how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?

Yes, you do have a warped sense of humor. A reasonable reply to your question would take a l-o-n-g time.
 
Upvote 0

throughfiierytrial

Truth-Lover
Supporter
Apr 7, 2014
2,836
794
✟516,876.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?
Texts or underlying manuscripts? For text differences alone you might try using Biblegateway for comparisons of your favorite verses and see how differently they are rendered. That might be a starting point.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, you do have a warped sense of humor. A reasonable reply to your question would take a l-o-n-g time.
upload_2021-10-5_6-53-26.png
An outline would be nice, friend.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
View attachment 306759 An outline would be nice, friend.

Even an outline of how the KJV differs from other translations that were done before it would be enormous. As I recall, the KJV translators gave credit in their preface to earlier translations. The KJV is also known as the Authorized Version; it was authorized by King James to formalize his concept of Christianity, naturally giving the ruler supreme authority and placing his personal Protestant doctrine above that of the Catholic church.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jamiec
Upvote 0

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
474
215
Scotland
✟42,255.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?
It was indebted to several Protestant versions - & also (though this is not mentioned in the "Preface to the Reader") - to the 1582 Rheims New Testament, a Catholic translation.

The Authorised Version (as we call it in Britain) owes a great deal to Tyndale as well. As might be expected.
 
Upvote 0

Daniel Marsh

Well-Known Member
Jun 28, 2015
9,748
2,615
Livingston County, MI, US
✟199,349.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Even an outline of how the KJV differs from other translations that were done before it would be enormous. As I recall, the KJV translators gave credit in their preface to earlier translations. The KJV is also known as the Authorized Version; it was authorized by King James to formalize his concept of Christianity, naturally giving the ruler supreme authority and placing his personal Protestant doctrine above that of the Catholic church.
outstanding, thanks Daniel
 
  • Agree
Reactions: jamiec
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Acts29

Active Member
Oct 24, 2021
287
76
50
Tennessee
✟23,633.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Honestly, I don't consider the KJV to be an English translation. "Spake," "Dost," "Goest," etc. These are not English words. It is an Aristocratic dialect of English, like Ebonics, that was never spoken by anyone outside of the arts. I never liked Shakespeare. Trying to make the scriptures "sound" pretty is missing the whole point to me. Give me the scriptures in plain English that is actually spoken please.
 
Upvote 0

jacks

Er Victus
Supporter
Jun 29, 2010
3,790
3,035
Northwest US
✟665,851.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
how do texts in KJV compare to other translations that were done before it?

This might partially answer your question. From the link.
The foundation for the English Bible was the Wycliffe Bible of 1384. Though it was translated from Latin rather than Hebrew and Greek and thus contained some textual errors, it was a masterpiece of translation work. Wycliffe and his editor John Purvey had a gift of molding the English language to fit the Bible. As we have seen, large numbers of words and phrases passed from the Wycliffe into the Tyndale and from there into the King James Bible.

The next important step in the progress of the English Bible was the publication of Tyndale’s masterpiece, based directly upon the Hebrew and the Greek.

The Tyndale Bible was by John Rogers completed after Tyndale’s death and appeared in the Matthew’s Bible. This went through various revisions, particularly the Great, the Bishops, and the Geneva, preparing the way for the King James Bible.

“Thus it came to pass, that the English Bible received its present form, after a fivefold revision of the translation as it was left in 1537 by Tyndale and Rogers. During this interval of seventy-four years, it had been slowly ripening, till this last, most elaborate, and thorough revision under King James matured the work for coming centuries”
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Honestly, I don't consider the KJV to be an English translation. "Spake," "Dost," "Goest," etc. These are not English words. It is an Aristocratic dialect of English, like Ebonics, that was never spoken by anyone outside of the arts. I never liked Shakespeare. Trying to make the scriptures "sound" pretty is missing the whole point to me. Give me the scriptures in plain English that is actually spoken please.

While I basically agree with you that trying to make the scriptures "sound" pretty is missing the whole point, you are wrong in saying that it is an Aristocratic dialect of English, like Ebonics, that was never spoken by anyone outside of the arts. It was intentionally written in the common language of early 17th Century English. It is indeed almost a foreign "artsy" language today, thereby misunderstood by many. I totally agree that trying to make the scriptures "sound" pretty is missing the whole point. It makes people feel "holy", even though the source languages -- ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek -- are "plain' (not fancy) languages.

I strongly suggest that you use a modern translation such as the NIV or the NET (my favorite). You can easily compare many translations at www.biblegateway.com to see which one resonates with you.
 
Upvote 0

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
474
215
Scotland
✟42,255.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Honestly, I don't consider the KJV to be an English translation. "Spake," "Dost," "Goest," etc. These are not English words. It is an Aristocratic dialect of English, like Ebonics, that was never spoken by anyone outside of the arts. I never liked Shakespeare. Trying to make the scriptures "sound" pretty is missing the whole point to me. Give me the scriptures in plain English that is actually spoken please.
In 1611, when that version was published, those grammatical forms were normal parts of written English.

The translators, who did their work from 1604 to 1611, can hardly be blamed for using the English of that period. In no sense can they be blamed for the developments in the English language that followed their own times. One might as well complain that Chaucer (1340-1400) failed to write in the English of the Victorian era.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0