King James Bible

[Mike Berzins]

Originally Posted by robycop3
A late,great Baptist preacher/teacher of the past, Dr. J. Vernon Mc Gee(1904-1988) preached/taught exclusively from the KJV. However, he often stated that he was NOT KJVO, but used only the KJV in public because that was the version with which he'd grown up, & was most familiar to him. In his 5-year verse-by-verse bible study, he used the KJV, but often said, "A BETTER rendering of this verse is....." or "The MODERN ENGLISH equivalent is.......".

Yep - that also describes my pastor (who knew Dr. McGee and mentioned him just this Sunday). I love when he digs into the Word and really gets a LOT out of it! We're doing Romans now and it took us 3 weeks to get out of Romans 1:1 - LOL!! Pastor is using the KJV but just took us to the NIV (I think it was) for a better understanding of what the original language said.

So is the practice of personally retranslating the scripture for your audience a biblical one? Did the Lord or any of the prophets or apostles ever say "a better translation would be...?" Please provide an example from the scriptures.

 

[AVBunyan]

Are you sure you want to go there Bunyan? A simple count if a phrase does not really demonstrate if a version is more "Christ exalting" or not.

Roger I understand this and that is a good pooint.

Brother - I said one example - I gave one example of names from just 2 versions - I'm also talking about other issues besides just names and titles.

I would never rest my case on just names and titles alone.

God bless

 

[AVBunyan]

How often is "Lord Jesus Christ" in the original autograph? THAT would be what I go by.

You just said your final authority is something that does not exist anymore and therefore you cannot validate.

As God as my witness if I had the original manuscripts I'd lock them up to keep people from bowing down to them and then read my King James Bible.

Excuse the sarcasm - I know you folks wouldn't really worship them though others on other forums have accused me of worshipping a KJV.

God bless

 

[Bro Tony]

God's not limited to speaking in Aramaic or Greek. He speaks in English today, in the King James Bible. I am sure the sounds of the words conveyed power just like the meanings of the words did, in whatever language the Lord spoke.

John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Not just the meanings of the words, but also the sound of them, identify the speaker as the Lord.[/quote]

So Jesus and Paul spoke in the King's English because it sounds more noble. Come on!!! The power in the Scripture is not in the dialect or the formation of a certain type of English or whatever language is being used. The power is in the Word of God as the Spirit of God imparts God's truth into the life of the reader or hearer.

Bro Tony

 

[Bro Tony]

So is the practice of personally retranslating the scripture for your audience a biblical one? Did the Lord or any of the prophets or apostles ever say "a better translation would be...?" Please provide an example from the scriptures.

Please provide one example where the Lord ask them about any translation. And while your at it provide a Scripture where Jesus affirmed that His disciples use the King's English, that did not even exist at that time.

Bro Tony

 

[annsni]

So is the practice of personally retranslating the scripture for your audience a biblical one? Did the Lord or any of the prophets or apostles ever say "a better translation would be...?" Please provide an example from the scriptures.

Didn't Jesus speak to people in parables? Why didn't He just give them the good old straight talk? Because they couldn't understand it. There's nothing wrong with explaining or defining something for your audience. Have you ever been to a sermon? Does the pastor just read the Scripture, say "Amen" and sit down? No - he provides a message on that passage to illuminate the Scriptures. How about if you're teaching someone - do you just give a list of verses and let the person sort it out? Paul explained Scripture to believers, so it is most certainly Biblical.

One example (I couldn't think of any off hand so I had to look at past messages on our website) was this:

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on."

The Greek word that is translated “worry” (in the NIV) or “to take thought of” (in the KJV) is a word which means to divide, to pull in different directions, or to tear apart. When a person is in a state of worry or anxiety, they are no longer focused because they are pulled in different directions and are being torn apart through this dividing pull.

(note that this is just a couple of sentences from a much larger message - you can see the message at http://www.nbc.org/clc/mod.php?mod=userpage&page_id=16

There ARE times when a word in the KJV is a little outdated for us in our time and a 'translation' of that word or phrase might help clear up the thought of the passage for a listener. Speaking to someone newly saved or seeking the Lord, are you going to just read Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" and expect them to know what propitiation is??? LOL - It took ME years to know what it was (I was saved young, though). How about sanctification? Justification? Get the idea?

 

[Ed Edwards]

...

One example for now - regarding the name "Lord Jesus Christ"...
NIV - 60 times
NRSV - 62 times
KJV -- 84 times

God bless

When you take data from other places and put it on this
board it is expected you will tell us where you got those
numbers.

If you don't cite where you got the numbers, then it will
be a sign you filgured out the numbers for yourself.
However, if you didn't figure out the numbers yourself
then you are committing a deception.

BTW, these numbers are fairly usless toward convincing
anybody who knows even a little about the subject of
Translations & Versions of the Bible. So I don't appreciate
you assuming we are so dense.

If you had derived the numbers yourself, you could answer
these question:

What do those numbers mean?
How did you derive those numbers?

