The KJV Update Project

[Conan]

Actually they were God's words and he did not speak Greek words to me and I am sure they are translated exactly as God wanted them. I often look at the source word from Strong's. I do not approach my Bible in unbelief or doubt.

I do not believe a man needs a Bible of any kind to be saved from the penalty of sin, which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire. The church of Jesus Christ did not have a Bible when it was first formed. The first book was written in 45 AD. The gentiles began to be saved in 40 AD. No Bible of any kind around until much later..

All of the Old Testament, or Old Covenant was written by then. The Old Testament Scriptures was all the early Church had for a short while.

 

[Conan]

Galatians 2:19 For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God.

20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

21 I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.

Brother Glen

2:20 I am crucified with Christ. I live verely: yet now not I but Christ liveth in me. For the lyfe which I now live in the flesshe I live by the fayth of the sonne of God which loved me and gave him selne[self] for me.
2:21 I despyse not the grace of God. For if rightewesnes come of the lawe then Christ dyed in vayne

1534 Tyndale New Testament : William Tyndale : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[Logos1560]

Actually they were God's words and he did not speak Greek words to me and I am sure they are translated exactly as God wanted them.

Your being sure does not make your opinions true and scriptural.

If all the words in the 1611 edition of the KJV were translated exactly as God wanted them, why were over 2,000 revisions, changes, and corrections made to them in later KJV editions? Why were over 180 whole English words not found in the 1611 edition added to the KJV? If your statement was true, there should have been no errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Nahum 3:16 (Oxford) - Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and fleeth away.

Nahum 3:16 (Cambridge) - Thou hast multiplied thy merchants above the stars of heaven: the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away.

Which one is correct?

Many Cambridge KJV editions in the 1700's and 1800's had "fleeth away" at Nahum 3:16 while post-1900 Cambridge editions may follow the 1873 Cambridge with its rendering "flieth away."

Nahum 3:16 [flieth--1560 Geneva; fleeth--1568 & 1602 Bishops] [The locust plunders and flies away--NKJV]

the cankerworm spoileth, and flieth away (1675, 1679, 1681, 1709, 1715, 1737, 1747, 1754, 1758, 1762, 1765, 1768, 1784, 1795, 1968 Oxford, Oxford Classic, 1996 SSB, NPB) [1629, 1635, 1637, 1638, 1648, 1683, 1816, 1873, 1985, 2005, 2011 Cambridge, 1953 PM, CCR, CSTE, DKJB, 2011 PMR, 2011 Cameo, 2011 Transetto Text, 2011 Clarion] {1611, 1613, 1616, 1617, 1634, 1640, 1648, 1657, 1672, 1684, 1698, 1706, 1711, 1730, 1741, 1743, 1767, 1772, 1976 London} (1755 Oxon) (1638, 1735, 1756, 1760, 1764, 1766, 1769, 1789, 1791, 1793 Edinburgh) (1762, 1801 Dublin) (1746 Leipzig) (1774 Fortescu) (1776 Pasham) (1782 Aitken) (1790 MH) (1791 Collins) (1799 Helston) (1801 Hopkins) (1803 Etheridge) (1809, 1810, 1813, 1818, 1826 Boston) (1818, 1819, 1827, 1829, 1843, 1851 ABS) (1832 PSE) (1835 Scott) (1843 AFBS) (1846 Portland) (1845, 1876 Harding) (1848 Hartford) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (1952 Judson) (1956, 1957, 1958, 1975, 1999 Collins) (1966 SC) (1968 Royal) (1970, 1976 TN) (1972 NMRB) (1973, 1976 REG) (GPB) (1975 Open) (1976 OGH) (1976 TBR) (CSB) (1984 AMG) (1987, 1988 IBS) (LASB) (1990’s, 2010 LCBP) (1984, 1994, 2000, 2002, 2010 ZOND) (1991, 2012 FWP) (1996 ELKJV) (TLPSB) (DSB) (LPB) (VFC) (2003 IGC) (TPB) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (CNB) (2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2011p HEND) (NHPB) (2008, 2012 ROASB) (ASB) (TBS-WT) (2009 Ruckman) (2011 KJVDB) (2011 WB) (2012 Biblica) (HKJVSB) (NCE) (2013 HMB) (2013, 2014 TGS) (2014 HKJVSBps) (2014 RHKJVSB) (2018 Spurgeon) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

