If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
2007-12-17 01:34:02 · 9 answers · asked by Benny 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
They didn't. My scofield notes do that. So what kind of KJV bible do you have. Could be Holman notes, or like mine scofield, or so on.
2007-12-17 01:38:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
many cases while translating from one language to a different an instantaneous translation can't be finished and an approximation of meaning is substituted. Ex. a million. John 3:sixteen- the word translated into English as believeth is a relentless verb so the main marvelous translation may be "he who keeps to have self belief has eternal existence. Ex. 2. the interpretation the place Jesus is introducing the Eucharist He says to "try this in remembrance of me", The English word "remembrance" is the closest approximation of the Greek word it is interior the unique text textile. The word is "Anamnesis" which tells of a miracle meaning to make the previous or the destiny present day. In English maximum folk no longer investigating the unique might think of that Jesus is saying to bear in mind the previous yet extremely it fairly is a miracle from God. In Christ Fr. Joseph
2016-12-18 03:11:27 · answer #2 · answered by kieck 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
English was never conceived of by the original writers. They wrote in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic.
People need to get out of this rut. Whether it was invented by Satan or men came up with this idea all on their own, the prophets never said "thee and thy" at anytime.
When you translate something into a different language, centuries apart, there will always be words that can go either way. Don't believe me? If you are American, go to England. If you are English, come here. You will barely be able to function. Same language, entirely different meanings to words. Americans, never go up to a member of the opposite sex in England and talk about Mike Meyers' movies, especially using the word "shag".
Sometimes the words do not exist in another language so you have to get as close as you can.
This is the reason for margin notes.
2007-12-17 01:49:42 · answer #3 · answered by grnlow 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why would there no no alternates? English has many, many words that mean the same thing as does any language. They were not producing an original work but an interpretive work and wanted to be honest about it. Unlike many modern translators that put entire verses in footnotes or leave entire words out.
2007-12-17 01:43:13 · answer #4 · answered by twincrier 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good points, I know what you mean.
I have KJV Bibles from several different publishers, with the center reference columns, and the marginal references all read the same.
For example, for Psalm 55:15 & Revelation 20:13, 14 the marginal reference for the word "hell" says "or, the Grave."
Likewise where Luke 17:21 says "..., the kingdom of God is within you" the reference says "or, among you."
2007-12-17 01:48:09 · answer #5 · answered by Abdijah 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They didn't, although perhaps they should have.
What the DID do is put doubious words in italics, so you could chose to include them as you read, or skip them...your choice.
So far I've got the 10 points, perhaps, but I will "blow it" to take you a "bridge too far" explaining why we fundamental bible believing Christians ONLY believe the bible.
A false prophet obviously lied when he said he "found" the "3rd testiment" of the bible, the "Book of Mormon".
He obviously wrote it himself, using the King James Bible as a source.
He gave himself away, by using itallic words, which God did not do! Sorry Mormons. Don't hate me.
The "Book of Mormon" includes bible references including King James translation INCLUDING THOSE MAN MADE itallicised words the translaters were not sure they should have added.
As an ex-Catholic I'm afraid to say I do believe RC's make a similar claim, regarding church dogma from the Vatican, including the catecism, as infallible words, as if from God. Really it is from a self proclaimed "infallible" god-like pope.
So sorry dear friends AND RELATIVES; but I felt that I had to say it. Don't be hating! Think of me as the child who saw the king had NO clothes!
2007-12-17 01:57:36 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most King James readers will not know that the original 1611 had marginal notes, or the apocryphal (catholic) books, or why.
BTW, why are you shooting at these folks?
2007-12-17 01:44:34 · answer #7 · answered by Poor Richard 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no one is changeing the the meaning of the bible a fair person would want all to understand the bible dont u
2007-12-17 01:46:57 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
One technique of Bible study is called exegesis. You should check it out.
2007-12-17 01:46:39 · answer #9 · answered by mommanuke 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