Here is you some numbers that I came up with:
Using e-Sword sources "KJV1611 Edition"
and searching for verses containing 'Lord' and 'Iesus'
and 'Christ' I found 101 verses.
(my copy of the e-Sword software won't search for
verses containg "Lord Iesus Christ" together.
Using e-Sword sources "KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers"
and searching for verses containing 'Lord' and 'Jesus'
and 'Christ' I found 106 verses.

Recapping:

KJV1611 Edition - 101 Times
KJV1769 Edition - 106 Times

It appears to me that changing from the KJV1611 Edition
(with known translators, editiors) to the KJV1769 Edition (with
unknown ediltors, translators, spelling adjusters)
ADDED something 5 times in DIRECT contradition to
Revelation 22:18

 

[Ed Edwards]

Psalms 29
1Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 2 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.5 The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.6He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.7 The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire.8 The voice of the LORD shaketh the wilderness; the LORD shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh.9 The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever. 11 The LORD will give strength unto his people; the LORD will bless his people with peace.


Yes, the way the Lord's voice sounds is of utmost importance. Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful. Part of the reason for this is the type of sound made by all the "eth"s; they convey a sense of strength.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

Please
give the source of your Scripture. QUite frankly,

4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty

is exactly the way Psalm 29:4 reads in the ESV.

As for the 'eth's convaying a sense of strength - that
is meaningless psyco-babble. Who believes that? I sure don't.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Well C4K:

It seems as if both sides (KJV VS MV) have gotten their fair share of whacks now.

I propose closing the discussion.

A.F.

 

[peperoni123]

Could those who say there are errors in the KJV please point some of those errors out to me?

 

[Mike Berzins]

Didn't Jesus speak to people in parables? Why didn't He just give them the good old straight talk? Because they couldn't understand it. There's nothing wrong with explaining or defining something for your audience. Have you ever been to a sermon? Does the pastor just read the Scripture, say "Amen" and sit down? No - he provides a message on that passage to illuminate the Scriptures. How about if you're teaching someone - do you just give a list of verses and let the person sort it out? Paul explained Scripture to believers, so it is most certainly Biblical.

Explaining or defining something is fine.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Explaining or defining something is completely different than saying a better translation would be... Saying "a better translation" implies the translation one is using is lacking in some way.

One example (I couldn't think of any off hand so I had to look at past messages on our website) was this:

Matthew 6:25 "Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on."

The Greek word that is translated “worry” (in the NIV) or “to take thought of” (in the KJV) is a word which means to divide, to pull in different directions, or to tear apart. When a person is in a state of worry or anxiety, they are no longer focused because they are pulled in different directions and are being torn apart through this dividing pull.

(note that this is just a couple of sentences from a much larger message - you can see the message at http://www.nbc.org/clc/mod.php?mod=userpage&page_id=16

This is an example of some pastor going to another language to explain what a scripture means. I was looking for an example in the Bible where someone says "a better translation would be..."

There ARE times when a word in the KJV is a little outdated for us in our time and a 'translation' of that word or phrase might help clear up the thought of the passage for a listener. Speaking to someone newly saved or seeking the Lord, are you going to just read Romans 3:25 "Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;" and expect them to know what propitiation is??? LOL - It took ME years to know what it was (I was saved young, though). How about sanctification? Justification? Get the idea?

I won't expect them to understand much of what the bible means, whether the words involved are commonly used in the newpapers, television, and worldly culture, or whether the words are only commonly used among belivers that use the King James Bible. Either way, I would try to explain and define the words for them. If you want to call that 'translating", then "translating" would be fine.

 

[Mike Berzins]

God's not limited to speaking in Aramaic or Greek. He speaks in English today, in the King James Bible. I am sure the sounds of the words conveyed power just like the meanings of the words did, in whatever language the Lord spoke.

John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Not just the meanings of the words, but also the sound of them, identify the speaker as the Lord.[/quote]

So Jesus and Paul spoke in the King's English because it sounds more noble. Come on!!! The power in the Scripture is not in the dialect or the formation of a certain type of English or whatever language is being used. The power is in the Word of God as the Spirit of God imparts God's truth into the life of the reader or hearer.

Bro Tony

Yes, God does impart his truth into the life of the hearer through his words. Of course there is power in that. But there is also power in his very choice of words, and the way they sound when he puts them together in sentences. If you were present when the Lord was walking the earth and speaking, in whatever language it was in, you would find that it would sound much more majestic and powerful than the common language of the day.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Please
give the source of your Scripture. QUite frankly,

I've never seen anywhere in the bible where anyone ever gave a source for their scripture, other than the chapter or book. Do you doubt my source is scripture?

4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty
is exactly the way Psalm 29:4 reads in the ESV.

I noticed that too. I can find word for word quotes of the King James Bible in the book of Mormon as well, what does it prove?

As for the 'eth's convaying a sense of strength - that
is meaningless psyco-babble. Who believes that? I sure don't.

[/quote]
Well, trying to prove something sounds more powerful than something else is not an easy task. "And Can it Be" is more powerful than "Kum By Yah", but if that is not self-evident, I'm not sure how else to explain it. I tried by highlighting the "th" from strength. Sounds themselves do carry meanings. Like the slothful, sluggardly, slanted, slave, slithering in a slough. Maybe go ask some marketing guy how names for products are determined or ask some propagandist how he chooses his words for the newspaper and he can explain it to you.

