1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

King James Version Bible vs. Modern english bible

Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by KingJamesVersionBibleOnly, Feb 16, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

    - Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)
    - Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

    Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

    - Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)

    Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

    - 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

    Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

    Here is our History:
    The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Protestant Reformation for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

    The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
    The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
    The Holy Bible.

    - Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)

    Pre 1611 (Old Testament):

    Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

    Pre 1611 (New Testament):
    Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
    ...............................................................
    Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
    These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.
     
  2. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    770
    Faith:
    Baptist
    And here I thought the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, and the Bishops Bible all contained the New Testament.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    5,045
    Likes Received:
    1,116
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Hello KingJamesVersionBibleOnly. Welcome to the Board. :)
    Your post really belongs in the Bible Versions and Translations section.
    I expect one of the mods will move it there.

    I hope you have a great time on the forum, though something tells me that not everyone will be in total agreement with you. :Cool
    Where's the popcorn smiley?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Rob_BW

    Rob_BW Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    3,053
    Likes Received:
    770
    Faith:
    Baptist
    [​IMG]

    :Biggrin
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    General (non-specific) for using the AV:

    1. Superior underlying text (Received Text).
    2. Superior translation of underlying text.
    3. Superior literary quality.
    4. Standardized Bible, since God is not the author of confusion.
    5. Part of Christian heritage.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    There were several.

    Not sure what this means. The pre-AV English versions were God’s work in purifying his word 7 times (THE AV 1611: Purified Seven Times).
     
  7. KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    0
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The two elements I feel you need to consider:

    - I feel the text was in the Textus Receptus years before the Geneva Bible. In my mind the Geneva is only a English Bible printed before the KJV in its AV time period.

    - The King James Version Bible overall towered 1st as a whole against its competition in fruit and popularity by the works of God himself as an English language protestant Bible.

    Why would anyone still be concerned by what overall wasn't chosen by God to bring the most fruit in the English language?

    There are currently no laws against using the Geneva Bible within my knowledge, Yet, Still the KJV is highly favored.

    - 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV)
     
  8. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,189
    Likes Received:
    500
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I wonder if my KJV doesn't include the Apocrypha Is it the "preserved?"

    [​IMG]
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    1. I wouldn’t use the term “preserved” for a translation.

    2. Neither King James nor his translators considered the Apocrypha canonical. The translators wanted to exclude it entirely, but James had them put it in because he thought it useful. So they isolated it from the rest of the Bible.
     
  10. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,189
    Likes Received:
    500
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Really, so the KJV translators had to include what was not Scriptures into a Bible for political reasons?

    Makes one wonder what other sections of "Scripture" were added or taken out for political reasons.



    Hmmm
     
  11. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    King James had nothing to do with altering any translation. He was not promoting the Apocrypha to canonical status, he just thought it would be useful to include it.

    You know, modern Bibles also have these non-canonical things in them: appendices, prefaces, introductions, chapter and verse breaks, footnotes, etc.

    Also, Wycliffe, included a non-canonical letter of Paul in his translation for historical purposes.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,715
    Likes Received:
    3,341
    Faith:
    Baptist
    No, they were included because of historical content, and good examples for morals and manners.

    The maps in the back of a bible are no different. Not inspired but still of value.

    Just like the "To The Reader." Not inspired but still of value.

    Nothing "political" about it. James did not consider them canon.

    If we read the Doctrinal Statement of the Anglican Church, The 39 Articles of Faith, we see:

    VI. Of the Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation.

    Of the Names and Number of the Canonical Books.
    Genesis, The First Book of Samuel, The Book of Esther,
    Exodus, The Second Book of Samuel, The Book of Job,
    Leviticus, The First Book of Kings, The Psalms,
    Numbers, The Second Book of Kings, The Proverbs,
    Deuteronomy, The First Book of Chronicles, Ecclesiastes or Preacher,
    Joshua, The Second Book of Chronicles, Cantica, or Songs of Solomon,
    Judges, The First Book of Esdras, Four Prophets the greater,
    Ruth, The Second Book of Esdras, Twelve Prophets the less.