the cankerworm spoils, and flies away (2002, 2010 KJVER)

the cankerworm spoils, and flees away (2003 EB)

the cankerworm spoileth, and fleeth away (1769 Oxford, 1952 PE, SRB) [1743, 1747, 1756, 1760, 1761, 1762, 1763B, 1765, 1767, 1768, 1769, 1775, 1778, 1783, 1790, 1795, 1812, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1833, 1837, 1842, 1844, 1865, 1869, 1872, 1887 Cambridge] {1614, 1626, 1630, 1631, 1652, 1655, 1660, 1735, 1747, 1750, 1759, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1768, 1795, 1811, 1813, 1817, 1820, 1824, 1825, 1827, 1828, 1838, 1853, 1860, 1877, 1879 London} (1637, 1715, 1722, 1751, 1787, 1810, 1820, 1827, 1842, 1851, 1855, 1858 Edinburgh) (1860, 1866 Glasgow) (1782, 1809 Dublin) (1700 MP) (1776 Birmingham) (1777 Wood) (1790 Bolton) (1791 Thomas) (1804 Blomfield) (1804 Gower) (1807 Johnson) (1810 Woodward) (1813 Carey) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (1816 Collins) (1818 Holbrook) (1821, 1831 Brown) (1824, 1826 Bagster) (1826 Clarke) (1827 Smith) (1828 Boston) (1828 MH) (1835 Towar) (1836 Hartford) (1840 Roby) (1841 Thomas) (1846 Coldstream) (1853, 1854, 1855, 1858, 1868, 1888, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1956, 1957, 1963, 1968, 1970, 1971, 1984, 1988, 2004, 2008 ABS) (1854 Harding) (1856 AFBS) (1859 RTS) (1876 Porter) (1895, 1958, 1997 NPC) (1897 ABU) (1908, 1957, 1964, 2007 TCRB) (1910 Collins) (1923 NIB) (1940, 1979-1, 1979-2, 1996, 1998, 2000, 2010, 2013 Holman) (1942 UBBH) (1945, 1954, 1989, 1991, 1998 World) (1947 SP) (1948 WSE) (1959 Little) (1961, 1975, 1978, 2008 GID) (1961 NBP) (1973 WAP) (1974 MBI) (1975 CBP) (1976 BH) (KJRLB) (CB) (Nave’s) (CHSB) (RRB) (WMCRB) (RSB) (1972, 1987, 1989, 1991, 1994, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2022 TN) (1985, 2019 Open) (1987 Dugan) (1987 PSI) (1990 REG) (1991 AMG) (JVIPB) (2000 Rainbow) (MSB) (KJVCB) (2001, 2002, 2003, 2011, 2012, 2015, 2016 Barbour) (KJVJB) (Life) (2005 ICC) (2006 PP) (2007 SFCB) (2008 Pilot) (2009 Strand) (2010, 2015 Baker) (2010 BEAMS) (2010 BRO) (2011 AMP) (APB) (2011 PJB) (HMSB) (2012 F-S) (2012 WSB) (2013 CC) (2014 TSB) (2015 KJVFSB) (2015 KAPPA) (2017 KWSB)

 

[JD731]

All of the Old Testament, or Old Covenant was written by then. The Old Testament Scriptures was all the early Church had for a short while.

