I'm Not Attacking The Bible...

[TC]

I don't see even ONE mention of the KJV in that post. Funny that people always try to make everything about KJVO.

I have dialoged with the poster you lifted this from for a few years. His KJVO beliefs are intertwined in every statement he makes.

 

[franklinmonroe]

I don't see even ONE mention of the KJV in that post. Funny that people always try to make everything about KJVO.

No, "people" do not always try to make everything about KJVO. The post didn't have to mention the KJV. In this case, you were accusing TC of being such a person. But what you failed to recognize is that he had done his research and knew exactly what he was talking about.

He obviously had found the original post and the 'post-er' (one Brent Riggs aka Mitex on Fundamental Forums) and followed the info to his website where Mr. Riggs (a missionary in Poland) discusses the KJV and translation. For example (from www.preachinginpoland.com ) --

We should not get bogged down over choices of words when several different words fit commodiously. Not every word change will carry over all the nuances of the old word, but the word choices should have the same principle meaning of the original word. Changes in tense, word order, use of plurals/singulars, punctuation changes, italics, synonyms, adding and deleting of words were all used by genuine translations and updates throughout history. Of course we should not carelessly make any of these types of changes just for change sake. At the same time we should not allow the fear of these types of changes prevent us for presenting the word of God in the best possible Polish. ...​

 

[franklinmonroe]

Why are so many lined up to attack the King James Bible with differing views of scripture based on their versions of the modern Bible? ...

Firstly, it is not just the KJV; people always "line up" to criticize 'new' translations. People criticized the Greek LXX and the Latin (did you read some of the previous posts about this?). People criticized William Tyndale's and Martin Luther's work during the Reformation. People criticized the KJV immediately upon its publication in 1611.

Secondly, English-speaking people still had differing views of scripture even when the KJV was the singularly dominant translation for over 200 years (from about 1620 to well beyond 1820).

Thirdly, I (as well some others) do not champion a particular version of the Bible over all others. All truth is God's truth, wether I find in the KJV, NIV or some other translation.

 

[Baptist4life]

All I wanted to say with my OP was that I agree there are way too many versions of the Bible, ALL claiming to be "the Word of God" when they disagree with one another in a lot of places. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, which the comments in the OP point out clearly. There ARE people who make those kinds of statements. It has nothing to do with KJVO, at least to me. Remove the KJV from the discussion, pretend it no longer exists, and that list still is relevant. That's the point I was trying to make. I DO NOT believe different manuscripts, some WITH passages, some WITHOUT passages, etc. can all be equal and correct.

 

[Mexdeaf]

All I wanted to say with my OP was that I agree there are way too many versions of the Bible, ALL claiming to be "the Word of God" when they disagree with one another in a lot of places. That just doesn't make any sense to me at all, which the comments in the OP point out clearly. There ARE people who make those kinds of statements. It has nothing to do with KJVO, at least to me. Remove the KJV from the discussion, pretend it no longer exists, and that list still is relevant. That's the point I was trying to make. I DO NOT believe different manuscripts, some WITH passages, some WITHOUT passages, etc. can all be equal and correct.

The various KJV's do not all agree to the 'jot and tittle' either- where does that leave you?

 

[franklinmonroe]

All I wanted to say with my OP was that I agree there are way too many versions of the Bible, ALL claiming to be "the Word of God" when they disagree with one another in a lot of places. ...

I don't see even ONE mention of "versions" in that post. Funny that people always try to make everything about versions.

 

[Yeshua1]

The various KJV's do not all agree to the 'jot and tittle' either- where does that leave you?

guess the same place we ALL are at regarding Bible versions!

IF one wants to read and study the Bible of jesus and the Apsotles, go learn to read and know Biblical Hebrew and greek!

Or just accept that ALL reputable english versions can be considered as being word of God to us today!

 

[Oldtimer]

No,they did not use the form of Entglish that most accurately protrayed the scripture intent. You didn't get that from the Preface.

They used a form of English from about 70 years prior which no one actually spoke.

Are you saying the pronouns that we use today are as accurate as those that convey the difference between you and you? (You as an individual and you as a group being addressed.) No, I didn't get that from the Preface (which one?). I got "that" from study, since I was a kid, in grade school, on the usage of pronouns. Plus, since much has been forgotten since then, more study of English language usage, while trying to learn what the KJBO controversy was/is all about.

If no one actually use/used the language of "about 70 years prior" how do you explain the continued use by the Quakers? How do you explain, that as a kid in school, I was taught how to use these pronouns? Even though I'm an oldtimer, it ain't been that long ago.

The KJV added a lot than what was in the originals. They removed a lttle too.

In context of my post, that's like saying, well Johnnie spray painted the walls, too.

Again, my premise is this. Why do many adament modern version supporters constantly point to the KJB and not to each other's for comparison? Modern version A defend their's by pointing to the KJB. Modern version B defend their's by pointing to the KJB. A and B disagree with each other, yet they are united (as a general statement) in their stance on the KJB.

Imagine, for a moment, a kid standing on a playground holding a KJB. In a circle surrounding him are 200+ kids holding their translations. Most if not all of which disagree with each other. Where is the primary focus? Why?

