Since the original KJV has so many flaws: Why do they keep printing it?

[Radrook]

One would assume that a seriously-flawed translation would be removed from distribution out of respect for the biblical author and the original text.

KJV Issues
http://www.watch.pair.com/TR-kjv-issues.html

It is weird because documents which are considered crucial to our understanding of issues such as the colonial Declaration of Independence
which outlined the issues involved leading to a diplomatic severance between the thirteen colonies and England are treated with great care and respect in order to assure accuracy and evade unnecessary misunderstanding.

Any flawed version of such a document would not be tolerated as genuine.
Yet when we come to the biblical text, this isn't the case.

Strange! It seems to fall easily into the Satanic scheme of misrepresentation initiated in the Garden of Eden, a scheme which was not abandoned and which will only be put t an end when Satan and hs cohorts are finally annihilated as foretold in prophecy.

In the meantime, however, one would expect these who ostentatiously declare themselves as caretakers of God's Word of truth to resist Satanic efforts at misrepresentation via being far more careful with their translations. Otherwise they could very well find themselves as part of the Satanic scheme to warp whatever God has transmitted to mankind and to maker it look morally corrupt or ludicrous.

Relevant Short Article

The Bible says in several places not to add to his words,

how can this be true when other books were added afterwards?

What it means is that one is not to add their own words to what God gave. Each one is a specific book that was complete that man was not to add or subtract from. The Bible is a collection of all 66 books that are of the Old and New Testament.

Deuteronomy 4:2 “You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take anything from it”(also Deuteronomy 12:32). The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160).

"Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar" Proverbs 30:6.

In our day there is the belief in “progressive revelation” that originates from outside the Word. What right does anyone have to teach what is not in Scripture as if it is Scripture? False teachers do not want to submit to its original intent, so they do not seek what Scripture actually (exegesis) means, instead, they conform it to what they want it to mean (isogesis).

They will look to another source as their authority because they are not under God’s authority. This is why Paul admonishes us in 1 Corinthians 4:6: “not to think beyond what is written” (exceed or go past). Why? So pride will not have an opportunity to operate and puff us up. It is pride that makes one participate in false doctrine which makes him spiritually destructive to himself and others who listen to him.

The reason God is so adamant on this is because “The entirety of Your word is truth” (Psalms 119: 160). Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is pure; he is a shield to those who put their trust in Him.”

If we look at the context it saying “Every word of God.” God is stating for MAN not to add to his words. Adding does not only mean additional words, but can also mean changing them to mean what they do not. When you add new words as equal to Scripture you are really taking away from Scripture.

In the book of Revelation which is prophecy completes the Bible, just as Genesis began the Bible, it states "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this Book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this Book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the Book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this Book" Revelation 22:18-19.

Of all the books Revelation has the strongest warning as it has to do with the end of world system and the coming of the Lord to restore righteousness.
http://www.letusreason.org/Biblexp117.htm

 

[Stillicidia]

It's the most trustworthy translation, and the best translation. I don't need a wrong translation telling me the literal opposite of what the KJV says about sheep sacrifice.

 

[Radrook]

It's the most trustworthy translation, and the best translation. I don't need a wrong translation telling me the literal opposite of what the KJV says about sheep sacrifice.

It translates "sheol" as hell in order to push the Hell-Firist eternally-unforgiving, sadistically-inclined, torturing God idea. It propagates the silly demonically inspired idea of nonexistent, chimeric mythological creatures by mistranslating common Hebrew words which refer to common animals. Those are just two of many unjustifiable flaws.

It puts forth the name of God in various places as Jehovah when the name of God isn't presently known and hasn't been known for more than 2000 years but only the four letters representing it.

If indeed the translators were seeking accuracy, then other pronunciations such as Yahweh, which are far more or probable, should have been used.

Questions for KJV Advocates
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#questions


BTW
A sincere seeker of truth isn't offended when error is identified.

 

[Stillicidia]

Which is the translation that pushes for hellish interpretation? you're talking about other ones, or KJV?
Assuming you're talking about the other ones, the error translations are trivial, and also more importantly, may well not be wrong at all. How do you know it isn't (also) the holy ghost, or the impossible to be written name Yahweh, can be Jehovah. You aren't the people that wrote the original bible. They were probably very very right, and it only seems wrong. I know a number of people press that there are many contradictions, and yet I can manage to prove each of them. It's not hard, they just overlook things.

Error from within a book is falsehood. A lie, something not true in any way, shape, or form. But trivial, is Nephilim, being giants, it's not an error to say that giants are nephilim, and that nephilim are giants.

