The Supposed Errors in the KJV

The King James Version is a fantastic Version of the Bible. King james onlyism is a false teaching.

 

You do not define and explain what you mean by causing doubt about the word of God.

Perhaps what you may assume is causing doubt about the word of God is not actually causing doubt concerning what was given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

It is according to the Scriptures themselves that it can be asserted that questioning adding to the word of God, omitting from the word of God, or diminishing from the word of God by incorrect or wrong renderings would not at all be causing doubt about the word of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.

I believe and advocate that the exact same measures/standards should be applied to all believers, both KJV-only advocates and non-KJV-only advocates. You can be annoyed by the stating of the truth, but it does not make it right. I advocate and defend the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. I have read and loved the KJV over 50 years as what it actually is.

Based on what the Scriptures teach about themselves, I do not believe that questioning or disagreeing with an inaccurate rendering in a modern English Bible is causing doubt about the word of God any more than questioning or disagreeing with an inaccurate rendering in the KJV is.

 

No, what I cause them to doubt is the PERFECTION of the KJV, which is a KJVO lie, & I hope to cause them to doubt the veracity of the whole KJVO myth.

The theme of this sub-forum is Bible translations,so that's what we write about here. I write against the quasi-pseudo-Christian cults on the appropriate sub=forums.

And speaking of obsessions-YOU seem obsessed with my anti-KJVO work across several boards. You've said you're not KJVO, so you should JOIN me insteada badmouthing me.

I merely point out the TRUTH, that the KJV is not perfect, & the whole KJVO myth is false. What anyone makes of those facts is up to each of them.

And to YOU as well.

Now, when I made the statement "The words 'and shalt be' were ADDED to Rev. 16:5 in the KJV", am I telling the truth? To prove me wrong, all one need do is show me an old Greek Scriptural ms. with those words in that verse, a real ms as close to the original that we know of, & not some vorlage copy some man composed long after the original was made.

Anyone, you included, is free to research any statements I make pointing out imperfections in the KJV, & if I'm PROVEN wrong, I'll admit it on the same board in which I made it. Otherwise, you have no room to criticize me for TELLING THE TRUTH.

 

Like when the presented facts about Easter in Acts 12:4 caused you to change and say it was archaic language, and then you changed back to calling it a goof? Yea, right.

 

Some or perhaps many KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders seem to display a spirit of fear towards the truth even though the Scriptures do not teach that truth harms or undermines sound faith in God.

According to the Scriptures, God does not give believers a spirit of fear or the spirit of bondage to fear (2 Tim. 1:7, Rom. 8:15). God gives a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7) so that believers who accept and believe sound Bible doctrine should not be harmed by truth. Believers are not led by the Spirit of truth to fear truth (Rom. 8:14-15). Fear is not listed as a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), but the fruit of the Spirit—love would cast out fear (1 John 4:18).

Perhaps truth may be a problem for blind, non-biblical faith in human, non-scriptural, unsound KJV-only reasoning/teaching or in opinions of men, but truth is not indicated in the Scriptures to be a problem for unfeigned faith in God.

 

Just trying to learn which translations reveal the errors in the KJV. Thanks for providing resources for comparison.

 

I was wondering if we could switch gears a moment and talk about the translation methods of each version. It doesn’t appear the modern translations have gone through anywhere the extent of the superior methods used by the KJB translators had used.

 

If it is ok with you who just joined us and welcome to the BB, to not derail this thread, you can start one yourself and address your questions to others... Brother Glen

 

Some of us who love and use the KJV ( to the exclusion of the more modern translations in English ), know that it's not perfect, roby.

The Bible tells us as believers, not to speak evil of men ( Titus 3:1-7 )...
A constant reminder that I find myself in need of.

 

Making the unsupported assertion that the KJV translators used "superior methods" is not proof that they actually used them.

In those places where the KJV has non-literal, non-word-for-word, dynamic equivalent or paraphrased renderings, would you suggest that those are superior?

In those places where the KJV provided no English rendering for original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts, were those non-renderings superior? In their 1611 marginal notes, the KJV translators sometimes admitted that they provided no English word for some original-language words.

 

Well, ACTUALLY, it IS a goof. The KJV renders pascha as passover 28 outta 29 times, with no reason to change that rendering in Acts 12:4. I don't know who inserted Easter there, but whoever it was made a goof. No getting around it.

