THIS is an Essentisl Tool for all KJVO to have and use now

[JesusFan]

The 1828 Webster Dictionary will give to you what the Kjv terms and words chosen by the 1611 translators meant in their time, not the current understanding in english, so very valuable to avoid misunderstanding g the bible

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/bible

See especially the 1000 words that have changed their meanings from bacjk then to today when used in 1611 Kjv

 

[Conan]

Thank you for the resource. A good one.

 

[JD731]

The 1828 Webster Dictionary will give to you what the Kjv terms and words chosen by the 1611 translators meant in their time, not the current understanding in english, so very valuable to avoid misunderstanding g the bible

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/bible

See especially the 1000 words that have changed their meanings from bacjk then to today when used in 1611 Kjv

The year 1901 is the time we began getting new Bibles. In the same year we began getting many new denominations. The more translations the more divisions. There is a sinister mind behind this new Bible translation conspiracy.

I have read your logic and reasoning from the scriptures and discernment and understanding is not your strong suit. IMO.

It is my view that you and I don disagree on what the Bible teaches because of our different views on Bible translations but rather on our Bible dictionaries. You have different meanings and applications for words. Let me give you a test.

What does Jesus mean here?

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

 

[JesusFan]

The year 1901 is the time we began getting new Bibles. In the same year we began getting many new denominations. The more translations the more divisions. There is a sinister mind behind this new Bible translation conspiracy.

I have read your logic and reasoning from the scriptures and discernment and understanding is not your strong suit. IMO.

It is my view that you and I don disagree on what the Bible teaches because of our different views on Bible translations but rather on our Bible dictionaries. You have different meanings and applications for words. Let me give you a test.

What does Jesus mean here?

Matthew 15:24
But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel.

Jesus came to earth as Israel promised Messiah, and after His death and resurrection was also proclaimed as the Messiah to all Mankind

 

[Conan]

English Versions of the Bible

 

[Salty]

IMHO - makes no difference what any English translation say - what does the original Greek have to say?

 

[Marooncat79]

Just to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, my guys in Africa use the NIV. Hahha

It’s because the NIV has a 7th grade reading level and that’s what the people can handle education wise

Not my fav, but it’s ok

And now, you know the rest of the story.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

better to get a more modern version, But I guess if you have to.. it is a good source..

 

[Salty]

It’s because the NIV has a 7th grade reading level and that’s what the people can handle education wise

Some reading levels:
Christian Books
Bible Selector
Translation Philosophy
Bible Gateway
Translation Comparison

 

[Salty]

Interesting comments on the KJV

 

[Marooncat79]

Oooohh. I know someone who is going to be all over these posts

 

[Logos1560]

The year 1901 is the time we began getting new Bibles.

The 1611 KJV was the new modern translation in 1611, and it was a revision of multiple, varying pre-1611 translations.

Incomplete list of some new Bibles made before 1901

Haak’s 1657 English translation of 1637 Dutch Staten Bible
1755 N. T. by John Wesley; whole English translation later [Wesley's Bible]
1773 Bate's Bible, translation of Hebrew from Genesis to 2 Kings by Julius Bate
1798 N. T. from the Greek by Nathaniel Scarlett
1808 Thomson's Bible: first English translation from Septuagint and first complete English translation by an American--Charles Thomson
1833 revision of KJV by Noah Webster
1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars; Sixth Edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding
1850 and 1851 KJV N.T. with emendations edited by Baptists: Spencer Cone & William Wyckoff)
1851 translation of Syriac N.T. from the Peshitta by James Murdock-
1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser; first Jewish translation in U.S.
1862 Young's Literal Translation--Revised Edition)
1866 American Bible Union edition of the N. T., 1868 Genesis, 1877 Job
1885 translation by John Nelson Darby, Plymouth Brethren)
1897 Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible by Joseph Bryant Rotherdam

 

[Salty]

As Sgt Joe Friday used to say "Just the facts, Madam!"

Oooohh. I know someone who is going to be all over these posts

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Interesting comments on the KJV

quote--

I have been trying to study the translations of the Bible, specifically the King James Version (KJV). I have been asked to give an answer to the question, “How do we know the King James version doesn’t leave things out of the Bible?” Also, the Geneva Bible translation came before the King James version. The Geneva Bible was not liked by King James because it was a Calvinist translation. Here is my question: Was the King James version translated from the original bible? I grew up learning that KJV is the most accurate, but I realized I didn’t know how to defend it. My ultimate questions are: How do we know nothing was left out through the translation? Is the King James the most reliable translation? What language was it translated from? How can I defend the conclusion that the KJV is reliable?


wow!!

 

[Ben1445]

Interesting comments on the KJV

From the article.
“ It was perhaps the best translation of the New and Old Testaments available in English in 1609. What I can say with 100% confidence is that it is not the best translation available today!!!”


A very authoritative answer. It was the best translation two years before it was finished.

As if to say,
“It’s not the best translation but what I am saying isn’t accurate either.”

 

[JD731]

The 1611 KJV was the new modern translation in 1611, and it was a revision of multiple, varying pre-1611 translations.