Quote from my earlier post:

If clarity plus advancement in scholarship were the sole and valid reasons, why have some versions flip-flopped from one edition to the next.

Not the sole reasons,but among the most imporant. no flip-flop at all --improved accuracy.

What are some of the other most important reasons for re-issuing the NIV, for example, since that's the one previously mentioned in this point.

I don't have the examples handy, so this is just symbolic of "flip/flopping".

1950: Leaves on the fig tree are green.
1975: Leaves on the fig tree are red.
2011: Leaves on the fig tree are green.

Reminds me of politicians who are for it when they aren't against it. (That's a joke, BTW)

There is no conflict between the KJV and the NIV (and many other more modern versions in the passage from Amos. Why do you insist there is?

Once again. Amos wasn't given to be used for comparision between Bible Translations. Please read the content of this passage and Ephesians 6:9-19, with emphasis on verse 14.

Because it has pleased the Lord to have a variety of translations.

Please show me from the scriptures, any version you choose, that states the Lord is pleased to have a variety of translations of His word in the same language? Yes, we are to take the gospel to all nations, thus translation is needed. That's a given. However.......

Is God pleased with the variety of translations, especially since 1900, that are available and in use by all who call themselves Christian?

 

[Oldtimer]

The various KJV's do not all agree to the 'jot and tittle' either- where does that leave you?

It's interesting when people who should know the history of the KJB, bring this into the picture, especially, with regards to the 1st 4 editions from 1611. I'm making this statement to include both KJBO folks and those opposed to that position.

Countless arguements about which uses of the word spirit should be Spirit.

Equating a typeface change (Gothic to Roman) with verses omitted from MV.

Correcting spelling, as the English language spelling was standardized vs changing virgin to maiden (virtue unknown).

Lumping the "modern" NJKV with the 4th edition of the AV.

Often said, I'm just a layman trying to work my way through this maze of bible controversy. It's enough to make my head spin....................

 

[Mexdeaf]

It's interesting when people who should know the history of the KJB, bring this into the picture, especially, with regards to the 1st 4 editions from 1611. I'm making this statement to include both KJBO folks and those opposed to that position.

Countless arguements about which uses of the word spirit should be Spirit.

Equating a typeface change (Gothic to Roman) with verses omitted from MV.

Correcting spelling, as the English language spelling was standardized vs changing virgin to maiden (virtue unknown).

Lumping the "modern" NJKV with the 4th edition of the AV.

Often said, I'm just a layman trying to work my way through this maze of bible controversy. It's enough to make my head spin....................

Hmm there are more changes than that.

 

[Oldtimer]

Hmm there are more changes than that.

Yes, I'm aware of more changes, most fall within the scope of spirit vs Spirit rather than changes such as calling both satan and Jesus the Morning Star. Or, watering down the diety of Christ.

At this point, my issue is with BOTH sides of this controversy. The KJBO crowd using the capitalization of spirit as a club to bash someone else's view. The any modern version will do crowd's lumping all changes of the AV 1611 together, with seemingly equal importance, for their chuck of 2x4.

Recently heard a professor (don't remember his name, but highly regarded by some) refuting a KJBO well known. His point was that the TR wasn't printed until after the 1611 AV. What the heck does using typesetting for a printing press version of ancient manuscripts have to do with the validity of the AV? As he waved a copy of the TR book to make his point, he lost credibility for the rest of what he said. Points that may had some merit.

Sadly, with regret, it appears that many on both sides of this issue are behaving just like politicians. Throw anything, whether out of context, whether half-truth, dead wrong, etc. and see what sticks. My disgust at those tactics will only grow in intensity between now and November. And, by the same token my sadness and disappointment that many professing Christians are using the same tactics with God's Holy Word.

Mexdeaf, these comments aren't directed at you personally. Just using your post as a platform to vent a little frustration. As division grows among Christians, as the doctrines of the Bible are watered down, as pastors are preaching a "feel good about yourself" Christ, the followers of the Koran are growing in strength and unity. What's happening to us?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

As division grows among Christians, as the doctrines of the Bible are watered down, as pastors are preaching a "feel good about yourself" Christ, the followers of the Koran are growing in strength and unity. What's happening to us?

What is happening is one group of believers insistence that they have the only correct English translation of scripture and then insisting that everyone else is in error unless they use the same translation.

The issue is not the first part of that sentence so much as the second.

 

[Mexdeaf]

What is happening is one group of believers insistence that they have the only correct English translation of scripture and then insisting that everyone else is in error unless they use the same translation.

The issue is not the first part of that sentence so much as the second.

Amen- find your sword and use it.

 

[Scarlett O.]

What is happening is one group of believers insistence that they have the only correct English translation of scripture and then insisting that everyone else is in error unless they use the same translation.

The issue is not the first part of that sentence so much as the second.

....and there it is.

I read my King James in peace and I also read about 4-5 other translations in peace.

 

[Yeshua1]

....and there it is.

I read my King James in peace and I also read about 4-5 other translations in peace.