Saved gentile Christians, without any previous history or relationship with God, would probably be as confused in what to do and how to act as were the Corinthians when they met together in fellowship and worship. if they did not have an inspired Bible with the authority to instruct them, don't you think? The two Corinthian letters were the 4th and 5th letters of the 13 letters to the churches that Paul penned. It is interesting that only one letter had been written to the churches in Asia Minor although they had been first to be saved. They did have a history and relationship with God before the Christian dispensation. That was precisely the reason Galatians had to be Paul's first letter to the churches.

Churches without an anointed Bible are generally carnal and worldly where anything goes and are places to be avoided.

So, don't update my Bible, thank you.

 

[JD731]

Your being sure does not make your opinions true and scriptural.

If all the words in the 1611 edition of the KJV were translated exactly as God wanted them, why were over 2,000 revisions, changes, and corrections made to them in later KJV editions? Why were over 180 whole English words not found in the 1611 edition added to the KJV? If your statement was true, there should have been no errors in the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Your opinions have helped no one. See my post on this thread where I copied and pasted sharp division between people who believe what you believe. Your theology does not gender peace and harmony because there is no agreement on the past tense of Christian history. That is where you live. Men who wrote those quotes you constantly copy and paste were biased and some of them were liars and none of them were inspired. God transitioned his church away from those men and he left their Bibles with them and brought the KJV out of there. Those churches are still there. You can go there and see how they are doing.

 

[Logos1560]

Men who wrote those quotes you constantly copy and paste were biased and some of them were liars and none of them were inspired.

It is true that the makers of the KJV were not inspired. Are you suggesting that the makers of the KJV were liars?

The makers of the KJV in effect acknowledged that they were not inspired and that their translation could not be perfect.

My scripturally-based view is in agreement with the view of Bible translations held by the KJV translators.

Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

 

[Baptizo]

See my post on this thread where I copied and pasted sharp division between people who believe what you believe.

You seem like a nice guy but in my personal experience I’ve never encountered a more divisive group than KJV Onlyists. I used to be part of that crowd and my former pastor literally called James White a retard during a sermon. All because of this translation issue.

 

[Conan]

So, don't update my Bible, thank you.

The KJV is one of the most, actually the most updated Bible in English on this planet.

William Tyndale
Miles Coverdale
Great Bible
Matthew's Bible
Geneva Bible
Bishops Bible
Rheims NT
1611 KJV
Several updates afterwards.

 

[JD731]

It is true that the makers of the KJV were not inspired. Are you suggesting that the makers of the KJV were liars?

The makers of the KJV in effect acknowledged that they were not inspired and that their translation could not be perfect.

My scripturally-based view is in agreement with the view of Bible translations held by the KJV translators.

Miles Smith presented the view of the KJV translators as follows: "If truth be to be tried by these tongues [Hebrew and Greek], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore, we should say the Scriptures, in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues in which God was pleased to speak to his church by his prophets and apostles." In this preface, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.” Earlier on the third page of this preface, Miles Smith referred to “the original” as “being from heaven, not from earth.” Writing for all the translators, Miles Smith noted: “If anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” Miles Smith observed: “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the word translated, did no less then despite the Spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”

You do not get it. I personally do not believe the KJV translators are anyone special. They are no different from Matthew Mark Luke and John and all other penmen of the scriptures. None of them were inspired men. They were just men. I cannot name one single translator because I don't care what their names are. Jesus Christ himself while he was here on earth testified publicly that he spoke not a single word that was not given to him by the Father and you are going to have me believe that you have such a low view of the power of God to preserve his own testimony across languages that you applaud 150 efforts in 150 years to paraphrase his testimony and translate it with words you choose and hang the spiritual content of them as if you are better than Jesus Christ? I am not in fellowship with you or with your theology and philosophy.

I am going to cut and paste the words of Jesus Christ my Lord and Savior and what he says about them but I do not expect a single soul on this board to believe that the words in our Bible are the words of the Father whether they come out of the mouth of a man or they are recorded in writing as a record of what he said. The Father is God. He has power and incentive to preserve his words and his testimony.