How do you know what they called Barnabas and Paul? Were you there? Do you, like too many, read based off denied scripture from those who sought to stir troubles?

In the case of Easter, Easter is linked to the passover.

Why do you worry about great tribulation or the great tribulation. Tribulation is tribulation. If you've undergone great tribulation, then you may have also undergone the great tribulation.

How is a falling away incorrect? “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” I don't get it. Do you know there's no falling away?

Continuing on with the falling away. There are coming days of the Manifest Sons and Daughters, where all the world will know us by the love we have for each other, and do greater works than Jesus. How then, should the Antichrist be made known to the world, can you expect him to flourish, except there be a falling away?

 

[davidcrosby]

I know God says "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom 14:4). But even though I read the KJV Bible along with other translations (going back to the original Hebrew and Greek if need be), I was a little disturbed (but didn't say anything) while talking with a "KJV Only" Christian. And maybe someone can elaborate, or set me straight on why there are "KJV Only" Christians — but while listening to him, I couldn't help but thinking (without having to reason) that God (Jesus) was not born in 1600 England. Nor did He write or speak 17 century old english. In fact (and I'm not bashing because I do read it) the KJ was a version translated for a government controlled church (with many inappropriately translated words—such as "judgment" in many Old Testament passages where "justice" is the correct rendering (which all other translations correct)). So why do KJV Onlyers think God only understands or speaks with "thus" "thy" "thou" "ith" etc. —I mean, the guy would always refer to God and His word in such a manner and was even praying that way (I guess he thinks that's the only way God talks or understands, instead of in our own language...???). Where's the 4real relationship where it's about us and Him, and not some translation. Man, I have to talk to our Lord normally from the heart, instead of from a different century. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I guess it's just their religion. And even though this KJV Only Christian bashed and condemned every other translation (and there are a few that's beyond question), I'm not bashing or against the KJV. I love it's beauty. I just don't understand their bondage to a translation or tradition. That was the problem with the Pharisees, they made the Law their god instead of God their law - as some people make the KJV their god instead of God their KJV. I'm sure I'll get "set straight" for wondering about this. But regardless, I'm not wondering with any I'll intent. Just wondering why it isn't about Jesus instead of a translation...

 

[Stillicidia]

Different versions of the bible is accepted by God. KJV is the most trustworthy. I was a KJV only person until I learned the other ones are accepted also, but it's still the very best.

 

[Radrook]

Clarification

I was referring to the unrevised version of the KJV.
If it was revised, why go on printing the earlier one that was found flawed?

 

[Radrook]

Different versions of the bible is accepted by God. KJV is the most trustworthy. I was a KJV only person until I learned the other ones are accepted also, but it's still the very best.

I prefer the KJV rendering of many of the passages such as the Our Father and The Lord is my shepherd found in Psalms which we were obligated to recite every day at public school before classes commenced. Why, because of the beauty and forcefulness of the language, In fact, the old style English adds to its charm. So I am definitely not nitpicking at the KJV. I am merely stating that if flaws are discovered, why continue to print them.

BTW
I don't agree with substituting the name of God with Lord either.
However, I do object to a capitalization of holy spirit in order to propagate the Trinitarian view or of calling it the Holy Ghost for the same biased, doctrinal reason.


Translators should not permit their theological persuasion to induce them to take such liberties. Doing so is strictly spoken against in the very Bible which they subject to that abuse.

 

[Stillicidia]

I was referring to comparing KJV with new international version. I don't think KJV is in any way satanic.

I gave an argument against it being flawed. Not going to continue unless it's answered because I hate all the bias.

 

[Stillicidia]

The way I see it, God, Lord, Father, Jehovah, Yahweh. Those are all names to the same. You call by one you call to one.
But Jehovah and Yahweh are the ones that may or may not be his true name.

 

[Radrook]

Which is the translation that pushes for hellish interpretation? you're talking about other ones, or KJV?
Assuming you're talking about the other ones, the error translations are trivial, and also more importantly, may well not be wrong at all. How do you know it isn't (also) the holy ghost, or the impossible to be written name Yahweh, can be Jehovah. You aren't the people that wrote the original bible. They were probably very very right, and it only seems wrong. I know a number of people press that there are many contradictions, and yet I can manage to prove each of them. It's not hard, they just overlook things.

Error from within a book is falsehood. A lie, something not true in any way, shape, or form. But trivial, is Nephilim, being giants, it's not an error to say that giants are nephilim, and that nephilim are giants.

