The KJV is being updated

[ByTheSpirit]

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.

thats exactly what you are saying.

literally your words. if the originals differ from the KJV the originals are wrong. Meaning if Moses wrote something and its different from the KJV, then Moses got it wrong. that is insanity honestly

 

[pescador]

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.

Great, true, and accurate post!

 

[pescador]

No.

God finalized His work in 1611.

What is the basis for saying this? God is present in our lives today and continues His work in us. He didn't sit back and say "I'm done" 411 years ago.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meaning if Moses wrote something and its different from the KJV, then Moses got it wrong. that is insanity honestly

The question though is, would Moses write something different from the KJV?

I don't think he would.

 

[AV1611VET]

What is the basis for saying this? God is present in our lives today and continues His work in us. He didn't sit back and say "I'm done" 411 years ago.

Verbal Plenary Inspiration ended in AD 96 with the completion of the Scriptures.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The question though is, would Moses write something different from the KJV?

I don't think he would.

So since you are pretty deadset on the KJV, I'm curious... what version of the KJV is the actual authorized version? There's been a handful of revisions and updates to the original. So the actual KJV of 1611 is different from the KJV that you have now. So is the one you have now better than the original? If it's a "perfect" translation, why the need for changes and edits?

 

[AV1611VET]

So since you are pretty deadset on the KJV, I'm curious... what version of the KJV is the actual authorized version? There's been a handful of revisions and updates to the original. So the actual KJV of 1611 is different from the KJV that you have now. So is the one you have now better than the original? If it's a "perfect" translation, why the need for changes and edits?

As I understand it, it is the KJV, fifth edition.

As someone once said:

"God created a diamond in 1611, then polished It to a high gloss over the years."

 

[Athanasius377]

Ok, I’ll bite. The KJV is a monument to 17th century learning and scholarship. It is the version I know and grew up with. When I quote scripture it’s always the KJV that comes out. It’s an Anglican translation and I’m Anglican so there you go. It has so much that I love but it is not an Inspired translation. No translation is inspired. Rather it’s a really accurate and faithful translation of of several printed Greek texts and a Hebrew text that leans towards the Latin Vulgate in places. We (Anglicans) still use it to this very day but there are better translations available. Go with the translation you can read. If the Jacobean language is too difficult then go with a translation you do understand. Avoid paraphrases and liberal translations. I recommend the KJV, NASB (1995), the ESV and the Legacy Standard Bible put out by the Masters seminary. All have there strong points and weaknesses. If you do go with the KJV I recommend the Trinitarian Bible society’s Westminster edition. It’s a fair price with helps in the margins regarding the archaic English.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Ok, I’ll bite. The KJV is a monument to 17th century learning and scholarship. It is the version I know and grew up with. When I quote scripture it’s always the KJV that comes out. It’s an Anglican translation and I’m Anglican so there you go. It has so much that I love but it is not an Inspired translation. No translation is inspired. Rather it’s a really accurate and faithful translation of of several printed Greek texts and a Hebrew text that leans towards the Latin Vulgate in places. We (Anglicans) still use it to this very day but there are better translations available. Go with the translation you can read. If the Jacobean language is too difficult then go with a translation you do understand. Avoid paraphrases and liberal translations. I recommend the KJV, NASB (1995), the ESV and the Legacy Standard Bible put out by the Masters seminary. All have there strong points and weaknesses. If you do go with the KJV I recommend the Trinitarian Bible society’s Westminster edition. It’s a fair price with helps in the margins regarding the archaic English.

The ESV, is if Im not mistaken a revision of the RSV, which is itself a revision of the ASV which was a revision of the KJV. Until I ran across the Berean Study Bible, the ESV was my go to. And honestly it might still be, its a great translation. The NASB is also a good translation, it just has a similar issue the KJV has, readability suffers.

I honestly have no issue with the KJV. I grew up on it as well, but this idea some have that is far and above superior because of whatever reason they can come up with is false. Its a translation that has issues just like every other translation we have today.

 

[pescador]

The question though is, would Moses write something different from the KJV?

I don't think he would.

Moses (supposedly) wrote several "books" of the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew. He would have had absolutely no idea what the KJV was, even if he was able to see it.

Now if you're talking about content... ancient Hebrew is a very simplified language. It bears absolutely no resemblance to the flowery language of early 17th century England.

 

[AV1611VET]

Moses (supposedly) wrote several "books" of the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew. He would have had absolutely no idea what the KJV was, even if he was able to see it.

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

In your opinion, what was this language?

 

[pescador]

Genesis 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

In your opinion, what was this language?

I have no idea. What I am saying is that the entire Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew (except for a small portion written in Aramaic). What is your point?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no idea.

What's your take on someone speculating what language that is, as long as they admit it's speculation?

What I am saying is that the entire Old Testament was written in ancient Hebrew (except for a small portion written in Aramaic).

Do you think Moses wrote the book of Genesis, or redacted it?

What is your point?

I'll get to that shortly. I just want to prep you for what I believe first.

 

[pescador]

What's your take on someone speculating what language that is, as long as they admit it's speculation?Do you think Moses wrote the book of Genesis, or redacted it?I'll get to that shortly. I just want to prep you for what I believe first.

If someone speculates, fine, but that's just the product of someone's imagination.

Yes, I think that Moses "wrote" Genesis, although he may have dictated it and others may have added to it or edited it. The entire torah is considered to be "the five books of Moses".

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes, I think that Moses "wrote" Genesis, although he may have dictated it and others may have added to it or edited it. The entire torah is considered to be "the five books of Moses".

Okay. Fair enough.

I personally believe the first ten chapters of Genesis were written in Jacobean English by various [human] scribes, starting with Adam himself (Genesis 1 & 2), and ending with Shem (Genesis 10).

 

[pescador]

Okay. Fair enough.

I personally believe the first ten chapters of Genesis were written in Jacobean English by various [human] scribes, starting with Adam himself (Genesis 1 & 2), and ending with Shem (Genesis 10).

It's a "shem" that you believe that. If you want to have a serious discussion, fine. If not, I've got other things to do.

 

[AV1611VET]

It's a "shem" that you believe that.

If you want to have a serious discussion, fine. If not, I've got other things to do.

So you didn't mean it when you said:

If someone speculates, fine,

 

[ByTheSpirit]

Okay. Fair enough.

I personally believe the first ten chapters of Genesis were written in Jacobean English by various [human] scribes, starting with Adam himself (Genesis 1 & 2), and ending with Shem (Genesis 10).

If you want to believe something like that, that's fine. I'm no one to tell you that wasn't the language because no one knows. My personal belief is that it was a form of Hebrew, but whatever.

What I'm still trying to get at, and what still needs to be explained to me is if the KJV is "the word of God" the very inspired word as you so claim. Then why has it needed revisions over the years? If it is "the word" it would be perfect from the start, needing no corrections or amendments. The KJV you have on your shelf is not the KJV that was translated back in 1611.

 

[pescador]

So you didn't mean it when you said:

Do you not understand the difference between speculation and seriousness?

 

[AV1611VET]

What I'm still trying to get at, and what still needs to be explained to me is if the KJV is "the word of God" the very inspired word as you so claim. Then why has it needed revisions over the years? If it is "the word" it would be perfect from the start, needing no corrections or amendments. The KJV you have on your shelf is not the KJV that was translated back in 1611.

Because God didn't guide their hands with surgical precision when they wrote it.

Spelling errors were made, and God corrected them over time.

Yes ... you're right ... that KJB on my shelf was written, I think, in 1759 or thereabouts.

But It's still the AV1611 King James Bible.