King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

And here I thought the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishops Bible all contained the New Testament.

 

Hello KingJamesVersionBibleOnly. Welcome to the Board.
Your post really belongs in the Bible Versions and Translations section.
I expect one of the mods will move it there.

I hope you have a great time on the forum, though something tells me that not everyone will be in total agreement with you.
Where's the popcorn smiley?

 

General (non-specific) for using the AV:

1. Superior underlying text (Received Text).
2. Superior translation of underlying text.
3. Superior literary quality.
4. Standardized Bible, since God is not the author of confusion.
5. Part of Christian heritage.

 

There were several.

Not sure what this means. The pre-AV English versions were God’s work in purifying his word 7 times (THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times).

 

I wonder if my KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha Is it the "preserved?"

 

1. I wouldn’t use the term “preserved” for a translation.

2. Neither King James nor his translators considered the Apocrypha canonical. The translators wanted to exclude it entirely, but James had them put it in because he thought it useful. So they isolated it from the rest of the Bible.

 

Really, so the KJV translators had to include what was not Scriptures into a Bible for political reasons?

Makes one wonder what other sections of "Scripture" were added or taken out for political reasons.



Hmmm

 

King James had nothing to do with altering any translation. He was not promoting the Apocrypha to canonical status, he just thought it would be useful to include it.

You know, modern Bibles also have these non-canonical things in them: appendices, prefaces, introductions, chapter and verse breaks, footnotes, etc.

Also, Wycliffe, included a non-canonical letter of Paul in his translation for historical purposes.

 

To add to this, King James himself said: “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron).

Source: Article: Editions of the KJV and the Apocrypha by KJV Today - Textus Receptus

 

Just how "removed" was and is the Anglican Church from the RCC?

Here is the main problem.

The claims of the KJV only group tend to emphasize not just the translation but grab for other evidences for it to be the exclusionary.

For example:

The determination of the preservation upon the most popular. Should such thinking be valid, then the RCC is older than the KJV, and is the most populated of all religious groupings? So, what they consider the Word of God should be the one used, not some Anglican Church grouping that mirrors and copies the RCC in many doctrinal errors.​

For example:

The determination of the validity upon the TR. Did not the very earliest translators clearly state that future modifications would be necessary based upon the finding and work of future scholarship? ​

For example:

The determination of authorization because of the effects upon the spoken and written word. Two great matters taken into account with the development of the English.

One the standardization of Spellings, punctuation, and other grammars necessary? But what do these have to do with authority in claiming the KJV as the only? It is but a shallow result considering the multiple adaptations necessary to keep up with the variations that naturally occur as a language is in use and impacted by a global influence.

The second concerns the America's in particular. The American language is not British English, it is a blend of many languages and cultures. And although the American English can be understood in England, there are terms that the KJV had to modify to make it fit the American English. Americans use "plain English, sometimes called standard English" and then we also use "business English." Who knows what English those folks use that we squared up against and squished a couple hundred years ago, twice. Then had to go back and rescue them two more times in the last 100 years. And I'm not even thinking from the view of a Texan. ​

Ultimately, there is NOTHING that the KJV has to offer that the ESV doesn't do better (imo).

Bible gateway has this to say:

The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale's New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
​

Now, admittedly, I am NASB preferred, but the ESV is (imo) more solidly formed than what is offered in the KJV, and less "wooden" in some areas in comparison to the NASB. I like solid wood, preferably with a good oiled finish.

 

The ESV does not come from the same texts as the AV (see http://www.cspmt.org/pdf/resources/NT Text Chart.pdf). The AV is literarily better than the ESV and does a better job of translation.
I will admit, however, that the ESV is better than such things as the NIV and NLT.

 

I’ve read defences of translating Psalm 12:6-7 differently. Have you read sources defending the AV translation?
WHAT IS TRUTH: Gender Discord and Psalm 12:6-7
WHAT IS TRUTH: Psalm 12:6-7 Commentaries and the Preservation of Words

As for the AV and the TR, they do match, if you use Scrivener’s TR. In any case, the TR wasn’t even mentioned in Vance’s article, so I don’t see what this has to do with “purified seven times.”

 

Can you provide documentation for your claim?

Marion Simms maintained that "the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, and KJV, all Episcopal in origin, gave a more favorable place to the Apocrypha than any other [Protestant English] Bibles" (Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). Some 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible were said to have been bound without the Apocrypha so why didn't the KJV translators follow its example? Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183).

Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? Is there any evidence that any of the other KJV translators objected to Abbot’s order? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views would have had even more regard for it. If that order did not represent Archbishop Abbot’s actual view, King James I perhaps ordered or instructed him to issue it as the Church of England‘s official position that the KJV translators would have had to accept.