1. 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 people believe the King James Version of the bible?

Discussion in 'Biblical Debates' started by ProfLogic, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    You can lead a horse to water department... but you CAN'T make them drink.

    This whole KJV vs the Rest argument has been going on for a long, long time. There is no Biblical argument to favor it above the others as some would have you think. Those that are dead set on it above all others have shown their ability to ignore the scriptures on traditions of men.
     
  2. reyjamiei

    reyjamiei Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2005
    Messages:
    120
    Ratings:
    +5
    I lose only because you say I do. I never said that I only count first editions as the only editions. I said those verses were removed from the first edition and reduced to footnotes in later editions. Reducing a verse to a footnote is removing the verse because footnotes are not part of the biblical text. I don't even own a first edition NIV.

    I did use current editions but you ignored it. Finding one older manuscript with omitted verses does not mean that those verses were added later, it could also mean that the verses were intentionally omitted from the manuscript. The manuscripts that were being used frequentlly had to be recopied and the previous manuscripts eventually were destroyed by their age and usage. A manuscript being found in a cave that is older than any known manuscripts would probably mean that it wasn't being used any longer. It probably wasn't being used any longer because it was a pervertted copy with verses left out to fit the theology of a certain sect.

    Isaiah 14:12, Lucifer is the translation of the Greek word eosphorus with means "dawn-bearer" or "light-bearer," not morning star. For it to mean morning star you would have to take "dawn-bearer" or "light-bearer" to mean the morning star but then that would just be a personal assumption.

    In the NIV, Jesus says he is the morning star in Revelation 22:16, Do you think he was saying that he is Venus


    I gave reasons. You seemed to have ignored them as well. I never said that the KJV was right but between the KJV and the NIV, the KJV is the best. I collect Bibles and I have many copies of the NIV and the KJV as well as other translations.
     
  3. angellous_evangellous

    Ratings:
    +0
    I have to agree.

    Satan himself could not produce a Bible version more unreliable than the NIV. :(
     
  4. logician

    logician Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +379
    The xian bible is a collection of stories written mainly for teaching purposes. HIstorically it is very unreliable.
     
  5. kateyes

    kateyes Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2006
    Messages:
    541
    Ratings:
    +71
    Not to put too fine a point on this--but unless any of us are reading the dead sea scrolls or ancient manuscripts in aramaic, or archaic greek--we are all reading translations, or translations of interpretations of translations. The sad but true thing about the Bible is regardless of which version or translation you read--you can find passages to support or refute pretty much any opinion there is. Given that the earliest traditions of the Bible(old testament) are oral (and therefore somewhat suspect) and that there are 4 versions of the same events (that dont't agree with each other) in the NewTestament--to argue that any version/translation is more or less accurate than another is moot.
     
  6. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    Please remain on topic. The topic for discussion it the acceptance/rejection of the KJV as the inspired version per the OP.
     
  7. Halcyon

    Halcyon Lord of the Badgers

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    6,408
    Ratings:
    +995
    I don't particularily like the KJV, primarily because i'm not a 17th century aristocrat so the language is part gibberish to me.

    Plus, i can't believe that phrasing the biblical works in archaic, poetic, formal English does the validity of the translation any good. But then again, i imagine most english language bibles alter the original meaning of the text - especially if the translaters have their own biases and agendas.

    I prefer readablility to age, so long as i get the underlying theme of the text i'm fine.
     
  8. bandgeek500

    bandgeek500 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Messages:
    28
    Ratings:
    +1
    all traslations have their flaws. there are plenty of passages in the bible that can't be fully expressed because the language it was written in is different. even in it's original languages the bible has flaws. the original new testament does not exist. we have to rely on manuscripts that are dated after the 2nd century. most of which that have many variations in the text. so if your criteria for accepting the bible is that it must be perfect than you might as well reject it.
    however, texual critics have been able to make an estimation to the original words of new testament. that is good enough for me to accept because the original themes are still intact. and although traslators have their biases, reading multiple traslations help in extracted the true meaning of the verses.
     
  9. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    The King James translation of the Greek Scriptures, rested on manuscripts of the twelfth and fifteenth centuries. What a difference from the fourth-century manuscripts now available! And, of course, the earlier a manuscript is the more likely it is, as a general rule, to be free of errors.
    The translators of the King James Version, the Bible most widely used in the English-speaking world, did not have access to these ancient manuscripts.
    Until about the turn of the century scholars had a somewhat fuzzy understanding of the Greek in which the Bible was written. In the 1890’s archaeologists uncovered all kinds of documents in Egypt.
    There has been new light not only on the Greek language but also on the Hebrew as well. The knowledge of Hebrew available to scholars today is vastly greater than that which was at the command of the translators of the King James Version. So Bible translators today can also give us a better-understood translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.......... and we must remember that translators are not inspired, ONLY the original were inspired . but in this time of the end many things have come to light about the scriptures .
    Many will rove about, and the [true] knowledge will become abundant. Daniel 12;4
    One of the major reasons the Authorized Version is so widely accepted is its kingly authority. There seems little doubt that, had not a king authorized this version, it would not today be venerated as though it had come direct from God.
    In many respects the beliefs of King James adversely affected the Bible translation called after his name.
    This is apparent from the fact that some of the translators complained that they could not follow their own judgment, being restrained by "reasons of state." The result: the King James Version is not a true reflection of the minds of the translators of the version. Above all, it comes far short of being a faithful reflection of the mind of Jehovah God, as it appears in the original Bible.
    Getting the thoughts of God is the vital thing.

