What's Wrong With The KJV Bible?

What's Wrong With The KJV Bible?

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 3:44 pm #1



I have always believed in KJV Bible and never questioned it. In recent years, I was shocked that some people on this site find the KJV Bible to be in error. I request the Moderators of this site to identify and list the errors so others may be aware. I would ask that the moderators simply list the errors in this post and we can discuss in detail in future individual posts.

Thanks.
Quote
Share

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 4:19 pm #2



Moderators, please make your list.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 4:28 pm #3


I have always believed in KJV Bible and never questioned it. In recent years, I was shocked that some people on this site find the KJV Bible to be in error. I request the Moderators of this site to identify and list the errors so others may be aware. I would ask that the moderators simply list the errors in this post and we can discuss in detail in future individual posts.

Thanks.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]There are hundreds of Bible versions and translations out there. Why so? Because of "human differences."

God's inspired Word is inerrant. I'm speaking of the original, earliest manuscripts as more reliable than later manuscripts -- this must be taken into consideration.

God's inspired Word is inerrant. Scribes and transcription (reproduction/copying of manuscripts is not unerring. Translators and translations (especially with doctrinal biases and prejudices) are not unerring, either.

The title and content of the initial post shall remain unedited. That since the KJV is being singled out, it would seem unfair. Compared to other translations of the Bible, the KJV (1611) remains as my favorite (personally speaking), and is overall more accurate.

Let me point out that whatever text or passage is improperly translated in the KJV, the same is true with other versions.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: July 29th, 2010, 2:32 pm

November 25th, 2016, 4:57 pm #4

The KJV-Only means the original 1611 copy which included the apocrypha. There was a threat against anyone who removed these books.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

I have a 1828 printing and they are missing!!1

Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
Quote
Like
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 5:07 pm #5


Moderators, please make your list.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Matt. 1:23 -- confusing the meaning of a "name" (e.g., Donald = ruler of the world) and the real person (Donald is not the world's ruler). It's not a case of translation.

John 1:1 -- in most of the Bible versions this passage is not translated correctly.

Isaiah 9:6 -- inaccurate translation in most Bible versions.

Matt. 28:19 -- many translations render "in the name of F,S,H.S." -- the only passage with this "name"; scores of passages in the N.T. refer to "the name of Jesus Christ"

More of the problem than anything else is the flat rejection of passages that contradict acquired (borrowed) beliefs and teachings.

Most of these issues have already been discussed in various threads. But we can discuss these issues again here.[/color]


Quote
Like
Share

Bill
Bill

November 25th, 2016, 5:11 pm #6

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]There are hundreds of Bible versions and translations out there. Why so? Because of "human differences."

God's inspired Word is inerrant. I'm speaking of the original, earliest manuscripts as more reliable than later manuscripts -- this must be taken into consideration.

God's inspired Word is inerrant. Scribes and transcription (reproduction/copying of manuscripts is not unerring. Translators and translations (especially with doctrinal biases and prejudices) are not unerring, either.

The title and content of the initial post shall remain unedited. That since the KJV is being singled out, it would seem unfair. Compared to other translations of the Bible, the KJV (1611) remains as my favorite (personally speaking), and is overall more accurate.

Let me point out that whatever text or passage is improperly translated in the KJV, the same is true with other versions.[/color]
The KJV has sustained the test of time since 1611. However, when some people find that certain KJV passages do not suit their peculiar theology, they brand those passages as "improperly translated" or as "spurious" and deny them or seek ways to get around them.

Persuading the Christian world that the KJV is in error is about as futile as persuading the Christian world to stop celebrating Christmas. Yes, we know there are detractors of the KJV and of Christmas among us, but the KJV and Christmas have both been around so long that it would be virtually impossible to change either one. Both are here to stay.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 5:19 pm #7

The KJV-Only means the original 1611 copy which included the apocrypha. There was a threat against anyone who removed these books.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

I have a 1828 printing and they are missing!!1

Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
The ONLINE KJV I use contains the following:

39 O.T. Books
27 N.T. Books

and

Apocrypha
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Tobit
Judith
Additions to the Book of Esther
Wisdom of Solomon
Prologue to Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Prayer of Azariah
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]When I do searches for counts and references, I read them, but exclude them from the results that I present to the public.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share

Visitor (Rancor)
Visitor (Rancor)

November 25th, 2016, 5:23 pm #8

The KJV-Only means the original 1611 copy which included the apocrypha. There was a threat against anyone who removed these books.

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Apocrypha-Books/

I have a 1828 printing and they are missing!!1

Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us. Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH: as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
Thanks gentlemen, things are not as bad as reported. Good day.
Quote
Share

Bill
Bill

November 25th, 2016, 5:26 pm #9

[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Matt. 1:23 -- confusing the meaning of a "name" (e.g., Donald = ruler of the world) and the real person (Donald is not the world's ruler). It's not a case of translation.

John 1:1 -- in most of the Bible versions this passage is not translated correctly.

Isaiah 9:6 -- inaccurate translation in most Bible versions.

Matt. 28:19 -- many translations render "in the name of F,S,H.S." -- the only passage with this "name"; scores of passages in the N.T. refer to "the name of Jesus Christ"

More of the problem than anything else is the flat rejection of passages that contradict acquired (borrowed) beliefs and teachings.

Most of these issues have already been discussed in various threads. But we can discuss these issues again here.[/color]

Donnie's "examples" mostly concern the Trinity or whether Jesus is God. Now since Donnie denies that Jesus is God and denies that F,S,HS are the Trinity, then his bias compels him to brand those passages as "incorrectly translated."
Quote
Share

Joined: January 2nd, 2005, 6:45 am

November 25th, 2016, 5:35 pm #10

The KJV has sustained the test of time since 1611. However, when some people find that certain KJV passages do not suit their peculiar theology, they brand those passages as "improperly translated" or as "spurious" and deny them or seek ways to get around them.

Persuading the Christian world that the KJV is in error is about as futile as persuading the Christian world to stop celebrating Christmas. Yes, we know there are detractors of the KJV and of Christmas among us, but the KJV and Christmas have both been around so long that it would be virtually impossible to change either one. Both are here to stay.
[color=#0000FF" size="4" face="times]Research for evidences for or against is very significant. Accepting the truth is not the issue. It's accepting man-made beliefs blindly, without question and verification, that is the issue.

God's Word is inerrant. But as I said, scribes and translators are as human as Bill and Donnie. And you don't even see the error-prone nature of humankind. We're not changing the KJV. When there are variations in hundreds of Bible versions and translations, it is time to look into the original manuscripts. The earliest, original manuscripts are older than all modern-day translations of 1611 and forward.[/color]
Quote
Like
Share