PDA

View Full Version : Kjv



In Dust and Ashes
Dec 14th 2008, 08:53 PM
This discussion has probably come up before, so if it has, please just direct me to the thread so I can read and not be rehashing the old.

Some of my extended family members are KJV only people and get very upset if we talk about or use other versions. My immediate family giggles behind their backs because we think it's a little silly that they'd be so adamant against other translations. But really, I just don't understand the grounding for such a belief. I've heard several arguments made on either side of the issue and SOMEONE has their facts wrong because both sides contradict each other on factual issues (like who translated the various versions, what they translated them from, and how accurate each one is).

someone help me clear up this issue. Why is KJV so supperior to other translations?
My personal understanding is that NASB is the most literal and accurate translation in the English language.

Romber
Dec 14th 2008, 09:48 PM
Watch this:

http://creationisscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/king-james-version.html

Should answer all your questions

In Dust and Ashes
Dec 14th 2008, 10:13 PM
Have you ever read a book called King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism? it's arguing the other side of things. I haven't read it, but it has been recommended to me.

chad
Dec 14th 2008, 10:31 PM
Here is some history on how the KJV came about from the Wikipedia.

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII. In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

While the Authorized Version was meant to replace the Bishops' Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible) as the official version for readings in the Church of England, it was apparently (unlike the Great Bible) never specifically "authorized", although it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom.

However, the King's Printer issued no further editions of the Bishops' Bible; so necessarily the Authorized Version supplanted it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England.

In the Book of Common Prayer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer) (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible — the Epistle and Gospel readings — and as such was "authorized" by Act of Parliament.

In the United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States), the Authorized Version is known as the King James Version. The earliest appearance in print of the phrase "authorized version", to mean this particular version of the bible, was published in 1824.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-4) The phrase 'King James version' first appeared in print in 1884.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-5)


By the first half of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in current use in Protestant churches (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protestant_churches).

Over the course of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.

In most of the world, the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Press), Oxford University Press (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Press), HarperCollins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HarperCollins) and the Queen's Printers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen%27s_Printer) have the right to produce the Authorized Version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version)

Romber
Dec 14th 2008, 10:37 PM
Have you ever read a book called King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism? it's arguing the other side of things. I haven't read it, but it has been recommended to me.


No I haven't. Before I watched the video I wasn't even aware there were such discrepancies between Bible versions.

chad
Dec 14th 2008, 10:50 PM
Bibles Prior to the KJV

Despite legal prohibitions against translating the Latin Bible into vernacular languages, the followers of John Wycliffe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wycliffe) undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 15th century. These translations, usually dated to 1409, were banned due to their association with the Lollards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lollards).


The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated widely in manuscript form. Often these manuscript Bibles were imprinted with a date from before 1409 so as to avoid the legal ban.


In 1525, William Tyndale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale), an English contemporary of Luther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther), undertook a translation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible) of the New Testament. Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing Biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.


Despite some controversial translation choices, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.

With these translations lightly edited and adapted by Myles Coverdale (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myles_Coverdale), in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible).

This was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_England) during the reign of King Henry VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England).


When Mary I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_I_of_England) succeeded to the throne in 1553, she sought to return the English Church to the Roman Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country, some establishing an English-speaking colony at Geneva (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva).

Under the leadership of John Calvin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin), Geneva became the chief international centre of Reformed Protestantism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_Churches) and Latin biblical scholarship.These English expatriates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriates) undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible).


This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.

Soon after Elizabeth I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_I_of_England) took the throne in 1558, the flaws of both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible became painfully apparent.


In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops' Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops%27_Bible) - a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version. While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age - in part because the full Bible was only printed in lectern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lectern) editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.

Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version - small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rival Douay-Rheims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims) New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Roman Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.


In May 1601, King James VI of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England) attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Assembly_of_the_Church_of_Scotland) at St Columba's Church in Burntisland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burntisland), Fife (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife), at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language).[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/#cite_note-19) Two years later, he acceded to the throne of England as King James I of England.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorized_King_James_Version)

FaithfulSheep
Dec 14th 2008, 10:53 PM
As you probably can guess... this topic does get heated at times. Just a heads up for you.:hug:


This discussion has probably come up before, so if it has, please just direct me to the thread so I can read and not be rehashing the old.


If you look above the posting area there is a "search" feature. Here (http://bibleforums.org/search.php?searchid=3755305) are the results for searching that entail the KJV... some are not about this particular question, but it may help you find some answers in some of those threads.

