2007-02-02 05:34:21 · 15 answers · asked by icyhott4urmind 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
I wouldn't go so far to call it dangerous, however, it is a dynamic translation not a literal translation. This means it was translated into the common venacular of the people and not translated word for word, meaning for meaning. It appears that occasionally words were added or mistranslated. The other thing to be aware of is that it was translated in the 1600's and our language usage (word meanings, expressions, idoms etc) has changed since then.
2007-02-02 05:40:43 · answer #1 · answered by Pirate AM™ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
QUESTIONS ON KJV BIBLE THAT IN 44 YEARS STUDY HAS ALL ANY BIBLE HAS
Q#1.Why is the old KJV better than a contemporary translation? [ Familiarity counts ].
Q#2.Why do the rules change in innovation when it comes to Bible translations?
Q#3.Why do some feel the KJV is the inspired version? [ 1110 years O.T. inspired ];
Answer #1. KJV Bible 1611 published, at 303 years is 1914 after Christ is an excepted translation by law of man and God, WHAT DID THE WORLD DO WITH THIS INFORMATION RELEASED TO IT IN 1611 TO 1960 AFTER CHRIST?
Q#4. If the KJV is inspired, are there other inspired versions for each language on earth? Wouldn't it be unfair if it wasn't? [ 1110 years O.T. inspired BC, to 100 AD ].
Q#5.How can a modern person be more sure of the ancients than he can be of his own contemporaries when it comes to translations? [ 1960 to late for most people ].
Answer #2. At 1110 years O.T. 39 books done, 443 before Christ in Roman Empire # 6. N.T. 27 books done, 50 to 100 years after Christ, this is time inspired, forever.
Q#6.Do you think God wants his written word to be unfamilar in grammatical form with the people it's trying to reach?The ancient Jews had it in their contemporary grammatical form. Why shouldn't we?
Answer #3. People born 1611 to 1960, where was the choice they had, if the KJV had any improvements in this period of time, I am sure all were grateful, learning is more successful if a person clings to what is familiar, no matter what else is available.
Q#7.Why are there a large number of Trinitarians in support of the KJV more than any other translation.
Answer #4. KJV Bible does not teach trinity. John 17:3,5,24; Col.1:15-17; Rev.3:14; Matt.3:16,17; 16:16,17; John 14:13-15,26,28; 17:1-16; 20:17; Acts 2:27-31; Matt.22:30-40;
Q#8.Are KJV-Only advocates really a cult? Why or Why not?
Answer #5. The Amplified, The New Living, New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, The Learning Bible, that are used a very few years compared to all the years the King James Versions was available, and all bibles are just about the same. Any one is so much better off to have learned the most difficult translation first, having scripture at the finger tips because of years of familiarity is very important.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the KJV Bible 1611 translation, [ no matter any errors or difficulties ], and it is what God made available to the world as promised at Dan.8:12-14 [ 2300 years after Babylon Empire #3 [ was 606 BC ], Word of truth circulating, not trodden underfoot any more, but in the world 1694, so what else was in the world 1694 after Christ?
Learning a religion out of the thousands, any one of the religions learned, is different than learning the bible. Any one that has a desire to know the bible, has got to study religions and compare them to the bible. This is all the protection one needs from a sect or cult involvement or just plainly involved in repeating and acting on something some man said, that absolutely is not scripture.
Source(s):
Bible.
2007-02-02 07:49:56 · answer #2 · answered by jeni 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The KJV translation; used by Catholics and Protestants is not a 'dangerous' translation in my present opinion. It does use 'dated' English which may bother some people today though.
2007-02-02 06:47:10 · answer #3 · answered by jefferyspringer57@sbcglobal.net 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing dangerous about the KJV.
It was translated from the Latin Vulgate, and published without notes.
It is not my Bible of choice.
I would much rather sit down and read the New Living Translation, but I use the NKJV to preach or teach from.
Our pew Bibles are NKJV as well, and have been for years.
grace2u
2007-02-02 05:40:10 · answer #4 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
I surely have no idea what you mean the KJV is the inspired word of God. Simply a transltion to English.
2007-02-02 05:43:05 · answer #5 · answered by djmantx 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The King James Bible is the only true translation for the English speaking people. Since the first words given by inspirations from God that were written down are no longer with us and all we have are copies, can we say all we have is God’s message?
Standard Version, 1901. We are told that these modern translations were done to update for easier reading and the changes are minor. Satan can’t destroy God’s word so he uses men to teach his method of (1) subtract a word or words (2) change a word or words (3) add a word or words (4) remove words from context. (Genesis 3:1-6) Who changed scripture? Who is responsible for this confusion? Satan is the author of confusion.
Gal 5:9 A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.
There is one absolute standard by which all bibles are compared, the King James Bible. So it is one against all the rest. So which one is right? Compare the following verses to the same verses in other translations.
Does the modern translation leave out firstborn son? If so, Mary was not a virgin.
Matthew 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS
Does the modern translation change “Joseph” to “father”? If so, Joseph could have been the father of Jesus.
Luke 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
Does the modern translation change “blood” to “death”? If so, Jesus could have died without shedding His blood and we would not have redemption through his blood.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
Does the modern translation change “God” to “he”? If so, Jesus would not be God.
I Tim 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Does the modern translation leave out “without a cause” in Matt 5:22? If so, Jesus was a sinner.
Matt 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment.
Mark 3:5 And when he had looked round about on them with anger,
Does the modern translation change “of” to “in” in Rom 3:22? If so, then the righteousness of God is by your faith and not by the faith of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ.
Does the modern translation change “rightly dividing” to “rightly handling” in II Tim 2:15? If so, then there is no division in the word of truth, it is all to us.
II Tim 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Does the modern translation leave out “O Lucifer” and add “o morning star” in Isaiah 14:12? If so, then Jesus and Lucifer are the same.
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations.
Rev 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
Who does the modern translation say who killed Goliath? Is it David or Elhanan, or both?
I Sam 17:51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled.
II Sam 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
2007-02-02 05:43:10 · answer #6 · answered by Ray W 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
o0nly becouse it is in old and flower english I feel not a good translation but some churches still swear by it ??
2007-02-02 06:42:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Well, for starters, it's the King James Version. That means that King James edited it. Do you want to follow King James?
2007-02-02 05:37:03 · answer #8 · answered by Justsyd 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Because it is a translation of a dangerous book.
They should have translated something a little more peaceful.
2007-02-02 05:37:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because it interprets the Bible in the manner in which they wanted to. It changes many passages and even leaves some out
2007-02-02 05:40:35 · answer #10 · answered by Ana 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