The KJV’s respect for God’s Words

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.

 

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?"

 

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"?

 

Based on nothing objectively, I see.

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.

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

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

Tweaked from what exactly?

 

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.

 

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]

 

You're right.

 

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?

 

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.