Yukerboy
Dec 14th 2008, 10:55 PM
I become all things to all men.

I personally use the ESV, but if a person uses NIV, then I'll use the NIV, if a person uses the KJV, I'll use the KJV.

If a person uses the Book of Moroni, then I use....nah.

chad
Dec 14th 2008, 11:00 PM
If a person uses the Book of Moroni, then I use a lighter to set it on fire? nah. ;)




If a person uses the Book of Moroni, then I use....nah.

In Dust and Ashes
Dec 14th 2008, 11:01 PM
As you probably can guess... this topic does get heated at times. Just a heads up for you.:hug:

Thanks, I'll try to keep it on the cool side.

I've, honestly, done very little research into the topic myself, but I've gotten a lot input from others (my brother, most recently, whose in bible college). Whenever I view these debates from the outside like this, it always seems to be a matter of miscommunicated facts. For instance, some of what that guy said in the video definitely contradicts or leaves out other information I've heard.

by the way, is the "I give up" icon supposed to be a french dude? He's wearing a little hat.

PilgrimPastor
Dec 14th 2008, 11:17 PM
someone help me clear up this issue. Why is KJV so Superior to other translations?
My personal understanding is that NASB is the most literal and accurate translation in the English language.

In regard to translations, the KJV, in my opinion is probably the best English rendering. The nuance of the language is wonderful and more descriptive than many modern translations; more specific.

Now, better doesn't mean best and even best doesn't mean only. The argument for KJV only folks tends to center around the majority text being a better, non-corrupt, version of the original text, while the vaticanus text is corrupt or incomplete. The vaticanus text is what most modern translations are based on; most scholars believe these to be older texts and that is why they receive wide usage.

The KJV only camp is logical when it says that the KJV is the best, or preferred ENGLISH translation, where they really get off track is to suggest that is the only inspired version in English, and where they REALLY get off track is to suggest that it is the only inspired version...

The NIV is a good translation, the ESV is a good translation, and many others are as well. It awfully nice to speak a language where such an argument is a luxury that we can afford to have. With 100+ English translations available while many languages have 1 or none, it seems a little egocentric on our part to entertain such a debate... :hmm:

kenrank
Dec 15th 2008, 05:29 AM
No I haven't. Before I watched the video I wasn't even aware there were such discrepancies between Bible versions.

There are GREAT discrepancies in versions. The KJV, NKJV, The Scriptures, and many others are based on the Massoretic texts in the Hebrew, and the Received Texts for Greek. Both has passed the test of time, so to speak.

The problem with SOME of the other new versions is ideology. If a group has beliefs that are based on Calvinism, the bible they translate will lean in that direction. If they are Armenian, it will lean in THAT direction. The NIV is somewhat of an enigma, because translators holding different doctrinal positions translated various books. So one book might have been done by a dispensationalist while another was by one who was not. So these two books within the bible are literally at odds with each other. Odd...a good word. Some versions go "out of their way" to make the deity of Messiah go away. A good example of that is 1 Tim 3:16. There are 295 copies and fragments of this verse....all but 5 say Theos (God) was manifested in the flesh. 5 say he or whom...and many new versions go with he or whom over the 290 that say God. I have a problem with that. Then you have the "copyright" issue. Which means simply, that while the KJV is NOT copyrighted, all other new versions are. By >>LAW<< they can't say the same thing...they have to differ in enough places in order to get the copyright.

I was a KJV ONLY guy for a number of years, and there are many reasons why I still use it, along with The Scriptures, as the two I read the most. But the KJV is NOT perfect, it is a translation of perfect or near perfect texts, but it is still a translation.

An example...so I don't come off sounding like a "believe what I say even though I have no evidence" person? The word Easter appears in in Acts 12:4, but if you look it up in your Strongs, you will find...

G3957
πάσχα
pascha
pas'-khah
Of Chaldee origin (compare [H6453]); the Passover (the meal, the day, the festival or the special sacrifices connected with it): - Easter, Passover.

Easter and Passover are not the same holiday, despite Strong's including it above, Easter can land on the calender on a Sunday only, and fall from late March through early May. Passover lands on the same day every year. The "last Supper" was a Passover Sedar.

So, while I do believe the KJV is based on the inspired texts...I take the time to look up the words and make sure, that's all.

James of Sunshine
Dec 16th 2008, 04:22 AM
I used to be a solely KJV person. Other versions were practically evil in my estimate. My answer to what version I preferred would have been "the authorized version." I got over it. However, the arguments are valid, interesting and worth checking out.

