Authorised King James Version
- Thread starter Thunderchild
- Start date
- Status
Hmmmmm.... All I saw were all the inacuracies and ADDITIONS that were put into the KJV.
Scary! It is amazing how much was added between the 400-500 years when you compare the older manuscripts to those late ones!The argument is just as valid either way!
Upvote
0
I don't have Enghlish as mother language so I don't have an opinion in this...but in my country it's a fight between two Swedish Bibles too. So can somebody in an EASY way tell em what this fight is sbout? What makes the people who like KJV into a fight?
Upvote
0
The reason Strong's (and most other major study tools) are linked to the KJV is it is the only version not copyrighted. This means they can use it and quote it without having to pay any royalties or copyright fees.
So that is a prety weak argument. It is merely a financial decision.
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,121
- 5,613
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Wave, I think most of it has to do with the fact that the King James version was the only English-language Bible that was in major use between 1611 and 1900, or at least for Protestants anyway.
During that 300-year period, the KJV was invested with a near-mythic "infallibility" in the popular imagination. People got the idea that it was the only version that had ever existed, and in some cases, people without much of an education thought that the KJV had existed during the time of Abraham and Moses.
After 1900, new archaeological finds had uncovered new manuscripts of Biblical books, and this gave rise to newer translations in English that more accurately reflected the broader base of manuscript comparison.
However, by this time, many English-speaking Protestants had become so devoted to the archaic old KJV that they refused to give any other translation any credibility (the New International Version is particularly reviled). In the case of American Fundamentalists especially, a near-worship of the King James Version had arisen, furthered by the immense popularity of Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible, which was a King James Version with Scofield's dispensationalist theological footnotes added.
So, the situation today consists of those who believe the KJV to be the "only" Bible, and those who accept other translations as being legitimate. The fact is, NO translation is perfect; but very few modern English speakers have the education or the inclination to learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and so they must rely on English translations.
This is not entirely confined to Protestants, though---I know of at least one Catholic author (admittedly on the fringe) who insists that the old 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible (a Catholic English translation) is the "only" Bible.
Which two Swedish Bibles are disputed over, if I may ask, and what dates were they published? I'm very curious.
During that 300-year period, the KJV was invested with a near-mythic "infallibility" in the popular imagination. People got the idea that it was the only version that had ever existed, and in some cases, people without much of an education thought that the KJV had existed during the time of Abraham and Moses.
After 1900, new archaeological finds had uncovered new manuscripts of Biblical books, and this gave rise to newer translations in English that more accurately reflected the broader base of manuscript comparison.
However, by this time, many English-speaking Protestants had become so devoted to the archaic old KJV that they refused to give any other translation any credibility (the New International Version is particularly reviled). In the case of American Fundamentalists especially, a near-worship of the King James Version had arisen, furthered by the immense popularity of Cyrus Ingersoll Scofield's Scofield Reference Bible, which was a King James Version with Scofield's dispensationalist theological footnotes added.
So, the situation today consists of those who believe the KJV to be the "only" Bible, and those who accept other translations as being legitimate. The fact is, NO translation is perfect; but very few modern English speakers have the education or the inclination to learn Biblical Hebrew and Greek, and so they must rely on English translations.
This is not entirely confined to Protestants, though---I know of at least one Catholic author (admittedly on the fringe) who insists that the old 1609 Douay-Rheims Bible (a Catholic English translation) is the "only" Bible.
Which two Swedish Bibles are disputed over, if I may ask, and what dates were they published? I'm very curious.
Upvote
0
Definition of batizo(transliterated) Strong's number 907
1.to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2.to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3.to overwhelm
Not to be confused with 911, bapto. The clearest example that shows the meaning of baptizo is a text from the Greek poet and physician Nicander, who lived about 200 B.C. It is a recipe for making picklesand is helpful because it uses both words. Nicander says that inorder to make a pickle, the vegetable should first be 'dipped'(bapto) into boiling water and then 'baptised' (baptizo) in thevinegar solution. Both verbs concern the immersing of vegetables in asolution. But the first is temporary. The second, the act of baptising the vegetable, produces a permanent change.
I see no mention of sprinkling or pouring here.
Upvote
0
New Version Translators Become the Strongest KJV Advocates
Most new version translators do not believe that God literally spoke every word of the Bible or that He promised to preserve every word, word for word. They simply feel they need to convey the "message" of the Bible. However, there are some who do believe in the inspiration of Scripture and they always end up walking away from their new version and embracing the King James Version.
The first of these men was Dean John William Burgon. Burgon worked with Westcott and Hort on the English Revised Version. He stayed with the committee throughout the entire translation effort, and upon its completion, he wrote a series of articles and books explaining why Westcott and Hort and the other members of the English Revised Version used a faulty text and faulty methods, and why the King James Bible was perfect.
