How is the KJV corrupt?

[posthuman]

as far as "is kjv perfect" it only takes a very simple illustration.

there is no such thing as a farthing in Hebrew culture. a farthing was absolutely never used in Israel, ever, in no uncertain terms. never.

the farthing was only used in Great Britain from the 1200's to 1961, and was worth 1/960th of a British pound-sterling.
its value fluctuated over time.

kjv says "are not two sparrows sold for a farthing?"for Matthew 10:29

well today the answer is no. absolutely not. there is no such thing as a farthing. in Israel, there was never any such thing as a farthing.
never.



the actual word is Matthew 10:29 is "assarion" which was a coin issued in Greek-speaking areas of the Roman empire.
it likewise is no longer in circulation today.
two sparrows today, if you wanted to buy some, cost more than $300. way more than a a thousandth of a dollar.
the kjv estimate of monetary value is simply inaccurate. there is no way to deny that. there is no way a monetary value can remain accurate over all time, because specific monetary values fluctuate.

IMO the proper thing to do when translating Matthew 10:29 is leave the name of the coin alone. just put 'assarion' -- i have to look up what a farthing is, just like i have to look up what a farthing is. i have to make some kind of calculation to figure out what that means in my context. farthing isn't correct. Jesus certainly never had a farthing in his hand.

therefore the kjv is not perfect ((IMO)) -- end of story, as far as i'm concerned.



i know that is a very picky and small thing.
but if anyone is going to make the claim that the kjv is 100% perfect, then the slightest flaw will contradict such a claim.

do i read kjv? yes. do i think kjv is largely superior to most modern translations? yes.
do i consider kjv to be the 100% perfect translations and any other translation a work of Satan on principle?
wow, no.

 

[Dino246]

Umm, you said earlier, Kjb is the word of God therefore, inerrant, meaning perfect and now you are changing. Anyway, we have gone through these on many many threads. You just don't have one but I have one that is inerrant. God bless

I didn’t say “inerrant”. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

 

[John146]

Umm, you said earlier, Kjb is the word of God therefore, inerrant, meaning perfect and now you are changing. Anyway, we have gone through these on many many threads. You just don't have one but I have one that is inerrant. God bless

I guess he believes the word of God contains errors.🤦‍♂️

5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

 

[posthuman]

do i read kjv? yes. do i think kjv is largely superior to most modern translations? yes.
do i consider kjv to be the 100% perfect translations and any other translation a work of Satan on principle?
wow, no.

do i consider you kjv-only-guys my brothers? largely yes. "brother" is do you believe Christ is the Messiah, God enfleshed, come to save us, died, risen, ascended, coming again?
am i upset about the whole kjv-only scenario? i used to be -- but you know what, so what. it's a small thing. i don't believe God is limited to only one particular instance of 'try to make this confused language match up with this other confused language' -- but the scripture is interpreted spiritually. the Spirit doesn't limit itself to one language or dialect; it transcends all of that in a pure language.
kind of i am upset -- because IMO wow a translation is the least of our concerns as Christians.
but i've had this conversation enough times to understand that it is no thing to separate brothers over.

personally i currently read NKJV more often than anything else because that's what my pastor mostly quotes from.

 

[Dino246]

I guess he believes the word of God contains errors.🤦‍♂️

5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

Instead of dodging and throwing shade from the peanut gallery, how about you deal with your own lack of integrity.

 

[Nehemiah6]

kjv no es español, entonces, ¿qué hago?

If you are looking for the Spanish equivalent, then go to the Trinitarian Bible Society.

 

[Gideon300]

You did mean Galatians 2:20?:

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me."—KJV

"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me."—NASB

"I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."—ESV

"I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me."—NIV

"I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me."—English Majority Text Version

"I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. And that which I now live in the flesh, I live through faith from the Son of God, the One having loved me and having given up Himself for me."—Berean Literal Bible

Actually, they all say the same thing as the KJV. I don't get what you mean by the "others get wrong."

No, they do not say the same thing. Read it again. "Faith of the Son of God" v "Faith in the Son of God"

My faith is a measure, given by God. It is His gift to all mankind. The faith of Christ is immeasurable. So I put my limited, natural faith into Christ, who graciously becomes my faith.

Every aspect of Christian life is exchange. I have love, but it is limited by selfishness and my likes and dislikes. The love of God extends even to those who despise and reject Him. I have joy when the circumstances are suitable. The joy of the Lord is unshakeable in any circumstance. I have peace when circumstances suit me. Yet the peace of Christ is not of the word, it is peace that is beyond understanding. Faith is no different. Lord Jesus is my life. So I have all that He is. It has to be worked out in experience, but I am complete in Him.

 

[Gideon300]

Equivalent translations of the Bible in these languages have also been produced by the Trinitarian Bible Society. https://www.tbsbibles.org/page/language

The key element is the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts. Therefore we need nor bring up this straw man argument.

This obsession with the KJV borders on idolatry. Who needs the Holy Spirit when you have the KJV? As I've said elsewhere, I've been born again 50 years and I've managed without the KJV.

 

[Gideon300]

No. I'm not called to do that. I do occasionally write out books of the Bible as rhyming poetry (for two of my published books, I did Psalms and Ruth) but I stay as close to the KJV as possible and make it clear that my work is not a replacement for Scripture.

I'm not a brilliant scholar. I'm just a truth seeker who has looked into things in more detail than most others, apparently. Oh, and YES, there is an agenda to deceive the church and send us all to Hell. The Bible actually talks about it a good bit. Here are some Bible related FACTS for your consideration.

- Every time that Satan interacts with humans, he uses God's Word and twists it.
- There are over 900 English language Bible versions and they greatly contradict each other.
- Westcott and Hort, the Anglican priests who came up with the critical method used in virtually all modern Bibles, were unbelievers who intended to change how "Christianity was done." This is apparent from their own books and letters.
- Because the Bible is the number one bestselling book of all time, those who serve mammon rather than God see it as a business opportunity.
- A lot of wicked people have used Bible translations to push their own agendas. The NIV's Dr. Virginia Mollencott, for example, is a lesbian and this is a big part of why that version is so soft on homosexuality.

But hey, don't mind the facts friend. Also, I have a great piece of real estate in Heaven I can sell you for cheap, hit me up if you're interested, lol

Sure, much of what you've said is correct. But that does not excuse a blanket rejection of every version but the KJV. I've not read the KJV. I was given one when I was saved, and I traded it in for a Berkley version. I also had the New English Bible, the RSV (not happy with that) and the Good News (worse than the RSV). If I could have only one Bible, it would be the Amplified.

To get back to the point, I've managed to survive without the KJV for 50 years. The basis of my salvation is the finished work of Christ through His death and resurrection. It does not depend on what Bible I read.

 

[JStates]

Sure, much of what you've said is correct. But that does not excuse a blanket rejection of every version but the KJV. I've not read the KJV. I was given one when I was saved, and I traded it in for a Berkley version. I also had the New English Bible, the RSV (not happy with that) and the Good News (worse than the RSV). If I could have only one Bible, it would be the Amplified.

To get back to the point, I've managed to survive without the KJV for 50 years. The basis of my salvation is the finished work of Christ through His death and resurrection. It does not depend on what Bible I read.

I agree with that. The early church for a while didn't have the whole Word of God either. They were getting a bit here and there from epistles and preaching.

I'm not actually a KJV-onlyist in principle, just practice because every time I research a modern version in depth, I find troubling things that make me not want to use it.

But even the highly problematic versions can be used by God. I'd never use an NIV but know people who were saved after reading it.

 

[Gideon300]

Just wondering, why baffled with Kjb English? Is it because of its antiquity? Do you not realize the the Hebrew or Greek is more antiquated and considered to be of the dead language? i believe those language were once chose by God to have its use being the common language of their time. God uses language to proclaim his very purpose to all the world and God is using the English to spread the his word.

When I was first saved, I went to every meeting and conference that I could. That was not as often as I liked, because I was in the Navy and overseas a lot. Most preachers used the KJV at the time. People were still praying thous and thees. Most times people preached, sometime in the message they would feel the need to explain what the KJV meant. Like this gem, "My bowels boiled, and rested not: the days of affliction prevented me." What? Did Job have gastroenteritis? Maybe indigestion? Boiling bowels sounds like a serious health problem.

So I determined to find a translation that did not require me a theological degree in order to understand it. I had several versions, eventually settling on the NASB. Now I use Bible Hub. If I must, I check out the literal translation.

 

[Gideon300]

I agree with that. The early church for a while didn't have the whole Word of God either. They were getting a bit here and there from epistles and preaching.

I'm not actually a KJV-onlyist in principle, just practice because every time I research a modern version in depth, I find troubling things that make me not want to use it.

But even the highly problematic versions can be used by God. I'd never use an NIV but know people who were saved after reading it.

Turn your statement 180 degrees and that is exactly why i avoid the KJV.

