• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

King James Version

Discussion in 'Bibliology & Hermeneutics' started by Ray K, May 16, 2002.

  1. It is the inspired word of God and supercedes all other versions

  2. It is an authoritative English translation, and study of earlier versions will not provide a more ac

  3. It is a good translation, but earlier versions can be used to gain a more accurate understanding of

  4. It is a flawed translation since it does not include other canonical works that were present in the

Multiple votes are allowed.
Results are only viewable after voting.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Ray K

    Ray K Cogito ergo sum

    885
    +4
    The King James Version of the Bible is obviously one of the most popular, so I am curious as to how the forum participants view this book.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well, my answer isn't really in the poll. I went with "flawed translation", but the reason suggested is not why I think it's flawed. I think it's flawed because translation was simply not well-understood at the time, and because humans are fallible.

    I also think it's a beautiful work of art, and I prefer it almost all the time - as long as I have time to stop and explain all the archaic usages and bad translations. Still... The language is beautiful.

    It is, however, frequently a genuinely *awful* translation, especially when you take into account the changes between then and now in English. Nowadays, when a wife cleaves to her husband, her last name is Bobbit.
     
  3. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    Thanks, Seebs, I needed that!


    Peace and Humor,
    ~VOW
     
  4. owen_rocks

    owen_rocks Member

    108
    +6
    Christian
    I've always heard it was an excellent translation for that time period (meaning the language/words used). Sure it had flaws, but all translations do.

    I've done some greek study with the NKJV and it appears
    fairly accurate, from what I can tell. I'm not sure about
    the Hebrew. But overall it conforms pretty closely to
    the NASB (give or take).

    I have difficulty following the KJV today because of the grammar and words. The NKJV has updated alot of that.

    I don't think it was a special "inspired" translation nor
    was written in a special "holy ghost language" (which
    I've heard some people say).

    peace,
    owen_rocks
     
  5. cheezit

    cheezit Saved in 1976

    196
    +0
    Baptist
    MOMMY!!!!!






















    :D
     
  6. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Well, as an example, I think it's generally accepted now that a Hebrew word translated in most of the OT of the KJV as "sodomite" actually refers to a kind of cult prostitute...
     
  7. cheezit

    cheezit Saved in 1976

    196
    +0
    Baptist
    Now that I got my attempt at "humor" out of the way.....

    The KJV is probably the most popular version of the Bible out there. I use the NIV myself, if for no other reason than it is just easier to understand. I just have a hard time with all of the "thee's" and "thy's" and "thou's" and such as that. I don't think that it is any less "correct" than any other translation, just harder to follow.
     
  8. Anise

    Anise New Member

    53
    +0
    Who says that there is no KJV translation of the apocrypha? I have a copy.

    Is it a fake? (or possibly from several hundred years later or something?)
     
  9. VOW

    VOW Moderator

    +15
    Catholic
    Married
    To Anise:

    Try several hundred years EARLIER. The original KJV in 1611 included the deuteros.


    Peace be with you,
    ~VOW
     
  10. GreenEyedLady

    GreenEyedLady My little Dinky Doo

    +164
    Baptist
    Yes I do love my KJV bible! It is the BEST one out there..I just recieved this e-mail from a friend...read this!
    Hello,
    I just want to say that I use to work at a
    Christian store called FCS. As of today at about 5
    P.M. I was called and told that I was to be paid for
    my hours for Friday and all of next week and after
    that I was to be 'let go'. I asked if I was fired but
    was told that no,I was just being 'let go'. What
    happened is what one may ask and this is a short
    version of my story that began on 2/27/02.

    I found your site and after checking out the info
    on Zondervan (Family Christian Stores was owned by
    Zondervan at one time) I wanted to know what this was
    all about. I am in charge of the Bible section in the
    store where I 'use' to work and thought that this was
    another hate group. What I found was something that
    will change my life forever and I just have to tell
    every Christian I know.

    I went to look up info on that of Harper Collins
    Publishing and found that they (being Harper Collins
    Pub.) as well printed a satanic bible as well as other
    books that we as Christians fight so hard against. I
    was hurt,stunned,and could not believe my eyes. I had
    to know the truth and with that I went looking for
    some answers. As of 2/27/02 I called Family Christian
    Stores home office and asked to speak with someone
    about the history of our store (that being FCS). I was
    put through to a lady that asked me how she could help
    and after telling her I wanted to know about the
    history of FCS I was transfered to another person.
    This person was not in and was told that if I left a
    message he would get back with me. I did leave my name
    and nunber and told him that I worked for FCS and
    wanted to know what our history was. My day ended and
    I thought nothing more of it. That is until I got a
    call on 2/28/02 about noon.

    It was him returning my
    call and I was asked how he could help me. I ask about
    if FCS was owned by Harper Collins Pub and was asked
    why I wanted to know this. His tone had changed and
    now I was really begining to wonder. I told him that I
    worked for FCS for two years and that I understand that
    we used to be Zondervan (or owned by Zondervan) and
    that in turn Zondervan now is owned by Harper Collins
    Publishing. I asked if we, FCS, were owned by Harper
    Collins Pub. as well and was told that we are no
    longer with Zondervan, we are our own company. I was
    happy to hear this but I still wanted to know about
    that NIV/Zondervan/Harper Collins Pub. deal and asked
    if this was the same Harper Collins Pub. that made the
    Satanic bible and was told that we (FCS) were no
    longer with Zondervan and that Zondervan was and is
    still a good Christian group. But what about the
    profits for the NIV that Zondervan make which is owned
    by Harper Collins which makes satanic bibles? I was
    told that I needed to talk with my manager and/or my
    district manager. I was as well told that if I was
    unhappy with the company that I could stay or I could
    go,that was up to me. I told him that if I find out
    that this is true (that Harper Collins Pub. is the one
    and same that makes satanic bibles and yet makes the
    NIV) I would leave FCS. He in return asked if what
    was true? I told him that if Harper Collins Pub. was
    the same as the one who made/makes satanic bibles and
    NIV while getting money from both. I was told that
    they are sinners and that even he himself was a
    sinner. I was shocked! This man was trying to make
    right what was going on. I told him that I was sinner
    as well but that we need to try to better ourselves.
    He told me that I need to now talk with not my manager
    but the district manager the next time he (the
    district manager) came to our store. I hung up hurt
    and wondering why I could not get a straight answer
    out of a Christian store that I believed in.

