Featured How important is the KJB?

Welcome back stillearning, been awhile.

Always a twist in your posts here, but I agree that God's word is vital to all individuals.

The bible provides instruction, rebuke, correction and training to those who read it (2 Timothy 3:16).

Rob

 

Agreed - can't say it any better.

 

Gods Word were the originals documents though, and ALL English translations have updated thru the years, even the ole KJV!

Should be updayed when new discoveries are made, understanding increased, shouldn't they?

 

Agreed.
There is no reason to single out the KJ as being the only one called "God's Word".

 

And as we can see you are still learning. This post makes it obvious.

 

The KJV is not the only English version that is considered God's Word in the proper sense and way that translations should be considered the word of God. Are you forgetting that the KJV translators themselves asserted that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision were the word of God?

The NKJV is the word of God in the same way and sense that the KJV is the word of God.

The Scriptures do not support the KJV-only implications in your statement.

You are actually misrepresenting the views of some posters at this forum in your statement.

 

today's KJV is not the 1769

Actually the KJV was updated after 1769, and it was updated several times, usually inconsistently updated.

The KJV was updated around 1810 with editors or printers having to determine and decide whether a character that looked like "f" in print was used as an actual "f" or for a long "s." That change was made in hundred and thousands of words in the KJV.

An Oxford KJV edition in 1829 introduced over 70 changes to the 1769 edition.

Changes were made around 1840 and even up to the 1880's in Oxford KJV editions and up to 1900 in Cambridge KJV editions, not even counting the 2005 Cambridge KJV edition by David Norton.

There is no present edition of the KJV in print today of which I am aware that is 100% identical to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

The American Bible Society updated their edition of the KJV around 1932 and again around 1963.

Your post indicates that you are uninformed and misinformed about KJV editions.

 

changes made to KJV after 1769

Here would be over 200 changes that have been made to the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV.

Here is one example that is usually considered to have been first made by Scrivener in the 1873 Cambridge edition, but I have found one edition that had it earlier [a KJV edition printed in Boston in 1835 with the notes of Thomas Scott].

1 Samuel 2:13
priest's custom (1768, 1769, 1772, 1777, 1783, 1784, 1787, 1788, 1791, 1792, 1795, 1795e, 1798, 1799, 1800, 1803, 1804, 1810, 1819, 1821, 1823, 1828, 1829, 1830, 1835, 1838, 1840, 1847, 1850, 1853, 1857, 1859, 1865, 1868, 1870, 1876, 1880, 1885, 1890 Oxford) [1762, 1763B, 1769, 1773, 1778, 1790, 1795, 1800, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1772, 1795, 1813, 1814, 1817, 1824, 1825, 1838, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1789, 1791, 1793, 1802, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1851, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782 Aitken) (1785 Wilson) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1801 Hopkins) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1807, 1813 Johnson) (1808, 1828 MH) (1809, 1810, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1818 Holbrook) (Clarke) (1818, 1819, 1829, 1843, 1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1827 Smith) (1831 Brown) (1832 PSE) (1836 Hartford) (1843, 1856 AFBS) (1843 Robinson) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1854, 1876 Harding) (1853 Butler) (1859 RTS) (1895, 1958 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1910 Collins) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1942 UBBH) (1948 WSE) (1976 BH) (1975, 1978 GID) (1940, 1979, 1996 Holman) (WMCRB) (KJRLB) (VB) (EB) (JVIPB) (TCRB) (Nave’s) (Dake’s) (1984, 1991 AMG) (1985 Open) (1987 Dugan) (1972, 1989, 1991, 2003 TN) (MSB) (KJVCB) (2008 Pilot) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (2011 Barbour) (APB) (2011 PJB) (HMSB) (2012 F-S) (HKJVSB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

priests' custom (1928, 1977 Oxford, SRB, SSB, Oxford Classic, NPB) [1873, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR] {1976 London} (1835 Scott) (1911 TCE) (1923 NIB) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1973 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (CSB) (RRB) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (CB) (CHSB) (1991, 2012 FWP) (RSB) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1999 Collins) (TLPSB) (ROASB) (1983, 1984, 1994, 2000, 2002 ZOND) (Life) (1997 NPC) (DSB) (TPB) (HPB) (SFCB) (2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p HEND) (NHPB) (2011 WB) (NCE) [NKJV]

 

This is a false trilemma; there are other possible answers including "It is very important, but not vital."

 

For whatever reason, people just don't get the "version" in the KJV. It's a version that translators translated from the Greek/Hebrew.

 

Feelin' the love!

This is such a warm, friendly, engaging kinda place!! I think I'll pull up a chair next to the fireplace and warm my feet. Bro.learning....surely you must be a glutton for punishment (and I do know the feeling) coming in here with with these kind-of-stealth KJVO posts. I am one too but I don't post as much in this part of the forum anymore because it is mostly a waste of time and effort. This is the home of the MV crowd and there ain't no convertin' them. This argument is almost as polarized as the pro-life/abortion argument or the Calvinist/Arminian argument. I have concluded that it IS appropriate to occasionally DECLARE who I am and what I believe so folks will know....but I didn't arrive at my convictions by the force of argument but rather by the leadership of God's Spirit so....take a stand...YES....waste a lot of time arguing...NO. We need to get serious and busy about winning lost folks to the Lord in the time remaining (and discipling them with the right Book...amen?). I do thank God for brothers like yourself though who ARE willing to stand. I,like yourself, am thankful that we have the Word of God in our hands today (KJV) and that we are not left to try to gather it or discern it from a variety of manuscript fragments or a plethora of different "translations". I'm thankful God didn't leave us in the hands of or at the mercy of fallible men (be they self-proclaimed "scholars" or not). I'm equally thankful that we can have in our hands a Book that is the Word of God. The "original" manuscripts that everyone boasts about no longer exist. Thank God that His Word does exist for us today in English...and other languages as well. God Bless you brother. Part of being a good soldier is knowing when to shoot....and when to DUCK. Time for me to duck.:thumbs:

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

Are you contradicting the KJV translators who asserted; "If any thing be halting, or superflous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place"?

Are you forgetting that the English text of the KJV has been changed many times with many corrections being made? Are you suggesting that all those changes were wrong?

No one suggested that God's understanding increases, but men's understanding of the original language words of Scriptures can increase so that they see what a more accurate rendering of those words would be.

God's words were delivered to us through the original language words given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles. The Scriptures do not state or teach that God directly gave or would give the words of later translations made after the completion of the New Testament.

Are you failing to understand that there is a difference between the giving of the Scriptures by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and the later translating of the Scriptures?

 

the bible since early on was "translated" into the language of those intended to receive it, so would we not have modern versions updating the modern use of the English vocabulary?

 

God's Word in English was delivered to you by men and was confirmed by other men.

There is no biblical support for anything similar to the God-inspiration of His writers in the translation process of translators or revisers; these good men could have been mistaken and imperfect in their efforts. You would raise those men to a God-inspired level without any Scriptural support. So, you do trust men.

You might attempt to validate the translators work by claiming that Godly preachers, commentators, and readers have found no fault in their translation. But readers, commentators, and preachers are also mere human beings and certainly capable of having problems of translation escape their attention, especially those errors that are beyond their own competency of detection. Indeed, you do trust men.