KJVO vs any other translation(s).

[JonC]

In response to the question "were prior 1611 English versions still inspired?", Michael Hollner answered "YES" (King James Only Debate, p. 396, 2021 edition), and yet those pre-1611 English versions differ in hundreds and likely thousands of places with the KJV.

Besides the large amount of differences in translation, there were many significant textual differences between the Great Bible, the first authorized English version, and the 1611 KJV.

I've always wondered (perhaps you know) - why do they call the KJV "authorized" and why do the call the current KJV 1611 when we all know it is not?

 

[Paul from Antioch]

One thing to keep in mind is that a particular chapter or short book, might be on a 6th grade level - and other books and/or chapters may be a college sophomore level. - So over all - it may be - say a 10th grade level.

I suppose this would books in which there may be some (many?) kinds of interpretations. OTOH, what Bible books don't have any or all kinds of interpretations? (Beats me since from Genesis through to Revelation I've seen LOTS of interpretations, ranging from ridiculous to serious, (& usually contradictory!) ones. How about you?

 

[Salty]

I suppose this would books in which there may be some (many?) kinds of interpretations. OTOH, what Bible books don't have any or all kinds of interpretations? (Beats me since from Genesis through to Revelation I've seen LOTS of interpretations, ranging from ridiculous to serious, (& usually contradictory!) ones. How about you?

NO - Grade level has nothing to do with interpretations -- the grade level is based on the translation that is reviewed.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

I've always wondered (perhaps you know) - why do they call the KJV "authorized" and why do the call the current KJV 1611 when we all know it is not?

The 1611 KJV WAS "authorized" by King James (hence its title) VI of Scotland who was declared to be King James I of England after Tudor Queen Elizabeth I of England died in without any clear successor to the throne of England. And even then there was much controversy about Parliament's choice since it spelled the end of the Tudor Dynasty which was begun by Henry VII (1485-1509) after the very divisive contest between the rival Houses of Lancaster and York from 1399 until 1485. The Moreover, even when Parliament DID declare James VI / James I as king, within the English religious establishment there were still many who claimed that Parliament had a hidden agenda in that the Tudor House merely created "The House of Tudors was engaged in a political struggle with RCC Spain & (at that time) RCC England over which nation would receive the wealth of the newly-discovered New World lands of Central & South America. The "Church of England" was basically a creation of Henry VII's supporters in the island nation .Back in those days, marriages usually between nations were merely marriages based on how much prestige & subsequent wealth would be obtained by such a union of national monarchs. When Henry VIII's wife failed to supply the House of Tudor with an heir to the throne, Henry VIII looked elsewhere (Ironically, it took Henry VIII 8 times to finally find a woman who DID produce a living successor to the English throne--Edward VI (r. 1547-53). Then came a succession of English monarchs culminating with the RCC Mary I (r. 1553-8) ("Bloody Mary") who openly either chased or even martyred many "Church of England" officials as she could. (see the original "Foxes' Book of Martyrs" for some of these people.) When Elizabeth I came on the English throne in 1558, England did undergo a "renasissance" of its own with such men as Shakesphere, etc. OTOH, Henry VIII simply wanted a sanction to marry his divorced wife Catherine Parr, about whom RCC Pope deemed this marriage to be "Biblically" null and void. However, even within the ranks of the newly-created "Church of England," there were some who wanted to retain all the trappings of the RCC, and others who sought to radically (for that time period anyway) reform the C of E. AND THEN, Parliament's choice of James VI / I didn't actually have a truly "Biblical" reason for its decision. James VI/I simply was tired of having Scottish "Reformers" such as Henry Knox, etc., constant hounding him based on the antics of many OT kings of Judah and or Israel (of which the House of Stuart oftentimes emulated. Thus when James VI/I DID arrive in England, he welcomed a revision of the Bible, but only because he was tired of the treatment he'd faced in Scotland. Hence, James VI/I "authorized" what is now called the 1611 KJV. Some die-hard KJVO folks claimed that, in fact, the 1611 KJV was "authorized" by God Himself, but when asked to supply any documented reason(s) for this claim, most of them are noticeably silent.

 

[rlvaughn]

Like you, I don't think Wikipedia has any agenda here. However, I don't know where they got the info. Further, I think using grades as does Flesch-Kincaid is at least more specific than having "MIddle School." Middle School is too variable from place to place. Here is our district, we have (currently) elementary, middle, and high. Our Middle School has grades 6, 7, and 8.

