Is the KJV more than a translation

NothingIsImpossible · Nov 20, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Time Machine. Were you truly there to know? Surely not.

You do realize though your basically saying he was not there, but your forgetting you were not either. So to some degree you cannot also claim KJV is what you think of it then.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

NothingIsImpossible said:
You do realize though your basically saying he was not there, but your forgetting you were not either. So to some degree you cannot also claim KJV is what you think of it then.

But I am not claiming any evidence of the past as a part of my faith here. I am trusting how God's Word exists today as my evidence. I am using Observational Science and not Historical Science as my test. I can observe and compare the KJV vs. Modern Translations and see tons of corruptions in the Modern Translations and see the superioty and beauty behind the KJV. In fact, even Biblical Numerics confirm the divinity of the 1769 KJV.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

Dawnhammer said:
Most of the people think they themselves, their language, their country and their ideas are special. Certainly more special than their neighbors or heaven forbid foreigners.

Usually there is no basis to this apart from personal perspective.

So there are other groups like KJV-onlyists?

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

W2L said:
The scriptures teach us all we need to know for following the Lord.

Romans 8:1 says we are to walk after the Spirit. This is removed in Modern Translations. This is teaching the exact opposite of following the Lord.

Quasiblogo · Nov 21, 2017

The only English version that I can use for Scripture memorization is the KJV. And for using the Scriptures as lyrics for short choruses, I've mainly done that with the KJV, with some moderate success using the NASB, and to a lesser degree the NIV. Committees that do Bible translations need musicians and poets! Concerning the KJV, I've had parallel experiences with the Castilian- Spanish Reina Valera version. In fact, in my probably biased opinion, the Reina Valera language soars as much over the KJV as the KJV does in beauty over other English versions.

Tree of Life · Nov 21, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Time Machine. Were you truly there to know? Surely not.

And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?

AlexDTX · Nov 21, 2017

disciple1 said:
Every language has changed except Hebrew and Greek, that's what the bible was written in, the English language is still changing.

Sorry, that is not true. There is a difference between biblical Hebrew and Greek and conversational Hebrew and Greek. Those languages have changed, too, in the same way as all other languages.

JackRT · Nov 21, 2017

Tree of Life said:
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?

Here is a good example.

If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

Ragamuffin7 said:
The only English version that I can use for Scripture memorization is the KJV. And for using the Scriptures as lyrics for short choruses, I've mainly done that with the KJV, with some moderate success using the NASB, and to a lesser degree the NIV. Committees that do Bible translations need musicians and poets! Concerning the KJV, I've had parallel experiences with the Castilian- Spanish Reina Valera version. In fact, in my probably biased opinion, the Reina Valera language soars as much over the KJV as the KJV does in beauty over other English versions.

The Reina Valera Gómez 2010?
If so, I would endorse that as being a Spanish version of the KJV.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

Tree of Life said:
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?

Assumptions are made. Dating methods are based on assumptions. How do you really know they are older? Did you test the documents yourself? Are these testing methods 100% accurate? But lets say the documents are older, that does not mean they are correct just because they are older documents. The Word of God could still be corrupted back in older times as it can be today. Just because something is older does not mean it cannot be corrupted or altered.

The true way to determine the truth is to not to look to Historical Science but to look to Observational Science. That would mean that we test a document or documents of how they exist now. We do a fruits test. Which Word of God stands above the rest and appears to be of divine origin? Which Bibles appears to teach false and evil things ever so slightly or subtely?

But in your world view: It sounds like you are saying there is no perfect Word of God that we can trust 100%. You think God's work can have errors or flaws within it. If this is the case: Well, that does not make sense because God is perfect in everything He does.

Tree of Life · Nov 21, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Assumptions are made. Dating methods are based on assumptions. How do you really know they are older? Did you test the documents yourself? Are these testing methods 100% accurate? But lets say the documents are older, that does not mean they are correct just because they are older documents. The Word of God could still be corrupted back in older times as it can be today. Just because something is older does not mean it cannot be corrupted or altered.

