Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Call it whatever you wish, even if incorrect, but the makers at first called it the AV.(A uthorized V ersion) Many KJVOs use "KJB" as if the KJV was the ONLY "official" English Bible version, which it certainly is NOT.
I could say the same to you. I have demonstrated why “I” believe that but just because you don’t doesn’t make it inaccurate or that it wasn’t demonstrated (which is what you initially said I didn’t do.)
Calling the Bible the Bible is incorrect. Got it.
The Bible is any valid translation!
What? That’s not even what we’re talking about. We’re talking about if it the Bible can be called “Bible.”
Its the Bible to me in English!
Before I post, I want to say this: If you admire & love the KJV, so be it....BUT if you don't think the KJV is a "Perfect English Translation," then you too need to "Go for your more modern translation(s)"! IMHO, ALL Translations in ANY Language is only an attempt by (Hopefully) Holy-Spirit-Led humans to put into whatever modern language(s) in which they are attempting to translate. As has already been pointed out, errors will invariably tend to creep in in even the finest modern language Bible. These errors may creep in due to various reasons: (1) The original meaning in Greek or Hebrew may mean something entirely different in a modern language. EXAMPLE: In James Chapter Two our English word for "fashionable" in the Fifteenth & Sixteenth Centuries most likely simply meant "Fashionable." Thus the original 15th & 16th Century used the word "Gay" where the originals used "Fashionable." OTOH, that English word "Gay' in our 21st Century means something considerably different. (2) In Acts 12:3 the KJV erroneously translated the Greek word pash as "Easter" rather than the Jewish Feast "Passover." There have been various reasons indicating why this mistranslation occurred, but the point remains that it appeared in most 15th & 16th Century English Bible translations. There may be other examples cited, but the point remains that these mistranslations ARE THERE in most 15th & 16th century English Bible translations.
The only "Authorizing" that the 1611 KJV ever really had was when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of England (1601), and he only "Authorized" it simply because he wanted an English language Bible that only had marginal notes explaining what the particular passage meant. King James hated the only readily available English language Bible at that time was the Puritan's Geneva Bible (c 1555) which had plenty of marginal notes about how badly the OT kings of Israel and Judah were. For himself, King James cared very little of the "purity" of translation (Most of the English-language NT translations of that time were ultimately derivived from the worldly s Dutch humanist Erasmus, who in many cases took a great deal of liberty as he hurriedly translated what Greek-language manuscripts that were available to him at that time.
Don't know about that. Apparently not on the title page, which the British Museum shows a copy of the 1569 HERE. Perhaps elsewhere in the book, like the prologue?
“The Bishop’s Bible became the second authorized English version of the Bible, only to be succeeded by the King James Bible in 1611.”
