Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
King James only?
- Thread starter tjw
- Start date
tim-from-pa
Member
I prefer the KJV only. I'll give my opinions but I understand there will be those who see things otherwise, but my belief is not without grounded and foundational reasons:
1) A mathematical reason: translated sincerely with no denominational ax to grind --- based on the original Greek and Hebrew in which Gematrias work (can't work with corrupted text). For a brief history of the KJV: Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance
2) A legal reason: It is free of copyright. I can quote it at length on my site. Or, to put it another way, taking God's side, How would you like to write something, someone puts their own translation and spin to it, and then have the gall to copyright it? That's how other translations are (not all of them, but many)
3) Translated for the English- speaking world at a prophetic time in their history: c.f. Ezekiel 21:27 And BTW, I bet for those that read other translations did not know that the throne of King David was simply "overturn"ed. Many others say "ruin" thus making God's eternal promise to King David a lie (and that covenant is one core foundational truth in the bible). It was simply overturned, and the Hebrew means overthrown, not ruined. So, if nobody else sees this, at least one soul here understands that the KJV did not come about by accident or at an arbitrary time, and ironically, as it speaks for itself, is the most enduring English translation today.
1) A mathematical reason: translated sincerely with no denominational ax to grind --- based on the original Greek and Hebrew in which Gematrias work (can't work with corrupted text). For a brief history of the KJV: Brief History of the King James Bible by Dr. Laurence M. Vance
2) A legal reason: It is free of copyright. I can quote it at length on my site. Or, to put it another way, taking God's side, How would you like to write something, someone puts their own translation and spin to it, and then have the gall to copyright it? That's how other translations are (not all of them, but many)
3) Translated for the English- speaking world at a prophetic time in their history: c.f. Ezekiel 21:27 And BTW, I bet for those that read other translations did not know that the throne of King David was simply "overturn"ed. Many others say "ruin" thus making God's eternal promise to King David a lie (and that covenant is one core foundational truth in the bible). It was simply overturned, and the Hebrew means overthrown, not ruined. So, if nobody else sees this, at least one soul here understands that the KJV did not come about by accident or at an arbitrary time, and ironically, as it speaks for itself, is the most enduring English translation today.
While I have no problems with the original KJV translation or any of it's subsequent corrections, I do seem to find myself questioning those who say it is the only correct translation of God's word. What you have said above is an example (and just one of many examples) of one of the problems I have with this. Tim, you have been told that "the Hebrew means overthrown, not ruined" in Eze 21:27. However the Hebrew word "avvah", according to Strong's is defined only as "ruined". "Overturned" is not even one of the possible alternate definitions.
Now I understand that Strong's concordance of Greek and Hebrew is not inspired or infallible. But many times the newer translations have been accused of misinterpreting words to make the text fit to what the authors want it to say (and this may be true in some of the instances), using Strong's as the authority. However, it seems the same argument can be used against the KJV as in this case of the KJV using the word "overturned" instead of "ruined".
Tim, now that I've stated my current opinion on this particular verse, my question is can you tell me where you got the information that avvah has to mean overturned, and can not mean ruined? Does that come from an authoritative source, such as Strong's concordance?
ada
Member
What you mean is just slang i mean content!
One would have to go through verse by verse and show not only that it has been omitted but that it has been done so without merit.
To say that there is an agenda to remove the name of the Lord from the NIV or to make Christ less than God is fallacious since that clearly is not the case. Take John 1:18 for example:
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. (KJV)
18 No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known.(NIV)
I can guarantee that non-trinitarians and those who deny the deity of Christ would use the KJV and not the NIV (or ESV).
If there was an agenda to remove the deity of Christ in the NIV, they sure did a poor job since there are still many clear examples showing just that, and in this case, it is even clearer than the KJV.
tim-from-pa
Member
From Strong's:
H5754
עוּה
‛avvâh
av-vaw'
Intensive from H5753 abbreviated; overthrow: - X overturn.
H5753
עוה
‛âvâh
aw-vaw'
A primitive root; to crook, literally or figuratively: - do amiss, bow down, make crooked, commit iniquity, pervert, (do) perverse (-ly), trouble, X turn, do wickedly, do wrong.
"Crook" (v.) in English is to bend implying a change in order.
jasoncran
Member
really? i can read other texts from that era. can you? the kjv you have in possesion is a revision. its not a 1611. but a 1768 rendition.my question is this, its almost dead. otherwise why would the orginal shakespere(same era english) have to have commentaries on certian items that we no longer use are in our culture.
i happen to use the kjv primarily,btw. Not because i have too, but it because its a preference.
ada
Member
Maybe its you are just biased?
