Why The KJV Bible Is One Of The Best Bible Translation

[GoldenEagle]

Original questions in red.

5. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?

5. (and 10) If the original KJV was such a great translation why were there so many revisions?

6. Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?

6. Seems like there's still a lot of carry-over influence from the Roman Catholic Church on the KJV since the books are renamed with sainthood included.

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 8:15 PM, Ezra said:

Here are some straw man arguments.  So let's deal with them.

1. There were actually several English translations between 1,400 (Wycliffe) and 1600 (KJV) including that of Tyndale.  They were all deemed to be acceptable by the KJV translators, whose goal was to make "out of many, one good one" which would be exceptional. Before 1400, the Latin Vulgate prevailed.

2. The KJV translators were careful to note in their Preface that the Apocrypha was not inspired Scripture, but could be read by Christians. They were also careful to clearly identify it as the Apocrypha and place it between the two Testaments (unlike Catholic Bibles which mix all the books as if they are all Scripture.

3. Neither did the Lord Jesus Christ. However, the Hebrew Tanakh used by Paul and Christ is faithfully rendered in the KJV Old Testament via the Masoretic Text. Indeed, the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) used the KJV translation as perfectly acceptable for their Hebrew Bible.

7. Evidently you have no idea about this matter. The underlying texts of the modern English translations are CORRUPT.  So it is not errors, but corruptions that have mutilated modern Bibles.

I won't bother to dignify the other questions with responses.

Ezra thanks for providing perspective.  

God bless,
GE

[GoldenEagle]

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:19 PM, MorningGlory said:

3. Do you realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV?

I am speaking only to this question.  I think EVERYONE realizes the Apostle Paul didn't use the KJV since it didn't exist in the first century.

Regarding #3 I'm not sure some people think through that... If the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible how did Paul not quote the KJV?  

On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:39 PM, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Of course, it is just a tongue in cheek saying that those who think KJV onlyists are a bit off base, like to use in a mocking way, like:

"The King James Bible, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!"

Lol exactly Omegaman  

God bless,
GE

[Guest shiloh357]

8 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said:

Regarding #3 I'm not sure some people think through that... If the KJV is the only inspired version of the Bible how did Paul not quote the KJV?

Yeah, that is kind of insulting people's intelligence. 

 

No one is arguing (at least not as far as I have seen in this thread) that the KJV is inspired.   So why are you trying to address an issue that the OP isn't raising?   The OP said she is not KJV only, so why are you peppering her with KJV only questions?

[Kindle]

45 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said:

@worthy Let me rephrase the questions you asked for. 

questions I asked for when did I ask for questions 

[GoldenEagle]

9 minutes ago, shiloh357 said:

Yeah, that is kind of insulting people's intelligence. 

See Omegaman's post shortly after. Yes, it is strange. But many people who are KJV only use that argument. Lol

"The King James Bible, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!"

God bless,
GE

[Ezra]

12 hours ago, Jayne said:

I believe that this excerpt from your excerpt says exactly what the NIV footnote says ....

It says a lot more, and that is why I posted the entire section on 1 John 5:7.  Based on that evidence, none of the modern versions should have put that verse in a footnote. The Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible matches the KJV in this regard, and so does Young's Literal Translation.

And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
Young's Literal Translation
because three are who are testifying in the heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these -- the three -- are one;

There are also several foreign language Bibles which have retained this verse.

[Kindle]

47 minutes ago, GoldenEagle said:

@worthy Let me rephrase the questions you asked for. Original questions in red. The rephrased question are in bold.

4. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?

If the KJV is an inspired translation, why would God not provide an inspired translation in each of the modern languages today? Why is English chosen as a language to have an inspired translation?

9. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?

Why make differentiation in these passages when the original Greek makes no such distinctions/changes?

Gen 15:6 (KJV)
⁶ And he believed in the Lord; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

Rom 4:3 (KJV)
³ For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Rom 4:9 (KJV)
⁹ Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Rom 4:22 (KJV)
²² And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Gal 3:6 (KJV)
⁶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

 

God bless,

GE

English chosen as the language because its a universal language. And lot of people can understand it

[Guest shiloh357]

2 hours ago, GoldenEagle said:

See Omegaman's post shortly after. Yes, it is strange. But many people who are KJV only use that argument. Lol

"The King James Bible, if it was good enough for the apostle Paul, it is good enough for me!"

God bless,
GE

I have never heard a KJV only person use that argument/line.   It insults people's intelligence to reduce their argument to that line.  And frankly it is rather insulting to KJV only  folks.   But more to the point, the OP made clear she isn't KJV only.

Perhaps you should address what she said, instead of the ridiculous line of argumentation that she didn't make?  How about that?

[GoldenEagle]

7 hours ago, shiloh357 said:

I have never heard a KJV only person use that argument/line.   It insults people's intelligence to reduce their argument to that line.  And frankly it is rather insulting to KJV only  folks.   But more to the point, the OP made clear she isn't KJV only.

Perhaps you should address what she said, instead of the ridiculous line of argumentation that she didn't make?  How about that?

A lot of folks who are independent fundamentalist baptists (IFB) will say that. I've heard it a lot. I've also heard the same people say that they would die for the idea that the KJV is the only version of the Bible that should be read in English or translated to any other language.

I already stated in the first page that the KJV was one of many translations and it's a good translation. I said here: 

"The KJV is a good translation. However, it is just one in many good translations available. I personally think the NASB or ESV are better word-for-word translations. Curious, do you also believed the KJV was inspired by the Holy Spirit?" 

God bless,
GE