Which revision of the KJV is the authorized one?

[ByTheSpirit]

So for KJV only individuals, I'd really like some feed back on this. The KJV was compiled in 1611 from the Textus Receptus and (from bible.org):

Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”

So this confuses me. If the KJV is the actual inspired word of God, which of the 4 versions of the KJV is the actual God inspired version and are the others just as unreliable as any other version? It seems to me if it is actually THE Authorized Version that's up above modern translations or even the original manuscripts, then it should have been perfect from the start. Right?

This is so confusing to me!

 

[HTacianas]

So for KJV only individuals, I'd really like some feed back on this. The KJV was compiled in 1611 from the Textus Receptus and (from bible.org):

Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”

So this confuses me. If the KJV is the actual inspired word of God, which of the 4 versions of the KJV is the actual God inspired version and are the others just as unreliable as any other version? It seems to me if it is actually THE Authorized Version that's up above modern translations or even the original manuscripts, then it should have been perfect from the start. Right?

This is so confusing to me!

It's simply not a good idea to say that the King James Version of the bible is the inspired word of God. For instance, the KJV was translated for a somewhat small island nation off the coast of Europe. What are we to say for the majority of Christians who never lived on that island and who do not speak English? Are we to now translate the KJV into other languages so that the vast majority of Christianity will learn the word of God? How about we translate it into Syriac and get rid of the Peshitta? How about translating it into Greek so that the Greek speaking Christians of the world will hear the word of God?

The KJV is one of many translation of the originals that we can take or leave. Personally I don't care for it.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

It's simply not a good idea to say that the King James Version of the bible is the inspired word of God. For instance, the KJV was translated for a somewhat small island nation off the coast of Europe. What are we to say for the majority of Christians who never lived on that island and who do not speak English? Are we to now translate the KJV into other languages so that the vast majority of Christianity will learn the word of God? How about we translate it into Syriac and get rid of the Peshitta? How about translating it into Greek so that the Greek speaking Christians of the world will hear the word of God?

The KJV is one of many translation of the originals that we can take or leave. Personally I don't care for it.

I think it has its pros and cons just like any other translation. Perhaps more cons than pros but still, I'm not going to drag any translation that leads a person to God.

What I'd like to challenge though is this idea that the KJV is the only God authorized English translation, and even more that it's superior to the original manuscripts. Such thinking is childish and really needs to be done away with.

 

[BPPLEE]

So for KJV only individuals, I'd really like some feed back on this. The KJV was compiled in 1611 from the Textus Receptus and (from bible.org):

Daniel Wallace is a noted Greek scholar and professor of New Testament at Dallas Theological Seminary. In his paper entitled “Why So Many Versions?” Wallace makes the following statement -“...we must remember that the King James Bible of today is not the King James of 1611. It has undergone three revisions, incorporating more than 100,000 changes!”

So this confuses me. If the KJV is the actual inspired word of God, which of the 4 versions of the KJV is the actual God inspired version and are the others just as unreliable as any other version? It seems to me if it is actually THE Authorized Version that's up above modern translations or even the original manuscripts, then it should have been perfect from the start. Right?

This is so confusing to me!

The KJV is a translation. Only the original texts were inspired. The KJV contains copyists errors. It would not if it was inspired. I personally like the NKJV but King James only advocates hate that version

 

[CallofChrist]

I grew to love Jesus by reading his words in the KJV. It was instrumental in my conversion. God spoke to me using that translation. These days, I must admit, I use modern translations, especially the ESV. I do not think KJV Onlyism is healthy, especially when those that adhere to it try to "convert" others. It is a flawed translation, I realize that, but it has been sufficient to reveal the gospel and its Christ to many.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

The KJV is a translation. Only the original texts were inspired. The KJV contains copyists errors. It would not if it was inspired. I personally like the NKJV but King James only advocates hate that version

KJV only folks seem to hate just about anything except a KJV, but that's the reason for my question honestly: If the KJV is truly "the inspired word of God" then why the need to revise it and update it a handful of times? Shouldn't it have been perfect from the start?

 

[ByTheSpirit]

I grew to love Jesus by reading his words in the KJV. It was instrumental in my conversion. God spoke to me using that translation. These days, I must admit, I use modern translations, especially the ESV. I do not think KJV Onlyism is healthy, especially when those that adhere to it try to "convert" others. It is a flawed translation, I realize that, but it has been sufficient to reveal the gospel and its Christ to many.

I love the ESV! I recently found another translation though I'm really into, the Berean Study Bible and the Berean Literal Bible.

I have nothing against the KJV. I grew up on it, I think in parts the language used in that translation is absolutely beautiful and poetic. But it is like any other translation. A work of man that contains some errors, but ultimately has a purpose of leading folks to God. And whether someone wants to use a KJV, a ESV, the NASB, the NRSV, the NLT, the NIV, etc, what ultimately matters is said individual following after God. Not conforming to a translation that is kinda worshipped even above God himself by some. A rather small percentage, but still.

 

[BPPLEE]

KJV only folks seem to hate just about anything except a KJV, but that's the reason for my question honestly: If the KJV is truly "the inspired word of God" then why the need to revise it and update it a handful of times? Shouldn't it have been perfect from the start?

Obviously it is not perfect. I have problems with the modern versions for other reasons but I still use them

 

[pescador]

No English translation is "perfect", whatever that means. There are too many differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to make a translation that is exactly like the earliest texts. (The originals don't exist, or have never been found).

The best translations are those that communicate the content of the earliest and best texts so that what they meant to the original hearers are what they mean to us. The words and content were interpreted in the minds of the original hearers to mean a certain thing, so the best translations are those that create the same or similar meaning in our 21st Century minds.

It is a very difficult process; in my mind it's virtually impossible to get it "right". The more that I learn about the cultures of the Bible the better I understand the writings. I regularly use Bibles (and other references) that explain what the ancient writings meant to the early people. Two of my favorites for this purpose are the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible and the NIV First Century Study Bible.

My favorite translation, however, is the NET Bible, which has more than 60,000 translator's notes that explain not only the above but also clarify the languages' meanings.

 

[ByTheSpirit]

No English translation is "perfect", whatever that means. There are too many differences in vocabulary, verb tenses, idioms, etc. to make a translation that is exactly like the earliest texts. (The originals don't exist, or have never been found).

The best translations are those that communicate the content of the earliest and best texts so that what they meant to the original hearers are what they mean to us. The words and content were interpreted in the minds of the original hearers to mean a certain thing, so the best translations are those that create the same or similar meaning in our 21st Century minds.

It is a very difficult process; in my mind it's virtually impossible to get it "right". The more that I learn about the cultures of the Bible the better I understand the writings. I regularly use Bibles (and other references) that explain what the ancient writings meant to the early people. Two of my favorites for this purpose are the NIV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible and the NIV First Century Study Bible.

My favorite translation, however, is the NET Bible, which has more than 60,000 translator's notes that explain not only the above but also clarify the languages' meanings.

The NET is amazing honestly! It's sorta like the Amplified Bible, only better haha.

 

[CallofChrist]

Both the NET and the NRSV Cultural Backgrounds Study Bible (slightly different of course than the NIV version) are terrific and I have used them effectively in study.

 

[pescador]

Regarding the OP...

King James authorized the translation of 1611 to promote his version of Protestantism. We are a long, long ways from that time and that society. I admire the Protestant "pilgrims" who fled with their Geneva Bibles so that they could practice Protestantism without being forced to accept King James' idea.