BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

Thanks. John146's argument relates to specific words, not the message in general.

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.

"He doesn't speak old English to the modern believer."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



- He does to me!

.

Asking a Mexican friend one time to tell me the exact translation of wristwatch. His answer was 'a clock you ware on your wrist'. He did not add words . With a little thought one could understand languages do not always translate word for word.

Mayes that’s my point brother specific words can’t save the message is life everlasting

we have to have discernment , of what’s worth arguing and what isn’t. Your absolutely correct my point is “ it’s not each individual word that is important , it’s whether the message is the same regardless of the changes in the words through the modernization and growth of the English language in its capacity to express things in different words

many look at the individual words , and then we argue about translations kjv only person v “ kjv is corrupt “ person it’s just endless argument based on the evolution of the English Language and the edition of interchangeable terms and words as time has gone with the growth and additions and evolution of English language has come more English translations reflecting those changes from antiquated terms and words and even sentance structures

used 2000 years ago in the Greek , ( then in some cases Latin later ) and then 400 years ago , those manuscripts were translated into now a western language which is in our perspective 400 plus years old.

the reason there are different words d the reason the phrases and things are different is because English is different now than it was 400 years ago , it’s a westernized language now we’ve over expanded our terminology and now have many ways of saying the same things using different words that’s my point

you can say something written in ancient Hebrew or Ancient Greek , different ways when translating those writings to English and it’s going to say the same things but of course the words are different , we don’t speak those Languges and use thier words

we don’t even use antiquated English now days persons culture within America now had o fluencies how they speak , thier understandkng and use of words are different in Louisiana than from Manhattan , and different In Alaska than in Australia.

there’s a general basic understanding but many of the details of how we speak and say things , the words we use , the sentence structure is very different. If you go to the hills in Kentucky , and have lived in California your whole life your going to have trouble understanding thier terminology is sort of a crude example

different people use different words but we all understand the same things in life , that’s why we have translations so more people can understand the gospel and believe but anyways , yeah those words and spellings of words arent worth haggling over is my point the message in almost any translations is what is important

I was interested in the argument about the bill of rights. Do we go by word by word meaning or by dynamic thought?

The KJV is word by word ... modern translations are dynamic thought

If I am to live for God, I need every word.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Learn greek and henrew

Modern translations vary. The NASB is closer to a word for word translation than The KJV.
The KJV doesn't have a monopoly. Young's Literal Translation is closer to 'word for word'

Dynamic equivalence & Formal equivalence are both better methods of translation. The goal of formal equivalence is to preserve the original wording and grammatical forms to the greatest extent possible, while still providing a translation that is intelligible and readable. 'Word for word' is a misnomer. The only real word for word translation is an interlinear bible. Good for study but it makes for an awkward daily read.

The KJV is sufficient to be used by God to speak to me.

Why? Then I decide which words are right? No thanks. I leave that to my Lord.

Your argument is that it was not used in Rome and in Israel, so that in John’s day has not been used, instead it was an oil fed lamp?

I think this is not the fact as supposed.

1st, The Revelation of Jesus Christ written by John was on the Isle of Patmos, a Greek Island. While the candle may have not been used literally in the area, but, it was already known in the Greeks long before John did write Revelation. This give me a fair thought that if it is known by the Greeks why not the Apostle John? He may be not but he knows it there is already a candle being used and a candlestick.

The Symposium by Xenophon (306 BC) gives clear about this thing.

We need not fare far afield to light on marvels, if that is our object. All about us here is full of marvel; we can begin at once by wondering, why it is the candle gives a light by dint of its bright flame, while side by side with it the bright bronze vessel gives no light, but shows within itself those other objects mirrored. (1) Or, how is it that oil, being moist and liquid, keeps that flame ablaze, but water, just because it is liquid, quenches fire. But no more do these same marvels tend to promote the object of the wine-cup. (2)

(1) Cf. "Mem." IV. vii. 7. Socrates' criticism of Anaxagoras' theory

with regard to the sun.



(2) Lit. "work to the same end as wine."



https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1181/1181-h/1181-h.htm

Second, Is is true that Israel was not even used in John’s day? This time, I look up the Jewish library and found that it was literally in the temple. Evidence traced there was a candle stick. Here’s the link.

https://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/3964-candlestick

Thirdly, it might be that candle, or candlestick is synonymously or used as the same thing as a lamp or lampstand, however, it if was, a candle or candle stick that does provide a clear picture than a lamp or lampstand speaking of today. So far, many today’s rebuttal that the KJB does not provide the very meaning today is a hopeless argument if your argument is said to be true. KJB does provide far clearer than one thought.

