Why the king james?

[trofimus]

All taken from KJV:

Galatians 3:10 ...for it is written,
Cursed [is] every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Deuteronomy 27:26
Cursed [be] he that confirmeth not [all] the words of this law to do them.

Ups! Not only some wrong word, but possibly quite wrong teaching, in this infallible perfect and inspired translation of Deuteronomy.

 

[Willie-T]

"We advise that several translations be used by those who cannot read the original Hebrew and Aramaic."

Source: What is the history of the King James Bible? | Bibleinfo.com

AND, it is smart to try and make sure those translations seem to be pretty dissimilar in many respects.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

AND, it is smart to try and make sure those translations seem to be pretty dissimilar in many respects.

Huh? Can you clarify?

 

[Willie-T]

Huh? Can you clarify?

Many translations are just copied from the KJV. They did no more research into more recent discoveries and techniques than was available 500 years ago.

So, if it just seems like the same thing, it probably is. Nothing else was likely even considered. But, if there is a variation on looking at a particular thing, it is probable that you are looking at something more than just another copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, etc.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Many translations are just copied from the KJV. They did no more research into more recent discoveries and techniques that was available 500 years ago.

So, if it just seems like the same thing, it probably is. Nothing else was likely even considered. But, if there is a variation on looking at a particular thing, it is probable that you are looking at something more than just another copy of a copy, of a copy, of a copy, etc.

Good point.

In other words, it's helpful to know the origins of your favorite Bible version.

 

[Complete_In_Him]

"Preservation simply means that we can trust the Scriptures because God has sovereignly overseen the process of transmission over the centuries."

Source: Is the doctrine of preservation biblical?

You seem fairly reasonable, hello. Preservation, there is an understanding, that it means arrangement and ordering of the books, do you agree? What does that mean, then, to you?


(... I am still trying to catch up on posts, but, haha sigh yawn bleh, just wish we could all refrain from making "person"al attacks and snide comments.)

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

You seem fairly reasonable, hello. Preservation, there is an understanding, that it means arrangement and ordering of the books, do you agree? What does that mean, then, to you?


(... I am still trying to catch up on posts, but, haha sigh yawn bleh, just wish we could all refrain from making "person"al attacks and snide comments.)

Hello. Thanks.

I would argue that preservation is not concerned with keeping arrangement and order intact, but more concerned with keeping meaning and message intact.

In other words, it doesn't matter so much what order books of the Bible are presented--but what is important is that the message of these books is preserved.

I hope I answered your question. If not, feel free to ask again!

 

[Complete_In_Him]

Many translations are just copied from the KJV.

Hmm, and why does this statement give me the inclination to say, "and that is the subtlety" in the same difference of creationism and intelligent design. What is good, is that bibles in other languages are produced from the same documents/manuscripts as the KJV, but not that bibles are created from the English version of the king james bible, like the nkjv, right... am I right that the nkjv is just a little different and actually copied mostly from the kjv English?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Hmm, and why does this statement give me the inclination to say, "and that is the subtlety" in the same difference of creationism and intelligent design. What is good, is that bibles in other languages are produced from the same documents/manuscripts as the KJV, but not that bibles are created from the English version of the king james bible, like the nkjv, right... am I right that the nkjv is just a little different and actually copied mostly from the kjv English?

"Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies."

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-King-James-Version-NKJV-Bible/#vinfo

It is probably more accurate to state that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.

 

[Complete_In_Him]

Hello. Thanks.

I would argue that preservation is not concerned with keeping arrangement and order intact, but more concerned with keeping meaning and message intact.

In other words, it doesn't matter so much what order books of the Bible are presented--but what is important is that the message of these books is preserved.

I hope I answered your question. If not, feel free to ask again!

Smiling, thank you. So, it's not important to hold to 66 books? Or the ordering of the books? We are keeping in consideration, doctrines, right? And, when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, doesn't that actually lend to the integrity of the meaning(words) and message(doctrines)?

