How easy is the KJV to understand?

[pescador]

That statement right there is intentionally misleading, because the KJV available is a version that is NOT in Old English. Only the 1st edition KJV is in Old English.

The KJV dates from 1611. The later revisions are not the KJV, but corrections of the translation and the archaic English language. 21st Century King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and others are examples.

 

[Davy]

Oy vey! The King James Bible is a translation of the best texts available in the early 17th Century, nothing more and nothing less. It is based partly on earlier English translations and wasn't meant to be the final Word, as the translators themselves wrote in the preface. (Try reading it sometime.)

'New and Improved' does mean a better and more accurate Bible version. That's not "man's hype", that is reality. There are many more source texts now than ever before and a much better understanding of the ancient languages. We now have quite a few excellent translations, brought about by excellent research, evidence, and scholarship.

I just don't understand the KJVO mentality. What false religion has been created by insisting that a 410-year-old translation, ordered by a king to define his concept of Christianity, is THE Word of God?

Oy vey! The King James Bible is a translation of the best texts available in the early 17th Century, nothing more and nothing less. It is based partly on earlier English translations and wasn't meant to be the final Word, as the translators themselves wrote in the preface. (Try reading it sometime.)

'New and Improved' does mean a better and more accurate Bible version. That's not "man's hype", that is reality. There are many more source texts now than ever before and a much better understanding of the ancient languages. We now have quite a few excellent translations, brought about by excellent research, evidence, and scholarship.

I just don't understand the KJVO mentality. What false religion has been created by insisting that a 410-year-old translation, ordered by a king to define his concept of Christianity, is THE Word of God?

I guess you didn't see my post #73.

Modern Bible versions are not from the same Greek texts that the KJV translators used. So your point is moot.

The later modern versions are from Wescott & Hort's translation of 5 texts which have disagreements with each other, and are few in number.

The 1611 KJV is based on the Textus Receptus, or Majority Texts, so called because it comes from the majority of New Testament Greek texts, over 5000 of them, and they agree with each other, and show the most usage through Christian history.

The reason why later Bible versions, like the NIV, is missing a lot of Scripture, is because it's from a different text. That reveals those 5 texts Wescott & Hort used are not complete. And because they don't agree with each other, that shows those 5 texts are corrupt. Can't say that about the Majority Texts.

 

[Davy]

This clearly shows that the King James version has quite a few errors, since it differs from one of the best, clearest, most reliable translations ever to appear. If the KJV translators had the sources that we have today most of these errors would have been translated correctly.

Now you just told a big fat LIE. Why did you do that?

It's the NIV that is MISSING Scripture which the KJV has!!! The Truth is totally opposite of what you say!

 

[pescador]

The beautiful and uplifting part was a late addition. However, such things should matter when we are dealing in religion!

But the conversation until that point had been strictly on the understanding aspect and the claims made against the KJV on that score.

"... such things should matter when we are dealing in religion!" So now I understand. Beautiful and uplifting are perhaps your idea of how religion should be, but the source languages of the Bible are simple, common languages, and Jesus was a homeless carpenter. Perhaps the main differences are the elimination of a special priesthood and the destruction of the glorious temple in favor of a new nation of priests -- all believers -- and

"Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? Not one stone will be left on another. All will be torn down!” Mark 13:2

"We are coworkers belonging to God. You are God’s field, God’s building." 1 Corinthians 3:9

"So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. In him the whole building, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit." Ephesians 2:19-22

"But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may proclaim the virtues of the one who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light." 1 Peter 2:9

My prayer is that you will understand the differences between the "religion" of the Old Covenant and the "truth" of the New Covenant. The KJV apparently represents the former; modern translations represent the latter.

 

[Davy]

The KJV dates from 1611. The later revisions are not the KJV, but corrections of the translation and the archaic English language. 21st Century King James Version, New King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and others are examples.

The 1611 Authorized KJV that doesn't use Old English is still... from the Majority Texts, and not from Wescott & Hort's texts.

But the NKJV is... based on Wescott & Hort's translation from corrupted Greek texts. So the 1611 KJV and the NKJV are NOT the same Bibles. The NKJV is a CORRUPTION.

And it's obvious by the deceivers creating a NEW King James Version (NKJV) NOT based on the same Greek manuscripts that the 1611 KJV used, reveals a HOAX by Satan's servants.

 

[pescador]

Now you just told a big fat LIE. Why did you do that?

It's the NIV that is MISSING Scripture which the KJV has!!! The Truth is totally opposite of what you say!

All worship the almighty King James, right?

 

[Davy]

All worship the almighty King James, right?

No, but what you present is worship of the Wescott & Hort translation! So let's get it right.

 

[pescador]

The 1611 Authorized KJV that doesn't use Old English is still... from the Majority Texts, and not from Wescott & Hort's texts.

But the NKJV is... based on Wescott & Hort's translation from corrupted Greek texts. So the 1611 KJV and the NKJV are NOT the same Bibles. The NKJV is a CORRUPTION.