Dean Bergon's writings persuaded the people of England to reject Westcott and Hort and to reject the English Revised Version. His writings have caused many scholars in America to reject the Westcott/Hort text at least in name. And that is why they had to come up with the Nestle's text as a means of deceiving us fundamentalists into thinking that they were not translating from the Westcott/Hort text.
The first modern English Bible to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. I previously mentioned that Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.
Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:
I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.
Most new version translators do not believe that God literally spoke every word of the Bible or that He promised to preserve every word, word for word. They simply feel they need to convey the "message" of the Bible. However, there are some who do believe in the inspiration of Scripture and they always end up walking away from their new version and embracing the King James Version.
The first of these men was Dean John William Burgon. Burgon worked with Westcott and Hort on the English Revised Version. He stayed with the committee throughout the entire translation effort, and upon its completion, he wrote a series of articles and books explaining why Westcott and Hort and the other members of the English Revised Version used a faulty text and faulty methods, and why the King James Bible was perfect.
Dean Bergon's writings persuaded the people of England to reject Westcott and Hort and to reject the English Revised Version. His writings have caused many scholars in America to reject the Westcott/Hort text at least in name. And that is why they had to come up with the Nestle's text as a means of deceiving us fundamentalists into thinking that they were not translating from the Westcott/Hort text.
The first modern English Bible to be accepted by evangelicals and fundamentalist Christians was Philips' translation. I previously mentioned that Mr. Philips sat in his living room and talked to the ghost of C. S. Lewis. Well, it would appear that Lewis' ghost did not do a very good job in assisting Phillips because J.B. Philips' diary contains a confession that he had perverted the Word of God and that the King James Bible was the superior Bible.
Later, Dr. Frank Logsdon, the chairman of the New American Standard translation committee, became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He renounced his own translation methods. He renounced his own Bible that he was the chairman of and he became an avid advocate of the King James Bible. He said the following in his public statement of disassociation from the New American Standard:
I must under God renounce every attachment to the New American Standard Version. I'm afraid I'm in trouble with the Lord. We laid the groundwork; I wrote the format; I helped interview some of the translators; I sat with the translators; I wrote the preface... I'm in trouble; I can't refute these arguments; its wrong, terribly wrong... The deletions are absolutely frightening there are so many ... Are we so naive that we do not suspect Satanic deception?
Upon investigation, I wrote my dear friend, Mr. Lockman, [Mr. Lockman owned the publishing company that published the NASV] explaining that I was forced to renounce all attachment to the NASV.
Upvote
0
Check the standard Greek-English Lexicons:
1. Bauer-Arndt-Gingrich-Danker
2. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains, 2 vol.) - Louw-Nida
3. Liddell-Scott-Jones (LSJ)
Upvote
0
You are exactlyl correct about the definition of baptizo. It is to fully immerse, to plunge, to make whelmed, dunk completely under.
There is no way that you can get the idea of sprinkling from this word, unless you just want to go against what the word itself means.
There is no way that you can get the idea of sprinkling from this word, unless you just want to go against what the word itself means.
Upvote
0
Archaic Words
Yes, you read right. Archaic words are a reason why the King James Bible is superior. Many in our day complain that there are archaic words in the King James Bible. This is one reason they give to support the retranslation of the Bible. They claim that we need to retranslate the archaic words to make them understandable in our generation.
What they often do not realize is that most of those archaic words found in the KJV were archaic in 1611 when they were chosen. The translators understood that the they could not honestly call their translation the "Word of God" unless it were completely accurate. Therefore, they used archaic, out of date words that people would have to look up in a dictionary because the more "modern" and "easier to understand" words would have resulted in an inaccurate translation. They made this decision because they, unlike modern translators, believed that God wrote the very words. The King James Bible translators could have mistranslated using words that would have been easily understood, but instead, they choose to use the very words of God.
Yes, you read right. Archaic words are a reason why the King James Bible is superior. Many in our day complain that there are archaic words in the King James Bible. This is one reason they give to support the retranslation of the Bible. They claim that we need to retranslate the archaic words to make them understandable in our generation.
What they often do not realize is that most of those archaic words found in the KJV were archaic in 1611 when they were chosen. The translators understood that the they could not honestly call their translation the "Word of God" unless it were completely accurate. Therefore, they used archaic, out of date words that people would have to look up in a dictionary because the more "modern" and "easier to understand" words would have resulted in an inaccurate translation. They made this decision because they, unlike modern translators, believed that God wrote the very words. The King James Bible translators could have mistranslated using words that would have been easily understood, but instead, they choose to use the very words of God.
