spanish language because of its verbose flowery way of talking. To him English was so much simpler and easier to use. He hated to be forced to use Spanish when talking to relatives in Mexico. So much for its flaws.

The other gods the Israeli's turned to were not figures of deities to which they offered raisin cakes.
God is love (1 John 4:8 & 16).
When Israel turned to other gods, these were other loves other than the Lord/Love.
One of these other gods/loves to whom they turned were flagons of wine.

This could be true

But does not prove your case. It could be either

Which is why it is NOT proof the KJV got it right. And the others got it wrong.

Because whoever believeth on Jesus and readith this passage from the King James Bible shall be saved

I find it a little bit... ironic maybe... That some of y'all were reading along in the Bible as pleased as a peach when you came to Hosea and read raisen cakes, then because that didnt seem to make sense rather than study to figure out what was being said y'all found a version that said something that made sense to you.
I'm just gonna throw this Bible away and find one that says stuff I understand because this one says stuff that I dont.
It seems to me the logical thing to do would be to do some research and find out what is being referred to. Y'all are wierd.

Actually, this is demonstrably false. The KJV translators were only aware of documents available in the early 17th century. There have been many classical Greek and ancient Hebrew documents discovered since that time (think Dead Sea Scrolls and the Nag Hammadi library), meaning that the material available to the writers of lexicons (which are compendia of words as used in contemporary literature) is greater than that available to the KJV translators. In other words, we know far more than they did.

So... before you drink any more KJV-only Fool-Aid, do a little unbiased research.

BAM, how fun it must be to know what you know. I am not talking about pride, no, I'm not exalting you, just, that I can only imagine... it has to so rewarding and enjoyable. Thank You Lord, for the capacity to learn, and also thank You Adonai for Your revealing.

Because Jesus was a blue-eyed blonde haired fellow from England, and hung out mostly in the Whitehall area of London. He also personally invented the language of English just so the King James version could be written. King James was just regular James back then until he got his Bible written then everybody was like hey man that's awesome James you going to be the king!

what is the 'language' of Christianity exactly?

forsooth please advise

actually, you are DETRACTING from those verses by what you say

we are saved when we accept Christ, but salvation is not an historical event in that sense.

we are saved, we are being saved, we will be saved. salvation in the fullest sense

do you not agree that sanctification, after the moment of salvation, is an ongoing process?

this leaves me like




a false Bible would have a false gospel which would lead to a false salvation and please forgive the contradictory words in this sentence

So he just wasted his time having it written, and we are all doomed.

Try again.
They also made sacrices to Baal etc. They became enamored with the gods of those they allowed to live in Israel contrary to the order given by God to kill them. They were supposed to cleanse the land when moving in to Israel. They failed to do what God commanded them to do!!!

Pathetic response expected from an atheist. Hopefully you are just being humorous!

...still looking for the unicorns though...

This is about as lame an excuse for mocking the KJB as any. The Apocrypha had been incorporated into the Septuagint (c 200 BC), and then into the Latin Vulgate (c 400 AD). But at the time of the Reformation, the Reformers recognized that it was not Scripture.

III. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the canon of the Scripture, and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings.
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646 AD)

However all the English translations continued to include it within their pages, since it was believed that those books had instructive and historical value. The King James translators separated it from the OT and NT and also noted that it was not Scripture. So eventually it was removed from Protestant Bibles.