Christian Forums

There are many people who are convinced that the King James Version is the only Bible version that is accurate and every modern version is corrupt.  I find many issues with this statement on the surface. 

The first issue I have with this is that if the King James Bible version was intended to provide the scriptures to the people in their native language so they would be able to understand the word of God independent of a Priest or minister, and the English language has changed in 400 years, then it would seem reasonable to change the version for the very same reason of maintaining the capacity for independent study through the ability to understand scripture in the common language. 

The second issue I have with the King James version is that while it is promoted as a version that was created to be easy to understand, when compared with literature from the 17th century, it appears more difficult to understand than the common prose writing of the time. 

The third issue I have with the King James only argument is with King James himself who was very fond of the verse that described kings as Gods in Psalms 82:6 referencing the verse in a speech he gave to the Lords and Commons of the Parliament at White Hall (Broadview Anthology of Seventeenth Century Verse & Prose).  This makes me question the motivation in creating the King James when compared with someone like William Tyndale.  When compared with William Tyndale, King James would not one sacrifice to his standard of living and was very fond of his position as monarch; while, William Tyndale, on the other hand, struggled to translate the Bible into English, and was eventually martyred.   While the King James version may have used the work of William Tyndale in beginning production on the King James version, this does not prove accuracy or pure motivations.   

I think the most concerning suspicion of impure motivations behind the creation of the King James version, comes from the private writing of King James on the subject of Demonology, which he published.  Scripture does give us insight into the practice of demonology on certain occasions.  We are told that King Hezekiah's brother was passed through fire in 2 Kings 16:3.  But, no where near to the extent detailed by King James in the book demonology that is still in circulation and available on Amazon today. 

"I speak first of that part, wherein the Devil obliges himself to them by forms, I mean in what shape or fashion he shall come unto them, when they call upon him.  And by effects, I understand, in what special sort of sorcery he binds himself to be subject unto them.  The quality of these forms and effects, is less or greater, according to the skill and art of the magician.  For as to the forms, to some of the baser sort of them he obliges himself to appear at their calling upon him, by such a proper name which he shows to them, whether in likeness of dog, a cat, an ape, or such-like other beast; or else to answer by a voice only.  The effects are to answer to such demands, as concerns curing of diseases, their own particular menagerie: or such other base things as they require of him (note, I have directly changed spelling to modern English for readability, page 23).  I just truly question whether William Tyndale would have had such knowledge of the devil's system of hierarchy and have familiar knowledge of the methods for conjuring Satan for help as though one was calling a genie from a lamp.

It is also interesting to note how much easier this writing is to read, in comparison to the King James version, despite the difference in spelling.  For example, a direct quotation of the first line of text reads, "I speake first of that part, wherein the Deuill oblishes himselfe to them by formes, I meane..." 

As a result, I also question whether this difficulty in reading the King James version in comparison with other seventeenth century prose writing and his own, is not an act of high sorcery. 

So, then, what version is to be preferred?  Tyndale's?  I hardly think it easier to understand.  It is the founding document for the KJV - there is little difference between the two.

Will you have the Geneva Bible?  The people who put that together had their own atrocities.

Perhaps there is a certain methodology of translation you prefer?  word-to-word?  thought-to-thought?  paraphrase?  some hybrid?

Jarrod

Quote from: Wycliffes_Shillelagh on Sun Aug 09, 2015 - 10:08:43
So, then, what version is to be preferred?  Tyndale's?  I hardly think it easier to understand.  It is the founding document for the KJV - there is little difference between the two.

Will you have the Geneva Bible?  The people who put that together had their own atrocities.

Perhaps there is a certain methodology of translation you prefer?  word-to-word?  thought-to-thought?  paraphrase?  some hybrid?

Jarrod

I guess I should have included my preference in the statement.  Sorry bout that.  I don't think that this plays a real threat to context.  I do not use the KJV personally, but I do not think subtle evidence of modifying the English language from the one that the common people were used to using, is the same thing as saying that the KJV is corrupted.  I believe that this is also described in 2 Thessalonians 2:7 describes this phenomenon. 

"For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who now holds it back will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way."

