King James Version Bible vs. Modern English Perversions

[Helen]

Yay!
Lets start a new denomination.

 

[Butterfly]

Yay!
Lets start a new denomination.

Lol

 

[Butterfly]

Yes, you are right...
But even then, I find it the best of all..For me....I learned so much by heart 50 years ago...so it is the only one that is "within me".
I've tried others but I find they have been changed too much for me.

Hey, nothing is perfect... and man has had his finger in there as usual..and change things to suit their own belief system. But, God knows that too.

I love the "poetic flow" of the KJV. x

I realised yesterday that I do have a KJV , one that my parents brought me when I was 9years old. However I could never get along with the old English - so it's not the bible as such, but the language that is a barrier to me using it. So, for me, when I came to faith and the church I was a part of only used the NIV, it was this version that became the one that suited me personally. It has not stopped God from speaking to me, opening my eyes to the truth, working in my life ect.
I know so many that prefer the KJV, which is fine and doesn't bother me- what bothers me sometimes is the attitude from some that conveys that anyone not using that version is in the wrong.
The word of God has been translated into many new languages, many of which would have had to change some words in order to get the right meanings across - do you think the Chinese bible resembles the KJV , I doubt it does- yet God has used it greatly in that country.
Butterfly

 

[Davy]

One of the things God's Word does is a type of subject flow alternation in structures. That's why phrases within a chapter seem to repeat at times. It's The Holy Spirit markings. The 1611 KJV kept to those alternations better than any other Bible translation.

An example would be like in Acts 2 about what was actually spoken on Pentecost. If you look up the actual Greek words for "tongues", "tongues", "language", "tongue", "tongues", "tongue", as outlined in that Acts 2 chapter, you'll find this kind of alternation of The Holy Spirit defining what tongue was actually spoken and heard there:

a - "tongues" (Acts 2:3) = Greek glossa (which means language)
b - "tongue" (Acts 2:4) = Greek glossa
c - "language" (Acts 2:6) = Greek dialektos (means dialect of a language)
c - "tongue" (Acts 2:8) = Greek dialektos
b - "tongues" (Acts 2:11) = Greek glossa
a - "tongue" (Acts 2:26) = Greek glossa

These kind of examples of subject flow occur naturally throughout God's Word. They help seal in a subject (manuscript study especially). The KJV is the only English Bible translation that best kept to these alternations by The Holy Spirit. You can see even by this KJV example how the translation started to leave the manuscripts alternation, but still kept it somewhat intact. Later Bible translations get even farther away from these Holy Spirit markings.

 

[mjrhealth]

these alternations by The Holy Spir

Oh so teh holy spirit chnaged Gods word, oh what a dilema we have now. We do love justifying idols dont we....

 

[DPMartin]

I have noticed that many people go for the King James Version because they believe it is the ' true ' word- however a few years ago I started reading a history of ' the bible ' and did you know that King James himself changed a few words because he did not want to lose his power as King with the people.
I really need to finish the book ( on the history ) but I found it interesting that this version , which is given such high esteem, was not without its issues with translation.
Butterfly

well every time one turns around there's some effort to discredit any thing established, especially the KJ bible because it does dominate the English speaking world. (wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't motivated by publishers of other versions in this day and age) but the KJV has stood public scrutiny for over 400 years now, and even the catholic church affirms that its an acceptable translation. so yea, many stand by the KJV. many souls, many ministries and many countries and nations have been influenced by its existence. which can't be said for other English translations, at least not to the amount the KJV has.

 

[Helen]

the KJV has stood public scrutiny for over 400 years now, and even the catholic church affirms that its an acceptable translation. so yea, many stand by the KJV. many souls, many ministries and many countries and nations have been influenced by its existence. which can't be said for other English translations, at least not to the amount the KJV has.

Yay!! Well said...agree.
( funny how we all like posts which agree with what we ourselves believe. )

 

[Marymog]

I find it depressing that Christians so dispise the integrity and ability of Chriostian linguists, impling that they cannot accuratly interpret Gods word from Greek, Hebrew and other biblical languages into English using every available manuscript.

