King James Version question

[LookingForAnswers]

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

 

as far as publish,  again we nick pick on words, ok   just say you are right on to make known, but don't we still need the truth to make known the truth, so if we don't have the truth in English then all who have heard of Jesus Christ in English knows not the truth, and if we can't have truth in English why are we preaching anything in English? But I would disagree that publish only means to make known, could also mean to write, for it was God that inspired every word, it was God that personal published the ten commandments, and that they had scripture, published in the new testament days for Phillip heard the eunuch reading scripture (Acts 8:26) so in Mark 5:20 how do you know that to publish means to speak, could he had not starting recording (writing or publishing) the great things Jesus had done, also it was Jesus in REV. that said:Rev 1:19

Write the things which thou hast seen.

KJV

a book that was published 400 years ago, we are not referring to a book, we are referring to The Holy Word of God. again I have to wonder why no one has as much a problem with Shakespheare's 400 year old writings as they do the KJB. also I don't think we give our kids much credit with the attack on the old English, they are suppose to be a lot smarter now than they were in the 1600's yet our kids can't look up a word that they don't understand anymore? or they can't ask a parent or teacher what is meant by a scripture in old English?

 

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

 

 

Being more qualified than those on this forum does not make one authorized by God.  If you really want to get into qualifications we could compare those of the 47 men who did the AKJV to the team of 100 scholars who translated the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I would be willing to be that qualification wise the AKJV are not as well trained.

 

as far as publish,  again we nick pick on words, ok   just say you are right on to make known, but don't we still need the truth to make known the truth, so if we don't have the truth in English then all who have heard of Jesus Christ in English knows not the truth, and if we can't have truth in English why are we preaching anything in English? But I would disagree that publish only means to make known, could also mean to write, for it was God that inspired every word, it was God that personal published the ten commandments, and that they had scripture, published in the new testament days for Phillip heard the eunuch reading scripture (Acts 8:26) so in Mark 5:20 how do you know that to publish means to speak, could he had not starting recording (writing or publishing) the great things Jesus had done, also it was Jesus in REV. that said:Rev 1:19

Write the things which thou hast seen.

 

 

I am not nit picking, I am pointing out the very fact that the meanings of words change, even in the same language, over time.  Either word, be it publish from the AKJV or proclaim from the RSV is the truth, neither is a false or wrong word.  I pointed to the word publish because you used the verse and there is no question that the meaning has changed over time. 

 

a book that was published 400 years ago, we are not referring to a book, we are referring to The Holy Word of God. again I have to wonder why no one has as much a problem with Shakespheare's 400 year old writings as they do the KJB. also I don't think we give our kids much credit with the attack on the old English, they are suppose to be a lot smarter now than they were in the 1600's yet our kids can't look up a word that they don't understand anymore? or they can't ask a parent or teacher what is meant by a scripture in old English?

 

 

Nobody is claiming one particular copy of Shakespeare is the only true copy, and nobody is claiming that on one particular copy of Shakespeare is inspired and all the other copies are leading people to hell.   Yes, our kids could do that, but then they are just going by someone opinion on what the word means, since we don't have to 47 guys to ask.

[LookingForAnswers]

I posted a post here once about the new revision of the NIV, John 7:8 that has Jesus saying He is not going to a festival, but then went, and asked if anyone had a problem with that, If your kid told you that they were not going to a party but later went you should have a big problem with that. also the NASB in John 4:29 has the woman at the well saying(asking)implying that Jesus is Not the Christ. when I point these out to the readers of such translations they have no problem with the wording. but change the Passover to Easter, now that's unbearable!!!! Go figure!

 

 

nobody said it was unbearable, I asked for clarification.  Also, since according to you the AKJV is perfect and authorized by God Himself, or at least I assume you think it is perfect based on your post, there can be no errors of any kind in it.  Many of us feel that there is no perfect translation, since translation one language to another can never really be perfect.  But we do not feel there has to be, we believe that the power of the Holy Spirit is stronger than that of humans and that a word changed here or there will not diminish the power of the Word of God.

