Understanding the KJV

davidbrainerd

Newbie
Mar 7, 2014
28
0
✟15,238.00
Faith
Christian
And as concerning "a stark contradiction" when I read in your precious NIV:

Matt 5:22 "But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment...."

Ephesians 4:26 "In your anger do not sin...."

This is much worse than a word having a double meaning. Because how did they arrive at this contradiction where they make Jesus call anger itself a sin while Paul says you can be angry and yet not sin in your anger. How did they botch this up?

They removed the words "without a cause" in Matt 5:22 because two or three junk manuscripts found in Egyptian trash dumps left them off.

AND WHAT'S WORSE is they don't even have the decency to tell you this! Whereas the amazingly awesome NRSV does in a footnote saying "other ancient authorities add without cause." Thanks NIV liars for just removing the words and not even telling us like the wonderful and honest folks at the NRSV did.

Ok, actually, I looked again, and the NIV does have a footnote too. I just missed it because they split the note for the verse into 3 notes, and it was in the second one, whereas in the NRSV it was in the first one.
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
In the KJV tempt sometimes means test and in others seduce. When it says he tempted Abraham its talking about testing. When James says God tempts not man with evil, it means he doesn't seduce them. I get the point that if you weren't raised with the language you wouldn't understand that. That's why we DO need modern translations. But the modern translations need to stop removing verses in the New Testament and/or relegating them to footnotes.

Raised with the language of twisting words and not taking things for face value? I totally agree with your last two sentences :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

davidbrainerd

Newbie
Mar 7, 2014
28
0
✟15,238.00
Faith
Christian
Raised with the language of twisting words and not taking things for face value? I totally agree with your last two sentences :thumbsup:

Well, you're pretty certain to be raised with that to one degree or another no matter what translation you're raised on. For example, if you're raised Baptist, there's no way they're going to take the KJV's command to be baptized "for the remission of sins" at face value, and there's no way they'll take the NIV's be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" at face value. (Acts 2:38) They'll quickly tell you that baptism isn't for the forgiveness of sins, that sins are forgiven long before baptism, and baptism is purely optional. And the next phrase "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Why, they'll tell you, that's just absurd; you receive the Holy Spirit as soon as you believe, not when you're baptized.

Anyway, I'm glad we agree that modern translations are necessary and that they shouldn't remove verse.
 
Upvote 0

98cwitr

Lord forgive me
Apr 20, 2006
20,020
3,473
Raleigh, NC
✟449,894.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Well, you're pretty certain to be raised with that to one degree or another no matter what translation you're raised on. For example, if you're raised Baptist, there's no way they're going to take the KJV's command to be baptized "for the remission of sins" at face value, and there's no way they'll take the NIV's be baptized "for the forgiveness of your sins" at face value. (Acts 2:38) They'll quickly tell you that baptism isn't for the forgiveness of sins, that sins are forgiven long before baptism, and baptism is purely optional. And the next phrase "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." Why, they'll tell you, that's just absurd; you receive the Holy Spirit as soon as you believe, not when you're baptized.

Anyway, I'm glad we agree that modern translations are necessary and that they shouldn't remove verse.

I also agree with your views of water Baptism. :thumbsup: I subject that those verses refer to the Baptism of the Spirit, as opposed to water. jm2c.
 
Upvote 0

SwordoftheLord

Defender of the Faith
Mar 23, 2009
1,339
1,037
40
✟18,196.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The KJV has no knowledge of the Granville Sharp construction, on that basis alone it is inferior to any modern version (except the NWT which plays loosey goosey with it) both the ESV and the NKJV are in the heart language of modern English speakers. The cadence and rhythm of the KJV is preserved to the greatest extent that it can be in both because they follow the Greek and Hebrew. I see no reason other than tradition to hold to the KJV over either of these fine translations.


Granville Sharp Construction? Come on now, that is a laughable argument that have been proven before to be garbage when trying to use it as you did to say the KJV is inerferior to any modern version.. Wish people would actually study and do some research before posting trying to use the sharp method as a basis to show the kjv is inferior.

The KJV translators were above and beyond the translators we have now, but I dont use that to prove the newer version are inferior to the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

BBAS 64

Contributor
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
9,844
1,707
58
New England
✟484,033.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Granville Sharp Construction? Come on now, that is a laughable argument that have been proven before to be garbage when trying to use it as you did to say the KJV is inerferior to any modern version.. Wish people would actually study and do some research before posting trying to use the sharp method as a basis to show the kjv is inferior.

