King James - why ?

by Ramblin_rose 20 Replies latest social current

• 

  lawrence

  The Greek text edited by Theodore Beza, was even more influential upon the KJV translators than Stephanus. Scrivener in his Parallel New Testament-Greek and English, demonstrates that the King James Version translators primarily used Theodore Beza's 1598 edition of the Greek New Testament. He indicates that out of the thousands and thousands of words in the New Testament, they deviated from Beza only about one hundred and ninety times. Moreover, they not only used his Greek text but relied heavily upon his Latin translation of it. Therefore, Theodore Beza, the successor of Calvin at Geneva, a great Reformer himself, was a leading influence upon our King James Version.

  At this point we must ask ourselves if the KJV crew translated anything? Or did they just read what had been translated before them, edit that, and then come out with the 1611 version? The KJV had for their editing the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible. History shows us they edited both to make the KJV. If the KJV is really an edited copy of the Great Bible, the Bishop's Bible, and the Geneva Bible, then all they did was consult the Greek for accuracy and make corrections and then beat their chest they had birthed the ONLY God inspired English version. Is this to say that the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible from which the KJV largely comes are not inspired? And to say the KJV is the Bible of God because men died to preserve it, print it, and make it available to the world, would cast doubt on those who died for other translations that existed BEFORE 1611?

  Excerpt from http://jesus-messiah.com/html/bible.html
• 

  diamondblue1974

  Wasnt there a voice of the turtle in Stephen Kings 'IT' ?

  On a serious note I am in agreement with Terry on this...I dont think there is any inspired version of the bible.
• 

  LittleToe

  Derek:

  I have never encountered someone who thinks the KJV is a god-inspired translation.

  Then let me claim that title
  It's likely inspired in the same way the original text was
• 

  funkyderek

  Then let me claim that title
  It's likely inspired in the same way the original text was

  Some people always have to be difficult
• 

  LittleToe

  Derek:

  Some people always have to be difficult

  I'm sorry, I thought it was my turn, this week. If it's your week, I sincerely apologise
• 

  Junction-Guy

  What can I say, I guess I'm a little partial, but I love the King James Bible, When I read it it just seems like a word of authority, it used to be the most highly regarded Bible, but so many people are against it nowadays, call me old fashioned, but I love the KJV.

  Dave
• 

  Junction-Guy

  Oh and somewhere in the NWT in the old testamesnt, there is a scripture that mentions a marshmallow, now who the heck thinks they had marshmallows back in bible days? LOL
• 

  Leolaia

  who the heck thinks they had marshmallows back in bible days? LOL

  Don't forget the unicorns mentioned in the KJV. (e.g. Job 39:9-10).
• 

  NeonMadman

  What can I say, I guess I'm a little partial, but I love the King James Bible, When I read it it just seems like a word of authority, it used to be the most highly regarded Bible, but so many people are against it nowadays, call me old fashioned, but I love the KJV.

  Nothing wrong with loving the KJV, even though it is the product of the limited scholarship and the small number of manuscripts that were available in the early 17th century. It still stands as one of the great works of literature in the English language, and is perfectly serviceable as a Bible translation, too. The problem arises with the KJVO people, who claim that the KJV is a complete, inspired, infallible and inerrant translation, and that it itself (not the original Hebrew and Greek autographs) is the inspired Word of God. They then use the KJV as the standard to judge all other translations, and claim that newer translators, who use better scholarship and work with earlier manuscripts, are "changing the Word of God" whenever their renderings disagree with the KJV. Then they try to invoke the curses of Revelation against those who would 'add to or subtract from the words of this book'. As Narkissos pointed out above, they are imputing the same infallibility to the KJV translators that they would deny to the pope.
• 

  NeonMadman

  Oh and somewhere in the NWT in the old testamesnt, there is a scripture that mentions a marshmallow, now who the heck thinks they had marshmallows back in bible days? LOL

  Ummm, in all fairness to the WTS (and you know how much I hate to be fair to them ), I don't think the "marshmallow" mentioned in the NWT is the fluffy white confection with which we are familiar. Here's the definition from the Insight book:

  *** it-2 p. 345 Marshmallow ***[Heb., chal·la·muth´].

  A perennial plant that is closely related to the hollyhock. The woody stems of the marshmallow (Althaea officinalis) measure up to 1.8 m (6 ft) in height. The plant’s large, wide leaves are notched and terminate in a sharp point. Both the stems and the leaves are covered with soft downy hair. The pale-pink, five-petal flowers are about 5 cm (2 in.) across. In times of famine, the marshmallow’s white carrotlike root has been used for food. The sole Scriptural reference to the marshmallow alludes to its tastelessness.—Job 6:6.

  The Hebrew term chal·la·muth´, found only at Job 6:6, has been variously rendered "egg" (AS, KJ), "purslain" (AT), and, as defined in a Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon by L. Koehler and W. Baumgartner, "marsh-mallow" (Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, p. 304).