Please explain KJV

[Brother Gill]

I have been studing the KJV and I have been having some questions. Is the KJV without any error ? This whole thing of 1611 is bothering me. As of now I believe it is translated out of the good text (Textus Receptus) but we do not even hold a 1611. In fact it has been revised 12 times. There are two slightly different 1611 editions and six slightly different editions in the 1650s. There are even a few significant differences between the 1611 and the one we hold now. In Matthew 26:36 the 1611 says " Then cometh Judas and todays says Jesus. Also in Phl 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. Why is God with a capitial. This is not bashing the KJV. I am a KJV only. I just want some one to answer this for me.

Plaese forgive for the typos and miss spelled words.


Phl 1:18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.:1_grouphug:

 

[Keith M]

I have been studing the KJV and I have been having some questions. Is the KJV without any error ?

Despite the errant claims of some folks, the KJV, like any other Bible translated by mankind, does have some errors.

This whole thing of 1611 is bothering me. As of now I believe it is translated out of the good text (Textus Receptus)

Actually, the TR is a "best of" compilation of the various tesxts that were used to translate the KJV. There is no single Greek text that forms the basis of the KJV - just a hodge-podge of various texts that at times do not agree.

...but we do not even hold a 1611. In fact it has been revised 12 times. There are two slightly different 1611 editions and six slightly different editions in the 1650s. There are even a few significant differences between the 1611 and the one we hold now. In Matthew 26:36 the 1611 says " Then cometh Judas and todays says Jesus. Also in Phl 3:19 Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things. Why is God with a capitial. This is not bashing the KJV. I am a KJV only. I just want some one to answer this for me.

You're right - the KJV that most folks use these days is not the original 1611 KJV. There have been several revisions and changes made in the KJV since 1611. There is confusion among those who follow the KJVO thought. No one can say for certain which edition of the KJV is the perfect one and which editions have errors in them. One thing is certain - since there are differences in the various editions they are not the same. Since different is not the same, it stands to reason that if one edition of the KJV is perfect, then the others are in error according to the thinking of those who follow onlyism.

It sounds as if you may be KJVP (King James Version Preferred) rather than KJVO. With these questions you are well on your way to being an informed and hopefully reformed person who realizes the KJV, like other legitimate English Bible translations, is merely a translation of the word of God. And since the KJV is no more than a translation done by himans, it does have some errors.

Plaese forgive for the typos and miss spelled words.

There is nothing to forgive. We are al himan and we will make mistakes as long as we live.

 

[Dr. Bob]

There are errors in EVERTHING that is man-made and copied. This includes manuscripts (copies of copies of copies of copies) and even various revisions of Books.

 

[Brother Gill]

TO MY SUPRIZE....No KJO answered me.

:1_grouphug: Thank you for your feed back...I was hoping for a KJV only responder. I am trying to make sence of all this. Not bash it or doupt it...but I am not without doupt....Other concerns and unanswered questions about it is that there were also embarrassing printing errors. The revised 1613 printing omitted the word "not" from the seveneth commandment, inadvertenly "encouraging" people to commit adultrey. This KJV 1613 became known as the "Wicked Bible." Another printeding of KJV became known as the "Unrighteous Bible" because it stated that the UNRIGHTEOUS will inherit the kindom of Heaven. If any thing I am not a KJO 1611 I am a 1873 KJO...LOL...Once again this is not a bash just concern...Please allpy with imput with love and not hate and judging me either way and I promis I will love you in Christ just the same

Forgive typos and miss spelled words.

 

[robycop3]

As for errors, we just finished discussine one..."the love of money is the root of all evil". (I'm not trying to resurrest that thread; I believe everyone's said all there is to be said about it. Please read it to see a clear goof.) Another is "Easter" in Acts 12:4. I'm not trying to resurrect those threads either, but I'm just reminding people that, while it's not a clear-cut error, it's certainly a poor rendering.

If one sits down with any version with the intent of finding goofs, he/she will find some. They are the perfect word of God translated by imperfect men.

If ya choose to use only the KJV, kewl...just don't believe the false doctrine that the KJV is the ONLY valid English version out there.

 

[av1611jim]

Bro. Gill;
I just saw this today. It is the 24th of Jan. Your post started on the 22nd. That is two days. Yet you title yesterdays post with "To my surprise...no KJO answered me". Could it be that I/we have a life and don't spend every minute of everyday checking to see what is posted here? Nor do I/we read every thread. So don't be so surpirsed if a little time passes before you get what you seek. Now...on to your OP.

These questions have been asked hundreds of times by others here. Do a little searching of the hundreds of threads about KJVo and you will get all the answers you want, both pro and con.

