The Supposed Errors in the KJV

[Stratton7]

If it is ok with you who just joined us and welcome to the BB, to not derail this thread, you can start one yourself and address your questions to others... Brother Glen

I appreciate the welcome!
My intent was not to change topic which I should have stated. But to use it to show that the lack of errors, if any, are due to the translation methods of the KJB compared to the modern versions. (And others reasons which I don’t want to say because is off-topic to thread).
I’m still in the process of discovering if the errors claimed in it are actually errors so at this time, I believe what I’ve stated above. Any patience is appreciated.

@Logos - King James Version | Bible, History, & Background

 

[robycop3]

They had what they needed, and some of what's on computers now, was on paper then.
If you compare them to many of today's biblical scholars, I think you'll find that they really were very much educated and experts in their professions;
A thing rarely seen today, some 400 years later.

But they DO exist, and remember that very-learned men 400 years ago "cured" migraine headaches by cutting a hole in the skull(trepanning) to allow the "bad humours" to escape. Knowledge in everything has come quite a way over the last 400 years. (Remember, God said knowledge & travel would greatly increase in the end times.)

No I don't worship them, but I do recognize their level of scholarship as professing believers who had a King to carry out a duty for.

All KJ did was give the Anglican Church permission to make a new English Bible version.

Society was much different back then, and they took some things a bit more seriously...
Especially work being done for which they could have later given their lives for.

But again they didn't have the tools we have now, nor nearly as many mss. And they copied from earlier English BVs quite a bit.

But some of them aren't even professing Christians, Roby.
They aren't going to have the same motives for translating, as say, someone who only wanted to give God's words to God's children would have.

And neither were all the AV makers. At least one (Thompson) was a drunk. Others had political motives. Others were members of the notorious Star Chamber & Court of High Commission.

Of those who are professing Christians, are you aware that not everyone who names the name of Christ is actually His?
In the light of Matthew 7:21-23, I would think that this would factor in to our thinking about this matter when it comes to those who profess His name but in works they deny Him.

That applies equally to those of 400 years ago.

For example, false teachers ( 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 ) don't really care for the flock of God;
They are there to exploit and to bring into bondage the children of God, so as to trouble them.

As were many officials in the Anglican Church then.

Don't you think that today, 2,000 years after Paul told us that grievous wolves would come in ( Acts of the Apostles 20:29 ), not sparing the flock, that they exist today ( and in much greater numbers, 2 Timothy 3:1-13 )...
And some of them have influence in areas that you and I aren't even immediately aware of?

Well, not that long ago, I would not have believed that LGBTQ would be accepted worldwide as it is now. And making money was a consideration the Anglicans didn't ignore while making the AV.

 

[robycop3]

I appreciate the welcome!
My intent was not to change topic which I should have stated. But to use it to show that the lack of errors, if any, are due to the translation methods of the KJB compared to the modern versions. (And others reasons which I don’t want to say because is off-topic to thread).
I’m still in the process of discovering if the errors claimed in it are actually errors so at this time, I believe what I’ve stated above. Any patience is appreciated.

@Logos - King James Version | Bible, History, & Background

BTW, I forgot to welcome you, Sir. But remember, it's "KJV", not "KJB".

 

[rlvaughn]

OF COURSE I did, because it's STILL a goof, even though archaic. Easter is not passover & vice versa, & in Luke's time, pascha only meant passover. And there's simply no getting past the fact that Easter didn't exist in Luke's time.

You will never understand the development of language, will you? Passover didn't exist in Luke's time. Passover is an English word that did not exist until the 1500s. He couldn't have meant "passover" until the 1500s! (His writing is not that late, even by the most liberal standards.)

 

[Dave G]

@robycop3 :

As always I wish you well, sir, even though we disagree.
My sincere prayer is that the Lord bless you in many ways.

 

[Stratton7]

BTW, I forgot to welcome you, Sir. But remember, it's "KJV", not "KJB".

Thanks!
As to the KJB - an excerpt from a search:
“The King James Version (KJV), also known as the King James Bible (KJB), sometimes as the English version of 1611, or simply the Authorized Version (AV)...”

If I’m assuming here, would it be that you don’t like the “KJB’ term because it relates to KJVOnlyism so “KJV” seems proper in that it’s just another version out there to be used?

 

[Dave G]

KJV-only advocates do make similar assertions against modern English versions or do ask questions similar to the ones that I ask. I am simply applying KJV-only assertions/questions consistently and justly by asking them also concerning the KJV.

I recognize that.

I also suggest that if you want to be seen as being totally objective,
Start flipping things around and asking those who are "anti-KJV" the same questions.

I am trying to be as objective as possible by asking that the same assertions be applied consistently and justly.

I admire that.
See my above.

I do advocate that the same measures/standards should be applied to all Bible translations including to the KJV.

Then why in the over two years of me being here, have I never seen you do it?

Did I miss those threads where you pose similar questions to those who are "anti-KJV"?
If so, would you point them out for me?
To me it seems as if you're focused on putting those who trust the KJV above other English translations under some sort of a spotlight...

When truth be told,
we as believers in Jesus Christ should be of one mind in investigating things to see what the truth really is, and should put it all under the spotlight.