Dare I say, I just got my rider from the repair shop yesterday -_- and the weather is amazing here this week... I too need to go cut my grass! I loved your response to that earlier, yes, unfortunately, it will just grow back I know, but my dog needs a yard and short grass keeps the vermin at bay... chat later, it took me forever to catch up on the posts, whew

 

[Complete_In_Him]

Hmm, and why does this statement give me the inclination to say, "and that is the subtlety" in the same difference of creationism and intelligent design. What is good, is that bibles in other languages are produced from the same documents/manuscripts as the KJV, but not that bibles are created from the English version of the king james bible, like the nkjv, right... am I right that the nkjv is just a little different and actually copied mostly from the kjv English?

"Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies."

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-King-James-Version-NKJV-Bible/#vinfo

It is probably more accurate to state that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.

Hmm, thanks, I just googled, which I don't think I have ever done in regards to this topic.

... accurate according to what? Are the dead sea scrolls and earlier manuscripts, Scripture? Well, I guess possibly, if we trust the "Translation Philosophy" and "task of updating the English of the KJV"

"The translators have sought to follow the principles of translation used in the original King James Version, which the NKJV revisers call "complete equivalence" in contrast to "dynamic equivalence" used by many contemporary translations. The task of updating the English of the KJV involved significant changes in word order, grammar, vocabulary, and spelling. One of the most significant features of the NKJV was its replacement of early modern second person pronouns, e.g. "thou" and "thine", and corresponding verb forms, e.g. "speakest", with their twentieth-century equivalents.The Executive Editor of the NKJV, Arthur L. Farstad, addressed textual concerns in a book explaining the NKJV translation philosophy.[SUP][3][/SUP] While defending the Majority Text (also called the Byzantine text-type), and claiming that the Textus Receptus is inferior to the Majority Text, he noted (p. 114) that the NKJV references significant discrepancies among text types in its marginal notes: "None of the three [textual] traditions on every page of the New Testament ... is labeled 'best' or 'most reliable.' The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."

[SUP][/SUP]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_King_James_Version

 

[Grace777x70]

Smiling, thank you. So, it's not important to hold to 66 books? Or the ordering of the books? We are keeping in consideration, doctrines, right? And, when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, doesn't that actually lend to the integrity of the meaning(words) and message(doctrines)?

Dare I say, I just got my rider from the repair shop yesterday -_- and the weather is amazing here this week... I too need to go cut my grass! I loved your response to that earlier, yes, unfortunately, it will just grow back I know, but my dog needs a yard and short grass keeps the vermin at bay... chat later, it took me forever to catch up on the posts, whew

I have not looked at the old testament on how the books were ordered but for Paul's letters....they mostly just took the longest one first then after that each one that was shorter...so it all had to so with size..

Why Is the New Testament Organized This Way?

Here is an exert...

Believe it or not: Size.

It’s the length of the book that determines where it goes in the collection. The longest ones go first and the shortest last. There are other collections of ancient works organized like that, too. It was a somewhat common way of organizing things in antiquity.

Here are the books with the number of words they contain in the Greek New Testament:
​

• Romans: 7,111
• 1 Corinthians: 6,829
• 2 Corinthians: 4,477
• Galatians: 2,230
• Ephesians: 2,422
• Philippians: 1,629
• Colossians: 1,582
• 1 Thessalonians: 1,481
• 2 Thessalonians: 823

There’s a bit of a hiccup in the pattern with Ephesians coming after Galatians, but size is still the overall criterion. The same applies to the epistles written to individuals:
​

• 1 Timothy: 1,591
• 2 Timothy: 1,238
• Titus: 659
• Philemon: 335

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Smiling, thank you. So, it's not important to hold to 66 books? Or the ordering of the books? We are keeping in consideration, doctrines, right? And, when it comes to the doctrine of inspiration, doesn't that actually lend to the integrity of the meaning(words) and message(doctrines)?

Dare I say, I just got my rider from the repair shop yesterday -_- and the weather is amazing here this week... I too need to go cut my grass! I loved your response to that earlier, yes, unfortunately, it will just grow back I know, but my dog needs a yard and short grass keeps the vermin at bay... chat later, it took me forever to catch up on the posts, whew

Oof! You're taking me into deeper waters--uncharted territories.