The KJV translators were above and beyond the translators we have now, but I dont use that to prove the newer version are inferior to the KJV.

Good day,

I do not believe that was used to show that it is inferior, but to show how far the science of translation has come in history.

I like the KJV translators bunch of church of England Calvinist, who translated to get the bible in the current language. Even quoted Augustine's view on the translation issue, and they understood the fact that more translations would be needed in the future...


Above and beyond..... not sure what standard you are using in your judgment.

What is not to like about them, I only wish they had more texts to use other than the three they had. I am not so keen on the Latin used to determine translation of Greek words not so sure they should have done that, to error is human.

They did get the sharp's rule wrong (in one place) as well, but that was a later development as already stated.

In Him,

Bill
 
Upvote 0

yeshuaslavejeff

simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua
Jan 6, 2005
39,944
11,098
okie
✟214,996.00
Faith
Anabaptist
PING! (A light went on) :) "Love not the world, nor the things of the world" INCLUDES all and every worldly translation and all and every worldly interpretation (any and all of the flesh) .

Those called by God, chosen as it is written before the creation of the world,
receive from God the Truth.

A new heart, a new spirit, a new and renewed mind in Christ Jesus.

After, "AFTER", receiving new life, revelation, truth, from God,

then and only then can anything of His Kingdom, Himself, His Son,

be understood at all . Comprehended. Grasped and accepted.

SEEK HIM WHILE HE MAY BE FOUND. SEEK HIM. SEEK HIM. SEEK HIM> HE DELIGHTS IN THOSE WHO TRUST HIM and HE is GLAD TO CALL US HIS CHILDREN! YES! in CHRIST JESUS! YES!

 
Upvote 0

davidbrainerd

Newbie
Mar 7, 2014
28
0
✟15,238.00
Faith
Christian
I also agree with your views of water Baptism. :thumbsup: I subject that those verses refer to the Baptism of the Spirit, as opposed to water. jm2c.

I didn't state my views. However, its obvious that Acts 2:38 cannot be referring to baptism in the Spirit, as you cannot really command someone to be baptized in the Spirit. Your claim here simply proves that altering definitions is alive and well, and the KJV is not to blame for it.
 
Upvote 0

davidbrainerd

Newbie
Mar 7, 2014
28
0
✟15,238.00
Faith
Christian
In any case, I think in all likelihood the Granville Sharp Construction was operative in English in 1611. After all, that other construction "and...and" instead of "both....and" was used in English at the time. Just because modern English doesn't have a construction doesn't mean Elizabethan didn't. There would be no need for the KJV translators to change the Granville Sharp Construction in Greek to something else in English if English in their time had the same construction. (Duh!)
 
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

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
What is the general consensus here of Hort and Westcott?

We have stated the King James translators were of Calvinist persuasion.
They were Anglican, there were from recollection both churchmen from the Reformed wing and the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church.

What back ground did Hort and Westcott have?
Also Anglican, contrary to KJVO rhetoric and quotemining.
 
Upvote 0

Boidae

Senior Veteran
Aug 18, 2010
4,920
420
Central Florida
✟21,015.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Divorced
Politics
US-Others
I actually went out and got a KJ version of the Bible a couple days ago. It's a non-study one, so it's nearly bare bones. It is a reference Bible though.

At this point, with me not even sure that I am or have been a Christian for the past 5 years, I want to go back to simplicity. I also want to try a different Bible, as I have the ESV, the NKJV, the NIV and the HCSB. I am trying something different since doing the same thing over and over again has not had the desired results.

In an interest to disclose the whole truth of the matter currently, I am also staying away from church for the time being. I have grown weary of institutionalized Christianity, and it's done is bring me confusion and doubt. This is also part of my simplicity approach. I am going to use this time to strengthen my relationship with the Lord.

So I am excited to start reading from my new Bible and will do so starting on the first of April.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

now faith

Veteran
Supporter
Jul 31, 2011
7,772
1,568
florida
✟257,472.00
Faith
Word of Faith
Marital Status
Married
They were Anglican, there were from recollection both churchmen from the Reformed wing and the Catholic wing of the Anglican Church.


Also Anglican, contrary to KJVO rhetoric and quotemining.

All of the multiple commentary on their religious stance is king James rhetoric ?

Life is bliss just drink the kool aid
 
Upvote 0

Keachian

On Sabbatical
Feb 3, 2010
7,096
330
34
Horse-lie-down
Visit site
✟16,342.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
All of the multiple commentary on their religious stance is king James rhetoric ?

