Since the original KJV has so many flaws: Why do they keep printing it?

[Der Alte]

First, The articles at WIKI require sources and the sources are -placed at the bottom of each article .
Are you criticizing the sources?
If so, which of the sources do you take umbrage with?

I take umbrage at everything at Wiki. As I said, which you ignored, every article has a number of [edit] links anyone can post, change or delete anything at Wiki without review or control. I have done it several times to prove that it can be done. That sources are listed does not prove that any information in the article came from that source. Someone who is going to disseminate false information is going to make it look as credible as possible. They aren't going to say that what they post is false. If one does want to use Wiki, use it as a source to track down credible,, verifiable sources, then go to the primary source not what is posted at Wiki.

About Jewish ideas?
I studied the Bible for decades and see no basis for such ideas.
So to me that is all irrelevant.

Your irrelevant objection is noted. Jesus was a Jew, all of His disciples were Jews they all lived in Israel and were exposed to the views I quoted previously.
When Jesus taught about,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "thrown into the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment , suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. ​

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.

About excusable mistakes in translation, some are excusable while others are not.

How many semesters of Koine Greek do you have? How do you determine which translations are excusable and which are not?

 

[Radrook]

I really think that to portray the KJV as worse than some editions of the JWs' New World version is to overstate vastly whatever point you are wanting to make.

The KJV does have its strong points, as well as some archaisms.

The point I am trying to make is that revision is not an evil.
If done right, revision brings the revised version closer to the original.

 

[faroukfarouk]

The point I am trying to make is that revision is not an evil.
If done right, revision brings the revised version closer to the original.

Fair, general point. The King James was revised in 1624, and again in 1762 and also in 1769; the New King James was another sort of revision; and the KJ21 is another 'updating' (the KJ21 doesn't use the term 'revision'.)

 

[Radrook]

I take umbrage at everything at Wiki. As I said, which you ignored, every article has a number of [edit] links anyone can post, change or delete anything at Wiki without review or control. I have done it several times to prove that it can be done. That sources are listed does not prove that any information in the article came from that source. Someone who is going to disseminate false information is going to make it look as credible as possible. They aren't going to say that what they post is false. If one does want to use Wiki, use it as a source to track down credible,, verifiable sources, then go to the primary source not what is posted at Wiki.

Your irrelevant objection is noted. Jesus was a Jew, all of His disciples were Jews they all lived in Israel and were exposed to the views I quoted previously.
When Jesus taught about,

• “Then shall he say … Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "thrown into the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24​

These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned the existing Jewish view of eternal hell. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a fate worse than death or nonexistence. A fate worse than death is also mentioned in Hebrews 10:28-31.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment , suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. ​

Jesus used the word death 17 times in the gospels, if He wanted to say eternal death in Matt 25:46, that is what He would have said but He didn’t, He said “eternal punishment.” The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, they knew that everybody died; rich, poor, young, old, good, bad, men, women, children, infants and knew that it had nothing to do with punishment and was permanent. When Jesus taught “eternal punishment” they would not have understood it as death, it would have meant something worse to them.
…..Jesus knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, when Jesus taught about man’s eternal fate, such as eternal punishment, He would have corrected them. Jesus did not correct them, thus their teaching on hell must have been correct.

How many semesters of Koine Greek do you have? How do you determine which translations are excusable and which are not?

Your premise that one must personally know the original language in order to determine proper translation is flawed.
Research involving those who know the language and the consensus they reach is used to determine which translations fall short and which don't. That is the standard way to way to determine. If indeed your methodological recommendation were to be categorically imperatively applied then no one could reach any reliable conclusion because each would need to be an expert at whatever he is seeking to research in order to reach a conclusion.

About the WIKI, you are right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

About the Jewish traditions, well, I am not convinced that Jesus was speaking of a God who sends people to be eternally deep fried.
There are other more logical and more ethically acceptable ways to understand those scriptures.