Sirus
Dec 16th 2008, 06:44 AM
My personal understanding is that NASB is the most literal and accurate translation in the English language.
:2cents:

"is that NASB is the most literal and accurate translation in the English language" based on what I consider corrupt manuscripts. I know a Wycliffe translator and he doesn't consider the latest/supposedly oldest (very debatable) manuscripts corrupt. Yet he only recommends the NASB as a cross reference to other serious translations such as the KVJ, and ESV because of it's poor readablility and choppiness. I agree.

I have many translations for cross reference but I can learn the definition of a word just looking up all instances in the KJV, considering the context. The KJV is my goto always and if I could have only one, it would be the KJV hands down. Words are consistently translated throughout for thorough and complete word and phrase studies, which is not the case for any other translation.

Samsheep2
Dec 16th 2008, 01:46 PM
:2cents:...I have many translations for cross reference but I can learn the definition of a word just looking up all instances in the KJV, considering the context. The KJV is my goto always and if I could have only one, it would be the KJV hands down. Words are consistently translated throughout for thorough and complete word and phrase studies, which is not the case for any other translation.

Well said my friend, and the importance of selection has to do with the job at hand - if I were to send my g/son into the shed to get a saw and all I said was go get the 'saw' - then he would be confused; reason being I have all kinds of saws and for different purposes.
1.Skil saw, 2.Table saw, 3.Cut saw, 4.Chain saw, 5.Recip.saw, 6.coping saw, 7.hand saw, 8.trim saw, 9. scroll saw, 10. hack saw, 11.dovetail saw, 12. rip saw, 13. floorboard saw, 14.keyhole saw, 15.jig saw, 16.tile saw, ...and we could say more but one thing I have accompished by only saying to my g/son "go get me a saw" - it's called 'confusion'

Thank God after 40 years if I didn't know what/where/why the preserved word of God was I would of all men be 'foolish'.

God bless,

Sirus
Dec 17th 2008, 02:24 AM
That's not at all what I said, but thx!
I have a saw (kjv) that does it all!

Cara Lott
Dec 17th 2008, 03:21 AM
I use KJV. I have noticed that for memorizing verses, I remember them better and longer in KJV than any other translation I've used; some of my friends have said the same. My church and most other Bible study groups and clubs I've attended use translations other than KJV, so I often get a chance to compare it to other translations. If one can follow the Old English, I think the connotations and imagery of words in KJV are much more compelling and/or forceful (a good example of this is Rom. 6:15 -- in KJV Paul's exclamation after his question is translated "God forbid!" while it's translated as "By no means!" in NIV and ESV, "Certainly not!" in NKJV, "Of course not!" in NLT, and "May it never be!" in NASB to name a few.). While KJV is my preference, I'm not a KJV-only person. I often prefer to use a different translation (usually NIV or NLT) with new believers, children, and teens because KJV can often be difficult to follow (a lot of people I know get caught up on the thee's and thou's and words ending in "th"). It's no good studying a Bible you can't understand.

chad
Dec 17th 2008, 05:28 AM
My question regarding the KJV bible would be:

Would you dis-fellowship another believer from your church or study group for not using the KJV of the Bible.

If so why. And what verses in the bible would you use to justify dis-fellowship?


Chad :rolleyes:

vinsight4u8
Dec 17th 2008, 10:44 AM
Use the KJV for Deuteronomy 28:48 - linked to Jeremiah 28:14 and Jer. 30:6-9.

Try it again on Rev. 17 as to just how many will burn mystery, Babylon.

Use it on Daniel 7 as to how many visions are being shown in this one chapter.

mikebr
Dec 17th 2008, 12:47 PM
Save Yourself?


NASB *And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

NASU *And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

YLT *Also with many more other words he was testifying and exhorting, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation;"

KJV *And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Thanks to Project Peter for putting these together on another thread.

mikebr
Dec 17th 2008, 01:00 PM
I'm finding more and more that the KJV may be the worst translation out there.

Romber
Dec 17th 2008, 01:02 PM
I'm finding more and more that the KJV may be the worst translation out there.

Wait, I might of missed it, but how do you see this? I thought it was the most pure English translation

Sirus
Dec 18th 2008, 02:42 AM
I missed it too. What's the problem there?

Emanate
Dec 18th 2008, 05:18 PM
Save Yourself?


NASB *And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

NASU *And with many other words he solemnly testified and kept on exhorting them, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation!"

YLT *Also with many more other words he was testifying and exhorting, saying, "Be saved from this perverse generation;"

KJV *And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.

