Is KJV superior to all other translations?

[Logos1560]

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

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?

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.

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

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.

 

[Dr. Bob]

I have had to work through hundreds of poorly-translated passages in the AV and have to roll eyes at the foolish claim of "superiority" of the translation. It is a very good translation, but "superior" is a superlative that is only used by the only sect.

 

[Logos1560]

This thread offers a valid challenge to those who advocate the superiority of the KJV over all other translations.

It seems that some KJV-only advocates realize that they cannot prove what they claim about the superiority of the KJV so they attempt to issue a challenge that ignores the foundation on which the derived authority of the KJV depends.

 

[mcdirector]

Is it sufficient for me to say no?

I have used the NASB for years (I guess at this point in my life that should be decades). Our current pastor who has been has been Sr Pastor a few years came in using it and I was happy to get to start toting mine back to church on Sunday mornings. Last year, I bought an ESV and have been using it for personal study. Well, low and behold, last Sunday, dear Mr. Pastor said that the church was going to purchase ESV for pew Bibles. What a nice choice. They didn't even consult me.

 

[tinytim]

Is it sufficient for me to say no?

It is not only sufficient, but it proves you are a genius!
Of course it is not superior to other valid versions.

 

[mcdirector]

Thank you Tim! It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy when people not only recognize my geniousness, but also mention it!

 

[Dr. Bob]

And humility . .

 

[Keith M]

Is it sufficient for me to say no?

It is not only sufficient, but it is also absolutely correct!

:thumbs:

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Logos1560, of the recent KJV threads most were not started by KJVO folks. I suggest you just put this aside and find something more productive to do.

I am not interested in your challenge simply because I don't want to fight. The continual strife is not productive.

I think I will go and read some in my 1611 English Holy Bible. I may even take a peek or two at the Greek and a lexicon to help me understand the sense of the scripture. Sadly, I find too little such help here.

A.F.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Well Logos1560,there must be somthing about the AV for you to devote SO MUCH time picking it apart.

 

[robycop3]

....No....









.

 

[Logos1560]

there must be somthing about the AV for you to devote SO MUCH time picking it apart.

The evident fact that the KJV-only claim of superiority of the KJV at every rendering of every verse is incorrect is aimed at the invalid KJV-only view and not at the KJV itself. Disagreeing with the KJV-only view is not picking at the KJV. I accept the KJV as a good overall translation and as the word of God in the same sense or manner that the early English translators accepted the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV.

This fact is even so evident that it is very unlikely that any KJV-only advocate will attempt to offer evidence for this claim of superiority. Since KJV-only advocates are unwilling or unable to provide valid evidence for some of the essential claims of their view, perhaps they should find things more productive to do than advocating an inconsistent unproven theory and than attacking other translations of the Scriptures.

The evident fact that at least at some renderings of some verses another English translation is clearer, better, or more accurate than the KJV seems to be ignored or denied by holders of a KJV-only view.

 

[Logos1560]

Is there evidence that shows that the KJV rendering "with water" at Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33 is superior to Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles' rendering "in water?"

Is it self-evident that the KJV's rendering "fidelity" at Titus 2:10 is superior to Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles' rendering "faithfulness?"

Is it self-evident that the KJV's rendering "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" at 2 Peter 1:1 is superior to Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles' rendering "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ?"

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Is there evidence that shows that the KJV rendering "with water" at Matthew 3:11 and John 1:33 is superior to Tyndale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles' rendering "in water?"

Gotta get IN the water to be baptised WITH water..DUH!!! What's the point?

Is it self-evident that the KJV's rendering "fidelity" at Titus 2:10 is superior to Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles' rendering "faithfulness?"

DUH again!

Fidelity and faithfulness mean the same thing! Fidelis being the Latin base word...

Is it self-evident that the KJV's rendering "God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" at 2 Peter 1:1 is superior to Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, Geneva, and Bishops' Bibles' rendering "our God and Saviour Jesus Christ?"

:BangHead:

 

[Logos1560]

Fidelity and faithfulness mean the same thing! Fidelis being the Latin base word...

What was wrong with the rendering "faithfulness" that it needed replaced with "fidelity" at Titus 2:10 and how was "fidelity" supposed superior to the rendering "faithfulness" since you say that they mean the same thing?
You seem to be admitting that the rendering "fidelity" is not superior to the rendering "faithfulness."

Would that be like saying that the Latin-based rendering "Lucifer" means the same thing as Luther's German rendering "morgan stern" [morning star]?

 

[Rippon]

It's rather inferior to most translations actually .

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

You seem to be admitting that the rendering "fidelity" is not superior to the rendering "faithfulness."

And you've seemed to have bumped your head on somthing,HARD!

It's the same WORD!!

Tell us then,what was WRONG with John 1:18,1st Timothy 3:16,1st Timothy 6:20,and others like them? That is if you can find time....you know,from picking apart(Matthew 23:24) the AV.

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes, King James Version is superior to all other translations in English, as far as I know.

 

[Logos1560]

Quote:
You seem to be admitting that the rendering "fidelity" is not superior to the rendering "faithfulness."

It's the same WORD!!

Even if "fidelity" has the same definition or meaning as the word "faithfulness," that does not make them the "same word." Even if these two words were listed as synonyms, it would not make them the "same word." I checked a couple sources and did not find these two words listed as synonyms although it is possible another source does. Even if there are synonyms, it does not prove that one rendering would not be better or superior to the other. What evidence supports your statement that they are the same word? In my counterexample that you ignored, "Lucifer" and "morning star" are listed as synonyms in a Thesaurus, but I think that it is unlikely that you would claim that they are the same word or that one rendering is not better or superior to the other.

You seem to want to change the subject of this thread. Perhaps you realize that the actual evidence would show that the KJV is not superior in every rendering of every verse to all other English translations.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

Then WHICH one(s) are?