 

[Radrook]

Fair, general point. The King James was revised in 1624, and again in 1762 and also in 1769; the New King James was another sort of revision; and the KJ21 is another 'updating' (the KJ21 doesn't use the term 'revision'.)

My question is why continue to print and distribute versions which have been proven misleading and flawed.

 

[faroukfarouk]

My question is why continue to print and distribute versions which have been proven misleading and flawed.

The original KJV is a collector's item that is not easily legible; there have been several revisions since 1611.

 

[Radrook]

The original KJV is a collector's item that is not easily legible; there have been several revisions since 1611.

Ah! As prized collectors' items. Thanks for the answer!

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

My question is why continue to print and distribute versions which have been proven misleading and flawed.

First, money (humanly speaking).
Second,
if you are in a famine, starving, and there's only bad food available at the only restaurant ,
will you eat what is available, or die instead ?

 

[Radrook]

First, money (humanly speaking).
Second,
if you are in a famine, starving, and there's only bad food available at the only restaurant ,
will you eat what is available, or die instead ?

Good point.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Ah! As prized collectors' items. Thanks for the answer!

You have your opinion; I have mine; we ought to leave it there.

 

[Der Alte]

Your premise that one must personally know the original language in order to determine proper translation is flawed.

Your premise that I said or implied "that one must personally know the original language in order to determine proper translation" is flawed. People can hold any opinion they want about the KJV but when someone gets on a public forum and charges that the KJV is full of errors, contradictions, inconsistencies etc. they should have some valid basis for making those claims. The only valid way to do that is to go back to the original languages not other translations.

Research involving those who know the language and the consensus they reach is used to determine which translations fall short and which don't. That is the standard way to way to determine.

Such as?

If indeed your methodological recommendation were to be categorically imperatively applied then no one could reach any reliable conclusion because each would need to be an expert at whatever he is seeking to research in order to reach a conclusion.

See my first comment above.

About the WIKI, you are right.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

As I said they may be a reference point to identify and find credible sources to support any given topic.

About the Jewish traditions, well, I am not convinced that Jesus was speaking of a God who sends people to be eternally deep fried.
There are other more logical and more ethically acceptable ways to understand those scriptures.

Whose logic? I wonder why virtually every ECF understood the passages to mean exactly what they say. For instances, all of the ECF who referred to Lazarus and the rich man considered it to factual and that the rich man was literally being tormented in flame.

–-Irenaeus [120-202 AD] Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning. [was a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John.]
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
Link: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
-– Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1 Chaper 11
On the Resurrection.“There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
-– Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.] Part First
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
-– The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
-–– Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

 

[BrianJK]

For me, it's the unicorns.

 

[Der Alte]

For me, it's the unicorns.

Do you know that "Abdul" is short for "Abdullah" and means slave of Allah?

 

[BrianJK]

Do you know that "Abdul" is short for "Abdullah" and means slave of Allah?

"Abdullah" means "Slave of God". Even Arabic speaking Christians use the Arabic word for God.

Abd simply means slave. Al-Masih means "The Messiah" or "The Christ". Hence Abdul Masih (when the words are put together) means "Slave of the Christ".

Source: I speak Arabic

 

[Der Alte]

"Abdullah" means "Slave of God". Even Arabic speaking Christians use the Arabic word for God.
Abd simply means slave. Al-Masih means "The Messiah" or "The Christ". Hence Abdul Masih (when the words are put together) means "Slave of the Christ".
Source: I speak Arabic

Abdullah is a direct Quranic name for boys that means “servant of Allah”, “slave of Allah”. It was the name of Prophet Muhammad’s father and the name of one of his sons, peace and blessings of Allah upon him and his family. It is mentioned directly twice in the Quran:
http://quranicnames.com/abdullah/

 

[BrianJK]

Abdullah is a direct Quranic name for boys that means “servant of Allah”, “slave of Allah”. It was the name of Prophet Muhammad’s father and the name of one of his sons, peace and blessings of Allah upon him and his family. It is mentioned directly twice in the Quran:
http://quranicnames.com/abdullah/

How do you say "Slave of God" in Arabic, if you're knowledgeable about such things?

