The KJV’s respect for God’s Words

[stilllearning]

Hello Rippon

You asked an interesting question........

“How accurate?”

Well that all depends upon what a person thinks of God.
(Is the LORD, capable of arranging for an accurate translation to be made?)

My answer is “YES”!
--------------------------------------------------
Now you have asked “how accurate”?

If a Christian’s response to this question is anything short of 100%, then they have a problem.
(If they believe that 1% of the Bible can’t be trusted, which 1% is it?!?!?!?!)

 

[Trotter]

I trust my bibleS 100%. No, they don't all use the exact same wordings, but they are all 100% God's holy word. And, yes, that includes the KJV.

No bible will get everything perfect because it is impossible to translate another language straight across into a different language. Whether or not the KJV is consistent with the italicized words is not really an issue unless those words change the original meaning and intent. All translations that are carried out with the aim to faithfully convey God's word will be respectful of those words. The KJV, or any other translation, does not have a corner on that market.

 

[Rippon]

You asked an interesting question........

And my question was: How accurate is the KJV compared with most modern English versions?


My second question which you have not answered is :What does the word accurate mean as applied to Bible versions?

 

[Mexdeaf]

And my question was: How accurate is the KJV compared with most modern English versions?


My second question which you have not answered is :What does the word accurate mean as applied to Bible versions?

Or perhaps your second question might be better stated, "What is the standard by which we determine accuracy?"

 

[Baptist4life]

You'll have to define what you think true versions are. Or, if that's too tough, then just list some false versions.

Not "false" so much as not very "accurate". Of course that's my opinion.


New World Translation

The Message

The Good News Bible, etc.

 

[Mexdeaf]

Not "false" so much as not very "accurate". Of course that's my opinion.


New World Translation

The Message

The Good News Bible, etc.

But now I wonder- is a paraphrase (Message, GNB) really a "Bible"? How should we define the word "Bible"?

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Rippon

Sorry I missed your main question........

“And my question was: How accurate is the KJV compared with most modern English versions?”

Well, I can’t nail down a %, but it is definitely more accurate.

As you put it, “most modern English versions”(those published in about the last 100 years or so), are less accurate, because they have been influenced by the door that was opened in the 1890's.

The door that I am talking about is, the idea that the accurate copies of the original autographs of the Bible, should no longer be considered “inspired”.

i.e. Only the original writings of the Apostles, were inspired.
(And they have all be destroyed!)
--------------------------------------------------
This teaching, has removed the inspiration from the Bible:
By convincing most of God’s people, that the Bible should be treated like just another book.

And this is a crying shame.

 

[Johnv]

Well, I can’t nail down a %, but it is definitely more accurate.

Based on nothing objectively, I see.

As you put it, “most modern English versions”(those published in about the last 100 years or so), are less accurate, because they have been influenced by the door that was opened in the 1890's.

The door that I am talking about is, the idea that the accurate copies of the original autographs of the Bible, should no longer be considered “inspired”.

This door appears to be an invention of yoru own making, to justify the articial position that the KJV is superior to all translations non-kjv.

And this is a crying shame.

It's a crying shame that you're making stuff up to support a KJV position.

 

[Forever settled in heaven]

One feature of the KJV, is it’s italicized words:
(When it adds even one word to the Bible, it lets us know about it.)
--------------------------------------------------

hmm, i wonder whose standard this is ... man's or God's?

in my Bible, Jesus n the Apostles didn't seem to use italics or square brackets when adding words to the OT quotes. so why this obsession?

plus, which is better, to not claim to put added words in italics or brackets, or to claim to do so and then use italics/brackets randomly (as in the KJB)--sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't?

:godisgood:

 

[mcdirector]

John 18:4-6 (KJV, biblestudytools.com edition)

4 Jesus therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth , and said unto them, Whom seek ye ? 5 They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. 6 As soon then as he had said unto them , I am he, they went backward , and fell to the ground.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/kjv/

As can be seen, this KJV does NOT have "[he]" but has "he".

Which version of the KJV are you using?

I'm wondering why this question which would have been easy enough to answer was not answered with anything other than an off-the-cuff remark. There are several of them out there and it would have helped discussion - if discussion was really then desired result.

 

[stilllearning]

Hi Forever settled in heaven

You asked.......

“......so why this obsession?”

I am obsessed with God’s Word; Because I invest a lot of time in studying it, and I am basing my life and eternity on what it has to say.

So therefore I think it is important, to know when someone has added a word or two, to it, and the process of italicizing these words, lets me know that.

 

[stilllearning]

Hello mcdirector

You asked........

“I'm wondering why this question which would have been easy enough to answer was not answered with anything other than an off-the-cuff remark. There are several of them out there and it would have helped discussion - if discussion was really then desired result.”

The question at that you are referring to, is why do some Bible publishers, put “King James Version”, on their Bible’s, when that Bible isn’t EXACTLY LIKE, every other KJV Bible?

Now I am not talking about the differences between the 1611 and the 1769 version.

