Where Did the Name James come from?

While James I certainly had a high opinion of himself, he wasn't behind the use of the name "James" in the NT. English translations like the Tyndale and Geneva Bibles were using "James" well before the KJV came along.

 

A good question. Both "Jesus" and "Joshua" are technically correct translations of the Greek Ιησους, but the translation "Jesus" in these verses may be unclear and confusing for some readers while the translation "Joshua" is clear to everyone. For this reason, "Joshua" is the better translation.

 

Bro. Tony, first of all, Michelle is a KJVO advocate who, like all the others, talks the talk but cannot walk the walk. She's been repeatedly asked, as have all the others, to provide some evidence to support the KJVO myth, and she cannot find any to post, and neither can the others. proof? Just read the various threads in this board.

Second, I've never heard the theory that KJ wanted to preserve his name in the Bible. I haven't even seen where he ever asked for the AV to be called the King James Bible.

If you know when and by whom the AV was first called the King James Bible, could you please post it?

Something else-the KJVOs sometimes place great stock in the "authorized" appellation of the AV/KJV while ignoring the fact that the FIRST English Bible to be authorized by a monarch was the Great Bible, authorized by Henry VIII.

 

Peace and love to you all in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the Hebrew the origional language for the Old testament, and Greek for the New Testament? So the Old testament shouldn't really be translated from greek, but the Hebrew, and vice versa? Maybe this is where the confusion is coming from?

Love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle

 

Because they have retained the OT rendering when referring to an OT figure to prevent misunderstanding. The English translation of the Greek is "James." However, the English translation of the Hebrew is "Jacob." To avoid confusion, when referring to the OT person "Jacob" is used, and when referring to the NT person, "James" is used.

This entire thread could have been much improved had you resisted the temptation to malign the KJV by throwing in the ridiculous accusation that James I was responsible for the inclusion of that name in the English bible. The earlier English versions all used "James" decades before James I was born. A quick search of the early bible versions available on the internet would have prevented you from making such an ignorant accusation and prevented a lot of acrimony in the thread. Next time try doing your homework before posting. It will make the forum much more civil and make you look a lot less uninformed.

 

Bro James Reed says, "Not necessarily. As I said in my second post, if you were to say, "a better way to translate it...", then you are not classifying the KJV as incorrect, just using a different word to mean the same thing."

I agree with you 100%., and when I preach that text, that's exactly what I do. Nothing wrong there. Just simply teaching what the originals meant.
But the Problem lies with the phrase "a better way to translate it..."
You see this phrase is a no-no for a true KJVOist. Since a onlyist believes the KJV is actually perfect, then to them it is a sin to say there is a better way to translate what the original translators translated. (sorry for the confusing wording..just typing what I'm thinking)
Therein lies the problem. Either they correct the KJV, by saying the above phrase, or they preach lies.

Will says,"Joshua was called by several names including Jeshuah Neh. 8:17; Joshua in Joshua 1:1; Jehoshuah in Numbers 13:16, and Oshea in Numbers 13:11. He is mentioned only once in the N.T. and in Greek his name translates as Insous, or Jesus in English. This is exactly the same way Jesus is spelled in every case."

This may be a mistake on Will's part.
Joshua is actually mentioned twice not once as you have stated. Heb 4:8 and Acts 7:45
Both refer to the old testament Joshua.
It is the same way Jesus is spelled in greek.
But that doesn't excuse the translators from getting the names wrong when they were translating into English. They weren't stupid. they knew the difference between Jesus and Joshua. As Bro. Reed points out "a better way to translate this would be...."

 

Hi Tony, you posted: "To Will, for someone who apparently sees himself as one who understands all in the Bible don't you think you should stay away from the personal name calling? Especially to refer to a brother as "fool" (Matthew 5:22). Though you and I may not agree on everything I would not refer to you in that manner."

Tony, I'm sorry for alluding to you as a fool. I had just finised looking at an anti KJV site listing "undeniable errors in the KJV" and it was really, really stupid. The guy had no clue and I get really mad when I see idiotic stuff like what he had on his site posted as though it were true and representative of "sound scholarship".

Then I came across your post about the "egocentric king James" putting his name in the Bible. It was based on ignorance and you all seem intent on trying to discredit and destroy our Holy Bible by exalting your own minds above God's word. This is very common here at this board.

I still see that you got your little dig in with "for someone who apparently sees himself as one who understands all in the Bible".

I do not pretend to understand all that is in the Bible. But I do believe I know what the Bible at least IS.

Anyway, from your further posts I see you are not yet as hardened in your blindness and opposition to God's inerrant word as some others here, and I apologize for overreacting.

By the way, sometimes it is correct and biblical to refer to another person as a fool.

God bless,

Will K

 

Tim posts: "This may be a mistake on Will's part.
Joshua is actually mentioned twice not once as you have stated. Heb 4:8 and Acts 7:45
Both refer to the old testament Joshua."


Thanks Tim. You are correct and I did overlook the one in Acts 7.

However, I vehemently disagree with you about your "a better translation would be..." stuff. It is clear from your posts that you place your own mind and understanding above any Final Authority, and you are a bible rummager. Here we part company as far as the Bible version issue goes.

You have similar bogus lists of "clear errors in the KJV", and the only thing clear in them is that you do not understand or submit to any final words of God but have chosen to make up your own mystical bible as you go along.

Will

Will

 

Odd how the KJV translators are not accused of "placing their own minds above any Final Authority" or of being "bible rummagers" for doing exactly the same thing....

 

"However, I vehemently disagree with you about your "a better translation would be..." stuff. It is clear from your posts that you place your own mind and understanding above any Final Authority, and you are a bible rummager. Here we part company as far as the Bible version issue goes."