Therefore, I do believe that He is able to hold the power of lawlessness back from corrupting scripture then and now.  However, I also find it important to have a sober estimate of ourselves and others (Romans 12:3); and, sometimes I find the argument in favor of the King James to step outside that.  Peace. 

I own a leather NKJV, I also now and again download the Bible Gateway app for my phone as there are many versions on there can can be compared.
There are so many different translations and styles out there; I think its hard to choose.

The Word of God, the Bible is no ordinary subject.

It's a Historical, Archaeological, Philological and other auxiliaty Sciences.
The ancient authors of Semitic tongues etc have certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain hyperbolic modes of expression and at times paradoxical used to express it's thought. Hebrew idoms and unwieldiness Aramaic expressions and flexibility. Greek-more vigorous means of expression.

I use the Authorised King James Bible with the words of Jesus in red as a good guide to look deeper into the word and foot notes are great, but as an understanding of the History is very important to come to understand things in depth.
I would say Latin would be the best Bible by far, because English is just rubbish that can be so vague and twisted around that it's become a disgrace to use nowadays.

I have fools come saying Latin is a dead language  it's a language that can't be bastardised like English, that one of it's great points, people think that dead means useless or just rubbish.

Words like wicked come to mind nowadays, it makes me feel sick to hear young people use the word to express something that has been twisted 180 degrees.
I seen a Catholic priest come out saying that the school kids and all of us were all Awesome and too turnaround and shake the hand of people around you and to say that they were awesome, I took grave offence to that !
The only thing that is Awesome to me is God Almighty and never anything other comes close to that.
Such things said like so are in fact the workings of Satan.

It has its errors for sure, but I had an experience with it that convinced me of a level of authority behind it. My friend equates it to Goliath's sword: meant for evil and oppression, but used instead by a righteous man of God to deliver Israel from that oppression, and do this I agree.

With that said, though, I mostly use ESV.

Bible types
Literal translations are
NAS
NKJV
KJV
RVS
Douay

Slightly less literal are
RSV

What is called Dynamic versions are
NIV
NAB

And the very Dynamic versions are
NJB
NEB
REB
CEV
TEV.

Quote from: Gentleman One on Wed Oct 21, 2015 - 03:57:08
I own a leather NKJV, I also now and again download the Bible Gateway app for my phone as there are many versions on there can can be compared.
There are so many different translations and styles out there; I think its hard to choose.

I have a 1611 KJV that I use for the lectern Bible, I bought it because it's one of the few that contain the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical books, if you prefer). If you spend some time in that Bible the Elizabethan English is not a problem at all. The KJV is worth it just for it's historical value alone, but the best translation for anybody is the one they will read.

As a staunch preterist, I have serious issues on "heaven" (the Greek word, ouranos) is translated into English in the following translations:

HCSB
NASB 1977
NASB
ISV

These translations have a eschatological agenda IMO.

Also I don't appreciate how Hebrews 9:8 is translated in the ESV,  NASB,  NASB 1977, and ISV.

And finally,  the NIV`s translation of Isaiah 51:16 misses the mark.

My translations according to preference:

1. KJV
2. YLT
3. NKJV
4. ESV

And I refuse to touch any of the others.

To re-iterate,  my choices are simple,  for a leather bound volume, I would choose between KJV,  NKJV, or ESV. With some reservations for the ESV.

Dynamic translations or paraphrased translations aren't even a consideration.

What the HCSB and NASB did to Matthew 24:30, imho,  unforgivable

Quote from: DaveRC on Fri Feb 03, 2017 - 22:24:52
To re-iterate,  my choices are simple,  for a leather bound volume, I would choose between KJV,  NKJV, or ESV. With some reservations for the ESV.

Dynamic translations or paraphrased translations aren't even a consideration.

What the HCSB and NASB did to Matthew 24:30, imho, is  unforgivable

Preterist Marcellus Kik on Matthew 24:30

The judgment upon Jerusalem was the sign of the fact that the Son of man was reigning in heaven. There has been misunderstanding due to the reading of this verse, as some have thought it to be 'a sign in heaven.' But this is not what the verse says; it says the sign of the son of Man in heaven. The phrase 'in heaven' defines the locality of the Son of Man and not of the sign. A sign was not to appear in the heavens, but the destruction of Jerusalem was to indicate the rule of the Son of Man in heaven."

