King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Bibles

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

A KING JAMES VERSION SERMON:

 

- Hebrews 4:12 (KJV)

 

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

 

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

 

- Galatians 1:6-7 (of 1:1-12) (KJV)

 

Notice "of Christ", meaning sadly there are trying Christians attracted by the overwhelming affection of Christ, only to be misled by a Gospel that is not "of Christ"

 

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

 

Scriptural changes differing in meaning broadly spread through the many so called, "modern English Bible Translations" published since the King James Version Bible (KJV) or its birth in 1611 as the Authorized Version (AV).

 

Here is our History:

The Authorized Version: Translated from the Textus Receptus and finished in 1611; Through God's will a breakthrough for the Protestant Reformation, for Christian believers with beliefs protestant to the Roman Catholic Church; Later revised as the King James Version Bible.

 

 

The MOST respected Bible, standing out as a strong spiritual asset.
The one and only true word of God (in the English Language).
The Holy Bible.

 

- Proverbs 30:5-6 (KJV)

 

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

 

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.
 

.............................................................................................
 

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.

Edited February 14, 2018 by KingJamesVersionBibleOnly

[Omegaman 3.0]

5 hours ago, KingJamesVersionBibleOnly said:

Pre 1611 (Old Testament):
Was known to be in the Hebrew Language.

 

Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language.

 

Pre 1611 English Bible translations (To solve confusion):
These books were not known to be as spiritually profitable, but are very evident that the puritan reformer group in their day were not happy with Catholicism and the Roman Catholic Church, desperate and determined for liberty in faith.

Just to be clear here, the Geneva Bible in the English  51 years before the King James Version was the preferred version of the reformers. That fact is, that part of the reason for the commisioning of a new version to be made in English, was because the Geneva Bible seemed to be so popular, that it was a threat to the claim of the Church of England to have unique authority. The reformers viewed the Church of England, as being too 'Catholic', with the King as it's head, sort of being the new pope. 

The Reformers believed that there was no special class of people, like kings and popes, who could claim to speak for the church and it's head, Jesus. The criticisms of the notes, in the Geneva Bible was a large part of why the new version (the KJV) was commissioned by James Stuart to be a new Bible for use in the churches.

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God. It is also of note, that the so called King James Version, was not the first 'authorized' version, but the third authorized version. The Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, were the previous authorized versions. Authorized here, just means officially athorized for use in the Church of England.

However, where this thread is located (as I type this) is the welcome area of the forums, where the purpose is to introduce yourself to our community, and to be welcomed in to it. Therefore, I will be moving this to a different area of the forums, probably to the General Section.

However, if you want to continue this topic, it would be better to do so, in an existing thread on the topic of Bible versions. I am curious though, about why you though it important to introduce Hebrews 4:12 into your 'sermon'.

Quote

 

- Hebrews 4:12  (KJV)

- Psalm 12:6-7 (KJV)

Notice the word "preserve", meaning God's word is already present in our times.

 

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 12:  6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

or as they were written in 1611:

For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. 

My curiosity is due to the fact that "our times" there, were some 1546 years before the King James version, and Psa 12 some 2600 years before the KJV, so what exactly was your point there?

Anyway, welcome to Worthy!

[Jayne]

Hello Bro. KJVBO and welcome to the forums.

I, too, love the King James Bible.  I was saved when a King James Bible was preached from and my pastor preaches from the King James.  I'm content with that.  I do not use the King James for my daily reading at home or when I teach Sunday School or weekly Bible study.

While I love the King James, it isn't my preferred.

I'd like to address Psalm 12 and why that it not talking about preservation of God's Word literally in terms of a translation, even the King James Bible.

The theme of of Psalm 12 is crying out to God to help the faithful who are under oppression from the proud.  And it compares the proud words of evil people to the pure words of God.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"

• The people are wicked and speak so arrogantly, but God will change that. This is a Psalm of David and you know the gossip, boasting, and flattering words that David saw in his enemies:  Goliath, King Saul, the Philistines, and more.  

"Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?"

• These people were so evil with their words of boasting that they literally asked the question, "Who is lord over us?"

"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."