Where is your point? I said it 2 times. I do not mean KJV only. Read my arguments in my previous posts about it and i won't repeat it if people are ignoring reasonable facts.Apart from this my mother-language is not english so you can bet that i am using an other translation than the KJV but a textus receptus base Bible.As i said it to @free,the question is what do you defend and why?..
jasoncran
Member
its funny, the kjv isnt the first version btw, tyndale was the first english one and it used the same source. i personally dont like the niv, but theres not enough evidence to call it bad. keep in mind the jews and the messianics do call the kjv corrupt and they read theres in the ot tounge of hebrew for the ot and aramiac for the nt(messianic).
ada
Member
Hi farouk,
as i said i prefer textus receptus based translations as the KJV is one.
I am not talking about perfect or not. Gods word is perfect but omissions
are for a purpose to deliberately corrupt the Bible especially the New Testament.
Look the link i posted a few postings before there you see the obvious purpose
in comparison to the niv.
as i said i prefer textus receptus based translations as the KJV is one.
I am not talking about perfect or not. Gods word is perfect but omissions
are for a purpose to deliberately corrupt the Bible especially the New Testament.
Look the link i posted a few postings before there you see the obvious purpose
in comparison to the niv.
Interesting! The online version of Strong's I was using did not say this. So I looked for another version and, sure enough, there it is. So much for trusting the internet!
kiwimac
Member
1: It is an Anglican church versions translated specifically to support the rights of Bishops and Kings. Don't believe me? Do a little research on the passages that James insisted be translated in specific ways.
2: It is free from copyright ONLY outside the British commonwealth where it has a perpetual Crown copyright.
3: It was a retranslation of the Bishop's Bible, are you going to argue similarly for that one?
Scotth1960
Member
I reject the King James only doctrine. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
kiwimac
Member
There are no "corrupt Alexandrian texts", no diminution of Christ's deity in the NIV, no homosexual on the NIV translation committee and finally no changing of doctrines on the basis of translations.
What there is, is an heretical belief which attempts to make a 17thC English translation of the Bible into a creedal statement, a belief which attempts to arrogate to itself the right to decide that a dated, stilted English translation is the standard by which other English translations should be judged and which casts aspersion on Godly folk doing their part in making God's words available to all people.
Finally, there is a belief which although it has no biblical basis, no scriptural support at all and no basis in history either attempts to define who and who is not a Christian solely on the basis of the English Bible translation that they use.
What there is, is an heretical belief which attempts to make a 17thC English translation of the Bible into a creedal statement, a belief which attempts to arrogate to itself the right to decide that a dated, stilted English translation is the standard by which other English translations should be judged and which casts aspersion on Godly folk doing their part in making God's words available to all people.
Finally, there is a belief which although it has no biblical basis, no scriptural support at all and no basis in history either attempts to define who and who is not a Christian solely on the basis of the English Bible translation that they use.
You are correct, the KJV is not a Protestant bible originally, it's Anglican and Protestants then rejected the KJV, they preferred the Geneva bible. Protestants refused it for many reasons, mainly some latin was used in translation causing errors, they deemed the council baised to views of the Pope even though there were obvious conflicts, etc. Protestants then were persecuted because they rejected it and eventually many came to America....with their Geneva bibles.
However, like most bibles it's close, it does have many added words for effect, but don't they all. However, I agree it contains some serious errors in some places, never versions today have corrected many of these.
We have to remember, why spripture may be inspired, the men that put together the many bibles were not. Man chose what books to be included or excluded, no bible is inspired.
Stormcrow
Member
Ditto.
Stormcrow
Member
NASB is the Bible most closely translated to the original Hebrew and Greek currently available. The only translation closer to the original languages would be a literal translation, and a Bible like Young's Literal is as difficult to read - in many cases - as the King James.
NASB is the Bible I prefer for both simple reading and in-depth study.
NASB is the Bible I prefer for both simple reading and in-depth study.
A
Asyncritus
Guest
The English Revised Version is the most accurate translation available.
It's nearly word for word as far as is possible within the confines of the English language.
When Prof. HFD Sparkes was looking for a translation to key his Synopsis of the Gospels to, he chose the RV because, as he says:
Nevertheless, the fundamental point remains that what is primarily required of a version which is to serve as the basis in an English Synopsis is that it shall as clearly and unambiguously as possible reflect in English the agreements and disagreements between the gospels as they exist in Greek; and judged by this criterion, neither the RSV nor the NEB can compare with the RV.
