The King James Version Defended

[Aquila]

I cherish the King James Version. I find it beautiful and poetic. However, some of it's language is difficult for the average American to understand. Also there are glaring mistranslations in the text itself. For example,

Genesis 49:6 (KJV)
O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill they digged down a wall.

It is more accurately translated,

Genesis 49:6 (ESV)
6Let my soul come not into their council;
O my glory, be not joined to their company.
For in their anger they killed men,
and in their willfulness they hamstrung oxen.

This is just one of many examples.

Also few understand that the KJV is a lot like a study Bible with insertions and notations that have been integrated into the text itself by copyists and translators. For example, we see a marginal note integrated into the text of Romans 8:1...

Romans 8:1-4 (KJV)
1There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The second portion in verse 1 is actually the insertion of a notation to draw the reader's attention to verse 4. It was never in the original texts. This notation was obviously translated into the main body of the text by translators inadvertently. The original text was closer to this,

Romans 8:1-4 (ESV)
1There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. 2For the law of the Spirit of life has set you free in Christ Jesus from the law of sin and death. 3For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Also you have this passage, which comes complete with a study note to assist the reader's understanding,

John 5:1-5 (KJV)
1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.
3In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.
4For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.
5And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

The entirety of verse 4 isn't in the original texts, it's a notation to assist the reader that was obviously translated into the main body of the text by copyists and translators. The original text would read closer to,

John 5:1-5 (ESV)
1After this there was a feast of the Jews, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.
2Now there is in Jerusalem by the Sheep Gate a pool, in Aramaic called Bethesda, which has five roofed colonnades. 3In these lay a multitude of invalids—blind, lame, and paralyzed. 5One man was there who had been an invalid for thirty-eight years.

When this is understood the KJV takes on a life of it's own. Essentially it's the oldest "study bible" in use today. It's definitely a very unique and beautiful translation though it doesn't always reflect what was in the original text.

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by Aquila

When this is understood the KJV takes on a life of it's own. Essentially it's the oldest "study bible" in use today. It's definitely a very unique and beautiful translation though it doesn't always reflect what was in the original text.

The Geneva Bible is an older 'study' bible. Also, used the same manuscripts as the KJV. It was the Bible of the pilgrams and Shakespeare.

[Bowas]

Originally Posted by ReformedDave

The Geneva Bible is an older 'study' bible. Also, used the same manuscripts as the KJV. It was the Bible of the pilgrams and Shakespeare.

Just bought one the other day. So far, really enjoying it's "studies". Seems more original intent. After all, all those pilgrams couold not all be wrong.

[rava61]

Where did yo get your Geneva Bible?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by rava61

Where did yo get your Geneva Bible?

We actually sell them from our ministry. We got them from a distributor.

Leather: http://rightlydividingtheword.biz/ge...k-lea1599.html

Hardback: http://rightlydividingtheword.biz/ge...k-edi1599.html

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by rava61

He did come to reconcile 'us' back to Himself - He wants that relationship, and that's the most important thing. I prefer the KJV because I enjoy the way it reads, and have no trouble understanding what it says to me; however, I know that there are many people who like reading the other version because they are easier for them to understand. I think the important thing is reading it, and allowing it to speak to us to give us guidance from here to glory.

People should have the Bible in their own language. Old English is not our language. All translations are surrounded by men vulnerable to suspicion (King James had the humanist Erasmus edit the text). The King James Bible has also undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes

You understand it?? Are you sure??
300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?

Funny... the criticisms of the KJV in the 1600's were that it was "too easy to understand." Ironic, isn't it? We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem. It's the old RCC pride that doesn't like the common person to understand God's word, that still lingers upon the church. I'm a fan of academia, and not taking the greatest of Christ's words into Kindergarten grammar, but the least we should have is a Bible in our modern language. For this reason. I strongly support other word-for-word-based translations, including the ESV.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

People should have the Bible in their own language. Old English is not our language. All translations are surrounded by men vulnerable to suspicion (King James had the humanist Erasmus edit the text). The King James Bible has also undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes

You understand it?? Are you sure??
300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning—e.g., “Suffer little children…to come unto me” (Matt 19:14). “Study to shew thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim 2:15). Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language that not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?

Funny... the criticisms of the KJV in the 1600's were that it was "too easy to understand." Ironic, isn't it? We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem. It's the old RCC pride that doesn't like the common person to understand God's word, that still lingers upon the church. I'm a fan of academia, and not taking the greatest of Christ's words into Kindergarten grammar, but the least we should have is a Bible in our modern language. For this reason. I strongly support other word-for-word-based translations, including the ESV.

The KJV came from the Textus Receptus, and unless another version comes from this as well, I prefer not to use another version. There are, however, more modern ones that did come from the textus receptus. So, the Textus Receptus test is the litmus test for me.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by mfblume

The KJV came from the Textus Receptus, and unless another version comes from this as well, I prefer not to use another version. There are, however, more modern ones that did come from the textus receptus. So, the Textus Receptus test is the litmus test for me.

Despite the # of errors? I know older isn't necessarily more accurate, but certainly older is a credibility statement along with the MT that claims number of copies.

Why TR only? Why do you not trust other manuscripts? What specific differences concern you?

The TR deviates from the MT on more than 1800 occassions.

Perhaps the LITV or ASV would be a good modern version for you to use.

I prefer inter-linears and parallel Bibles for studying.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Despite the # of errors? I know older isn't necessarily more accurate, but certainly older is a credibility statement along with the MT that claims number of copies.

Why TR only? Why do you not trust other manuscripts? What specific differences concern you?

The TR deviates from the MT on more than 1800 occassions.

Perhaps the LITV or ASV would be a good modern version for you to use.

I prefer inter-linears and parallel Bibles for studying.

By MT do you mean Massoretic text? If so, the MT is Old Testament alone and the TR is New.

Anyway, I do not prefer the ASV at all, as it is not from the TR. I USE it, but do not depend upon it.

The KJV has VERY FEW errors that I am aware of. Many of the alleged errors are not errors, and are upheld by researching more details from the bible that many people miss. I can only think of one error. EASTER should not be the term used in Acts, but rather PASSOVER.

[Aquila]

Is it possible to make idols out of books and buildings?

I love the KJV for it's poetic beauty, it's an enjoyable read. However, I prefer the ESV.

http://www.esv.org/bounce/wm/videos/....2005.340k.wmv