Is this honest criticism against non KJV Bibles?

[The_Patriot21]

Your argument is flawed. 

Let's start with what version of the kjv your using. I'm betting it's the common one found in churches, motel rooms, and stores, released on 1791.

Well, this isn't the first English translation. It's not even the first king James translation.

In fact, it's not even a true translation, but rather a transliteration of the 1611 King James version, which, unless you have a strong understanding of Shakespearean English, is completely unreadable by most people today.

And what's more? The 1611 wasn't even the first English translation, that honor belongs to wycliffs Bible translated in 1382. 

Now I love the kjv. I do hold it to being one of the 2 most accurate transactions. But, it's not the only translation, and it is difficult for many to understand, and most modern translations are still 95% accurate and much easier to read. And the 5% that's off from the kjv or the NASB aren't even big things.

So in the end, having the most accurate translation does one no good if they can't understand it. I'd rather someone have a slightly less accurate translation and understand it then a perfectly accurate translation they can't read.

[FriendofJonathan]

3 minutes ago, The_Patriot21 said:

Your argument is flawed. 

Let's start with what version of the kjv your using. I'm betting it's the common one found in churches, motel rooms, and stores, released on 1791.

Well, this isn't the first English translation. It's not even the first king James translation.

In fact, it's not even a true translation, but rather a transliteration of the 1611 King James version, which, unless you have a strong understanding of Shakespearean English, is completely unreadable by most people today.

And what's more? The 1611 wasn't even the first English translation, that honor belongs to wycliffs Bible translated in 1382. 

Now I love the kjv. I do hold it to being one of the 2 most accurate transactions. But, it's not the only translation, and it is difficult for many to understand, and most modern translations are still 95% accurate and much easier to read. And the 5% that's off from the kjv or the NASB aren't even big things.

So in the end, having the most accurate translation does one no good if they can't understand it. I'd rather someone have a slightly less accurate translation and understand it then a perfectly accurate translation they can't read.

Yes, Wycliffs is the first English translation.  It was written in Middle English, which is much more difficult to read than the early modern English of the KJB.  If it were written in old English, very few people would be able to read it much less understand it. Shows the transforming of the English language over time, which is one of the legitimate arguments for modern translations into the modern tongue.  And if you were reading a 1611 edition of the KJB, you'd have some difficulty with it's word structure, and you'd notice it's not the same as the 1789 Blaney Cambridge edition we mostly have and use today. Then there's the Oxford edition of the KJB, which is slightly different than the Cambridge edition.  Either way, they are both very good literal translations of the ancient languages, so say the experts. 

[Ray12614]

This is all good and fine discussion for English speaking people . . . but . . . what about other languages like Spanish, Russian, Chinese and many many more? Do we insist that they  learn English so they can read the KJV?

This is not an criticism but an honest question . . 

[FriendofJonathan]

2 minutes ago, Ray12614 said:

This is all good and fine discussion for English speaking people . . . but . . . what about other languages like Spanish, Russian, Chinese and many many more? Do we insist that they  learn English so they can read the KJV?

This is not an criticism but an honest question . . 

I would have to say No.  God preserved His word and has since guided His people into knowing His word in their native tongue. 

It is unreasonable to insist on KJBOnly regardless of your native tongue.  Nearly 2,000 years ago, the NT writers were mostly Jewish, but wrote in Greek because the mideast world had been Helenized 300 years before being Romanized.  But in the 4th century, when the Roman populace had become nearly unlearned in Greek, the church adopted a Latin translation of the OT and NT through the work of Jerome.  

And then, as the word of God spread throughout Africa and Europe, translations continued, the Ethiopian Bible being the oldest native tongue Bible, which contains manuscripts from between the 4th and 6th century. 

There isn't a pastor in the KJBOnly churches today that reads from a 1611 edition of the KJB.  He's reading from a 1789 or newer edition that updated the font and the grammar, as well as changed some words completely.  

