Is KJV superior to all other translations?

[Eliyahu]

To say that the KJV is not a perfect translation is not to speak against it.

I agree. I find no problem with that statement.
I don't say KJV is superior to all other translations because I find no error on KJV, but I say it is superior to others, because I have found big spiritual differences in thousand verses between KJV and others and KJV presents much better translations in most cases.
There are some minor errors even in KJV, which is much much less than what I find in MV's and other versions. I understand there were minor changes even among the editions of KJV, which is understandable.
In addition, KJV has a significant problem with the language update, which requires us the humbleness to admit the laziness of our generation.
If you remember my statements in the past, you will find that I have been consistant in this regard.
Nevertheless I still believe KJV is superior to all other translations in English, because KJV stands on the right position in almost all the doctrinal issues. Therefore I love KJV despite some minor errors plus language update, none the less.

This may go a little off the topic if we deal with it too much, but let me tell you shortly about what I had debated recently, about Geneis 37:28

The issue was who pulled up Joseph out of the pit.

NIV and NKJV are kind to tell us that his brethren drew and pulled up Joseph out of the pit, while KJV was neutral by saying : Midianites passed by and they pulled up Joseph out of the pit.
NIV and NKJV seem to consider Midianites and Ishmeelites are the same, considering Gen 37:36. But the problem is that there is no word for " his brethren" in the Hebrew original sentence such as "Acheio ( or Aheio)".
By inserting the word like that NIV and NKJV may mislead the readers.
If we read Gen 40:15 Joseph confess that he was stolen away out of Land of Hebrew.
Many people misunderstand that Joseph was sold by his brethren. They intended to do so and the result became like that, and they were responsible for the whole process, and therefore Stephen mentioned that his brethren sold Joseph ( Acts 7:9). However, Jews know that the Midianites were different from Ishmeelites which were the long distance truckers while Midianites were local merchants. Moreover we can hardly understand why Reuben was surprised not to find Joseph (in v 29 of ch 37) and returned to his brethren, which means he was with his brethren before. If Ishmeelites pulled him up, then why didn't Reuben know about it since Ishmeelites were with many camels and products?
Joseph's own confession is important and he says " I was stolen away out of land of Hebrews", why does he say so?
Again, in that sentence alone, KJV is accurate while NIV and NKJV inserted the words which do not exist in the original text.
This may sound off topic but there are thousands of verses where KJV and others differ each other and KJV is correct.

 

[rbell]

I'll say it....the KJV is (disparaging comment, edited by rbell).

I'm an NIV guy most of the time...but I must say to this...

No no no no no no.

 

[Eliyahu]

Speaking against the KJV would entail calling the KJV garbage or other such blasphemies. Has anyone on BB called the KJV garbage? Of course not

The Post by Go2Church disproves your statement.

[reference to a Bible attack deleted]

 

[Eliyahu]

Let me point out one more verse to compare between KJV and NIV.

Job 36:18

NIV
18 Be careful that no one entices you by riches; do not let a large bribe turn you aside.


KJV Job 36:18
18 Because there is wrath, beware lest he take thee away with his stroke: then a great ransom cannot deliver thee.
( my interpretation; There is wrath by God, beware lest God takes thee away with His stroke, then a great ransom cannot deliever thee)

Could you find such interpretation in NIV? What is the interpretation of NIV for the above verse?
Compare with Hebrew text.

 

[Keith M]

The Post by Go2Church disproves your statement.

Then your gripe would be with this individual - not with everyone on the board who disagrees with KJVO thinking. Calling the KJV garbage is wrong, but then belittling every modern Bible version is also wrong. My mother always said "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

 

[Logos1560]

I don't say KJV is superior to all other translations because I find no error on KJV, but I say it is superior to others, because I have found big spiritual differences in thousand verses between KJV and others and KJV presents much better translations in most cases.

There are some minor errors even in KJV,
Nevertheless I still believe KJV is superior to all other translations in English, because KJV stands on the right position in almost all the doctrinal issues. Therefore I love KJV despite some minor errors plus language update, none the less.

In this post, you confirmed the point of this thread that the KJV is not superior in every rendering of every verse when compared to all other English translations. The point of this thread is not about which translation is superior overall.

What are some examples of those "minor errors" you have found in the KJV?

 

[Eliyahu]

In this post, you confirmed the point of this thread that the KJV is not superior in every rendering of every verse when compared to all other English translations. The point of this thread is not about which translation is superior overall.

What are some examples of those "minor errors" you have found in the KJV?