• God answers and says, I'm going to take care of this.  I will spare the oppressed and the needy from those that use their words to "puff" at them.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

• Now David speaks again and says that in comparison to the haughty, God's words are so pure that you could compare them to silver that's been refined seven times.  Seven being the idea of perfection - not a literal thought.  David says that God will preserve "them".  "Them" as in what?  His words and his people.  Both.  God just got through saying he was going to rescue his people.  And David now says that there are wicked people on every side....vile men are exalted.  Words and people.
• If you take this too literally, then when David says that God will "preserve" his words "from this generation forever" then.... [1] You and I should be reading Hebrew ONLY, not King James only and [2] how on earth could this be speaking of the King James Version?

Edited February 13, 2018 by Jayne

[Dennis1209]

12 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Hello Bro. KJVBO and welcome to the forums.

I, too, love the King James Bible.  I was saved when a King James Bible was preached from and my pastor preaches from the King James.  I'm content with that.  I do not use the King James for my daily reading at home or when I teach Sunday School or weekly Bible study.

While I love the King James, it isn't my preferred.

I'd like to address Psalm 12 and why that it not talking about preservation of God's Word literally in terms of a translation, even the King James Bible.

The theme of of Psalm 12 is crying out to God to help the faithful who are under oppression from the proud.  And it compares the proud words of evil people to the pure words of God.

"Help, Lord; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men. They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak. The Lord shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:"

• The people are wicked and speak so arrogantly, but God will change that. This is a Psalm of David and you know the gossip, boasting, and flattering words that David saw in his enemies:  Goliath, King Saul, the Philistines, and more.  

"Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?"

• These people were so evil with their words of boasting that they literally asked the question, "Who is lord over us?"

"For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the Lord; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him."

• God answers and says, I'm going to take care of this.  I will spare the oppressed and the needy from those that use their words to "puff" at them.

"The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.  Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted."

• Now David speaks again and says that in comparison to the haughty, God's words are so pure that you could compare them to silver that's been refined seven times.  Seven being the idea of perfection - not a literal thought.  David says that God will preserve "them".  "Them" as in what?  His words and his people.  Both.  God just got through saying he was going to rescue his people.  And David now says that there are wicked people on every side....vile men are exalted.  Words and people.
• If you take this too literally, then when David says that God will "preserve" his words "from this generation forever" then.... [1] You and I should be reading Hebrew ONLY, not King James only and [2] how on earth could this be speaking of the King James Version?

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music 

[Jayne]

23 minutes ago, Dennis1209 said:

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music 

Yes, I've been in church and Bible classes when it seems that way sometimes.  That's why textual criticism is so important.  You and I aren't probably ever going to study the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus, but we can take the KJV, the ESV, the NIV, the NASB - which are reputable and compare them when studying together to get a clear picture.

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

[Dennis1209]

20 minutes ago, Jayne said:

Yes, I've been in church and Bible classes when it seems that way sometimes.  That's why textual criticism is so important.  You and I aren't probably ever going to study the Majority Text or the Textus Receptus, but we can take the KJV, the ESV, the NIV, the NASB - which are reputable and compare them when studying together to get a clear picture.

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

I totally agree. Most reputable scholars, expositors and Bible teachers use a number of translations for comparison. I'm not a language expert, but even I know the Greek and Hebrew languages are much more precise than our English, and the English language in many cases does not have an adequate single word comparable. Strong's dictionary helps me out a great deal, as my second language in grade school was 'pig Latin'     

[missmuffet]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

Hi ya Jane,

I'm not going to comment on the different translations of the Bible, as we all have our preferences and reasons. Other than to say, it's interesting at Wednesday night Bible study when we go down the line and each of us reads a verse in scripture that we're studying. It's like, we're not singing from the same sheet of music 

That makes sense.

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

2 hours ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Just to be clear here, the Geneva Bible in the English  51 years before the King James Version was the preferred version of the reformers. That fact is, that part of the reason for the commisioning of a new version to be made in English, was because the Geneva Bible seemed to be so popular, that it was a threat to the claim of the Church of England to have unique authority. The reformers viewed the Church of England, as being too 'Catholic', with the King as it's head, sort of being the new pope. 