     
  10. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    This is complete nonsense. It may, perhaps have been true in the English speaking world (though I doubt it) but given that the liturgical language of the Greek church even today is Koine and not modern Greek (a slightly later version, but much closer to the language of the NT than what modern Greeks speak) and, therefore, all Greek, Cypriot and Ecumenical Patriarchate priests must be able to speak it, the knowledge of NT Greek could never have been fuzzy.

    James
     
  11. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110

    The translators of the King James Version, the Bible most widely used in the English-speaking world, did not have access to these ancient manuscripts. Even the Alexandrian manuscript did not get into the hands of Bible translators until 1628, after the King James Bible of 1611 had been published. So the foundation for a Bible far more accurate and understandable than the Authorized Version has been laid since 1611.
    The King James translation was based on a Greek text marred by mistakes that could have been avoided had the manuscripts of the fourth and fifth centuries been available to the translators.
     
  12. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    In 1754 John Wesley completed his "alterations" of the Authorized Version of 1611 together with his "Explanatory Notes." As an honest student of the Scriptures Wesley rejected the trinitarian spurious text of 1 John 5:7 as found in the King James translation.—See Explanatory Notes Upon the New Testament, by John Wesley, reprinted edition of 1948, p. 917.
     
  13. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    The point I picked up on said nothing of manuscripts. If it had I would not have replied as I did. Older manuscripts have, of course, been found since the KJV was translated. You, however, said that knowledge of the Greek language in which the NT was written was fuzzy until the turn of the century. This clearly cannot be the case, however, if Koine Greek has been continually in use as a liturgical language since the earliest liturgies were written, which it undoubtedly has. The reply I quote above, then, has nothing to do with the point I made. Of course, you may have meant that the older Greek manuscripts were only discovered more recently but I see no way to read what you actually wrote (quoted in my last post) as meaning anything other than what I took it to mean.

    James
     
  14. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    sorry maybe i did not make myself very clear, but i think i am right in saying that According to classical Greek they were right, but they did not know the Bible was written in common Greek.
    There has been new light not only on the Greek language but also on the Hebrew as well. The knowledge of Hebrew available to scholars today is vastly greater than that which was at the command of the translators of the King James Version. So Bible translators today can also give us a better-understood translation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
     
  15. James the Persian

    James the Persian Dreptcredincios Crestin

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    4,416
    Ratings:
    +654
    I very much doubt that this is true and if it is true for any group at all it can only have been for westerners. As I said, the Greek speaking Orthodox local churches all use Koine Greek as their liturgical language even today. Though it is certainly of a form somewhat more modern to that in which the NT was written (it's Byzantine Koine) it's still very close to first century Koine and difficult to understand for modern Greek speakers. Knowledge of Koine was never lost and, indeed, the Greeks do still use first century Koine when reading the Scriptures during the Liturgy - they have not been translated into a more modern form of the language.
    I will not comment on the Hebrew as we do not use the Masoretic Text and hence it is of little interest to me. As I also know next to nothing of the language this is my wisest course of action.

    James
     
  16. PHOTOTAKER

    PHOTOTAKER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,057
    Ratings:
    +89
    why should we belive in any of the bibles? there are peaces of the original munuscipt but nothing that would be the true bible, all we have to go by is copies and we all know that most of them have mistakes do to the errors of man; also, the bible has been altered by the hands of man for there own purposes, to get gain in this life... tell me how do any of us know besides faith that the bible is the word of God mostly as he attended it?? we also know from history that most of the believes that were taught while Christ was on earth are lost and changed history proves this, use the dead sea Scrolls as an example... also how do we know that changing form the original traslation of the KJV to make it essayer to read destroys the poetry that is already in it???
     
  17. PHOTOTAKER

    PHOTOTAKER Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,057
    Ratings:
    +89
    i don't mean to be radom but it didn't really read anything that partian to these issues if there are i'm am sorry that i am repeating it...
     
  18. Scuba Pete

    Scuba Pete Le plongeur avec attitude...

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2004
    Messages:
    16,472
    Ratings:
    +3,192
    Religion:
    Christian Taoist
    How about we stay on topic here? Those are great questions and though I disagree with your premesis and conclusions, they should have their own threads.
     
  19. may

    may Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2004
    Messages:
    3,665
    Ratings:
    +110
    In 1611 what became the most widely used English translation, the Authorized Version, was published. In this, Gods name appeared four times in the main text. (Exodus 6:3; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4) "Jah," a poetic abbreviation of the name, appeared in Psalm 68:4. And the name appeared in full in place-names such as "Jehovah-jireh." (Genesis 22:14; Exodus 17:15; Judges 6:24) However, the translators in most instances substituted "LORD" or "GOD" for God’s name. But if God’s name could appear in four verses, why could it not appear in all the other thousands of verses that contain it in the original Hebrew? so the king James version have taken Gods name away from the bible , but no worries , the new world translation have put the name back where it rightly belongs.
    The truth is, many translators have not felt that the name, is out of place in the Bible. They have included it in their versions, and the result has always been a translation that gives more honor to the Bible’s Author and sticks more faithfully to the original text. Some widely used versions that include the name are the Valera translation (Spanish, published in 1602), the Almeida version (Portuguese, published in 1681), the original Elberfelder version (German, published in 1871), as well as the American Standard Version (English, published in 1901). Some translations, notably The Jerusalem Bible, also consistently use God’s name but with the spelling Yahweh. so the king James is not a good translation because it is not bringing Gods name to the fore , it is pushing it into the background and that is not what Jesus asked us to do . not a good thing to be taking things out of the bible . especially the name of God.

    That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,​

    You alone are the Most High over all the earth. psalm 83;18
     
  20. logician

    logician Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2006
    Messages:
    6,890
    Ratings:
    +379
    It's sad that a number of Xians actually think the supposed Jesus said "thee", "thy", and "thine".
     
Loading...