A Jewish Opinion on the KJV Being the Best...

[HammerStone]

http://mosaicmagazine.com/observation/2015/05/why-the-king-james-version-of-the-bible-remains-the-best/

I found myself in agreement with this author. You see me mostly quote from either the HCSB or NIV. I generally flip around based upon certain readings between those two, the NLT, the ESV, and the KJV. Time and again, I come back to the KJV. I realize we've probably had much better scholarship since that time in that we have a myriad of new discoveries and greater insight, but there is something about the KJV feeling like the Bible that you just don't get in modern versions.

In translations like the NLT, it's easy to point to Elijah having a "personal assistant" as a source of consternation (I'm picturing Elijah being followed by a hipster with an iPad). In a translation like the NIV, I think it's a matter of shying away from traditional words and even just using common vernacular. And even in my beloved HCSB, the short, choppy sentences sound more like newspaper conversations in the local scene portion rather than a holy and sacred text.

I even used to have articles posted here using the KJV.

I guess at the end of the day, I want the cake of understanding of the newer versions like the NIV and HCSB when I speaking to others, but I want to eat my cake in the form of the KJV for private reading...

 

[Deborah_]

Having read the article, I feel that it ultimately boils down to personal taste. One person's 'grace, stateliness, scale and power' is another person's archaic remoteness and irrelevance. Fortunately, these days we have a choice!
I get the impression that the KJV is more popular in the US than in the UK. Maybe American English hasn't moved quite so far in the last 400 years.

 

[HammerStone]

Well, it very much does. I'm not sure there's a purely empirical argument for using the KJV. I'll admit that much, at least.

Choices are good, but choices can also be misleading or even paralyzing as having so many choices enables everyone to fence off their little quarters of Bible translation theory. I still think Scot McKnight nailed this one on the head with his guide on how to identify the theological persuasion of someone by the version they carry.

And yes, I think the KJV is more popular here. I'm not so sure about the movement of American English. In many ways, I'd say it's moved more. I've surprisingly found that a number of KJVO (KJV-only) people have college degrees and are at least average to above average in an anecdotal intelligence levels.

 

[mjrhealth]

Me I just prefer Jesus God and the Holy Spirit, but they seemed to have being replaced by technology, the written word. So sad.

In All His Love

 

[zeke25]

Well, it very much does. I'm not sure there's a purely empirical argument for using the KJV. I'll admit that much, at least.

Choices are good, but choices can also be misleading or even paralyzing as having so many choices enables everyone to fence off their little quarters of Bible translation theory. I still think Scot McKnight nailed this one on the head with his guide on how to identify the theological persuasion of someone by the version they carry.

And yes, I think the KJV is more popular here. I'm not so sure about the movement of American English. In many ways, I'd say it's moved more. I've surprisingly found that a number of KJVO (KJV-only) people have college degrees and are at least average to above average in an anecdotal intelligence levels.

Hammerstone,

I was forced to go back to the King James Bible in order to find answers that most other bibles did not provide. For example, the meaning of "even/evening" and "between the evenings" cannot be discerned from most other translations.

Zeke25

 

[StanJ]

Most scripture that I have memorized is in the KJV as I was saved in 1971 when it was widely in use. I had a hard time though reading it as the vernacular was very foreign to me. At that time I found the JB Philips and NIV NT and was able to really grow in my understanding. I still have to refer to it when recalling from memory, but I mostly use the NIV and MOUNCE. For a broader perspective when studying I also use the NASB, NRSV, HCSB and ISV versions.

 

[pom2014]

Will use any bible to search for what I need. But will go back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to get actual words within context to really grasp what is being said.

Have issues with the KJV as it kept the Vulgate error of lucifer and then of course the bestiary usages like unicorn, as that was adherence to traditional middle ages knowledge.

 

[zeke25]

Will use any bible to search for what I need. But will go back to the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek to get actual words within context to really grasp what is being said.

Have issues with the KJV as it kept the Vulgate error of lucifer and then of course the bestiary usages like unicorn, as that was adherence to traditional middle ages knowledge.

pom2014,

But what errors do you find that corrupt doctrines, like so many other versions do?

zeke25

 

[pom2014]

pom2014,

But what errors do you find that corrupt doctrines, like so many other versions do?

zeke25

The use of lucifer is a big corruption as it causes issue later in the New Testament with Jesus being the morning star in Revelation.