Joh 12:44 Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me.
45 And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me.
46 I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.
47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
49 For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak.
50 And I know that his commandment is life everlasting: whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak.

 

[JD731]

You seem like a nice guy but in my personal experience I’ve never encountered a more divisive group than KJV Onlyists. I used to be part of that crowd and my former pastor literally called James White a retard during a sermon. All because of this translation issue.

You are of course kidding! Name the men who have been posting on this thread that you share theological harmony and agreement and with whom you speak the same thing. Remember, all of them shares your belief in your freedom to write your own Bible.

 

[37818]

I personally do not believe the KJV translators are anyone special. They are no different from Matthew Mark Luke and John and all other penmen of the scriptures.

A problem view of the KJV translaters giving a low view of our New Testament for what should be God breathed Gospel writers

 

[JD731]

A problem view of the KJV translaters giving a low view of our New Testament for what should be God breathed Gospel writers

Strange way of defining inspiration, no?

 

[Logos1560]

You do not get it. I personally do not believe the KJV translators are anyone special. They are no different from Matthew Mark Luke and John and all other penmen of the scriptures. None of them were inspired men.

Perhaps you do not get it. There is a big difference between the process of how the prophets and apostles were directly given Scripture by the miracle of inspiration of God and the process how the makers of the KJV revised the pre-1611 English Bibles and translated the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. The words proceeded directly from the mouth of God by the process of inspiration to the prophets and apostles (Matt. 4:4, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Timothy 3:16) while the textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of the makers of the KJV did not proceed directly from the mouth of God by the process of a miracle of inspiration of God.

The 1611 KJV was not made by the process of direct inspiration of God, which explains how the 1611 edition and post-1611 editions could have errors in them. The Scriptures do not teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions.

 

[David Lamb]

A problem view of the KJV translaters giving a low view of our New Testament for what should be God breathed Gospel writers

Can you give an example of what you mean? I am trying to think of where, in their translation, the translators of the Authorised Version (King James Version, as it is called in the US) give a low view of the New Testament?

 

[37818]

Can you give an example of what you mean? I am trying to think of where, in their translation, the translators of the Authorised Version (King James Version, as it is called in the US) give a low view of the New Testament?

Not the KJV translaters but @JD731's point of view.

I personally do not believe the KJV translators are anyone special. They are no different from Matthew Mark Luke and John and all other penmen of the scriptures.

 

[37818]

Strange way of defining inspiration, no?

The Apostle Paul wrote, to Timothy explaining, in 2 Timothy 3:16-17, All Scripture [is] God-breathed, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfected, thoroughly furnished to every good work.

 

[John of Japan]

Please see my response on post #14.

Understood, but I have not seen a post where you recognized that it was not a CT reading.

 

[Van]

John 10:12 (KJV) - But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

John 10:12 (NKJV) - But a hireling, he who is not the shepherd, one who does not own the sheep, sees the wolf coming and leaves the sheep and flees; and the wolf catches the sheep and scatters them.

The TR contains the last word of the verse (πρόβατα = sheep) and is in the KJV. The NKJV follows the CT which does not.

Not sure of your evidence. Here is the WEB version, based not on the TR or CT but a version of the MT:

WEB
He who is a hired hand, and not a shepherd, who doesn’t own the sheep, sees the wolf coming, leaves the sheep, and flees. The wolf snatches the sheep, and scatters them.

The actual difference seems a translation choice, with "the sheep" (G4263) modifying scatters in the KJV and catches in the NKJV and WEB. The pronoun "them" then modifies scatters in the NKJV and WEB whereas it modifies catches in the KJV.

But in the CT, "the sheep" (G4263) is no where to be found so the last phrase would literally read catches and scatters them.

 

[Baptizo]

Understood, but I have not seen a post where you recognized that it was not a CT reading.

I was presenting a hypothetical argument