Always thought MOST KJV readers were preferred, NOT KJVO!

Just that those who are a VERY vocal minority!

 

[Rippon]

I agree there are way too many versions of the Bible,

And as a Christian you have a problem with that?! I can think of a lot of other very evil things that would be more appropriate for you to be up in arms about.

ALL claiming to be "the Word of God"

Yes,by very definition Bible translations are the Word of God. You have a problem with that.

when they disagree with one another in a lot of places.

Even the very best of translations have their weaknesses. The KJV is the Word of God. The NIV is the Word of God. Yes,there are a number of differences aside from the quality of the language being used. The KJV revisers added a lot more to the Word of God than was in the orginal autographs. At times they eliminated what was in the original. None of the additions are deletions were done with evil intent.

But despite the fact that the KJV is deficient in many places compared to the NIV for example, I would never say that the KJV is not the Word of God. But I have the feeling that you lean toward saying the NIV and other modern versions are not the Word of God because they differ with the KJV!

It has nothing to do with KJVO, at least to me. Remove the KJV from the discussion, pretend it no longer exists,

LOL!

 

[Rippon]

Once again. Amos wasn't given to be used for comparision between Bible Translations. Please read the content of this passage and Ephesians 6:9-19, with emphasis on verse 14.

You are not making much of an impression with this line of thinking OT. The KJV and NIV are not at odds with one one another when it comes to the Amos and Ephesians passages.

Do you think that since the NIV is the most popular Bible version that that somehow indicates there is a biblical famine in the land?

 

[Rippon]

as the doctrines of the Bible are watered down,

What doctrines are being watered-down in the modern English versions such as the NASB,ESV,HCSB etc.?

 

[Logos1560]

It's interesting when people who should know the history of the KJB, bring this into the picture, especially, with regards to the 1st 4 editions from 1611.


Equating a typeface change (Gothic to Roman) with verses omitted from MV.

Correcting spelling, as the English language spelling was standardized vs changing virgin to maiden (virtue unknown).

Lumping the "modern" NJKV with the 4th edition of the AV.

A proper history of the KJV includes the fact that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles. The KJV makes the same type changes or revisions to those pre-1611 English Bibles that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV make to the KJV. There are differences in the number of words, in the meaning of words, and many other types of differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV. The KJV has added verses that are not found in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and omitted verses found in a couple of them.

 

[Oldtimer]

A proper history of the KJV includes the fact that the KJV was a revision of earlier English Bibles. The KJV makes the same type changes or revisions to those pre-1611 English Bibles that some later English Bibles such as the NKJV make to the KJV. There are differences in the number of words, in the meaning of words, and many other types of differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV. The KJV has added verses that are not found in some of the pre-1611 English Bibles and omitted verses found in a couple of them.

"A proper history of the KJV includes the fact that the KJV was a" new translation that took into consideration the previous work done for earlier English Bibles. To simply say it's just a revision doesn't take into account the work done with the available ancient manuscripts. Those had to be translated in order to determine what content from prior English Bibles would be used, supplemented or rejected by the translation team. Thus, there would be differences in "number of words, in the meanings of words, and many other types of differences....."

From the 15 general rules to guide the translators:

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
"THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611."

http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html

Of the original 54 men chosen to translate the King James Bible, only 47 finished the more than seven-year project, which was governed by very strict rules of translation. The translators were scholarly men who were experts in the biblical languages, and they were convinced of the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Dr. Henry M. Morris, President of the Institute for Creation Research, said of these men, "It is almost certain that no group of Bible scholars before or since has ever been as thoroughly fit for their task as was the King James Translation Team."

http://www.allabouttruth.org/king-james-bible.htm

The title-page speaks of this version as being "with the former translations diligently compared and revised." In their address to the readers, the translators themselves say: "Truly, we never thought, from the beginning ... that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one." Speaking of this acknowledgment, Dr. Krauth, of the present version committee, says: "Without this confession, the Authorized Version would tell its own story. It is only necessary to compare it with the older versions, to see that with much that is original, with many characteristic beauties, in some of which no other translation approaches it, it is yet in the main a revision. Even its original beauties are often the mosaic of an exquisite combination of the fragments of the older. Comparing it with the English exemplars it follows, we must say it is not the fruit of their bloom, but the ripeness of their fruit."

http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvhist.html

No, the KJB translators didn't start from scratch with a pile of manuscripts. They did take into consideration the work done by others before them. How did they do that?

Is it truly comparable to say their work is equivalent to the work done for the NKJV? From a pro modern Bible site with an extensive history of the Bible:

In 1982, Thomas Nelson Publishers produced what they called the “New King James Version”. Their original intent was to keep the basic wording of the King James to appeal to King James Version loyalists, while only changing the most obscure words and the Elizabethan “thee, thy, thou” pronouns. This was an interesting marketing ploy, however, upon discovering that this was not enough of a change for them to be able to legally copyright the result, they had to make more significant revisions, which defeated their purpose in the first place. It was never taken seriously by scholars, but it has enjoyed some degree of public acceptance, simply because of its clever “New King James Version” marketing name.

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/