BELIEFS ABOUT THE KJV

  • 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.

chess-player

Active member
Jul 14, 2022
205
102
28
#61

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
60,043
29,410
113
#62
Thank you. Can you find a list of the difficult words in the KJV? I used to have a link, but I deleted it by mistake.
You are welcome! What do you mean by difficult? Could you give me an example? Heh, some people find thee and thou difficult ;)
 

awelight

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2020
1,629
490
83
69
#63
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.
 

Beckie

Well-known member
Feb 15, 2022
2,516
939
113
#64
Some of those i know , quite a few i dont . Many, can be figured out via context. They can be learned many of us old folks have had to lean computer jargon . Hearing it , KJ, all my life kinda makes it comfortable for me. Having had a 4 way comparable New Testament was a great learning tool back in the 70s. I still spell neighbor "neighbour" and color "colour" My understanding those who are KJO worship the book the paper, ink and binding.
What Scofield did to the KJ is just plain heresy . Got an idea Swaggart is about the same.
 

JTB

Well-known member
Aug 31, 2021
2,254
728
113
#65
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.
I refer to it as a baseline, but I don't use any one translation. I will look at several if I'm looking to get the full info on a verse.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
#66
The archaic language makes is very difficult to understand this translation. Have you read the entire kjv bible a few times and understood all of it, or did you have to use an Oxford Dictionary to learn what some of the ancient words mean? (double work)
We should all not read but need to study and pray to understand his word. Archaisms is present in the Kjv, but God treated this in a special way, leave as it is and study it, sometimes those difficult words are within the context and they were clearly defined. You may haven't know that archaism is present in every Enlgish translations. The Niv does have, the esv also have etc. Now if you picked the kjb and read John 3:16, will this be hard for you? Hmm..
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#67
As your reasons for using the KJV, and defenses thereof, are not the same as those of John146, you may ignore my comments to him. :)
I would never think of ignoring any of your comments, my dear brother Dino. :)

God bless your pea-pickin' heart, good buddy! :D
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
#68
Adamant in in the list of archaic and hard words to be understood but if you'll ever cross within the context that would be easily understood. In the twenty century fox film Wolverine, we hear it about the claws of wolverine, adamatium, perhaps they have been revive for purpose.
 

oyster67

Senior Member
May 24, 2014
11,887
8,705
113
#69
Adamant in in the list of archaic and hard words to be understood but if you'll ever cross within the context that would be easily understood. In the twenty century fox film Wolverine, we hear it about the claws of wolverine, adamatium, perhaps they have been revive for purpose.
Did I miss something somewhere back the line???? :unsure:
 
R

RichMan

Guest
#70
The KJV has served me well for 60 years. The Truth is there for the taking if properly studied with much prayer.
I have a limited education but never found it difficult to read and understand.
See no reason to change to translations that often change the meaning of verses from the KJV.
 
Jun 20, 2022
6,460
1,330
113
#72
Btw, a translation can be inspired by God. There are several examples throughout scripture.
the KJV is so Inspired it literally has 251 changed or added Verses + over 1,000 more words than the Actual original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
if you think adding that to the original Word of God is Inspired, i have an Ocean Front Property in the middle of the desert i'd love to sell you!
 

chess-player

Active member
Jul 14, 2022
205
102
28
#73
We should all not read but need to study and pray to understand his word. Archaisms is present in the Kjv, but God treated this in a special way, leave as it is and study it, sometimes those difficult words are within the context and they were clearly defined. You may haven't know that archaism is present in every Enlgish translations. The Niv does have, the esv also have etc. Now if you picked the kjb and read John 3:16, will this be hard for you? Hmm..
Before I can study and pray to understand God's word, I have to have a modern, scholarly translation that is well known and trusted, so that I don't waste my time trying to understand archaic words before I could go on. Once we find a good translation, the task is to understand His word that is already understood in English so that we can understand the original word whether in Greek or Hebrew as a second step.

I use the NASB ('95) and soon I will be using the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) which is one of the most literal and best-understood translations in the English language. We also have the ESV, the CSB, the NKJV, etc., which are also great translations.

