• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Is the KJV too difficult?

searchingtruths

New Member
Upon what basis is your disagreement?
Are you looking for argument? Did Paul not say but Christians not to debate about words.



WORDS CHANGED

Revelation 1:15 His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. Revelation 1:15 - John's Vision on Patmos

Lamentations 5:10 Our skin is as hot as an oven with fever from our hunger. Lamentations 5:10 - A Prayer for Restoration

Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV? Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?

And I'm going to say this and I'm through - I don't know ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic nor do I have any original transcripts to study by if I did.......... All anyone can do is rely on those who translate and feel they know the meanings of the words or the INTENT of any words the ancients used. Them nor anyone alive or dead who translated can prove as an absolute this is what any word meant.

I choose King James even though prior to the 1970's when Bibles had an index it was noted the King James version had been translated 41 times and it was also noted King James did not authorize it (information that King James not actually authorizing the Bible will not be found outside of those old Bibles)
 

searchingtruths

New Member
I think the confusion is in the wording. Nobody took out verses or changed words. The words are not in the older manuscripts (they do not exist until we get to the late middle ages).
Then you should do a comparison - some scriptures are omitted.
In words in the older manuscripts have been changed.

The question is not about missing verses but why verses were added in later manuscripts.

The probable reason is marginal notes making it into the text (notes of expiation not needed in eary manuscripts, restating applicable verses, etc).
Reasonings pleases those who make them and they will say it's closer to what the original meaning the original text how would they know there are no originals.
Why be this paticular? Because the manuscripts that "change words" and omit verses are almost 1000 years older than the manuscripts supposedly changed. It is not logical.
Are you saying I am not logical?

Whatever Bible you choose to use are you "particular" and using it.

I choose KJV call it particular if you like.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Late Middle English is not that far removed from modern English in the majority of its wording.
Late Middle English (a little over a century before the KJV was written) is different from Early Modern English, but I'm sure they could get by. But the Authorized KJV was too different in the 1700's and had to be modernized. That is only a century apart.

Now we have the 1769 KJV. That is about two and a half centuries removed from our language.


I can't tell you how many times I have heard a preacher give a sermon on John 3:16 using the KJV and misunderstand that famous verse because of the antiquated language (heard it on TV again just last week, in fact).

The language has proven top difficult for many KJVO and preferred pastors, and that is their translation. How can we expect new believers to shift into the language?
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
Then you should do a comparison - some scriptures are omitted. In words in the older manuscripts have been changed.
Me? No. I do not care because I believe in God's preserved Word.

But passages are not omitted in older text if they are only found in late-middle age texts. That is called "additions" to the text.

You start with A. About a thousand years later you have A with some other words. Those other words are called additions.

The question is how the additions came to be. The answer is notes making it into the text.
 

searchingtruths

New Member
Me? No. I do not care because I believe in God's preserved Word.

But passages are not omitted in older text if they are only found in late-middle age texts. That is called "additions" to the text.

You start with A. About a thousand years later you have A with some other words. Those other words are called additions.

The question is how the additions came to be. The answer is notes making it into the text.
I am not speaking of additions nor did I say anything about additions - I am speaking of changing and wording and omitting scriptures.

Who's to say the usage of the same word today had the same meaning a thousand years ago and who's to say who's meaning is correct - from your point of view would we be the latter.

AI Overview
The meanings of words change over centuries through a natural linguistic process called semantic change or semantic shift.Linguists track how human culture, technology, and social habits cause words to shift, expand, or flip in meaning entirely.How and Why Meanings ChangeBroadening (Extension): A word's meaning widens to cover more things. For example, chat once meant a specific type of idle, frivolous talk, but now describes any online or offline conversation.Narrowing (Reduction): A word's meaning becomes more specific. For example, meat once meant any kind of solid food, but now only refers to animal flesh.Amelioration (Elevation): A word gains a more positive or respectable meaning over time. For example, luxury originally meant lechery or lust before becoming associated with comfort and high social status.Pejoration (Downgrading): A word loses status and gains a negative or silly connotation. For example, silly originally meant blessed, innocent, or pious in Old English before shifting to mean foolish
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Are you looking for argument? Did Paul not say but Christians not to debate about words.



WORDS CHANGED

Revelation 1:15 His feet were like polished bronze refined in a furnace, and His voice was like the roar of many waters. Revelation 1:15 - John's Vision on Patmos

Lamentations 5:10 Our skin is as hot as an oven with fever from our hunger. Lamentations 5:10 - A Prayer for Restoration

Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV? Missing Verses & changed words in modern Bibles compared to the KJV?

And I'm going to say this and I'm through - I don't know ancient Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic nor do I have any original transcripts to study by if I did.......... All anyone can do is rely on those who translate and feel they know the meanings of the words or the INTENT of any words the ancients used. Them nor anyone alive or dead who translated can prove as an absolute this is what any word meant.

I choose King James even though prior to the 1970's when Bibles had an index it was noted the King James version had been translated 41 times and it was also noted King James did not authorize it (information that King James not actually authorizing the Bible will not be found outside of those old Bibles)

FYI, its more likely vss aren't missing, as the KJVO crowds claims, but verses were added through scribal notes. So, the question should be, why did the KJV add vss to their bible?
 

SovereignGrace

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am not speaking of additions nor did I say anything about additions - I am speaking of changing and wording and omitting scriptures.

Who's to say the usage of the same word today had the same meaning a thousand years ago and who's to say who's meaning is correct - from your point of view would we be the latter.