 

[robycop3]

"Reading level" surveys are somewhat inaccurate, as results vary between individual readers with different abilities, depending upon the ability of parents to help their kids develop reading/vocabulary skills, different schools, depending on the quality of teachers, and different regions within an English-using nation. I don't put much stock in them. If a kid can read & understand something, by all means, let'em go ahead.

 

[Conan]

The 1611 KJV WAS "authorized" by King James (hence its title) VI of Scotland who was declared to be King James I of England after Tudor Queen Elizabeth I of England died in without any clear successor to the throne of England. And even then there was much controversy about Parliament's choice since it spelled the end of the Tudor Dynasty which was begun by Henry VII (1485-1509) after the very divisive contest between the rival Houses of Lancaster and York from 1399 until 1485. The Moreover, even when Parliament DID declare James VI / James I as king, within the English religious establishment there were still many who claimed that Parliament had a hidden agenda in that the Tudor House merely created "The House of Tudors was engaged in a political struggle with RCC Spain & (at that time) RCC England over which nation would receive the wealth of the newly-discovered New World lands of Central & South America. The "Church of England" was basically a creation of Henry VII's supporters in the island nation .Back in those days, marriages usually between nations were merely marriages based on how much prestige & subsequent wealth would be obtained by such a union of national monarchs. When Henry VIII's wife failed to supply the House of Tudor with an heir to the throne, Henry VIII looked elsewhere (Ironically, it took Henry VIII 8 times to finally find a woman who DID produce a living successor to the English throne--Edward VI (r. 1547-53). Then came a succession of English monarchs culminating with the RCC Mary I (r. 1553-8) ("Bloody Mary") who openly either chased or even martyred many "Church of England" officials as she could. (see the original "Foxes' Book of Martyrs" for some of these people.) When Elizabeth I came on the English throne in 1558, England did undergo a "renasissance" of its own with such men as Shakesphere, etc. OTOH, Henry VIII simply wanted a sanction to marry his divorced wife Catherine Parr, about whom RCC Pope deemed this marriage to be "Biblically" null and void. However, even within the ranks of the newly-created "Church of England," there were some who wanted to retain all the trappings of the RCC, and others who sought to radically (for that time period anyway) reform the C of E. AND THEN, Parliament's choice of James VI / I didn't actually have a truly "Biblical" reason for its decision. James VI/I simply was tired of having Scottish "Reformers" such as Henry Knox, etc., constant hounding him based on the antics of many OT kings of Judah and or Israel (of which the House of Stuart oftentimes emulated. Thus when James VI/I DID arrive in England, he welcomed a revision of the Bible, but only because he was tired of the treatment he'd faced in Scotland. Hence, James VI/I "authorized" what is now called the 1611 KJV. Some die-hard KJVO folks claimed that, in fact, the 1611 KJV was "authorized" by God Himself, but when asked to supply any documented reason(s) for this claim, most of them are noticeably silent.

Perhaps the KJV was only "Appointed" to be read in the Church's instead of Authorized ?

 

[JonC]

What kind of mistakes and errors do you mean? How can the mistake or error be fully accurate and true?

The use of "O Lucifer" in Isaiah is a translation mistake. It puts Latin in Isaiah and should have been rendered a translation of the actual word rather than simply carrying over the Latin.

As mentioned before, "idols" is also a mistake.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Perhaps the KJV was only "Appointed" to be read in the Church's instead of Authorized ?

These are some of the books I recommend for studying this 1611 KJVO issue: God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible by Adam Nicolson. (2003: New York NY 10022. HarperCollins Publishers), How We Got the Bible, 3rd Edition, Expanded and Revised. by Neil R. Lightfoot (2003: Grand Rapids, MI 49516-6287. Baker Book House Co.), The Bible in Translation: Ancient & English Versions by Bruce M. Metzger (2001: Grand Rapids, MI Baker Academic). There are other works available, but I've found these three works do provide a good introduction to this issue, both pro and con. Additionally, a good survey of the times in which the 1611 KJV came about PLUS just a very good summary of English history in general is Kings & Queens of England : From the Saxon Kings to the House of Windsor by Nigel Cawthorne (2009, New York, NY 10016. Metro Books, publishing arm of Sterling Publishing Co., Inc.). Hopefully these works will help someone to get a deeper understanding of this issue---Which, IMHO is more of an unnecessary diversion for 21st Century Christianity. IMHO, we have so much better things to which we MUST dedicate our attention; in fact, strange as it may seem to some, this divisive issue may, in reality, one of Satan's tools designed to divert our attention to the many more urgent issues that Jesus Himself has commanded us to do in Acts 1:8 .

