Seriously, why the KJV?

[Eternally Grateful]

Can you read the Greek NT?

Why would I have to?

Why do we have an english dictionary? Does the fact we can read english mean we can understand it?

 

[JD731]

Do you in effect contradict yourself since according to your KJV-only reasoning you blindly trust the doctrinally-unsound Greek scholars who made the KJV by use of multiple, textually-varying sources including the Latin Vulgate of Jerome?

The KJV translators did not follow 100% any one of the twenty to thirty textually-varying printed Textus Receptus editions available to them as they inconsistently picked and chose from more than one edition and sometimes chose to follow the Latin Vulgate instead of any of their printed Greek TR editions.

You cannot answer these questions I asked because you can speak Greek or because you have a Greek lexicon.You may have never even noticed that there is a difference in how believers received the Holy Ghost in the apostolic era of the beginning of the NT church. I have never read your bible, but I am assuming it is the Geneva Bibles since you have titled yourself after it. It may not have these differences in it, and if that is the case it is certainly understandable that you do not understand the questions I asked.

My KJV texts provokes me to ask these questions and through careful study and by believing the words, I am able to get the answers to my questions. Sometimes it takes time for God to enlighten my mind to these truths.

I am not so dense that I do not realize that the new translations may read differently from my KJV, and if so, it is understandable that one man on here has called me a brainwashed fool for even bringing the subject up. By this response I can only surmise that his Bible does not have these differences in them. I will need to apologize to him for being presumptuous.

So, can you learn the answers from your Geneva or must you go back to the Greek for the answers?

The true scriptures of God are written in such a way, and information is included in them, that is designed by God to provoke us to ask questions of a text in order to learn the mind of God. I asked the text why there is no mention of this man in Acts 8:37 receiving the Spirit since all instances of the preaching so far in Acts has emphasized that very thing. I am asking why he is believing that Jesus Christ is the son of God but makes no mention that he is trusting in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ for his salvation.

I have already asked Acts 8 why it is that this same Phillip showed up in Samaria to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them, and when they believed the gospel that he preached to them, they were baptized in water but did not receive the Holy Ghost until the apostles, Peter and John, came down from Jerusalem and laid hands on them and at that time they received the Holy Ghost. I asked the text why is it that Phillip did not do this for them.

Later, when I read Acts 10 I noted that the reluctant Peter was sent by God himself to gentiles to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ to them and they received the Holy Ghost at the moment they believed, and without a water baptism or the laying on of hands. I know that was different than those who previously received the Holy Ghost. I am going to ask the text why is this? I am not content to let this lay. I need to know this. There are differences.

I do not think it makes any sense to ask the Greek scholars and the Greek speakers why this is true. They would have the same information and thus the same questions that I have. Why would they be able to answer these questions better than me, who has a faithful copy of the word of God in the language I speak every day?

Then I learn the Greek speakers have several different families of manuscripts from which to choose. Never mind that they say different things, but it makes me wonder how I can trust four different kinds of manuscripts for an authority on any text. Greek scholars don't agree which is really from God. It makes me wonder why I should trust Greek scholars who obviously have never asked the right questions and therefore certainly do not have the right answers.

Can you answer any of these questions? Have you ever asked any of them?

 

[Logos1560]

You Reformed fellows are the meanest men on the planet. Your religion is doing nothing for you but making you obnoxious.

I am not sure your opinion is correct.

Many KJV-only advocates seem to be more obnoxious and arrogant than Calvinists such as the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were. Your KJV-onlyism does not seem to be doing anything good for you.

 

[JD731]

Why would I have to?

Why do we have an english dictionary? Does the fact we can read english mean we can understand it?

What good is a dictionary if the words are different in all the English translations?

 

[Logos1560]

I have never read your bible, but I am assuming it is the Geneva Bibles since you have titled yourself after it.

I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years. Are you seriously saying that you have never read the KJV?

In addition, the last twenty years or more I have also read the Geneva Bible and the NKJV. You should read the Geneva Bible since it is one of the main sources used in the making of the KJV. The 1560 Geneva Bible was the widely-read, accepted, loved, believed, and preached English translation for 60 to 100 years. Some of the KJV translators continued to preach from the Geneva Bible after 1611.

 

[JD731]

I am not sure your opinion is correct.

Many KJV-only advocates seem to be more obnoxious and arrogant than Calvinists such as the majority of the Church of England makers of the KJV were. Your KJV-onlyism does not seem to be doing anything good for you.

Well, I have never asked you to receive the KJV as your own. Many Baptists of whatever stripe are claiming the Greek NT is the sole authority for the church and few of them can read the first word. This defies logic.

 

[JD731]

I have read and studied the KJV over 50 years. Are you seriously saying that you have never read the KJV?