Thanks to Project Peter for putting these together on another thread.


The question would be which is the correct translation, not which translation fits our idea better. Maybe someone has that answer.

RogerW
Dec 18th 2008, 09:19 PM
I'm finding more and more that the KJV may be the worst translation out there.

I don't mind if someone feels their modern translation is the best, but what really makes my blood boil is when one feels the need to trash the KJV to justify their opinion. Funny thing about the KJV is that it has survived longer, and served its purpose of bringing many into the Kingdom far longer than any of these so-called superior modern translations. So argue for your modern translation, but don't do a hatchet job on the KJV because clearly there are still many of us who find it to be the most faithful, and reliable translation to date. Btw I am NOT a KJV onlyist! But I do recognize superior quality when compared to other translations.

Many Blessings,
RW

mikebr
Dec 18th 2008, 09:23 PM
I don't mind if someone feels their modern translation is the best, but what really makes my blood boil is when one feels the need to trash the KJV to justify their opinion. Funny thing about the KJV is that it has survived longer, and served its purpose of bringing many into the Kingdom far longer than any of these so-called superior modern translations. So argue for your modern translation, but don't do a hatchet job on the KJV because clearly there are still many of us who find it to be the most faithful, and reliable translation to date. Btw I am NOT a KJV onlyist! But I do recognize superior quality when compared to other translations.

Many Blessings,
RW


I'm not trashing it, well not really, I just don't bow down to it. I don't think its perfect. There are too many words that are simply miss translated. If it were perfect it wouldn't have this.

I can give examples.

Ascender
Dec 18th 2008, 09:29 PM
Just an observation and maybe someone knows the rationale...

Baptists used the Geneva Bible for decades and vehemently denied the King James as a valid Bible as it was Anglican and paid to be translated by a sinful King who created the state Church of England so he could get a divorce that the Catholic Church would not grant.

Sometime in the 1800's, 200 some years after the first release the KJV became the Baptist standard and the Geneva went to the dustbin of history.

:confused

theBelovedDisciple
Dec 18th 2008, 09:56 PM
I don't mind if someone feels their modern translation is the best, but what really makes my blood boil is when one feels the need to trash the KJV to justify their opinion. Funny thing about the KJV is that it has survived longer, and served its purpose of bringing many into the Kingdom far longer than any of these so-called superior modern translations. So argue for your modern translation, but don't do a hatchet job on the KJV because clearly there are still many of us who find it to be the most faithful, and reliable translation to date. Btw I am NOT a KJV onlyist! But I do recognize superior quality when compared to other translations.

Many Blessings,
RW
-------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not a KJV onlyist but personally I love the KJV... its what I cut my teeth on as a new Christian and would not want to read anything else. just my .02...... or .03 .. or whatever is in my pocket...lol..

Sirus
Dec 19th 2008, 05:07 AM
I'm not trashing it, well not really, I just don't bow down to it. I don't think its perfect. There are too many words that are simply miss translated. If it were perfect it wouldn't have this.

I can give examples.Big deal. ALL modern translations miss translate far more words, changing the meaning of the originals, and what's more, they are missing text and using corrupt text in other areas, so I hardly see your point.

Another major consideration is the search for God and His truth. Like Jesus speaking in parables so that not all would hear. People have a problem with but the truth is there for those that search the original languages. Anyone that thinks they are going to buy the truth from a christian book store and sit down and plainly read it in their language is sadly mistaken. If anyone understood anything about language translation they would understand that. Yes, this is true for the KJ too. It just takes a lot less work with the KJ because of how accurately and consistently it is translated throughout.

Tonton
Dec 19th 2008, 08:07 AM
Watch this:

http://creationisscience.blogspot.com/2008/12/king-james-version.html

Should answer all your questions

Thanks Romber - this is a good link.

The issue is not one of modern vs ancient translations, but about the credibility of manuscripts used.

Yes, modern translations uses more commonly understood words that are in use in the present era, and yes, old translations uses words that are often no longer in common use, or of which the meaning has evolved into something different, but to discredit a bible (the KJV that used the credible TEXUS RECEPTUS manuscripts) which translates a word to "untoward" whilst the modern translations (the NASB, NASU, YLT) translated it to "perverse" is reckless.

The modern versions, with NIV at the forefront of it, was translated from the corrupted Scriptus Vaticanus & Scriptus Siniactus manuscripts. Look at Romber's link.

This is important, because these modern versions perpetuates deceptions from hundreds of years ago.

God bless!
Anton