The King James Version is Perfect (page 4)

Poztate

.You can call me "Close Minded","Ruckmanite","Cult Member",but I careth not.

O.K......you are......

Here is some additional information regarding the sources used for the King James Bible. The article at www.prca.org/pamphlets/pamphlet_9.html says: "At the time the translators were ready to begin their work, they had no less than ten printed editions of the Hebrew Old Testament available to them. There was the Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes published in 1517 which contained the Hebrew text (the fifth complete O. T.) as well as the Latin Vulgate and the Greek Septuagint translations of it. They had four editions by Daniel Bomberg (1516-17, 1516-17, 1521, 1525-28). The last of these was popular with the Reformers. The standard edition was considered to be that of Jacob ben Chayim-the Second Rabbinic Bible. Besides these, there was the Antwerp Polyglot (1572) with the Hebrew text of Arius Montanus and the Latin interlinear translation of Pagninus." "The Greek text was readily available in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514), the five editions of Erasmus (1516-1535), the four editions of Robert Stephanus (1546-1551), and the ten editions of Theodore Beza (1560-1598). They also consulted the editions of Aldus (1518), Colinaeus (1534), and Plantin (1572)." "Yet the King James Version is not a totally new work. In terms of literary units-phrases and clauses-the King James Version is about thirty nine percent new translation. Sixty one percent of the phrases are taken over from older English versions. In fact, the King James Version can be considered the fifth revision of the work of William Tyndale who first translated the New Testament into English from the Greek." "The first revision of Tyndale was done by John Rogers (Rector of a London church and later chaplain to the English merchants in Antwerp) and is called the Matthew's Bible (1537). Under the auspices of Thomas Cromwell, Myles Coverdale (Tyndale's assistant) revised the Matthew's Bible to produce the Great Bible (1539). In 1560 the Protestants in exile at Geneva produced the Geneva Bible which was the third revision of Tyndale. Finally in 1568 the English bishops prepared what is known as the Bishops' Bible, which was the version from which the translators were to make their revisions, according to the command of King James." To sum up, the documents used to produce the KJV were primarily English translations produced within the previous 100 years (61 percent based on Tyndale's version). Of the remaining 39 percent which is actually translated from "the original tongues", the text used were copies of copies of copies, primarily compiled and edited within the previous century. In this light, describing the KJV as "a translation of a translation of a translation" seems accurate. Research it yourself and draw your own conclusions.

inquirer

People go on and on about the King James, and I like it for it's literacy (hence it's thee's and thou's and it's language style), but it was heavily influenced by the Douay-Rheims Bible which was released in it's entirety in 1609. The Geneva Bible is pratically the same thing that was released in the same era. So it's not as if it's unique or something in my opinion.

So I doubt how important it was, because the Douay-Rheims is pretty much the same. Look at what this guy says on this site about him: http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/kjames.htm

Wycliffe and those other people paved the way for King James' Bible.

I heard the Geneva one is better, because it had footnotes, explanations... and apparently King James took out all these "helps" in the Bible.

inquirer

I like it, but don't think it's perfect. Saying it's perfect (when you read my above post) is an insult!

inquirer

It's got so many errors in it. It has this verse where someone "p'd against the wall!" I think it says it in Isaiah. It mentions all these weird animals like cocatrices and unicorns as well!

inquirer

I am sorry gaiagirl, I didn't realize you had gone over what I did. I just said a "gut reaction," when I saw the topic as a thread!

inquirer

blabbermouth, why won't you read the NRSV, the 2nd best Bible?

How come other people criticize me for liking the NWT? If I had said that about the NWT, people would have grilled me. :(

I think people should overly critical of any shock statment like the one blabbermouth made!

inquirer

---googlemagoogle---

i think the KJV is great, especially the Skeptics Annotated Bible (SAB).

___

---inquiry---

That's just someone's stupid moral opinion of what the Bible should be like! The problem with this guy is, he comes from the "non-religious" point of view.

It's a bit like if someone passed you a book on poetry and you were into car mechanics. You wouldn't think much of the poetry therein!

googlemagoogle

so you think a "non-religious" point of view is problematic? as for your illustration: i always learned the bible would have been written for everyone... that's also the reason why it was translated.

the SAB is not stupid at all. and it's got nothing to do with moral opinions. it just shows how flawed "god's word" is. you wouldn't disagree on that, would you?

NeonMadman

If you think the King James is a joke,Im sure that God won't think it's very funny.Mock his word all you like,And when you are finished,read Revelation 20:10

That pretty much illustrates the false dichotomy presented by the KJV-only crowd. Either you accept that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, the inerrant infallible Word of God, or you think it's a "joke" and are attacking it. Any alternate translation of a text is seen as adding to or taking away from the very Word of God. However, no sound scriptural argument can be made that God would ever provide anyone an inerrant and infallible translation of the Bible. The original manuscripts were inspired, and to the extent that any translation renders accurately what the originals said, the translation is the Word of God. It's perfectly possible to believe that the KJV is an elegant, literate and largely accurate translation that has great value to all Christians, though it does contain some flaws as well - and still find great value in other translations. However, the KJV-only people refuse to even admit that such a position is possible. If you don't accept the KJV as inerrant and infallible, they say you are "attacking" it. Really, it is they who attack all other translations as Satanic. In doing so, they actually reduce the credibility of the KJV in the eyes of many, by associating it with their extreme and irrational views.

The King James Version is Perfect

Share this