 

John 4:29...²⁹ Come, see a man, which told me all things that ever I did: is not this the Christ? AKJV

John 4:29 ²⁹ “Come, see a man who told me all the things that I have done; this is not the Christ, is it?”

 

The wording is a bit awkward, but it seems to be asking the same question to me.

[His_disciple3]

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

 

as far as publish,  again we nick pick on words, ok   just say you are right on to make known, but don't we still need the truth to make known the truth, so if we don't have the truth in English then all who have heard of Jesus Christ in English knows not the truth, and if we can't have truth in English why are we preaching anything in English? But I would disagree that publish only means to make known, could also mean to write, for it was God that inspired every word, it was God that personal published the ten commandments, and that they had scripture, published in the new testament days for Phillip heard the eunuch reading scripture (Acts 8:26) so in Mark 5:20 how do you know that to publish means to speak, could he had not starting recording (writing or publishing) the great things Jesus had done, also it was Jesus in REV. that said:Rev 1:19

Write the things which thou hast seen.

KJV

a book that was published 400 years ago, we are not referring to a book, we are referring to The Holy Word of God. again I have to wonder why no one has as much a problem with Shakespheare's 400 year old writings as they do the KJB. also I don't think we give our kids much credit with the attack on the old English, they are suppose to be a lot smarter now than they were in the 1600's yet our kids can't look up a word that they don't understand anymore? or they can't ask a parent or teacher what is meant by a scripture in old English?

 

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

 

Being more qualified than those on this forum does not make one authorized by God.  If you really want to get into qualifications we could compare those of the 47 men who did the AKJV to the team of 100 scholars who translated the Holman Christian Standard Bible and I would be willing to be that qualification wise the AKJV are not as well trained.

 

as far as publish,  again we nick pick on words, ok   just say you are right on to make known, but don't we still need the truth to make known the truth, so if we don't have the truth in English then all who have heard of Jesus Christ in English knows not the truth, and if we can't have truth in English why are we preaching anything in English? But I would disagree that publish only means to make known, could also mean to write, for it was God that inspired every word, it was God that personal published the ten commandments, and that they had scripture, published in the new testament days for Phillip heard the eunuch reading scripture (Acts 8:26) so in Mark 5:20 how do you know that to publish means to speak, could he had not starting recording (writing or publishing) the great things Jesus had done, also it was Jesus in REV. that said:Rev 1:19

Write the things which thou hast seen.

 

I am not nit picking, I am pointing out the very fact that the meanings of words change, even in the same language, over time.  Either word, be it publish from the AKJV or proclaim from the RSV is the truth, neither is a false or wrong word.  I pointed to the word publish because you used the verse and there is no question that the meaning has changed over time. 

 

a book that was published 400 years ago, we are not referring to a book, we are referring to The Holy Word of God. again I have to wonder why no one has as much a problem with Shakespheare's 400 year old writings as they do the KJB. also I don't think we give our kids much credit with the attack on the old English, they are suppose to be a lot smarter now than they were in the 1600's yet our kids can't look up a word that they don't understand anymore? or they can't ask a parent or teacher what is meant by a scripture in old English?

 

Nobody is claiming one particular copy of Shakespeare is the only true copy, and nobody is claiming that on one particular copy of Shakespeare is inspired and all the other copies are leading people to hell.   Yes, our kids could do that, but then they are just going by someone opinion on what the word means, since we don't have to 47 guys to ask.

If your Holman Christian Standard Bible, is translated from the dead sea scrolls, it doesn't matter how qualified anyone was. the dead sea scroll was in such bad shape that the first scholar that they were offered to, refuse to buy them stating that the poor condition they were in rendered them useless. But someone got a hold of them and where missing chunks were, they had to fill in the gaps, and in doing so they used corrupt text(manuscripts) in the process. you can program a computer with faulty data and if has to use that data the result will always be wrong. corrupt manuscripts corrupt the whole text.

