Why has the KJV been so popular?

I think it very important that folks do not view the KJV as “coming through blood” as the earlier English bibles most certainly were hazardously produced.

It did not, and there is only a false and pretentious claim that it was so dearly produced.

The KJV should not be taking such honor from other earlier bloodied work, for such honor cannot be claimed.

Where all previous English versions had both the RCC and the state in opposition, the KJV was opposed by the RCC.

 

As I said, I'm not aware of any errors in the KJV, but do not claim to know more than I know. I think the KJV and the Greek lexicons (Strong's, Young's) provided a pretty accurate grasp on the truth over the years. And especially today with our software versions of the same and more.

 

I believe God preserves the world perfectly as a backdrop to display his perfections. So the world is just as he would have it.

in bibliology, inspiration (which occurred in the original languages of the Bible) was an act of creation, but then God preserved His Word through humans. He never promised to preserve His word in the same way he inspired it--perfectly and inerrantly--except in Heaven (Ps. 119:89).[/QUOTE]

It sounds as though you are not confident in any translation of the scriptures?

 

Would William Tyndale have supported the KJV's replacement of his rendering "love" with "charity"?

At 1 Corinthians 13:1 the Ryrie Study Bible maintained that the word "charity" comes from the Latin charitas and "means basically benevolence or alms-giving." Geddes MacGregor asserted that “the Vulgate use of caritas suggested ’charity’” (Literary History, p. 114). W. E. Campbell noted the following about the use of this word: "Charity, then is the key-word of the Catholic faith; and Tyndale's object, as [Sir Thomas] More points out, was to displace it by the commoner word 'love,' and thus to make way for the key-word of Protestantism, which was faith" (Erasmus, Tyndale, and More, p. 128). Brian Moynaham pointed out: “Charity is linked in meaning to good works, and it was in the interests of the established Church--Catholic in More’s day” (God’s Best Seller, p. 106). Derek Wilson wrote: “’Charity’ was a word which fitted in far better with the concept of ‘good deeds’ than the more spiritually demanding ‘love’” (People’s Bible, p. 115).

William Tyndale argued that "charity had ceased to be the name of an inward, Divine grace, and denoted only certain outward ostentatious deeds sanctioned by the ecclesiastics" (William Tindale, p. 320). Tyndale contended that "verily charity is no known English which Agape requireth" (Expositions, p. 135). Tyndale commented: “Finally, I say not, charity God, or charity your neighbour; but, love God, and love your neighbour” (Answer, p. 21). David Teems noted: “Tyndale was fond of the word love not only for its accuracy, but also for its flexibility. Both noun and verb, it suggested possibilities about the nature of God itself” (Tyndale, p. 190). John Drury noted that in Tyndale’s New Testament “agape came out as ‘love’ rather than (following the Vulgate and the church’s hierarchy of virtues) ‘charity’” (Introduction, N. T., p. xiii). Moynaham observed: “Tyndale was justified in finding that ‘love’ was a more accurate translation of the original agape” (God’s Best Seller, p. 73). Concerning 1 Corinthians 13, A. T. Robertson wrote: "Charity (Latin caritas) is wholly inadequate" (Word Pictures, IV, p. 176). KJV defender Edward Hills identified “charity” in the KJV as an archaic rendering with its modern equivalent being “love” (Believing Bible Study, p. 84).

According to the rules of King James, the KJV was officially a revision of the Bishops' Bible. "Due to Latinizing influence, the second edition of the Bishops' Bible reverted to 'charity' in thirty-two instances" (May, Our English Bible In The Making, p. 27). Ronald Bridges wrote: "The advocates of Catholic Latinity had in some way gathered strength, for in the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, published in that year [1572], the word 'charity' is substituted for 'love' in 32 cases" (KJB Word Book, p. 208). E. H. Robertson observed that "the Bishops' Bible used the word 'charity' under the influence of the Latin Vulgate" (New Translations, p. 22). MacGregor confirmed that it was the Vulgate’s use of charitas that suggested “charity” (Literary History, p. 114). John Beard asserted that “the ecclesiastical word ‘charity’ from the charitas of the Latin Vulgate is preferred by King James’s divines to the Saxon word ‘love,‘ which they found in Tyndale’s version as well as in the Bible of Cramner and of Geneva” (A Revised English Bible, p. 79). In its chapter contents heading at Deuteronomy 33, the 1611 KJV has this for verse 19: “Of Charity.” Its heading at Ecclesiastes chapter 11 beginning with the first verse is “Directions for charity.” The heading for verse 1 of Hebrews 13 in the 1611 is “Divers admonitions, as to Charity.” The headings for Acts chapter 4 end with the words “with mutual love and charity.”

 

One example of a place where Tyndale's Bible translation is soundly considered more accurate than the KJV is at John 10:16.