1. Let say we compare 1000 verses, I would say KJV is more accurate than all others in 995 verses. Some MV's may be better in 2 verses like Rev 17:8, so and so in remaining 3 verses.
I believe the point of this thread is about whether KJV is superior to all others, as a main Bible, and I think so.

2. Let me show you one example.
Mark 2:26, KJV says " in the days of Abiathar the high priest" But you know that the High Priest at the time when David entered the temple was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar.
NIV, TNIV, RSV, ASV, NRSV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Webster, NLT, Young's Literal, are all the same in stating Abiathar as the High Priest at the time when David ate the Shew bread in the temple.
Now read the Bible 1 Sam 21:1-9. You will find Ahimelech is correct.
What is wrong with it? Even Greek TR says Abiathar!
Didn't Jesus know about the history ? Was He wrong ?
Or did Mark made a mistake ?

You will find the answer from Darby's.
It should read " in the section of Abiathar" The scrolls had the sections or chapters, and Ahimelech was killed by Saul suddenly and therefore couldn't write about the incident, but later on his son Abiathar wrote about it in his chapter. This was attacked by many Anti-Christians as an error in the Bible.

I do have 4-5 more discrepancies and found the good solutions for them, which I would rather explain in my translations later on, 2 of them were not pointed out by any other translation so far but crucial to understand how many nights Jesus was in the tomb, another related to the Christology.

Thesedays I deal with Genesis 23:6 at the funeral of Sarah.
Children of Heth says " thou are a mighty prince among us"
KJV translated Elohim as powerful, which is not wrong.
NIV, ESV, TNIV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, Third Millenium, Webster, state Mighty Prince.

But Darby states Prince of God, and ASV, ESV, Young's Ltieral state "Prince of God"
I cannot say Mighty Prince is wrong, but would say Prince of God is far better.

How many of us can hear from the neighbors or from the colleagues in the company that " thou art a prince of God" or " you are a man of God, you may take 1 acre free for your burial of the dead"
Abraham was a Soul Winner ( Gen 12:5) and a man of God shown as Gen 14:23, and 23:11-16. Also, his servant was so devout as we read Gen 24.
How many of us are hearing " you are a man of God" from our neighbors? Isn't this challenging?
In that sense, KJV doesn't show the best translation.

3. However, if we carefully compare a thousand verses in controversy, I am sure KJV is correct or better than any other versions in more than 990 verses. I know this I have compared them in so many verses as 1,000 while I was translating. Reading some pages or verses is quite different from the actual translation of the Bible for more than 7 years on a full time basis.
I already mentioned Daniel 9:26 where KJV says Messiah will be cut off but not for Himself ( but for us). Compare with other versions ( others say Messiah shall be cut off and have nothing!)

Therefore I still say that KJV is superior to all other versions, even though there are some minor errors or corrections.

 

[Eliyahu]

Logos,
I thought you remember my stance is somehow different from KJVO's as I am not KJVO but KJVB, KJV the Best. I don't believe there is no error in KJV, but still prefer it to any other despite some minor errors, none the less.

 

[Eliyahu]

Then your gripe would be with this individual - not with everyone on the board who disagrees with KJVO thinking. Calling the KJV garbage is wrong, but then belittling every modern Bible version is also wrong. My mother always said "Two wrongs don't make a right!"

At least you have to admit that there is such person on this BB as I proved. If we discuss in depth, people who deface KJV reveals their strong objections against it at the end.
I showed you the comparisons above.

Please try to compare them, Genesis 37:28, Daniel 9:26, Job 36:18 ( Could you get the equal lesson from NIV on this verse as from KJV?)

But I disagree with many KJVO's and have a horrible experience with KJVO people and would comment that some KJVO's are superstitious! But I am not talking about KJVO, but KJV itself. If you look at my previous posts above, you can confirm that I was talking about KJV, not KJVO as I am simply KJVB.
I don't force anyone accept my belief, but would say, I believe KJV is superior to any other English translations as far as I know.

 

[Logos1560]

Is the KJV's rendering of a Hebrew word at 1 Kings 4:28 superior to the rendering of all other English translations? Some of the ways that this Hebrew word is translated in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles include the following: “work beasts” (Wycliffe’s), “coursers” (1535 Coverdale’s), “beasts” (1537 Matthew’s), “mules” (1540 Great, 1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops’), and “dromedaries” (1611 KJV). The KJV itself translated this same Hebrew word three different ways: “dromedaries” (1 Kings 4:28), “mules” (Esther 8:10, 14), and “swift beast” (Micah 1:13). At 1 Kings 4:28, the 1611 KJV has the following marginal note: “Or mules, or swift beasts.” Which of the various renderings on the KJV-only line of good Bibles if any is the more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word?

