A KJV question

I hear exactly what you are saying. This is why I don't know why anyone could be KJV only, because for non-english speaking persons, there is no such thing.

 

Ok, so I'm the one missing something here. Am I mistaken in believing that only the KJV was translated by the most capable scholars under the direction of God and that it is the only one that translates from the original Greek and Hebrew into any language, whereas the other translations are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints it? Doesn't changing words in the original change meanings of whole verses? Looking up the translators of newer versions, what happened to the people trying to come up with a better version? Didn;t the Bible tell you that would happen to anyone trying to add or take away from the Bible? Of course I may be mistaken, but this is what I've read and studied. I don't remember right off who all the translators were, but the one who sticks in my mind most is Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who was getting ready to fin;ish his "correction" of the "mistranslated" KJV Bible. Also, isn't it interesting that despite the wide trend of churches using other versions, the Mormons, which I consider to be the scariest and most underestimated threat to Christianity still insists on using the KJV. Even though once you get into the church you find out that they don't believe in half of it. This cult is so perfect at looking good and doing everything right on the oustide, and I think the fact that they use a KJV to look good says a lot. They have a frightening amount of truth in their church, which is all subtly used to serve Satan. Check it out. But that's another whole story.
Anyway, am I the only one who thinks this about the KJV?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by katie:
KJV is an english translation, what about people in other countries? What Bible are they expected to read? If you translate KJV to another language don't you then once again have those same problems translating to another language?
Hope you understand what I am tring to ask? Thats about as clear as I can make it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Many languages, but certainly not all, have bibles translated from the same basic Hebrew and Greek texts which underlie the KJV. There are a few radicals who have advocated translating the KJV instead of the Hebrew/Greek into the foreign languages, but most such efforts have been a disaster. One such translation is the McVey Spanish version. It is such a poor translation that native Spanish speakers have been known to laugh when it was read publicly! But most rational people do not expect the KJV to be translated, but that the Hebrew and Greek should be the source language for every new translation.

[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Are they being translated from the messoretictext, or however you spell it? I'm just getting confused here now.

 

Masoretic refers to the Old Testament Texts. In 1516, Daniel Bomberg published a text of the Old Testament under the name "First Rabbinic Bible." This text was followed in 1524 by a second edition that had been compiled from ancient manuscripts by a Hebrew scholar and converted Jewish Rabbi named Abraham Ben Chayyim. Today this work is called the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text, and is the text that underlies the Old Testament of the King James Bible. The word "masoretic" comes from the Hebrew word "mesor" meaning traditional. The Masoretes were the scribes that were given the responsibility of guarding and keeping the text of the Old Testament.

The Ben Chayyim text was used in the first two editions of "Biblia Hebraica" by Rudolph Kittel, usually referred to as BHK, published in 1906 and 1912. However, in 1937, Kittel changed his Hebrew text from the Ben Chayyim to the Ben Asher text.

The Ben Asher text was based on a text called the Leningrad Manuscript (B19a; also called simply L), which was dated around 1008 A. D. It is presently published in an updated form under the name Biblical Hebraica Stugarttensia, or BHS, and is the Hebrew text which underlies the NKJV Old Testament.

It must be noted there are significantly fewer differences between the OT text and the NT texts. In fact, Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia differs from the Ben Chayyim text, (Bomberg) in only eight places which would affect the English translation: Proverbs 8:16; Isaiah 10:16; Isaiah 27:2; Isaiah 38:14; Jeremiah 34:1; Ezekiel 30:18; Zephaniah 3:15; and Malachi 1:12.



[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Thank you. Ok, everyone, what he said. That's why I originally resolved to stay with the KJV. I have a bad habit of studying things out for myself, coming to a conclusion, sticking with it, and promptly forgetting why, so that I look (and am) quite the fool when I try to explain why I think like I do.

 

&lt; Thank you. Ok, everyone, what he said. That's why I originally resolved to stay with the KJV. I have a bad habit of studying things out for myself, coming to a conclusion, sticking with it, and promptly forgetting why, &gt;

What an example of this KJVO thinking!-- "I know WHAT I believe (KJ's Bible only), now tell me WHY I believe what I believe."

