Where did King James only originate?

  • 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.
Lanolin said:
according to wikipedia...
with KJV it was pro-anglican (Church of England...or episcopalian in the US)
The Geneva Bible was more calvinist/puritan leaning apparently. I think thats why some people have an issue with KJV because scripture in that leans more toward free will, in that we do have a choice to obey or disobey God
Click to expand...

I mentioned earlier, it's not the gnv translation that leans Calvinist, but the marginal notes. There's a lot of commentary included in the margins of printed gnv, and that's what King James objected to, particularly how the Presbyterians were arguing for church govt to be in the hands of local presbytrs, instead of a pope and bishopric. The king saw thus as potentially leading to anti-royal pro-democracy sentiment.

So it wasn't because of any objection to the accuracy of the gnv translation, but politically motivated opposition to its commentaries.
 
fredoheaven said:
Hmm, did I say KJV onlyist believe that there is a corruption of the 1611 KJB? Nop, the revisers claim they did but not to the staunch KJB defender or onlyist. Why corruptions when in fact there’s none at all. Are you saying editions? That might quite have the difference of saying corruption. In actuality, KJB used the word “corrupt” pertaining to those who changed the word meaning or definition Just like the modern versions did as to peddle the word…2 Corinthians 2:17. I believe there’s no revision of the KJB at all only in the eyes of critical scholars that begins with Wescott and Hort and their revisionist body in 1881. I used the 1611 KJB which is the same as todays’ KJB and which I find no substantive difference in its meaning. Now, If you know one, two, or three examples of corruption found in the KJB could you please lay it to us, perhaps this can be studied by all. Thanks
Click to expand...

If I understand you, the KJV of 1611 is without corruptions. Simple yes or no.
 
posthuman said:
I mentioned earlier, it's not the gnv translation that leans Calvinist, but the marginal notes. There's a lot of commentary included in the margins of printed gnv, and that's what King James objected to, particularly how the Presbyterians were arguing for church govt to be in the hands of local presbytrs, instead of a pope and bishopric. The king saw thus as potentially leading to anti-royal pro-democracy sentiment.

So it wasn't because of any objection to the accuracy of the gnv translation, but politically motivated opposition to its commentaries.
Click to expand...
yes the thing is originally you couldnt get a copy of the geneva bible without commentary
and the difference is KJV is stipulated that it must be published without commentaries.
This hasnt stopped people from adding them but you can always find a 'clean copy' without all the extras.

I know the scofield bible is one of those commentary added bibles that was used in a lot of dispensational teaching (and was kjv) but scripture itself says that one shouldnt add or take away from scripture so they violated that.

so the kjv hasnt always been immune from people adding to it and passing it off as kjv but the intent back then was to keep it free of the bias, which is why a lot of people feel the 1611 version was pure.

Before everyone added their own spin on KJV.

some versions, like NIV, defineitely feel and read like it was a Bible put together by committee! lol
So many passages that dont make sense or agree with each other. If you want a smooth reading experience, without any of those head scratching moments, and its just inspirational ....for me KJV wins everytime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
A bible that is just scripture without intrusive commentaries is like watching a movie without any commericials. Just a totally different experience, and to be seen how the director envisaged it without constant interruptions.

Modern bibles often have so much extra junk in them that its like how facebook/you tube became overun with ads or how Jesus complained about moneylenders in the temple, everyone was airing there personal opinion and trying to sell something, rather than focussing on the real point of the Bible...God.
 
  • Like
Reactions: posthuman
From the get-go typos and errors were found in the KJV. I think there were three different editions printed in 1611. This just shows that infallible humans can make mistakes. Why should we believe that God's autographs were preserved perfectly in the 1611 KJV when the printers couldn't even get it right.

You could say God oversaw the process and led the KJV editors to choose His words. Why then didn't He help the printers?
 
I think this is no longer a translation process but a printing process in which the KJB translators were not bound or be held liable for corruption. It is not their fault. It's a printer's error. Yet we don't have to blame those people using strenuous mechanical printers during the day.
 
fredoheaven said:
I think this is no longer a translation process but a printing process in which the KJB translators were not bound or be held liable for corruption. It is not their fault. It's a printer's error. Yet we don't have to blame those people using strenuous mechanical printers during the day.
Click to expand...

Yes, I agree, it was printer error. But if God was intent on producing a Bible without corruptions, why would He inspire and direct the KJV editors but not the printers?
 
fredoheaven said:
I think this is no longer a translation process but a printing process in which the KJB translators were not bound or be held liable for corruption. It is not their fault. It's a printer's error. Yet we don't have to blame those people using strenuous mechanical printers during the day.
Click to expand...

Btw, there was no corruption made by the KJB translators. and it is a mistake primarily to say KJB editors. The connotation is not good. They were, of course, translators.
 
fredoheaven said:
Btw, there was no corruption made by the KJB translators. and it is a mistake primarily to say KJB editors. The connotation is not good. They were, of course, translators.
Click to expand...

They may have been translators, but most of what they did was select readings from already existing Bibles. Thus, as for the process used in the creation of the KJV, they were essentially editors. People think the KJV is a new translation created entirely from scratch; it's not.
 
ResidentAlien said:
Yes, I agree, it was printer error. But if God was intent on producing a Bible without corruptions, why would He inspire and direct the KJV editors but not the printers?
Click to expand...
That is not what we are contending for. The printing process is not the same as today. Certainly, there were inaccuracies but they were not what we call corruptions. as you are saying. Are you putting blame on someone else? Perhaps the video may help you understand how printing is done during 1611. Thanks

 
ResidentAlien said:
People think the KJV is a new translation created entirely from scratch; it's not.
Click to expand...

Who thinks this? The KJV is God's completed preservation of His word. God used several other older translations in His preservation process...as silver tried in a furnace seven times to it reaches purity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fredoheaven
ResidentAlien said:
They may have been translators, but most of what they did was select readings from already existing Bibles. Thus, as for the process used in the creation of the KJV, they were essentially editors. People think the KJV is a new translation created entirely from scratch; it's not.
Click to expand...
No, While they have Bishops Bible with them and other previous English Bibles, they were only used for diligent comparison as the original title page bears it so.

THE HOLY BIBLE
Containing the Old Testament and the New:
Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues: and with the former translations
diligently compare...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rsion-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: John146
fredoheaven said:
That is not what we are contending for. The printing process is not the same as today. Certainly, there were inaccuracies but they were not what we call corruptions. as you are saying. Are you putting blame on someone else? Perhaps the video may help you understand how printing is done during 1611. Thanks
Click to expand...

You're dodging and rationalizing. You haven't satisfactorily addressed the real issue. If God was intent on creating an uncorrupted Bible why did He allow corruptions into the printing process.

In one 1611 edition, "Jesus" was printed as "Judas"! You're saying that's not a corruption? In the 1637, the seventh commandment states: "Thou shalt commit adultery"! Obviously no corruption here.
 
John146 said:
Who thinks this? The KJV is God's completed preservation of His word. God used several other older translations in His preservation process...as silver tried in a furnace seven times to it reaches purity.
Click to expand...

A lot of people do. When a person refers to the King James editors as translators it show they already have the wrong idea.
 
fredoheaven said:
No, While they have Bishops Bible with them and other previous English Bibles, they were only used for diligent comparison as the original title page bears it so.

THE HOLY BIBLE
Containing the Old Testament and the New:
Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues: and with the former translations
diligently compare...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...rsion-Bible-first-edition-title-page-1611.jpg
Click to expand...

My point exactly: "and with the former translations diligently compared and refined. . ."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back