Since October of 2009 I have initiated about fifty threads in various forums.Six threads dealt with the KJV. So even in the Bible Versions forum that topic has been a minority one from my keyboard. Therefore,you're wrong again B4L.
-
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!
Problems In The KJV
- Thread starter Rippon
- Start date
- Status
Since October of 2009 I have initiated about fifty threads in various forums.Six threads dealt with the KJV. So even in the Bible Versions forum that topic has been a minority one from my keyboard. Therefore,you're wrong again B4L.
Saying that a man-made revision of a man-made document has "errors" or "mistakes", then giving a dozen actual examples, is NOT an "attack" per se. It allows open discussion - whether the "evidence" cited is truly an error of translation or of inferior Greek texts or of evolution of language.
This allows all to "chime in" and each to conclude the validity of the charge.
That said, any time one says XYZ translation of God's Word has this problem or that problem, it is like saying "Sic 'em" to a hungry dog. I would probably just present ONE verse and open that ONE verse (and its translation, underlying text, etc) for discussion.
This hits the target instead of buckshot approach that just ends with a bunch of yelping.
Actually, for me, the error of the approach is when he claimed:
Then he used it as the standard to offer proof.
That is not a valid way to discuss errors of the KJV, so it is a waste of time. I am aware that the KJV has errors based on the unavailable documents at the time of the writing, but to compare it to the NLT as "the standard?" C'mon, present facts if you want to discuss things.
Then he used it as the standard to offer proof.
That is not a valid way to discuss errors of the KJV, so it is a waste of time. I am aware that the KJV has errors based on the unavailable documents at the time of the writing, but to compare it to the NLT as "the standard?" C'mon, present facts if you want to discuss things.
Why can't the NLTse be used as a standard, if in fact it is more accurate than the KJV? If the KJV had mistranslated a number of passages and the NLT is an example of a translation that got it right -- why not use it to show the contrast?
Do you have somthing against the NLT? Do you think it isn't the Word of God?
"Did Herod 'observe' John,as the KJV says,or 'keep him safe' as the NASB says? The Greek term simply does not mean 'observe' but instead means 'to protect.' One might possibly suggest that observe once meant 'to protect,' but such seems a long stretch,especially since the KJV renders the same word preserve at Matthew 9:17 and Luke 5:38." (p.278)
"It is difficult to get 'stiffens out' or 'becomes rigid' (NIV) from 'pineth away.' The KJV rendering is less than adequate in comparison with the modern translations." (p.279)
"The NKJV corrects the problem seen in the KJV rendering. Peter did not say the Jews had slain Jesus and then hung him on a tree;they put the Lord to death by hanging Him upon the tree. It is difficult to see where the KJV derived its translation,as there is no andin the text to separate 'slew' and 'hanged on a tree.' "(p.280)
"Do Christians offend people? That is not what James is trying to communicate. Even the NKJV renders the phrase,'For we all stumble in in many things.' " (p.280)
"The AV translation is unclear and makes no sense in its context. Paul is talking about judging himself and his ministry,and in that context says his 'conscience is clear' (NIV),that is,he knows of no charge that could be laid at his feet." (p.281)
Textual variants have not been brought up by me in this thread. I am discussing errors of translation in the KJV. It is also plain to see than mere archaic expressions have nothing to do with the subject of my OP.
Please answer my questions that I put forth to you regarding the NLTse.
" The Hebrew here means 'captured,' and there is no basis for rendering it as 'joined unto them.' But we can understand the error,even on the part of Hebrew scholars who worked on this text long ago."