 

[godlovejoy]

BIBLICAL ACCURACY does not depend on a 100% mechanical translation, it is conveying the CORRECT SENSE of what the author was telling the audience (in their context and understanding) while trying to maintain readability and using fewer and shorter words, for simplicity and conciseness. There is NO Bible which is the most accurate.
THE BOTTOM LINE in ways explained above, the King James Bible is a very accurate translation, but not the MOST accurate.
Any words in CAPITALS or bold or italic, are for emphasis - I am not shouting at you


Robert Gibbs
, Dedicated Christian minister (1974-present)
Answered Mar 23, 2018


Far from it. The Emphatic Diaglott, (a diaglot is a two-language translation), is a translation of the Christian Greek scriptures (New Testament) by Benjamin Wilson, first published in 1864. It is an interlinear with the original Greek text and a word for word English translation in the left column, with a full English translation in the right column. The following is an excerpt from comments made by the translator in the Foreword, regarding the accuracy of the King James Version.

This translation [The King James Version] was perhaps the best that could be made at the time, and if it had not been published by kingly authority. it would not now be venerated by English and American protestants, as though it had come direct from God. It has been convicted of containing over 20,000 errors. Nearly 700 Greek MSS. are now known, and some of them very ancient; Whereas the translators of the common version had only the advantage of some 8 MSS., none of which were earlier than the tenth century.​

[/QUOTE]
Wow!!! This is well spoken!! I agree. The version that each person chooses is Personal based on how the individual hears and receives the message. For me, the KJV is special to me. This version sounds sweet and poetic to me puts me in a type of Awe and meditative state with the Lord. I don’t always have to have all the understanding because I listen with my Spiritual ears and the meaning is given to me by the Holy Spirit. And when I study I compare scripture with scripture. Bur there was a time in my Studying where I compared scripture that I received and understood, with the NIV Version and I saw meanings being changed so I chose to stick with King James version which is the only one I trust. 😊

 

[JStates]

Turn your statement 180 degrees and that is exactly why i avoid the KJV.

Enough of this nonsense. The King James is a wonderful Bible used for over three hundred years by better saints than you or I will ever be.

The view of humanists is that religion is always progressive, and by extension so is our understanding of the Scriptures. It is this man-centric philosophy which has resulted in the 900+ English language versions, confusion and chaos in the churches. If God is not the Author of confusion, where are all these differing Bible versions coming from?

At any rate, the King James was the Bible of our spiritual fathers and predecessors, men who suffered or even died for their convictions, and it ought to be good enough for the watered down, easy-believist Christianity of today.

 

[kleronomos]

Not just the 'kjv' but 'the words of God' have not always been in the hands of 'Gods Chosen People' because Gods people tend to be 'not as gun ho as the opposing side', IMHO anyhow. When the 'scribing gets done by 'volunteers' and not the Priests who should be doing it, who can be sure. I believe that needs to be taken into account as THE WORDS OF GOD would be the place where Satan could do the most damage. BUT I do believe for the MOST part 'the words of God' come to us as GOD WANTS THEM TO.


Ezra 2:58 All the Nethinims, and the children of Solomon's servants, were three hundred ninety and two.
59 And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could NOT shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel:


Ezra 8:15 And I gathered them together to the river that runneth to Ahava; and there abode we in tents three days: and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi.

16 Then sent I for Eliezer, for Ariel, for Shemaiah, and for Elnathan, and for Jarib, and for Elnathan, and for Nathan, and for Zechariah, and for Meshullam, chief men; also for Joiarib, and for Elnathan, men of understanding.

17 And I sent them with commandment unto Iddo the chief at the place Casiphia, and I told them what they should say unto Iddo, and to his brethren the Nethinims, at the place Casiphia, that they should bring unto us ministers for the house of our God.

18 And by the good hand of our God upon us they brought us a man of understanding, of the sons of Mahli, the son of Levi, the son of Israel; and Sherebiah, with his sons and his brethren, eighteen;

19 And Hashabiah, and with him Jeshaiah of the sons of Merari, his brethren and their sons, twenty;

20 Also of the Nethinims, whom David and the princes had appointed for the service of the Levites, two hundred and twenty Nethinims: all of them were expressed by name.


5411. nethinim ►
Strong's Concordance
nethinim: temple servants
Original Word: נָתִין
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: nethinim
Phonetic Spelling: (naw-theen')
Definition: temple servants
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin
from nathan
Definition
temple servants

 

[posthuman]

weirdly one of the sermons i listened to during my commute this week was accusing someone in history ((Wesley maybe?)) of trying to make people give up the kjv and start reading the gnv instead as though it was a new translation. the preacher was literally saying the gnv was a 'modern translation' and the person they were accusing was evil for trying to get people to forsake the 100% pure word of God ((by which he meant of course kjv)) for a new version ((by which he meant the gnv, which is actually older than the kjv)). he was like, later at one time without proof or conviction, that guy was once accused of impropriety with a woman, so, well, that tells you everything eh?? therefore kjv, obviously.

but the gnv predates the kjv. by 51 years. largely, the kjv was made because the king of England didn't like some of the marginal comments in the gnv.
the gnv was the Bible the pilgrims used, the Bible the reformation used. the kjv is the young upstart 'replacement for the word of God' by comparison. the kjv is the one with the big UK publishing company backing it, being pushed by the international British empire, trying to replace the widely accepted gnv, with slick advertising and lots of $$$$ supporting it.

i was like wow, LOL???
but the website i was listening through didn't allow me to put a comment.
weird.

probably doesn't matter eh

 

[Oblio]

I think if one is reading one of many legitimate translations, and not something like Karl Marx's, "Communist Manifesto," they should be encouraged.

