The KJV is being updated

[HARK!]

You do realize, don't you, that the link you provided contains this...

This article possibly contains original research. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (April 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
This is an (incomplete) list of major textual variants in the New Testament, with a focus on differences between categories of New Testament manuscript.

Well aware.

 

[AV1611VET]

So who created the KJV? Aliens? The KJV was created by people. Obvious to anyone with a rational mind.

Who wrote this letter?

The person who signed it? or the secretary's initials the arrow is pointing to?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

So who created the KJV? Aliens? The KJV was created by people. Obvious to anyone with a rational mind.

The problem is people worship the KJV over God.

Who wrote this letter?

The person who signed it? or the secretary's initials the arrow is pointing to?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

This scripture you quote applies to the original manuscripts, and by effect any translation that may be compiled based off those manuscripts. The KJV is not the only one. Shoot, the KJV is not even the only translation from the TR. The NKJV and the MEV are as well. People should really stop worshipping the KJV it's kind of distrubing

 

[pescador]

The question still remains for me... Why do some people believe that the King James Version is the pure word of God in the English language? What is it that compels them to believe that a translation made over four hundred years ago is without error? It was a work produced by people using the best sources available at the time, coupled with the understanding they had of the languages and what the texts meant to the early hearers, and how those factors could be best used to convey the actual meaning to the people of early 17th century England. It is my contention that, while it was a very good (but my no means perfect) work, the increase in both available texts and the greater understanding of the cultures that produced them that we have today has allowed modern translators to come up with (in my opinion) much better Bibles.

And please people, don't come up with the fable that God directed the translation. Even the translators stated that their work was the best they could do, based on available manuscripts and the consideration of earlier English translations, but expected it to be changed in the future.

 

[pescador]

Who wrote this letter?

The person who signed it? or the secretary's initials the arrow is pointing to?

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Are you okay??? What on Earth are you trying to say?

P.S. It looks like "Your name" dictated this fictitious letter, which is clearly an example of how to format a business letter.

P.P.S. In case you actually don't know, Paul, along with Silvanus and Timothy, wrote the partial verse you quoted from "1 Thessalonians". 1 Thessalonians 1:1, KJV, "Paul, and Silvanus, and Timotheus, unto the church of the Thessalonians which is in God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ". or better yet, "From Paul and Silvanus and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." (NEV)

 

[HARK!]

And please people, don't come up with the fable that God directed the translation. Even the translators stated that their work was the best they could do, based on available manuscripts and the consideration of earlier English translations, but expected it to be changed in the future.

We have, far, far, more manuscripts today; and what was wrong with the Geneva Bible, aside from King James not liking some of what was written in the footnotes about kings?

 

[pescador]

We have, far, far, more manuscripts today; and what was wrong with the Geneva Bible, aside from King James not liking some of what was written in the footnotes about kings?

Exactly! King James clearly ordered a translation to be created that would glorify himself and his personal concept of what Christianity was.

There is a very good reason that some Protestants (the Pilgrims) fled England with their Geneva Bibles.

 

[AV1611VET]

The problem is people worship the KJV over God.

Ya. I pray to mine all the time.

Tithe to It too.

This scripture you quote applies to the original manuscripts, and by effect any translation that may be compiled based off those manuscripts. The KJV is not the only one.

Yup. Here's the translation sequence as I see it:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

 

[public hermit]

People who claim KJV only really need to learn the original languages; that would put an end to this nonsense, I think. There's no way to know the languages and then be KJV only (there might be some outliers who are just ornery, but not for the normal, reasonable interpreter). It's just not the best translation, period.

 

[pescador]

Ya. I pray to mine all the time.

Tithe to It too. Yup. Here's the translation sequence as I see it:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

So people stopped translating the Bible in 1611? I have news for you! There have been many other translations in that past 411 years. Obviously your vision is deficient if you can't see beyond the early 17th Century.

I highly recommend the NIV or (my favorite) The NET if you want to move on to later and better translations in the language that you use when you communicate.

 

[1watchman]

Negative.

All Bible versions are by men, but some are scholars who can discern the truth; but I will leave this to those who just like easy reading by modern writers, without careful review of original meanings.

 

[pescador]

All Bible versions are by men, but some are scholars who can discern the truth; but I will leave this to those who just like easy reading by modern writers, without careful review of original meanings.

Your post is somewhat cryptic.

Do you think that a Bible must be difficult to read to be of value? Do you think that Jesus, a Galilean carpenter, spoke in a language (Aramaic) that was difficult to understand by the people to whom He spoke? He criticized the (learned) Pharisees for having knowledge of the Torah but not understanding its meaning.

What are your qualifications that allow you to criticize "modern writers", some of whom have devoted their entire careers to Bible translation?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Ya. I pray to mine all the time.

Tithe to It too. Yup. Here's the translation sequence as I see it:

1. AV330 Gothic Version
2. AV700 Anglo-Saxon Version
3. AV1389 Wycliffe
4. AV1525 Tyndale
5. AV1560 Geneva Bible
6. AV1568 Bishop's Bible
7. AV1611 King James Bible

You might be shocked to find out the KJV is translated from a collection if manuscripts commonly referred to as the "Textus Receptus". These were compiled by a man named Erasmus, who some time after compiling even admitted that he made numerous errors with it just to try and have one of the first mass published works. There's MULTIPLE editions of the Textus Receptus that highlight this. Not to mention this text was based off a series of manuscripts that at the time were 1200 years removed from the actual writings themselves. All this points to the KJV being just like every other translation that exists, EVEN the NIV, ESV, NASB, and others that you so prominently denounce. Faulty, with errors.

I don't even know why I'm wasting time on this actually. You seem to be fairly stuck and close minded to the possibility, which is your prerogative, but to try and actually denounce other translations that are likely closer to what the original inspired manuscripts would have been like is absurd. That is why I say the KJV is being worshipped. I've seen much worse unfortunately, but it's all the same. Unwillingness to be open to other moves of God because of a tradition.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

All Bible versions are by men, but some are scholars who can discern the truth; but I will leave this to those who just like easy reading by modern writers, without careful review of original meanings.

Just once, and I mean this not to goad or start a heated discussion, I want to learn. Just once I would like for you or AV1611VET or someone with a similar position to explain to me your exact reason for denouncing other translations, EVEN those that are based off the same manuscripts like the NKJV and MEV. The general "scholars are unlearned" argument that you all have been giving can't be your only reason, if so it's a very poor reason indeed.

 

[AV1611VET]

People who claim KJV only really need to learn the original languages;

Where the original languages differ with the King James Bible, the original languages are wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

So people stopped translating the Bible in 1611?

No.

God finalized His work in 1611.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Where the original languages differ with the King James Bible, the original languages are wrong.

whats sad here is I cant tell if you are being serious or joking.

 

[AV1611VET]

whats sad here is I cant tell if you are being serious or joking.

I'm being serious.

original language vs. translations

5 Sneaky Ways Fundamentalists Are Trying To Slip Christian Creationism Into America’s

Is there any evidence for evolution?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I'm being serious.

I was afraid of that. so the men who translated the KJV were more inspired than Peter, John, Paul, Luke, Mark, Matthew, the prophets, even Moses? Thats… interesting

 

[AV1611VET]

I was afraid of that. so the men who translated the KJV were more inspired than Peter, John, Paul, Luke, Mark, Matthew, the prophets, even Moses? Thats… interesting

Nope.

You're assuming I'm saying the originals ARE wrong, and I'm not.

I'm saying that, where the originals differ from the KJB, they are wrong.

In other words, the litmus test to see if you have the true originals or not, is to compare them to the KJB.