As for myself I won't waste my time kicking a horse that is already dead. Nothing will be gained by it. Neither by myself nor by they who read these exchanges.

I started a thread very recently about proofs. It was finally agreed by both sides that we have no proof substantiated by the Original documents. Therefore anything you do must be by faith. And that is all God asks of us. Should you choose to waste your time on this, go ahead and enjoy yourself.

BTW; I live in Caldwell. Nice to meet you!

 

[Keith M]

Uh, Jim, doesn't it stand to reason that if you don't have time to read every post in every thread that all those threasds and posts may be just a little overwhelming to someone who hasn't been on board too long?

Good, honest questions, whether about the KJV or any other Bible version, are not a waste of time, Bro. Gill. I think some people feel this is a waste of time because they realize that, no matter how much they would like to convert everyone to the KJVO line of thinking, it isn't going to happen. So, Bro. Gill, go right ahead and ask your questions - you're not wasting your time if it helps you to clarify your feelings, whether you continue to prefer the KJV or not.

 

[Brother Gill]

I am truly seeking

Dear Jim. Thank you for your post. Please dont get mad at me. Like you I do not have time to read every post either. I am also new to this board so I did not know that this is asked all the time. I thought if I responded, that no KJO person answered me that in would get a response. I do not think the KJV is wrong. I do feel however that they that judge others for reading another translation are wrong. I got saved with just the knowlege of the gospel ..No soulwinner....no KJV.. I cried out to God and said " God IF you are real I need you." See i came close to death and all of a sudden I knew for the first time I was going to Hell. Awaking, seeing I had another chance in life I cried out to God....IF you are real...Forgive me...If you are real change me.... if you are real give me something to live for. At that moment I became a changed Man. I had a new reason for life...Him..It has never been the same. I started going to church a year later where I made my first christian friend. I went to a Asembly of God church of all places for five year reading the NIV. Spoke in so called tounges and all. Finaily God took me out of the false doctrine and now I am IFB and KJV. But I loved God and grew in a great relationship with Him at that church reading out of the NIV. Now I cant stand that version and all others for that matter. I also am not looking to find mistakes, just true answers in love from both sides. I just want to know what and why I believe what I believe. May be we can get together some time.

 

[Keith M]

That's a great testimony, Bro. Gill. I am glad to hear God has worked in your life and that you have grown. We can all continue to grow in the Lord if we keep our eyes focused on Him. When we take our eyes off Him we begin to drift - been there, done that! God bless you!

 

[Brother Gill]

Jim what a small world.

I have been to you church many times. I go there for time to time. What a great work God is doing there. I thank the Lord for Treasure Vally Baptist Church. Maybe we can get together some time. I will look for you next time I am there...

 

[franklinmonroe]

...There are even a few significant differences between the 1611 and the one we hold now. In Matthew 26:36 the 1611 says " Then cometh Judas and todays says Jesus.

Brother Gill, welcome. I hope you will find good answers here.

I think there was a certain printer's edition of the AV (KJV) that briefly had the "Judas" error you mention at Matthew 26:36, but I am fairly certain it was not the first few editions of the 1611. It would have been quickly corrected, and inventory destroyed, making it a rare item to find.

I have a reprint 1611 in modern type, which does correctly read "Jesus". The original blackletter gothic text is somewhat difficult to read (especially at the low resolution limit) but I though I'd show you this image even though I'm not exactly sure which edition it is from.

 

[Brother Gill]

Thank for the answer.

I have had a great response from many of you all. I thank God this board so I could discuss my findings. I also know that Judus is another name for Jesus, also Jude being the same. So I can see why it said Judus and see why they would change it. I can not say at this time that I am 100% one way or the other. I will responed well to each view with love. I thank you all for doing the same. I am trully seeking. Pray for me:1_grouphug:

 

[Hawaiiski]

There is a difference between printing errors & translation errors. The errors alluded to thus far on this forum are printing errors. Some of the printers in England were fined because of their negligence. The KJV translators cannot be faulted for this, neither can the KJV itself. These misprints were corrected.

The overwhelming majority of differences between KJV editions are simply spelling changes. As the English language continued to evolve, many KJV spellings were modernized, culminating in the standardized 1769 edition.

If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is? The argument that no manuscript or version can be inerrant because it is a product of imperfect man is contrary to God's promises of preservation. By this reasoning, even the original autographs are flawed since they were also penned by fallible men.

 

[av1611jim]

There is a difference between printing errors & translation errors. The errors alluded to thus far on this forum are printing errors. Some of the printers in England were fined because of their negligence. The KJV translators cannot be faulted for this, neither can the KJV itself. These misprints were corrected.