"The apostle Paul states in the eleventh chapter of Romans that the fall of the Jews was a blessing to the rest of the world. He speaks of it as the enriching of the Gentiles and the reconciling of the world. The catastrophe of Jerusalem really signalized the beginning of a new and world-wide kingdom, marking the full separation of the Christian Church from legalistic Judaism. The whole system of worship, so closely associated with Jerusalem and the Temple, received, as it were, a death blow from God himself. God was now through with the Old Covenant made at Sinai: holding full sway was the sign of the New Covenant."  (ibid., pp. 137-138)

I do not like the NIV. AT ALL.


New International Version

I have put my words in your mouth and covered you with the shadow of my hand-- I who set the heavens in place, who laid the foundations of the earth, and who say to Zion, 'You are my people.'" Isaiah 51:16

VS

King James Bible

And I have put my words in thy mouth, and I have covered thee in the shadow of mine hand, that I may plant the heavens, and lay the foundations of the earth, and say unto Zion, Thou art my people. Isaiah 51:16

(Isaiah 65:17-25; 66:19-24; Matthew 5:17-18)

New International Version

For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written. Luke 21:22

VS

King James Bible

For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled. Luke 21:22

(Isaiah 61:1-2; Luke 4:17-19; Isaiah 63:1-6; Revelation 14:17-20)


The passages in the parenthesis place both verses from Isaiah and Luke in proper context.  The Days of Vengeance against the Old Covenant age (Deuteronomy 32:29,32,35-36,43; Isaiah 5; Daniel 12:1-7; Matthew 23:29-36; Luke 11:47-51; Romans 9:25-29; Thessalonians 2:14-16; Hebrews 10:28-31; Revelation 17:6; 18:20,24).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Good read.

Didja know that there IS a QUEEN James Bible?

Yup, sure is.

Quote from: jeager on Mon Feb 13, 2017 - 20:05:29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version

Good read.

Didja know that there IS a QUEEN James Bible?

Yup, sure is.

Yeah, it's been around for a while. The ones that I have seen has a rainbow colored cross on the front of it . A while back I was  curious about the claim that King James was bisexual and I  did a little research on the subject matter.  It seems that most historical scholars do assert that King James had male lovers. However, there are others that say it was only rumors started on King James to discredit the Bible...

Personally, I do think King James most likely had male lovers but what does that have to do with him commissioning the Bible?   

It was a great thing for him to have the bible translated to English.

The K.J.V. isn't a particularly good translation of the original texts.
If you care to just google it.
http://home.hiwaay.net/~wgann/sermons/kjv_translation.pdf
I prefer the New International Version myself.
It's the Bible we had to buy at Geneva College.
That Bible was our first text book and required reading.
Also required were numerous essays on Bible passages.
My final paper was huge and was placed in the Geneva main campus library
for students reference.
I'm kinda proud of that.
I earned by 2nd degree from Geneva in Pa.
My engineering degree came from Kent State in Ohio.
I'm thinking of going back to Kent State for a degree in counseling. (alcohol and drug abuse)
Retirement does not agree with me.

Just to demonstrate how the English language  has changed over time here is
the Lord's Prayer.

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;

Si þin nama gehalgod

to becume þin rice

gewurþe ðin willa

on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas

swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge

ac alys us of yfele soþlice

Yup! That IS English believe it or not.
In the 1600's.

And I see that "yup" is currently replacing "yes".   

Quote from: Jd34 on Sun Mar 19, 2017 - 15:08:51
And I see that "yup" is currently replacing "yes".   

Cept... Yep is more often from the ladies

Quote from: Rella on Sun Mar 19, 2017 - 15:17:02

Quote from: Jd34 on Sun Mar 19, 2017 - 15:08:51
And I see that "yup" is currently replacing "yes".   

