Why is the KJV the main subject in this section?

Do you mean an English version that is more faithful to the original at some or many verses than the KJV or do you mean more faithful overall?

The Geneva Bible and other English versions more clearly present the deity of Christ at Romans 9:5

Of whom are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all blessed for ever, Amen. (Geneva Bible)

The Geneva Bible and other English translations
more clearly present the deity of Christ at 2 Peter 1:1

2 Peter 1:1c
righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (Great Bible, Whittingham's, Geneva,
Bishops, and others)

The English translation of the old Syriac Peshitta has the full title "Lord Jesus Christ"
at several verses where the KJV does not.
Some examples are Acts 1:1, 3:6, 5:42, 8:12, 14:10, 19:5, 21:13, 1 Cor. 5:5, 2 Cor. 1:14, Eph. 1:15, Phil. 2:19, Col. 3:17, 1 Thess. 2:15, and 1 Pet. 1:13.

 

It's not a matter of which is better in general. Some are better in certain places than the KJV.

For instance (and we have discussed, debated, argued at length concerning this matter) where the KJV in Hebrews 2:9 deletes a word in the Greek text:

KJV Hebrews 2:9 "But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels"

as opposed to:

NASB Hebrews 2:9 "But we do see Him who has been made for a little while lower than the angels even Jesus"

or the KJV adds words such as the phrase "God forbid" and "would to God" several times where "God" is not to be found in the Greek/Hebrew text.

So, the KJV adds and deletes words even from the Traditional Texts at the discretion of the KJV translators who are dead and cannot be questioned as to why.

Of course the KJVO have excellent reasons why they did these additions and deletions and in fact are the pretty much the same reasons the MV supporters give for similar additions/deletions in the MVs.

HankD

 

hehehe...ax and arrows flying around here... this might be a very HOT issue! .....

For me, why KJV the main subject...
1. Most people (believers) use it and we are used to it.

2. Most known-believers also use it and used to it.

3. Is there something to argue if I am more inclined to it and some peole were not?

I use other versions only for reference but NOT basis for Dotrines and Principles.

I speak for myself...

 

Dr Bok, keep your hair on! I hold the Bible in the higest esteem, but will not back down on what I have said. For your information, the word "perverse" also has the meaning "wilfully doing wrong" This is NOT defaming the Word of God as you put it!

When, for example, the RV chose "Hw Who" in 1 Timothy 3:16; or, "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14; and rendered 2 Timothy 3:16, "Every Scripture inspired by God...", This is what I call "perverse", in that they wilfully tampered with the Word of God

Please do not use your powers as an Administrator of this site to threaten us, before you enquire what we mean by what we say. If you have been following my posts, you will se that I have the highest regard for the Word of God, no less than yourself. But, there is no doubt in my mind that many of the modern versions DO NOT represent the original Word of God, in many important passages, and the way they have been translated.

 

FrankBetz: I'll stick with the KJV and everyone else will have to settle for less.

THAT is why the KJV is discussed so much and why most of us are down on those who push the KJV as "the best", etc.

First, the KJVO myth is a false, man-made doctrine, not even HINTED AT in Scripture, nor in the writings of the AV 1611 translators themselves. Second, it's not the best translation any more. Third, its language has been left behind in the march of time.

Icthus: Not "less faithful as Christians", but, yes, sadly deceived into think that all versions are the same! If they were, then why the need for a hundred new English versions since the KJV?

First, this question..."The British of 1603 had a parfectly-good Bible, the Geneva Bible, written in the English of their day, as well as several older versions, such as the Bishop's Bible, which wasn't even 40 years old, widely available, What was the pressing need for the AV 1611, which was priced out of the average British working man's reach?

To answer YOUR question...To render God's word in the current language, as well as correcting some of the KJV's booboos(However, later translations have booboos of their own) and to take into consideration the Scriptural mss found after the AV was completed.


All claim to be based on better evidence, and easy to read. Are we all that hard of understanding the English language?

Why drive a Model-T every day when there's a Lexus sitting in the driveway?


It because some suppose that the modern versions are "better", because of some new evidence, that those who have seen it all before, stick with the original and best, the KJV!

Actually, the person who wants to learn as much as possible about God and His word thanks Him for making the various versions available in his own language, and reads them with prayer for understanding, as well as continuing praise and thanks, that he may be better-equipped to do the work God has for him. He does NOT try to confine God to any one version alone.

 

The NWT may be the product of the Jehovah's Witnesses, but the greater part of the version (some 90%) still is the Word of God. Are you saying that it is ok to call this version "perverse"?

