Why would people wish to follow a version which was translated centuries ago when people had less knowledge about sacred languages when they now do? It's well known that the King James Version, although beautiful, does not come up to modern standards of linguistic fidelity and textual accuracy.
People say that modern translations are heretical; but essentially, it is the original texts they are calling heretical, because the modern translations are closer to the original! :-(
2007-09-23 12:41:09 · 21 answers · asked by Jerusalem Delivered 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
The King James has a very practical use for us today even though it is a poor translation.
It is used to refer to the Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to look up the original language words.
Though itself being a trinitarian publication, it had a major part in revealing the trinity to be false for many of my friends and myself.
For the answerer below:
http://www.watchtower.org/e/ti/index.htm
http://thehighwaytoheaven.com/flaws.htm
2007-09-23 12:45:13 · answer #1 · answered by Tim 47 7 · 1⤊ 4⤋
People knew less about the sacred languages in the days of the translators that translated the King James Version? You must know nothing about the translators on the KJV. One of the translators, John Bois, could read out of the Hebrew Bible when he was five years old. He could put any modern "Hebrew Scholar" to shame.
As far as the textual inaccuracy of the Textus Receptus which the KJV was taken from, it is all assumption because everyone has been fed the line that "oldest is best." For example, one of the parts of the Lord's Prayer which you find omitted in the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (the manuscripts modern bibles come from) is found in the Gothic Version, a manuscript predating the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
2007-09-23 13:10:23 · answer #2 · answered by Jonathan 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people choose to adopt a religious reason for a personal preference, and then have to come up with arguments that support their religious reason.
The King James was, at one point, the most accurate translation we had available. A generation or two ago, there were some bad translations and paraphrases. King James was better than those.
If you are going to be having an intelligent and respectful discussion with someone of the 'KJV Only' camp, please prepare yourself by studying the translation history of any translation you plan to use. Be ready to respectfully show why this translation is considered more accurate. Find out if there are particular passages in your translation with which these people have difficulty and listen to why they think this way.
By having an intelligent discussion on the subject, you're far more likely to open someone else's mind (and your own) and figure out a way that the two of you can agree.
2007-09-23 12:50:37 · answer #3 · answered by thejanith 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well known by who ? many of the meanings of words in the ancient manuscripts have been discussed and disagreed on for centuries ,this is because a single word could have alternative meanings , which is why the old Bible versions always had footnotes The reason why the King James is called the Orthodox Bible is because it is the only official Bible in England and the translation was ordered by King James as the Bible to be used by the Church of England the official and Orthodox religion of our country
but the fact is its agreed by many Biblical scholars that the Wycliffe NT translation ( older than the king James) is more reliable as John Wycliffe was superior in his knowledge of ancient text to anyone before or since
The modern translations are no better than the old even with out the fact that they have lost the holy and sacred feeling that's so inspiring in the old Bibles
2007-09-23 14:09:35 · answer #4 · answered by keny 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is only one authentic version of the 'Old Testament' and that is in Hebrew. It is noteworthy that the Jews do not have all these versions, partly because it is not necessary in Hebrew.
The 'New Testament', with all its different versions, was not a Hebrew text, and was written long after the original heresy, and contained different versions, and versions followed versions.
The KJV of the 'Old' Testament is fine language and the fact that it has been used for centuries imbues it with tradition, but in terms of an accurate translation, it is not, and like all Christian translations, contains matters distorted to supply the needs of the heretics.
2007-09-23 13:47:01 · answer #5 · answered by Canute 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I know the NIV leaves verses out and tries to reinterpret scriptures by consensus in order to make it easier to accept.
The NIV will write that certain scriptures are not reliable or found in early transcripts.
And, the words they use will change the entire purpose of the verse.
Because of instances like this, and in other translations, there are some that advocate KJV only.
Me? I would never use the NIV again. I don't like the Living Bible either.
2007-09-23 12:51:49 · answer #6 · answered by Christmas Light Guy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I use both, but, you are correct. When Paul quotes "Scripture", he uses the Septuagint which has all the books that the King James Bible leaves out. We know this because when using the ancient Hebrew text that was supposedly what they said they needed to do for an accurate account of what was deemed Divine inspiration for their compilation for the King James Bible, and comparing that to what St. Paul says in his Scripture quotes---it makes no sense (it's just gibberish) but, when you use the Greek Septuagint, it is word for word. This is the same text that Jesus was familiar with too.
2007-09-23 12:55:05 · answer #7 · answered by Midge 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That is strange you should mention King James. The Cleveland basketball team has a star named Lebron, who they call "King James". On last weeks "Sports Illustrated" (or some sports magazine), it had his picture on the cover with the headline 'King James rules the east". Although it had nothing to do with religion, it made me think of the future.
On the sports magazine in the rack below it, it also had Lebron's picture on the cover. This headline read "The Beast of the East". And again, having nothing to do with religion, it still made me think of the future, and what will come out of the east.
2007-09-23 12:46:42 · answer #8 · answered by Son of David 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I've studied all versions and perversions of the Bible,
and I find the authorized KJV best for allegoric study.
Objective is: solve the allegoric "mystery" of God in time,
lest all the KofG within you perish instead of none perish.
It's the seventh Bible, as made better from six good,
in the manner God saw good x6, very good 7th time.
The main thing is the end, it ends grace us for you all.
Endure to the end: to be saved (only) by grace (only):
The GRACE of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.
2007-09-23 13:07:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your right, I have a Net Beta Bible and it translate in Greek and Hebrew for some words so you get the real meaning, it's awesome!
2007-09-24 00:40:37 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