If we are looking for a version to serve as a basis of a Synopsis, the RV's mechanical exactness and word-for-word literalness, the characteristics for which it has so often been abused (but which the Revisers themselves understood as 'faithfulness'), so far from being a drawback, become an outstanding and decisive recommendation.
While I understand that not everybody wants to compile a Synopsis of the Gospels, the two criterions of accuracy and faithfulness (which Sparkes thought so highly of) must weigh very heavily with all serious readers of the Scriptures.
Yes, the language is old-fashioned, but that is a great virtue - because it slows you down and forces you to concentrate on what is being said.
The modern versions allow you to slide very easily past points of considerable importance, simply because of their modern-ness
.Also, I have found that many of the modern versions simply interpret, interpolate and otherwise do things which you can never be certain about - depending as they do, on the opinions of the translators.
Many important things simply disappear without trace or indication that they were ever there at all.
To take a simple example, the AV and RV both retain the word 'Behold', for which there is a Greek word 'idou', which is present in the text in those places where 'behold' appears.
Not a single modern version can reflect this word - because we simply don't use it any more.
But the writers put it there intentionally, and very firmly - Luke in particular does so often - because they are wanting to flag up something very important.
But the moderns lose it altogether, and the writers' intention is completely obscured.
My advice to anyone who does not know Greek and Hebrew is to get yourself an Online Bible which is very cheap, and has a large number of translations incorporated. A single click of the mouse can bring up any one of about 10 translations.
If you can't get the meaning of a passage with all that in front of you, then something's got to be wrong with you.
It's nearly word for word as far as is possible within the confines of the English language.
When Prof. HFD Sparkes was looking for a translation to key his Synopsis of the Gospels to, he chose the RV because, as he says:
Nevertheless, the fundamental point remains that what is primarily required of a version which is to serve as the basis in an English Synopsis is that it shall as clearly and unambiguously as possible reflect in English the agreements and disagreements between the gospels as they exist in Greek; and judged by this criterion, neither the RSV nor the NEB can compare with the RV.
If we are looking for a version to serve as a basis of a Synopsis, the RV's mechanical exactness and word-for-word literalness, the characteristics for which it has so often been abused (but which the Revisers themselves understood as 'faithfulness'), so far from being a drawback, become an outstanding and decisive recommendation.
While I understand that not everybody wants to compile a Synopsis of the Gospels, the two criterions of accuracy and faithfulness (which Sparkes thought so highly of) must weigh very heavily with all serious readers of the Scriptures.
Yes, the language is old-fashioned, but that is a great virtue - because it slows you down and forces you to concentrate on what is being said.
The modern versions allow you to slide very easily past points of considerable importance, simply because of their modern-ness
.Also, I have found that many of the modern versions simply interpret, interpolate and otherwise do things which you can never be certain about - depending as they do, on the opinions of the translators.
Many important things simply disappear without trace or indication that they were ever there at all.
To take a simple example, the AV and RV both retain the word 'Behold', for which there is a Greek word 'idou', which is present in the text in those places where 'behold' appears.
Not a single modern version can reflect this word - because we simply don't use it any more.
But the writers put it there intentionally, and very firmly - Luke in particular does so often - because they are wanting to flag up something very important.
But the moderns lose it altogether, and the writers' intention is completely obscured.
My advice to anyone who does not know Greek and Hebrew is to get yourself an Online Bible which is very cheap, and has a large number of translations incorporated. A single click of the mouse can bring up any one of about 10 translations.
If you can't get the meaning of a passage with all that in front of you, then something's got to be wrong with you.
Jethro Bodine
Member
King James ONLY?
Not a chance. I've learned much from reading more than one translation/ interpretation.
I had a good friend of mine cut off our relationship because she felt any other Bible than the KJV was corrupted. She wouldn't listen to any of the reasons as to why versions varied on particular passages. Her arguments were weak and illogical and way too emotionally based.
I like the KJV when it serves the purpose.
Not a chance. I've learned much from reading more than one translation/ interpretation.
I had a good friend of mine cut off our relationship because she felt any other Bible than the KJV was corrupted. She wouldn't listen to any of the reasons as to why versions varied on particular passages. Her arguments were weak and illogical and way too emotionally based.
I like the KJV when it serves the purpose.