King James - why ?

by Ramblin_rose 20 Replies latest social current

Ramblin_rose

I trust the following links will prove very enlightening regards the subject of Bible "TRANSLATIONS" and why it is very important to ensure that you are studying God`s PURE Word, and NOT a translation which was put together to suit the whims of those whose interests it best suited.
Al Cuppit http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/alcuppit.htm
New Age Bible Versions - bibles friendly to New Age doctrine http://www.benabraham.com/html/new_age_bible_versions.html
A MOST FRIGHTFUL DECEPTION THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE AND TRANSLATOR ROBERT BRATCHER By David W. http://www.wayoflife.org/articles/tev.htm
Holy Bible KJV ONLY
http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/KJVonlyYES.htm
The NKJV: A Deadly Translation
http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nkjvdead.htm
After reading that list, one might surely ask: what others are left, and just how reliable are those ?
Personally, my own choice of Bible is the old King James 1811 which not surprisingly claims LESS changes than the others....
Exposing the Myth and Lie that men have been able to change the Word of God in the KJV Holy Bible
http://www.dccsa.com/greatjoy/KJVrev.htm
To decide as to whether that claim is absolutely correct, one can perhaps better decide after reading the chronology of Christianity :-
Chronology of Christianity
http://www.cwo.com/~pentrack/catholic/chron.html
The question now remaining is WHY have such changes been made. Those who are familiar with their Bible will of course know that Revelations gives us a STERN WARNING about not "adding to" nor "taking away from" God`s Word :-
Re 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book
WHO therefore would be so bold as to lead man to do these things ?
The ONLY answer I can personally find is SATAN.
By leading man to believe that it is "okay" to make alterations just for ease of reading, then satan is in effect causing "confusion"
How many times have we heard non-Christians claim that the Bible cant be true because there are so so many contradictions and differences.
But God`s Word does NOT contradict itself.
God`s Word is very clear.

Re 12:9
And the great dragon was cast out , that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan , which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

1 Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.
the_classicist

There are some legitimate areas of translation wherein things like inclusivity is valid. Such as translating the Latin 'homo' or the Greek 'anthropos' not as 'man,' but as 'one' or 'person.' The main reason would be that the Greeks and the Latins would not call a man 'anthropos' or 'homo' to show that he was male, they would use 'aner' or 'vir.' Indeed 'anthropos' and 'homo' can be used for either men or women.
Indeed, no translation is perfect, much less the King James Version, which is based on the 9th century Masoretic text, but that doesn't mean that it is unacceptable to use. I use the KJV found here. It is interesting to note that the 1611 KJV contains books that Protestants reject as apocryphal.
If anyone can be accused of changing God's word it is Martin Luther and his followers. Christians, up to Luther, accepted most of the apocryphal books as canonical. Then Luther comes along and rejects them (along with some NT books that Protestants today accept).
The early Christians clearly had books that all Protestants do not. This is clearly show in Canon 24 of the regional Third Council of Carthage in 397 BC:
Besides the canonical Scriptures, nothing shall be read in church under the name of divine Scriptures. Moreover, the canonical Scriptures are these: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua the son of Nun, Judges, Ruth, the four books of the Kings, (a) the two books of Chronicles, Job, the Psalms of David, five books of Solomon, (b) the book of the Twelve [minor] Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, the two books of Ezra, (c) and the two books of the Maccabees. The books of the New Testament: the Gospels, four books; the Acts of the Apostles, one book; the epistles of the apostle Paul, thirteen; of the same to the Hebrews, one epistle; of Peter, two; of John the apostle, three; of James, one; of Jude, one; the Revelation of John. Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the Church across the sea shall be consulted. On the anniversaries of martyrs, their acts shall also be read.
Likewise the Decree of Pope St. Damasus (note: all Patriarchs back then were called Popes) in 382 at the Council of Rome confirmed that canon. Of course, none of those councils were ecumenical, but it shows the general consensus regarding the books that the Reformists reject (not that all the things that the Reformers did were bad; for example: their valiant fight against the medieval invention of indulgences).
One must also note that all the manuscripts of the bible disagre with each other in some way. Again, nothing, not even the KJV is 'pure' or 'unadulterate.'
If you really don't want to read a translation without bias, I suggest you learn Hellenistic Greek and Ancient Hebrew.
Narkissos