I obviously have not tested the documents myself because I'm not a scholar at that level. I just know that the undisputed scholarly consensus is that the majority of manuscripts that we have - and the oldest manuscripts that we have - of 1 John do not contain the Comma Johanneum. Even scholars who believe that the TR is to be preferred recognize this. Also, the origin story of this particular text makes it look even more suspicious.

So you're right. Just because the older documents don't contain the text does not mean that the text isn't original. However, it makes it much less likely to be original. And if you're going to argue that it is original then the burden of proof is on you to explain why it is missing from our earliest manuscripts and from most manuscripts. Do you have a good explanation for this?

The true way to determine the truth is to not to look to Historical Science but to look to Observational Science. That would mean that we test a document or documents of how they exist now. We do a fruits test. Which Word of God stands above the rest and appears to be of divine origin? Which Bibles appears to teach false and evil things ever so slightly or subtely?

This is too subjective and I suspect it will turn into a question of "which Bible most resembles the Bible that I prefer?" For you, the KJV will always win this test.

But in your world view: It sounds like you are saying there is no perfect Word of God that we can trust 100%. You think God's work can have errors or flaws within it. If this is the case: Well, that does not make sense because God is perfect in everything He does.

There is no translation that can convey the original texts perfectly. This is why a knowledge of the original languages is very important and this is why it's important to utilize multiple translations.

Dawnhammer · Nov 21, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Well, that does not make sense because God is perfect in everything He does.

You can explain everything wrong as still being part of God’s perfect plan so why worry about it.

Albion · Nov 21, 2017

Dawnhammer said:
Most of the people think they themselves, their language, their country and their ideas are special. Certainly more special than their neighbors or heaven forbid foreigners.

Usually there is no basis to this apart from personal perspective.

You're certainly making a lot out of one word that appeared in my post. As to why I called the KJV "special," I spent several paragraphs explaining what is so special about it--and your particular slant on the subject wasn't any part of it.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

Tree of Life said:
And neither were you. All we know is that there's material in the KJV which is not in our earliest manuscripts. How do you explain this?

While I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English sometimes, the real problem with the Modern Translations is that they:

(a) Add the devil's name within them so as to replace the Lord, and God's people.
(b) Remove the clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
(c) Remove the full reference to the Condemnation in Romans 8:1.
(d) Remove "Through his blood" in Colossians 1:14.
(e) Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want God's people to know how to cast him out.

It is written...

5 "Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Proverbs 30:5-6).

WOULD YOU trust a “bible” by men who said this concerning the Scriptures?:

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

“Our Bible as well as our Faith is a mere compromise.” (Westcott, On the Canon of the New Testament, p. vii).

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)."

Source used for the ending part of my post:
Bible Versions: Are There Significant Differences? Corruption Exposed!

Dawnhammer · Nov 21, 2017

Albion said:
You're certainly making a lot out of one word that appeared in my post. As to why I called the KJV "special," I spent several paragraphs explaining what is so special about it--and your particular slant on the subject wasn't any part of it.

Very special thought. Thank you for sharing.

he-man · Nov 21, 2017

JackRT said:
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate. The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1609. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.

Good post! You are correct and the only way to find the "truth" is to examine the manuscripts we have available today: The Siniaticus, the Vatinicanus, Alexandrinus and many others which will display the true word that was implicated. We must do away with the antiquaited versions, NKJ, KJV, and research the actual meaning that was to be applied. If we get rid of superstitions of a literal "Satan" and realize that the "lust of the flesh" are what destroys our faith, not some outdated "fallen angel" which does not even exist. The mythology of dual pagan gods have led people astray and is the factor of misleading dogma put out by anti Christians who are not keeping an open mind. James 1:13-14 See my Avatar!

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

Dawnhammer said:
You can explain everything wrong as still being part of God’s perfect plan so why worry about it.