Dr. White then says the Hebrew words for join and captured are very similar looking "and that is probably what led to the error in translation." (p.283)
"The King James Version has Paul asking the disciples in Ephesus if they received the Holy Ghost since they believed,that is, subsequent to the act of believing. All modern translations,however, translate 'when you believed.' The differnce is not a slight one. Entire theologies of a second reception of the Holy Spirit have been based upon this rendering by the KJV. The doctrine of the Holy Spirit is materially impacted by how one translates this passage." (p.286)
"The KJV is not free from dynamic translations --in fact,at times the translators were actually quite free with their terms. The rather straightforward 'reviled' was translated as 'cast the same in his teeth' at Matthew 27:44 (there is no word teeth in the Greek text)." (p.289)
"In 2 Samuel 8:18 is the translation,'And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada was over both the Cherethites and the Pelethites; and David's sons were chief rulers.' The term the KJV renders as rulers is the specific term for 'priests' and is rendered as such at Exodus 19:6, 'And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests.' " (p.289)
"Another rather free rendering is found in the AV translators' willingness to use the term God in familiar sayings. The British mind certainly is accustomed to the saying, 'God save the king,' for instance,but the Hebrew mind never thought of such a thing. despite this, it appears occasionally in the KJV in such places as 1 Samuel 10:24, where a literal rendering would be 'Let the king live' or 'Long live the king.' at 1 Corinthians 16:2 the KJV has 'as God has prospered him,' though the term God is nowhere to be found (as the KJV's italics indicate)." (p.289)
May we do what Dr. Bob suggested & deal with ONE "prob verse" at a time? I'll suggest Acts 5:30.
KJV:30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
NKJV:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
NASV:30"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Now. I'd liketa see what the Greek readers here hafta say about this.
KJV:30The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree.
NKJV:30 The God of our fathers raised up Jesus whom you murdered by hanging on a tree.
NASV:30"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross.
Now. I'd liketa see what the Greek readers here hafta say about this.
To all concerned...
I have pretty well written up my position in several KJB threads. I am not KJBO, but I read the KJB, along with the NRSV and NIV 1984.
I am now pursuing other topics on this board, some are through personal messages and private e-mail with others I have met in the threads.
After the 2011 KJB celebration, I may go back to the designation KJV. But for now, I prefer KJB out of respect to my ancestors and those who continue to use this wonderful translation as the Scripture where they chose to read, study, and encounter God.
. . .
I want to read the Bible of my ancestors, the KJB, as part of smelling my way through their personal history. My documented family tree goes back to Scotland, 1450 A.D. And the Baptist history books don't make it that far because of limitations in scholarship (dates, records, and trend conventions).
I will focus my Baptist history search to the pre-600 A.D. Brittish Isles, specifically Wales and Scotland. Occasionally, I will jump into the threads of other topics and insert an aroma of what I discover.
If this interests you, please join me in the Baptist History and other "lower-40" portions of this board.
And I ask you to bring an open mind, and check any disrespect or prejudice at the door.
. . .
I notice some chatter continues from some of the anti-KJB camp. Guys, say what you want, I have you blocked and do not care to discuss it anymore.
In my opinion, the whole KJBO/anti-KJB discussion is best continued in prayer, in private PM or e-mail discussions, and on boards that honestly and clearly state their positions at the git-go.
I also think anyone discussing the KJB should clearly state at the beginning of each of their posts (or in their signature) their position regarding the KJB.
What is nothing more than a historical document to some, is divine Scripture to others. Whatever causes someone to post negative comments, thread titles, or discussion about the Scripture of others is . . . well, it just does not fit.
And my heart goes out to those who have been the target of 150 years (give or take whatever) . . . yes, those who's Bible and faith have been the target of 150 years of scholarship and publisher marketing campaigns (in the $millions, $billions). If they come across as militant--they have been pushed in a corner and (regardless of what has gone on before) further anti-KJB communications do not follow 2 Cor. 13:11 (in any translation).
For those of you who have hurts and pains from KJB advocates, my heart goes out to you as well. I know full well what religious persecution feels like.
If you guys continue to discuss this matter, I can think of one person to control the chatter and that is John of Japan with his repect and adherence to debate rules of order.
Furthermore, I think this thread should be locked and new discussions begun again with the rules of order (and decorum) spelled out at the beginning and anyone violating such rules be warned and, if persisting, banned from this wonderful board.
. . .
I am going to order my 1611 coin and read my KJB (along with the NRSV and NIV 1984). I am moving on.
Please take the matter to the Lord in prayer and do as he leads you to do.
...Bob
I have pretty well written up my position in several KJB threads. I am not KJBO, but I read the KJB, along with the NRSV and NIV 1984.