 

[Logos1560]

Is the KJV's rendering of the Hebrew at Genesis 1:20 superior or more accurate than the rendering of any other translation? In his commentary, John J. Davis suggested that the KJV's rendering "might be misleading" (Paradise to Prison, p. 66). In his commentary, Henry Morris wrote: "The waters suddenly swarmed abundantly with swarming creatures (the waters did not 'bring forth' as mistranslated in the Authorized Version)" (p. 68). H. C. Leupold made the following statements in his commentary on Genesis: "Here it is not the waters that bring forth. A. V. is in error when it translates: 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly.' Luther did not make this mistake." (p. 78). About this verse, The Complete Biblical Library noted that God “did not say, ‘And the waters produced the moving creatures’” (I, p. 21). The 1917 English translation of the Hebrew text by Jews has the following rendering: "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures." Davis offered this same rendering as a literal translation of the Hebrew (p. 66). "Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature" is the rendering of Young's Literal Translation. The Newberry Study Bible [KJV] has this note at this verse: "teem with teeming living creatures" (p. 1). Is the KJV's rendering at this verse more easily misunderstood than the rendering of some other English translations?

 

[Friend of God]

I am KJV preferred.

The rest of my family uses the NIV. I cannot in all good concience arrogantly say that the KJV is superior to all other versions.

People have many reasons for using the Bible version they use. It's more important that they use a
Bible, rather than what version do others think they should use.

 

[Eliyahu]

Is the KJV's rendering of a Hebrew word at 1 Kings 4:28 superior to the rendering of all other English translations? Some of the ways that this Hebrew word is translated in the KJV-only view's line of good Bibles include the following: “work beasts” (Wycliffe’s), “coursers” (1535 Coverdale’s), “beasts” (1537 Matthew’s), “mules” (1540 Great, 1560 Geneva, 1568 Bishops’), and “dromedaries” (1611 KJV). The KJV itself translated this same Hebrew word three different ways: “dromedaries” (1 Kings 4:28), “mules” (Esther 8:10, 14), and “swift beast” (Micah 1:13). At 1 Kings 4:28, the 1611 KJV has the following marginal note: “Or mules, or swift beasts.” Which of the various renderings on the KJV-only line of good Bibles if any is the more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word?

If you read the verse in Hebrew, you can notice Sus ( horse) is already there. It doesn't make sense if we say that, Barly for the horse and for the horse (again). There must have been a certain reason why the original text has " Sus" and "rakesh" there. Now when we consult with Lexicon, it says Steed, or some beast to ride on, and it could be Mules, or Camel ( single back hump camel, Arabian Dromedary). We don't know much about the ancient customs. But I trust certain expertise of the KJV translators in the study of ancient customs and history.
It is not unusual to translate one Hebrew words into many English words, because English word itself for one single Hebrew word doesnt have the same, various meanings. Therefore NASB translated D'Var in Hebrew into almost 200 kinds of English words such as Word, work, thing, matter, etc.
NIV translates " chariot horses and other horses". There is no word for chariot, but it depends on the translators.
In this case we can hardly judge which one is superior to any other but I don't find any reason to find fault with KJV here.

 

[Eliyahu]

Is the KJV's rendering of the Hebrew at Genesis 1:20 superior or more accurate than the rendering of any other translation? In his commentary, John J. Davis suggested that the KJV's rendering "might be misleading" (Paradise to Prison, p. 66). In his commentary, Henry Morris wrote: "The waters suddenly swarmed abundantly with swarming creatures (the waters did not 'bring forth' as mistranslated in the Authorized Version)" (p. 68). H. C. Leupold made the following statements in his commentary on Genesis: "Here it is not the waters that bring forth. A. V. is in error when it translates: 'Let the waters bring forth abundantly.' Luther did not make this mistake." (p. 78). About this verse, The Complete Biblical Library noted that God “did not say, ‘And the waters produced the moving creatures’” (I, p. 21). The 1917 English translation of the Hebrew text by Jews has the following rendering: "Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures." Davis offered this same rendering as a literal translation of the Hebrew (p. 66). "Let the waters teem with the teeming living creature" is the rendering of Young's Literal Translation. The Newberry Study Bible [KJV] has this note at this verse: "teem with teeming living creatures" (p. 1). Is the KJV's rendering at this verse more easily misunderstood than the rendering of some other English translations?