The Reformers believed that there was no special class of people, like kings and popes, who could claim to speak for the church and it's head, Jesus. The criticisms of the notes, in the Geneva Bible was a large part of why the new version (the KJV) was commissioned by James Stuart to be a new Bible for use in the churches.

It should be noted, that the new version then, was authorized by man, not by God. It is also of note, that the so called King James Version, was not the first 'authorized' version, but the third authorized version. The Great Bible and the Bishops Bible, were the previous authorized versions. Authorized here, just means officially athorized for use in the Church of England.

However, where this thread is located (as I type this) is the welcome area of the forums, where the purpose is to introduce yourself to our community, and to be welcomed in to it. Therefore, I will be moving this to a different area of the forums, probably to the General Section.

However, if you want to continue this topic, it would be better to do so, in an existing thread on the topic of Bible versions. I am curious though, about why you though it important to introduce Hebrews 4:12 into your 'sermon'.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Psa 12:  6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

or as they were written in 1611:

For the word of God is quicke and powerfull, and sharper then any two edged sword, pearcing euen to the diuiding asunder of soule and spirit, and of the ioynts and marrowe, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. The wordes of the Lord are pure wordes: as siluer tried in a fornace of earth purified seuen times. Thou shalt keepe them, (O Lord,) thou shalt preserue them, from this generation for euer. 

My curiosity is due to the fact that "our times" there, were some 1546 years before the King James version, and Psa 12 some 2600 years before the KJV, so what exactly was your point there?

Anyway, welcome to Worthy!

The two elements i feel you need to consider:

- I feel the text was in the Textus Receptus years before the Geneva Bible. In my mind the Geneva is only a Enlgish Bible printed before the KJV in its AV time period.

- What Bible overall won in populatiy and fruit by the works of God Himself as an english language Bible.
Why would anyone still be concerned by what overall wasnt chosen by God to bring the most fruit in the english language?

There are currently no laws against using the Geneva Bible within my knowledge, Yet, Still the KJV is highly favored.

 

- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV)

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

1 hour ago, Jayne said:

No translation is without flaws - not even the King James.  The message is inspired and perfect and infallible.  Individual words of the various languages across the world are not.

That is a truly sad statement, I feel like the King James Version Bible is a flawless and 100% whole and perfect translation of God. By God's Decision, Shown in proof by God's work and will , in efforts for it to be chosen to lead the English speaking people to God's absolutely pure and perfect word.

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)

 

[Jayne]

Brother, I am not deceived as Eve, so you can put 2 Corinthians 11 aside for the moment.  I don't want to argue with you.  That's so divisive.  And if you think my statement was sad, you truly did not understand what I was trying to say.

Let me help a little.  You say you believe the King James Bible to be flawless and the "perfect" translation of God.

Well, which one?  The 1611 or the 1769? What is of no consequence is the minor spelling differences and/or punctuation difference, or settling on the standardization of the language.  Those are minor issues and differences.

But what is of consequence are the handful of contradictions from the 1611 to the 1769.

• 1611 - Ezekiel 24:7 = "For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it upon the ground, to cover it with dust;   VS.  1769  = For her blood is in the midst of her; she set it upon the top of a rock; she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust;.

This is speaking of Jerusalem as "she".  The bloodshed is wicked and senseless bloodshed both by and to Jerusalem.  Was it covered with dust as should have been by the Law or not covered with dust as was opposed to the Law?

This is not a typing error, not a spelling alteration, not a settling of standardizing speech .... this is a direct contradiction - a context and meaning error.

• Was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem metaphorically able to be "covered up" as the Law required in Leviticus and was the wrath of God soothed as the Law says?
• Or was the gross bloodshed by Jerusalem and against Jerusalem NOT "covered up" as the Law required because of possible carnage and NOT metaphorically covered up and God's wrath NOT appeased?

As I said before, I love the King James, have one, and read it.  

ALL translations are imperfect in man's handling of it.

Which is the "inspired" English phrase - "poured it upon" or "poured it not upon".  Was God's wrath appeased or not appeased.

I'm not going to stop reading my King James or my NIV or my ESV or my NASB.  

What I am going do to is to study to show myself approved and follow the research of textual critics and compare and contrast and let God let me to what is the truth.

Edited February 13, 2018 by Jayne