One place where the KJV reveals a possible influence of High Church/Episcopal views is at John 10:16. Concerning this verse, Burlington Wale asserted: “The ecclesiastical bent of the translators of the Authorised Version shows itself here as elsewhere” (Biblical Outlines, Vol. I, p. 218). F. B. Meyer maintained that “there is no doubt that the King James translators yielded to their ecclesiastical bias when they said, ‘There is one fold and one shepherd’” (Howard, Sunday-Schools the World Around, p. 177). At this verse in the KJV, two different Greek words are translated "fold" which removes the clear distinction between them. Were there any important, essential, or necessary reasons why one English word was used to translate these two different Greek words? A. T. Robertson pointed out the distinction here by Jesus between aule (fold) and poimne (flock) (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Concerning John 10:16, J. B. Lightfoot observed: "The point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock" (The Revision, p. 73). William Tyndale kept this difference of meaning between the two Greek words by translating the second Greek word (poimne) as "flock," as it is also translated in Jay Green's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament and Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament. Arthur Farstad in his Logos 21 Version of the Gospel of John also translated this second Greek word as "flock" (Living Water, p. 37). The 1535 Coverdale’s Bible and 1537 Matthew’s Bible also have “flock” in agreement with Tyndale. The KJV translators themselves translated poimne as "flock" at Matthew 26:31, Luke 2:8, and 1 Corinthians 9:7. The KJV translators also translated another form of this word poimnion as “flock” at Luke 12:32, Acts 20:28, 29, and 1 Peter 5:2, 3. Luther’s 1534 German Bible distinguished between the two Greek words, using Stalle for aule and Herd or Herde for poimne. The 1657 English translation of the authorized Dutch Bible also has “one flock” in agreement with Tyndale’s and Luther‘s. The old Syriac Peshitta, which is on the KJV-only line of good Bibles, also distinguished between the two Greek words. Thus, Murdock’s English translation of the Peshitta has “one flock” at the end of John 10:16.

In their tract entitled “A Corrected English Version Needed for the Heathen,“ Baptists Spencer Cone and William Wyckoff asserted that “the learned monarch’s translators rejected this rendering [Tyndale’s] of the original, and adopted one made from the Vulgate Latin, which has ovile fold, for both Greek words“ (p. 2). A writer in the Primitive Church Magazine asserted: “Tyndale and Coverdale translated John 10:16, ‘There shall be one flock, and one shepherd,‘ correctly rendering the Greek; but in the great Bible, or Cranmer’s, as it is often called, the reviser, following the vulgate Latin, put ‘one fold and one shepherd,‘ thus introducing ‘an inaccurate rendering, which continued through several revisions” (Vol. IX, June, 1852, p. 169). David Brown cited or quoted the following: “It is worth remarking that in this Bible (referring to Great Bible) one serious mistranslation is introduced which Tyndale had avoided” … “the rendering ‘fold’ in lieu of ‘flock’ in John 10:16” (Indestructible Book, p. 317). Henry Craik maintained that the KJV translators “ought to have restored the correct rendering given by Tyndale” at John 10:16 (Hints, p. 42). Bullinger's Lexicon defined poimne as "a flock," and it noted that in the KJV at John 10:16 "it is wrongly rendered 'fold'" (p. 291).

John Wesley commented: “There shall be one flock (Not one fold)“ (Explanatory Notes, p. 244). At its entry for fold, William Swinton as edited by Baptist T. J. Conant noted that it is “from the Latin Vulgate ovile” and that “the true rendering is flock” (Bible Word-Book, p. 56). William Arthur contended: “The venerated translators of our Authorized Version allowed themselves to be led by the Vulgate into a mistranslation in John 10:16” (Contemporary Review, July, 1887, p. 52). Glenn Conjurske maintained: “There are places where the King James Version follows the Latin Vulgate instead of the Greek, as, for example, where it reads ’fold’ instead of ’flock’ in John 10:16” (Olde Paths, July, 1992, p. 154). Concerning “one fold” at John 10:16 in a Norton Critical Edition of the KJV’s NT, Austin Busch and Gerald Hammond noted: “KJV seems to follow the Vulgate” (p. 217). A. T. Robertson observed that the Latin Vulgate's use of one Latin word for these two Greek words "confused this distinction" and "helped Roman Catholic assumptions" (Word Pictures, V, p. 181). Marvin Vincent wrote: "It will readily be seen that the incorrect rendering fostered by the carelessness or the mistake of some of the Western fathers, and by the Vulgate, which renders both words by ovile, fold, has been in the interest of Romish claims" (Word Studies, II, p. 194). Ralph Earle pointed out that “the Roman Catholic church has insisted that it is the only true ’fold,’ into which everyone must come in order to be saved” (Word Meanings, p. 89). In his sermon entitled “Christian Unity,“ Alfred Plummer stated: “The doctrine, that the sheep not in the fold must be brought in, until there is one fold, with all the sheep penned within, gave immense support to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be the one church, outside which there is no salvation” (Modern Sermons, VII, p. 180). The Contemporary Review maintained that “the favourite Catholic text for unity, ‘There shall be one fold’ is a mistranslation. It ought to be ‘one flock’” (Vol. 15, 1870, p. 291). In the volume on John in The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, A. Plummer asserted: “The change from ‘flock’ to ‘fold’ has been all loss, leading to calamitous misunderstanding” (p. 217). In his sermon, Alfred Plummer stated: “It is impossible to estimate the mischief that has been done by this unhappy substitution of ‘fold’ for ‘flock’ in this important text” (Modern Sermons, Vol. VII, p. 180). Henry Fox maintained that the rendering “one fold” at John 10:16 in the KJV “has been quite a stock argument with the High Church party” (On the Revision, p. 19). Burlington Wale observed: “The Church of England is the fold; and of course, if there be but ‘one fold,’ all that are not members of the Church of England are out of ‘the fold.’ And so to establish this point, the Saviour is made to say what He does not say. He says there shall be one flock (poimnee), and not one fold” (Biblical Outlines, I, p. 218).