    I thought my day was done and after returning home
    from work I get another call,it was around 5 P.M. It
    was my manger at FCS and she was calling to tell me
    that she has heard I called home office. She said it
    was fine but that after talking with them that they
    have decided that I need to take Friday (tomorrow) and
    all of next work week off,paid. As well I was informed
    that I no longer work for FCS and with that I asked if
    I was fired,which I was told no,that I was being 'let
    go'. I asked about the Harper Collins Pub. as well and
    she said that Zondervan is a Chrisitian company and
    that they (Zondervan) still are there to help
    Christians everywhere. I asked but what about the
    satanic bibles and was told that Zondervan is
    Christian. I stated that Zondervan was owned by Harper
    Collins Pub. and that meant that Harper Collins Pub. is
    getting paid for both NIV bibles and satanic bibles
    and was told this would be a correct statement but
    that she did not know all of the answer BUT could find
    out for me. As well she told me that Christian music
    is under the other big names that put out all of this
    stuff that we are so against and that is only because
    this helps keeps the cost down. I am hurt,I am
    shocked,and I am scared. I have looked away and turned
    my back and now look at us. We are giving money to
    people who put out satanic bibles along with NIV
    translations.

    I may have (which I feel I did lose)
    lost my job because I stood up for what I believe in
    and know what? I would do it again and I plan to make
    sure that I tell everyone I know what I have learned
    today. I am not perfect but I as well know that God
    can work through me and use me to be His hands and
    feet. I will serve a God that will protect me and
    watch over me. I will serve a God that I know can and
    will provide. I may meet people who don`t care to
    listen but I will tell people who want to know.

    May God bless you and keep faith;

    John Wiser (Ex Member of
    FCS #142)
     
  11. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Hmm. Given that the "Satanists" are essentially a joke religion (at least the ones whose "bible" you can buy in bookstores), I wouldn't worry much.

    Personally, I'm all for publishers being willing to publish nonsense. Cockroaches run from light. "Black magic" is a lot cooler sounding if you've never seen how pathetic the books really are.
     
  12. owen_rocks

    owen_rocks Member

    108
    +6
    Christian

    How do modern translations translate those verses?
    NASB, NIV, NKJV, ESV?

    If they translate them homosexual then I doubt you
    could claim that it is "generally accepted".

    peace,
    owen_rocks
     
  13. Anise

    Anise New Member

    53
    +0
    Thanks Vow, I thought I was nuts for a moment. But reality is fading again... ;)
     
  14. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    I think the current translation is most often "cult prostitute". 1 Kings 14:23-24 or so, you can look it up all over. My wife's RSV says "male cult prostitutes", which are a kind of "abomination", were driven out.

    If you want to read hundreds of pages of exegesis on this, just do web searches on "qadesh".
     
  15. kern

    kern Miserere Nobis

    +7
    Catholic
    The original 1611 KJV also had marginal notes specifying alternate readings or "other ancient manuscripts" type thing. Look for a facsimile of early editions some time.

    My choice wasn't really there either -- I don't think any translation is "the best" or the perfect translation, including the KJV. Biblical scholarship, translation theory, Greek and Hebrew knowledge, and manuscript criticism has advanced so much in the 400 years since the KJV that new versions are necessary.

    -Chris
     
  16. owen_rocks

    owen_rocks Member

    108
    +6
    Christian
    Hi Seebs:

    I found 5 references to Sodomites in the KJV (I think
    I have a version from 1700's).

    Dt 23:17, 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, and 2 Kings 23:7

    I checked with the ESV (published recently). In the
    Dt. passage it translates it "cult prostitute". In
    the others it has "male cult prostitute".


    peace,
    owen_rocks
     
  17. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    Yup. That's because the Dt one prohibits both male and female ones. :)

    So, unless we conclude that the word "sodomite" should mean "male cult prostitute", that's probably a simple factual error of translation in the KJV.
     
  18. owen_rocks

    owen_rocks Member

    108
    +6
    Christian
    In reference to the KJV, one thing that has puzzled me for a number of years, regards the translation of agape in
    I Cor. 13 as "charity" instead of "love".

    They translate agape as "love" in about 150 other places in the New Testament (Rom 8:35 for example). "Charity" appears around 20 times (not sure if each instance is agape or not).

    If anybody knows why I'd be interested in hearing.

    peace,
    owen_rocks
     
  19. seebs

    seebs God Made Me A Skeptic

    +1,462
    Seeker
    Married
    US-Republican
    I dunno, but I think it's often a much *better* translation in this case. Charity is a better description than "love" for most readers, because it's less likely to get confused; there's fewer kinds of charity than kinds of love.
     
  20. owen_rocks

    owen_rocks Member

    108
    +6
    Christian
    Very interesting. Here is how Websters 1828 (or thereabouts) dictionary defines Charity:

    Charity

    CHARITY, n.

    1. In a general sense, love, benevolence, good will; that disposition of heart which inclines men to think favorably of their fellow men to think favorably of their fellow men, and to do them good. In a theological sense, it includes supreme love to God, and universal good will to men.

    1 Cor 8. Col 3. 1 Tim 1.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...