Is the King James Bible the Word of God?

[Guido]

Some hold that the KJV is inspired, adhering to the doctrine of double inspiration, declaring the KJV the Word of God, whereas others hold this, that the preserved Word of God is found in one of the Greek manuscripts, or a collection of Greek manuscripts, declaring that no translation into English is perfect. And others hold that only the original biblical writings are the preserved Word of God.

What view do you hold, and what are the arguments in support of your view?

 

[canadyjd]

The original manuscripts were inspired. To the extent the copies of the original manuscripts were accurately transcribed, they contain the inspired Word of God.

The KJV is a good translation. However, understanding biblical Hebrew and Kone Greek has come a long way since the KJV was published.

The most easily seen example of this is understanding the name of God. The KJV says “Jehovah”, which is a misunderstanding of the text.

Biblical Hebrew was originally only consonants. The name for God is “yod hey vav hey” YHVH”. When Jewish scholars added vowel points to the name of God (in the 3rd or 4th century) they put the vowels for LORD (Adoniah) to remind priests not to say the name of God, but rather say “LORD” or Adoniah.

The KJV translators didn’t understand this, so they annunciation YHVH with the vowels for “LORD” (Adoniah) to come up with Jehovah.

peace to you

 

[37818]

The original manuscripts were inspired. To the extent the copies of the original manuscripts were accurately transcribed, they contain the inspired Word of God.

Nonsense. The word of God is inspired regardless. What are not inspired are missinterpertations, misstranslations or manuscript variants from what God breathed.

 

[canadyjd]

Nonsense. The word of God is inspired regardless. What are not inspired are missinterpertations, misstranslations or manuscript variants from what God breathed.

Yeh, I think that’s what I said.

peace to you

 

[Van]

Some hold that the KJV is inspired, adhering to the doctrine of double inspiration, declaring the KJV the Word of God, whereas others hold this, that the preserved Word of God is found in one of the Greek manuscripts, or a collection of Greek manuscripts, declaring that no translation into English is perfect. And others hold that only the original biblical writings are the preserved Word of God.

What view do you hold, and what are the arguments in support of your view?

God's inspired word was initially written in the languages of the inspired writers, which I believe were Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Now these documents were copied, and then the copies were copied, introducing some errors. But since the New Testament inspired writers indicated the OT copies being used could lead people to Christ, the introduction of some errors did not result in the documents becoming untrustworthy.

Also, translation does not necessarily render God's word unreliable. For translations were used by the New Testament writers.

However, the New Testament does indicate wrong understandings of God's message can make God's word to "no effect."

And if we study a translation by someone who wrongly understood the translated passage, our understanding, too, will be wrong.

So rather than go with only the KJV or only with the NLT, God's word carefully considered tells us to consider alternate renderings of the underlying text, and alternate translation choices.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

God inspired the original autographs indifferent languages (namely Hebrew Aramaic and greek)

since then we have had copies., then translation into different languages. (OT was retranslated into greek, a latin translation, english translations etc etc.

There is no perfect english text. the bible would be much larger than it is today. as the negihs language is not as indepth as the greek, it needs more words added to the text in order to get a more accurate translation. unfortunately these are not considered word for word. and are frowned on.

The english language is also week. As there are many words where one english word is used to translate multiple greek or hebrew words all with different meanings. Example the word love. While many times this will not make a difference. in some cased (example jesus asking peter do you love me three times) the greek is far more indepth and if we just read the english, we miss major point jesus was making.

Also. Greek has types of words than the english. so in order to fully translate. again you need to add more words to meet the perfect transalation

Also. some words are not native english (Baptize is huge example) whihc has caused major issues which would have been resolved if they just translated the word.

finally. the KJV was written in an old and outdated language. Most of the words do not even mean the same today. and for a new believer can be confusing. or misinterpreted to appear to say something else.

 

[Guido]

Don't you think that, when the Bible is translated into modern English, it should be translated with the greatest care possible, not only with respect to accuracy, but also with respect to the beauty and majesty of its prose style, in which thing only the KJV seems perfect?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Don't you think that, when the Bible is translated into modern English, it should be translated with the greatest care possible, not only with respect to accuracy, but also with respect to the beauty and majesty of its prose style, in which thing only the KJV seems perfect?

if the scripture was interpreted as it most likely should. it would be larger. and very beautiful. for the word of God is beautifully written.

 

[Guido]

if the scripture was interpreted as it most likely should. it would be larger. and very beautiful. for the word of God is beautifully written.