 

[posthuman]

weirdly one of the sermons i listened to during my commute this week was accusing someone in history ((Wesley maybe?)) of trying to make people give up the kjv and start reading the gnv instead as though it was a new translation. the preacher was literally saying the gnv was a 'modern translation' and the person they were accusing was evil for trying to get people to forsake the 100% pure word of God ((by which he meant of course kjv)) for a new version ((by which he meant the gnv, which is actually older than the kjv)). he was like, later at one time without proof or conviction, that guy was once accused of impropriety with a woman, so, well, that tells you everything eh?? therefore kjv, obviously.

but the gnv predates the kjv. by 51 years. largely, the kjv was made because the king of England didn't like some of the marginal comments in the gnv.
the gnv was the Bible the pilgrims used, the Bible the reformation used. the kjv is the young upstart 'replacement for the word of God' by comparison. the kjv is the one with the big UK publishing company backing it, being pushed by the international British empire, trying to replace the widely accepted gnv, with slick advertising and lots of $$$$ supporting it.

i was like wow, LOL???
but the website i was listening through didn't allow me to put a comment.
weird.

probably doesn't matter eh

which i just put to illustrate that there are a lot of 'kjv-only' preachers out there who are preaching obvious falsehood to ignorant congregations, but justify themselves on the basis that they are 'kjv-only' --- as tho that is some kind of litmus test????

and that is wickedness, oh my brothers, oh my sisters

=[

 

[Gideon300]

Enough of this nonsense. The King James is a wonderful Bible used for over three hundred years by better saints than you or I will ever be.

The view of humanists is that religion is always progressive, and by extension so is our understanding of the Scriptures. It is this man-centric philosophy which has resulted in the 900+ English language versions, confusion and chaos in the churches. If God is not the Author of confusion, where are all these differing Bible versions coming from?

At any rate, the King James was the Bible of our spiritual fathers and predecessors, men who suffered or even died for their convictions, and it ought to be good enough for the watered down, easy-believist Christianity of today.

This is absurd. People were suffering and dying for Christ before the gospel came to England. Somehow people were getting born again without the JKV. The Reformation started without the KJV. English is not the only language spoken on earth.

A number of false teachings are based on the KJV. The "blab it and grab it" brigade and prosperity/healing preachers, based their distorted teachings on the KJV. How do I know? I was there. This stuff is not new. And using the KJV did not stop false teaching.

The KJV (and sadly, every version since that I know of) perpetuated the myth promoted by baby sprinklers. They had no choice. The KJV was "authorised" by King James, head of the Church of England. Translators were not about to rock the BS boat. So the word "baptise" was used instead of the accurate rendition, "immerse". That has lead to all kinds of disputes and confusion.

No Bible translation is perfect because it is rendered by imperfect people. Recently I've been using the Berean. I searched all my Christian life for the "best" version. There isn't one. So I use Bible Hub and let the Lord show me.

900 versions of the Bible? So what? There are around 30,000 denominations. All that proves is that Christians are too reliant on intellect and emotion and do not depend on the Life of Christ within.

The first religious nut job I met was KJV obsessed. He freaked me out. I'm starting to wonder if he's got to some of the posters in this forum.

 

[Mem]

am i upset about the whole kjv-only scenario? i used to be -- but you know what, so what. it's a small thing. i don't believe God is limited to only one particular instance of 'try to make this confused language match up with this other confused language' -- but the scripture is interpreted spiritually. the Spirit doesn't limit itself to one language or dialect; it transcends all of that in a pure language.
kind of i am upset -- because IMO wow a translation is the least of our concerns as Christians.
but i've had this conversation enough times to understand that it is no thing to separate brothers over.

personally i currently read NKJV more often than anything else because that's what my pastor mostly quotes from.

The "only" part is the irritant that causes figurative hives, imo, a sort of histamine that induces a constant tickle in the nose when then provide good reason for installing sneeze guards over the buffet table stocked full of Absolute Truth.

The 'only' qualification suggests that, as per the Galatians verse reference demonstrating the different prepositions used, "of," "from," and "in," the impossibility that all of those do actually qualify, albeit different facets of it even, as truth.