The King James Version is a fantastic Version of the Bible. King james onlyism is a false teaching.
The Supposed Errors in the KJV
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by Hark, Mar 3, 2021.
Page 6 of 9
-
Perhaps what you may assume is causing doubt about the word of God is not actually causing doubt concerning what was given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
It is according to the Scriptures themselves that it can be asserted that questioning adding to the word of God, omitting from the word of God, or diminishing from the word of God by incorrect or wrong renderings would not at all be causing doubt about the word of God given by inspiration to the prophets and apostles.
I believe and advocate that the exact same measures/standards should be applied to all believers, both KJV-only advocates and non-KJV-only advocates. You can be annoyed by the stating of the truth, but it does not make it right. I advocate and defend the stating of the truth concerning the KJV. I have read and loved the KJV over 50 years as what it actually is.
Based on what the Scriptures teach about themselves, I do not believe that questioning or disagreeing with an inaccurate rendering in a modern English Bible is causing doubt about the word of God any more than questioning or disagreeing with an inaccurate rendering in the KJV is. -
And speaking of obsessions-YOU seem obsessed with my anti-KJVO work across several boards. You've said you're not KJVO, so you should JOIN me insteada badmouthing me.
Now, when I made the statement "The words 'and shalt be' were ADDED to Rev. 16:5 in the KJV", am I telling the truth? To prove me wrong, all one need do is show me an old Greek Scriptural ms. with those words in that verse, a real ms as close to the original that we know of, & not some vorlage copy some man composed long after the original was made.
Anyone, you included, is free to research any statements I make pointing out imperfections in the KJV, & if I'm PROVEN wrong, I'll admit it on the same board in which I made it. Otherwise, you have no room to criticize me for TELLING THE TRUTH. -
-
Some or perhaps many KJV-only advocates or KJV defenders seem to display a spirit of fear towards the truth even though the Scriptures do not teach that truth harms or undermines sound faith in God.
According to the Scriptures, God does not give believers a spirit of fear or the spirit of bondage to fear (2 Tim. 1:7, Rom. 8:15). God gives a sound mind (2 Tim. 1:7) so that believers who accept and believe sound Bible doctrine should not be harmed by truth. Believers are not led by the Spirit of truth to fear truth (Rom. 8:14-15). Fear is not listed as a fruit of the Holy Spirit (Gal. 5:22-23), but the fruit of the Spirit—love would cast out fear (1 John 4:18).
Perhaps truth may be a problem for blind, non-biblical faith in human, non-scriptural, unsound KJV-only reasoning/teaching or in opinions of men, but truth is not indicated in the Scriptures to be a problem for unfeigned faith in God. -
Wesley Briggman Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Just trying to learn which translations reveal the errors in the KJV. Thanks for providing resources for comparison. -
I was wondering if we could switch gears a moment and talk about the translation methods of each version. It doesn’t appear the modern translations have gone through anywhere the extent of the superior methods used by the KJB translators had used.
-
tyndale1946 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
A constant reminder that I find myself in need of.:( -
In those places where the KJV has non-literal, non-word-for-word, dynamic equivalent or paraphrased renderings, would you suggest that those are superior?
In those places where the KJV provided no English rendering for original-language words of Scripture in their underlying texts, were those non-renderings superior? In their 1611 marginal notes, the KJV translators sometimes admitted that they provided no English word for some original-language words. -
-
-
But it is an opinion that people have a right to.
Men like William Tyndale.
But I cannot absolutely prove that the Lord used them.
To me, your questions carry a double edge...
Perhaps you might consider directing them at the modern English version advocates as well, my friend.
Flip the questions around, and point them at them.
Put them under the same spotlight of truth as you seem to keep putting those who advocate the AV under...
Or to me, you're not being entirely neutral and objective, as anyone who really wants to get to the truth of the matter should be.
That is why I suggest presenting all the evidence on both sides, and then letting the reader decide.
For the record, I am well aware that the "KJV" is not perfect,
and I acknowledge that they could have done a bit better in a few places.
-
-
You and I are not the Lord Jesus, and just because He did something, stated something or condemned someone ( knowing the hearts and minds of men around us ), does not give us the authority to step outside His commands regarding our conduct.
He is God and the Son of God...
He has the right to do things that we as men do not...even those of us who are His sheep.
How we act as believers is to be free from offense towards both God and man ( Acts of the Apostles 24:16 ).
He had Paul and others of His apostles give us this example, even though Paul slipped up a time or two.;) -
I am trying to be as objective as possible by asking that the same assertions be applied consistently and justly. I do advocate that the same measures/standards should be applied to all Bible translations including to the KJV. I have read the KJV over 50 years and am being objective by asking that the same measures/standards be applied to it as to other English Bible translations.
Are your comments demonstrating the point that KJV-only questions and assertions would carry a double edge or would harm the KJV if their KJV-only reasoning was applied consistently and justly?
If the Church of England makers of the KJV sometimes did the same things as modern English Bible translators, how were their translation methods supposedly superior? -
-
Also, I think that if you honestly compare them to many of today's biblical scholars, I think you'll find that they really were very much highly educated and experts in their professions ( some of them were fluent in Koine Greek and Hebrew );
A thing rarely seen today, some 400 years later.
No I don't worship them, but I do recognize their level of scholarship as professing believers who had a King to carry out a duty for.
Society was much different back then, and they took some things a bit more seriously...
Especially work being done for which they could have later given their lives for.
For example, only 50 years before, many who stood up and did some of what they did, gave their lives at the stake under Mary I and other heads of state in Europe.
They aren't going to have the same motives for translating, as say, someone who only wanted to give God's words to God's children would have.
Of those who are professing Christians, are you aware that not everyone who names the name of Christ is actually His?
In the light of Matthew 7:21-23, I would think that this would factor in to our thinking about this matter when it comes to those who profess His name but in works they deny Him.
For example, false teachers ( 2 Peter 2, Jude 1 ) don't really care for the flock of God;
They are there to exploit and to bring into bondage the children of God, so as to trouble them.
Don't you think that today, 2,000 years after Paul told us that grievous wolves would come in ( Acts of the Apostles 20:29 ), not sparing the flock, that they exist today ( and in much greater numbers, 2 Timothy 3:1-13 )...
And some of them have influence in areas that you and I aren't even immediately aware of?:Sneaky -
Seeing how "Biblical education" is not the same as what He teaches us through His written words without footnotes and marginal notes & commentaries, since those extras are coming from "Biblical education", we still need to prove all things by Jesus Christ
Anti-KJVers claim that in spite of "mistranslations" or "errors", the message has not changed in the KJV and it is a good Bible.
And yet they also claim from among themselves as anti-KJVers that not all Bibles are saying the same thing for which I agree and why I rely only on the KJV for the meat of His words to discern good & evil by His words kept by those who loved Him.. -
Page 6 of 9