Things to Consider Before Attempting to Correct the King James Bible

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.

Does this make man the final authority?

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

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..

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...

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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"?