Why the King James Bible is Still the Best and Most Accurate

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
Again you are guessing at the punctuation which did not exist in original text. And so we have people arguing over non-existent text because of loyalty to later doctrine which decided to interpret it it's own way for it's own purpose. And yes it makes perfect sense to say I am telling you something today or as we might say.. now.

Well, English has punctuation; it's part of the written language. So it would be ridiculous to publish a Bible translation with no punctuation.

How does this look to you? Again you are guessing at the punctuation which did not exist in original text and so we have people arguing over non-existent text because of loyalty to later doctrine which decided to interpret it it's own way for it's own purpose and yes it makes perfect sense to say I am telling you something today or as we might say now.

BTW, "it's" is a contraction of "it is"; it's not the possessive. If you're concerned about punctuation you should understand the rules of grammar.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,210
7,289
Tampa
✟768,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
As far as I know, King James was not infallible. He had a Bible produced according to his specifications, then claimed it to be the only authorized version. Why this one translation is so exalted above the others is beyond me. The only reason I can think of is the exalted language, which of course is not a characteristic of the source languages.

It soundeth pious, but it ain't.
Yes, one of the compelling reasons of the time was that the Geneva version was too Republican sounding, so he wanted one that was more monarchial. Hence why groups like the Pilgrims and other Puritans kept using the Geneva and not the Authorized Version. Geneva is my "church" Bible, NKJV and ESV for home study.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
So it would be ridiculous to publish a Bible translation with no punctuation.
Even though the original texts had no punctuation. So therefore either God sent a memo as to where to insert punctuation, or fallible man made the choice, especially where it would fit in with existing doctrine.,
 
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
Yes, one of the compelling reasons of the time was that the Geneva version was too Republican sounding, so he wanted one that was more monarchial. Hence why groups like the Pilgrims and other Puritans kept using the Geneva and not the Authorized Version. Geneva is my "church" Bible, NKJV and ESV for home study.

Steve, you might also like the NET, which, although a "modern" translation, has more than 60,000 translator's notes. It's my preferred translation.

BTW, a very happy Thanksgiving from this ex-Floridian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tampasteve
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
Even though the original texts had no punctuation. So therefore either God sent a memo as to where to insert punctuation, or fallible man made the choice, especially where it would fit in with existing doctrine.,

Translation from the source languages into modern languages is both an art and a science. The source languages had no punctuation but the destination language -- English in this case -- has punctuation (including our posts), so it is a translation requirement.

The decision to include punctuation has nothing to do with doctrine; it's a requirement of the destination language.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The decision to include punctuation has nothing to do with doctrine; it's a requirement of the destination language.
But where it was inserted was a determination of man. And as shown a simple misplacement can change the entire meaning of a verse.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,210
7,289
Tampa
✟768,102.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Steve, you might also like the NET, which, although a "modern" translation, has more than 60,000 translator's notes. It's my preferred translation.

BTW, a very happy Thanksgiving from this ex-Floridian.
Thanks for the tip - and Happy Thanksgiving to you as well :)
 
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
But where it was inserted was a determination of man. And as shown a simple misplacement can change the entire meaning of a verse.

How do you know that where it was inserted was a determination of man? It's entirely possible that the translators were also guided by the Holy Spirit. And the correct placement can clarify the entire meaning of a verse. It's obvious that you're trying to devalue modern translations but it's not working...

Furthermore, since the originals don't exist, how can we be sure that the early copies are accurate? It's a matter of faith. Some of us have it and some of us don't.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
How do you know that where it was inserted was a determination of man? It's entirely possible that the translators were also guided by the Holy Spirit. And the correct placement can clarify the entire meaning of a verse. It's obvious that you're trying to devalue modern translations but it's not working...
Self justification cannot alter the fact punctuation may be wrong.

Furthermore, since the originals don't exist, how can we be sure that the early copies are accurate?
Doesn't matter in regarding the punctuation.
 
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

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
Self justification cannot alter the fact punctuation may be wrong.


Doesn't matter in regarding the punctuation.

But since punctuation is a requirement of modern English, it may also be correct. How do you know that modern translators aren't guided by the Holy Spirit?