The the enemy is a morning star and so is the saviour. Big issue there, causing many to stumble over that and led to Joseph Smith placing Jesus (God) on par with Satan leading many mormons down a heretical path.

The word lucifer was injected into scripture by Jerome to combat the cult of lucifer that was prominent at his time that he wanted to discredit. The scribes of King James followed this and only placed in the margin the word heylel which is the actual Hebrew word.

It did not mean the adversary Satan, but was speaking of AN antichrist, the Prince of Tyre a King of Babylon.

In this error caused by vain propaganda we cause confusion that led some astray. Hence the warning not to change or omit scripture.

And yet the issue happened again with Irenaeus and his choosing of the canon of the New Testament, forgoing anything but what we have now and he would have omitted Revelation had not people begged for it to be included.

So now other gospels, letters of Paul not included and other text is considered immediately not scriptural because of ONE man.

There are many contextual errors because of the difficulty of translation and due to tradition of men that cause confusion and discord.

The misuse of erets to mean the whole world and not a region in the story of Noah.
The confusion of Cain and his wife due to rigid tradition of original sin, which is NEVER mentioned in scripture, instilled by the Catholic church to press people into the churches.
The over simplification of Trinity and rapture.

They are all examples that have led to confusion, separation and in many cases war and death.

This was not the way it was supposed to be.

 

[StanJ]

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

 

[zeke25]

The use of lucifer is a big corruption as it causes issue later in the New Testament with Jesus being the morning star in Revelation.

The the enemy is a morning star and so is the saviour. Big issue there, causing many to stumble over that and led to Joseph Smith placing Jesus (God) on par with Satan leading many mormons down a heretical path.

The word lucifer was injected into scripture by Jerome to combat the cult of lucifer that was prominent at his time that he wanted to discredit. The scribes of King James followed this and only placed in the margin the word heylel which is the actual Hebrew word.

It did not mean the adversary Satan, but was speaking of AN antichrist, the Prince of Tyre a King of Babylon.

In this error caused by vain propaganda we cause confusion that led some astray. Hence the warning not to change or omit scripture.

And yet the issue happened again with Irenaeus and his choosing of the canon of the New Testament, forgoing anything but what we have now and he would have omitted Revelation had not people begged for it to be included.

So now other gospels, letters of Paul not included and other text is considered immediately not scriptural because of ONE man.

There are many contextual errors because of the difficulty of translation and due to tradition of men that cause confusion and discord.

The misuse of erets to mean the whole world and not a region in the story of Noah.
The confusion of Cain and his wife due to rigid tradition of original sin, which is NEVER mentioned in scripture, instilled by the Catholic church to press people into the churches.
The over simplification of Trinity and rapture.

They are all examples that have led to confusion, separation and in many cases war and death.

This was not the way it was supposed to be.

pom2014,

You present too many objections at one time, and you do not show which translation you think corrects all of these problems you point out. Nor do you provide any documentation to support some of your claims - such as Irenaeus.

Using Joseph Smith as an example of someone led astray hardly supports your cause. We need to know someone led astray that has some credibility. J. Smith was a con on his best and worst day. He made up a lot of things other than what you point out.

And of course the RCC did and does a lot of things to manipulate people. Christians should not be concerned with what the enemy's church businesses are up to. We have enough to do to keep our own house clean.

If you're not holding a KJV in your hand, take a look at Ex. 16:12 in the version you are holding. Does the word "twilight" appear there? Let talk about something concrete and take one subject at a time. I suggest this one.

zeke25

 

[pom2014]

pom2014,

You present too many objections at one time, and you do not show which translation you think corrects all of these problems you point out. Nor do you provide any documentation to support some of your claims - such as Irenaeus.

Using Joseph Smith as an example of someone led astray hardly supports your cause. We need to know someone led astray that has some credibility. J. Smith was a con on his best and worst day. He made up a lot of things other than what you point out.

And of course the RCC did and does a lot of things to manipulate people. Christians should not be concerned with what the enemy's church businesses are up to. We have enough to do to keep our own house clean.

If you're not holding a KJV in your hand, take a look at Ex. 16:12 in the version you are holding. Does the word "twilight" appear there? Let talk about something concrete and take one subject at a time. I suggest this one.

zeke25

OK let's look at that verse.

