Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible
- Thread starter Andrew1
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
E
This does not make a person saved, or more knowedgeable on how to know God.
Look at truth, not a scribal error man. Even in christs day, all the scrolls most like had words miswrote, or words missing, or whole lines missing, MEN did the scribe issue.. This does not in any way prove your point.. Just as many mistakes are found in the KJV also.. So if your going t us this to attack any other version, you better be able to take it when YOUR BIBLE is shown to have the same cerical errors!
Get over yourself
One more time WHY DID GOD NOT TELL THE AUTHORS HOW TO TRANSLATE BAPTIZO?
Your silence is speaking LOUDLY!!
Look at truth, not a scribal error man. Even in christs day, all the scrolls most like had words miswrote, or words missing, or whole lines missing, MEN did the scribe issue.. This does not in any way prove your point.. Just as many mistakes are found in the KJV also.. So if your going t us this to attack any other version, you better be able to take it when YOUR BIBLE is shown to have the same cerical errors!
Get over yourself
One more time WHY DID GOD NOT TELL THE AUTHORS HOW TO TRANSLATE BAPTIZO?
Your silence is speaking LOUDLY!!
What about the most fundamental doctrine in all the bible? The trustworthiness of God's word. God's word is truth.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
If you're version lies, it's not a faithful witness. If your version has Elhanan killing Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, then it's a lie and cannot be trusted.
Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
If you're version lies, it's not a faithful witness. If your version has Elhanan killing Goliath in 2 Samuel 21:19, then it's a lie and cannot be trusted.
So what do the rest of us do that can't read Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Judeo Greek? For me I use NIV, ESV and AMPC. All recent translations. It is too cumbersome to try to find the original language words and look them up one by one with an original language to English dictionary. If you choose to do that fine by me but I let the translators of the modern translations do that work for me!!!
ROFL
Are you that ignorant. God preserved his word in Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek. Thus for English we need translation to it. Languages change over time. How many of you talk like Shakespeare wrote? That is the English of KJV. He died in 1616. Current translations are REQUIRED to be understood correctly. Your refusal to understand this simple fact of English is very foolish!!
Are you that ignorant. God preserved his word in Hebrew, Aramaic and koine Judeo Greek. Thus for English we need translation to it. Languages change over time. How many of you talk like Shakespeare wrote? That is the English of KJV. He died in 1616. Current translations are REQUIRED to be understood correctly. Your refusal to understand this simple fact of English is very foolish!!
ROFL
Been down this path. There are multiple possible roots for that word. One is used in immersing cloth into a dye vat. Another is washing the feet. I forget the third. Those demanding immersion go with the dye vat word. Those accepting sprinkling or pouring go with washing the feet. The result is having to agree to disagree. Some churches will not accept another denominations baptism no matter what method they used. I was baptized 4 times because of this. All by immersion. Therefore this is a sore subject for me.
Been down this path. There are multiple possible roots for that word. One is used in immersing cloth into a dye vat. Another is washing the feet. I forget the third. Those demanding immersion go with the dye vat word. Those accepting sprinkling or pouring go with washing the feet. The result is having to agree to disagree. Some churches will not accept another denominations baptism no matter what method they used. I was baptized 4 times because of this. All by immersion. Therefore this is a sore subject for me.
-
1
- Show all
Instead of personal attacks, you could have simply replied none, I do not believe any English bible to be the word of God.
You refuse God's ability to have His word translated into any language He chooses, and that translation be the the holy word of God for those people who read and speak that language.
You refuse God's ability to have His word translated into any language He chooses, and that translation be the the holy word of God for those people who read and speak that language.
-
1
- Show all
I personally have no issue with this. I am learning Hebrew now. Don't know much Greek, but maybe someday will learn it as well. I personally do it for my understanding of scripture. It helps me. Even when reading other translations, I still want to refer back to Hebrew/Greek so that I can be sure of the word. But most of the newer translations have done better at translating than the KJV imo. I still use the KJV, but mainly just for the reference to the Strongs. I tend to stick with the TLV, ESV, NASB, AMP, and lastly KJV.
