• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Should I use the KJV ?

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Not surprised, i don't think atheist mockery ever killed anyone
Not with so many crazy and nutty stuff like talking snakes and donkeys, walking on water, cursing a fig tree out of season, growing hair for super powers, flying up into clouds, the dead coming back to life, virgins giving birth, stars pinpointing a specific location, people standing in furnaces and not getting burned, and of course an all time favorite, an ark with all the world's animals stowed away on board, plus much much more.

Great stories and fables , problematic if one thinks that stuff actually happened.

A little mockery over substance and validation, in itself, definitely won't kill anyone. In fact, it might be extremely healthy in snapping one out of delusional flights of fantasy and embrace reality with the ability to be able to tell the difference.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
A little mockery over substance and validation, in itself, definitely won't kill anyone. In fact, it might be extremely healthy in snapping one out of delusional flights of fantasy and embrace reality with the ability to be able to tell the difference.

Unfortunately it rarely happens.
 

Etritonakin

Well-Known Member
Repeatedly we hear that the best translation is the KJV bible. Sometimes, that it is the only bible inspired of God. Without a doubt its ubiquitous, and thus impossible to ignore.

Let's start with comments about the person of King James himself:

King James became the first earthly monarch to successfully sponsor and encourage the distribution of the entire Word of God in the daily language of his people. (King Alfred had made an attempt centuries earlier).

William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible, had been ostensibly used by God to bring an early translation of the Bible in English. For this "crime" he was declared to be a heretic and was burned at the stake.
His last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."
It seems his prayer was heard because subsequently a born again English king sponsored an English Bible, produced openly on English soil for English Christians.
This was of course was King James who appointed 54 learned men to make "one more exact translation of the Bible." King James encouraged financial gifts to this project and set the example by agreeing to underwrite the salary of several of the translators himself.

Even though the official name for this translation would be the Authorized Version, it was soon known as the King James Bible. It was uniquely made accessible and promoted by the King of England himself. Laymen now had no more fear of owning their own Bible.
Historian Steven Coston Sr. makes following comment about King James: "King James was, no matter what tales some may tell, a virtuous man of good intentions, who did the best he could as God gave him strength."
In view of such an inspiring beginning why would anyone not predominately use the KJV ?

King James Weakness:
Regardless of his good intentions and excellent character references (sometime criticized. But who isn't?) King James had one weakness. This particular foible was a trait many Kings had, namely a delusion of grandeur. We could argue
that it's not a "delusion" when a person is actually the most elevated person in the country, so why even mention it?
It is mentioned because of his affectation regarding the "importance of the King" and the King's position as ordained by God,
He was insulted by the Geneva Bible's translation of Matthew 2:20 which seemed to brand all kings as tyrants.

Thus King James exerted his influence on the translators to reflect his hierarchical perspective in their translation work. This was done despite the translators unsuccessful objections, after all he was the one paying for the translation to be done.
Its dedication read: "To the most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.

Another issue revolves around inerrancy.
the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant.

In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:
“At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ‘Inerrant Bible’ doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult” and the Roman Catholic Church.”
David Sorenson, even goes so far as to deem “apostates” those who follow the “critical text,” such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the “Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV. He said “It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”

In reality these claims are diametrically in opposition to the truth.
Instead of being inerrant the KJV is replete with errors. (errors relative to the original texts)
Why can that be said?

Perceptive scholars point out that a translation can only be as good as it's source. The best basis for a translation are the extamt Hebrew, Aramaic and Coine Greek Manuscripts.
The Authorized Version (KJV) however took a shortcut. Instead of using these original mss, the translators used a mix of preceding translations, namely the Textus Receptus (TR) some new Greek texts (12 to 15th century) and the Latin Vulgate.

The original Textus Receptus was hurriedly put together and contained “thousands of typographical errors,”
It then was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems unchanged.

Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman remarks:
“…The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’s edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!…In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, “hastily compiled” by Desiderius Erasmus, who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other manuscript portions, producing the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text.”