The ISB online, recognize the word candlestick giving it literally as a lampstand yet the actual menorah so happens it was not but a candle as it is today.

https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/C/candlestick-the-golden.html





https://www.timesofisrael.com/7-facts-about-menorahs-the-most-enduring-symbol-of-the-jewish-people/





Now, the Greek used was λυχνία is recognized by Thayer, Winer, and Strong as a candlestick. Since we have it either lampstand or candlestick, that makes them a tie but I would not settle it less. “Comparing scriptures” is within the context of the Bible, so we can settle this once.

https://biblehub.com/greek/3087.htm

Greek is understood in other languages;

Latin = candelabra or candlestick.

Syriac = translated by Etheridge, Lamsa, Murdock as candlestick

Spanish= RV has candeleros for candlestick

French = Segondo has chandeliers for candlestick

German = Luther has Leuchter for candlestick



Lamp has another Greek which is lampas and this may finally settle this thingy. God bless

I was interested in the argument about the bill of rights. Do we go by word by word meaning or by dynamic thought?

The KJV is word by word ... modern translations are dynamic thought

I don't think you have thought this through.

1) You are giving more examples where translators have used the wrong English word.

2) The ancient menorah was oil fed, not a candlestick holder. Everyone knows that.

4) John did not use the Greek word for any candle technology that might have existed in the world. He used the word that his readers understood to be a common oil fed lamp stand. Among the Greeks, Romans, and Jews.

5) The English word candlestick did not exist when John wrote Revelation. He did not use that word. The translators who choose that word wherever the Greek word shows up in ancient documents are always choosing the wrong English word. It's that simple.

6) There is no question that they were not using wax candles or candlesticks until the middle ages. Finding some archaelogical evidence that similar technology was known but not used does not support the idea that John saw this. John did not use a word that suggests any new kind of candle technology was in the vision. He used a word well known and understood referring to the oil fed lamps and lampstands of his day.

The problem is, the NASB uses corrupt manuscripts.

If I am to live for God, I need every word.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

Umm, i dont think you have backed up yours with full citations or even Greek authorities to check with. Seems you have the evidence, just a mete hearsay. You haven't dealt with the Greek i brought into, unless you have that level or caliber to those critical scholars. Seems you are just giving an opinion. The moot is the Greek you are saying used by John the apostle, i gave you evidence but you haven't. Hopefully, you give me fair reasoning why the Greek could not be translated as candlestick. You should have backed up with references that make sense. Thank you

I actually read the ARV, never-the-less I believe the problems with new translations [including the RST.ARV] are as nothing compared to the problems with the KJV.

What makes the difference?

The theology of those who translated it makes the difference. I only read the RSV/ARV because I am saturated in [pickled] in the KJV.

Here is another little known fact the KJV is largely a plagiarism of William Tynedale a BEAUTIFUL 16th century saint and martyr. 70 % cent of the KJV is Tynedale. He was martyred for translating it.

I did not mean it in a mean way. I don't think you realize that your post and sources do not support the English translation of Candles or Candlesticks from the Greek word that John used.

If you want me to present scholarly reasons from Koine Greek experts, and textual manuscript experts I will just point to ALL the other English translations even the NKJV which have used lamps and lampstands.

Their reasons can be discovered. Probably just Google it and get lots of good technical papers that have been written to address this very issue.

As far as I know it is not something that bible translators are differing over. I seriously doubt that you should waste time trying to make a case for Candlesticks, and candles in Rev 1 at this stage in Bible translation history. Do you?

I bring it up to show people that if they are concerned about accuracy then this is a good example of how reading other English translations will help them because they can miss the illumination (no pun intended) of the reference to the oil fed lamps and lampstands in the vision and the connection to Zech vision if they are thinking wax candlesticks.

It's rather ironic because the KJVO people are insisting on accuracy and this is an example of where their beloved KJV fails them. I am not trashing the KJV or saying it is not a good translation. It is. But sometimes another English translation is better. Like in this case. In a different verse the KJV might be the one that wins in a comparison.

We should never contend for an error in the KJV translation or we loose our credibility for intellectual honesty and can not be trusted to be teaching truth about other things in the bible. We become suspect. If we do this, discerning people will be wondering "Where else might we be belligerently pushing a personal opinion or wishful thinking instead of contending for accuracy in exegesis"?