In addition, the last twenty years or more I have also read the Geneva Bible and the NKJV. You should read the Geneva Bible since it is one of the main sources used in the making of the KJV. The 1560 Geneva Bible was the widely-read, accepted, loved, believed, and preached English translation for 60 to 100 years. Some of the KJV translators continued to preach from the Geneva Bible after 1611.

You don't seem to know but very little about it.

 

[Eternally Grateful]

What good is a dictionary if the words are different in all the English translations?

What good is an english translation if it inadequately interprets the greek?

 

[Eternally Grateful]

Well, I have never asked you to receive the KJV as your own. Many Baptists of whatever stripe are claiming the Greek NT is the sole authority for the church and few of them can read the first word. This defies logic.

Thats funny As most baptists I know are KJV people.

 

[Logos1560]

Many Baptists of whatever stripe are claiming the Greek NT is the sole authority for the church

You provide no direct quotations where that is what they are claiming.

More likely, in agreement with the KJV translators they would say that the preserved Scriptures in the original languages are the proper standard and greater authority for the making and trying of all Bible translations. They may say that the Greek NT has greater authority than any English translation of it, but that is not saying that English translations do not have derived or acquired authority from their underlying texts.

Your human KJV-only reasoning defies sound logic.

 

[Dave G]

Omissions and contradictions in Bible translations

Very informative.

The table presented shows but a sampling of the many things that the Lord God has stated ( as well as things that were included by past translators, like italics for continuity, but were not part of the Greek ) in most of the older ones, but are left out of ( or changed in ) most of the newer English translations.

Thank you for the link.

 

[Reformed1689]

Why would I have to?

Why do we have an english dictionary? Does the fact we can read english mean we can understand it?

Because, in case you did not know, the Bible was not written in English.

 

[Logos1560]

Here are some examples where the KJV may leave out an original-language word of Scripture or may give a non-literal rendering.

Isaiah 5:24 [1611 margin—“Hebr. the tongue of fire”]

as the flame of fire [1560 Geneva Bible]
as the fire [1611 KJV]
as a tongue of fire [YLT] [LSV]
as the tongue of fire [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Isaiah 19:8

nets upon the waters [1611 KJV]
nets on the face of the waters [YLT]
nets on the surface of the waters [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
dragnets on the face of the waters [LSV]


Isaiah 20:2 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Isaiah”]

by the hand of Isaiah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Esay [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Isaiah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Isaiah [YLT] [LSV]


Isaiah 21:15 [1611 margin—“Heb. from the face”]

from the drawn sword [1611 KJV]
From the face of the stretched-out sword [YLT]
From the face of an outstretched sword [LSV]


Isaiah 26:4 [1611 margin—“Heb. the rock of ages”]

everlasting strength [1611 KJV]
a rock of ages [YLT] [LSV]


Isaiah 37:24 [1611 margin—“Heb. By the hand of thy servants”]

By thy servants [1611 KJV]
By the hand of thy servants [YLT]
By the hand of your servants [LSV]


Isaiah 40:2 [1611 margin—“Heb. to the heart”]

Comfort Hierusalem at the heart [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem [1611 KJV]
Speak to the heart of Jerusalem [YLT] [LSV]
Speak lovingly to the heart of Jerusalem [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Isaiah 46:2 [1611 margin—“Hebr. their soul”]

their soul [1560 Geneva Bible]
themselves [1611 KJV]
their soul [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


Jeremiah 14:1 [1611 margin—“Heb. the words of the dearths or restraints”]

concerning the dearth [1611 KJV]
concerning the matter of the dearths [YLT]
concerning the matter of droughts [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
concerning the matter of the scarcities [LSV]


Jeremiah 18:4 [1611 margin—“Hebr. returned and made”]

he returned and made it [1560 Geneva Bible]
he began anew, and made [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
he made it again [1611 KJV]
he hath turned and he maketh it [YLT]
returning, he made it [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
he has turned and he makes [LSV]


Jeremiah 25:38 [1611 margin—“Heb. a desolation”]

their land is desolate [1611 KJV]
their land hath become a desolation [YLT]
their land is a waste [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
their land has become a desolation [LSV]


Jeremiah 32:10 [1611 margin—"Heb. wrote in a book”]

And I writ it in the book [1560 Geneva Bible]
And I subscribed the evidence [1611 KJV]
And I write in a book [YLT]
And I write it in the document [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
And I write in a scroll [LSV]


Jeremiah 50:1 [1611 margin—“Hebr. by the hand of Jeremiah”]

by the ministry of Jeremiah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by Jeremiah [1611 KJV]
by the hand of Jeremiah [YLT] [LSV]

 

[atpollard]

Seriously, why the KJV?