I am now pursuing other topics on this board, some are through personal messages and private e-mail with others I have met in the threads.
After the 2011 KJB celebration, I may go back to the designation KJV. But for now, I prefer KJB out of respect to my ancestors and those who continue to use this wonderful translation as the Scripture where they chose to read, study, and encounter God.
. . .
I want to read the Bible of my ancestors, the KJB, as part of smelling my way through their personal history. My documented family tree goes back to Scotland, 1450 A.D. And the Baptist history books don't make it that far because of limitations in scholarship (dates, records, and trend conventions).
I will focus my Baptist history search to the pre-600 A.D. Brittish Isles, specifically Wales and Scotland. Occasionally, I will jump into the threads of other topics and insert an aroma of what I discover.
If this interests you, please join me in the Baptist History and other "lower-40" portions of this board.
And I ask you to bring an open mind, and check any disrespect or prejudice at the door.
. . .
I notice some chatter continues from some of the anti-KJB camp. Guys, say what you want, I have you blocked and do not care to discuss it anymore.
In my opinion, the whole KJBO/anti-KJB discussion is best continued in prayer, in private PM or e-mail discussions, and on boards that honestly and clearly state their positions at the git-go.
I also think anyone discussing the KJB should clearly state at the beginning of each of their posts (or in their signature) their position regarding the KJB.
What is nothing more than a historical document to some, is divine Scripture to others. Whatever causes someone to post negative comments, thread titles, or discussion about the Scripture of others is . . . well, it just does not fit.
And my heart goes out to those who have been the target of 150 years (give or take whatever) . . . yes, those who's Bible and faith have been the target of 150 years of scholarship and publisher marketing campaigns (in the $millions, $billions). If they come across as militant--they have been pushed in a corner and (regardless of what has gone on before) further anti-KJB communications do not follow 2 Cor. 13:11 (in any translation).
For those of you who have hurts and pains from KJB advocates, my heart goes out to you as well. I know full well what religious persecution feels like.
If you guys continue to discuss this matter, I can think of one person to control the chatter and that is John of Japan with his repect and adherence to debate rules of order.
Furthermore, I think this thread should be locked and new discussions begun again with the rules of order (and decorum) spelled out at the beginning and anyone violating such rules be warned and, if persisting, banned from this wonderful board.
. . .
I am going to order my 1611 coin and read my KJB (along with the NRSV and NIV 1984). I am moving on.
Please take the matter to the Lord in prayer and do as he leads you to do.
...Bob
Last edited by a moderator:
Disagreeing with the man-made KJV-only view is not being anti-KJV. Those that want to read the KJV and those who love the KJV are not being persecuted. I love and respect the KJV for what it actually is--a translation of the Scriptures in the same manner and sense that the 1560 Geneva Bible is and the NKJV is.
Those who advocate a KJV-only view are the ones that close their minds. Believers that disagree with a KJV-only view are very open to the truth.
Those who advocate a KJV-only view are the ones that close their minds. Believers that disagree with a KJV-only view are very open to the truth.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
True, but there do seem to be an increasing number of threads whose only purpose is to be critical of the translation and to try to provoke those who love it, including those of us who are not KJVO.
NaasPreacher (C4K)
Well-Known Member
It is beautiful. You will not regret it. Mine is for Christmas so I only got a brief glimpse of it
I don't see a rash of KJV bashing. That said, there are always one or two around here who refuse to do anything but bog this thread down in the mire, be it KJVO mire, or anti this or that version kinda mire.
Just the other day I was thinking how it was nice that there seemed to be a lack of vitriol between the KJVOs and the MVPs. I guess I spoiled it
Just the other day I was thinking how it was nice that there seemed to be a lack of vitriol between the KJVOs and the MVPs. I guess I spoiled it
AntennaFarmer
Member
I don't have any problems with my KJV. Perhaps Rippon's copy has some printer errors.
Robert Snow
New Member
Maybe if these brethren would read Romans 14 in any version they like, they will see the problem with continuing to bait those who disagree into an argument.
I was saved in a KJVO church and didn't know better for several years. I finally came to what I consider the truth, which is that the KJV is a good translation but not the only one. However, this did not happen because someone berated be about it.
- Status