AI Overview
The meanings of words change over centuries through a natural linguistic process called semantic change or semantic shift.Linguists track how human culture, technology, and social habits cause words to shift, expand, or flip in meaning entirely.How and Why Meanings ChangeBroadening (Extension): A word's meaning widens to cover more things. For example, chat once meant a specific type of idle, frivolous talk, but now describes any online or offline conversation.Narrowing (Reduction): A word's meaning becomes more specific. For example, meat once meant any kind of solid food, but now only refers to animal flesh.Amelioration (Elevation): A word gains a more positive or respectable meaning over time. For example, luxury originally meant lechery or lust before becoming associated with comfort and high social status.Pejoration (Downgrading): A word loses status and gains a negative or silly connotation. For example, silly originally meant blessed, innocent, or pious in Old English before shifting to mean foolish

The MV's did not subtract vss [that's called a red herring], they used mss that were written 800-1000 years closer to the Apostles than the oldest mss used in assembling the KJV.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
I am not speaking of additions nor did I say anything about additions - I am speaking of changing and wording and omitting scriptures.
But that is nonsense.

How can a text from 300 AD omit verses and change words to a text that would not exist for almost 1000 years? It cannot.

The earliest texts do not have those verses.
The newer text has added verses.

Why? The newer text incorporated notes into the passage. The newer text changed words to fit the newer understanding.


Even God tells us this is true. His words are preserved. They are in both texts. The additions made to the 12th century and newer text you prefer do not change the meaning of God's words. You just view notes and explanations as God's words as well.


How can a text from the 300's AD change a text that would not exist for about 1000 years later? It can't.
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Again, you make statements and then when people react or ask questions about your statements you go back to, 'staying on topic, we are getting off topic or stay with the question asked, etc.' Can't have it both ways.

You've noticed that too?!?
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
But that is nonsense.

How can a text from 300 AD omit verses and change words to a text that would not exist for almost 1000 years? It cannot.

The earliest texts do not have those verses.
The newer text has added verses.

Why? The newer text incorporated notes into the passage. The newer text changed words to fit the newer understanding.


Even God tells us this is true. His words are preserved. They are in both texts. The additions made to the 12th century and newer text you prefer do not change the meaning of God's words. You just view notes and explanations as God's words as well.


How can a text from the 300's AD change a text that would not exist for about 1000 years later? It can't.
It happens. Eye skip. Perhaps an untrained scribe takes his sight of off his manuscript and when he returns he jumps ahead to similar ending letters or even words close by and leaves it out. Here is an example.

 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
It happens. Eye skip. Perhaps an untrained scribe takes his sight of off his manuscript and when he returns he jumps ahead to similar ending letters or even words close by and leaves it out. Here is an example.

No, not with the process (it would be more than one eye skipping the same verse transcribing the same document, and this happening several times with different scribes).

There is no evidence those "omitted verses" even existed prior to the 11th century.

And none of the verses added to the newer manuscript actually add to God's Word.

There is one exception. This is the pool at Bethesda. And this is better explained as a marginal note that made its way into newer manuscripts (an explanation of tradition rather than introducing a new idea into Scripture that contradict Christ's words).


In other words, the evidence points to the verses being notes added in later manuscripts. There is no evidence to the contrary. KJVO and TR only ignore the evidence to beliece a conspiracy theory or unsupported idea because they cherish their tradition.
 

JonC

Moderator
Moderator
... it was also noted King James did not authorize it (information that King James not actually authorizing the Bible will not be found outside of those old Bibles)
Kimg James commissioned the Bible, chose Bancroft to oversee the translation and (along with Bancroft) set the rules the translators were to follow (Bancroft's rules approved by King James).

It is called the "authorized" Bible because King James ordered the Bible be the official Bible of the Church of England.

I am not sure why old bibles would suggest the KJV was not authorized by King James as not only did he commission the translation but he ordered the translation be made (the bishops, including Bancroft, did not see the need for a new Bible).

In fact, the only reason the KJV became popular was King James demanding it be used and banning the printing of any other translation in England.

They probably avoided the translation history to distance themselves from the Anglican Church (only a guess).


But the bishops preferred the Bishops Bible. Calvinists used the Geneva Bible. King James wanted one Bible for England.


It is a fascinating history.
 

Conan

Well-Known Member
Rules for making the KJV.


INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.

The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.

The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not to be translated congregation.

When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

The division of chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require.

No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed, in the text.

Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and, having translated or amended them severally by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand.

As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for his Majesty is very careful on this point.

If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places, and therewithal to send their reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgment of such a place.

Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind, to send their particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford, according as it was directed before in the king's letter to the archbishop.

The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester, for Westminster, and the king's professors in Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

These translations to be used, when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's [Rogers'], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

By a later rule, "three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation of the fourth rule."

Only forty-seven of the men appointed for this work are known to have engaged in it. These were divided into six companies, two of which met at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. They were presided over severally by the Dean of Westminster and by the two Hebrew Professors of the Universities.

To the first company, at Westminster (ten in number), was assigned the Old Testament as far as 2 Kings; the second company (seven in number) had the Epistles. The first company at Cambridge (numbering eight) had 2 Chronicles to Ecclesiastes; the second company (numbering seven) had the Apocryphal books. To the first Oxford company (seven in number) were assigned the prophetical books, from Isaiah to Malachi; to the second (eight in number) were given the four Gospels, the Acts and the Apocalypse, or Revelation.

A few of the principal
 
Top