I feel I must now leap to the defense of Bro. Tim, as I am the one who started the "a better translation" thing. He was just quoting what I said.

I am a KJV believer and have no intention of abandoning that, but we have to admit that there are versions that are at least as good as the KJV. BTW, I'm not referring to modern versions, but those written before the KJV. After all, many of our brethren considered the KJV a modern version, not wanting to abondon their Geneva Bibles.

If we say that the KJV is the only valid version in existence, then we say that every version before hand was incorrect and that God's word had somehow been lost for over 1000 years. Does anyone believe that God would let His word just be lost?

With regard to the Joshua/Jesus issue, both names are the same, so why would they not be translated the same way? Yes, the writers of the KJV knew the difference, but if the writers of the original Greek books felt no need to distinguish between the two why should the 1611 translators? I suppose they felt we were smart enough to know who was who, for if we read the Bible from front to back we would already know what the OT Joshua had done, therefore we would be able to distinguish between he and the NT Jesus.

Now that we've derailed this topic, how about I get it back on track?

I believe the question about James/Jacob may have been answered on Page 2 of this thread, or at least given the best possible assumption. I don't think we can know why some words were translated in more than one way as we were not around to ask the translators. All we have are our assumptions. That being the case, a yahoo or google search may turn up more answers than one can get from a few part-time biblical Batist scholars here on the BB.(No offense to the BB or its members, but I have yet to see a person here with either a Ph.D. in ancient names or a line straight from God or the 17th Century.) I'll do a quick search and see if I can't find more info or possibly a book or two on the subject.

Bro. James

 

This is what I got from a yahoo search. Don't know how reliable the guy is, but it seems like the best explanation I've seen so far. He seems to know what he's talking about. In bold is the title of the article, followed in italics by a posed question by someone, followed in plain text by the answer from the article's author.


Jacob to James Translation

 

Bro. Reed..."but if the writers of the original Greek books felt no need to distinguish between the two why should the 1611 translators? "

Very excellent point, I've never considered.

It is possible that that is what the translators were saying.

OTOH, Would you condemn a version for changing Jesus to Joshua in these passages since both English names corresponds with the Greek name.
Either way, it is backed up by the Greek.

If you follow this reasoning then you must realize that there are a lot of English words that can be substituted in the bible for their Greek counterparts, Just look at the Heb 10:23 thread. It's the same basic argument.

A text should be translated according to context. I simply believe that it would have been better to translate the Greek word as "Joshua." There is nothing wrong with that since it is an acceptable English translation of the Greek word.

As I said before saying,
"a better way to translate this passage is . . . "
Is fighting words for most KJVO. Bro. Reed I am glad you are not like the rest. I would seriously long to debate the issue without the hateful name calling like "Bible Rummager" and such. I too hold the KJV to high esteem.
I just don't worship it.
I believe that the originals were inspired and what we have today is Greek (NT) manuscripts that are copies that contain the original words.
They were never lost, God did preserve them.

The challenge is to accurately translate them into today's languages. It was done in 1611. But I feel that the English of 400 yrs ago is outdated, especially when teaching teens and pre-teens.
Can you imagine the response when teaching on 1 Sam 25:22. I was going to post the scripture, but was afraid someone would blow the whistle on me for being foul-mouthed.

Seriously, how many preachers avoid those passages because of the questionable wording.
When I have taught on that passage, (don't recall preaching on it), I simply change the word to a more acceptable word for today. Am I wrong?

The meaning is still there.

 

Tiny:Can you imagine the response when teaching on 1 Sam 25:22. I was going to post the scripture, but was afraid someone would blow the whistle on me for being foul-mouthed.

Why would anyone who has a tv respond to the verse adversly? they cetainly hear much worse than that, besides, the modernist made Bible words obscene, yall are just following suit.

 

That is profane in the KJV.

We don't talk like that in my home and if you did I would ask you to stop. If you did not stop you would be shown the door. You can try and change the English language but you will get no where in your effort. Just accept tha fact that language has and deos change over time. Even some ruiles of grammar have changed. Just trace the history of the usage of the word "they." It has not always been a plural.


Start using that biblical word around young ladies and use it when you speak with non-believers and see what happens. Most of the time when I hear that word it is around non-believers.

Spurgeon used the word niggardly in one sermon I read. Would you use that same word where you live? The English language has changed over time. So to use archaic meanings that underlie words is to risk the chance of misunderstanding and misinterpretation. A good example of this is in the word gay. Also, I don't know if you are old enough to remember what a computer was before Apple and IBM existed. But certainly it something very different today.

 

So why would anyone be offended by any Bible word that has a public tv and watches today's sitcoms object to the use? I hear worse on the regualr radio talk shows with the likes of Neal Boortz and Royal T. Marshall. Why is it a Bible word has become obscene? I know why, the world's system is trying to make God obscene, you know that. If you have that conviction for the word in reference not to be spoken in oyur house, fine, I wouldn't offend you. I won't use the word either in any regular conversation, but reading aloud the Bible is not regualr conversation.

I know this is just another tangent invented by the mvonlyist in their effort to attack the KJB. Oh well.

 

Spurgeon didn't use a Bible word now did he?

 

We are not to be conformed to the world. The scripture teaches that we are not to use coarse language. Our language must be different than the world. The world uses profanity regularly. But I have noticed that people change their language when we don't use poor language. We can you choices of words to convey the meaning and message.

I think the answer lies in that we must be wise in our choices. We must allow God to shine in such a way that people don't see us, but Jesus. If we get in the way then they will see us and not the master that we must point them to. I don't want to say or do anything that would be a stumbling block in hindering the gospel.