And that is the crux of the matter.
The KJV is replete not only with translation errors, but an outdated language. These errors are the basis for a constant flow of assumption that the bible is illogical, incomprehensible and contradictory.

We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to recover the original wording of the Greek text. That means today's translations can be (not always) much better than one written in 1611.

One more thing needs to be said. If a person reads a translation as a panacea for the problems of life, by all means the KJV might with it's poetic and traditional language be the perfect solution.
However when attempting to find out the original meaning inspired by God a more modern translation is generally recommended.
The serious reader should even consider a good word for word translation, whilst difficult to read it is more accurate.

Lots more could be said, perhaps you could add some additional comments or point out reasons you think I'm wrong.
Note: Keep in mind that ingenious remarks such as "you are so wrong...(and similar)" whilst amusing, reveals more about the one making the remark than the one receiving it.

Since I'm certain the more inquisitive amongst you, will be asking some example of errors, here is a short list. Of course not all versions have the same ones.

Some verses with English words that have changed meaning since the KJV include:

replenish -means- supply fully
closet - means - private or a secret room,bedroom
compelled - means -threatened, urged, or pushed -
conversation - means - way a person travels through life
cousins- means -related (anyone outside of immediate family)
doctors- means -Teacher
bewitchment - means -leading astray
instant- means -insistent or -urgent
carriages- means -luggage
leasing- means -deceit
meet- means -fitting,proper

John 1:17
KJV Bible: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Better Translation: "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Comments: This is another instance of a poor preposition. Moses did not proclaim his OWN law, but the law that GOD gave him to proclaim.



KJV Bible: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Better Translation: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Comments: Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

Acts 12:4
KJV Bible: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Better Translation: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people."
Comments: The Greek word pascha (Greek: πάσχα, Strong's Concordance Number #G3957) in this verse has been inaccurately translated as Easter. This word should be translated as Passover, which agrees with the translation of pascha as Passover as found in Matthew 26:2 and other verses.

KJV Bible: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. "
Comments: This verse should NOT have the italicized words "it were." It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. They need to be on guard!

1Corinthians 7:19
KJV Bible: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. "
Comments: This verse actually NEEDS some italicized words to make the meaning clear, such as: "For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, rather the important thing is the keeping of the commandments of God."


Keep in mind the KJV wasn't necessarily always wrong at the time it was written, just many words are outdated, and can have a completely different meaning today .
We should take care not to read into each and every word meanings used in today's English without checking it out.

Reference:
What are the ERRORS in the King James Version Bible
Errors in the King James Bible
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)? | PeterGoeman.com
A Brief History of the King James Bible - Stellar House Publishing
THE REAL STORY OF KING JAMES I
Any translation allows for error. Even original texts can be misunderstood.
Some parts of the KJV are outright deliberate changes to the original -such as substituting Easter for Passover, etc.
I find it best to use Bible search software -looking at many translations -and the Strongs definitions -checked against an actual older paper bible.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Repeatedly we hear that the best translation is the KJV bible. Sometimes, that it is the only bible inspired of God. Without a doubt its ubiquitous, and thus impossible to ignore.

Let's start with comments about the person of King James himself:

King James became the first earthly monarch to successfully sponsor and encourage the distribution of the entire Word of God in the daily language of his people. (King Alfred had made an attempt centuries earlier).

William Tyndale, the Father of the English Bible, had been ostensibly used by God to bring an early translation of the Bible in English. For this "crime" he was declared to be a heretic and was burned at the stake.
His last words were "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."
It seems his prayer was heard because subsequently a born again English king sponsored an English Bible, produced openly on English soil for English Christians.
This was of course was King James who appointed 54 learned men to make "one more exact translation of the Bible." King James encouraged financial gifts to this project and set the example by agreeing to underwrite the salary of several of the translators himself.