 

[Salty]

"Reading level" surveys are somewhat inaccurate, as results vary between individual readers with different abilities, depending upon the ability of parents to help their kids develop reading/vocabulary skills, different schools, depending on the quality of teachers, and different regions within an English-using nation. I don't put much stock in them. If a kid can read & understand something, by all means, let'em go ahead.

It appears what you are saying is that: Suppose a book is on a 12 grade level - but a student - because his parents dont help him with his reading - can only read on a 8th grade level, and he had a couple of poor English teachers --- but because he did his best - he still gets to graduate High School even though he only is able to complete work at a 8th grade level!

There is NOTHING wrong with reading a Bible on a level that you can comprehend- weather it is poor teacher, ability, ESL, or ect.

and this post I Quoted led me to start this thread, Why Education is failing our children

 

[rlvaughn]

The use of "O Lucifer" in Isaiah is a translation mistake. It puts Latin in Isaiah and should have been rendered a translation of the actual word rather than simply carrying over the Latin.

As mentioned before, "idols" is also a mistake.

What about the second question, "How can the mistake or error be fully accurate and true?"

 

[rlvaughn]

"Reading level" surveys are somewhat inaccurate...I don't put much stock in them.

Neither do I, and I would say they are a little more than "somewhat inaccurate." Possibly the best thing is to understand they are comparative, and, at that, only compare things in a somewhat "mathematical" sort of way -- mainly sentence length (number of words in a sentence) and word length (number f syllables).

 

[JonC]

What about the second question, "How can the mistake or error be fully accurate and true?"

I never said the mistake or error can be fully accurate and true.

For example, any reader coming across the name "Lucifer" would recognize it as Latin and think "why is this here? it does not belong.". That coupled with the popularity of "Lucifer" as a Christian name prior to the KJV would lead any literate reader to think. The KJV is a translation and points to the text being translated. A very short study would show that "Lucifer" should have been translated at best "Day Star", "Morning Star", or at worse "Venus". But the error does not take away from the point of the passage, which was not to provide a proper name for Satan but to show how far this king (I believe symbolic of Satan as well) has fallen.

 

[rlvaughn]

I never said the mistake or error can be fully accurate and true.

Yes, looking back I see I asked those questions of Yeshua1 because of what he said.

 

[JonC]

Yes, looking back I see I asked those questions of Yeshua1 because of what he said.

OK. For me, I believe that no translation is without the potential for mistakes in the translation. With the KJV 46 translators worked on the translation and even there voiced concern that a committee of Bishops made changes. Talking to people on various translation committees there is always a compromise between translators about which words best represent in English the words being translated. We cannot remove the human process from translations - BUT we can keep in mind that these are translations and God's Word (what God has communicated) is preserved.

 

[Paul from Antioch]

OK. For me, I believe that no translation is without the potential for mistakes in the translation. With the KJV 46 translators worked on the translation and even there voiced concern that a committee of Bishops made changes. Talking to people on various translation committees there is always a compromise between translators about which words best represent in English the words being translated. We cannot remove the human process from translations - BUT we can keep in mind that these are translations and God's Word (what God has communicated) is preserved.

 

[Yeshua1]

OK. For me, I believe that no translation is without the potential for mistakes in the translation. With the KJV 46 translators worked on the translation and even there voiced concern that a committee of Bishops made changes. Talking to people on various translation committees there is always a compromise between translators about which words best represent in English the words being translated. We cannot remove the human process from translations - BUT we can keep in mind that these are translations and God's Word (what God has communicated) is preserved.

ALL translations will have some error or mistakes in them, but that does not mean that they are not trustworthy in all tat they affirm!

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes, looking back I see I asked those questions of Yeshua1 because of what he said.

There are known issues in the textual OT source texts regarding numbering, but that does not make not historical accurate to what was happening!

 

[Paul from Antioch]

Here are some relatively new works that, IMHO, might help us understand this 1611 KJV0 vs Modern English translations: How we got the Bible, Third Edition: Revised & Expanded. (2003

OK. For me, I believe that no translation is without the potential for mistakes in the translation. With the KJV 46 translators worked on the translation and even there voiced concern that a committee of Bishops made changes. Talking to people on various translation committees there is always a compromise between translators about which words best represent in English the words being translated. We cannot remove the human process from translations - BUT we can keep in mind that these are translations and God's Word (what God has communicated) is preserved.

 

[JonC]

Here are some relatively new works that, IMHO, might help us understand this 1611 KJV0 vs Modern English translations: How we got the Bible, Third Edition: Revised & Expanded. (2003

Thank you for the recommendation.