Henry Alford wrote: “The one flock, is remarkable--not one fold, as characteristically, but erroneously rendered in A. V.;--not ONE FOLD, but ONE FLOCK: not one exclusive enclosure of an outward church, but one flock, all knowing the one Shepherd and known of Him” (New Testament for English Readers, I, p. 556). Alford asserted: “The rendering’ fold’ instead of ‘flock’ here is a grievous and important error” (How to Study the NT, p. 152). Alford contended: “It is impossible to acquit King James’ translators of some unfairness here. Tyndale’s version, which they had before them, had the faithful rendering as far as this word is concerned; but they followed the erroneous one” (Ibid.). John Brown wrote: “Sometime a change made from Tyndale was a change decidedly for the worse; as in the case of John 10:16 where ’there shall be one flock’ was altered to ’one fold’” (History, p. 50). In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, David Daniell referred to “Tyndale’s correct translation of the last words of John 10:16 as ‘one flock and one shepherd,‘ which became in the Latin-based versions, including our Authorised Version, ‘one fold and one shepherd’” (p. xxi). In his 1538 English translation of the Latin Vulgate’s New Testament, Miles Coverdale translated the Latin as “one fold and one shepherd” at the end of this verse. Edwin Bissell maintained that “one well-known error of our own translation (John 10:16), was inherited from this version of Coverdale through the Latin” (Historic Origin, p. 52). Luther Wiegle asserted: “This verse was correctly translated by Tyndale, but A. V. accepted the error from the Bishops’ Bible” (English New Testament, p. 103). J. H. Murray contended that “the sense is perverted by ’one fold’ being given for ’one flock’” (Help for English Readers, p. 203). Solomon Malan, a defender of the A.V., translated this word at John 10:16 where the KJV has “fold” as “flock” in his English translation of eleven old versions [Syriac, Ethiopic, Sahidic, Memphitic, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, Anglo-Saxon, Arabic, Persian] (Gospel according to John). Did High Church party interests or the influence of the Latin Vulgate or both overrule the truth of the original and the more accurate rendering of Tyndale at John 10:16?

 

Where is this in Scripture? You are a Baptist or you would not be posting here. Do you agree with the Baptist distinctive of the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice? If so, then where in the KJV does it say that God "preserves the world perfectly" in any way, shape or form?

I am absolutely confident in the Byzantine Textform Greek NT, which I read and teach and translate. The same goes for the Masoretic OT. God inspired the originals.

I am confident in the KJV. I am confident in the Lifeline Japanese NT, of which I am the lead translator. But I am not so foolish as to say that either one of these is inerrant.

Example: The KJV says, after all the revisions (7 if you believe that way), "Thou shalt not revile the gods" (Ex 22:28). Does this mean that as a missionary to Japan I was not allowed to oppose the false gods of Buddhism or Shintoism? Really???

This is very obviously a translation blunder in the KJV. If you say that the KJV is not in error in this rendering, then you are supporting idolatry.

 

Then answer the clear statements Logos has given about errors in the KJV.

I hate to burst your bubble, but "Strong's" and "Young's" are not lexicons, but basic dictionaries with only glosses (very brief definitions, usually only one or two words). Furthermore, both are very out of date, being published before the papyri discoveries of the early 20th century.

 

If you and he want to strain at gnats while swallowing camels, please do. I'm quite pleased using my KJV and many other translations for comparison.

Strong's and Young's served me well over the years to hone in on the area of meaning each word might have. But as I said, I have software versions of the same and more that I compare with each other for accuracy.