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
filosofer,
I checked the other lexicons you mentioned and the very clearly state to "dip" or "immerse". They even mention to "flood". Still seems pretty clear that "baptizo" means full immersion.
I checked the other lexicons you mentioned and the very clearly state to "dip" or "immerse". They even mention to "flood". Still seems pretty clear that "baptizo" means full immersion.
Upvote
0
You need to read more about the history of the KJV. It was written for the masses. The translators preface is in this link that i am posting. Here is a quote from it also.....
http://ebible.org/bible/kjv/Preface.htm
Sounds alot like the problems you have with newer versions were also voiced by scholars at that time.
Upvote
0
This is another quote from the translators preface to the KJV 1611. Sounds like he used the same argument to defend the KJV that you villify others for using to defend newer translations.
Upvote
0
The King James Bible uses the archaic words, "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye." Some show their own stupidity by claiming not to understand the meaning of these words.
The truth is that the ordinary Englishman did not use these words in the common, every day, language of 1611 when the KJV was translated. So why the choice of "thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye?" "Thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye" all mean "you." So why not just say "you?" Because "you" can be either singular or it can be plural.
There are times when the reader can not properly understand the meaning of a passage unless he knows for sure if the personal pronoun "you" is addressed to an individual or to a group. Usually, this can be determined by the context of the passage. Other times it can not. By using "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye" instead of "you" the KJV insures that the reader is never in doubt as to who a statement is addressed to.
For reference, all of the personal pronouns that start with the letter "T" are singular and all personal pronouns that start with "Y" are plural. So that would mean that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular while the pronoun "ye" is plural.
The truth is that the ordinary Englishman did not use these words in the common, every day, language of 1611 when the KJV was translated. So why the choice of "thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye?" "Thee," "thou," "thy" and "ye" all mean "you." So why not just say "you?" Because "you" can be either singular or it can be plural.
There are times when the reader can not properly understand the meaning of a passage unless he knows for sure if the personal pronoun "you" is addressed to an individual or to a group. Usually, this can be determined by the context of the passage. Other times it can not. By using "thee," "thou," "thy," and "ye" instead of "you" the KJV insures that the reader is never in doubt as to who a statement is addressed to.
For reference, all of the personal pronouns that start with the letter "T" are singular and all personal pronouns that start with "Y" are plural. So that would mean that "thee," "thou," and "thy" are singular while the pronoun "ye" is plural.
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
GOD, LORD, God, Lord
The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts refer to God by three different Hebrew names. The first is Elohim, it appears approximately 2,500 times in the Hebrew. The second is Jehovah which appears about 7,000 times. The third name is Adonai which appears around 300 times.
Elohim means "The Strong and Powerful God" or the "Almighty God." Also, the name Elohim is unique because it is a plural word that is used to describe a singular entity. This is because God is a trinity; i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Whenever the Old Testament Hebrew text adresses God by the name Elohim the King James translators use the English name "God." So whenever you see the name "God" spelled with a capitol "G" and a lower case "od" you know the Hebrew contained the name Elohim.
Elohim is a descriptive name. God's proper name is Jehovah. Whenever the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah the King James translators would use the English names "LORD" or "GOD." So whenever you see the names "LORD" or "GOD" in all capitol letters you know that the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah.
A third name used for God was Adonai which means "master" or "soveriegn." The King James always translates Adonai with the name "Lord." So whenever you see the name "Lord" with a capitol "L" and a lower case "ord" you know that the Hebrew contained the name Adonai.
An illustration of this is Joshua 7:7, "And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord GOD, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!" Understanding the names of God we can understand that in the Hebrew this passage reads, "And Joshua said, Alas, O sovereign Master Jehovah, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to the strong and powerful Almighty Triune God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!"
There are also times when the Hebrew names Elohim and Adonai refered to pagan deities. In these cases the KJV translators translated "god" and "lord" in all lower case. This was to distinguish the times these names were used to refer to Jehovah and when they were used in reference to a pagan idol.
The new versions simply do not pay this necessary attention to detail. This is important because each name has a significant meaning and that is the reason why the Hebrew's used three different names for God. To translate all three DIFFERENT names in the haphazard fashion of the new versions results in the alteration of the context of several passages. With the King James Bible, the Hebrew name used for God and the resultant context are always clear.
The Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts refer to God by three different Hebrew names. The first is Elohim, it appears approximately 2,500 times in the Hebrew. The second is Jehovah which appears about 7,000 times. The third name is Adonai which appears around 300 times.
