• 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!

Featured The King James Version

Discussion in 'Controversial Christian Theology' started by Lik3, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    904
    +426
    Anglican
    Married
    Gordon backs out of this thread quietly hoping not to wake the inmates..... :)
     
  2. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt Supporter

    +6,973
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    SHHHHHH!!!
     
  3. rockytopva

    rockytopva Love to pray! :) Supporter

    +5,216
    Pentecostal
    Single
    KJV is all I ever read. It is the book the Holy Spirit led me to read. Any other version to me wil always remain unfamiliar and unwelcome.
     
  4. Ancient of Days

    Ancient of Days Active Member Supporter

    489
    +274
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Same here. I read the NIV for years but never felt like I was filling up spiritually. Every time I needed to check something I found myself going back to the KJV. It was the first bible I bought as a new Christian but had a hard time when I started reading in Leviticus and numbers so I got an NIV. Wish I had never of done that. When you compare verses its just not saying the same thing. "Things that are different are not the same"
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • List
  5. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,787
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    I’m curious about this too. I get the impression some people feel that the archaic language used makes it more ‘holy’, and get confused over what is meant by it being called the ‘authorised’ version, which was only relevant at the time of it being accepted by the then English monarch. The KJV was an incredible achievement in its day, and had a tremendous impact on the English language and English speaking cultures, but its just one of many translations, with different strengths and weaknesses.
     
  6. Apologetic_Warrior

    Apologetic_Warrior Saved by Grace through Faith

    +585
    United States
    Calvinist
    Married
    US-Republican
    I agree for the most part, however my view of the KJV, if laid out, would be a bit more on the positive side of Biblical criticism. We should consider the source of Scripture even in translation, and the long period of time in English Bible translation history where for English readers, the options were a.) read from the KJV, or b.) learn the original languages. I would also make note of the underlying manuscripts behind the KJV are known as the Byzantine family of manuscripts, while nearly every modern translation comes from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. I believe whether a person is reading from the KJV or a modern translation such as the ESV, they can read with confidence that the message is faithful to the original intended meaning. I believe God has always had His mighty providential hand, in the originals, copies, and translations. To most modern English readers, I would recommend a translation with an essentially word for word approach to translation as a primary Bible, like the ESV, NASB, or NKJV, and other more thought for thought translations to help assist with difficult passages. For younger readers especially, a translation such as the NLT would be an excellent choice. But perhaps I am overly hopeful?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  7. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +10,351
    Lutheran
    Single
    US-Others
    The King James Version is more-or-less the informal name for The Authorized Version, that is, authorized by King James I of England. There had been several English Bibles in print by the early 17th century. The Bishop's Bible had been the Authorized Version for the Church of England since 1568, and went through several revisions. James wanted an improvement of the text and to standardize the text for use throughout the entire English Church, as such the translators didn't simply update the 1602 Bishop's Bible, the provided an entirely new translation--one primarily based on the 1602 Bishop's Bible, but also relied on the work of other English translations, such as Tyndale and Coverdale.

    In 1611 this fresh translation was published, but continued to see updates and revision every several decades until a new standardized text was necessitated, the job of producing a new standardized text fell to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Cambridge published theirs first, but ultimately the 1769 Oxford won out as the authorized text for use in the Church of England and is still the text of the KJV one will find at any book store in the English-speaking world.

    By the 19th century English-speakers had been using some form of the KJV since 1611, and now all over the world via the British Empire and the expanding United States of America. Thus for Protestant English-speakers, the KJV was simply the Bible. There weren't a whole lot of alternatives, and new translations were largely revisions of the KJV, such as Webster's Bible (from the same Daniel Webster who is responsible for the American English dictionary)--which didn't exactly catch on.

    Without looking into it specifically, my suspicion is that KJV-onlyism was borne out of that old human instinct to like what is familiar and distrust what is new and different. The KJV was familiar, it was common, and it was everywhere--a new Bible was likely hard for many people to accept. The 20th century saw a proliferation of new translations, spurred by new manuscript discoveries (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), a desire to update language, etc likely didn't sit well with many who associated these new translations with modernity--and thus grudgingly insisted that the KJV was the one and only true Bible.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  8. Radagast

    Radagast has left CF

    +1,791
    Australia
    Christian
    Single
    In most cases, these so-called "left-out" bits are in the other versions, but in a different place.