Life is bliss just drink the kool aid

If kool aid here means historical accuracy I'm all for it. You want to give your view and some references?
 
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

davidbrainerd

Newbie
Mar 7, 2014
28
0
✟15,238.00
Faith
Christian
Some of the extremely rabid KJVOs obscure the issue with Westcott and Hort by personal attacks about their belief in Ghosts and so on. The real issue with them was their textual theory. I read the article or whatever it was where they put forth their theory once before. The theory is basically that the church of the fourth century standardized the text of the New Testament around 350 AD or so and that this is where the Byzantine text-form came from. But since they don't trust the fourth century church (why they don't is not made clear) therefore this standard text is evil. So, therefore, they say we must scour the earth and dig up every Egyptian trash dump in existence to find every scrap of supposedly pre-4th-century papyrus to reconstruct what the New Testament said before the 4th century.

Its not Westcott and Hort themselves that are the problem, but those who carried on their theory, namely the guys behind the Nestle-Aland/UBS texts. They've modified the theory slightly, but its still basically the same theory.

But if the 4th century church standardized the text, they must have had a reason. Like, for example, that lots of bad and disagreeing manuscripts were floating around (the very manuscripts that Westcott and Hort, Nestle, Aland, and friends, have based their editions on).

The truth is, We need a standardized text. Who should we trust to standardize it? I personally think the 4th century church could do as good of, if not a better job, than Westcott and Hort, Nestle-Aland, and the rest of the modern gurus.

So the fact is, you can agree with the basic gist of the WH theory (that the Byzantine text-form is not the original text per se but is a standardization done in the 4th century by the church) and yet disagree with their conclusion (that this text is not good enough and we need them to create a new one for us). I can accept that the Byzantine text IS a standardization done by the fourth century church, and I can still trust it a billion times more than the standardization (or 28 different standardizations) created by Nestle-Aland.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Upvote 0

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
Genesis 22:1 and James 1:13 is all I need to know about the KJV
Genesis 22:1:
English Standard Version
After these things God tested Abraham and said to him, “Abraham!” And he said, “Here I am.”

King James Bible
And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am.
James 1:13:
English Standard Version
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.

King James Bible
Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
I can see the possible issues you might have with Gen 22:1, but what's the problem with Jas 1:13?
 
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

OzSpen

Regular Member
Oct 15, 2005
11,541
707
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
Visit site
✟125,343.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Private
The Bible needs to be translated every 100 years or so, or else it would be lost in understanding to the next generation. If you educate people on how to translate KJV but make no translations one day all you are left with is a few people who truly understand it, and that is not preaching God's word throughout the world.
I think we are thinking too narrowly. I suggest to us that we consider the rest of the world before investing one more cent in another English translation.

The task of Bible translation is an enormous one and here we are arguing over the KJV vs ESV, NLT, NIV, etc. These are some of the language and translation challenges in our world.

The British Council provides this information about English speakers:

How many people speak English?
spacer.gif

blue-arrow-small.png
English has official or special status in at least seventy five countries with a total population of over two billion;
blue-arrow-small.png
English is spoken as a first language by around 375 million and as a second language by around 375 million speakers in the world;
blue-arrow-small.png
speakers of English as a second language probably outnumber those who speak it as a first language;
blue-arrow-small.png
around 750 million people are believed to speak English as a foreign language
blue-arrow-small.png
one out of four of the world's population speak English to some level of competence; demand from the other three-quarters is increasing.

However, of the 375 million people who use English as their first language, what percentage is that of the world's population? The world population clock, which I have just checked online, says that the world's population is 7.222 billion people.

Therefore, 5.357% of the world speak English as their first language. And here we are arguing about an archaic vs contemporary English translations.

According to Summer Institute of Linguistics (SIL) of Wycliffe Bible Translators,

  • 'Nearly two-thirds of the world's 875 million illiterate people are women' (SIL);
  • The Worldwide Status of Bible Translation (2013) is:
    3d-red-star-small.png
    6,900+ ... the number of languages spoken in the world today.
    3d-red-star-small.png
    1,999+ ...the number of languages without any of the Bible, but with a possible need of a Bible translation to begin.
    3d-red-star-small.png
    2,167 ...the total number of current translation programs around the world, on behalf of 1.9 billion people.
So there are still 1900+ languages in the world today that don't have any Bible translation available. And of the 7 billion people in the world there are 875 million who are illiterate. This means that when Wycliffe and associate organisations develop a language in print and translate the Bible, they have to teach the people to read and write. This is a massive task.

Oz
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0