"But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all the truth." John 16:13

I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians today, including those scholars who have devoted their lives to produce the great modern translations of the ancient scrolls.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
I
I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians today, including those scholars who have devoted their lives to produce the great modern translations of the ancient scrolls.
It's the HS's job to guide those of the Kingdom along their way as Jesus taught. Punctuation does not automatically fall into the right places when it comes to commas. Someone makes a decision. They also couldn't spell today right unless to day has a different meaning.
 
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
I

It's the HS's job to guide those of the Kingdom along their way as Jesus taught. Punctuation does not automatically fall into the right places when it comes to commas. Someone makes a decision. They also couldn't spell today right unless to day has a different meaning.

And I believe that the Holy Spirit is guiding Christians into all truth in modern times, including today. The translators are Christians, so they are guided by the Holy Spirit in all matters, including punctuation.

I notice that you use punctuation.

So, I'm ending this debate with you. If you don't believe in Bible punctuation is inspired, so be it. Your opinion is just that -- an opinion. Bye.
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
As far as I know, King James was not infallible. He had a Bible produced according to his specifications, then claimed it to be the only authorized version. Why this one translation is so exalted above the others is beyond me. The only reason I can think of is the exalted language, which of course is not a characteristic of the source languages.

It soundeth pious, but it ain't.

Well, its better than the contemporary alternatives. Indeed I would argue no recent English Bible is as superior to its peers as the KJV was.
 
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
Well, its better than the contemporary alternatives. Indeed I would argue no recent English Bible is as superior to its peers as the KJV was.

To each his own. If you prefer an early 17th century translation, based on a limited set of sources, expressed in a "dead" language -- one not in use any more in its native country or anywhere else -- created by a group beholden to a king, that's your decision.

No recent English Bible is as superior to its peers as the KJV was, but they're all long dead.

Forsooth, if the King James Englyshe is superior in thine mind, why doest thou not speak, read, nor write in that ancient tongue?.
 
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

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
The best Bibles are the ones that have been compiled while using the best / most complete resources. Simple but true fact.

That is very true. BTW, there are more resources available today than ever before. Not only are there more Bible sources, but also a plethora of non-Biblical sources that increase the translators' knowledge of the ancient languages, societies, and customs. Without a doubt, we have the best translations of the Bible in history.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lost4words
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
10,927
5,591
49
The Wild West
✟461,572.00
Country
United States
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
To each his own. If you prefer an early 17th century translation, based on a limited set of sources, expressed in a "dead" language -- one not in use any more in its native country or anywhere else -- created by a group beholden to a king, that's your decision.

No recent English Bible is as superior to its peers as the KJV was, but they're all long dead.

Forsooth, if the King James Englyshe is superior in thine mind, why doest thou not speak, read, nor write in that ancient tongue?.

Well, as a matter of fact, I use a modified version of Devotional Services, which is an elegant alternative to the BCP of high church Congregational provenance and which does preserve the formal, ecclesiastical oratory of the Book of Common Prayer.

It is really the BCP/KJV synergy that drove the historic popularity of the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

jamiec

Well-Known Member
Aug 2, 2020
474
215
Scotland
✟42,255.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
97A264FD-554B-49EE-B074-C988794798BD.jpeg
Here is a page, one of 23, listing the variations between the first two printed issues of the AV/KJV, both of which appeared in 1611:

The page is taken from volume 1 of a five-volume reproduction of the 1611 Bible. Here is the URL to the page: The Authorised Version of the English Bible, 1611 : Wright, William Aldis, 1831-1914 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The section listing the variations occurs before the main body of volume 1.

Here is the beginning of the preface of The Translators to the Reader: The Authorised Version of the English Bible, 1611 : Wright, William Aldis, 1831-1914 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Which of those two issues of the AV, if either, is to be preferred as the correct one, and why ? And by what means does one decide on the answer ?
 
Last edited:
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

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
Even though the original texts had no punctuation. So therefore either God sent a memo as to where to insert punctuation, or fallible man made the choice, especially where it would fit in with existing doctrine.,

Why can't God direct those who translate into languages with punctuation? There is no basis for saying that it would fit in with existing doctrine. It is a requirement of the receptor language, regardless of one's theology.
 
Upvote 0