It is obvious that the water itself is not the Creator, and the sentence says "ishrtsu ... shaeretsu" which might be closest to "swarm with the swarms of living creatures "
If the English of 17c didn't mean " Let the waters have the abundance of the living creatures ", it is farther from the original meaning than modern versions, in this case. But there is a possibility that KJV put "bring forth" to mean that Waters have such creatures as a result of creation. I don't think KJV translators didn't know that Waters cannot create living creatures, but only God can create such and as the result, Waters have such abundantly. In this case we should eliminate such possibility of misunderstanding.
In this case, it is apparently arguable and important.

 

[Trotter]

but would say, I believe KJV is superior to any other English translations as far as I know.

And that is fine and acceptable by any and all. I have no problem with this statement, as it is stated as a personal belief, not a hard and cold fact that cannot be denied.

Personal preference is fine and dandy, and is a hallmark of the Baptist tradition. But so is pig-headedness...

Basically, people can choose to say the KJV is better in their own opinion, or it not the best in their own opinion. But it gets to be messy when anybody decides to try and make that decission for everyone else.

 

[Keith M]

Herb Evans posted: "The KJB superiority over these versions is self evident."

Self-evident in whose eyes? This sweeping generality has been disproven time and time again.

Do such statements claim or imply that the KJV is completely superior at every rendering or do they only suggest that the KJV is overall superior to any other English translation?

Oh, they imply the KJV's superiority in every rendering, alright, even though there is no truth to this fanciful claim.

Since a translation that is superior overall could still have some poor renderings that are less accurate and even some translating errors, it is likely that superiority of every rendering of every verse is being implied.

Of course it is!

Is there clear evidence to support a claim that the KJV is superior in every rendering of every verse to any other English translation?

No, absolutely not!

The KJV-only claims of KJV superiority over all other English translations seems to give the KJV-only view the burden of proof to show that each and every rendering of the KJV is superior and more accurate than any rendering of other English translations. Attempting to claim that a KJV rendering is possible or that the KJV rendering is not a proven error would not be valid evidence to support the KJV-only claim of superiority.

Still waiting for proof, huh? There is no proof for something that is based completely in error and misinformation! Whether that misinformation is deliberate or not depends on the individual. Those who have been shown the truth, many on this board for example, yet maintain their KJVO beliefs, are deliberately spreading the misinformation. The truth has been shown to them yet they continue to spread the errors of onlyism. Some people simply spout what they have heard from people like Gipp, Ripplinger and Ruckman. In many instances these poor folks just don't know any better. Once they are shown the truth some of them accept it while others then become deliberate spreaders of misinformation.

The bottom line is that there is no proof for a myth...

:thumbsup: :laugh: :wavey:

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

The bottom line is that there is no proof for a myth...

...

Maybe you shouldn't call it a 'myth'


you should call it a 'myster'???

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally Posted by Logos1560
Herb Evans posted: "The KJB superiority over these versions is self evident."

Keith M: //Self-evident in whose eyes? This sweeping generality
has been disproven time and time again.//

What I hear is "We assume the KJB is superior over other versions."

Strangely, it is easier to prove one's original assumptions than
other statments. The logic looks like this:

Assuming the KJB is superior over other versions;
Then the KJB is superior over other versions.

Logic is an agreement between two or more parties.
To start a logical argument, there has to be an agreement
on some undefined terms & some agreed upon statements.
The agreed upon statements used to be called 'axiom's
or self-evident truths. But since you can't prove such statements,
they are now just called 'assumptions' something that all
parties agree upon is true to start the round of logical discussion.

So here the KJVOs seem to want to talk about the
undefined KJB and the assumption:
the KJB is superior over other versions.

I'm still trying to figure out what is mean by the
undefined term 'KJB'. I have several KJVs
and have a problem as they are each different.
I'm one that thinks the purpose of this board is to
discuss those differences (in the original language, if necessary)
as each of us individually must figure out where the truth
lies. But we sure won't get there is there is a group dragging their
heels at every time.

 

[Glory~To~God]

Yes the AKJV is superior to other versions. It contains the least errors or perversions. Other bibles, especially the NIV have changed so many words, just to make it "easier to understand", that some of the true meaning is lost.

 

[Keith M]

Yes the AKJV is superior to other versions. It contains the least errors or perversions. Other bibles, especially the NIV have changed so many words, just to make it "easier to understand", that some of the true meaning is lost.

AKJV is the common abbreviation for the American King James Version. Are you saying the American King James Version is superior to other versions? If you're referring to the KJV (any edition) that version is referred to as either the AV or the KJV.