Understanding the KJV

[now faith]

By comparing both sides and figuring out which one both makes more sense and which one has a better grasp on reality.


Their view on the transmission and "corruption" of Scripture is incorrect in places, their theology is slightly liberal, two different statements. The Vulgate doesn't really factor into their view on the transmission of Scripture. A modern position on the Vulgate and its text type (Western) is that it varies so much from both the Byzantine and Alexandrian types this is largely due to the fact that it was continually produced while both of the other main branches were either snuffed out in the case of the Alexandrian, or severely confined in audience/copying in the case of the Byzantine, this is due to the rise of Islam in the East.

As to what data W&H actually used that differs from what the KJV translators (also Anglican and slightly liberal) had was access to Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and I think they had another Great Codex, but it was by the general consensus and antiquity of those Codices that they formulated their theory and produced their text.


Now you're just putting words into my mouth, and not very well I might add, are you even trying to represent what I'm saying in any reasonable fashion? Textual Criticism from Erasmus through to Nestle and Aland, including that done by Scrivner has been a largely liberal leaning preoccupation as have some translations. "false scripture" and "liberal agenda" are loaded terms for what is being discussed here, considering the nature and difficulties of the Science/Art of textual criticism you cannot use these terms and have valid points to make. We do not know the theological positions of those who created the data that we need to sift through and so postulations of such a nature (linking the Alexandrian text-type to Origen because they are both associated with Alexandria for example) are preposterous and unfounded.

Do you think there is any occult background in Westcott and Hort?

 

[Keachian]

Do you think there is any occult background in Westcott and Hort?

You want to present any reason why I should think such?

 

[1watchman]

This thread has digressed into which Bible is best, and which Bible one prefers, etc. Perhaps one should start a new thread about What Bible I Like???

The original post here is a valid statement about understanding and appreciating the KJV for those who want to get a good explanation of that Version.

 

[alton3]

The 1611 Authorised (or, "King James") Version, so called because it was authorised for use in the Church of England (and for no other reason), was a revision of the revised Bishops' Bible (1568/1602), the 2nd translation authorised for use in the C.o.E., which was commissioned in 1602 to replace the revised Geneva Bible (1560/1587) favoured by the Puritans. The BB failed to do this, but the AV eventually did the trick.

The Bishops' Bible was intended to replace the last printing of John Rogers' "Matthew" Bible (1549), the first translation authorised by the Crown (in 1537). Tyndale-Coverdale-Rogers completed Tyndale-Coverdale (1535), and Coverdale completed Tyndale (1534).

The 1769 "standard" KJV is a revision of a revision of a revision (and so on) of itself; the 1611 AV was a revision of a revision; the 1568 BB was a revision of a revision, &c. - even Tyndale managed to put out two revisions of his own 1526 New Testament (1534/1536) before he was executed for heresy.

Tyndale's gross error? Translating the Greek ekklesia as congregation instead of church. King Jimmy agreed to sanction a new version (the AV is very improperly called a translation) only if the "translators" agreed to use church in place of congregation.

I've always found this amusing because the "KJV" crowd tends to come from independent congregations that have absolutely no vested interest in King James' sensibilities as the supreme head of the Church of England.

 

[now faith]

The 1611 Authorised (or, "King James") Version, so called because it was authorised for use in the Church of England (and for no other reason), was a revision of the revised Bishops' Bible (1568/1602), the 2nd translation authorised for use in the C.o.E., which was commissioned in 1602 to replace the revised Geneva Bible (1560/1587) favoured by the Puritans. The BB failed to do this, but the AV eventually did the trick.

The Bishops' Bible was intended to replace the last printing of John Rogers' "Matthew" Bible (1549), the first translation authorised by the Crown (in 1537). Tyndale-Coverdale-Rogers completed Tyndale-Coverdale (1535), and Coverdale completed Tyndale (1534).

The 1769 "standard" KJV is a revision of a revision of a revision (and so on) of itself; the 1611 AV was a revision of a revision; the 1568 BB was a revision of a revision, &c. - even Tyndale managed to put out two revisions of his own 1526 New Testament (1534/1536) before he was executed for heresy.

Tyndale's gross error? Translating the Greek ekklesia as congregation instead of church. King Jimmy agreed to sanction a new version (the AV is very improperly called a translation) only if the "translators" agreed to use church in place of congregation.

I've always found this amusing because the "KJV" crowd tends to come from independent congregations that have absolutely no vested interest in King James' sensibilities as the supreme head of the Church of England.

It turns out that I was wrong on my reasoning for Church in the King James,it was Tyndales error as you say Jimmy agreed to that I would dispute.

For now on this well debated subject all I can do is recommend a study of the differences between Text us Receptus,Majority Text,and Critical Text.
There are to many omissions to list from the Text of the King James many of the changes insult the deity of Christ.
But do not take my word or dispute it either,you can find all the omissions on Wikipedia where they have
All three listed in order.

 

[Skala]

One can surely choose whatever they wish for a Bible, but the paper posted was a response, I think, to help those who are unsure about the KJV having heard some people say it is "horrible" and not a worthy Version. Some of us believe it is a very worthy Version, and more close to the mind of God than many of the various renderings, appearing every few years to please the flesh. So, we can just leave this subject at that, and one can read anything they wish.

When the KJV appeared, with its different renderings from what already existed, did it appear to please the flesh?

 

[Keachian]

When the KJV appeared, with its different renderings from what already existed, did it appear to please the flesh?

It's certainly pleasing a lot of flesh these days as those who hold it to be Inspired mercilessly attack the word of God.

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

I was raised old school Independent Fundamental Baptist, saved there, Baptised there, taught my memory verses there. KJV stance so hard you would have thought that is what Jesus spoke, and the Bible originally was wrote in. As stated if you were raised with it, taught it in Sunday school, Preached it in sermons, and your daily devotions at home were from it, it becomes a literal second tongue to you. That being said I do enjoy studying from some of the newer translations, but, they seem foreign to me. But the first time I picked up a NKJV Bible I thought God had blessed me beyond belief. I had always despised the shakespearean thees thous and eths. The NKJV keeps the flow I was familiar and comfortable with, but disposes of shakespeare..

 

[JoshuaDaryl]

Isaiah 40 :8
The grass withers, the flower fades,
But the word of our God stands forever.”

Matthew 24:35
35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away.

Psalm 12:6-7
6 The words of the Lord are pure words,
Like silver tried in a furnace of earth,
Purified seven times.
7 You shall keep them, O Lord,
You shall preserve them from this generation forever.

Psalm 119:152
152 Concerning Your testimonies,
I have known of old that You have founded them forever.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 For[a] I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book; 19 and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away[c] his part from the Book[d] of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

John 1:1-51
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend[a] it.

Psalm 119:89
89 Forever, O Lord,
Your word is settled in heaven

Psalm 119:160
160 The entirety of Your word is truth,
And every one of Your righteous judgments endures forever.

Job 42:2
2 “I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

1 Timothy 6:3-5
3 If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, 5 useless wranglings[a] of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain. From such withdraw yourself.

Romans 15:4
4 For whatever things were written before were written for our learning, that we through the patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.

Romans 3:2
2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the oracles of God.

John 21:25
25 And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.

John 16:13
13 However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.

we need to trust God about the scriptures, learn to pray in the Spirit, and study in the Spirit