So the whole Word of God is beautiful in all three languages it was originally written in? Do you mean beautiful in content or beautiful in style, or both?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

So the whole Word of God is beautiful in all three languages it was originally written in? Do you mean beautiful in content or beautiful in style, or both?

if you have ever read an expanded or more literal translation as given by a person who has in-depth study of the origional languages. you will see a language and writing that we have not seen in any English translated bible.

 

[AVL1984]

Is it the "Word of God?" Of course it is...it's a translation, though. As is the NIV, NLT, ESV, RSV, etc. None of these diminish the message given in the underlying texts. NO, and I mean, NO translation is a "word for word," and I don't give a rip who tries to say it is. KJVO is not plausible, nor is it anything that can be honestly defended.

 

[Bible Thumpin n Gun Totin]

Yes, it is, and it's the best version IMO because of the better vocabulary

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Yes, it is, and it's the best version IMO because of the better vocabulary

I would disagree concerning better vocabulary

Most people, especially the younger generation, do not speak in that language, and it would be confusing to them to try to read words and phrases that people do not use anymore.

the only time people even here it (if they do) is when they listen to a pastor who preaches in what I call "king jimmy" language.

 

[Salty]

I remember a pastor at one church - the pastor was KJO.
yet, I remember a few times, he would read a passage and then say
"What this verse means is....."
Why does he have to tell me what it means if the KJ is so easy to understand?

I have heard KJO preachers say their 7 year old child can underhand the Bible

 

[AVL1984]

I remember a pastor at one church - the pastor was KJO.
yet, I remember a few times, he would read a passage and then say
"What this verse means is....."
Why does he have to tell me what it means if the KJ is so easy to understand?

I have heard KJO preachers say their 7 year old child can underhand the Bible

Most don't have the high-level vocabulary and intelligence to understand the "Kings English." I, too, get so tired of a preacher standing up and reading the verse, and then proceeding to tell us what it means in the Greek or Hebrew. I guess they believe it makes them look more intelligent. To me, it makes them look arrogant, and I don't sit under arrogant preachers long. Paul said he came to the people he preached to in "great plainness of speech." Why can't these college educated idiots get the message and move to a more contemporary version? Because they've been brainwashed by the circular reasoning of the KJVO crowd, and can't properly exegete the passages they are using to claim the KJV is the only "preserved" version of the word of God.

 

[Piper]

Some hold that the KJV is inspired, adhering to the doctrine of double inspiration, declaring the KJV the Word of God, whereas others hold this, that the preserved Word of God is found in one of the Greek manuscripts, or a collection of Greek manuscripts, declaring that no translation into English is perfect. And others hold that only the original biblical writings are the preserved Word of God.

What view do you hold, and what are the arguments in support of your view?

Only the Original autographs were inspired. That is all the text says. Beyond that we have theories and the best theories are that taking all of the manuscripts together, and using the best manuscript practices of linguists, etc, we have good Greek texts and many translations that we can say, by extension that we have the word of God, correctly translated form inspired texts.

 

[atpollard]

What view do you hold, and what are the arguments in support of your view?

God himself, from eternity to eternity, thinks, speaks and composes innately in King James English. It is a sad fact that the languages of man had not adequately developed for the first 5500 years of human history, forcing God to translate his trouts and express them in the more limited Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek until man had evolved (linguistically) and God could express himself in the perfection of the King’s English.

The mystery is why we feel the need to waste time even discussing this.
(Has this horse not suffered enough?)

 

[Dave G]

@Guido :

Yes, it is the word of God, and no I will not develop that any further.

What I think you'll find, given enough time and discussion, is that there are precious few who post on this forum that actually believe that any translation in any language ( in print or out of it ) is the fully inerrant, inspired word of God that they can unwaveringly trust in.

What's more is, few here seem to agree on where to find His perfectly preserved words, what manuscripts they are truly preserved in, or even what they actually say and mean.



I wish you well and bid you a good evening.

 

[Guido]

That the King James Bible is the Word of God, and that no other English translation is, what is the evidence? I had held that view for a long time, and given a good argument, I would return to it.

 

[37818]

New That the King James Bible is the Word of God, and that no other English translation is, what is the evidence?

There is no such evidence that only the KJV is the word of God. Now there is evidence, that more often than not, the KJV is generally a better English translation. There are known exceptions. But in the New Testament are fewer than the common modern verses.