The claim that God spoke to mankind via a sacred languge is one the RC church made to prevent the translation of the bible into common langauges, so it is strange that this same claim is made by the KJ onlyists sect.

HI,

The RCC tried to prevent the translation of the bible into common languages?

Could you clarify that belief with facts?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement. If so, I apologize.

Curious Mary

 

[amadeus]

well every time one turns around there's some effort to discredit any thing established, especially the KJ bible because it does dominate the English speaking world. (wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't motivated by publishers of other versions in this day and age) but the KJV has stood public scrutiny for over 400 years now, and even the catholic church affirms that its an acceptable translation. so yea, many stand by the KJV. many souls, many ministries and many countries and nations have been influenced by its existence. which can't be said for other English translations, at least not to the amount the KJV has.

Yes, the fact that there is NO copyright on the KJV would make a difference to a person/company that wants to sell some books [purposely NOT capitalized] in order to make more money. Would God be pleased?

 

[Butterfly]

well every time one turns around there's some effort to discredit any thing established, especially the KJ bible because it does dominate the English speaking world. (wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't motivated by publishers of other versions in this day and age) but the KJV has stood public scrutiny for over 400 years now, and even the catholic church affirms that its an acceptable translation. so yea, many stand by the KJV. many souls, many ministries and many countries and nations have been influenced by its existence. which can't be said for other English translations, at least not to the amount the KJV has.

To be honest the book I was reading about the KJ bible was one full of praise for the bible, the fact that it mentioned about King james changing a few words was merely part of the journey. So it wasn't about discrediting it at all , and I did not share it in order to do that either. I just placed it in context that no translation can be word for word perfect to the original.
Butterfly

 

[Windmillcharge]

HI,

The RCC tried to prevent the translation of the bible into common languages?

Could you clarify that belief with facts?

Maybe I am misunderstanding your statement. If so, I apologize.

Curious Mary

You mean William Tyndale wasn't burnt at the stake, that ordinary Catholics had to have a permit in order to read the bible and I have seen such a permit.

 

[Marymog]

You mean William Tyndale wasn't burnt at the stake, that ordinary Catholics had to have a permit in order to read the bible and I have seen such a permit.

Dear friend,

Never heard of this "permit to read the bible". How about you link a website or reference me a book talking about this permit? Do you have images of this "permit"?

The question I asked you was: The RCC tried to prevent the translation of the bible into common languages?

I don't see an answer to that question. The facts are that the bible was translated into many languages BEFORE Tyndale.

There was a law passed in 1408 that was in reaction to John Wycliff who produced a English translation of the Bible that was corrupt, full of heresy and not an accurate rendering of Scripture. The RCC and the secular authorities condemned it. If you want to know your Christian history and THE FACTS read about the Synod of Oxford.

As you probably know Tyndale desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied his request because there were already English translations of the Scriptures at this time. Tyndale, a priest, was known as a mediocre scholar and had a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He had previously been tried for heresy. He had to edit and fix his own translations in later years

He left England and he produced a translation of the New Testament that was filled with textual corruption and mistranslations of entire passages of Scripture. The Church and the secular authorities condemned it. King Henry VIII declared in 1531 that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people." He later
decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Tyndale's translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas; not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself.

 

[Windmillcharge]

Dear friend,

Never heard of this "permit to read the bible". How about you link a website or reference me a book talking about this permit? Do you have images of this "permit"?

The question I asked you was: The RCC tried to prevent the translation of the bible into common languages?

I don't see an answer to that question. The facts are that the bible was translated into many languages BEFORE Tyndale.

There was a law passed in 1408 that was in reaction to John Wycliff who produced a English translation of the Bible that was corrupt, full of heresy and not an accurate rendering of Scripture. The RCC and the secular authorities condemned it. If you want to know your Christian history and THE FACTS read about the Synod of Oxford.