Think about what you say, as you seem to have double standards!

 

Icthus, I'm sure you know the NWT often radically departs from any known Scriptural manuscripts, while the valid versions do not. And I'm sure you know that JESUS and the New testament authors often quoted from a GREEK version (or versions) of the OT, possibly the LXX, which was certainly different from the Masoretic Texts.

The NWT is a "version" made by two men, Fred Franz & George Gangas, who ADMITTED UNDER OATH that they knew little to no Hebrew, and very little KOINE Greek. Apparently, they revised the RV of 1880 to fit the standards of their cult. Even I, who does not speak or write koine Greek, know that "the word was *A* god" is NOT the correct rendering in John 1:1.

The debate over which mss are valid or best has been going on since well before we were born(unless you're over 140 years old) with no resolution in sight now. Therefore, anyone's opinion about which mss are "official" is based upon personal preference at best, but mostly guesswork as the usual criterion, and OUTRIGHT DISHONESTY at worst.

 

What gets me is how icthus says what the Holy Spirit would have done.......earlier on this page.

I have to admit, fellas, sometimes I read these threads for nothing but pure entertainment. Beats the heck out of watching t.v. HAHAHAHA!

Yours,

Bluefalcon

 

Thanks, yes, I am aware of the corruption to this translation. But, if you were to compare it with, for example the KJV, I don't think that it departs that much in other places. I usd to have one for research, and feel that they probably used the KJV or another English version, and just made some changes to make it look like their own work.

However, for the OT they used the Masoretic Text, with some adaptions

 

No. I have as objectively as I can looked at the works of those on various sides of these issues. I have evaluated their evidence, proof, reasoning, and conclusions as compared to the whole scope of the debate. Your problem seems to be that you allow evidence, proofs, and reason to be confined by your preconceived biases.

You are not objective.

 

No. I have as objectively as I can looked at the works of those on various sides of these issues. I have evaluated their evidence, proof, reasoning, and conclusions as compared to the whole scope of the debate. Your problem seems to be that you allow evidence, proofs, and reason to be confined by your preconceived biases.

You are not objective. </font>[/QUOTE]Thanks for trying to read my mind for me!

 

Icthus: Thanks, yes, I am aware of the corruption to this translation.

Its corruption of John 1:1 alone places it on the edge of overall corruption, and its changing of Genesis 1:2 from "spirit of God" to "God's active force"(blasphemy) and Exodus 3:14 from "I am" to "I shall prove to be"(corruption of God's name as stated by GOD HIMSELF!) shoves it over the edge. While virtually every valid English BV has some sort of discrepancy or anomaly as those found in the KJV, they are NOT deliberate attempts to wag the Scriptural dog with a cult's doctrinal tail as the JWs have done with their "translation". To compare the NWT with the KJV or the NIV is a joke. Yet, some people do just that. Thus, the KJV remains the most talked-about version on this board.

Other "versions" we badmouth within the rules here are the "Good-As-New", and the "People's Bible".


But, if you were to compare it with, for example the KJV, I don't think that it departs that much in other places. I usd to have one for research, and feel that they probably used the KJV or another English version, and just made some changes to make it look like their own work.

I partially agree, but I believed they altered an MV or made an eclectic mix of MVs with their own corruptions added.

 

FrankBetz
To finally answer your question.
Apparently this place was created because the KJVO debate kept disrupting threads about other topics all over this board.

 

Miouque, the real answer to the question is the question itself. The question that started this thread.

 

This, as well as any simple concept, should answer the the question of the OP. The KJV is absolutely not the original-- a long way from even the English original-- and whether it is best is entirely subjective. Yet, posters such as the one quoted here want exclusive use of the KJV-- not professed faith in Jesus Christ-- to be the determining factor by which one may be a faithful, growing Christian.

I don't post, or even read from, this topic too often any more, because the Word of God certainly can be conveyed from the KJV, and from other translations which endeavor to be faithful. And that is more important than exhausting so much time "proving" or "disproving" these points which are really for ego gratification, since our minds are made up here as to one side or the other.

 

You have your convictions, Alcott, and I have mine, neither of which are wrong, but merely different, as your eyes are different from your ears, but each serves the whole body with the abilities God gave them.

Long as there are those who push the proven-false KJVO myth, there must be those like myself who dispute their assertions, doing so for the sake of TRUTH, and for newer Christians, hoping to keep them from falling for a fallacy.

Since most one-version-onlyists are KJVO, that version is more often the topic here than any other version.