1. In the US, it is out of copyright, allowing it to be printed, copied and quoted without the need for any permission or paying any royalties to copyright holders. That is a distinct financial advantage to some to use that translation over another.
2. Until the emergence of the movement for more “modern” translations in the 19th Century, the KJV enjoyed several hundred years of preeminence. That longevity allowed time for it to be disseminated and to become popular as the vernacular English “Bible” at a time when many homes had few books.
3. As a translation, the KJV has a number of specific strengths that are laudable and contribute to its ongoing usefulness. One being the deliberate attempt to compose a translation that was effective when read aloud in public … to serve the needs of the Church of England. This is still a useful goal and function of any translation. The KJV also distinguishes between “you” and “you all” (singular and plural) in a manner lost to modern English grammar, which can be useful.

These are among the factors that combine to sustain the popularity of the KJV translation in a way that other archaic translations have not enjoyed.

 

[JD731]

Here are some examples where the KJV may leave out an original-language word of Scripture or may give a non-literal rendering.

Isaiah 5:24 [1611 margin—“Hebr. the tongue of fire”]

as the flame of fire [1560 Geneva Bible]
as the fire [1611 KJV]
as a tongue of fire [YLT] [LSV]
as the tongue of fire [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]


]

Have you been paying attention? I have spoken with a Greek scholar on this board about what Acts 2:38 says, and he does not believe it, he said. What does it matter what words are in the text to not believe?

You don't believe them either. You guys are driven by religious opinions of others, not by words in the text. I am proving that day after day.

 

[Logos1560]

. You guys are driven by religious opinions of others, not by words in the text. I am proving that day after day.

You are not proving what you claim. You try improperly to put words in the mouths of others that they do not state. You may be proving the opposite of what you assert. Perhaps you are merely proving that you do not believe all the words in the English text of the KJV since those words do not state your KJV-only opinions for the KJV.
The Scriptures as translated in the KJV do not assert that the word of God is bound to the human textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611.

You do not pay attention to the truth that the KJV does not provide an English rendering for every original-language word of Scriptures that God gave to the prophets and apostles.

KJV-only advocates such as you follow the non-scriptural religious opinions of you yourself or of others since you have no commands from God for your exclusive only claims for the KJV.

I choose to believe the words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles instead of your opinions.

 

[Logos1560]

You don't believe them either.

Your throwing out this accusation does not make it true.

Do you try to suggest or even assert that your personal understandings and interpretations of Scripture cannot be possibly wrong so that anyone disagreeing with your interpretations are not believing the words of Scripture?

Your private KJV-only interpretations can be wrong.

 

[JD731]

I choose to believe the words that God gave by inspiration to the prophets and apostles instead of your opinions.

It might work for you if there were only one original language manuscript and everyone agreed it was actually the word of God, but that is not happening. People are no more likely to understand the scriptures and believe the words in original languages than in a faithful translation. This truth has been demonstrated here.

As far as I know, no one has targeted Acts 2:38 as being a bad translation in the KJV and yet the men who know the Greek language says there are not conditions for receiving the Holy Ghost, who has just been poured out by God from heaven as his act of keeping his promise to the Jews. [Ac 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me].

Now, here is what Acts 2:38 says.

Ac 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The gift of the Holy Ghost has been poured out on Israel and each one must personally receive him on the condition of repentance and baptism. That is what the text says.

There is no logical reason to not believe this verse. Receiving the Holy Ghost by faith into ones body is how they are born again.

Most men do not believe it whether they read it in English or Greek. They do not believe it because they do not have light on the text from the Holy Ghost. He will not give light until one decides to believe it.

These instructions in this transition time is to Israel only.

Ro 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Ac 3:25 Ye are the children of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with our fathers, saying unto Abraham, And in thy seed shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed.
26 Unto you first God, having raised up his Son Jesus, sent him to bless you, in turning away every one of you from his iniquities.

Over time and after Israel had refused the promise and this family call to repentance and faith, God dealt with the world under the principle of grace alone and gave the Spirit to all who will believe the gospel of Jesus Christ by faith only. Following is proof of that.

Ac 10:43 To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45 And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Baptism in water is not a condition for receiving the Holy Ghost in the above verses.

And so it is for everyone now.

One must believe the words he reads and understand context, whether you read in Greek or English. You must have light from God.

I do not think that is happening.

 

[37818]

The gift of the Holy Ghost has been poured out on Israel and each one must personally receive him on the condition of repentance and baptism. That is what the text says.

It teaches no such thing. Mistranslated such as was done in the 1978 NIV.

 

[JD731]

It teaches no such thing. Mistranslated such as was done in the 1978 NIV.

Will you please correct it and show us how the KJV should have been presented in Acts 2:38?