King James Bible

God kept His promise to preserve His Word just as faithfully before 1611 as after 1611. William Tyndale and the translators of the 1560 Geneva went to such as great lengths to ensure that their translation was a pure translation as the KJV translators if not more so. The Church of England translators of the KJV may have been hindered by one or more of the rules that were given them for their translating, and they may have been hindering by the overseeing of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Archbishop Bancroft or another prelate is said to have made at least 14 changes in the text of the 1611 edition of the KJV that were not approved by the majority of the KJV translators themselves.

The important fact remains that the KJV is a translation and is a revision of earlier pre-1611 English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops'). At some renderings or verses, one or more of those pre-1611 English Bibles may have a better and more accurate rendering of the preserved Scriptures in the original languages than the KJV has. Your view or belief seems to ignore the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. What consistent and scriptural basis establishes that the Holy Spirit guided the KJV translators in any different manner or sense than the Holy Spirit guided the translators of the Geneva Bible? What scriptures state that God was any more involved in the preservation that led up to the KJV than God was involved in the preservation that led up to Luther's German Bible, the 1560 Geneva Bible, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Bible-believing Baptists, the 1982 NKJV, the Modern KJV, or other translations made by believers?

 

Or did the KJV add it...
YOu see it is just as bad to add as it is to take away.

So how do we decide which it is?
BTW, welcome to the board.

If I remember right the words you say are missing in the NIV are in the footnotes. The NIV translators wanted to be honest and point out that there are preserved copies that are closer to the time of the original writings that does not have that particular phrase.

To prove that the KJV adds words, check this out....
And Justin you do your own research.

Find a good KJV based interlinear Bible.
and look this verse up:
Romans 6:15
(15) What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid.

Look for the word "God" in that verse in the Greek. It is not there. The KJV translators added "God" to the Bible.
Was that wrong?

They could of just said, "NO" as the original says, but nooooo, they added "God forbid"
That is just one example of the KJV adding to scripture.

So if we are warned not to add or take away, then the translators of the KJV were wrong, and the KJV is not perfect.

 

That is comparing apples to oranges tinytim.

His example relates to the omission (or addition according to some views) of a whole passage of scripture.

Your example is a question of a word added to convey the sense of a particular word or passage.

Those things are quite different. Do you have a better example.

A.F.

Sorry: edited for clarity!

 

That is because in that time period, God Forbid was a euphymism for the strongest negative you could get. Today, we say never or as the NASB (if I remember correctly) says may it never be.

 

Nobody removed anything Justin. The NIV is primarily translated from a different body of texts and using a different translational philosophy than the KJV. THe translated from what they were using, but had the honesty to include the alternate translation in a footnote. I disagree with their choice of texts and their method of translation, but that is not the topic of this thread.

The KJV translating team used a different text body and they used a different method of translation. I agree with their choices and that is why I use the KJV and NKJV. The translating teams of both if these versions also included marginal notes or footnotes to present alternate translations of passages.

The NIV translators did not remove anything - they translated differently, thats all.

 

Justin, this is just another article written by someone else. Are you not willing to put into your own words what you believe about the KJV?

 

Justin, it seems you are falling into the trap of judging every other Bible version by what the KJV says. Since the NIV and the KJV are translated from different manuscripts, it stands to reason that there can be some differences in the two versions. However, the NIV is just as much God's preserved word as is the KJV.

The verse you must be referring to is also found in the NIV.

This verse, which so many people use to claim a superiority for the KJV, is actually talking about anyone who takes away from the prophecies found in the book of Revelation. It is not referring to Bible versions translated from different manuscripts. Yet many folks make the mistake of applying this verse to mean any Bible version that is a little different than the KJV. John did not mean that this applikcation of what he had written would be applied to show the "superiority" of any particular English Bible version, yet it is being used in just that manner quite frequently these days.

Justin, here are a couple questions for you to think about.

1. If the KJV is the perfectly preserved word of God, then where was His perfectly preserved word prior to 1611?

2. If any Bible versions prior to 1611 were the perfectly preserved word of God, then why did these versions need to be revised and updated with the 1611 KJV?

Justin, we have heard over and over again what some of the writers say who support KJVOnlyism. We don't need to hear from them again. What are your thoughts on these questions?

 

Keith, I think we have heard over and over again from your side. I agree that we need to hear more from Justin.

A.F.

 

KJVO beliefs center around the Word of God being preserved in the KJV line exclusively. Calling this belief system a myth, over and over and over and over and over again, does not reinforce your argument but rather puts it on par with me calling your modern versions perversions of the true word of God. Neither of these methods add to the debate. However, yours is a rather mean-spirited tactic that uses hyperbole and a repeat of a lie in the hopes that if you repeat it enough times, people will actually believe you.

There is no foundation in scripture for the belief that God isn't strong enough to do it right through a single line.

The belief in hundreds of versionism implies that God is the author of confusion, which He is not.

I don't believe sir, that you are using the word "myth" in a proper context to begin with. I stood against a humanist college teacher for calling the Bible a myth but at least she understood what the word meant. You are using the word in an innacurate context to disparage a group of people who revere a single translation in the English language as being the pure Word of God.

It was not alleged that you believe the KJV is not the preserved word of God however, we do not share the definition of preservation. I believe His Word was preserved in the AV. You believe it was preserved in hundreds of "valid" translations. It is possible to disagree with each other and still respect each others views.

So good of you to respect a brother's wishes.

 

The word "myth" is causing a lot of animosity, something we are trying to avoid on this thread. I am requesting that the word "theory" be used in its place on this topic please.

 

I would agree with C4K on the use of the word "myth". While I firmly believe that KJVOism is wrong, I do not use this word, because I feel that it is a "loaded" word.

Theory is a good replacement.

 

Roger, could you make the same request of those KJVOs who say "Bible Believers" in a manner which implies that those who use other versions don't believe the Bible?

 

Think I'll also use "doctrine", as a doctrine is a thing which is taught.

 

Alright - fair trade. I guess I am so thick I never caught that one .

 

As long as you don't call it "false doctrine" I would find that acceptable.

 

Maybe we are on to something here that will improve this forum..
Can we open a thread that asks for input on what terms offend them when discussing translations....

So far we have, "myth", and "Bible Believers", and "False Doctrine", and "perversion".

Would you like for me to open it, or would someone else like to?

 

"perversion" is already against the rules. If you to open the thread Tim that is fine as long as folks know that any possible changes will be considered, but will be adopted only with the advice and consent of the Administrative Council (admin and mods).

We need to do our best not to openly offend those on the other side of the issue.