 

You misunderstand. I studied it out, but hadn't remembered the details of it. It was a few years ago, when I was doing quite a bit of studying, and all of my papers are now gone and I'd had some medical problems in the last two years that had some loss of memory involved, and there's still some things I knew that just don't always click right away. Some things I have to start all over again, but most just need some refreshing.
Anyhow, as to the last post before yours, I think that that is exactly what we have pastors and leaders for. To help us understand the parts of the Bible that we don't. Praying before studying will also help increase your understanding of what you're about to read. Not all of us can be scholars, so we have pastors and teachers who are. Also, it seems that for a lot of the original language words in the Bible, there are a number of English words it can translate to. I believe God inspired the writers of the KJV to use the best ones. Why? I have no proof of that. There is no verse in the Bible I can quote to prove this point. I came to that by studying out the history of the differently translated Bibles for myself. Then praying about it. I had the time to do that then. If you trust your pastor or teacher you can just believe what they tell you. Which is why we have them. If you don't feel they've explained it well enough that you can be comfortable with it then you are REQUIRED to study it on your own. And PRAY about it. Otherwise you're being led around by the nose, and are not believing what you do out of free will.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
Ok, so I'm the one missing something here. Am I mistaken in believing that only the KJV was translated by the most capable scholars under the direction of God and that it is the only one that translates from the original Greek and Hebrew into any language, whereas the other translations are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you are mistaken in believing that the KJV was the only English translation that was "translated from the original Greek and Hebrew" and that modern versions are merely "other translations [that] are copied into other languages from other languages, which taints [them]."

Even Dr. Cassidy would tell you this: MVs are translated from Greek and Hebrew, like the KJV. We would disagree on which text is the best representation of the original.

You said in a later comment that you had studied all the evidence and come to the conclusion that the KJV was it (but you forgot why). One might call into question the veracity of that comment if you really thought that the KJV was the only English version translated from Greek and Hebrew.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doesn't changing words in the original change meanings of whole verses? Looking up the translators of newer versions, what happened to the people trying to come up with a better version? Didn;t the Bible tell you that would happen to anyone trying to add or take away from the Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Who is "changing words in the original?" Instead of assuming the KJV to be right where it differs from MVs, consider this: maybe the KJV is wrong sometimes and the MVs are right. Do the MVs subtract from the word of God (take away from) or does the KJV add to the word of God in those instances (which carries an equal penalty according to Revelation)?


As far as I know, nothing out of the ordinary had happened to translators of the modern versions in a proportion greater than that which might be explained by chance. (Some may have died, some may have gotten cancer, etc., but this isn't anything out of the ordinary [contrary to what some KJVOs would have you to believe]; it isn't a punishment for translating--if so, then one must remember that the KJV translators are all dead!)


<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Of course I may be mistaken, but this is what I've read and studied. I don't remember right off who all the translators were, but the one who sticks in my mind most is Joseph Smith of the Mormons, who was getting ready to fin;ish his "correction" of the "mistranslated" KJV Bible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps you might consider better sources. Joseph Smith was not a translator. To my knowledge, he did not even know Greek or Hebrew. He fabricated a book (separate from the Scriptures) and called it "inspired."

Furthermore, even if he were a translator, he is still from a cult. The translators of the NIV, NASB, and other reputable translations are all Christians (although they are not all Baptist, but neither were any of the 1611 boys).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Also, isn't it interesting that despite the wide trend of churches using other versions, the Mormons, which I consider to be the scariest and most underestimated threat to Christianity still insists on using the KJV...I think the fact that they use a KJV to look good says a lot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Go figure. Isn't the KJV supposed to be all "good?" Yet, it produces 'fruit' like the Mormon Church!

Before anyone gets too excited, I am only kidding; anyone can twist scriptures.

The Jehova's Witnesses also used the KJV until they came up with their own translation (Adventists still use only the KJV). Its inferior rendering of passages where the Granville Sharp rule applies lends credence to their heretical view of Jesus by detracting from his deity in some passages.

Sincerely,

[ April 23, 2001: Message edited by: Blade ]

 

I am not referring to the book commonly known as the book of Mormon when referring to Joseph Smith. He actually had a KJV Bible he corrected the so called errors in. It is not very widely known among non-Mormons that this exists, and up until recently the reasons cited for not using his new version was that it wasn't completed. According to Mormon rumors, the book, which is the KJV almost word for word, with what J.S. calls the plain and precious parts which were lost in the great falling away of the church, restored. Of course this includes the prophecy of his birth, and some "minor" word changes.
I believe it's the actual text itself that I'm thinking of that were used, instead of copies of it.
Sometimes I really do just wonder if I'm wrong. Please don't attack me for asking. I enjoy learning and re-learning, which is what I believe most of us are here for. Often times I have been so stubbornly stuck on a belief I failed to even consider where I might be wrong. It's much better to get info. from as many sources as possible and occasionally review what you've always considered to be fact all over again.
Gina

 

It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.

Ye Must Be Born Again

 

Here's some nit-pickin' for ya

The JWs used the KJV until the ASV came out. They loved the fact that Lord was translated Jehovah. Eventually they translated their own NWT translation.

 

It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

By your use of quotations around "Christians" you are propagating the usual KJVO implication that those who use and recommend modern, scholarly, readable versions are not Christians. The same implications can be made against KJVOs who demand that the KJV is the only reliable word of God, and who thereby attempt to put Christians under a yoke of legalistic bondage.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible.