 

[Mike Berzins]

Please provide one example where the Lord ask them about any translation. And while your at it provide a Scripture where Jesus affirmed that His disciples use the King's English, that did not even exist at that time.

Bro Tony

Paul did have this to say:

II Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Someone was corrupting the word of God. Who was it? Is anyone doing it today? Did the Russelites do it with the New World Translation?

Maybe you think the corruption only refers to the original languages. Here's a passage that speaks about translation:

II Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

From Matthew, I see that "interpretation" can mean translation.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", that is private translation.

 

[Mike Berzins]

I would personally agree with 1,2,5,7,8,9

I would disagree with 3 (every translation has errors) ,4 (simply not true),6, (I don't get this one), 10 (Wrong, IMHO, the other versions are much more attacked than the KJV. I rarely hear the KJV in particular attacked specifically),11 (the world does not accept any Bible. When they quote it, they tend to quote the KJV from my experience).

But all of these are opinions and we are wrong to build a doctrine on or theology around opinions. We are wrong to claim that those who not hold to our opinions are somehow denying God or His wrong.

This is an issue in which every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind and one where we should condemn those who disagee.

I have never heard a poster attack a person because he uses and prefers the KJV. On the other hand I have read many cases where those who use other versions are attacked for their choice of version.

I just can't see why this is an issue and why a tiny segment of the American church chooses to fight over so small an issue.

An analogy might help why this is such an issue to some. Most non-Christian religions will not attack someone because they prefer Jesus over Mohammed, Krishna, or Buddha. It's when the claim is made that Jesus is God and that the other ways are false that someone get angry, and feels "attacked". And that is when the non-Christian will "attack" the Christian.

Likewise, you never hear a person attack someone because he uses and prefers a KJB. The attack comes when someone claims the KJB is scripture to the exclusion of other translations. And just simply claiming the King James Bible as scripture to the exclusion of the others will often cause those that hold to the other bibles to feel "attacked"

If you saw someone reading a new world translation, wouldn't you try to persuade them to give it up? Even if it hurt their feelings? KJO's believe that the danger is just as great in reading other new versions, as it is in reading the NWT.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

If you saw someone reading a new world translation, wouldn't you try to persuade them to give it up? Even if it hurt their feelings? KJO's believe that the danger is just as great in reading other new versions, as it is in reading the NWT.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way

This is the kind of thing that causes contention - misusing a Bible verse to get a point across. You have no basis for saying that someone is following a "false way" because they use the NKJV. All you have is opinion.

We cannot force our brothers and sisters in Christ to adopt our opinions as the true way. The word of God is the standard for doing that.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Could those who say there are errors in the KJV please point some of those errors out to me?

Since Justin specifically asked I am going to permit posting some of the translational errors in the KJV, just as translational errors in other version are permitted.

Please do so in a spirit of education.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Well C4K:

It seems as if both sides (KJV VS MV) have gotten their fair share of whacks now.

I propose closing the discussion.

A.F.

This has been a fair thread with a minimum of "whacks" from either side. Points have been presented, for the most part, in the proper spirit.

 

[Keith M]

An analogy might help why this is such an issue to some. Most non-Christian religions will not attack someone because they prefer Jesus over Mohammed, Krishna, or Buddha. It's when the claim is made that Jesus is God and that the other ways are false that someone get angry, and feels "attacked". And that is when the non-Christian will "attack" the Christian.

Likewise, you never hear a person attack someone because he uses and prefers a KJB. The attack comes when someone claims the KJB is scripture to the exclusion of other translations. And just simply claiming the King James Bible as scripture to the exclusion of the others will often cause those that hold to the other bibles to feel "attacked"

If you saw someone reading a new world translation, wouldn't you try to persuade them to give it up? Even if it hurt their feelings? KJO's believe that the danger is just as great in reading other new versions, as it is in reading the NWT.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way

A good example overall, Mike. But there is a difference in the NWT and many of the legitimate Bible versions. The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Clear Word Translation (Seventh Day Adventists) and the Joseph Smith Translation also known as the Inspired Version (Mormons) are all versions that were "translated" so that heretical groups can have a bible which supports some of their errant teachings.

That said, I do agree with your view that the claims of exclusivity are what causes much of the trouble. But there is a difference - we know that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to avoid an eternal separation from God, but the claims of exclusivity for any one Bible version are unfounded. We know without a doubt that the Bible is the word of God while the Koran and the writings of other false religions are not the word of God.

Yet it is understandable that, even though they follow another "god" that those of false religions can feel attacked by the suggestion that their religion and their writings are false. And that is one reason readers of modern Bible versions feel attacked when the KJVO claim of exclusivity is made, even though there is no foundation for that claim.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Here we go again, folks using their misunderstanding of the KJV
trying to prove KJVO stuff.

Caveat: this writing will be found appearing elsewhere
for I have used it before:

--------------------------------------------------

CORRUPT

2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use last, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'. Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs (i.e. NOT a MV):

2Co 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many, which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.