Actually the big issue for KJV-only sectarians is the textual basis for the New Testament.
The main question being, if the first Protestant translators could have accessed the older manuscripts which happened to be discovered and/or studied from the 19th century onward, would they have used them or disregarded them? Remember, the Textus Receptus they used was then the best available product of textual criticism.
Ironically the KJV-only stance, in effect, runs contrary to the spirit of Reformation, by ascribing the first Protestant translators and their textual basis (incidentally provided by the Catholic Erasmus) the infallibility which Reformers and later Protestants denied the Pope or the Catholic church's magisterium.
NeonMadman

Personally, my own choice of Bible is the old King James 1811 which not surprisingly claims LESS changes than the others....

I presume you mean the King James Bible of 1611? There is no 1811 King James Version that I have ever heard of. Furthermore, the 1611 KJV is not the Bible used by KJV-Only advocates today, no matter how loudly they proclaim that it is. Today's KJV is itself the product of several later revisions of the 1611 text (which also included the Apocrypha, something that would be rejected by KJVO advocates). The actual 1611 text would be quite difficult for modern English readers. Here's an example:
Joh 3:14-16
(14)
And as Moses lifted vp the serpent in the wildernesse: euen so must the Sonne of man be lifted vp:
(15)
That whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue eternall life.
(16)
For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.
Those who are familiar with their Bible will of course know that Revelations gives us a STERN WARNING about not "adding to" nor "taking away from" God`s Word :-
Re 22:18 - For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book

Of course, when these verses talk about adding to or taking away from the Word of God, they are not referring to making a translation that differs from an earlier translation because of advances in textual criticism or more and earlier manuscript finds. Moreover, the KJV is not itself the infallible Word of God, but only a translation of God's Word. KJVO advocates start with the assumption that the KJV is an inspired, infallible translation, something that was expressly denied by its translators. The simple fact is that hundreds of manuscripts of the Bible have become available to us over the last 400 years, and these have shed new light on the correct rendering of many texts. Some renderings in the KJV are simply wrong, others are essentially correct, but less accurate than other possible renderings of the same verse. Newer translators have tried to correct these renderings, though the newer versions are admittedly imperfect too.
Terry

The KING JAMES version is not a translation.
It is a reworking of ALREADY TRANSLATED efforts.
A legitimate translation takes existing instances (as old and complete as possible) of a document in a foreign language and purports to represent the sense of it in a contemporary idiom.
The SEPTUIGENT did this from Hebrew to Greek.
The Greek was a giant step removed from Hebrew.
The Latin, another giant step removed.
The King James is a kind of strange medley of learned men, pedants, obsessive compulsive fanatics purifying scripture from Catholic influence by diddling the language and producing something for their own mindset.
There is no such thing as an "accurate" translation. As the rabbinical school says: All translations are lies.
Read: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/conversation/july-dec01/bobrick_7-25.html
trevor

I was going to attempt to comment on this thread but after
reading the post byTerry I realize there is no need. Dito.
Terry

I was going to attempt to comment on this thread but after
reading the post byTerry I realize there is no need. Dito.

Oh dear!
Am I now a thread-killer?
LittleToe

I'll redeem ya, Terry (if you want, that is ).
Another "ditto", here.
googlemagoogle

earth is flat.
funkyderek

In real life, I have never encountered someone who thinks the KJV is a god-inspired translation. Indeed, until I encountered the likes of Jack Chick (http://www.chick.com) on the Web, it had never occurred to me that someone could think such a thing. It seems to be an almost exclusively American phenomenon, as is the case with many aspects of Christian fundamentalism. The simplest way to show that the claim is nonsense is to quote Song of Solomon 2:12. In the KJV, it reads: "The flowers appear on the earth; the time of the singing of birds is come, and the voice of the turtle is heard in our land." In every other translation I have encountered, the highlighted word is translated "turtledove". The KJV's translation is bizarre and indefensible. Similarly, the KJV uses "unicorn" in several places where more accurate translations use "wild ox". I would probably go as far as saying that the KJV has no value as a Biblical translation, except for historical interest.

King James - why ?

Share this