KJV - Good translation? (Jesus Christ, Latter-Day Saints, Moses, gospel, genesis)

[Aqualung]

I think the KJV is an adequate translation, as good as any. But of course, I have nothing to back that up with, except the fact that the other translations are pretty much the same. (I'm talking when it comes to english translations, here.) What does everybody else think?

[angellous_evangellous]

The KJV is based on a faulty textual theory, and it is in antiquated English. For its time, it is a masterpiece of English literature. However, there are plenty of verses and words in the KJV that are dependent upon Latin manuscripts of Greek documents that simply don't exist. A much more reliable text is the NRSV or the English.

[joeboonda]

I think it is the best english translation we have. It was taken from the received text, the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries, On the other hand, there are the corrupted copies, also know as the Alexandrian manuscripts which many times do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts are part of this group, which Wescott and Hort and the modern versions rely on so heavily. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. Thats all I have time to type for now, There are some excellent books and probably websites about the differences in the KJV and the modern versions. I prefer the KJV, as I memorize it better since I stick with it, and I can explain my doctrine better with it, too. A person can get saved by reading any version, I think the KJV is the most accurate and in line with the majority of Greek texts and other ancient texts in other languages. But, hey, thats just me.

P.S. I got my info, and some word for word, from the book Let's Weigh the Evidence, I editted this in as was pointed out, I did not cite my source, sorry.

[jewscout]

lets see...hebrew to greek to latin to english...then it's published under the authority of a political leader who was trying to keep the puritans in line...

hmmmm

honestly i think you could find a better one...but whatever floats ur boat is fine by me.

[angellous_evangellous]

Originally Posted by joeboonda

I think it is the best english translation we have. It was taken from the received text, the majority of Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible-believing Christians down through the centuries, On the other hand, there are the corrupted copies, also know as the Alexandrian manuscripts which many times do not even agree with each other. The Vaticanus and Siniaticus manuscripts are part of this group, which Wescott and Hort and the modern versions rely on so heavily. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. Thats all I have time to type for now, There are some excellent books and probably websites about the differences in the KJV and the modern versions. I prefer the KJV, as I memorize it better since I stick with it, and I can explain my doctrine better with it, too. A person can get saved by reading any version, I think the KJV is the most accurate and in line with the majority of Greek texts and other ancient texts in other languages. But, hey, thats just me.

Is it really just you? Those percentages really got my attention because they are not even close to being correct. I did some research and I found that the quote above is
taken from a well circulated peice of KJV propaganda. If you google any sentence, you will see that it is quite popular. The percentages are completely false.

In all fairness, you really should quote stuff that you take from others.

http://www.discussanything.com/forum...ad.php?t=73279
"The real New Testament:
The manuscripts from which the textus receptus was taken are the majority of the Greek manuscripts which agree with each other and have been accepted by Bible believing Christians down through the centuries. The King James was translated from these manuscripts. There are 5,309 surviving Greek manuscripts that contain all or part of the New Testament. These manuscripts agree together 95% of the time. The other 5% accounts for the differences between the King James and the modern versions. The textus receptus, King James, does not include the vaticanus and sinaiticus manuscripts from Alexandrian Egypt; these are the corrupted manuscripts in question. Manuscripts from which the modern versions are translated includes the textus receptus plus the vaticanus and Sinaiticus manuscripts. The modern versions had to use the textus receptus since it contains the majority of the surviving Greek manuscripts. The problem is that when the textus receptus disagreed with the vaticanus or sainaiticus, they preferred these corrupted manuscripts over the textus receptus. That accounts for the 5% corruption in the modern versions. Where the textus receptus and the vaticanus and sinaiticus do not agree, it is because Marcion, 120 - 160 AD or Origin 184 - 254 AD [or whoever] corrupted those two manuscripts. (The vaticanus and sinaiticus disagree with each other over 3000 times in the gospels alone.)

The vast majority of the Greek manuscripts agree together. They have been passed down through the centuries by true Bible believing Christians. In 1516 Erasmus compiled and printed the Greek (textus receptus) the received text, from these manuscripts. This is the text that the protestants of the reformation knew to be the Word of God, from which the King James Bible was translated."

I think that http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TR.html is a bit more accurate.

EDIT: OK, I did some digging and I found the original source for this plagarism. It is "Let's Weigh the Evidence" by Barry Burton published by the infamous Chick Publications. Available at http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0184.asp. I found it by googling the two percentage sentences together. http://www.talkaboutreligion.com/group/alt.christnet/messages/828054.html credits Barry.

This is propaganda based on no review of any manuscripts.

[jeffrey]

Originally Posted by jewscout

lets see...hebrew to greek to latin to english...then it's published under the authority of a political leader who was trying to keep the puritans in line...

hmmmm

honestly i think you could find a better one...but whatever floats ur boat is fine by me.

I could not agree more.

[FFH]

I use the Joseph Smith translation of the Bible.

The eighth Article of Faith.

"We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God."

If you have an LDS copy of the KJV of the Bible it should have JST (Joseph Smith translation) footnotes. Look for these and they will show the corrections to the various scriptures that were translated incorrectly in the KJV.

I still use the KJV so that I will be on the same page with people when discussing scriptures. I then, point out the incorrect translations by referring to the JST, especially if I am the one that is teaching the lesson. There is also a book published by Herald Publishing House, Independence, Missouri, entitled Joseph Smith's "New Translation" of the Bible. This book puts the KJV's mistranslated scriptures side by side with the JST, and shows, very clearly, the missing and mistranslated scriptures. Large parts of Genesis are missing from the KJV, half of which are in the "Book of Moses" in the "Pearl of Great Price", the other half of the missing Genesis scriptures were not published in the "Book of Moses" in the "Pearl of Great Price" for some reason, I may never know. The full version of the Joseph Smith translation was also published by Herald Publishing, Independence, Missouri and is entitle "The Holy Scriptures" "Inspired Version". I just got it at www.deseretbook.com. Of course the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints owns the copyrights, or maybe the Community of Christ owns it now, I don't know.

[dawny0826]

Originally Posted by Aqualung

I think the KJV is an adequate translation, as good as any. But of course, I have nothing to back that up with, except the fact that the other translations are pretty much the same. (I'm talking when it comes to english translations, here.) What does everybody else think?

Hi! Truthfully, I'm partial to my NKJV of the Bible and I do have the NLT, NIV and NCV to compare it to. I haven't found any alarming discrepancies between the four.