Why I Read the Authorized KJV Bible

[Shylynne]

I am not a King James Onlyist.

I think that God is very able to tell us what He wants us to hear in any version.

I find it "strange" that God told us what He wants us to know in ONE version, and man decided it was  not good enough.

[Broken]

Which one would that be?

Wyclif's Bible?
Tynedale?
Matthew?
Coverdale?
Taverner's?
The (authorised) Great Bible?
The Geneva Bible?
The Bishop's Bible?
or even the Dhouai-Rheims?

Those are just the Bibles which predate the KJV and which are in modern (or early modern) English.

[Whitehorse]

Well, the problem is that we don't know, most of us, the original language very well. And sometimes the Greek usees idioms and grammar that are comepletely meaningless to us in our culture. But the answer to this would be to put literally what the text says, and then add a footnote. Not change the Bible to make it more readable.

Be that as it may, the newer versions have the advantage of severah hundred years of archaeology. They user older and more reliable manuscripts. But they also translate them more loosely, using what is called the dynamic equivalent rather than a literal translation. This means they translate what they believe the text meant, not necessarily what it says. Again, they should use footnotes and not take it upon themselves to do the translating instead of saying what it says.

Often you will hear that there are verses in the KJV that are "taken out of" the NIV. But the situation is, older and more reliable manuscripts were used.

What we need is a literal translation that uses the older Greek septuagint rather than the more recent Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts.

My 2 cents.

[Symphony]

How many ways are there to spell S-A-L-V-A-T-I-O-N ??

   


The Hebrews were the unwilling infidels, God came in the flesh anyway, allowed us to kill him, He arose, and now all we have to do is believe that.

Otherwise, we die.

Is it that complicated?    


   

[Shylynne]

What we need is a literal translation that uses the older Greek septuagint rather than the more recent Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts.

My 2 cents.

I fail to see what yet another bible will do for man, if the simple gospel message contained in one  has already been rejected by the masses.

Man needs a outpouring, and infilling, of the Holy Spirit!
It is the spirit of God that gives us understanding of the word of God, so why should we seek to gain better understanding from a 'better' translation of man?

"This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.  The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."

[ebia]

What we need is a literal translation that uses the older Greek septuagint rather than the more recent Hebrew Masoretic manuscripts.

My 2 cents.

I fail to see what yet another bible will do for man, if the simple gospel message contained in one  has already been rejected by the masses.

Man needs a outpouring, and infilling, of the Holy Spirit!
It is the spirit of God that gives us understanding of the word of God, so why should we seek to gain better understanding from a 'better' translation of man?

Then why bother translating at all - just stick to the greek, hebrew and aramaic?   Or stick to the first English translation.

The AV is pretty good, but it's not a perfect translation and its translators never claimed it was.  We can do better, and in modern English - the real language of now.

[NateyCakes]

Amen to you IrishAngel! Great Post!
(Love the name too!)

[Shylynne]

As stated I read the KJV because its been preserved and annointed by God. What God has approved  I see no reason to change, simplify, add too, or take away from. God gave us stern warning about altering His word, and yet many of the newer versions are changing the wording, (meaning) of scripture, I think its enough to alarm christians to take heed. Tho I do enjoy commentaries, study bibles, etc. I always refer to the KJV for accuracy.
"As it is written" is good enough for me, and the history of the KJV can certianly defend itself better than I ever could.

You can water down a substance until its lost its power and ability to cleanse  

Hi nateycakes!  
Irish got her wings clipped and took on a new name

[Whitehorse]

Ebia, I see what you're saying. And, actually, it would be much better if we did learn the original Greek and Hebrew because it would eliminate a lot of the translation problems. But since not everyone finds this practical, I'm rooting for a new literal translation using the same process as the KJV, only using the better manuscripts.

While changing the flow to make a translation read better, decisions are being made by the translator that may not be accurate. It actually is changing God's word. That's why I'm rooting for footnotes giving *possible* explanations rather than translating it according to someone's *opinion* of what it means, and presenting it as actual scripture rather than merely his *opinion* of scripture.