-
2
- Show all
You are putting words in my mouth that I would never say. All translations have flaws. Only the original language is perfect. This is why using my smartphone I can select any translation and switch between translations and see any differences. Committees do the translation not a single person. This minimizes the errors. KJVs major flaw is its age with language changes and environmental science advances. Many words in KJV don't exist today and new words have been added. We now know there are no satyrs for example.
-
1
- Show all
I prefer AMPC over AMP since they removed the added meanings in parantheses. Those are very helpful. Look at John 3:16 and you will understand the difference. The added meanings of "believe in".
John 3 AMPC
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life
John 3 AMPC
16 For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten (unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life
-
2
- Show all
A study from a brother of mine.
The word translated as SATYRS in the King James Bible and many others is the Hebrew word sa'ir #8163. It has several meanings, including "hairy" - "Esau my brother is a HAIRY man" Genesis 27:11; "goat" - "lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT" Leviticus 4:24; "devils" - "they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS" Leviticus 17:7; "satyrs" - "and SATYRS shall dance there" Isaiah 13:21, and "rough" - "the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia" Daniel 8:21.
The word SATYRS is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.
Isaiah 13:21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there."
Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."
Not only does the King James Bible use the word SATYRS in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions:
The Geneva Bible 1587, The Bill Bible 1621, Calvin's Latin translation, the English Revised Version 1885, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841 "the SATYR shall cry to his fellow", the Brenton Translation 1851, the The Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Calvin Bible 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Noyes Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Modern Readers Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, Moffatt's New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the Modern Reader's Bible by Richard Moulton 1907, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Greek Septuagint, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century version 1994 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "there shall rest SATYRS", The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Apostolic Bible 2006, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New American Bible 2010, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "and shall meet with demons SATYRS" (Isa. 34:14), The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "there SATYRS shall rest", the Katapi New Standard Bible 2010 - "and SATYRS shall dance there", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013 - "and SATRYS shall dance there"
The word translated as SATYRS in the King James Bible and many others is the Hebrew word sa'ir #8163. It has several meanings, including "hairy" - "Esau my brother is a HAIRY man" Genesis 27:11; "goat" - "lay his hand upon the head of the GOAT" Leviticus 4:24; "devils" - "they shall no more offer their sacrifices unto DEVILS" Leviticus 17:7; "satyrs" - "and SATYRS shall dance there" Isaiah 13:21, and "rough" - "the ROUGH goat is the king of Greecia" Daniel 8:21.
The word SATYRS is found twice in the King James Bible. In Scripture, the satyr seems to be a hairy, goat-like devil or demon, and is portrayed as a real spiritual entity, and not as a mythological creature.
Isaiah 13:21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and SATYRS shall dance there."
Isaiah 34:14 "The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild beasts of the island, and the SATYR shall cry to his fellow; the screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest."
Not only does the King James Bible use the word SATYRS in the Isaiah passages but so also do the following Bible versions:
The Geneva Bible 1587, The Bill Bible 1621, Calvin's Latin translation, the English Revised Version 1885, Webster's 1833 translation, The Longman Version 1841 "the SATYR shall cry to his fellow", the Brenton Translation 1851, the The Boothroyd Bible 1853, the Calvin Bible 1855, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, the Noyes Translation 1869, The Revised English Bible 1877, The Sharpe Bible 1883, The Modern Readers Bible 1907, The Improved Bible 1913, the Revised Standard Version 1946-1971, the Jewish Publication Society 1917 translation - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, Moffatt's New Translation 1922, An American Translation by Smith and Goodspeed 1931, the Modern Reader's Bible by Richard Moulton 1907, the Jerusalem Bible 1968, the New American Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, Lamsa's 1936 translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Greek Septuagint, The New Jewish Version 1985, The Word of Yah 1993, the KJV 21st Century version 1994 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Third Millennium Bible of 1998, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible 2003 - "there shall rest SATYRS", The Judaica Press Complete Tanach 2004 - "and SATYRS shall dance there.", the Apostolic Bible 2006, Bond Slave Version 2009, Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010, the Jubilee Bible 2010, The New American Bible 2010, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2012 (Mebust) - "and shall meet with demons SATYRS" (Isa. 34:14), The New Brenton Translation 2012 - "there SATYRS shall rest", the Katapi New Standard Bible 2010 - "and SATYRS shall dance there", the Biblos Interlinear Bible 2013 - "and SATRYS shall dance there"
-
1
- Show all
FYI though a much too long post. sorry
1611 AD KJV is a revision of the Bishop’s Bible by 54 scholars using all known copies of oldest manuscripts and later translations. Though the version was based on the Bishops’ Bible***, the scholars compared it’s text with other major English bibles; Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale and Geneva. They also followed the Greek text done by Erasmus. It is a literal translation of the Received Text, which some scholars believe to be the most accurate Greek text.