 

[Der Alte]

How do you say "Slave of God" in Arabic, if you're knowledgeable about such things?

I am quite aware that Muslims. especially, and other Arabic speaking peoples say "Allah" when they refer to the creator. So in their minds when they say "Abdullah" they are saying slave of Allah. But in 1986 the Islamic controlled government of Malaysia banned "Allah" referring to God in Bibles and other Jewish and Christian writings.
.....Having said that I was listening to Christian radio in California in the early 90s. The announcer said something about the Quran that I did not believe so I went out and bought a Quran to see for myself. The verse was Sura 18:86. Further reading in the Quran and Hadith I came to the conclusion that the الله/Allah of the Quran is not the יהוה/Yahweh of the OT.

 

[BrianJK]

I am quite aware that Muslims. especially, and other Arabic speaking peoples say "Allah" when they refer to the creator. So in their minds when they say "Abdullah" they are saying slave of Allah. But in 1986 the Islamic controlled government of Malaysia banned "Allah" referring to God in Bibles and other Jewish and Christian writings.
.....Having said that I was listening to Christian radio in California in the early 90s. The announcer said something about the Quran that I did not believe so I went out and bought a Quran to see for myself. The verse was Sura 18:86. Further reading in the Quran and Hadith I came to the conclusion that the الله/Allah of the Quran is not the יהוה/Yahweh of the OT.

I agree that the god of the Quran is not the God of the Old Testament. Yet in English we use the same word. So it is in Arabic.

In any case, "Abdul" is not a contraction of "Abudllah", but simply means "Slave of the...".

To make any sense, "Abdul" must be followed by something. It is most commonly used in Muslim names. Muslims have 99 names or titles for their god, such as "the Merciful" or "the Powerful". So "Abdul Rahim" would mean "Slave of the Merciful" and "Abdul Aziz" would mean "Slave of the Powerful". These are simply Arabic phrases formed into names.

In Egypt, it is common for Christians to use titles or names in this manner in the same language. So "Abdul Masih" means "Slave of the Messiah". "Abdul Thuluth" means "Slave of the Trinity". And "Abdul Saleeb" means "Slave of the Cross".

These are simply Arabic phrases, and portend nothing of Muslims or their religion.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree that the god of the Quran is not the God of the Old Testament. Yet in English we use the same word. So it is in Arabic.
In any case, "Abdul" is not a contraction of "Abudllah", but simply means "Slave of the...".
To make any sense, "Abdul" must be followed by something. It is most commonly used in Muslim names. Muslims have 99 names or titles for their god, such as "the Merciful" or "the Powerful". So "Abdul Rahim" would mean "Slave of the Merciful" and "Abdul Aziz" would mean "Slave of the Powerful". These are simply Arabic phrases formed into names.
In Egypt, it is common for Christians to use titles or names in this manner in the same language. So "Abdul Masih" means "Slave of the Messiah". "Abdul Thuluth" means "Slave of the Trinity". And "Abdul Saleeb" means "Slave of the Cross".
These are simply Arabic phrases, and portend nothing of Muslims or their religion.

I stand corrected. I was misinformed about "Abdul." I don't have a problem with the other "Abdul" names. I imagine that "Abdul Thuluth" and "Abdul Saleeb" would cause some right nasty confrontations among Muslims.

 

[BrianJK]

I stand corrected. I was misinformed about "Abdul." I don't have a problem with the other "Abdul" names. I imagine that "Abdul Thuluth" and "Abdul Saleeb" would cause some right nasty confrontations among Muslims.

I apologize if I come across as overly pedantic or if the text below my name was alarming. I've spent many years studying foreign languages and given a few words to express something about myself, I often incorporate this learning into such expressions, linguistics being a substantial part of my life.