The KJV of the Bible

[One With Him]

History shows that King James appointed 6 Companies to make a new Bible;

 

 First Westminster Company

 First Cambridge Company

 First Oxford Company

 Second Oxford Company

 Second Westminster Company

 Second Cambridge Company

 

History also tells us that the original Greek, Geneva Bible, Tyndale’s Translation, Latin Vulgate and some other translations were used to help combine these many Bibles into the King James Bible.

We also know that in some cases there are a few “manuscripts” in the original language for each book. We also know that since these manuscripts are hand written there are minor differences from one to the other.

 

So when people sit and talk about the original Greek, how am I suppose to know who is right and who is wrong? The original text is God breathed. The King James as best I can tell is a translation of a translation of God breathed. I use the NIV and it has minor difference in its translation for example. KJV says Fornication NIV does not.

Fornication didn’t even appear in the English language till around 1301 well after the books of the bible were written. So there was some leeway taken in the translation. So when does it become semantics and do we know if either side is wrong?

[kwikphilly]

Blessings One With Him!

     Many(more than I like to count-lol)years ago I used to drive myself crazy with finding the earliest literal translations of the Word of God from the Hebrew,Greek & Aramaic as well....years of research,stacks & stacks of concordances,every version you can imagine & so on(prior to the convenience of computers)....and I am trying to learn Biblical Greek presently (but really slacked off )......Anyway,as a result of all of this I have come to realize that as long as I  have an intimate relationship with the Lord & seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit then the Wisdom & Understanding that is given  by His power does bring all things to light in any version(I do favor the KJV)....He has truly written His Word on our hearts & as for me,I no longer think about the little trivialities that used to boggle my rational & intellectual mind....but I would imagine everyone has to come to a place where they feel that blessed assurance"personally".

     One of the most beautiful revelations I have had was when I was once reading Luke 23:43 "Assuredly, I say to you,today you will be with me in Paradise"   and then the Holy Spirit revealed this......"Assuredly,I say to you today,you will be with me in Paradise"....so then ,I said,"Oh thank you Lord now there is no contradiction-the good thief will be woken when Jesus returns & for now he knows not"...just by moving the comma,which we know in the original manuscripts there were not punctuations as we have it!I thought  I would share that with you so that we may give God the glory and that I may testify of His Love,Compassion,Mercy & Faithfulness that when we ask Him,He will guide us into His Timeless Truth!Praise the Lord

      God bless you & I pray you receive the direction & guidance of the Holy Spirit giving you Wisdom & Understanding by His Power,,in the Precious Name of our Lord & Savior Christ Jesus!

                                                                                                                               With love,in Christ-Kwik

[Guest Butero]

It pretty much comes down to what you put your faith in?  A lot of people like to claim there are errors in all translations, and I don't find this useful because it causes people to doubt how trustworthy the Bible is?  I don't trust historians when they make claims about how the Bible was put together, because many of them have an agenda.  You made a statement that historians have shown the KJV was created in a certain way, but gave no sources.  How do I know this is true, and that your sources are legitimate?  How about telling us where you got your information? 

 

I use only the KJV Bible.  I have already given reasons why I don't trust the NIV.  The NIV writers had an agenda, and it wasn't just to get it right.  They were working towards a gender neutral translation.  The finished product was the TNIV, but it was so distrusted, they took it from the shelves, and gave us another NIV.  There was even a lesbian among the translators.   I just don't trust it.  The NIV relegates verses to footnotes, and discredits others. 

 

Whether or not the word fornication was used in English before a certain year is irrelevant.  They translated the Greek word porneo (this is from memory, so if I spelled it wrong, I apologize) to the best English word, fornication.  Even you are admitting fornication was used after 1611, so who cares?  BTW, what is your source for that piece of information? 

[pg4Him]

Fornication didn’t even appear in the English language till around 1301 well after the books of the bible were written. So there was some leeway taken in the translation. 

 

Just wanted to say this is kind of an odd comment because the English language itself did not exist when the Bible was written. No words appeared in the English language at all until around 500 AD. Deliberation about English has nothing to do with what was proper Greek hundreds of years before, and you can't learn legacy Greek from English translations written many years later.

I would encourage you to find a balance in your studies. Pursuit of legacy Greek can turn into legalism real fast. Yes the other extreme is to ignore linguistic studies and hope your spiritual discernment never fails, but both are extremes, and the answer is in the middle.

[pg4Him]

     One of the most beautiful revelations I have had was when I was once reading Luke 23:43 "Assuredly, I say to you,today you will be with me in Paradise"   and then the Holy Spirit revealed this......"Assuredly,I say to you today,you will be with me in Paradise"....so then ,I said,"Oh thank you Lord now there is no contradiction-the good thief will be woken when Jesus returns & for now he knows not"...just by moving the comma,which we know in the original manuscripts there were not punctuations as we have it!I 

 

Treading really soft here because I don't want to tear down your faith... but this struck me as odd. Jesus said not one jot or tittle will be removed from the law. Jots and tittles are punctuation. It's true that old languages didn't have the same syntax structure as English, but they were not just words strung together with no clarity. Grammar and word placement in a sentence can clearly show meaning even without using commas. If you find yourself unilaterally removing inconvenient jots and tittles to understand a verse, then I would really look for some confirmation on how the original comment was grammatically structured. I believe every Godly revelation can somehow be confirmed by at least one "witness."