The translators tried to render each word in the Hebrew and Greek texts with an equivalent word in English. Words added for clarification were printed in italics. (that tho the word was not in the original texts, the “sense” was. In Great Britain this bible is called the “Authorized Version”.
NOTE: KJV continued to be the most popular bible for 300 years…but this was also a time of new advances in biblical scholarship, including the discovery of more and ancient Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts and archaeological finds. English and literary style also changed. A convocation was called in 1870 to propose a revision of the KJV. A team of 65 revisers began the work. NT was completed in 1881, the OT completed in 1885.
Response to this English Revised Version was mostly unfavorable. Spurgeon said it was strong in Greek and weak in English. The text followed the paragraph arrangement rather than by verses and was not received by the masses.
1982 NEW King James Version, prepared by an INTERDENOMINATIONAL team of 119 scholars. Goals were to update the language, while preserving the majesty and rhythm of the KJV. Liberals and Evangelicals don’t like it…so it must be good.
1963 – 1970 New American Standard Bible New testament came out in 1963 and the entire bible in 1970. This was a conscious attempt to revise the American Standard Version of 1901, but it turned out to be a new translation. There is no apocrypha. Has a conservative theological position, and retains words like “blood”, “propitiation” and “saint”. Translators used the Critical Greek Text rather than the Received Text, the Nestle Greek text for the NT and the Kittel Bible for the OT. It’s criticism is it’s style, not its trustworthy-ness, as it is a word for word translation that omits none of the sentence adverbs which appear in the original Hebrew and Greek.
*** 1568 AD Bishop’s Bible Revision of the Great Bible undertaken by Archbishop Parker and a group of translators including bishops(from the Church of England) and scholars. Since most of the work was done by the bishops, it became known as the Bishop’s Bible. This bible was most often found in the churches, but the Geneva bible was the most read in private homes. The Bishop’s Bible never gained the popularity of the Geneva bible and no copies were printed after 1606.
1611 AD KJV is a revision of the Bishop’s Bible by 54 scholars using all known copies of oldest manuscripts and later translations. Though the version was based on the Bishops’ Bible***, the scholars compared it’s text with other major English bibles; Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale and Geneva. They also followed the Greek text done by Erasmus. It is a literal translation of the Received Text, which some scholars believe to be the most accurate Greek text.
The translators tried to render each word in the Hebrew and Greek texts with an equivalent word in English. Words added for clarification were printed in italics. (that tho the word was not in the original texts, the “sense” was. In Great Britain this bible is called the “Authorized Version”.
NOTE: KJV continued to be the most popular bible for 300 years…but this was also a time of new advances in biblical scholarship, including the discovery of more and ancient Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts and archaeological finds. English and literary style also changed. A convocation was called in 1870 to propose a revision of the KJV. A team of 65 revisers began the work. NT was completed in 1881, the OT completed in 1885.
Response to this English Revised Version was mostly unfavorable. Spurgeon said it was strong in Greek and weak in English. The text followed the paragraph arrangement rather than by verses and was not received by the masses.
