A Question About "KJV-Only"

[yomotalking]

When a Bible Society translates the Bible into other languages, is it translated from the KJV? If the answer is yes then how accurate can the translation be?

I have read that in some places, the language is so undeveloped, they can't even understand what dying on a cross means. The translators have to search around to put it in a way that the people of the country will understand.

If the KJV is the only correct translation then it must mean that non English speaking people are reading uninspired versions .

I read the KJV, but I also read the NIV, the Living Bible, and the New King James.

[Budman]

Hi Sola,

That was quite an interesting (and long! ) reply.

Sola, If the KJV translators had accepted the claim that translation do not need to be "revised," "corrected," or "updated," there would be no King James Version. On the title page of the 1611, the translators acknowledged that they "diligently compared and revised" the former English translations. According to the title page and to the preface of the 1611, their standard for revising translations was God's Word in the original languages [Hebrew and Greek]. If the fallible Church of England translators of the KJV could revise, correct, or update the earlier English Bibles by consulting God's Word in the original languages without it being wrong, the KJV can be revised, corrected, or updated by this same standard.

Many exclusive supporters of the KJV see archaic language as the proper representation for Scripture. They deny any problems with reading it, stating in many cases, "My children have no problem understanding it" or "Anyone can easily learn the few archaic terms in the KJV."

Presented below is a passage, told completely in the language of the 1611 KJV, which is excerpted from the example given by Dr. Jack Lewis in Questions You've Asked About Bible Translations. The original went on for several pages. This excerpt is probably the most readable of the selection.

"Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With some we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!"

May I ask you, do you believe that the average person would be able to understand that?

We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it.

The truth is the original bible is the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were actually written by the inspired, holy men of God mentioned in Scripture. These originals are all lost. What we have today are copies of the originals and various translations of the copies.

Sola, would you go to such an extreme as to say: for a person in Russia to become a Christian, he would have to learn English so that he could read the KJV to read the Word of God to become a Christian? (In other words, would you say that the Word of God is not available in Russian, Spanish, French, etc.?)

Those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther

[ted]

As I understand it, the KJV is the authority for the english language. I bet it would be better to translate the Word in other languages from what we have now as the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Just a thought.

t.

[His son]

Quote:

May I ask you, do you believe that the average person would be able to understand that?

Yes, I am a 9th grade dropout who hated english in school, and when The Holy Spirit told me to get The 1611, He taught me how to read in over a 2 month period. The Holy Spirit can teach ayone how to read.

God is no respecter of persons, and He inspired all Scripture, that would be the first edition in every language that has the written word. He only needs to do it once.

[Guest shiloh357]

Hi Sola,

We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than he intended it.

The truth is the original bible is the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were actually written by the inspired, holy men of God mentioned in Scripture. These originals are all lost. What we have today are copies of the originals and various translations of the copies.

Sola, would you go to such an extreme as to say: for a person in Russia to become a Christian, he would have to learn English so that he could read the KJV to read the Word of God to become a Christian? (In other words, would you say that the Word of God is not available in Russian, Spanish, French, etc.?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually you could just translate from the textus receptus into other languages since that is what the KJV is translated from. That is how it would be done. You would not translate from the KJV to another language. Translating from the Textus Receptus would non-English speaking people an accurate translation in their own language.

[Sola Scriptora]

Bud:

I'm short on time so briefly:

Many of your questions to us are non sequitors, and not what we believe. They do not flow our of our position, but from the dishonest brain of some KJV critic who has an ax to grind. Before I answer more questions, we need to get through with your original ones. I think the questions about the KJV being revised has been laid to rest. The way KJV critics "ask" it is intended to imply things that are not true. But they are professionals in cloaking deceit into a question. So, I need to know, did the FACTS in that article answer that questions, and lay the deceit in it to rest?

Edited November 2, 2004 by Sola Scriptora

[larryt]

As I understand it, the KJV is the authority for the english language. I bet it would be better to translate the Word in other languages from what we have now as the best Greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

Just a thought.

t.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But that is a good question Ted. What are the best Gr. and Heb. manuscripts and according to who?

I use the KJV for my final authority but use others to get help with nuances. I find some of the omissions in the newer translations/paraphrases to be objectionable.

Ac 2:1