Featured For Those Who Love The KJV

Yes, our faith in the word of God needs to be challenged to grow. Too many people accept at face value what their Bible says then are astounded to find out it does not say what they THINK it does.

 

What??

If we can't accept what our Bible says because it really says something else, then our Bible cannot be trusted and is of no use. Is this what you really meant to say?

 

In the preface of the first edition of his book, Knox asserted "there are only 182 words in all of scripture which should pose any hardship" (p. 8).

In the preface to the second edition of his book, Knox stated: "we have added thirty-seven words brought to our attention by readers of the first edition" (p. 14).

The edition I have also has a preface to the third edition, and the copyright page indicates that it is the sixth printing--2005.

 

Not at all. What I am saying is that we need to be like the Bereans.

People place their faith in what they THINK the Bible says. For example, when I was a youth, I read in my mother's KJV Bible 1 Peter 4:5 "who shall give an account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead." As an assignment for Driver's Ed (remember those?) class I had to make a safety poster and I decided to use that verse. You know- drive too fast, you will face the judge and be dead. Of course I now know that is not what the verse says at all.

This is why I say it is silly for us to say that having various translations causes confusion. The KJV translators themselves quoted St. Augustine as saying "variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures". Newer translations make things more clear and remove confusion due to changes in the meanings of words.

Even my first Baptist pastor, who preached only from the KJV and detested modern versions, would say while he was preaching that , "A better translation of this word might be...", and most of the time the translation he gave was in my more modern version (which was at home).

And Annsi hit the second nail on the head- when it comes to the Bible, people - Christians and non - hear what they want to hear.

 

Kindly refresh my memory, what New Testament greek text was used by the 1611 KJV translators?

 

I am not KJVO, but please tell me how this does NOT cause confusion?

KJV
Matthew 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment:

NIV
But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother* will be subject to judgment.

Now, are we in danger of hell for being angry? Or for being angry without a cause?



KJV
Acts 8:36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? 37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

NIV
No text available.


Yes, that really makes it clear.

 

That's what footnotes are for- NIV Bible:

1. Matthew 5:22 Some manuscripts brother or sister without cause

1. Acts 8:37 Some manuscripts include here Philip said, “If you believe with all your heart, you may.” The eunuch answered, “I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.”

And that's where the Berean part comes in. Not all the answers to our questions ABOUT the Bible are found IN the Bible.

We could play the same game with a comparison of the KJV and the English versions that preceded it. Or, just go right back to the Greek and Hebrew and see how many words are missing or have been added to the English version.

 

Yes, I am aware of the footnotes. But they don't do anything other than tell me what I already know. A verse is missing.

I'm not aware of any missing verses in the older English versions. Could you point them out?

 

Some whole verses are missing in some Byzantine manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus editions were based. Several of the Textus Receptus consulted the Complutensian Polyglot Bible, and they borrowed some readings from it. The Complutensian Polyglot Bible is said to be missing Acts 8:37 because evidently it was not in the Greek manuscripts on which it was based.

Tyndale's New Testament, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, the 1537 Matthew's Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Mark 11:26 as found in the KJV because that verse was not in the Textus Receptus edition of Erasmus from which they were translated.

Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, 1560 Geneva Bible, and Luther's German Bible do not have Luke 17:36 as found in the KJV because it was not in some TR editions.

There are also some whole phrases or clauses not in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and in Luther's German Bible that are in the KJV because of the same reason.

The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1539 Great Bible have three whole verses in one Psalm that are not found in the KJV.

 

Thank you.

 

May I restate your position? Early 17th century Anglican Biblical scholarship...good, modern evangelical Biblical scholarship....bad.

 

Perhaps the problem is that you do not pass up such reasoning since it is your KJV-only view that actually implies what you suggest. It is the modern KJV-only view that in effect asserts that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages have to be clarified or determined by one exclusive group of "suitably qualified and properly trained" Church of England scholars in 1611.

One reason I reject the modern KJV-only theory is that in effect makes the KJV translators into supposed infallible popes who are not to be questioned concerning their textual criticism decisions and translating decisions.

The Scriptures do not state or teach a KJV-only view. KJV-only advocates even seem to reject scriptural truths and principles when they conflict with their own subjective opinions, inconsistent assumptions, or unproven claims. A consistent and scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611, but it should be obvious that the KJV-only view is not true before 1611.

Admitting the truth that fallible men can make errors in copying, translating, editing, and printing is not the same thing as saying translations are full of errors.

 

Mr. Perry, all Bible translations, including the KJV, were made by...MEN. So, actually, U R placing your trust in one group of men. Now, while GOD caused all valid translations to be made, we still see human frailty in them, including the KJV. We have discussed several goofs in the KJV at length, in other threads, and we see, after all the wrapping is taken off and umpteen excuses made to justify them, that they're still GOOFS.

And again, there's simply NO Scriptural justification for the KJVO myth. And more than one KJVO has come away with a different point of view after reading the preface "To The Reader" in the AV 1611.

And again, the ONLY justification for KJVO is PERSONAL PREFERENCE.

 

Exactly!:thumbs:

 

A position which the KJV translators, by their own admission, would reject.