1982 NEW King James Version, prepared by an INTERDENOMINATIONAL team of 119 scholars. Goals were to update the language, while preserving the majesty and rhythm of the KJV. Liberals and Evangelicals don’t like it…so it must be good.
1963 – 1970 New American Standard Bible New testament came out in 1963 and the entire bible in 1970. This was a conscious attempt to revise the American Standard Version of 1901, but it turned out to be a new translation. There is no apocrypha. Has a conservative theological position, and retains words like “blood”, “propitiation” and “saint”. Translators used the Critical Greek Text rather than the Received Text, the Nestle Greek text for the NT and the Kittel Bible for the OT. It’s criticism is it’s style, not its trustworthy-ness, as it is a word for word translation that omits none of the sentence adverbs which appear in the original Hebrew and Greek.
*** 1568 AD Bishop’s Bible Revision of the Great Bible undertaken by Archbishop Parker and a group of translators including bishops(from the Church of England) and scholars. Since most of the work was done by the bishops, it became known as the Bishop’s Bible. This bible was most often found in the churches, but the Geneva bible was the most read in private homes. The Bishop’s Bible never gained the popularity of the Geneva bible and no copies were printed after 1606.
That was only one example of creatures that don't exist. That and the words that don't exist in English today are 2 reasons I get the proper meaning from modern translations. KJV has some redeeming examples. For instance "the carnal mind is enmity against God". The modern translations use a lot more words to convey that concept. These kinds of word usage is a big redeeming feature of KJV. It is why I keep referring to it. I can live with its problems since it still has much value.
Hey bud, if I can offer you a piece of advice that could save you a lot of time? When you encounter someone who takes your sincere quest for knowledge as cause to laugh at you, with remarks like, LOL and ROFL, move on. You're not talking to someone who respects you or God.
There are a great many little kids on this forum playing grown up. And some play at being of our faith.
Don't be their punchline.
Just my two coppers. I've spent a short time here but it isn't hard to discern what I've advised you on.
God bless you. I like your name by the way. Great verse.
There are a great many little kids on this forum playing grown up. And some play at being of our faith.
Don't be their punchline.
Just my two coppers. I've spent a short time here but it isn't hard to discern what I've advised you on.
God bless you. I like your name by the way. Great verse.
-
1
- Show all
ROFL
ROFL
You are making a fallacious assertion. A reason I use this is to make the person understand they are not making good sense. Just like now. You seem to think humor on a Christian site is bad. Please explain why humor is bad!!! Pastors use it in the pulpit in order to ease the seriousness of the congregation and also to help make a point. It is a useful tool!!
ROFL
You are making a fallacious assertion. A reason I use this is to make the person understand they are not making good sense. Just like now. You seem to think humor on a Christian site is bad. Please explain why humor is bad!!! Pastors use it in the pulpit in order to ease the seriousness of the congregation and also to help make a point. It is a useful tool!!
-
1
- Show all
You are the assertion proved true.
Humor isn't bad. Your tactics are not humor save for the satisfaction it brings you.
Mockery, ridicule, laughing at someone while being condescending. The joke is on you thinking you are actually an example of a good person seeking to teach sincere students of the word. And when exposed as just the opposite you try to implicate humor as having your characteristics. No, that's not how humor works. Humor makes people laugh with the joke. Your condescencion , mockery, ridicule, intends to make people laugh at the person who is made the target of such efforts.
I wonder if people here read your name and realize you're saying, up yours?
Humor isn't bad. Your tactics are not humor save for the satisfaction it brings you.
Mockery, ridicule, laughing at someone while being condescending. The joke is on you thinking you are actually an example of a good person seeking to teach sincere students of the word. And when exposed as just the opposite you try to implicate humor as having your characteristics. No, that's not how humor works. Humor makes people laugh with the joke. Your condescencion , mockery, ridicule, intends to make people laugh at the person who is made the target of such efforts.
I wonder if people here read your name and realize you're saying, up yours?
-
1
- Show all