I would like to know your thoughts about the KJV in relation to what is being said below (I did not write this, unfortunately, I lost the link). 😕
View attachment 242653
Here are the SIX common misconceptions or false beliefs about the King James Version (KJV)
1) The KJV was the first English translation of the Bible. The KJV was not the first, but the tenth English translation of the Bible.
1. Wycliffe's Bible (1388)
2. Tyndale's Bible (1516)
3. Coverdale's Bible (1535)
4. Matthew's Bible (1537)
5. Taverner's Bible (1539)
6. The Great Bible (1540)
7. The Geneva Bible (1560)
8. The Bishop's Bible (1568)
9. The Douay-Rheims Version (1609)
10. The King James Version (1611)
2) The KJV was authorized by God.
The belief that the KJV was authorized by God to be translated is just an assumption with no biblical basis. The KJV was called the “Authorized Version (AV)” because its translation was approved and mandated by King James I, and it was appointed to be read in churches. This was stated in the original title page of the KJV:
THE HOLY BIBLE
Containing the Old and New Testaments
Translated out of the Original Tongues
And with the Former Translations
Diligently Compared and Revised
BY HIS MAJESTY'S SPECIAL COMMAND APPOINTED TO BE READ IN CHURCHES
3) The King James is always true to the literal words of the Hebrew and Greek texts.
While the King James Version is generally a very literal translation, it is not always literal in all of its renderings. In Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4, the KJV paraphrased the Greek "me genoito" ("may it never be") into "God forbid". And in Matthew 27:44 the Greek "oneididzon auton"("they reviled him") was paraphrased by the KJV into "cast the same in his teeth".
4. The KJV is a perfect translation.
There is no such thing as a perfect translation. The only perfect texts of the Bible were the texts that came from the hands of the Biblical writers written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Perfect translation is not possible because of the nature of language. Receptor languages, such as English, can’t always reflect perfectly the concepts or meanings of the Greek and Hebrew words. And in some cases the meaning of Hebrew and Greek words are difficult to decipher.
Translations are just approximations to the original text. The goal of each translation is to be closer as much as possible to the message of the original text, that’s why translations are continually revised to be more accurate. The King James Bible was not exempt from revisions. There were four major revisions of the KJV (1629, 1638, 1762, 1769) and more than twenty minor revisions. The changes in these revisions are due to not only printing errors or spelling standardization, but also to textual or translation errors.
5) The KJV is a better translation than the modern versions.
The truth is modern versions are much better than the KJV. The KJV is not a readable version compared to many modern versions because of its archaisms and obscure literal renderings. The KJV was based on late and inferior Greek texts while the modern versions are based upon much older and much more reliable Greek texts. The so-called omissions in the NIV and other modern versions is not a conspiracy nor a malicious intent to distort the Bible, but it's due to variation in the Greek manuscripts. There are Greek manuscripts that have those verses and there are also Greek manuscripts that do not have those verses. This happened because of scribal copying errors, alterations, or emendations. Through the science of textual criticism, it is possible to determine with high accuracy which variant is reliable or not.
6) The KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
There are Christians who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same manner as the biblical writers. But this is denied by the translators themselves. In the original preface to the King James Version of 1611 the translators admitted that their work was not perfect and not on a par with the inspired authors of Scripture. There were instances where the translators were not absolutely sure of the original reading of the Greek or Hebrew text, and they indicated that in the margin with textual variant notes.
Those who believe that the KJV translators were inspired by the Holy Spirit must use a King James Bible with Apocryphal books because the translators, who were mostly Anglicans, added these books in their original translation. The Apocrypha was a part of the King James Bible for 274 years, until 1885 when the British and Foreign Bible Societies excluded them from the revised version.
These arguments, you have posted, are valid. The KJV is certainly not an "inspired" translation because, as you pointed out, there is no such thing.
However, the KJV is a very good translation. True, for the most part, to the "Manuscripts" available at that time. The Textus Receptus is it's foundation. While not perfect, as anyone who translates the Koine Greek knows, it will not lead one astray. However, if you pick up a "variant reading" of the Textus Receptus, you will see the places where scholars disagree about which Greek word or Tense of the word, should be used.
Since the original autographs do not exist today, there are occasional copying errors. This then, requires comparing one copy against another.
By the time the ASB was published, there were many more copies found than those available for the Textus Receptus.
One of the glaring flaws of the KJV translation is in Acts 12:4. The Greek word -
πάσχα (pronounced pas' khah), should have been translated: "Passover" but was translated "Easter". There was no legitimate reason to do this.
There are many good translations out there but watch out for the ones that have modernized the language, to such an extent, that they do not indicate which words are supplied and which are in the Greek Text. To many supplied words, make the translation an interpretation rather than a translation. This is a dangerous thing. Let me give an example from the One New Man Bible published in 2011:
1 Cor 13:8-10 And whether prophecies will be abolished or tongues will cease or knowledge will be abolished; love never perishes.
(9) We know in part and we prophesy in part
(10) but when the perfect state that is to be ushered in by the return of the Messiah would come, what is in the past will be set aside.
Now compare this to the Actual Greek Text: (In particular, watch verse 10)
1Co 13:8 Love never fails: but whether prophecies, they will be abolished; or tongues, they shall cease; or knowledge, it will be abolished.
1Co 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part:
1Co 13:10 but when the completed thing comes, the thing which is in part, will be abolished.
See the difference? In particular - verse 10 - which is more the translators interpretation and not a true translation.
It is also interesting to note, that the Greek word translated "abolished" and "cease" are the same words. They are a compound word in the Greek, made up of -
κατα - which primarily means "down" (in place or time), and -
ἀργέω - which means: "to idle". Put together, they literally mean - To idle down or set aside.
I just thought these things were interesting.
1
1