The KJV was translated extremely well, but the problem here is the manuscripts. We now know there are mistakes made by the scribes who copied the Masoretic manuscripts. There are no mistakes in God's word, but we can see from the older manuscripts where a letter was changed by a tired, unalert,  or otherwise compromised scribe, that changed the whole meaning of the word. And we know that isn't the correct word, because that word appeared later, and is only a letter off. This makes a difference at one point between giving God the firstfruits of your cattle, and the firstfruit of your sons. Pretty big difference, wouldn't you say? In some cases, entire verses were added! Several! So here we hear from people that other translations are bad because they took verses right out of the Bible! But in fact, someone took it upon himself to add to God's word.

And it really is very important to know exactly what God's word is saying, because there are vast differences between the NIV and KJV, in regards to meaning. And I don't think all of them are manuscript-related.

Blessings,
Whitehorse

[Symphony]

there are vast differences between the NIV and KJV, in regards to meaning.


Do you think those differences are integral to an adequate understanding of the Gospel message, Whitehorse?

[Tibby]

As stated I read the KJV because its been preserved and annointed by God. What God has approved  I see no reason to change, simplify, add too, or take away from.

That’s real funny, because the KJV has been charged several times over the years.

[Whitehorse]

there are vast differences between the NIV and KJV, in regards to meaning.


Do you think those differences are integral to an adequate understanding of the Gospel message, Whitehorse?

No, I think only what the scriptures say is conducive to this; I think adding or changing it only introduces confusion. It takes the reader away from what the scripture says by introducing other ideas.

[PaleRider]

I don't know, I guess I might look at this differently than some

God gave *Me* this Bible, it was meant to be my friend, my knowledge and my wisdom. It might not be in the exact terminoligy that other Bibles are written, but the reason he brought it my way is that I might understand his word,through His Spirit, although we have a few versions here at home, this is the one I feel in my spirit, came to me for *His Purpose*.

I feel as long as His Word is doing the job it's supposed to in my life, *It's The Right Bible*.. Stet

[ebia]

Good post on the whole, Whitehorse, but I'd like to follow up on a couple of points:

Ebia, I see what you're saying. And, actually, it would be much better if we did learn the original Greek and Hebrew because it would eliminate a lot of the translation problems. But since not everyone finds this practical, I'm rooting for a new literal translation using the same process as the KJV, only using the better manuscripts.

Firstly, there isn't really such a thing as a literal translation - if you literally translate word for word you end up with gibberish.  It's a sliding scale of how accurately you try and stick to the (closest) equivalent words verses how much you try to maintain the sense of the passage.  Having said that, I think there probably is a market out there for a new translation at the word-equivalent end of the scale.

While changing the flow to make a translation read better, decisions are being made by the translator that may not be accurate. It actually is changing God's word.

You do that whenever you translate though.  Even choosing which English words to use for which Greek.  If there existed one-to-one correspondence between greek and english we wouldn't have a problem, but there isn't.

That's why I'm rooting for footnotes giving *possible* explanations rather than translating it according to someone's *opinion* of what it means, and presenting it as actual scripture rather than merely his *opinion* of scripture.

But you

have to

make choices or you end up with all footnotes and no bible.   The choices are a bit less for word-equivalence than dynamic-equivalence, but they are still there and you're only kidding yourself if you think they are not.  The authors of the A.V. had to make choices, just as the authors of the NIV, RSV or any other translation had to make choices.

The KJV was translated extremely well, but the problem here is the manuscripts.

Yes and no.  Most of the AV is very well translated, but some of it is not.   In some cases we know more about how a word was used in greek or hebrew than they knew.  In some cases they've borrowed heavily from previous latin translations that were not perfect either.

[ebia]

As stated I read the KJV because its been preserved and annointed by God.

The A.V. is no more annointed by God than any other translation, and makes no such claim for itself.

What God has approved  I see no reason to change, simplify, add too, or take away from. God gave us stern warning about altering His word, and yet many of the newer versions are changing the wording, (meaning) of scripture,

As did the authors of the A.V.    Not intentionally, of course - it's inevitable in any translation.  

The A.V. is not the definitive version of God's word - the original greek manuscripts are.

I think its enough to alarm christians to take heed. Tho I do enjoy commentaries, study bibles, etc. I always refer to the KJV for accuracy.

Shame its not perfectly accurate then.

"As it is written" is good enough for me, and the history of the KJV can certianly defend itself better than I ever could.

I'm sure that's true