    And in most cases, the ESV, CSB, or NIV are better translations.
     
  9. Athanasius377

    Athanasius377 New Member Supporter

    64
    +56
    United States
    Anglican
    Married
    If one wants to use the KJV so be it. It is a fine translation and a monument to 17th century scholarship and is the translation I am most familiar with. The KJV only movement is essentially a man-made tradition no less toxic than Rome's previous insistence on the Vulgate only. During the 19th century as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling new discoveries were being made in regards to the text and transmission of the New Testament. This alarmed many in the church and these discoveries somehow got linked with the higher critical method that was raging in Europe at the time. The result was the accusation that new translations and revisions are somehow corrupted.

    You can usually spot the bias the moment someone starts to list verses that are "omitted". This assumes the KJV is the standard. It is assuming the same thing they are trying to prove and the reasoning (if there is any) becomes circular. At no point will there be an appeal to the text of a manuscript or anything in Greek. In most cases there is a complete lack of understanding how manuscripts were transmitted, why scribes tried to harmonize parts of the text, etc. A goodly amount of the KJV only crowd have never seen an ancient papyrus manuscript.

    If you want to use the KJV because you prefer it, fine. If you have concerns about the family of underlying manuscripts but have issues with Jacobean English then use the NKJV. If you think the newer critical text is closer to what the original autographs said, then use the NASB or the ESV. Don't be afraid to consult more than one translation if the text is unclear. Each has their strengths. My advice is to be a student of scripture regardless of which translation you use.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • List
  10. Galilee63

    Galilee63 Newbie

    +266
    Catholic
    Married
    The Catholic Bible has everything in Jesus, God The Most High's, Holy Spirit's Holy Word, Holy Will and Holy Ways
     
  11. simonbrooks

    simonbrooks Member

    34
    +18
    United Kingdom
    Christian
    Married
    UK-Conservative
    Here we go again!

    Let's just look at the last statement. JEHOVAH is omitted? You are aware of course that the word JEHOVAH never appears in any of the manuscripts? It is a mis-translation of Yahweh.

    In fact to replace it with Yahweh or Lord is technically more correct.

    God bless
     
  12. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,787
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Adam wrote scripture?
     
  13. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,787
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    For a rounded view on the KJ translation I’d recommend Melvin Bragg’s ‘Book of Books - the radical impact of the KJ bible’
     
  14. Tom Farebrother

    Tom Farebrother Well-Known Member Supporter

    +2,787
    Romania
    Christian
    Married
    Nb I’m not being facetious here that was a genuine question. I’ve never heard of any copy of anything supposedly written down by Adam. I mean it doesn’t seem credible to me, seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language, but I wasn’t trying to be funny.
     
  15. Ancient of Days

    Ancient of Days Active Member Supporter

    489
    +274
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    "seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language"

    That doesn't mean God didn't give him those skills. He had the other skills so why not?
     
  16. JackRT

    JackRT "Karma" can bite you in the butt Supporter

    +6,973
    Canada
    Christian
    Married
    What language did he write in?
     
  17. Ancient of Days

    Ancient of Days Active Member Supporter

    489
    +274
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Even if he didn't physically write it down he gave the account of the garden to whomever did write it down so in essence he did write part of it. It starts with God, then Adam, Noah and these are the generations of means its a passing of the torch. But at the end of the day who God used to write down his words is irrelevant after all God is the author and if its infallible which it has to be, ultimately God wrote it down.
     
  18. Ancient of Days

    Ancient of Days Active Member Supporter

    489
    +274
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don't know. At this point in time the people that would know are long gone so you would have to ask God that question.
     
  19. Monk Brendan

    Monk Brendan Well-Known Member Supporter

    +1,321
    United States
    Melkite Catholic
    Private
    US-Others
    I find, when I run across certain passages, that I hear the voice and recit/music from Handle's Messiah, which was not from the KJV, but from the libretto by the Rev. Mr. Jenner.
     
  20. gordonhooker

    gordonhooker Franciscan tssf Supporter

    904
    +426
    Anglican
    Married
    Yep apparently he did according to some sources..... :)
    My youngest sons name is Adam but he doesn't write scripture he only reads, studies, and strives like the rest of us to live by it.
     
Loading...