But if you cannot trust any translation, how bewildering that would be.

 

You do not understand the reason why God created the universe, and that it is just as he would have it. Everything exists for his good pleasure and he sustains all perfectly according to his will.

You do not understand the passage you are attacking. Instead of saying "I do not understand this" you are blaming the translators for getting it wrong.

Again, you do not understand the use of "gods" in scripture.

 

Again, while I agree that all exists for Him and His glory, you have not answered my question. You are evading.

I have made a personal study of every time in the Bible (the KJV, FYI) the word "preserve" and its cognates are listed, and I find no case in the KJV where God preserves His creation perfectly. So again, where do you find in the KJV that God preserves His creation perfectly?

Don't just say "You don't understand." Tell me where I am wrong. I think I completely understand, and the KJV translators and revisers got it wrong.

Oh, really? I lived and served God as a missionary to Japan for 33 years. That is an extremely idolatrous country. I have seen idols all over the country: jizo idols by the wayside, golden images in Buddhist temples, the "Great Buddha" at Kamakura (you can climb up into its head), Shinto shrines all over the country, including in almost all Japanese businesses, etc., etc.

I have written and preached against idolatry in the Japanese language to idolators. I have books written in Japanese by Japanese believers against idolatry.

So tell me, oh thou wise one, where do i misunderstand the word "gods" in the KJV? What do you understand about "the gods" that I don't?

De 6:14 Ye shall not go after other gods, of the gods of the people which [are] round about you;
De 29:18 Lest there should be among you man, or woman, or family, or tribe, whose heart turneth away this day from the LORD our God, to go and serve the gods of these nations; lest there should be among you a root that beareth gall and wormwood;
De 31:16 And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
Ac 14:11 And when the people saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lycaonia, The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men.

 

Yes, and I'm quite pleased using my KJV. That's not the point.

Well, you can't say I didn't tell you.

Yes, it would be. And I'm so glad I can trust my KJV and my Japanese Lifeline NT while realizing that the Bible was inspired in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and studying the Bible in those languages as my "final authority."

 

You asked: "Where is this in Scripture? You are a Baptist or you would not be posting here. Do you agree with the Baptist distinctive of the Bible as the sole authority of faith and practice? If so, then where in the KJV does it say that God "preserves the world perfectly" in any way, shape or form?"

Deuteronomy 32:4

4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: For all his ways are judgment: A God of truth and without iniquity, Just and right is he.

John 10:34–36

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

See above..........

 

It seems like there's a conflating of God's acting perfectly, which is always the case, and His preserving the world and His word in the state of perfection they had when first created, which is not the case. Rather than overly worrying ourselves about errors in copies/translations (they all have some), our goal should be to use God's clear teaching as our guidebook.

 

Then your prolonged attack on me for using the KJV is pointless.

I own several of today's widely respected original language resources but Strong's remains a favorite.

Do you think in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek as you would a first language? We can all look up the area of meaning each of the "copies" of the originals provide. And that's as good as it gets.

 

I found that a lot of the errors people conjure up are more a lack of understanding on their part.

 

This verse does not prove your point. Once again, it is not about creation (which was a perfect work of God) but preservation (which is not promised to be perfect.

Oh, come now. We already had a great discussion on this wherein I did my best to prove that Jesus was testing their knowledge from the LXX, and the correct answer from them should have been "That is referring to judges, not literal gods."

For your part, you used this passage to prove your view that we are all "gods" like Jesus. And you did not even know that your arguments exactly parallel the "little gods" heresy of the Charismatics.

 

Is that what you would say about the KJV translators?

In their 1611 preface, the KJV translators stated: "No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men endured with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man's weakness would enable, it did express."

In their preface, the KJV translators asserted: "Doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

The KJV translators favorably quoted Augustine as they noted: "Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."

The KJV translators concluded: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

 

Isn't this the world God created? Did he fail?

I only quoted a passage without comment. But please note:

"To a biblical writer, the Most High (elyon) was the God of Israel. The Old Testament refers to him as Most High in several places (e.g., Gen 14:18–22; Num 24:16; Pss 7:17; 18:13; 47:2). The sons of God/the Most High here are clearly called elohim, as the pronoun “you” in verse 6 is a plural form in the Hebrew."

"The text is not clear whether all of the elohim are under judgment or just some. The idea of elohim ruling the nations under God’s authority is a biblical concept that is described in other passages we’ll explore later. For now, it’s sufficient that you see clearly that the sons of God are divine beings under the authority of the God of Israel.5"

Heiser, M. S. (2015). The Unseen Realm: Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible (First Edition, p. 27). Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.

 

This is what I've said all along. I use the KJV and many other translations along with lexicons and dictionaries in my study. So I'm not out looking for flaws, I'm looking to learn.