King James Bible

So is the practice of personally retranslating the scripture for your audience a biblical one? Did the Lord or any of the prophets or apostles ever say "a better translation would be...?" Please provide an example from the scriptures.

 

Roger I understand this and that is a good pooint.

Brother - I said one example - I gave one example of names from just 2 versions - I'm also talking about other issues besides just names and titles.

I would never rest my case on just names and titles alone.

God bless

 

You just said your final authority is something that does not exist anymore and therefore you cannot validate.

As God as my witness if I had the original manuscripts I'd lock them up to keep people from bowing down to them and then read my King James Bible.

Excuse the sarcasm - I know you folks wouldn't really worship them though others on other forums have accused me of worshipping a KJV.

God bless

 

Please provide one example where the Lord ask them about any translation. And while your at it provide a Scripture where Jesus affirmed that His disciples use the King's English, that did not even exist at that time.

Bro Tony

 

When you take data from other places and put it on this
board it is expected you will tell us where you got those
numbers.

If you don't cite where you got the numbers, then it will
be a sign you filgured out the numbers for yourself.
However, if you didn't figure out the numbers yourself
then you are committing a deception.

BTW, these numbers are fairly usless toward convincing
anybody who knows even a little about the subject of
Translations & Versions of the Bible. So I don't appreciate
you assuming we are so dense.

If you had derived the numbers yourself, you could answer
these question:

What do those numbers mean?
How did you derive those numbers?

Here is you some numbers that I came up with:
Using e-Sword sources "KJV1611 Edition"
and searching for verses containing 'Lord' and 'Iesus'
and 'Christ' I found 101 verses.
(my copy of the e-Sword software won't search for
verses containg "Lord Iesus Christ" together.
Using e-Sword sources "KJV1769 Edition with Strong's numbers"
and searching for verses containing 'Lord' and 'Jesus'
and 'Christ' I found 106 verses.

Recapping:

KJV1611 Edition - 101 Times
KJV1769 Edition - 106 Times

It appears to me that changing from the KJV1611 Edition
(with known translators, editiors) to the KJV1769 Edition (with
unknown ediltors, translators, spelling adjusters)
ADDED something 5 times in DIRECT contradition to
Revelation 22:18

 

Please
give the source of your Scripture. QUite frankly,

4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty

is exactly the way Psalm 29:4 reads in the ESV.

As for the 'eth's convaying a sense of strength - that
is meaningless psyco-babble. Who believes that? I sure don't.

 

Well C4K:

It seems as if both sides (KJV VS MV) have gotten their fair share of whacks now.

I propose closing the discussion.

A.F.

 

Explaining or defining something is fine.

Nehemiah 8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

Explaining or defining something is completely different than saying a better translation would be... Saying "a better translation" implies the translation one is using is lacking in some way.

This is an example of some pastor going to another language to explain what a scripture means. I was looking for an example in the Bible where someone says "a better translation would be..."

I won't expect them to understand much of what the bible means, whether the words involved are commonly used in the newpapers, television, and worldly culture, or whether the words are only commonly used among belivers that use the King James Bible. Either way, I would try to explain and define the words for them. If you want to call that 'translating", then "translating" would be fine.

 

I've never seen anywhere in the bible where anyone ever gave a source for their scripture, other than the chapter or book. Do you doubt my source is scripture?

I noticed that too. I can find word for word quotes of the King James Bible in the book of Mormon as well, what does it prove?

[/quote]
Well, trying to prove something sounds more powerful than something else is not an easy task. "And Can it Be" is more powerful than "Kum By Yah", but if that is not self-evident, I'm not sure how else to explain it. I tried by highlighting the "th" from strength. Sounds themselves do carry meanings. Like the slothful, sluggardly, slanted, slave, slithering in a slough. Maybe go ask some marketing guy how names for products are determined or ask some propagandist how he chooses his words for the newspaper and he can explain it to you.

 

Paul did have this to say:

II Corinthians 2:17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Someone was corrupting the word of God. Who was it? Is anyone doing it today? Did the Russelites do it with the New World Translation?

Maybe you think the corruption only refers to the original languages. Here's a passage that speaks about translation:

II Peter 1:19-21
19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. 21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

From Matthew, I see that "interpretation" can mean translation.

Matthew 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

"No prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation", that is private translation.

 

An analogy might help why this is such an issue to some. Most non-Christian religions will not attack someone because they prefer Jesus over Mohammed, Krishna, or Buddha. It's when the claim is made that Jesus is God and that the other ways are false that someone get angry, and feels "attacked". And that is when the non-Christian will "attack" the Christian.

Likewise, you never hear a person attack someone because he uses and prefers a KJB. The attack comes when someone claims the KJB is scripture to the exclusion of other translations. And just simply claiming the King James Bible as scripture to the exclusion of the others will often cause those that hold to the other bibles to feel "attacked"

If you saw someone reading a new world translation, wouldn't you try to persuade them to give it up? Even if it hurt their feelings? KJO's believe that the danger is just as great in reading other new versions, as it is in reading the NWT.

Psalms 119:104 Through thy precepts I get understanding: therefore I hate every false way

 

This is the kind of thing that causes contention - misusing a Bible verse to get a point across. You have no basis for saying that someone is following a "false way" because they use the NKJV. All you have is opinion.

We cannot force our brothers and sisters in Christ to adopt our opinions as the true way. The word of God is the standard for doing that.

 

Since Justin specifically asked I am going to permit posting some of the translational errors in the KJV, just as translational errors in other version are permitted.

Please do so in a spirit of education.

 

This has been a fair thread with a minimum of "whacks" from either side. Points have been presented, for the most part, in the proper spirit.

 

A good example overall, Mike. But there is a difference in the NWT and many of the legitimate Bible versions. The New World Translation (Jehovah's Witnesses), the Clear Word Translation (Seventh Day Adventists) and the Joseph Smith Translation also known as the Inspired Version (Mormons) are all versions that were "translated" so that heretical groups can have a bible which supports some of their errant teachings.

That said, I do agree with your view that the claims of exclusivity are what causes much of the trouble. But there is a difference - we know that Jesus Christ is the exclusive way to avoid an eternal separation from God, but the claims of exclusivity for any one Bible version are unfounded. We know without a doubt that the Bible is the word of God while the Koran and the writings of other false religions are not the word of God.

Yet it is understandable that, even though they follow another "god" that those of false religions can feel attacked by the suggestion that their religion and their writings are false. And that is one reason readers of modern Bible versions feel attacked when the KJVO claim of exclusivity is made, even though there is no foundation for that claim.

 

Here we go again, folks using their misunderstanding of the KJV
trying to prove KJVO stuff.

Caveat: this writing will be found appearing elsewhere
for I have used it before:

--------------------------------------------------

CORRUPT

2 Corinthians 2:17 (KJV1611 Edition):
For wee are not as many which corrupt the word of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God, in the sight of God
speake we in Christ.

Strong's sez:
G2585
καπηλεύω
kapēleuō
kap-ale-yoo'-o
From κάπηλος kapēlos (a huckster); to retail, that is, (by implication) to adulterate (figuratively): - corrupt.

As usual, Strong's lists what the KJVs use last, not what makes the
most sense. But why do the KJVs use 'corrupt'. Here is
a text that preceeds the KJVs (i.e. NOT a MV):

2Co 2:17 (Geneva Bible, 1587):
For wee are not as many, which make marchandise of the woorde of God:
but as of sinceritie, but as of God in ye sight of God
speake we in Christ.