The overwhelming majority of differences between KJV editions are simply spelling changes. As the English language continued to evolve, many KJV spellings were modernized, culminating in the standardized 1769 edition.

If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is? The argument that no manuscript or version can be inerrant because it is a product of imperfect man is contrary to God's promises of preservation. By this reasoning, even the original autographs are flawed since they were also penned by fallible men.

You get a hearty AMEN from me brother!

 

[Keith M]

There is a difference between printing errors & translation errors. The errors alluded to thus far on this forum are printing errors. Some of the printers in England were fined because of their negligence. The KJV translators cannot be faulted for this, neither can the KJV itself. These misprints were corrected.

The overwhelming majority of differences between KJV editions are simply spelling changes. As the English language continued to evolve, many KJV spellings were modernized, culminating in the standardized 1769 edition.

Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel. 2 Kings 8:26 KJV

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri. 2 Chron 22:2 KJV

This error remains uncorrected in the KJV. Another error which remains uncorrected is the use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4. In every other occurrence of the original word pascha the word was properly translated as "Passover" but in this single instance the erroneous "Easter" was used instead.

If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is? The argument that no manuscript or version can be inerrant because it is a product of imperfect man is contrary to God's promises of preservation. By this reasoning, even the original autographs are flawed since they were also penned by fallible men.

That's an easy question to answer. All legitimate modern English translations are inerrant in that they convey to us the history, the plan of salvation, the virgin birth of Christ and other things God intended to pass down to us. These truths are found in legitimate MVs as well as in the KJV. When we hold a legitimate Bible in our hands we can rest assured that it is the inerrant word of God. Claims that the KJV is totally without translational errors are absolutely wrong.

 

[Ed Edwards]

...
All legitimate modern English translations are inerrant in that they convey to us the history, the plan of salvation, the virgin birth of Christ and other things God intended to pass down to us. These truths are found in legitimate MVs as well as in the KJV. When we hold a legitimate Bible in our hands we can rest assured that it is the inerrant word of God. ...

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Except I'm getting fonder and fonder of reminding folks that
it should be 'KJVs' not just 'KJV' - plural you know.

 

[Deacon]

There is a difference between printing errors & translation errors. The errors alluded to thus far on this forum are printing errors. Some of the printers in England were fined because of their negligence. The KJV translators cannot be faulted for this, neither can the KJV itself. These misprints were corrected.

The overwhelming majority of differences between KJV editions are simply spelling changes. As the English language continued to evolve, many KJV spellings were modernized, culminating in the standardized 1769 edition.

If our present-day KJV isn't the inerrant word of God in English, which version is? The argument that no manuscript or version can be inerrant because it is a product of imperfect man is contrary to God's promises of preservation. By this reasoning, even the original autographs are flawed since they were also penned by fallible men.

If, as some claim, the KJV is THE inerrant version because of some special act of God that made it so, is it too much to ask to also presume that God could guide the typesetters hands, or did He forget that part?

Rob

 

[Keith M]

Amen, Brother Keith M -- Preach it! :thumbs:

Except I'm getting fonder and fonder of reminding folks that
it should be 'KJVs' not just 'KJV' - plural you know.

You're right, Brother Ed. My bad!

The inerrant word of God is found in legitimate MVs as well as in the various KJVs.

Better?

 

[PASTOR MHG]

Keith,

To continually accuse the KJVo's of being dishonest and inconsistent in their arguments, and then to turn around and try to use the "Easter" thing as a proof for a translation error is hypocritical at best.

Granted, there are some very ridiculous explanations for why the KJV translators chose "Easter," but the incompetence of some of my KJVo brethren in this matter does not negate the fact that IT IS NOT AN ERROR!

"Easter was a perfectly acceptable translation of "pashca" in the language of 17th century England. In fact, Tyndale coined the word "passover" but chose to use Easter himself at times...I believe 1 Cor. 5 is one location in at least one of the editions.

As to the other error, 22 years vs. 42 years, Floyd Nolen Jones has done an excellent job of handeling the "so-called" error in his book on the chronology of the old testament. Conclusion...no error at all! To much to try and type at this time to demonstrate...you can get a copy and read the explanation.

But please stop using these as examples of error in translation...it is dishonest.

Max

 

[GodsRealTruth]

The Holy Bible is the

INERRANT WORD OF GOD!

When I hold that bible up and preach from it, I have confidence knowing it is the INERRANT WORD OF GOD!

It is made to correct us not the other way around.

Too many preachers trying to correct the word of God instead of jsut preaching from it! :tear: