Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

[John146]

The real issue about the Greek word is what was the root of the word. It was created from another word to define the ceremony of baptism. I researched it years ago. One word was washing the feet for guests and another was immersing cloth in a dye. This has created the controversy about immersion only and pouring and sprinkling being acceptable.

Did they not use baptism in order to support the sprinkling of babies? I have never seen any real evidence of this fact. On the contrary, I have seen evidence that the Church of England commonly immersed for baptism at the time of the King James translation. In fact, Martin Luther had stated that immersion was the ancient mode of baptism. Again, this conclusion is a lot of conjecture on a minimum of evidence. It is very difficult to judge motives 400 years after the fact without any real evidence.

I recognize that my faith in the translation of the King James Bible leads me to believe that their motives were pure. But do those who oppose the King James Bible understand that they too are influenced by the prejudices they bring to the discussion?

 

[Dino246]

Does this make man the final authority?

No, but it does make it the same as with the KJV, where the translators studied the sources and selected what they felt was the best English rendition(s).

Do you know that the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus differ thousands and thousands of times?

Does it concern me? No.

Your understanding of textual criticism and translation are so slanted by your KJV-only propaganda that it is barely worth the time to refute your silly accusations.

 

[Dino246]

I recognize that my faith in the translation of the King James Bible leads me to believe that their motives were pure.

You would crucify anyone else who held that view about a modern translation, claiming that it is backwards... because it IS backwards.

 

[John146]

You ignore the simple fact that language changes over years. In the KJV and NIV the translation of a commandment differ because of this.
KJV Thou shalt not kill.
NIV You shall not murder.

In 1611 the word kill meant premeditated murder. Thus today that meaning is lost because the definition of kill has changed. Today when driving a brake failure can cause an accident where a person is killed. This in no way is premeditated murder. Live with the fact that 400 years of language changes and scientific knowledge of nature causes errors in the KJV translation. Today we know there are no satyrs and a few other animals used in the KJV. I keep the following for the KJV only crowd.
__________
Why do you keep using the now flawed KJV translation. The language and understanding of nature has changed over the 400 years since then. There are words that are no longer used. Do you know what a gold ouches is?


KJV Issues
Here is a list of problems with the KJV because of the 400 years of language and science understanding the things of nature.

For example, because of the changes in the English language, a number of words occur in the King James that make zero sense to most people today. These include the following nuggets that you will find scattered here and there:

Almug
Algum
Charashim
Chode
Cracknels
Gat
Habergeon
Hosen
Kab
Ligure
Neesed
Nusings
Ouches
ring-straked
sycamyne
trow
wimples
etc.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

Moreover, there are phrases that simply don’t make sense any more to modern readers:

Phrases that no longer make sense:

ouches of gold (Exod. 28:11);
collops of fat (Job 15:25);
naughty figs (Jer 24:2);
ien with (Jer. 3:2);
the ground is chapt (Jer 14:4);
brazen wall” (Jer 15:20);
rentest thy face (Jer. 4:30);
urrain of the cattle (Exod. 9:2);
(looked up ouches and today we put br in front of it and change the u to o. Brooches.)

And there are whole sentences that are confusing at best, virtually indecipherable (or humorous)

And Jacob sod pottage (Gen 25:29)
And Mt. Sinai was altogether on a smoke (Exoc. 19:18)
Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing (Ps. 5:6)
I trow not (Luke 17:9)
We do you to wit of the grace of God (2 Cor. 8:1)
Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels (2 Cor. 6:12)
He who letteth will let (2 Thes 2:7)
The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd (Eccles. 12:11)

Other sentences make sense, but would today be considered somewhat problematic – at least for the sacred Scripture. My favorite is the one that refers to a one who: “Pisseth against the wall:…. 1 Sam 25:22, 34, I Kings 14:10!
(looked this up, it means the person is a man, NIV uses the word man)


KJV Issues sites

https://ehrmanblog.org/problems-with-the-language-of-the-king-james-version/

https://newrepublic.com/article/107222/making-it-new

http://www.bibletexts.com/topics/kjv.htm

http://www.equip.org/article/is-your-modern-translation-corrupt/

http://www.hickoryhammockbaptist.org/kjva1.html

https://www.gotquestions.org/different-gospel.html

The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible: An Interview with Mark Ward
Jonathan Petersen
March 13, 2018

https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/2...pJobID=1362532267&spReportId=MTM2MjUzMjI2NwS2

Again, because a word used in 1611 is not used as much or at all today, does not make that word incorrect or void. And true science will always agree with the KJV.

 

[John146]

You would crucify anyone else who held that view about a modern translation, claiming that it is backwards... because it IS backwards.

Nope, at least then we could have an honest discussion. The discussion with most on this board is between those who believe God has preserved His words in the English language through the KJV and those who believe God has not preserved His words in the English language, that no bible can be trusted.

 

[Endoscopy]

Did they not use baptism in order to support the sprinkling of babies? I have never seen any real evidence of this fact. On the contrary, I have seen evidence that the Church of England commonly immersed for baptism at the time of the King James translation. In fact, Martin Luther had stated that immersion was the ancient mode of baptism. Again, this conclusion is a lot of conjecture on a minimum of evidence. It is very difficult to judge motives 400 years after the fact without any real evidence.

I recognize that my faith in the translation of the King James Bible leads me to believe that their motives were pure. But do those who oppose the King James Bible understand that they too are influenced by the prejudices they bring to the discussion?

I use my smartphone as my Bible. My browser has biblegateway.com as a site always on one page. With it I look up book and chapter. Then I can switch translations. I use NIV, ESV, AMPC and KJV. Since I know and understand the problem issues with KJV it is very useful. It often phrases thing more succinctly than other translations. For example "the carnal mind is enmity against God". Other translations use longer phrases to say the same thing.

 

[Endoscopy]

Again, because a word used in 1611 is not used as much or at all today, does not make that word incorrect or void. And true science will always agree with the KJV.

I suggest you rethink that statement.

The King James translators also translated some animal names into animals that in fact we now have pretty good reason for thinking don’t actually exist:

unicorn (Deut. 33:17)
satyr (Isa 13:21);
dragon (Deut 32:33) (for serpent)
cockatrice (Isa 11:8),
arrowsnake (Gen 49:11, in the margin).

 

[eternally-gratefull]

Thank you brother for responding....i am teachable yet i desire not to be deceived in this matter i desire a pure heart before my God...i desire a pure text and to hear Gods heart through his written word...His instruction book on how to live..God desires us to worship Him in Spirit and in Truth...in these lasts days before the return of our Lord Jesus, there is must deception, so for me i long for (TRUTH) His Truth..thanks again for sharing your heart and understanding...love in Christ Sherril..

Amen sis. May we all with open hearts be teachable and have a pure heart

 

[eternally-gratefull]

So Ydo what is the pure text, a version that is Gods heart....not changed or diluted...for such a gal as i an older women seeking Gods heart in Spirit and Truth...what is the best English version pl. ? love in Christ Sherril...

If I may sis. The way I see it there are some prety bad ones (New Living is one that I would never want anyone, especially someone who does not know God to use.. It may have better more updated english, but the transated words are awefull) as well as some others

Then there are great ones (KJV,NKJV,NASB, and many today like the ESV)

I personally use the NKJV for my studies and due to the fact most people in my home church use the NASB, I tend to try to use NASB for all my teaching) I have used the KJV/NKJV all my life, it is what I am used to and what I know.. so it is my prefered choice. I am sure many are this way.

 

[eternally-gratefull]

You have to explain how they "screwed it up." Do you not believe in immersion?

Immersion? So it should have been translated immersion instead of baptism? Are you sure that is ALL that the words means? Immersion in what? According to most, it means immersion in water, so every time they see the word, thats they way they translate it.. even thoough water is not even part of the word. Oh wait, we can’t say they, BECAUSE the word was not TRANSLATED..

Again, That translation has causes a heated division in the church for centuries, which I persoanlly believe would never be if they had correctly translated instead of transliterating it. (Remember, Baptism is not even a native english word. So one can translate it prety much any way they want, and look it up in a dictionary, thats what you get)

 

[eternally-gratefull]

These older manuscripts were found in garbage cans in the vatican. They are older, in better condition, because they were rejected by the early church because they were corrupt. Older never means better, on the contrary.

Lol, this made me laugh,, Thanks alot man. Talk about telling a little white lie to support your view.

 

[John146]

Immersion? So it should have been translated immersion instead of baptism? Are you sure that is ALL that the words means? Immersion in what? According to most, it means immersion in water, so every time they see the word, thats they way they translate it.. even thoough water is not even part of the word. Oh wait, we can’t say they, BECAUSE the word was not TRANSLATED..

Again, That translation has causes a heated division in the church for centuries, which I persoanlly believe would never be if they had correctly translated instead of transliterating it. (Remember, Baptism is not even a native english word. So one can translate it prety much any way they want, and look it up in a dictionary, thats what you get)

As I stated earlier, the word baptize had been around for hundreds of years before 1611, not only to immerse, but to come out of the water as well (I believe). Jesus didn't simply die (immersed), but He also was resurrected (brought out).