How do you know what they called Barnabas and Paul? Were you there? Do you, like too many, read based off denied scripture from those who sought to stir troubles?

In the case of Easter, Easter is linked to the passover.

Why do you worry about great tribulation or the great tribulation. Tribulation is tribulation. If you've undergone great tribulation, then you may have also undergone the great tribulation.

How is a falling away incorrect? “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” I don't get it. Do you know there's no falling away?

Continuing on with the falling away. There are coming days of the manifest sons and daughters, where all the world will know us by the love we have for each other, and do greater works than jesus. How then, should the antichrist be made known to the world, can you expect him to flourish, except there be a falling away?

I don't mind Nephilim being referred to as giants, or the translation into terms which leave essential meaning intact.

 

[Radrook]

I know God says "Who are you to judge another's servant? To his own master he stands or falls" (Rom 14:4). But even though I read the KJV Bible along with other translations (going back to the original Hebrew and Greek if need be), I was a little disturbed (but didn't say anything) while talking with a "KJV Only" Christian. And maybe someone can elaborate, or set me straight on why there are "KJV Only" Christians — but while listening to him, I couldn't help but thinking (without having to reason) that God (Jesus) was not born in 1600 England. Nor did He write or speak 17 century old english. In fact (and I'm not bashing because I do read it) the KJ was a version translated for a government controlled church (with many inappropriately translated words—such as "judgment" in many Old Testament passages where "justice" is the correct rendering (which all other translations correct)). So why do KJV Onlyers think God only understands or speaks with "thus" "thy" "thou" "ith" etc. —I mean, the guy would always refer to God and His word in such a manner and was even praying that way (I guess he thinks that's the only way God talks or understands, instead of in our own language...???). Where's the 4real relationship where it's about us and Him, and not some translation. Man, I have to talk to our Lord normally from the heart, instead of from a different century. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. I guess it's just their religion. And even though this KJV Only Christian bashed and condemned every other translation (and there are a few that's beyond question), I'm not bashing or against the KJV. I love it's beauty. I just don't understand their bondage to a translation or tradition. That was the problem with the Pharisees, they made the Law their god instead of God their law - as some people make the KJV their god instead of God their KJV. I'm sure I'll get "set straight" for wondering about this. But regardless, I'm not wondering with any I'll intent. Just wondering why it isn't about Jesus instead of a translation...

I was actually unaware that KJV had a readership that is so vehemently loyal.
Thanks for the info.

 

[Radrook]

I was actually unaware that KJV had a readership that is so vehemently loyal. Never came across it during my public ministry years ago.

Thanks for the info

BTW
I wholeheartedly agree. There is nothing inherently sacred about the English spoken in the KJV and other translations in other languages can be just as acceptable or even more.[/QUOTE]

 

[Stillicidia]

.

 

[Stillicidia]

People have sooner said they found contradictions. I never heard of it being a potentially bad translation. Saw your argument though, and I'm not nearly convinced it's a bad translation. I do still think KJV is foolproof. Besides being told that other translations are ok to a degree.

 

[davidcrosby]

Ok, but just don't start misinterpreting too many things and go down a spiral into thinking contradictions are everywhere, and start researching man's knowledge on the matter, and becoming bitterly bamboozled.

No, I love the king James version... That's what I cut my teeth on. And if you understand the lingo of that time and it's meaning as of nowadays (like charity then and now along with other text) your good to go. But there are some words of wrong rendering that is corrected in the center column of the KJV. Regardless, I'm in agreement with you on its reliability of Scripture.

 

[Stillicidia]

Oh that was for Radrook. All was for Radrook. Except this, this is for you <3

Ya those people that wrote it had a language outside of the time of Jesus, and are off modern language.

Thee's and Thou's are ALL those writers, and not anyone else.

 

[Radrook]

I was referring to comparing KJV with new international version. I don't think KJV is in any way satanic.

I gave an argument against it being flawed. Not going to continue unless it's answered because I hate all the bias.

It isn't a matter of being biased.

 

[Stillicidia]

To me it is a matter of bias. You brought up 'why do people make this book when its wrong' I say 'its not wrong you need more evidence saying that its wrong' You keep saying its wrong. It is a matter of bias.

 

[Radrook]

To me it is a matter of bias. You brought up 'why do people make this book when its wrong' I say 'its not wrong you need more evidence saying that its wrong' You keep saying its wrong. It is a matter of bias.

I still don't understand why a book that has been found to contain errors should be printed and distributed. JWs produced Bibles which they later revised and only print the revised versions. Now that makes sense.