 

[Conan]

But Tyndale was translating for the plowboy. Perhaps he was trying to comunicate to those who never actually heard the word in English. People could not afford handwritten Wycliffe manuscripts, and regular folks could be persecuted for even having them. Tyndales New Testaments were affordable and he was speaking to people that had no translation. Something we all take for granted today. That was in 1526. 1530 he translated the first five books of the Old Testament, inventing the word passover. He revised the NT in 1534 and 1535 but was hunted by the English Church and King Henrys agents for printing The Word in English.

 

[Logos1560]

Did I miss those threads where you pose similar questions to those who are "anti-KJV"?
If so, would you point them out for me?
To me it seems as if you're focused on putting those who trust the KJV above other English translations under some sort of a spotlight...
.

Being anti-KJV-only would not be the same thing as supposedly being "anti-KJV."

Who are those that you accuse of being "anti-KJV"?
Do you incorrectly accuse those who disagree with KJV-only teaching of being "anti-KJV"?
Who is advocating a view of the English Bible that is parallel to modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching?

I have not noticed anyone advocating exclusive only claims of perfection for another English Bible or claims of its being the word of God in a different sense than other English Bible translations to ask those questions.

 

[Logos1560]

so “KJV” seems proper in that it’s just another version out there to be used?

The KJV is simply a version or a translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bible translations of which it is a revision and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bible translations such as the NKJV.

 

[Logos1560]

Some of us who love and use the KJV ( to the exclusion of the more modern translations in English ), know that it's not perfect,

In your post, do you ever warn or tell others concerning the imperfections or errors in the KJV?

Have you ever identified one imperfection in the KJV that would not be the fault of printers?

 

[Dave G]

Being anti-KJV-only would not be the same thing as supposedly being "anti-KJV."

I agree.

Who are those that you accuse of being "anti-KJV"?

it seems to me that you are, and I feel that I've a right to ask questions like that.
Who am I?
Ultimately no one but a curious participant in a forum discussion.

Do you incorrectly accuse those who disagree with KJV-only teaching of being "anti-KJV"?

No I do not.
But in some cases it seems to me that many who attack the position, are being anti-KJV.

There's a reason that some call it "the Despised Authorized".

Who is advocating a view of the English Bible that is parallel to modern KJV-only reasoning/teaching?

That would be me, but it isn't "KJV-Only".

It's TR-Only, and KJV-best.

I have not noticed anyone advocating exclusive only claims of perfection for another English Bible or claims of its being the word of God in a different sense than other English Bible translations to ask those questions.

I do not claim that the KJV is perfect.
Only that it's the best and most accurate English Bible, now in widespread distribution, to the preserved Greek and Hebrew.

 

[Dave G]

In your post, do you ever warn or tell others concerning the imperfections or errors in the KJV?

Have you ever identified one imperfection in the KJV that would not be the fault of printers?

I've yet to find anything in the AV's translation that I'm terribly concerned over,
except the use of italics, which I've seen in several English translations.

So no, I do not warn people of imperfections or errors in the KJV.
To me, there are so few that anyone looking for them with a discerning eye, will find them.

Again, the use of italics comes to mind.
But even then, the translators inserted them for continuity and they can be overlooked when one reads it...

Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Dave G]

Have you ever identified one imperfection in the KJV that would not be the fault of printers?

Yes I have.
Again, I don't see it as being absolutely perfect.

 

[Logos1560]

it seems to me that you are, .

I am not anti-KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Advocating the truth concerning the KJV is not being anti-KJV.

 

[Dave G]

I am not anti-KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

Advocating the truth concerning the KJV is not being anti-KJV.

Thank you for your honest answers.

That said, I would appreciate it if people on this forum would stop associating me with those who advocate that the AV is perfect, that it was re-inspired, and that I see it as the only Bible that contains God's words.
It isn't.
But to me, it's by far the best and most accurate in the English, and especially so for its use of the "Received Text" in the Greek.

That said, this is my final reply in this thread.


God bless you and good evening.

 

[Logos1560]

That would be me, but it isn't "KJV-Only".

It's TR-Only, and KJV-best.

Do you identify one of the thirty textually-varying editions of the edited, printed Textus Receptus edition as your standard?

There are some significant textual differences in the textually-varying TR editions.

How can one be TR-only without identifying one specific edition of it as their standard?

If you accept the 1800's TR edition created to try to match the KJV as much as possible as your standard, that could indicate a more of a KJV-only view than TR-only view.

In some places, Scrivener who created that 1800's edition maintained that the KJV followed the Latin Vulgate more than any one of the Greek TR editions. Since you claim to be TR-only, you should find it serious and significant for the KJV to depart from it in some places.

 

[rlvaughn]

I am not anti-KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is...

I accept your explanation as given. However, I do not recall ever noticing you defend the KJV here on the Baptist Board. You might consider that when you feel people get the wrong impression of your views.

 

[Logos1560]

I accept your explanation as given. However, I do not recall ever noticing you defend the KJV here on the Baptist Board.

My statement right after the one that you quoted would be a statement that defends the KJV as what it actually is, and I have made that an assertion similar to that before on the Baptist Board.

I have read the KJV over 50 years, and I accept and defend the KJV as what it actually is. The KJV is the word of God translated into English in the same sense that the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the 1560 Geneva Bible are the word of God translated into English and in the same sense as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are the word of God translated into English.

It is also defending the KJV as what it actually is when I object to incorrect, unproven KJV-only claims that are made concerning the KJV. Human KJV-only reasoning attempts to claim that the KJV is something that it is not.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 1 PM Pacific.