Problems In The KJV

[Winman]

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.

So, you're picking up on this are you?

I haven't participated in Bible Versions/Translations for awhile. It was a good decision. If all of us evil "KJBOs" stop posting, others like you will notice the malevolent, venemous, non-stop hatred of the KJB shown here. It has nothing to do with being KJBO. Even when folks like me stop posting here, some continue to attack it.

Look at the title of this thread, is it attacking KJBOs, or is it attacking the KJB?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

So, you're picking up on this are you?

I haven't participated in Bible Versions/Translations for awhile. It was a good decision. If all of us evil "KJBOs" stop posting, others like you will notice the malevolent, venemous, non-stop hatred of the KJB shown here. It has nothing to do with being KJBO. Even when folks like me stop posting here, some continue to attack it.

Look at the title of this thread, is it attacking KJBOs, or is it attacking the KJB?

Your non-posting had nothing to do with my 'noticing' anything. Many hyper KJVO members severly misjudge my moderating due to their own preconceived bias. A careful examination of my posts and moderating will reveal that I have always defended the KJV from unprovoked attack.

 

[Robert Snow]

So, you're picking up on this are you?

I haven't participated in Bible Versions/Translations for awhile. It was a good decision. If all of us evil "KJBOs" stop posting, others like you will notice the malevolent, venemous, non-stop hatred of the KJB shown here. It has nothing to do with being KJBO. Even when folks like me stop posting here, some continue to attack it.

Look at the title of this thread, is it attacking KJBOs, or is it attacking the KJB?

Bro. I suggest you read C4K's post again. I believe you must have misunderstood. I think he was talking to those posters who will not let those who revere the KJV alone. I don't think it was an attack on KJV lovers.

 

[Rippon]

I borrowed these snips from James White's updated book :The King James Only Controversy.

He used other versions to contrast the inaccuracies in the KJV.I'll cite the NLTse. It is generally more accurate than the KJV.

K =KJV ; N = NLTse

1 Sam. 27:10
K : Whither have ye made a road to day?
N : Where did you make your raid today?

"...the KJV has Achish saying to David,'Whither have ye made a road to day? And David said,Against the south of Judah.' David was not a construction worker,and the NASB gets the wording right with 'Where have you made a raid today?' " (p.294)

1 Cor. 10:24
K : Let no man seek his own, but every man another's wealth
N : Don't be concerned for your own good but for the good of others

"In 1 Corthians 10:24,Paul seems to encourage looking after other people's money:'Let no man seek his own,but every man another's wealth.' But he is not exhorting us to get involved in handling investments;instead,'let no one seek his own good,but that of his neighbor'(NASB) (p.294)

1 Thess. 5:14
K : comfort the feebleminded
N : Encourage those who are timid.

"And one cannot help smiling at the KJV rendering of 1 Thessalonians 5:14;'Now we exhort you,brethren,warn them that are unruly,comfort the feebleminded,support the weak,be patient toward all men.' The term translated feebleminded has nothing to do with a weakness of the mind but refers to the discouraged or 'fainthearted.' By far the better rendering is 'encourage the fainthearted' (RSV). (294,295)

 

[Jim1999]

The KJV was adequate enough in the days when we fought against modernism and the RSV. I would dare to say that 100% of us used the KJV. We didn't trouble about simple things like "wales" instead of a "huge fish", or the reversed meaning of words because of time and early English.

Matter of fact, I will match my theology with any modernite, and ALL my studies were done from the KJV.

I think many of these arguments are muchado about nothing.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

I borrowed these snips from James White's updated book :The King James Only Controversy.

He used other versions to contrast the inaccuracies in the KJV.I'll cite the NLTse. It is generally more accurate than the KJV.

K =KJV ; N = NLTse

Col. 2:14
K : nailing it to his cross
N : nailing it to the cross

"Here the KJV has 'his cross,' while the NASB (and NIV,RSV,ESV,etc.) have 'the cross.' In this case the modern versions are giving the more literal rendering,seemingly finding no reason in the text itself to translate the Greek article the with the possessive pronoun his. There are many places in the New Tesament where the article does function possessively,so the KJV rendering is proper,but it is not as literal as some others. There is,of course,no effort being made to hide the identity of the cross or in any way separate Christ from His work at Calvary." (186,187)

1 Peter 2:9
K : a peculiar people
N : God's very own possession

Dr. White notes that the Greek word the revisers used in this pasage means 'possession' --and they used the very same Greek word in that fashion at Ephesians 1:14.(187)

Titus 1:8
K : a lover of good men
N : love what is good
[Wm.Tyndale :"one that loveth goodness."]

2 Timothy 3:3 : KJV: Despisers of those that are good,
NKJ : despisers of good,

'In both 2 Timothy 3:3 and Titus 1:8 the KJV is a little more interpretive than the modern versions. The texts are better understood as referring to the general concept of 'good' being despised or loved. The KJV limits this to good men, though the term men is nowhere in the Greek text but is assumed from the form of the Greek term." (189,190)

 

[Rippon]

Jack P. Lewis wrote:The English Bible/From KJV to NIV A History and Evaluation.

He says on pages 61,62 that "...any failure to present the Word of God accurately,completely,and clearly in a translation is a doctrinal problem. The matters that we have surveyed in this chapter all affect the teaching the reader is to receive from his Bible. It iss naive to declare that they have no doctrinal significance."

 

[Rippon]

Mr. Jack P. Lewis whom I just quoted has some weighty words on pages 67and 68.