    And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:
    The Third Book of Esdras, The rest of the Book of Esther,
    The Fourth Book of Esdras, The Book of Wisdom,
    The Book of Tobias, Jesus the Son of Sirach,
    The Book of Judith, Baruch the Prophet,
    The Song of the Three Children, The Prayer of Manasses,
    The Story of Susanna, The First Book of Maccabees,
    Of Bel and the Dragon, The Second Book of Maccabees.

    All the Books of the New Testament, as they are commonly received, we do receive, and account them Canonical.
     
  13. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    To add to this, King James himself said: “As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13, Basilicon Doron).

    Source: Article: Editions of the KJV and the Apocrypha by KJV Today - Textus Receptus
     
  14. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,264
    Likes Received:
    662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I do think your information is mistaken. In Basilikon Doron (1598) James wrote that
    "As to the Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist (as I said before) & indeed some of them are as like the dietement of the Spirite of God, as an Egge is to an Oyster."

    It may be that James had no great love for the Apocrypha (at least when he was king of Scotland, whose established church did not consider it canonical), but he did have great love for order. The Apocrypha was part of the English Bible — and used in the Book of Common Prayer — so it would remain in the Bible for the English church.

    Besides, it was one of the translators — Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury and overseer of the new translation — who decided the Apocrypha would be part of the version. And you will find no outcry from the Anglican clergy (except from the Puritans, who were routed on the subject at the Hampton Court Conference) about including the books.

    It is true that the new version segregated the books, which continued the tradition begun by Luther. But the translators did not warn the reader (as Luther and Coverdale had) that the books were not scripture proper. Here's the forward from the 1560 Geneva Bible: "The books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is, books which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion save in so much as they had the consent of the other scriptures called canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as books proceeding from godly men they were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of history and for the instruction of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of His Church, and left them not utterly destitute of teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities that God sent to his Church were according to his providence, who had both so threatened by his prophets, and so brought it to pass, for the destruction of their enemies and for the trial of his children."

    The King James version, in true Anglican fashion, split the difference: The books are segregated, but with no statement about their role or provenance.

    And the translators put more than 100 cross references to the Apocrypha in the new version. So no, the translators didn't want to "exclude it entirely." Some may have, many obviously did not, and I assume many were ambivalent, so church tradition and ambivalence prevailed.






     
  15. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,264
    Likes Received:
    662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Not that many since the Received Text (in its earliest form) did not exist until 1516 when Erasmus published his first Greek New Testament.

    It certainly didn't hurt that the Anglican authorities took every opportunity to discourage printing of the Geneva, going so far as to ban the printing of any Bible that didn't contain the Apocrypha (a stab at the 1599 edition of the Geneva). That was only partially successful because copies continued to smuggled into England and even the king's printer published Geneva Bibles with the 1599 publication date to evade authorities (possibly to attempt to recoup the huge losses from printing the Wicked Bible).

    And Archbishop Laud under Charles I finally banned the Geneva, partly to protect the royal publishers who had patent to print the KJV and also to eliminate those anti-monarchical Geneva notes as the king increasingly clashed with the Puritan-leaning Parliament (which eventually led to civil war and the loss of the king's and Laud's heads).
     
  16. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    7,189
    Likes Received:
    500
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Just how "removed" was and is the Anglican Church from the RCC?

    Here is the main problem.

    The claims of the KJV only group tend to emphasize not just the translation but grab for other evidences for it to be the exclusionary.

    For example:
    The determination of the preservation upon the most popular. Should such thinking be valid, then the RCC is older than the KJV, and is the most populated of all religious groupings? So, what they consider the Word of God should be the one used, not some Anglican Church grouping that mirrors and copies the RCC in many doctrinal errors.​

    For example:
    The determination of the validity upon the TR. Did not the very earliest translators clearly state that future modifications would be necessary based upon the finding and work of future scholarship? ​

    For example:
    The determination of authorization because of the effects upon the spoken and written word. Two great matters taken into account with the development of the English.

    One the standardization of Spellings, punctuation, and other grammars necessary? But what do these have to do with authority in claiming the KJV as the only? It is but a shallow result considering the multiple adaptations necessary to keep up with the variations that naturally occur as a language is in use and impacted by a global influence.

    The second concerns the America's in particular. The American language is not British English, it is a blend of many languages and cultures. And although the American English can be understood in England, there are terms that the KJV had to modify to make it fit the American English. Americans use "plain English, sometimes called standard English" and then we also use "business English." Who knows what English those folks use that we squared up against and squished a couple hundred years ago, twice. Then had to go back and rescue them two more times in the last 100 years. And I'm not even thinking from the view of a Texan. :)

    Ultimately, there is NOTHING that the KJV has to offer that the ESV doesn't do better (imo).

    Bible gateway has this to say:
    The English Standard Version (ESV) stands in the classic mainstream of English Bible translations over the past half-millennium. The fountainhead of that stream was William Tyndale's New Testament of 1526; marking its course were the King James Version of 1611 (KJV), the English Revised Version of 1885 (RV), the American Standard Version of 1901 (ASV), and the Revised Standard Version of 1952 and 1971 (RSV). In that stream, faithfulness to the text and vigorous pursuit of accuracy were combined with simplicity, beauty, and dignity of expression. Our goal has been to carry forward this legacy for a new century.
    Now, admittedly, I am NASB preferred, but the ESV is (imo) more solidly formed than what is offered in the KJV, and less "wooden" in some areas in comparison to the NASB. I like solid wood, preferably with a good oiled finish. :)
     
  17. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    The ESV does not come from the same texts as the AV (see http://www.cspmt.org/pdf/resources/NT Text Chart.pdf). The AV is literarily better than the ESV and does a better job of translation.
    I will admit, however, that the ESV is better than such things as the NIV and NLT.
     
  18. rsr

    rsr <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    11,264
    Likes Received:
    662
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Fell free to look up our many discussions on Psalm 12:6, which is an old standby for KJV defenders but takes liberty with both the grammar and contest of the Psalm.

    From your link:

    "And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

    The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times."

    Then why did the KJV translators at times wander from the TR for readings from the Douay and the Vulgate? What do make of that purification?
     
  19. Ben Labelle

    Ben Labelle New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2018
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    1
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I’ve read defences of translating Psalm 12:6-7 differently. Have you read sources defending the AV translation?
    WHAT IS TRUTH: Gender Discord and Psalm 12:6-7
    WHAT IS TRUTH: Psalm 12:6-7 Commentaries and the Preservation of Words

    As for the AV and the TR, they do match, if you use Scrivener’s TR. In any case, the TR wasn’t even mentioned in Vance’s article, so I don’t see what this has to do with “purified seven times.”
     
  20. Logos1560

    Logos1560 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,531
    Likes Received:
    28
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Can you provide documentation for your claim?

    Marion Simms maintained that "the Great Bible, Bishops' Bible, and KJV, all Episcopal in origin, gave a more favorable place to the Apocrypha than any other [Protestant English] Bibles" (Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). Some 1599 editions of the Geneva Bible were said to have been bound without the Apocrypha so why didn't the KJV translators follow its example? Probably aimed at the Geneva Bible, Archbishop Abbot, one of the KJV translators, issued in 1615 an order forbidding the sale of Bibles without the Apocrypha (Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 198). KJV-only advocate Jack Moorman also acknowledged that Abbot "in 1615 forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Forever Settled, p. 183).

    Does this indicate that the official position of the "superior" KJV translators was that the Apocrypha should be published with the Bible? Is there any evidence that any of the other KJV translators objected to Abbot’s order? If George Abbot, who at least leaned toward or tolerated Puritan views, had such a high regard for the Apocrypha, the many KJV translators with High Church views would have had even more regard for it. If that order did not represent Archbishop Abbot’s actual view, King James I perhaps ordered or instructed him to issue it as the Church of England‘s official position that the KJV translators would have had to accept.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...