As you probably know Tyndale desired to make his own English translation of the Bible. The Church denied his request because there were already English translations of the Scriptures at this time. Tyndale, a priest, was known as a mediocre scholar and had a reputation as a priest of unorthodox opinions and a violent temper. He had previously been tried for heresy. He had to edit and fix his own translations in later years

He left England and he produced a translation of the New Testament that was filled with textual corruption and mistranslations of entire passages of Scripture. The Church and the secular authorities condemned it. King Henry VIII declared in 1531 that "the translation of the Scripture corrupted by William Tyndale should be utterly expelled, rejected, and put away out of the hands of the people." He later
decreed that "all manner of books of the Old and New Testament in English, being of the crafty, false, and untrue translation of Tyndale . . . shall be clearly and utterly abolished, extinguished, and forbidden to be kept or used in this realm."

Tyndale's translation of the Bible was heretical because it contained heretical ideas; not because the act of translation was heretical in and of itself.

The permit was shown to me by a devout RC, it was pasted in the front of her family bible. She was very proud of the permit. How old it was, at this point in time I have no idea.

Was the bible translated into English prior to tyndale?
Well there was as you point out Witcliffe translation from the vulgate and prior to him there weren't any. Oh there were a few scholars who translated passageres but no attempt to translate whole books.

Was Tyndales work full of errors? The only site I can find is a catholic one.
I find it interesting that this site giving a history of English bibles, doesn't mention how inaccurate his work was but rather comments on how often his work was adopted by other translators. by the picture of John Knox you'll find this line :-
"The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation."

A comment that shows how inaccurate those catholic sources are.

Did the RCC church try to stop translations.
Yes, they falsly claimed that Tyndale's work was inaccurate and would buy up as many copies as they could to burn them.

Why was Tyndale exceuted. He was exceuted because he translated the bible into English, got it printed and sold through out England.
The charge was heresy. He was a herertic because he had read the bible and discovered that the RCC theology was inerror.

So yes again you are correct the bible as fas as RCC doctrine is concern, is full of heretical ideas.

 

[Marymog]

The permit was shown to me by a devout RC, it was pasted in the front of her family bible. She was very proud of the permit. How old it was, at this point in time I have no idea.

Was the bible translated into English prior to tyndale?
Well there was as you point out Witcliffe translation from the vulgate and prior to him there weren't any. Oh there were a few scholars who translated passageres but no attempt to translate whole books.

Was Tyndales work full of errors? The only site I can find is a catholic one.
I find it interesting that this site giving a history of English bibles, doesn't mention how inaccurate his work was but rather comments on how often his work was adopted by other translators. by the picture of John Knox you'll find this line :-
"The Geneva Bible itself retains over 90% of William Tyndale's original English translation."

A comment that shows how inaccurate those catholic sources are.

Did the RCC church try to stop translations.
Yes, they falsly claimed that Tyndale's work was inaccurate and would buy up as many copies as they could to burn them.

Why was Tyndale exceuted. He was exceuted because he translated the bible into English, got it printed and sold through out England.
The charge was heresy. He was a herertic because he had read the bible and discovered that the RCC theology was inerror.

So yes again you are correct the bible as fas as RCC doctrine is concern, is full of heretical ideas.

Hmmmmm....The phantom permit.

LOL....If Tyndale's work was accurate and did not have errors.....why did he revise his own work????

You may be ok with heretical translations of scripture. I am not. Someone has to decide what is heretical. Who do you choose to decide?

Mary

 

[Davy]

You mean William Tyndale wasn't burnt at the stake, that ordinary Catholics had to have a permit in order to read the bible and I have seen such a permit.

I was in Spain in the late '70s, went to a Spanish friend's house and saw a Bible on a shelf. I asked the woman if she read it, and she said oh no, that's only for the parish priest to tell us what it says.

At that time you were born Catholic if born in Spain. And if you wanted to get married in Spain, you had to become a Catholic if you weren't, and sign a paper saying you would raise your children as Catholic.

 

[aspen]

Thank goodness for gay King James or Jesus’s message would be lost......

 

[Windmillcharge]

Hmmmmm....The phantom permit.

LOL....If Tyndale's work was accurate and did not have errors.....why did he revise his own work????