Cept... Yep is more often from the ladies

Oh no, I've been using yep a lot lately. This gender stuff gets confusing. 

Quote from: Hexalpa on Sun Oct 25, 2015 - 07:26:29
The Word of God, the Bible is no ordinary subject.

It's a Historical, Archaeological, Philological and other auxiliaty Sciences.
The ancient authors of Semitic tongues etc have certain fixed ways of expounding and narrating, certain hyperbolic modes of expression and at times paradoxical used to express it's thought. Hebrew idoms and unwieldiness Aramaic expressions and flexibility. Greek-more vigorous means of expression.

I use the Authorised King James Bible with the words of Jesus in red as a good guide to look deeper into the word and foot notes are great, but as an understanding of the History is very important to come to understand things in depth.
I would say Latin would be the best Bible by far, because English is just rubbish that can be so vague and twisted around that it's become a disgrace to use nowadays.

I have fools come saying Latin is a dead language  it's a language that can't be bastardised like English, that one of it's great points, people think that dead means useless or just rubbish.

Words like wicked come to mind nowadays, it makes me feel sick to hear young people use the word to express something that has been twisted 180 degrees.
I seen a Catholic priest come out saying that the school kids and all of us were all Awesome and too turnaround and shake the hand of people around you and to say that they were awesome, I took grave offence to that !
The only thing that is Awesome to me is God Almighty and never anything other comes close to that.
Such things said like so are in fact the workings of Satan.

If you are going to go ancient, wouldn't Greek be better, since the NT was written in Greek?

I like the ESV because it is a readable word for word translation, and because it is the version my church uses.  But I also like the NASB because it is a little more accurate a word for word translation.

Quote from: jeager on Thu Mar 16, 2017 - 20:47:33
Just to demonstrate how the English language  has changed over time here is
the Lord's Prayer.

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum;

Si þin nama gehalgod

to becume þin rice

gewurþe ðin willa

on eorðan swa swa on heofonum.

urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg

and forgyf us ure gyltas

swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum

and ne gelæd þu us on costnunge

ac alys us of yfele soþlice

Yup! That IS English believe it or not.
In the 1600's.

Yikes, where is that from. The English language from the 1600s wasn't that different everywhere. For example from the 1611 KJV, Matthew chapter 6:

Quote9 After this maner therefore pray yee: Our father which art in heauen, hallowed be thy name.
10 Thy kingdome come. Thy will be done, in earth, as it is in heauen.
11 Giue vs this day our daily bread.
12 And forgiue vs our debts, as we forgiue our debters.
13 And lead vs not into temptation, but deliuer vs from euill: For thine is the kingdome, and the power, and the glory, for euer, Amen.

Quote from: jeager on Thu Mar 16, 2017 - 20:47:33That IS English believe it or not.  In the 1600's.

I do not believe it. I have a copy of words used in the original KJV 1611 in my study and yours above is not even close. See for yourself:

Quotehttp://greatsite.com/facsimile-reproductions/kingjames-1611.html

  The KJVO myth is phony as a Chevy Mustang. It has absolutely NO Scriptural support! That fact alone makes it false.

  The makers of the KJV themselves were NOT KJVO. Proof? Just read their preface, "To The Reader", they placed in the AV 1611, the original KJV. It's readily available online, on many sites.

  The KJV was made for the British of the 17th century, written in the vernacular & English style of that time. I believe that GOD causes/allows the changes in all active languages, & causes new translations of His word to be made in accordance with the changing languages. While the KJV was the most-modern English Bible translation of 400 years ago, it no longer is.

  I see no KJVOs will DARE respond to the FACT that the KJVO myth has no Scriptural support, as that fact proves their doctrine false.

Old thread, but it's hard for me to allow the illiteracy here go on like they know what they are talking about.

Before anyone should speak out against the 1611 KJV Bible, they should first see the following documented evidence about the 'revisionists' who hate the KJV on principle alone... like the British scholars Wescott and Hort who devised their corrupt new 1880's Greek New Testament text to counter the Traditional Greek text which the KJV used. And they were just the start of the false 'revisionist' movement against the Traditional Greek text.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArQH9Qb0tbY