Here is what the scripture states:

shama` tĕluwnah ben Yisra'el dabar 'amar beyn `ereb 'akal basar boqer saba` lechem yada` Yĕhovah 'elohiym

Boqer is [SIZE=14.3360004425049px]morning, [/SIZE]sunrise

[SIZE=14.3360004425049px]Hence when you eat your bread and break your fast.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.3360004425049px]So the scripture says morning, [/SIZE]sunrise.

Not sure what the issue is when you go back to actual Hebrew, in context. Not English which words do not always translate correctly.

 

[zeke25]

OK let's look at that verse.

Here is what the scripture states:

shama` tĕluwnah ben Yisra'el dabar 'amar beyn `ereb 'akal basar boqer saba` lechem yada` Yĕhovah 'elohiym

Boqer is [SIZE=14.3360004425049px]morning, [/SIZE]sunrise

[SIZE=14.3360004425049px]Hence when you eat your bread and break your fast.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14.3360004425049px]So the scripture says morning, [/SIZE]sunrise.

Not sure what the issue is when you go back to actual Hebrew, in context. Not English which words do not always translate correctly.

I have no problem with boqer. It is telling us exactly what you said, they will be eating bread in the morning. But that does not address my question.

I was speaking to beyn ereb, and not in a Hebrew text. Are you saying that this is the translation you read? If so, please tell me what the name of this translation is.

My question concerns beyn ereb. Many English translations call this time of day “twilight”. Does your English translation follow this pattern?

Thanks,

zeke25

 

[zeke25]

https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today

I believe you have referred to Daniel B Wallace before - another Calvinist. You are consistent.

 

[StanJ]

I believe you have referred to Daniel B Wallace before - another Calvinist. You are consistent.

I suggest you actually read what he has to say on the subject of election, and then comment. His views are moderate IMO, based on the type of hyper-Calvinists I have dealt with in the past.

https://bible.org/article/my-understanding-biblical-doctrine-election

 

[zeke25]

I suggest you actually read what he has to say on the subject of election, and then comment. His views are moderate IMO, based on the type of hyper-Calvinists I have dealt with in the past.

https://bible.org/article/my-understanding-biblical-doctrine-election

I have read it and found nothing remarkable. His most revealing statement was that he said that 98% of the KJ was in agreement with the other texts. It really boils down to what type of doctrines are you trying to study. With the doctrines I've studied, the KJ has been most satisfactory with the help of a couple of other translations. Wallace doesn't really offer an alternative. If he is happy, I guess that's all that matters to him. I really didn't see him as someone on a crusade, he was merely sharing his opinion.

 

[zeke25]

I suggest you actually read what he has to say on the subject of election, and then comment. His views are moderate IMO, based on the type of hyper-Calvinists I have dealt with in the past.

https://bible.org/article/my-understanding-biblical-doctrine-election

As far as Wallace's comments on election, this doesn't seem to be the appropriate thread for me to comment.

 

[StanJ]

His most revealing statement was that he said that 98% of the KJ was in agreement with the other texts.

What THIS shows is your dishonest approach to what he DID say;

the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data.

Indeed this is obvious based on your posts and deliberate prevarications.

 

[zeke25]

What THIS shows is your dishonest approach to what he DID say;

the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000—and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data.

Indeed this is obvious based on your posts and deliberate prevarications.

Simple fact is that I gave about 10 seconds of my time to Wallace and you because none of it was of any value, so it was easy for me to make a mistake. But 10 seconds was more time than Wallace or you deserve. As usual, with your antichrist attitude, you have blown yet another opportunity to redeem yourself. Repent.

2 Timothy 2:16 KJV, "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness."

Titus 3:10 NIV, "Warn a divisive person once, and then warn them a second time. After that, have nothing to do with them."

You have used up your warnings from me.

 

[pom2014]

I have no problem with boqer. It is telling us exactly what you said, they will be eating bread in the morning. But that does not address my question.

I was speaking to beyn ereb, and not in a Hebrew text. Are you saying that this is the translation you read? If so, please tell me what the name of this translation is.

My question concerns beyn ereb. Many English translations call this time of day “twilight”. Does your English translation follow this pattern?

Thanks,

zeke25

Again I see no issue here again.

`ereb means evening at sunset.

So what are your issues with English that are not working for you.

Sunrise and sunset are both areas of twilight.

See no issue with twillight nor sunrise or sunset, nor eventide nor morning-tide, nor morn nor even.