[enoob57]

The Word of God continues but not as we think it!
Revelation 21:5 (KJV)

[5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

before this point nothing will be remembered past this point

Welcome to the eternal newness

1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV)

[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

[10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

completely fulfilled at this point -Behold, I make all things new

 

[FriendofJonathan]

3 hours ago, enoob57 said:

The Word of God continues but not as we think it!
Revelation 21:5 (KJV)

[5] And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.

before this point nothing will be remembered past this point

Welcome to the eternal newness

1 Corinthians 2:9 (KJV)

[9] But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.

[10] But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

[11] For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

[12] Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

completely fulfilled at this point -Behold, I make all things new

 

 

 

Objawienie 21:5

A ten, który zasiadł na tronie, rzekł: Oto czynię wszystko nowe. I rzekł do mnie: Napisz, bo te słowa są prawdziwe i wierne.  

[missmuffet]

49 minutes ago, FriendofJonathan said:

Objawienie 21:5

A ten, który zasiadł na tronie, rzekł: Oto czynię wszystko nowe. I rzekł do mnie: Napisz, bo te słowa są prawdziwe i wierne.  

You have to speak English on Worthy.

[FriendofJonathan]

24 minutes ago, missmuffet said:

You have to speak English on Worthy.

Thanks. 

[Tristen]

On 3/13/2025 at 5:41 PM, z88 said:

Primarily that you are altering the original translated language? To translate it again past that point exposes a bias against the originally translated language and opens up this language to being corrupted. I know people might say they prefer the modern language, but the KJV is readable and you are exposing yourself to something by choosing a newer version, possibly.

From the perspective of logic, the direct answer to your question is "No". When the KJV was originally translated, the translators of the time simply translated the text into the formal spoken language of the time - i.e. translated from the manuscripts in the original languages. Translators of modern versions of the Bible did/do the same. Even the NKJV deferred to the original manuscripts and updated information - i.e. they did not just adjust the KJV to make it easier to read.

It may be true that classical English was closer in sentence structure to the original Bible languages. That simply means the newer, 'Dynamic Equivalent' translations are a bit further away from 'Word-for-word' than the earlier English translations. The words are typically the same (i.e. direct translations of the original words from the original text), but the sentence structures have been tweaked slightly to make them read fluently in modern English.

Valid concerns over translations have more to do with the 'families' of manuscripts from which each version was translated. This is further complicated by the fact that many translations have "Revised" editions that have subsequently updated their Bible version with information from other manuscript 'families'.

I personally trust certain 'families' of manuscripts more than others. However, I have not found any major doctrinal changes between the versions. In some translations, certain doctrines are slightly diluted when compared against other versions - and that's all.

 

 

 

[truth7t7]

On 3/13/2025 at 1:11 PM, other one said:

Many of the modern translations go beyond just restating something to be easier to understand, they use different original manuscripts.  I think that is partly what FriendofJohnathan was saying in greater detail. 

Also, greater understanding of the local customs and beliefs of the population in Jesus time may add a different context to understanding the original Hebrew or Greek.  

Yes Origens Corrupt Alexadrian Text Type, The Less Than 1% Of Manuscript Evidence Is Used To Support The (Novum Testamentum Graece)

Modern translations NIV, NASB, ESV, ETC are supported by the Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece) this Greek Text was "Created" by Adulterers (Kurt Aland), (Barbara Aland), and Homosexual Union Supporter And Roman Catholic Jesuit Cardinal (Carlo Maria Martini)

(Kurt Aland) divorced his wife (Ingeborg) and ran off with and married his college student (Barbara Nee Ehlers), being 22 years her senior, (Kurt Aland) died in the sin of Adultery, being married to (Barbara Nee Ehlers) while his wife (Ingeborg Aland) lived

Did God Use Adulterers And A Homosexual Union Supporter To Preserve His Words In The Greek Text (Novum Testamentum Graece)?

Adulterers (Kurt Aland), (Barbara Aland), And (Carlo Maria Martini), Are Corrupt Trees, And The (Novum Testamentum Graece) Is Their Corrupt Fruit

Matthew 7:17-18KJV
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.

Edited March 15 by truth7t7