I am talking about, not respecting God’s Word enough, to include these important details, like that of the italicized words.
--------------------------------------------------
Although these details are VERY IMPORTANT to me, it is clear that they are not important to some on this board, and that is one of the points of this thread.

Undoubtedly, anybody can be a Bible publisher, and they can do anything they want to, with God’s Holy Word.

All we can do, is refuse to buy or use, Bible’s that have been tweaked.

My short response to this question: “Not yours”, demonstrates my personal commitment to issue.

 

[Mexdeaf]

ALL Bible translations have been "tweaked"- even the KJV. And as has been pointed out the italics are not used uniformly throughout nor between KJV revisions.

 

[Robert Snow]

You'll have to define what you think true versions are. Or, if that's too tough, then just list some false versions.

Why do you needle this poster over bible versions? They are entitled to their opinion without being given the third-degree!

Do you just love to stir up arguments or strife among the brethren?

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

All we can do, is refuse to buy or use, Bible’s that have been tweaked.

Tweaked from what exactly?

 

[robycop3]

Hi Forever settled in heaven

You asked.......


I am obsessed with God’s Word; Because I invest a lot of time in studying it, and I am basing my life and eternity on what it has to say.

So therefore I think it is important, to know when someone has added a word or two, to it, and the process of italicizing these words, lets me know that.

Remember, there are many, MANY Hebrew words/phrases that do NOT translate readily into English, and many, MANY Greek or hebrew words/phrases with multiple correct English meanings. Without any help from the context, the translator must make his best guess as to which is the most-correct English meaning.
Also, the exact translation of several Hebrew words is unknown, such as "re'em", which the older versions render as "unicorn". Now, WE know there are no unicorns, but those translators of 400-500 years ago did NOT know that, so that's the word they chose.

Knowing that a multiplicity of correct translations for many, many Greek or Hebrew words/phrases is possible, I do NOT limit myself to just one version. I believe GOD has several versions available for us to use to broaden the understanding of His word, to give the HOLY SPIRIT more to work with as He teaches us.

 

[Logos1560]

Here are examples of some of the inconsistencies in the use of italics in most KJV editions except for the 1873 Cambridge KJV edition edited by Scrivener. A couple American publishers Zondervan and Hendrickson have published KJV editions based on the 1873 Cambridge edition. In two of the examples [Prov. 9:8 and Isa. 29:8], some other earlier KJV editions also had the use of italics correct.

Deuteronomy 21:3 [same as Deut. 21:6 where man is in italics]
the slain man [1873 Cambridge] (2000 ZOND) (2008 HEND)
the slain man (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, SSB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1769 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB]

Psalm 12:1
the godly man [1873 Cambridge] (2000 ZOND) (2008 HEND)
the godly man (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford) [1769 Cambridge, DKJB]

Proverbs 9:8 [see also wise man at Prov. 9:9]
wise man (1715, 1754, 1758, 1768, 1774, 1777 Oxford) [1638, 1768, 1873 Cambridge] {1760, 1763 London} (1782 American) (2000 ZOND) (2008 HEND)
wise man (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1769 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] (KJRLB)

Isaiah 29:8 [compare hungry man in this same verse]
thirsty man (1715, 1754, 1758, 1768, 1774, 1777, 1804 Oxford) [1638, 1768, 1817, 1873 Cambridge] {1760, 1763 London} (1793 Edinburgh) (1782 American) (1816 Albany) (1843, 1853 ABS) (1846 Portland) (2000 ZOND) (2008 HEND)
thirsty man (1769 Oxford, SRB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1769 Cambridge, CSTE, DKJB] (KJRLB)

Luke 17:27 [same as Luke 17:29 where them is in italics]
them all [1873 Cambridge] (2000 ZOND) (2008 HEND)
them all (SRB Oxford, SSB Oxford, Oxford Classic, NPB Oxford) [1769 Cambridge]

 

[Rippon]

Or perhaps your second question might be better stated, "What is the standard by which we determine accuracy?"

You're right.

 

[franklinmonroe]

One feature of the KJV, is it’s italicized words:
(When it adds even one word to the Bible, it lets us know about it.) ...

From your above statement it seems that you must believe that "it" (referring back to the KJV) is not precisely the same thing as "the Bible". Apparently, you believe the genuine 'Bible' is actually found in it's original languages.

If the KJV is not 'The Bible' then we hardly need to be concerned if the translators added a few words. However, if the KJV were 'The Bible' then we must be very concerned if words were added.

How did you determine that the KJV does not add "even one word"? Did you find a direct correspondence between all the individual words in the original language texts and the total number of words in the KJV text? If every word is important, shouldn't the counts match? You are suggesting that literal words are translated and not just their concepts or ideas, right?

 

[wfdfiremedic]

The HCSB also brackets their "additional" words, along with the NASB using italics. In addition, the NASB will bracket text not considered part of their underlying Greek text, but still important for readers. The HCSB also does this.