 

 

[Qnts2]

I don't know any Greek but do know some Hebrew. When I look at various translations, I compare the translation with the OT Hebrew to verify that the translation is reasonable.

 

When translating from one language to another, there is not always a word for word equivalent from one language to another. So a single word might be translated into multiple words to express the same idea.

 

Add to the idea that one requires a knowledge of the original language to truly understand what is being said, that is not true. Although it doesn't hurt, it also doesn't always help. From a general view, of those who speak Hebrew natively, the number of born again believers among fluent Hebrew speakers is relatively small. Of those who speak Greek fluently as their native language, sadly, the Greek people have relatively few born again believers. If knowing and understanding the original languages helps in understanding what God wants to convey, statistically, that just doesn't hold to be necessarily true. 

 

Scripture says that the understanding of scripture, which is spiritual, must be understood spiritually. The Holy Spirit reveals the truth and points to Jesus. So a native fluency does not add to the understanding of spiritual truths. And a lack of understanding of the native languages, does not result in a lack of understanding of spiritual truths, as long as the Holy Spirit is providing the revelation.

 

Versions which become questionable are those translated with an agenda. The second red flag is a translation done by a single translator (although I know of 2 exceptions to this rule). Most major translations which have receive acceptability are done by teams of translators, who are motivated to have as accurate as possible translation of God given scripture. These translators hold a high view of God, and an understanding of the extreme importance of accuracy. The team approach allows for discussion to make sure personal preferences or theology does not influence the out come. The team approach of diverse believers works to eliminate agenda's. Not just that, but after the initial translation, another group checks the original groups work, and if there are disagreements, they come together to work out the differences. It is a very careful work to ensure the accuracy of the translation.

 

I personally use the New King James and the NASB regularly. I think we can rest in the knowledge that God wants us to know Him, so works to reveal His words to us. And we can relax knowing that the generally accepted translations are done by sincere believers who hold a high view of scripture and would not want to mess with Gods words to us.     

[kwikphilly]

Blessings to you pg

     Welcome to Worthy........hope you enjoy it here as much as I do...this is truly a blessed place....Nice of you to post your concern but as I said,not sure if I was very clear(in my research going back as far as what was available to me many years ago there were no punctuation marks at all in the Greek,to my surprise.)...I do feel comfortable using the KJV but these punctuation marks were added in and you would have to take it up with those folks even further back from the 6 companies appointed by King James.......God is not a God of confusion & He does always give us confirmation ,you can trust that you could not possibly tear down my faith......it does not strike me as odd at all and I am quite confident in trusting Gods Word to be accurate and true,,,,every jot & tittle

                                                                                                                                                          With love,in Christ-Kwik

[The_Patriot21]

I find the NIV to be OK, but its lacking some stuff and they made some minor changes to keep different denominations happy. When compared to the Greek and Hebrew, regardless of what text your using, its not the best out there when it comes to accuracy. Its far from the worse though and it does keep the meaning pretty well.

In my mind the best, most accurate ate the literal translations such as the NASB and the KJV. Yes the Latin vulgate was a major source but they also used various Greek and Hebrew text, and not much was last in the latin-greek translates better into Latin then English, and the translators of the vulgate were extremely good, so I would say the vulgate is as good a source as any other. Add into that the KJV doesn't have anything in it that other solid translations dont. The nasb and the KJV, meaning wise are nearly identical.

Fact is God preserves His word. In its entirety. The KJV was one of the ways He did it. It is a hard read, and if you prefer to read easier reading translations such as the esv (my favorite easy reader) or the NIV that's fine, but keep in mind there is no real reason to bash the kjv-its a very good, literal translation. Obviously, some translations such as the message should just be flat out burned-but the KJV, and the NIV, do not belong in that list.

[One With Him]

 

Fornication didn’t even appear in the English language till around 1301 well after the books of the bible were written. So there was some leeway taken in the translation. 

 

Just wanted to say this is kind of an odd comment because the English language itself did not exist when the Bible was written. No words appeared in the English language at all until around 500 AD. Deliberation about English has nothing to do with what was proper Greek hundreds of years before, and you can't learn legacy Greek from English translations written many years later.

I would encourage you to find a balance in your studies. Pursuit of legacy Greek can turn into legalism real fast. Yes the other extreme is to ignore linguistic studies and hope your spiritual discernment never fails, but both are extremes, and the answer is in the middle.

 

That's what I am trying to find is a balance...? I thought that was clear. 

[The_Patriot21]

I know I wasn't attacking you or your opinion on it-was just trying to explain my view on it. Sorry if you took it wrong.

I mentioned it up there, you might try the English standard version. Its still very accurate (not as much as the nasb but close) but its much easier to read.