Elohim means "The Strong and Powerful God" or the "Almighty God." Also, the name Elohim is unique because it is a plural word that is used to describe a singular entity. This is because God is a trinity; i.e. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Whenever the Old Testament Hebrew text adresses God by the name Elohim the King James translators use the English name "God." So whenever you see the name "God" spelled with a capitol "G" and a lower case "od" you know the Hebrew contained the name Elohim.
Elohim is a descriptive name. God's proper name is Jehovah. Whenever the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah the King James translators would use the English names "LORD" or "GOD." So whenever you see the names "LORD" or "GOD" in all capitol letters you know that the Hebrew contained the name Jehovah.
A third name used for God was Adonai which means "master" or "soveriegn." The King James always translates Adonai with the name "Lord." So whenever you see the name "Lord" with a capitol "L" and a lower case "ord" you know that the Hebrew contained the name Adonai.
An illustration of this is Joshua 7:7, "And Joshua said, Alas, O Lord GOD, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!" Understanding the names of God we can understand that in the Hebrew this passage reads, "And Joshua said, Alas, O sovereign Master Jehovah, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people over Jordan, to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? would to the strong and powerful Almighty Triune God we had been content, and dwelt on the other side Jordan!"
There are also times when the Hebrew names Elohim and Adonai refered to pagan deities. In these cases the KJV translators translated "god" and "lord" in all lower case. This was to distinguish the times these names were used to refer to Jehovah and when they were used in reference to a pagan idol.
The new versions simply do not pay this necessary attention to detail. This is important because each name has a significant meaning and that is the reason why the Hebrew's used three different names for God. To translate all three DIFFERENT names in the haphazard fashion of the new versions results in the alteration of the context of several passages. With the King James Bible, the Hebrew name used for God and the resultant context are always clear.
Upvote
0
So, you looked at every occurrence of the word BAPTIZW, and in every context you could substitute "immerse"? How is Mark 7:3-4 translated in several different Bibles?
Upvote
0
Wolseley
Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu
- Feb 5, 2002
- 21,121
- 5,613
- 63
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
You're correct; however, see Didache, 7, Letter of Cornelius of Rome to Fabius of Antioch (as quoted by Eusebius, 6,43,14), and Letter of Cyprian of Carthage to Magnus, 69 (76 Migne), 12, for examples of aspersion and infusion in actual practice.
My apologies for any unclarity.
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
Italics
Whenever you translate from one language to another there will be times when the words do not flow as well in the second language as they did in the original language. When this happens, translators will often insert a word and/or words into a phrase so that the phrase will read better. Whenever the KJV translators added a word in this fashion they always placed the added word in italics. They did this so the English reader would know that that particular word was not in the Greek or the Hebrew.
An example of this would be John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Notice that the word "must" is in italics. This indicates that the word "must" was not in the original Greek but was rather added by the KJV translators.
In the new versions, italics are not used. When the new version translators insert words into the text they make no effort whatsoever to seperate THEIR ADDITION from the rest of the text. Therefore, the reader of a new version does not know that the word was not in the original text. The unsuspecting reader will then read the words of men and assume them to be the words of God. This will never happen when you read the KJV because the words of the translators are seperated from the words of God as contained in the original by the use of italics.
The italicized words in the KJV never alter the meaning of the text. They serve only as enhancers which cause the text to flow better in the English language. Nontheless, the translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelaton 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics. The translators of the new versions are not honest enough to do this. Instead, THEIR words are printed as equal with God's words.
Whenever you translate from one language to another there will be times when the words do not flow as well in the second language as they did in the original language. When this happens, translators will often insert a word and/or words into a phrase so that the phrase will read better. Whenever the KJV translators added a word in this fashion they always placed the added word in italics. They did this so the English reader would know that that particular word was not in the Greek or the Hebrew.
An example of this would be John 3:30, "He must increase, but I must decrease." Notice that the word "must" is in italics. This indicates that the word "must" was not in the original Greek but was rather added by the KJV translators.
In the new versions, italics are not used. When the new version translators insert words into the text they make no effort whatsoever to seperate THEIR ADDITION from the rest of the text. Therefore, the reader of a new version does not know that the word was not in the original text. The unsuspecting reader will then read the words of men and assume them to be the words of God. This will never happen when you read the KJV because the words of the translators are seperated from the words of God as contained in the original by the use of italics.
The italicized words in the KJV never alter the meaning of the text. They serve only as enhancers which cause the text to flow better in the English language. Nontheless, the translators of the KJV acknowledge that these words were not originally dictated by God and so they, to be honest (and to avoid the plagues of Revelaton 22) set these words apart by placing them in italics. The translators of the new versions are not honest enough to do this. Instead, THEIR words are printed as equal with God's words.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