The changes in the Modern Translations are too big to ignore. If you were to truly compare the KJV vs. the Modern Translations you would see that the changes are for the worse and not for the better. Granted, this does not mean I don't use Modern Translations (to help update the 1600's English) and it does not mean I do not occasionally look up a Hebrew or Greek word so as to cross reference similar words that they use to translate the Bible into English, but I do not make Modern Versions my authority and I do not look solely to the Hebrew and Greek alone. For I do not speak and write Biblical Hebrew and Greek. Nobody does today. The only way they are valuable is by comparing it with the English (Which is the world language of today).

The KJV is the pure Word of God because it shows that it is divine. The Modern Translations are useful but they cannot be entirely trusted because they have big problems within them.

Bible Highlighter · Nov 21, 2017

JackRT said:
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

The King James Version (1611) of the bible is by no means the first English translation. The Wyclif Bible was published in 1382, the Tyndale Bible in 1534, the Coverdale (Matthew) Bible in 1535, the Great Bible in 1539, the Geneva Bible in 1560, the Bishop’s Bible in 1568 and finally the Roman Catholic version, the Douai Bible, in 1609. It is also worth noting that 80% of the Old Testament and 90% of the New Testament are incorporated directly from the Bishop’s Bible into the King James Version.

Modern Translations are NOT more accurate. That is just non-sense. A basic side by side comparison of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations shows that the Modern Translations:

1. Place the devil's name within them.
2. Eliminate the one and only clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
3. Eliminate the full teaching on the "Condemnation" in Romans 8:1.
4. Eliminate "through the blood" in Colossians 1:14.
5. Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want you to know how to truly cast him out.

There are tons more perversions in the Modern Translations that are too numerous to mention here.
But these 5 should give you pause if you care about what God's Word says.

Tree of Life · Nov 21, 2017

Jason0047 said:
While I use Modern Translations to help update the 1600's English sometimes, the real problem with the Modern Translations is that they:

(a) Add the devil's name within them so as to replace the Lord, and God's people.
(b) Remove the clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
(c) Remove the full reference to the Condemnation in Romans 8:1.
(d) Remove "Through his blood" in Colossians 1:14.
(e) Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want God's people to know how to cast him out.

I'm not quite sure what you're talking about in (a). Perhaps you can elaborate.

Do you know why translations which are based on an eclectic text remove the items mentioned above? It's because they are poorly attributed. Our oldest and best texts do not have these phrases. So either our oldest texts are corrupt and, for some reason, dropped these phrases. Or these phrases were later added by scribes and, while they may convey true doctrine, are not original to the author.

These are not of great consequence, however, because there's nothing in what you mentioned above that cannot be found in some other place of Scripture which is more strongly attributed and not in dispute.

So you say that the above items were "removed" from the Bible. I say that they were added and appear in the KJV. Modern translations are more faithful in returning to the best and oldest documents we have.

Albion · Nov 21, 2017

Jason0047 said:
Modern Translations are NOT more accurate. That is just non-sense. A basic side by side comparison of the KJV vs. the Modern Translations shows that the Modern Translations:

1. Place the devil's name within them.
2. Eliminate the one and only clearest verse that teaches the Trinity (1 John 5:7).
3. Eliminate the full teaching on the "Condemnation" in Romans 8:1.
4. Eliminate "through the blood" in Colossians 1:14.
5. Remove Matthew 17:21 because Satan does not want you to know how to truly cast him out.

There are tons more perversions in the Modern Translations that are too numerous to mention here.
But these 5 should give you pause if you care about what God's Word says.

That's an excellent point that should have been made by someone or other before now. Every opponent of the KJV says, automatically, that it is not accurate. But when we look at all the modern translations, you cannot find one that is MORE accurate than the KJV, even allowing for some of the controversial areas found in the KJV!

I can leaf through most of these recent creations and, in a few seconds, find numerous errors that are NOT shared by the KJV...but they're errors worded in modern, even slang, language. Whoopee. :doh:

Is the KJV more than a translation

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Regular Member

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Hide The Pain

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Well-Known Member

he-man

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.

Hide The Pain

Facilitator

Similar threads