If a word in any language was two meanings, then to claim that if a person is writing a book and he uses the first meaning of said word in Chapter 1 then to say that he has to use that same context of that word everytime he uses that word in his book is just ignorance of any language. example Note can mean a short letter or it can mean to take notice If I use note(as a short written letter in my the first sentence) but then I want the reader to take notice Of something and I use to word note and say please take note here, according to you and many others critics of a infallible Word From God, then you would have to write a note, because that is what it means in the original use of that word, and that is simply wrong in any language. well you can teach your kids that with God all things are not possible, for he chooses to use man at times. and we can't have a Pure Inspired Infallible Word of God in English but I beg the difference, I have believed the Report/testimony of God to be exactly what He claim His Word was and is and will be.

Prov 30:5

5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

KJV

[Willa]

God gave the Word to men not man nor individual (Rightly divide) God required two or more as witnesses, confirming the truth, we are referring to the true Gospel, the Gospel is prophecy so the gospel is not for individual interpretation, again we play with words, due to typos, problems with the old printing press we have revisions but doesn't the Bible say that even silver is tried seven times to get it as pure as possible? a little leaven will leaven the whole lump. again it is summed it up as a certain translation, and the fact is lost that this is not just a translation we are needing, But truth, how can we preach truth, if God has not provided truth? I am doing a series now on "Faith cometh by hearing, but what are the children hearing". Scriptures speaks of a generation, of whom the Children have no faith! what are the children hearing; that we have to know Hebrew and Greek to have the truth. that we can't have truth through a English translation. then if God can't provide the truth in English, how do they have faith in how He can save us. wouldn't it be far harder to clean sin away, than to inspire translators to translate the truth in English or is there anything to hard for our God (yes there is according to some He can't give us a true Holy Word in English)? man is not to live by bread alone, but by ever word of God, but every word according to some is not truth???? why can't we preach if we have a problem with the word of God it is us that stand in need/help or error and not the Holy Word of God

Sir, even your rambling does not make a lot of sense. But I am dyslexic and have difficulty making sense of KJV as well. When I was saved around the 8th grade I started searching for a bible to read, but was fouled by all of the eths, thees and thous till I lost the train of thought. Shakespere in the 12th grade eluded me as well, even though I graduated in the top 10% of my class. It is easier for me to read Tyndale today than KJV because I read phoenically. But when conservative pastors would preach from KJV, they found that the necessary clarifications were already made in the newer versions.

At the time of its translation other translators criticised KJV 1611 for sacrificing a litteral translation for the sake of poetry. In any case, if KJV 1611 enriches your life, I am blessed. Most people prefer later revisions such as Oxford in 1769 or Cambridge in 1885. But they don't do a thing for me, even today. I prefer the 1985 version.

In school children are taught strange concepts of a family, and that there is no right or wrong. It is all subjective so they are to do what is right in their own eyes or what feels good. In addition, they teach that God is not Creator. We exist by chance. But no one would ever gamble with money on the odds of that happening. And you wonder why we have a Godless society? It has to do with the fact that what they learn in school discredits what they learn in Sunday School, and no appologetics are taught at early ages. So the home by itself must reinforce what they learn in church. And kids learn most by the examples of their parents and the teachings of their mothers when they are young. Instead they are sent to day care and nursery school. In addition, people who teach truth or to question the nation's propaganda are fired, especially in high school or higher learning. So in the end, all salvation is by God's GRACE and is the work of the Holy Spirit.

Any litteral translation will convey the Gospel. All litteral translations agree on basic Bible doctrine. The Holy Spirit still teaches. And the newer translations do it much more clearly than does KJV, in my experience. You sound as though you know nothing of the difficulties of translating a passage into another language. Many words can define a single word or even no word can do it--just check any dictionary. It is just better to check a Greek dictionary to better understand a word originally written in Greek, because something is lost in translation due to cultural and language differences. I remember the Wycliffe translators trying to convey living water, (a bubbling artesian spring conveying a symbol of the Holy Spirit,) to people on an island who had no fresh water but dew and rain. Yet I am sure they succeded in conveying the Gospel.