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Again, because a word used in 1611 is not used as much or at all today, does not make that word incorrect or void. And true science will always agree with the KJV.

what is 'true' science and what does it have to do with the KJ?

you know, some folks get the idea the earth is flat and under a dome and call that true because that is their understanding when reading the Jimmy's translation because they do not understand science in any form and somehow believe all the science we will ever want is in the Bible

that actually refutes the wonder of creation and the amazing solar systems and all other things beyond this earth

ignorance exalts itself over truth in such cases

 

[eternally-gratefull]

These older manuscripts were found in garbage cans in the vatican. They are older, in better condition, because they were rejected by the early church because they were corrupt. Older never means better, on the contrary.

By the way, History has shown, and even science can show that the closer a manuscript is to the origional saying, the more reliable it is

We can test it by a test most of us has seen done either in school or other places.

Have one person tell a story to another then have that person repeat the story to the next person, who repeats it to the next. So on and so forth/ Byu the time you get to the end, the origional story has been changed.

No using that example. The person who was first told the story. Made 20 copies of that story, and passed it on. The 20th person who heard the story, made 100 copies of the story she was told

In this example we have proven two things.

The earliest is the most accurate. And the most is not always an accurate test of the most accurate.

The same test can be used on any old writtings of ancient times.

Many scribes over many years copied all these texts. If one scribe made a mistake, and did not correct it, the next scribe will make the same error in his copy Then if that sribe makes an error. That too will be copied by the next scribe. Where the later text is actually a text which has all these errors made by all these scribes

it does not matter if the final copy was found to have 10000 copies. That 10000 copies all have the same errors

 

[John146]

Lol, this made me laugh,, Thanks alot man. Talk about telling a little white lie to support your view.

Is it not the truth that the Sinaiticus was found in the dumb at St. Catherine's Cathederal and the Vaticanus was found in the Vatican library (which I would consider garbage)?

 

[John146]

what is 'true' science and what does it have to do with the KJ?

you know, some folks get the idea the earth is flat and under a dome and call that true because that is their understanding when reading the Jimmy's translation because they do not understand science in any form and somehow believe all the science we will ever want is in the Bible

that actually refutes the wonder of creation and the amazing solar systems and all other things beyond this earth

ignorance exalts itself over truth in such cases

Don't blame false doctrines on the KJV. Those Israelites had the "originals" and was deceived into false doctrines all the time. The reasoning you gave just does not make any sense to me.

 

[John146]

Have one person tell a story to another then have that person repeat the story to the next person, who repeats it to the next. So on and so forth/ Byu the time you get to the end, the origional story has been changed.

This is the test of science you use?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

so does anyone have a synopsis on what we should consider before touching the 'anointed'...er... 'annotated' KJ?

 

[7seasrekeyed]

Don't blame false doctrines on the KJV. Those Israelites had the "originals" and was deceived into false doctrines all the time. The reasoning you gave just does not make any sense to me.

oh no blame on the KJ at all

but I guess it's safe to blame folks who prefer the safety of the dark ages to the responsibility, far greater, that we now have regarding the Bible

I gave no reasoning. don't look for what is not there

so, will you answer what you consider true science is since you coined the term?

 

[eternally-gratefull]

How can we know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth if we're all using corrupt bibles and since the "originals" are available?

Btw, what does God think about the "originals"? What value does God place on the "originals"?

Same old story.. Been answered 1000 times

Lets look at facts and not delusions ok?

The fact is, You do not think God can work through minor errors in bibles which are written in a language that by itself brings some issues in translation.

No greek text written in Jesus day can ACCURATELY be translated in a WORD FOR WORD translation (which is what the KJV is) for the very reason. To many greek words does not have an exact englishj equivelant (IE the word Love has 4 greek varients, all which mean different things, so it is IMPOSSIBLE to correctly translate into the english text) and the greek has many variations of verb structure, tense and other things which the english does not have, so again, it is impossible to correctly translate these language issues which the english has no equivelent in place.

The only way to do it is to not make a word for word, which some have tried (NIV, NLT) but in many places made it worse than the word for word bibles.. Which can easily be looked at. And on questionable passages, the greek CAN be looked at and take care of the questionable issue.

God uses ALL THINNGS but you do not have faith in this..s you keep trusitng your fallible english bible is perfect.. and miss out on the alot of deep spiritual truths that can not be displayed in your english word for word bible