King James Version

Gold Dragon said:

Just to round things out, this english series of bibles was all derived from Erasmus' Greek NT.

Tyndale's NT (1525) - Based on Erasmus' greek compilation
Coverdale's Bible (1535) - Finished the OT for Tyndale's NT based on Latin Vulgate
Matthew's Bible (1537) - Revision of Tyndale's NT with OT of unknown source
Taverner's Bible (1539) - Revision of Matthew's
Great Bible (1539) - Revision of Coverdale's with OT influences from Latin sources including Vulgate. 1st Authorized Version
Geneva Bible (1560) - OT from Great Bible, NT from Matthew's Bible
Bishop's Bible (1568) - revision of Great and Geneva Bibles. 2nd Authorized Version
King James Version (1611) - based largely on Stephanus' 1550, 1551 and Beza's 1598. Some influence from Great Bible. 3rd Authorized Version

Flow Chart of Bible History

Click to expand...

It should be noted that although Tyndale relied largely on two editions of Erasmus' Greek (1516 and 1522) for his English translation of the NT, Tyndale also used Luther's German, Ersamus' Latin translation of his Greek, and the Vulgate. Tyndale was also familiar with Wycliffe's old English translation which influenced him some, although he did not translate directly from Wycliffe. When Tyndale started his OT translation he used several editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, Luther's German translation, and the literal word-for-word translation "with a strong Hebrew emphasis" made by Sanctus Paginus into Latin.

Alexander Nissi said:

One reason my church does not like the KJV is because it changes the meanings of some of the verses because of the language it was translated from. Since the KJV was translated from Latin to english, it is missing words in some verses because of the fact that some Latin words can't be translated into english. Most of the other versions arefrom the original hebrew and greek.~Alec

Click to expand...

While Latin sources were used as a reference in the translation of the KJV, the primary source materials for the NT were greek. The three primary Greek sources were

Stephanus (Estienne) 1550
Stephanus (Estienne) 1551
Beza's 1598

All three of which were based on Erasmus' greek compilations which were based on greek byzantine text-type manuscripts.

The OT was based on the Hebrew Masoretic text.

So it is false to accuse the KJV of being a latin-english translation. Wyclif's bible was a latin-english translation.

HiredGoon said:

It should be noted that although Tyndale relied largely on two editions of Erasmus' Greek (1516 and 1522) for his English translation of the NT, Tyndale also used Luther's German, Ersamus' Latin translation of his Greek, and the Vulgate. Tyndale was also familiar with Wycliffe's old English translation which influenced him some, although he did not translate directly from Wycliffe. When Tyndale started his OT translation he used several editions of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Septuagint, Luther's German translation, and the literal word-for-word translation "with a strong Hebrew emphasis" made by Sanctus Paginus into Latin.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarifications Hired Goon. I wanted to keep the summaries short so I didn't have room for all that. The pages I linked to had more detail.

Gold Dragon said:

No problem. You don't have to take my word for it. Do some serious research for yourself.



I have always felt united to my KJVO brethren, despite our disagreements. I would feel more united if KJVOs were able to engage in friendly and intelligent discussions where we may disagree. You don't have to change your mind about anything. You can still believe that the KJV is the only infallible translation that you trust. Just stop propogating the lies that KJVO or TRO websites propogate about other translations and even the KJV and TR itself in order to defend their position.

This is a very minor disagreement compared to some of the other Christian disagreements out there.

Click to expand...

I had to make one last comment, I do not believe the KJV is infallible, I believe it's translated from the best tested mss. Believing the KJV is infallible is held by a small group of people in the KJVO camp. I made a post a few months back that highlighted the 6 or so positions held by the KJV groups...I'll try to find it for you. I disagree with the so called facts you posted Dragon (why the name Dragon?) and believe what you say I'm 'propogating' is THE facts.

It comes down to who you're willing to believe on this issue...I agree with this statement.