Many people learn by oral transmission, some by visual, but I need both and then I write it to learn. In the first century most people learned by hearing due to there being fewer manuscripts. Thus faith came by hearing God's Word.

Blessings,

Willa

[Guest shiloh357]

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

 

The KJV translators were not inspired by God and not even they make that claim about themselves.  They were appointed, commissioned by King James to make a new translation that he liked.  It was made for him, not for God.  They do not claim God inspired them to create the AV.  So your grandiose view of those men really doesn't jive with history or with them. 

 

The original KJV translators would be appalled at the claims that peoplpe like you make about them.

[ayin jade]

I am in no way a Bible scholar, But the way I see this post is that some things just can't win no matter what they do or say, I don't see why the true Authorized Word of God in our English language, would be any different. On one hand the critics of the King James Bible accuses it of being outdated, we no longer use that type of language. Then now on the other hand the OP (and many others posters) finds fault because the KJ translators updated a Holy/holiday from a Hebrew Holy day to a Christian Holiday, for the Christian readers of the New Testament. Let me ask a question and please Ponder(think) or even reckon  about it. you may even need to pray over it, has anything good came out of the new modern day translations. for all I see is division, confusion and attacks within the Body, on what was held as the HOLY WORD of God for some 400 years now.  The Word of God, the Spirit of God was to bring unity among the brethren, God is not the Author of confusion, and upon not understanding the Word, God said to ask Him, for wisdom not change His Word. Now I know One will ask then Why translate if we are to just ask God for wisdom and not change His Word.

Mark 13:10

10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

KJV

IF all English translations agreed with each other, I would have no problem with 29 different translations and if they do all agree then why do we need 29 different translations?

and ponder upon this also, some say we can't have a true English translation, due to the fact man had his hand in the translation, But the same people will refer to the greek manuscripts as truth, but over look the fact that the greek manuscripts is a translation itself, in the Gospels they spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. So if God can't give us His true Word in translations then two things occur: with God all things are NOT possible and if we are to preach the Word (the truth) and if faith cometh by hearing that TRUE Word(Gospel) then according to the critics of the AKJB, all who have come to Christ through any English translation are under a false gospel and damned for everlasting. For if a corn of wheat is wrong, if easter is wrong then who determines That John 3:16 is true?? now in my book it is not about my translation or your translation, but it should be about the truth, if we want to prove that the INSPIRED WORD of God is not true, then are we for God or against God??

 

There was division at the time of the kjv too, with some translators of other versions being killed. The kjv was originally translated because folks were upset at the notes in the geneva translation which were anti rcc. The kjv was translated in favor of the rcc. So you see, there was division even then. 

[ayin jade]

 the English translations before the KJB don't come into to play on this discussion, please don't cloud the issue. they are not available for easy access for the layperson. 

 

Sure they are. You can get the geneva bible and tynsdale bible online. I have a copy of the geneva bible myself. 

[His_disciple3]

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

The KJV translators were not inspired by God and not even they make that claim about themselves.  They were appointed, commissioned by King James to make a new translation that he liked.  It was made for him, not for God.  They do not claim God inspired them to create the AV.  So your grandiose view of those men really doesn't jive with history or with them. 

 

The original KJV translators would be appalled at the claims that peoplpe like you make about them.

if you are going to state history get it right( it truth is important to you), it was not King James that wanted another Bible but he being King had to approve of it. John Reynolds was to one that approached the King with the ideal. Actually we have came full circle, the King James Bible came about because of the Split within the Body of Christ over what translation to use. the Bishop Bible was the Bible then the Geneva bible came about and split the Church on what bible to use the Geneva being the newest translation but most scholars thought that the Geneva translation was poorly translated, so with that King James ordered a new translation to be translated. Here is a quote or part of the order that the King passed down.