Even though the official name for this translation would be the Authorized Version, it was soon known as the King James Bible. It was uniquely made accessible and promoted by the King of England himself. Laymen now had no more fear of owning their own Bible.
Historian Steven Coston Sr. makes following comment about King James: "King James was, no matter what tales some may tell, a virtuous man of good intentions, who did the best he could as God gave him strength."
In view of such an inspiring beginning why would anyone not predominately use the KJV ?

King James Weakness:
Regardless of his good intentions and excellent character references (sometime criticized. But who isn't?) King James had one weakness. This particular foible was a trait many Kings had, namely a delusion of grandeur. We could argue
that it's not a "delusion" when a person is actually the most elevated person in the country, so why even mention it?
It is mentioned because of his affectation regarding the "importance of the King" and the King's position as ordained by God,
He was insulted by the Geneva Bible's translation of Matthew 2:20 which seemed to brand all kings as tyrants.

Thus King James exerted his influence on the translators to reflect his hierarchical perspective in their translation work. This was done despite the translators unsuccessful objections, after all he was the one paying for the translation to be done.
Its dedication read: "To the most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith.

Another issue revolves around inerrancy.
the average Christian may not be aware of the debate regarding various translations and may indeed receive the impression that the Bible favored in his or her church is inerrant.

In the words of evangelical Christian Gary Amirault:
“At an early point in my walk with Jesus, I was strongly under the influence of men and women who believed in the ‘Inerrant Bible’ doctrine. They believed the King James Bible was the only one Christians should use because it was inspired of God and without errors. They believed other translations were inspired of Satan, the “Alexandrian cult” and the Roman Catholic Church.”
David Sorenson, even goes so far as to deem “apostates” those who follow the “critical text,” such as the Revised Standard Version, as opposed to those who maintain the inerrancy of the “Received Text,” i.e., the basis for the KJV. He said “It is my belief that the King James Bible, originally known as the Authorized Version, first published in the year 1611, is God’s word in the English language without admixture of error.”

In reality these claims are diametrically in opposition to the truth.
Instead of being inerrant the KJV is replete with errors. (errors relative to the original texts)
Why can that be said?

Perceptive scholars point out that a translation can only be as good as it's source. The best basis for a translation are the extamt Hebrew, Aramaic and Coine Greek Manuscripts.
The Authorized Version (KJV) however took a shortcut. Instead of using these original mss, the translators used a mix of preceding translations, namely the Textus Receptus (TR) some new Greek texts (12 to 15th century) and the Latin Vulgate.

The original Textus Receptus was hurriedly put together and contained “thousands of typographical errors,”
It then was eventually reissued by Parisian printer Robert Estienne, whose edition was the basis of the KJV, with a significant amount of the same problems unchanged.

Scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman remarks:
“…The King James Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus’s edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us!…In fact, the Greek text that the KJV largely followed is now considered a seriously flawed composition, “hastily compiled” by Desiderius Erasmus, who pieced it together using a single Greek text from the 12th century and a few other manuscript portions, producing the “Textus Receptus” or “Received Text.”

And that is the crux of the matter.
The KJV is replete not only with translation errors, but an outdated language. These errors are the basis for a constant flow of assumption that the bible is illogical, incomprehensible and contradictory.

We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to recover the original wording of the Greek text. That means today's translations can be (not always) much better than one written in 1611.

One more thing needs to be said. If a person reads a translation as a panacea for the problems of life, by all means the KJV might with it's poetic and traditional language be the perfect solution.
However when attempting to find out the original meaning inspired by God a more modern translation is generally recommended.
The serious reader should even consider a good word for word translation, whilst difficult to read it is more accurate.

Lots more could be said, perhaps you could add some additional comments or point out reasons you think I'm wrong.
Note: Keep in mind that ingenious remarks such as "you are so wrong...(and similar)" whilst amusing, reveals more about the one making the remark than the one receiving it.

Since I'm certain the more inquisitive amongst you, will be asking some example of errors, here is a short list. Of course not all versions have the same ones.

