King James Bible Companion

Do you mean The King James Bible Word Book printed by Thomas Nelson in 1994? It had on its cover: "A contemporary dictionary of curious and archaic words found in the King James Version of the Bible."

An expanded and revised 1999 edition of it was entitled: I Never Knew That Was In the Bible. It had on its cover: "The Ultimate A to Z Resource to common expressions and curious words that come from the Bible."

 

I'd stake my life on it. No Bible translations are inspired, if we use the original manuscripts as the very definition of what "Inspired Scriptures" means.

Now if we are talking about 'derivative inspiration' the KJV is "inspired". But then people would have to accept the fact that derivative inspiration does not apply solely to the KJV, but to all Bibles that are carefully translated from the Greek and Hebrew texts that we have.

 

Bob,

Again, and for the record, no one here is anti-KJV. Many of us ARE anti-KJVO.

That little O is where we split. The KJV itself is lovey- I spent nearly 30 years with that as my principle Bible translation. But it's not the be-all-to-end-all of Bible translations. Even the KJV translators would admit that if they were here today.

 

At its entry for rie, Daniels' KJB Companion has "old spelling of 'rye'; a grain."

Is it interesting that the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible, the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible, and the 1611 edition of the KJV had the present spelling "rye" but some present KJV editions keep the old spelling "rie"?

Exodus 9:32 [rye--1560 Geneva, 1568 & 1602 Bishops]
rye (1770, 1771, 1773, 1778, 1782, 1783, 1787, 1791, 1792, 1798, 1804 Oxford) [1756, 1817, 1822, 1824, 1873, 2005 Cambridge] {1611, 1613, 1760, 1763, 1764, 1838, 1877, 1879 London} (1756, 1764, 1769, 1787, 1789, 1791, 1793, 1810, 1820, 1842, 1858 Edinburgh) (1866 Glasgow) (1762 Dublin) (1782 Aitken) (1791 Collins) (1791 Thomas) (1802, 1813 Carey) (1810, 1826, 1828 Boston) (1813 Johnson) (1815 Walpole) (1816 Albany) (Clarke) (1819, 1829, 1843, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1868, 1894, 1902, 1954, 1957, 1963, 1971, 1988, 2008 ABS) (1832 PSE) (1846 Portland) (1854 Harding) (1911 TCE) (1924, 1958 Hertel) (WMCRB) (1984, 1991 AMG) (KJRLB) (2000, 2002 ZOND) (HPB) (2006 PENG) (2008, 2010 HEND) (NHPB) (1833 WEB) (1842 Bernard)

rie (1754, 1769 Oxford, SRB) [1629, 1638, 1743, 1762, 1769 Cambridge, DKJB] {1614, 1617 London}

 

I have this book, but I wouldn't necessarily recommend it.

 

I am not so much anti-KJVO as I am against the public display of poor logic, bad argumentation, misinformation, and just plain falsehoods. I tend to respond the KJVO crowd because they tend to be guilty of these problems frequently. For example, in my experience it much more common for KJVOs to misuse technical terms like textual variant and Textus Receptus; or attributing a quote to Dean Burgon when it wasn't his; or repeating assertions without providing any specific examples even after they are requested. I take the testimony of the BB seriously.

 

Bob, I believe you are right. However the level of biblical illiteracy is so high in Amercia among Christians and the unsaved alike that it hardly matters.

And I apologize for my contributions that could be considered off-topic; I've felt your disappointment myself.

 

Thats the one - thanks.

To Askjo - I am not sure if it is still available - you might want to google it.

 

I don't think that the words of a long dead king who hated the Geneva Bible are the evidence around which to build a doctrine. So often in that article writers refer to the 'last' Bible. To them it was the last Bible which was synonymous with latest.

People today who support the 'last' Bible are condemned for supporting modern versions.

 

Great article - I would agree with the vast majority of it as I think most posters here would.

 

Examples have already been given on another thread which has been closed. Seems no matter how much evidence is provided, its never enough. All one needs to do is google this and you will see the thousands of changes. I guess its easier to turn a blind's eye.

BTW, have you even noticed the mysterious symbol on the NKJV? .The Publishers claim, that this emblem .is an ancient symbol for the Trinity." But in Acts 17:29, we read that such symbols are forbidden.

There is a New Age handbook which has a similar emblem. Something to think about

The King James Bible Companion is very good in defining the archaic words..This is what the NKJV should have done,and left the rest of the text unchanged.

 

I am a member at that forum where this article came from and have not run across a single member there that endorses any of the Modern Versions. Nor the NKJV. If any do, they are not posting.

If you agree with that article,then why do you keep asking in what way has the NKJV deviated from the TR. You would get clobbered at the Baptist 1611 forum.

 

Did King James write or translate any Bible?

By the same token, KJV Only people are condemned for believing we have a preserved, inspired text and all MV are inferior. Yet those who disagree can't even tell us which bible is correct. Since they all differ from one another they cannot all be right now can they?

The real issue is that those who uphold the KJV believe God kept His promise. His word endures forever and what these MV have done by their 1,000's of changes is wrong.

 

That makes no sense. If the KJV is a bible you endorse, then why would you ALSO endorse other versions that have 1,000's of word changes (I am not referring to archaic words either) and omissions, and which came from different texts than the KJV?

Its interesting that you call the KJV "lovely." It is much more than that. Its the very Word of God which we should live by. You say it should not be the be-all- to-end-all translations, and yet which version/bible is? Can you even answer that? Do you really believe God had wanted all these different versions of His Holy Word? Either we accept ONE Bible as true or we accept them all even though they differ one from another, not just in words but in meaning and doctrine. We have bibles that omit Jesus' name in some verses or even demote him. How about gender neutral bibles. Where do we draw the line?

King James gave assent that a translation be made of the whole Bible," as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches." This is what it should be. ONE HOLY BIBLE for God's people because there is only ONE word of God which He promised to preserve. All these mass produced, money-making bibles show that they don't believe God kept His promise or failed to somehow and that He needs man's help in "improving" His Word! Where and when does it end? If there's nothing wrong with the KJV except for its archaic language then why not just update only those words and leave the rest alone? Why do we need a zillion different versions in English and all the churches are using different versions that a stranger cannot walk in and know if the Bible he brought with him is the one that pastor and churches uses!

If we had remained true to ONE Holy Scriptures,, there would be none of this squabbling about bible versions and all the dissensions it has caused.

 

The translators of KJV answered the quesiton you asked!

I strongly suggest you read the full preface!

Rob

 

What is the point you wish to make? .That these men who translated the KJV were modest men who expressed humility? That they knew the seriousness of the task of faithfully translating? That they were fully aware that there will always be spelling and other such minor errors because we are all fallen men?