The king rejoined that he:

"Could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think that, of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority, to be read in the whole Church, and none other."

[His_disciple3]

I am in no way a Bible scholar, But the way I see this post is that some things just can't win no matter what they do or say, I don't see why the true Authorized Word of God in our English language, would be any different. On one hand the critics of the King James Bible accuses it of being outdated, we no longer use that type of language. Then now on the other hand the OP (and many others posters) finds fault because the KJ translators updated a Holy/holiday from a Hebrew Holy day to a Christian Holiday, for the Christian readers of the New Testament. Let me ask a question and please Ponder(think) or even reckon  about it. you may even need to pray over it, has anything good came out of the new modern day translations. for all I see is division, confusion and attacks within the Body, on what was held as the HOLY WORD of God for some 400 years now.  The Word of God, the Spirit of God was to bring unity among the brethren, God is not the Author of confusion, and upon not understanding the Word, God said to ask Him, for wisdom not change His Word. Now I know One will ask then Why translate if we are to just ask God for wisdom and not change His Word.

Mark 13:10

10 And the gospel must first be published among all nations.

KJV

IF all English translations agreed with each other, I would have no problem with 29 different translations and if they do all agree then why do we need 29 different translations?

and ponder upon this also, some say we can't have a true English translation, due to the fact man had his hand in the translation, But the same people will refer to the greek manuscripts as truth, but over look the fact that the greek manuscripts is a translation itself, in the Gospels they spoke Hebrew and Aramaic. So if God can't give us His true Word in translations then two things occur: with God all things are NOT possible and if we are to preach the Word (the truth) and if faith cometh by hearing that TRUE Word(Gospel) then according to the critics of the AKJB, all who have come to Christ through any English translation are under a false gospel and damned for everlasting. For if a corn of wheat is wrong, if easter is wrong then who determines That John 3:16 is true?? now in my book it is not about my translation or your translation, but it should be about the truth, if we want to prove that the INSPIRED WORD of God is not true, then are we for God or against God??

 

There was division at the time of the kjv too, with some translators of other versions being killed. The kjv was originally translated because folks were upset at the notes in the geneva translation which were anti rcc. The kjv was translated in favor of the rcc. So you see, there was division even then.

the KJB had nothing to do with RCC killing people, and the RCC did not support any English translation being translated. it was illegal under RCC rule for a lay person to read scripture. the Bible was Chained to the pulpits and only the pope and priest were allowed to read from it. You should apologize to all the Martyrs, due to the English translation, esp. Martin Lurther for your last post. the KJB was translated to stop the division in the Church over the bible translations

[His_disciple3]

well authorized by inspiration from God to our Spiritual forefathers, the English speaking bible scholars who knew Greek and Hebrew, men that, I suppose was far more qualified to authorize than anyone, in these forums. also the Word says it is not for individual interpretation, so 47 men of God, that came into agreement with what the English translation should say. Men to whom had so much respect for the Holy Word of God, that some would even change writing instruments every time they needed new ink, instead of dipping into the ink blotter. Men to whom were burned at the stake so that I could open my KJB and learn truth of God.

The KJV translators were not inspired by God and not even they make that claim about themselves.  They were appointed, commissioned by King James to make a new translation that he liked.  It was made for him, not for God.  They do not claim God inspired them to create the AV.  So your grandiose view of those men really doesn't jive with history or with them. 

 

The original KJV translators would be appalled at the claims that peoplpe like you make about them.

so again a part of the Body of Christ says that God can't do all things, was Not the Same Holy Spirit, that the translators had the same Holy Ghost that the Writers of the original manuscripts had, and you must have missed one of my post, if God can't inspire translators than you are speaking with forked tongue or out of both sides of your mouth, for the original language in the gospels were Hebrew and Aramaic , so the greek was a translation!!!