Some verses with English words that have changed meaning since the KJV include:

replenish -means- supply fully
closet - means - private or a secret room,bedroom
compelled - means -threatened, urged, or pushed -
conversation - means - way a person travels through life
cousins- means -related (anyone outside of immediate family)
doctors- means -Teacher
bewitchment - means -leading astray
instant- means -insistent or -urgent
carriages- means -luggage
leasing- means -deceit
meet- means -fitting,proper

John 1:17
KJV Bible: "For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
Better Translation: "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ."
Comments: This is another instance of a poor preposition. Moses did not proclaim his OWN law, but the law that GOD gave him to proclaim.



KJV Bible: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing with water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Better Translation: "And I knew him not: but that he should be made manifest to Israel, therefore am I come baptizing in water . . . And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize in water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost."
Comments: Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water.

Acts 12:4
KJV Bible: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Better Translation: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Passover to bring him forth to the people."
Comments: The Greek word pascha (Greek: πάσχα, Strong's Concordance Number #G3957) in this verse has been inaccurately translated as Easter. This word should be translated as Passover, which agrees with the translation of pascha as Passover as found in Matthew 26:2 and other verses.

KJV Bible: "For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect. "
Comments: This verse should NOT have the italicized words "it were." It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. They need to be on guard!

1Corinthians 7:19
KJV Bible: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the commandments of God. "
Comments: This verse actually NEEDS some italicized words to make the meaning clear, such as: "For circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, rather the important thing is the keeping of the commandments of God."


Keep in mind the KJV wasn't necessarily always wrong at the time it was written, just many words are outdated, and can have a completely different meaning today .
We should take care not to read into each and every word meanings used in today's English without checking it out.

Reference:
What are the ERRORS in the King James Version Bible
Errors in the King James Bible
Are there Errors in the King James Version (KJV)? | PeterGoeman.com
A Brief History of the King James Bible - Stellar House Publishing
THE REAL STORY OF KING JAMES I

It seems like you have focused only on the translation and the language. But that's not the fundamental criticism of the KJV and its sources.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Neither did Christian love. :shrug: Both groups have definitely weaponized hate against "the other," though. Which has led to lots of killing.


There are many examples of Christianity turning on itself, on other sects of Christianity and none christians. I think the tetm Christian love can be one of the most hypocritical aspects of Christianity.
 

Neuropteron

Active Member
Can I ask.... Do you want a translation for more accuracy in message or easier to read?
.

Hi UArtist,

Personally, I much prefer a translation to be more accurate.

A paraphrased bible is much easier to read. But the reader is dependent on the translator to give a correct rendering.

Since many words and sentences have multiple meanings (amphibolous), this is not easy to do. The meaning often depends on the context and can easily be manipulated to conform to the translator belief.
Even so-called word for word translation are not really word for word but are often very loosely translated.
An extreme case is the KJv that is supposed to be word for word but is not even close to being able to make that claim.
True transliterations are "interlinear" bibles and are definitely not easy to read but are accurate.

here is an example of claims that the KJV is word for word:
The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations - Faith Founded on Fact
[Search domain faithfoundedonfact.com] The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations | Faith Founded on Fact
Many of the best-known Bible translations are word-for-word. Besides the NASB, the King James Version (KJV), the English Standard Version (ESV), and the New English Translation (NET) are all examples of Word-for-Word translations. It's generally great to read a word-for-word translation.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium Member
There are many examples of Christianity turning on itself, on other sects of Christianity and none christians. I think the tetm Christian love can be one of the most hypocritical aspects of Christianity.

I hear you. But honestly, all that says to me is that Christians are human beings. Look anywhere in the world, religious or non- religious, and people have turned on each other, acted violently, and engaged in hypocritical behavior. Thankfully over time we're slowly learning to think and act in ways that are better at fostering peace.
 