And it's obvious by the deceivers creating a NEW King James Version (NKJV) NOT based on the same Greek manuscripts that the 1611 KJV used, reveals a HOAX by Satan's servants.

Are you serious? The translators and publishers of the NKJV (and by implication other modern translations) are "Satan's servants" whose purpose is to create a "HOAX"? Bye bye Davy!!

 

[Davy]

Brethren, skipping from one Bible translation to another is exactly what Satan would have you do with the modern Bible translations, as long as you stay in the Wescott & Hort translation from corrupt texts! And then you have a cotton candy pick of several modern Bible versions when doing that! You can even have a New and Improved King James version which isn't even from the same Greek texts that the original KJV used! And you can do this all under the auspice of thinking the modern versions are easier to understand!

Just don't use the 1611 KJV, that's the deceiver's message. So yes, something just isn't right about all that like the OP said.

 

[Davy]

Are you serious? The translators and publishers of the NKJV (and by implication other modern translations) are "Satan's servants" whose purpose is to create a "HOAX"? Bye bye Davy!!

Yeah, and not only that, they have tried to corrupt Dr. James Strong's Exhaustive Concordance also with later supposedly corrected editions, and some editions omit the Hebrew and Greek Lexicon definitions he gave altogether! So don't tell me there isn't a battle with Bible texts by Satan's servants.

 

[Isilwen]

Just don't use the 1611 KJV, that's the deceiver's message.

Which of course is your opinion.

I am unable to read the KJV, so it's a moot point for me. I read what I am able to read.

 

[pescador]

Which of course is your opinion.

I am unable to read the KJV, so it's a moot point for me. I read what I am able to read.

Which is the absolutely correct thing to do.

More people should do exactly what you're doing: read a translation of the Bible that "speaks" most clearly to them. As I've said many times, the King James Bible is just a translation of the Hebrew/Aramaic/Koine Greek texts that were available at the time. There are many more Bible and extra-Biblical sources that give modern translators a much better knowledge of the language and meaning of the early texts and, which is extremely important, enables them to accurately translate them into the modern language that we all use to read/write/think every moment of our lives. That is the way the Bible was written and is made to be understood.

 

[Davy]

Which of course is your opinion.

I am unable to read the KJV, so it's a moot point for me. I read what I am able to read.

If you can't read the simple 1611 King James Authorized Version in modern English, then that signals you have a problem reading English period. So you might try another excuse, because you're being able to post here and read English betrays your statement.

 

[Isilwen]

If you can't read the simple 1611 King James Authorized Version in modern English, then that signals you have a problem reading English period. So you might try another excuse, because you're being able to post here and read English betrays your statement.

Your opinion is duly noted and rejected! Have a great day!

I'm going back to read my NIV.

 

[Davy]

Just goes to show you brethren, the reason why some today steer away from the KJV Bible isn't because of difficulty in reading it, but because of man's hype about the more modern versions being easier to read, which really shouldn't even be the real issue. The REAL issue should be the desire for ACCURACY in God's Word, not spoon feeding babies.

 

[Isilwen]

Just goes to show you brethren, the reason why some today steer away from the KJV Bible isn't because of difficulty in reading it, but because of man's hype about the more modern versions being easier to read, which really shouldn't even be the real issue. The REAL issue should be the desire for ACCURACY in God's Word, not spoon feeding babies.

Has nothing to do with hype of anything. The NIV is for me the better translation, full stop. It is accurate, and no amount of KJVO conspiracy stuff will change my mind.

Call me a baby again and I will report you for goading!

 

[pescador]

The NIV is an excellent translation, both in its original version and in the refinements (with perhaps the exception of TNIV). Don't let anyone attack you with their KJVO nonsense (if that is what your post refers to. I have blocked some of the KJVO people).

The NIV, NET (my favorite), NRSV, and others are excellent translations, created by extremely qualified people from the best source documents. They are written in our language and are meant to be understood.

 

[pescador]

Just goes to show you brethren, the reason why some today steer away from the KJV Bible isn't because of difficulty in reading it, but because of man's hype about the more modern versions being easier to read, which really shouldn't even be the real issue. The REAL issue should be the desire for ACCURACY in God's Word, not spoon feeding babies.

There is no basis for calling the centuries-old KJV the most accurate translation. It is based on a limited number of source manuscripts and compiled by a committee authorized by a king to reflect his version of what the Bible should say in order to bolster his monarchy.

 

[Davy]

There is no basis for calling the centuries-old KJV the most accurate translation. It is based on a limited number of source manuscripts and compiled by a committee authorized by a king to reflect his version of what the Bible should say in order to bolster his monarchy.

The 1611 KJV New Testament is based on over 5000 Greek texts, which is why they are called the MAJORITY TEXTS (or Received Texts, a.k.a. Textus Receptus). That's where the translations come from for The New Testament in the 1611 KJV.

It's the Westcott & Hort Greek New Testament translation that is based on a LIMITED number of Greek texts (5 texts in fact), of which there are few in number, showing they had limited usage. And they don't agree with each other.

So what you have said is just the opposite of the truth.