 

Well, GOOD, long as you don't promote the totally-false KJVO myth. When I teach or present the Gospel to someone, I prefer to present Scripture in the language we both use every day.

When people are DOING evil, it's not wrong to point it out. Remember, JESUS didn't hesitate to do that.

 

I agree.
But it is an opinion that people have a right to.

I would, because I believe that the Lord used those men to do a very good work on top of the work that was started by those who gave their lives for it.
Men like William Tyndale.

But I cannot absolutely prove that the Lord used them.

In those places where more modern English Bibles did and do the same, are they superior?
To me, your questions carry a double edge...

Perhaps you might consider directing them at the modern English version advocates as well, my friend.
Flip the questions around, and point them at them.
Put them under the same spotlight of truth as you seem to keep putting those who advocate the AV under...
Or to me, you're not being entirely neutral and objective, as anyone who really wants to get to the truth of the matter should be.
That is why I suggest presenting all the evidence on both sides, and then letting the reader decide.

For the record, I am well aware that the "KJV" is not perfect,
and I acknowledge that they could have done a bit better in a few places.

Some of us who have studied the subject in-depth, agree with you.

 

We've already been around (and around) it. It is a word in the English language for pascha going back at least to the Anglo-Saxon gospels. You admitted it was archaic language, then went back to your boo-boos and goofs rhetoric.

 

Please remember roby...

You and I are not the Lord Jesus, and just because He did something, stated something or condemned someone ( knowing the hearts and minds of men around us ), does not give us the authority to step outside His commands regarding our conduct.
He is God and the Son of God...
He has the right to do things that we as men do not...even those of us who are His sheep.

How we act as believers is to be free from offense towards both God and man ( Acts of the Apostles 24:16 ).
He had Paul and others of His apostles give us this example, even though Paul slipped up a time or two.

 

KJV-only advocates do make similar assertions against modern English versions or do ask questions similar to the ones that I ask. I am simply applying KJV-only assertions/questions consistently and justly by asking them also concerning the KJV.

I am trying to be as objective as possible by asking that the same assertions be applied consistently and justly. I do advocate that the same measures/standards should be applied to all Bible translations including to the KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years and am being objective by asking that the same measures/standards be applied to it as to other English Bible translations.

Are your comments demonstrating the point that KJV-only questions and assertions would carry a double edge or would harm the KJV if their KJV-only reasoning was applied consistently and justly?

If the Church of England makers of the KJV sometimes did the same things as modern English Bible translators, how were their translation methods supposedly superior?

 

The KJV (NOT "KJB") translators only had access to some 20 mss. as compared to some 5K mss. now, & didn't have the tools, such as these computers, that current translators have. Besides, current translators have all the knowledge & facts from their predecessors.

 

They had what they needed, and some of what's on computers now, was on paper then.

Also, I think that if you honestly compare them to many of today's biblical scholars, I think you'll find that they really were very much highly educated and experts in their professions ( some of them were fluent in Koine Greek and Hebrew );
A thing rarely seen today, some 400 years later.

No I don't worship them, but I do recognize their level of scholarship as professing believers who had a King to carry out a duty for.
Society was much different back then, and they took some things a bit more seriously...
Especially work being done for which they could have later given their lives for.

For example, only 50 years before, many who stood up and did some of what they did, gave their lives at the stake under Mary I and other heads of state in Europe.

But some of them aren't even professing Christians, Roby.
They aren't going to have the same motives for translating, as say, someone who only wanted to give God's words to God's children would have.

Of those who are professing Christians, are you aware that not everyone who names the name of Christ is actually His?
In the light of Matthew 7:21-23, I would think that this would factor in to our thinking about this matter when it comes to those who profess His name but in works they deny Him.

For example, false teachers ( 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 ) don't really care for the flock of God;
They are there to exploit and to bring into bondage the children of God, so as to trouble them.

Don't you think that today, 2,000 years after Paul told us that grievous wolves would come in ( Acts of the Apostles 20:29 ), not sparing the flock, that they exist today ( and in much greater numbers, 2 Timothy 3:1-13 )...
And some of them have influence in areas that you and I aren't even immediately aware of?

 

OF COURSE I did, because it's STILL a goof, even though archaic. Easter is not passover & vice versa, & in Luke's time, pascha only meant passover. And there's simply no getting past the fact that Easter didn't exist in Luke's time.