This is the reason why I own the Logos Library Software that allows me to compare translations (including the KJV), do a search, look for Bible Word studies, do a search from Genesis to Revelation, or a special book from a particular translation. I also can do a Passage Guide, do an exegetical guide, create a Sermon, etc. All this becomes a reality in my laptop; therefore, I have placed the KJV last on my list because I really don't need it although it is a good translation. I prefer the NKJV in that sense or the MEV (both are from the TR manuscripts).


http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html
 

chess-player

Active member
Jul 14, 2022
205
102
28
#74
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 its 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.

Well said!
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,276
4,317
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
#75
Btw, a translation can be inspired by God. There are several examples throughout scripture.
When I signed up for membership, I read about all those bad people who try to force their KJVs on everyone. Maybe that happened in the past, but I have yet to see that since I've been here. What I HAVE seen are ridiculous threads attacking the Bible that has led more people to Christ than any in half a thousand years. Not only has it brought more people to Christ, but it has been used for great revivals and changed lives. Apparently, those less educated "commoners" can't understand Elizabethan Modern English according to the Higher Critics. We must bow to the language experts who must tell us what the Bible REALLY says in the "original autogrrrraphs." 😤

This Bozo posts an article saying Im in a cult because I believe as other Christians since the early 17th century. I'm aware of the Jehovah's false Witnesses, the Mormons, Millerites. Maybe you know what cult every Bible BELIEVER is in, because I'm just too ignorant to figure it out. Maybe ol' Jimmy White can fill us in since he's the only one smart enough to know what the Bible RREEEALY says. This guy who likes chess might know what cult. He's probably smarter than the whole forum put together since he published such a scholarlarly work disproving the work of the dumb translators of my Bible.
 

fredoheaven

Senior Member
Nov 17, 2015
4,110
960
113
#76
Before I can study and pray to understand God's word, I have to have a modern, scholarly translation that is well known and trusted, so that I don't waste my time trying to understand archaic words before I could go on. Once we find a good translation, the task is to understand His word that is already understood in English so that we can understand the original word whether in Greek or Hebrew as a second step.

I use the NASB ('95) and soon I will be using the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible) which is one of the most literal and best-understood translations in the English language. We also have the ESV, the CSB, the NKJV, etc., which are also great translations.

This is the reason why I own the Logos Library Software that allows me to compare translations (including the KJV), do a search, look for Bible Word studies, do a search from Genesis to Revelation, or a special book from a particular translation. I also can do a Passage Guide, do an exegetical guide, create a Sermon, etc. All this becomes a reality in my laptop; therefore, I have placed the KJV last on my list because I really don't need it although it is a good translation. I prefer the NKJV in that sense or the MEV (both are from the TR manuscripts).

http://www.bible-researcher.com/nkjv.html
Your argument about archaism is already dealt with. Even Nasb have it, though I cannot insist you have to used KJB, but as far I am concerned, why not checked it first. Are you saying, those who are using English as their second or third language understand better than a native speakers? I just really doubt it. God bless
 

Thewatchman

Active member
Jun 19, 2021
622
116
43
#77
God is the same yesterday today and forever. I use my 1611 KJV there is a few translation that are questionable. 1 that is down right wrong
Acts 12:4
4And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Easter should be passoer.
 

presidente

Senior Member
May 29, 2013
9,162
1,790
113
#78
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)


There were bits and pieces of the New Testament in Old English, also. I remember translating something out of Luke for a final exam in Old English class.
 

John146

Senior Member
Jan 13, 2016
17,112
3,687
113
#79
the KJV is so Inspired it literally has 251 changed or added Verses + over 1,000 more words than the Actual original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek.
if you think adding that to the original Word of God is Inspired, i have an Ocean Front Property in the middle of the desert i'd love to sell you!
I had no idea you have he actual originals! Wow! What a find! Sorry for the sarcasm…
 

HealthAndHappiness

Well-known member
Jul 7, 2022
10,276
4,317
113
Almost Heaven West Virginia
#80