Last edited:

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I hear you. But honestly, all that says to me is that Christians are human beings. Look anywhere in the world, religious or non- religious, and people have turned on each other, acted violently, and engaged in hypocritical behavior. Thankfully over time we're slowly learning to think and act in ways that are better at fostering pace.


One can only hope
 

Vee

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
From what I've seen, the KJV is actually very good. The language is a bit old style, but the content seems fine to me.
 

Martin

Spam, wonderful spam (bloody vikings!)
As a general observation, I think it's good to study different translations of ancient texts. The differences can be revealing.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
Hi,
It's possible, I don't know.
What other problems with the KJV are you referring to ?

The KJV is predominantly based on the TR. Which is not based on a critical text that has some textual criticism used on it. For example, the KJV has a lot of the interpolations that came with the TR. Like the long ending of Mark, the pericope adultarae, etc, etc.

Thats the pertinent criticism applied. Not just a translation.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
There are many examples of Christianity turning on itself, on other sects of Christianity and none christians. I think the tetm Christian love can be one of the most hypocritical aspects of Christianity.


It can, yes.

Nevertheless, the core message of Christianity is love. That the message is often overlooked by those calling themselves Christian, does not negate the message; "that you should love each other as I have loved you".
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It can, yes.

Nevertheless, the core message of Christianity is love. That the message is often overlooked by those calling themselves Christian, does not negate the message; "that you should love each other as I have loved you".

The message was soon bastardised to love for those alike. The love of difference went out if the window very early on in Christianity.
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
The message was soon bastardised to love for those alike. The love of difference went out if the window very early on in Christianity.


That's a huge generalisation imo. True, it's not hard to find examples of Christian hypocrisy, nor events that show Christianity in a bad light. But there is and always has been another side to the story.

I've just been reading a story in the Big Issue of a conversation between Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lee Welham, Big Issue salesman. Well worth a read, and a good example, I believe, of Christ's message in action. It's on the Big Issue website.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury sold The Big Issue | The Big Issue
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
That's a huge generalisation imo. True, it's not hard to find examples of Christian hypocrisy, nor events that show Christianity in a bad light. But there is and always has been another side to the story.

I've just been reading a story in the Big Issue of a conversation between Justin Welby, Archbishop of Canterbury, and Lee Welham, Big Issue salesman. Well worth a read, and a good example, I believe, of Christ's message in action. It's on the Big Issue website.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury sold The Big Issue | The Big Issue


Those generalisations i learned by reading the whole bible (actually 3 of them) and not selectively ignoraning the bad bits and not putting my personal spin on the iffy bits to promote only the good.

In my life i have been seriously mentally and/or physically hurt 4 times, each times by Christians. At the same time my lifelong best friend is a devoted Christian.

So yes there are good and bad Christians, they are, after all just as human as everyone else.

The point being, most christians see Christianity only as a good force and make claims of only good for it's teachings and adherents when in actual fact many are a long long way from the idea if Christian good. That's where the hypocrisy lies
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Those generalisations i learned by reading the whole bible (actually 3 of them) and not selectively ignoraning the bad bits and not putting my personal spin on the iffy bits to promote only the good.

In my life i have been seriously mentally and/or physically hurt 4 times, each times by Christians. At the same time my lifelong best friend is a devoted Christian.

So yes there are good and bad Christians, they are, after all just as human as everyone else.

The point being, most christians see Christianity only as a good force and make claims of only good for it's teachings and adherents when in actual fact many are a long long way from the idea if Christian good. That's where the hypocrisy lies


I have no problem disregarding great chunks of the Bible. Life is too short to read Leviticus.

I don’t read Shakespeare’s sonnets either, or Henry VI, for similar reasons.

I’m sorry you were hurt.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I have no problem disregarding great chunks of the Bible. Life is too short to read Leviticus.

I don’t read Shakespeare’s sonnets either, or Henry VI, for similar reasons.

I’m sorry you were hurt.


Surely the bible is the message, not just the bits of the bible that suite you?

Cheers,
 
Top