Incomplete list of some new Bibles made before 1901

Haak’s 1657 English translation of 1637 Dutch Staten Bible
1755 N. T. by John Wesley; whole English translation later [Wesley's Bible]
1773 Bate's Bible, translation of Hebrew from Genesis to 2 Kings by Julius Bate
1798 N. T. from the Greek by Nathaniel Scarlett
1808 Thomson's Bible: first English translation from Septuagint and first complete English translation by an American--Charles Thomson
1833 revision of KJV by Noah Webster
1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars; Sixth Edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding
1850 and 1851 KJV N.T. with emendations edited by Baptists: Spencer Cone & William Wyckoff)
1851 translation of Syriac N.T. from the Peshitta by James Murdock-
1853 English Old Testament by a Jew, Issac Leeser; first Jewish translation in U.S.
1862 Young's Literal Translation--Revised Edition)
1866 American Bible Union edition of the N. T., 1868 Genesis, 1877 Job
1885 translation by John Nelson Darby, Plymouth Brethren)
1897 Rotherham's The Emphasized Bible by Joseph Bryant Rotherdam

Are you making the case that God ordained all these actions?

 

[JesusFan]

Are you making the case that God ordained all these actions?

he made the case that the Kjv was not unique, as the Holy Spirit did not superintend over the 1611 translators in to give to us now the "perfect and inerrant" English translation , as he was involved with other translations also to the same degree as was with the 1611 translators

 

[Logos1560]

Are you making the case that God ordained all these actions?

The Scriptures do not teach that God ordained the making of the 1611 KJV. The Scriptures do not state nor teach that the word of God is bound to the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. God would have been just as involved in the making of the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1537 Matthew's Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible as in the making of the 1611 KJV.

The believers who were Baptists that were involved in the making of the 1842 English Bible and the 1850 KJV NT with emendations were more likely to be guided by the Holy Spirit of truth than the doctrinally-unsound Church of England makers of the KJV who believed the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration and who were active in persecuting and even torturing people for their beliefs.

1842 revision of KJV by several Biblical scholars; Sixth Edition in 1847 had the title "Baptist Bible" on the binding
1850 and 1851 KJV N.T. with emendations edited by Baptists: Spencer Cone & William Wyckoff)

 

[Dave G]

IMHO - makes no difference what any English translation say - what does the original Greek have to say?

Salty, it does indeed make a difference what translations say,
Because most people, whether in the past or now, are completely unable to read and understand ancient Hebrew or Koine Greek.

Secondly,
According to biblical archeologists, there are no New Testament manuscripts that have survived from the time of the apostles until now, and nothing that is older than the second century.

The oldest in Greek are P90 ( P.Oxy. 3523 ), and P104 ( P.Oxy. 4404 ) which date back to the second century and were found in an ancient garbage dump(!) in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.
They are both only fragments of copies and contain very little...P90 has portions of the Gospel of John on both sides, while P104 has a very small piece of Matthew's Gospel on both sides.

Plus,
Given that there are three predominant collated Greek texts to choose from ( all of which utilize a greater or lesser number of existing Greek manuscripts, pieces of manuscripts and partial manuscripts as their basis ), I find it difficult to believe that anyone can agree on what the "original Greek" actually is or where it can be found.

IMO one must either believe, by faith, that we have more recent copies of them that God, through His providence, has preserved down through the centuries, or we don't.
Also, one must believe, by faith, that the Lord has preserved His words for us in other places ( like translations ), or we don't.

The next question is, which Greek and which Hebrew are the correct ones?



Honestly,
Given the history of just this forum alone ( and the many disparate views that I have seen in only 7 years of me posting here ), I hold no hope of professing Christians being able ( or even willing ) to reach a consensus on this subject in my lifetime;
That's how bad things have become.

Contrast this with 200 years ago, when most ( if not all ) English speakers who professed Christ knew where we could find God's words...
Today, almost no one seems to be able to agree on where find them.

 

[JesusFan]

Salty, it does indeed make a difference what translations say,
Because most of them, especially in English, differ sometimes greatly in what the words themselves, say.

Secondly,
According to biblical archeologists there are no New Testament manuscripts that have survived from the time of the apostles until now, and nothing that is older than the second century.

The oldest in Greek are P90 ( P.Oxy. 3523 ), and P104 ( P.Oxy. 4404 ) which date back to the second century and were found in an ancient garbage dump ( which should tell anyone how "valuable" they were ) in Oxyrhynchus, Egypt.
They are both only fragments of copies and contain very little...P90 has portions of the Gospel of John, while P104 has a very small piece of Matthew's Gospel on both sides.

Given that there are 3 predominant collated Greek texts to choose from, all of which utilize a greater or lesser number of existing Greek manuscripts, pieces of manuscripts and partial manuscripts, I find it difficult to believe that any agreement will be reached in our lifetimes about where we can find this "original Greek".

IMO one must either believe, by faith, that we have more recent copies of them that God, through His providence, has preserved down through the centuries, or we don't.
Also, one must believe, by faith, that the Lord has preserved His words for us in other places ( like translations ), or we don't.

The question is, "where"?

The Hebrew and Greek texts trump and have supremacy though over ANY English translation, and why do KJVO and others seem to think that God stood over and preserved the texts used for KJv and TR, yet he could an did not do so to bring the earlier and superior Greek manuscripts? and even if you do not see the more ancient texts s better textual sources, why would the Lord not want to get out His message to us in modern English and not in 400 year old English, as He desires for us to be able to read with understanding?