You may be ok with heretical translations of scripture. I am not. Someone has to decide what is heretical. Who do you choose to decide?

Mary

Why did Tyndale revise his work? have you read the bible Mary, do you know how big it is? How many languages do you speak well enough to translate any written work into another language?
Tyndale worked largely alone, dependant on the charity of a sympathetic merchant for a room and board..
I'm not surprised that he considered that his early work could be improved on.

Get a good translation of the bible and go through it looking at the footnotes. You'll find one or two a page, showing alternative reading. This shows how many 'questionable passages there are in the bible and remember if you use the King James, then you are largely reading Tyndales work when you read the NT.

The charge of heretic is one I would be very slow to throw around, especial when so often in the past the charge like Tyndale had nothing to do with false Christian doctrine.

 

[Marymog]

Why did Tyndale revise his work? have you read the bible Mary, do you know how big it is? How many languages do you speak well enough to translate any written work into another language?
Tyndale worked largely alone, dependant on the charity of a sympathetic merchant for a room and board..
I'm not surprised that he considered that his early work could be improved on.

Get a good translation of the bible and go through it looking at the footnotes. You'll find one or two a page, showing alternative reading. This shows how many 'questionable passages there are in the bible and remember if you use the King James, then you are largely reading Tyndales work when you read the NT.

The charge of heretic is one I would be very slow to throw around, especial when so often in the past the charge like Tyndale had nothing to do with false Christian doctrine.

Are going to try and give any evidence of permits being required to read the bible???

I am not saying that Tyndales translation was heretical.....but I can understand why you thought that. Poor choose of words on my part. I am asking you who decides what is heretical.

Are you even going to try and answer my question? Or just act like it wasn't asked?: You may be ok with heretical translations of scripture. I am not. Someone has to decide what is heretical. Who do you choose to decide what is heretical?

Mary

 

[Windmillcharge]

Are going to try and give any evidence of permits being required to read the bible???

I am not saying that Tyndales translation was heretical.....but I can understand why you thought that. Poor choose of words on my part. I am asking you who decides what is heretical.

Are you even going to try and answer my question? Or just act like it wasn't asked?: You may be ok with heretical translations of scripture. I am not. Someone has to decide what is heretical. Who do you choose to decide what is heretical?

Mary

I thought I had answered you on the permit, If I havewn't then look at Bible Forbidden to the Laity which quote two catholic sources that state that the ordinary people were not to read the bible.
I've added a papal quote for good measure:-
Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

No scholars have provided any evidence that Tyndales translation was heretical. That includes RC scholars. The bible is very carefully scrutinised when ever someone seeks to translate it. So much so that a heretical translation is very unlikely to be produced.

I know of no translation that can be called heretical. The nearest thing is the JW parapharase where for there own purposes they change words or add words to promote there erronious belief.

Who would I chose to determine orthodox doctrine or bible.
Well the intellectual community will alert us to disputes over a new biblical translation.
Heretical doctrine. Is every persons responcibility to know what is andis not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheeps clothing spreading false teaching.

 

[Marymog]

I thought I had answered you on the permit, If I havewn't then look at Bible Forbidden to the Laity which quote two catholic sources that state that the ordinary people were not to read the bible.
I've added a papal quote for good measure:-
Pius VII said, "It is evidence from experience, that the holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit."

No scholars have provided any evidence that Tyndales translation was heretical. That includes RC scholars. The bible is very carefully scrutinised when ever someone seeks to translate it. So much so that a heretical translation is very unlikely to be produced.

I know of no translation that can be called heretical. The nearest thing is the JW parapharase where for there own purposes they change words or add words to promote there erronious belief.

Who would I chose to determine orthodox doctrine or bible.
Well the intellectual community will alert us to disputes over a new biblical translation.
Heretical doctrine. Is every persons responcibility to know what is andis not Christianity and to be alert to wolves in sheeps clothing spreading false teaching.

Your quotes are out of context and your revision of history is classic.

I am alert to wolves in sheep's clothing spreading false teaching.

Who decides who is a wolf and who is a sheep? You?

Mary