• 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 ?

Neuropteron

Active 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
 
Last edited:

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I still don't know what the KJV is based on.

I'm pretty certain the Bible itself is the invention of the early Catholic church.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
King James decreed that there were just too many different versions of the Bible so he gathered together fourty some scholars and told them to compile the ultimate bible based on the six most popular bibles of the time.

And four hundred years later there are again hundreds of different versions of the bible.

:shrug:
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
As an addition to the references above, I would strongly recommend “God’s Secretaries; the Making of the King James Bible” - republished as “When God Spoke English” - by Adam Nicholson.

A couple of observations;
What the OP says about the somewhat arcane language was true even at the time of publication, and was a result of a deliberate editorial policy. A conscious choice was made to combine clarity with grandeur. The KJV was intended to be read from the pulpit, where language might be required to carry dramatic weight and rhythm; but also round the fireside in private homes, where accessibility was a virtue.

Of course the language seems outdated to us now; the 17th Century was a golden era of English letters. The century of Shakespeare, John Donne, Andrew Marvel, John Milton. The fact that those poets and dramatists are still widely read today suggests the language might be worth making a little effort to get to grips with.

It would be nigh on impossible to make an inerrant translation of a compendium of centuries old literature, from sources in a variety of languages, sources which, as the OP has stated, were themselves not entirely reliable, and which have since been disputed. But it was a work of collective scholarship undertaken by a broad cross section of the most learned men (they were all men) in England at the time, High Church and Puritan, radical and conservative. It’s hard to imagine such an undertaking ever being bettered.

All Bible translations arrive with an agenda. The KJV was no different. The fawning dedication to James - believed to have been penned by Launcelot Andrewes, Bishop of Chichester - makes that clear. It begins with the sentence;
“Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when he first sent Your Majesty’s Royal Person to rule and reign over us”.
Coming a quarter of a century before the English Civil War, those words tell you where the translators stood collectively on the issue of monarchy and worldly authority.

For all that, the KJV is a literary masterpiece. If you approach the Bible as a literary undertaking, a collection of poetry, myth, allegory, a source philosophical and spiritual wisdom and wonder, then the KJV will in my humble opinion never be bettered in the English language. If you consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, well, good luck with that. But know that you are always going to be reading translations of ancient texts which are often themselves disputed.
 

Unveiled Artist

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

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

I think many are putting more faith in how the bible is translated and not the message it translates...you look to scriptures as if It has eternal life, but even it speaks on my behalf.

It seems to make scriptures based on Christ, not Christ on scriptures...maybe find a Bible that you can understand the message regardless the translation.

That and no translation is 100%. Go with your gut.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
For all that, the KJV is a literary masterpiece. If you approach the Bible as a literary undertaking, a collection of poetry, myth, allegory, a source philosophical and spiritual wisdom and wonder, then the KJV will in my humble opinion never be bettered in the English language. If you consider the Bible to be the inerrant word of God, well, good luck with that. But know that you are always going to be reading translations of ancient texts which are often themselves disputed.

A recent, masterful translation of the Hebrew Bible is that by the much acclaimed Robert Alter. Somewhere, in one of the many things I've read from him, he points to the KJV as one of his favorites. That is significant praise.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
King James decreed that there were just too many different versions of the Bible so he gathered together fourty some scholars and told them to compile the ultimate bible based on the six most popular bibles of the time.

And four hundred years later there are again hundreds of different versions of the bible.

:shrug:

Language is always changing. It is hard to understand what the KJV means in places.
Scholarship continues to find alterations and so better manuscripts.
language scholars keep finding better understanding of the original languages.
Some people want literal translations and others want translations where the underlying meaning is expressed.
The number of different translations won't decrease, it will always be on the rise.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Language is always changing. It is hard to understand what the KJV means in places.
Scholarship continues to find alterations and so better manuscripts.
language scholars keep finding better understanding of the original languages.
Some people want literal translations and others want translations where the underlying meaning is expressed.
The number of different translations won't decrease, it will always be on the rise.

A book is a book, when a copy deviates from original it is no longer a true representation of that book.
 

Left Coast

This Is Water
Staff member
Premium 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

Ironically, although JWs love to criticize the KJV now, prior to publishing the New World Translation in the 60s, the KJV was their preferred translation. My dad owns a KJV printed by the Watchtower.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
A book is a book, when a copy deviates from original it is no longer a true representation of that book.

Hence the work to make sure that we are as close to the original as possible.
But translations, especially translations of ancient texts and ancient cultures are always going to be lacking in something.
Knowledgeable teachers are always needed to bring out the meaning for others and the Spirit of God is always active to lead us to the truth of a matter.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
Hence the work to make sure that we are as close to the original as possible.
But translations, especially translations of ancient texts and ancient cultures are always going to be lacking in something.
Knowledgeable teachers are always needed to bring out the meaning for others and the Spirit of God is always active to lead us to the truth of a matter.


So

and others want translations where the underlying meaning is expressed.

Doesn't strike you of distorting what is written?

The meaning can mean different things to different people, it can also be written to target a specific groups beliefs and thus direct them away from the original meaning.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
A book is a book, when a copy deviates from original it is no longer a true representation of that book.
I, for one, can't wait until you point us to the original, along with guidelines on producing a literal translation that is sensitive to vernacular, idiom, and connotation in a millennia old language and culture.
 

Brian2

Veteran Member
Doesn't strike you of distorting what is written?

Yes sometimes it no doubt does.

The meaning can mean different things to different people, it can also be written to target a specific groups beliefs and thus direct them away from the original meaning.

True. Hence knowledgeable people with knowledge of the culture and times and very helpful.
Usually the same or similar things are written in more than one part of the Bible and in different ways, so something close to the original meaning should be able to be seen.
But disagreements on the meaning of passages still are there even amongst these knowledgeable people.
The basics are easy to see however.
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
I, for one, can't wait until you point us to the original, along with guidelines on producing a literal translation that is sensitive to vernacular, idiom, and connotation in a millennia old language and culture.

If an original existed then Christianity would not be fragment into close on 50,000 sects with a couple of hundred english language bibles (who knows how many in other languages) each one slightly (or grossly) different to any other copy. Each sect interpreting their favourite bible in the way that suites them. Many saying their interpretation of their version us the only true interpretation and everyone else reading other bibles and interpreting them differently are not christian and will burn in hell

Don't ya just love christian love for their fellow?
 
Top