True; we also have the preserved Word of God in all reliable translations. The KJVO errs in believing the preserved Word of God must be in one monolithic text or version only. If that is true, then the KJV is not the word of God, for there have been various editions of the KJV, as well as the TR which underlies the NT.

The text from which it is translated from is dependable.

Dependable, yes. Perfect, no.

The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Not the same text, yes. Corrupted, no. Corrupted is a pejorative term without grounding. It could be said that the TR is corrupted through scribal additions.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

You are really regurgitating much KJVO nonsense here, and are betraying that you really have not personally investigated the translation issue. ALL translations I am aware of (except the LB paraphrase) are translated from the Hebrew and Greek texts. It is true the KJV was translated from the traditional texts, but so is the NKJV, MKJV, KJ21, KJ2000, and LITV. If underlying texts were really the issue with KJVOs, then these other versions would be acceptable to them as well.

As for verbal and formal equivalence, it is also found in the ASV, RSV, NKJV, NASB, MKJV, NKJV, LITV, KJ21, and KJ2000. In fact, the KJV uses more dynamic equivalence than do the ASV, NKJV, MKJV, LITV which are all fairly literal.

The real underlying reason for KJVOism is not that the KJV is believed to be a better version based on better manuscripts using a better translation method, but rather simple traditionalism of wording, shown by the fact that the errant readings, minority readings, paraphrases and verses unsupported by any Greek texts are defended as vigorously as are the majority text and literal renderings. The KJVO splits churches for the same reason changing the color of the carpet does - people don't like change, regardless if its for the better.

 

&lt; The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase. &gt;

Check out Romans, beginning with Ch. 3, vv. 4, 6, and 31. That phrase the KJV misstranslates "God forbid" is closer in all of these translations referred to in the above pasting, with NAS expectedly the most accurate, "May it never be." The KJV has been defended here as using a "dynamic equivalent." The fact that in the world the name of God is often inserted to make a point (e.g., 'Oh my God!; 'Oh God, no!') does not justify throwing His name into a passage, in which it is not there, to make a point.

 

I said, "Christians" because many professing believers today are really not believers at all.

Matthew 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

Matthew 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Ye Must Be Born Again

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Psalm145 3:
It's really very sad to see so many "Christians" pushing the modern versions. It's to be expected, though, considering the last days apostasy predicted in the Bible.

We have the preserved Word of God in the English language in the King James Bible. The text from which it is translated from is dependable. The new versions on the market today are translated from corrupted text, not the same text that the translators of the King James Bible used.

Also, the King James Bible was translated from the very words of the traditional Hebrew and Greek text by way of verbal and formal equivalence. The new versions such as the New American Standard, New International Version, New King James Version, New Living Translation and others were translated using the dynamic equivalence method, or paraphrase.

If you want to have a Bible that is a paraphrase of corrupted text, then use the new versions. If you want the inerrant Word of God, then keep your King James Bible !

Proverbs 30:6 Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As usual, conjecture, conjecture, conjecture...all without a drop of evidence and no sound arguments for your opinionated assertions.

BTW, your ignorance betrayed you when you classified the NASB as the first in your list of versions alleged to have been translated using dynamic equivalence or paraphrase. It is arguably more literal than your beloved KJV.

You don't know what you are talking about.

Read up; don't assert,

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gina:
I am not referring to the book commonly known as the book of Mormon when referring to Joseph Smith. He actually had a KJV Bible he corrected the so called errors in. It is not very widely known among non-Mormons that this exists, and up until recently the reasons cited for not using his new version was that it wasn't completed. According to Mormon rumors, the book, which is the KJV almost word for word, with what J.S. calls the plain and precious parts which were lost in the great falling away of the church, restored. Of course this includes the prophecy of his birth, and some "minor" word changes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still, Joseph Smith was not a translator. He may have a revised KJV to his name, but there is no "Joseph Smith Version" of the Bible. This is a very important difference.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sometimes I really do just wonder if I'm wrong. Please don't attack me for asking. I enjoy learning and re-learning, which is what I believe most of us are here for. Often times I have been so stubbornly stuck on a belief I failed to even consider where I might be wrong. It's much better to get info. from as many sources as possible and occasionally review what you've always considered to be fact all over again.
Gina<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gina, please read the "Former KJVOs?" thread. I feel that you may be where I was when I used to be KJVO. I would certainly not intentionally attack you and I am sorry if I seemed a bit short. Most KJVOs would never entertain the idea that KJVO might be wrong; I am used to dealing with them. The biggest obstacle I overcame was learning to weigh both sides of the argument. I'll post some links for you later that really helped me see the other side (I am sure you are already abundantly familiar with the KJVO side).

Sincerely,