The great 19th century preacher, C. H. Spurgeon, said: "If the Book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde of popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scriptures infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part of the Word or whether it is of dubious authority....We shall gradually be so bedoubted and be criticized that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible and what is not, and they will dictate to the rest of us. I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy... and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness."

Click to expand...

So please, stop 'propogating' lies about my belief... You'll soon find that most of the KJV only folks hold to it because they trust it, it's that plain and simple. I trust it's history, the method in which it was translated and the mss from which is was translated from.

Good day, friend.

BjBarnett said:

Hello everyone! I have a question to ask of you all. Ive been to a lot of Baptist churches in my time (theres one about ever 500 feet in this area ) and some that I have been to only recognize the KJV as the only correct bible and any other has been altered to decieve others. I think you would call these types of Christians "King James Onlyist" or something. My question is, is there anyone here that believes the KJV to be the only correct bible translation? If you do why do you think this version of the bible is any better than the others? What makes it different?

Click to expand...

I'm a Southern Baptist, born and raised. I don't believe that the KJV is the only correct bible. The KJV is a translation itself. If someone wants to read the "pure form" of the Bible, then I hope they brush up on their Hebrew and Latin. The KJV is written in Old English because that was the dialect of the day. If the translaters had spoken modern English, then the Bible would have been translated in modern English. I say all of that to say this, God can speak to you through His Holy word, no matter what the transaltion: KJV, NKJV. etc.. I'm not sure that Jesus knew Old English; then again he is God in the flesh so he probably did. Anyway, he didn't speak OE here on Earth.

Street Preacher said:

I had to make one last comment, I do not believe the KJV is infallible, I believe it's translated from the best tested mss.

Click to expand...

I believe it is translated by good manuscripts as well. But we shouldn't ignore other good manuscripts.

Street Preacher said:

Believing the KJV is infallible is held by a small group of people in the KJVO camp.

Click to expand...

Let's ask the KJVOs here if that is true.

Street Preacher said:

I made a post a few months back that highlighted the 6 or so positions held by the KJV groups...I'll try to find it for you. I disagree with the so called facts you posted Dragon (why the name Dragon?) and believe what you say I'm 'propogating' is THE facts.

Click to expand...

As I said before, do some serious research on these manuscripts yourself, unless you think KJVO or TRO websites/teachers are the sole possessors of the truth about any ancient manuscript or bible translations and everyone else is lying or in some vast conspiracy to discredit the KJV or the TR.

Street Preacher said:

(why the name Dragon?)

Click to expand...

I use the name Gold Dragon because I am chinese, born in the year of the dragon. Before my grandmother passed away, she gave me a gold dragon pendant. I joined my first internet message board soon after she passed away and named my handle in rememberance of her. It has stuck with me ever since and I use it for all my message board handles.

A chinese nickname for Bruce Lee is literally "Lee Little Dragon". I thought his famous yellow jumpsuit in "Game of Death" was a good combination with my handle.

It has nothing to do with AD&D, the Dragon Lance series or the Dragon in Revelations.

C. H. Spurgeon said:

and we are fully assured that our old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and goodness.

Click to expand...

Agreed. The KJV is a great translation that is sufficient for all those things.

Street Preacher said:

So please, stop 'propogating' lies about my belief...

Click to expand...

Sorry. Replace the word infalliable with trustworthy in my post.

Street Preacher said:

You'll soon find that most of the KJV only folks hold to it because they trust it, it's that plain and simple.

Click to expand...

I find it trustworthy too as well as the manuscripts it is based on.

Street Preacher said:

I trust it's history, the method in which it was translated and the mss from which is was translated from.

Click to expand...

I trust all those things too, the real versions. Just not the history, method and mss that KJVO/TRO teachers try to convince people is true in order to defend their position.

Street Preacher said:

Good day, friend.

Click to expand...

May the Lord bless you and keep you, friend.

We use and believe the King James Bible in our church, Fellowship Independent Fundamental Baptist Church in Myrtle Mississippi