Let me share from an article I just read.

"The proper view of biblical inspiration is the orthodox view of the church, which says that the Bible is the plenary, verbally inspired Word of God."

Source: What are the different theories of biblical inspiration?

Now, I'm being super-honest here (I always seek to be honest; just mean I'm sharing some personal weakness here) -- I do not agree with the quote from the article above. Personally, my view looks more like a combination of all of the views presented in this article.

In the article, the author states: "...neo-orthodoxy denies that the Bible is the Word of God. Rather, the Bible is a witness, or mediator, to the Word of God, Jesus." This is my understanding. I know this will likely be a red flag for many--and I welcome their input into my life.

I do not agree with the author's interpretation of the neo-orthodoxy view that "... the transcendence of God denies any concept of natural theology (i.e., that God can be known through His creation)." -- I believe God can be known through His creation.

"The theory of limited inspiration says that God guided the human authors but allowed them freedom to express themselves in their works..." and I agree with this understanding--but I think "freedom to express themselves" means "retain the personality of the individual authors" as communicated by the orthodox view: "When the human authors were putting pen to paper, the Holy Spirit “carried them along” so that what they wrote were the “breathed-out” words of God. So, while the writings retain the personality of the individual authors (Paul’s style is quite different from that of James or John or Peter), the words themselves are exactly what God wanted written."

This is a tough subject! I do not think there is a correct answer which is supported by the Scriptures.

 

[John146]

In other words, it used the Alexandrian Texts and when they differed from the KJV, they would make slight changes to try and make it sound like the KJV. You know, like Satan did in the garden. Close is not good enough.

"The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."

There's the danger, making man the final authority on what God has said.

"Commissioned in 1975 by Thomas Nelson Publishers, 130 respected Bible scholars, church leaders, and lay Christians worked for seven years to create a completely new, modern translation of Scripture, yet one that would retain the purity and stylistic beauty of the original King James. With unyielding faithfulness to the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts, the translation applies the most recent research in archaeology, linguistics, and textual studies."

Source: https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-King-James-Version-NKJV-Bible/#vinfo

It is probably more accurate to state that the NKJV is more accurate than the KJV.

 

[trofimus]

Believe it or not: Size.

What about gospels?

 

[Grace777x70]

What about gospels?

Looks like it has to do with the date they were written...Gospels were written after some of Paul's epistles....James it looks like was the very first book written......but it seems to have mixed views on this as far as why the order for the gospels..

For now suffice it to say that the reason the Gospels are organized the way that they are was because that was historically the dominant view of the order in which they were written

Why Is the New Testament Organized This Way?

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

In other words, it used the Alexandrian Texts and when they differed from the KJV, they would make slight changes to try and make it sound like the KJV. You know, like Satan did in the garden. Close is not good enough.

"The reader is permitted to make up his or her own mind about the correct reading."

There's the danger, making man the final authority on what God has said.

You're making less and less sense, man.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

Anyone read a preface to the NKJV?




"In the preface to the 1611 edition, the translators of the Authorized Version, known popularly as the King James Bible, state that it was not their purpose 'to make a new translation ... but to make a good one better.'"


...


"In harmony with the purpose of the King James scholars, the translators and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures."

 

[hornetguy]

"The theory of limited inspiration says that God guided the human authors but allowed them freedom to express themselves in their works..." and I agree with this understanding--but I think "freedom to express themselves" means "retain the personality of the individual authors" as communicated by the orthodox view: "When the human authors were putting pen to paper, the Holy Spirit “carried them along” so that what they wrote were the “breathed-out” words of God. So, while the writings retain the personality of the individual authors (Paul’s style is quite different from that of James or John or Peter), the words themselves are exactly what God wanted written."

Yes.... I think that is why there are 4 gospels... 4 accounts of the life of Jesus, by 4 of the immediate disciples of Jesus... those guys that were THERE, that witnessed it all first-hand.
But they wrote it differently, each according to their own "perception" of the events.

That adds so much to the details of what Jesus life and ministry was truly like...

 

[hornetguy]

You're making less and less sense, man.

You are absolutely correct.... as difficult as that is to imagine...