"Our survey has shown that those who feel they can escape the problem of translations by retreating into the citadel of the KJV have a zeal that is not in accord with knowledge...The need for new translations lies in the inadequacies of the KJV...there are no valid reasons for one to insist fanatically that everyone should read only the KJV;to declare that it is a mark of othodoxy to use the KJV as a standard,consulting other translations only for comparisons; and to look with suspicion on the person who calls attention to the shortcomings of the KJV or who has other preferences in his reading.
Were the KJV the form in which God first gave the Bible there would be jusification for the insistence that everyone must learn its brand of English in order to learn the will of God. But it is not the original Bible. The translators worked neither by inspiration nor with special divine approval. There is no valid reason why God's Word should be frozen in seventeenth-century [actually 16th century] English by those who have educated themselves to understand it while men perish for want of understanding. The King James Preface asks, 'How shall men mediate on that which they do not understand?' Progress has been made since 1611. It is now possible to have a more accurate and a more readable translation than the KJV."

 

[Luke2427]

So, you're picking up on this are you?

I haven't participated in Bible Versions/Translations for awhile. It was a good decision. If all of us evil "KJBOs" stop posting, others like you will notice the malevolent, venemous, non-stop hatred of the KJB shown here. It has nothing to do with being KJBO. Even when folks like me stop posting here, some continue to attack it.

Look at the title of this thread, is it attacking KJBOs, or is it attacking the KJB?

I love the KJV. It is my favorite version.

But it seems to me that what this thread set out to do was not ATTACK the KJV but critique it. There is a big difference.

But the way you believe, if I recall, you do not even allow for that because you believe the KJV is the infallible word of God. This is problematic.

It is interesting to me that you adore this version so much and despise the vast majority of the ones who gave it to us- they were BY AND LARGE CALVINISTS, you know?

They were Anglicans and Puritans. Anglicans had by this time adopted their Thirty Nine Articles which were plainly Calvinistic and Puritans were, of course, Calvinists.

Your adoration and veneration of the KJV and hatred of Calvinism is quite a contradiction, is it not?

 

[Logos1560]

But it seems to me that what this thread set out to do was not ATTACK the KJV but critique it. There is a big difference.

Lovers of the KJV and even KJV-only advocates seem to have no problem with the fact that the KJV translators themselves in effect tried or evaluated [critiqued] the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision by comparing them to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. In order to accomplish their goal of trying to improve or make the pre-1611 English Bibles better, the KJV translators clearly and obviously had to evaluate and judge whether or not renderings in the pre-1611 English Bibles were accurate or the best. Did not the processes involved in the making of the KJV involve the same matters that concern any evaluating of the KJV? Later editors of the KJV have in effect evaluated or critiqued earlier editions of the KJV before they made their changes.

Where does the Bible teach that exclusive priviledges should be granted to the Church of England translators of the KJV that are condemned or attacked if supposedly attempted by believers in the 1800's or today?

 

[Baptist4life]

Well, coming back to this thread after a couple days, I thought "maybe" Rippon would take the hint. Guess not.


Some people have entirely too much time on their hands, and some people go on and on, even when it's apparent other people are tired of it.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

I just don't know how profitable it is to have thread after thread pointing out perceived errors in every translation.

 

[Jim1999]

Indeed, get on with the actual teaching of the word for the benefit of all.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Rippon]

I just don't know how profitable it is to have thread after thread pointing out perceived errors in every translation.

So you think there are no actual errors in the KJV only perceived ones?!

 

[annsni]

So you think there are no actual errors in the KJV only perceived ones?!

There are some errors but some of what you point out are not errors since the translation was correct in the vernacular of the time. But the language changed and things no longer always mean what they once meant. But that doesn't make them "errors". Errors would be seeing the original language and translating the term wrong for the intended audience.

 

[Rippon]

William Tyndale got it right in places where the KJV revisers chose their own rendering.

T =Tyndale
K = KJV

Matthew 17:25
T : Jesus spake first to him (NIV: Jesus was the first to speak)
K : Jesus prevented him.



Matthew 23:24
T: You strain out a gnat (same as NIV)
K : strain at a gnat
[I know some of you will say that I'm doing some gnat-straining myself

Matthew 26:27
T : Drink of it every one (NIV Drink from it,all of you.)
K : Drink ye all of it

Mark 6:20
T : straightway (NIV :Right now)
KJV : by and by
[The same goes for Luke 17:7 with both translations)

Acts 21:15
T : We made ourselves ready. (NIV : We got ready)
K : We took up our carriages.

1 Corinthians 13
T : love (most modern translations)
K : charity

2 Peter 1:1
T : of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (same as NIV and MV's)
K : of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ

 

[Rippon]

There are some errors but some of what you point out are not errors since the translation was correct in the vernacular of the time. But the language changed and things no longer always mean what they once meant. But that doesn't make them "errors". Errors would be seeing the original language and translating the term wrong for the intended audience.

Then you haven't looked too closely at my examples.

 

[annsni]

Then you haven't looked too closely at my examples.

Oh, I have. :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Jerome]

Annsni is of course correct:

Mr. White: The KJB used road, not raid !!!!!

Online etymological dictionary:

road
O.E. rad "riding, hostile incursion," from P.Gmc. *ridanan, source of O.E. ridan (see ride). Also related to raid. In M.E., "a riding, a journey;" sense of "open way for traveling between two places" is first recorded 1590s.

raid
early 15c., "military expedition on horseback," Scottish and northern English form of rade "a riding, journey," from O.E. rad "a riding" (see road). The word died out by 17c., but was revived by Scott, 1805 ("The Lay of the Last Minstrel") and 1818 ("Rob Roy"), with extended sense of "attack, foray."

 

[Baptist4life]

So you think there are no actual errors in the KJV only perceived ones?!

Rippon, what I think is that people are getting tired of your endless posts on this! Can you not read the replies on this thread? :BangHead: