King James Wordings Found In Early Greek Papyri New Testament Manuscripts

[FHII]

Never understood some peoples' rabid attachment to the KJV (FHII, i know you are not part of this group) - can't we simply agree that the KJV is a reliable translation that contains some outdated language?

Yes, Aspen, that's correct. I am a KJV user, and its the only version I use. I do however, understand that others use other versions, and respect that they do. What I am more against is people who switch Bible versions when they don't like what one version says. In other words, I'm against using the KJV to get scripture on one particular subject, but when they don't agree with it, they then switch to the ASV, for example. It seems to me they are trying to make the Bible line up with their doctrine, instead of the other way around.

There are some that use several different versions just to get (what they say is) an overall perspective. I'm not as hard on that as I used to be, but it doesn't suit me personally.

As for the language being outdated... Frankly I don't have a problem with it, and really don't understand why people do. But, ok....

 

[biggandyy]

As for the language being outdated... Frankly I don't have a problem with it, and really don't understand why people do. But, ok....

Because it seems to me that I should not need a dictionary to read my own language to simply look up a word that hasn't been used for near 400 freakin' years. Seems the KJOnlyists have the problem, I have no problem reading the NIV and preaching from it, and growing closer to God with it... all without thee's and thou's and other such irrelevant jargonism.

 

[veteran]

You should, I think, do a little research. Here is an older article in the BBC News which shows that Wikipedia and Britannica have about the same level of accuracy.

So the BBC should be trusted??? Ha! I don't know any media outlets today that can be fully trusted. A few years ago a New York Times journalist got caught making up news that never happened, and admitted it wasn't the first time that was done. Yet a lot of liberals will trust the NY Times like its their Bible.

Because it seems to me that I should not need a dictionary to read my own language to simply look up a word that hasn't been used for near 400 freakin' years. Seems the KJOnlyists have the problem, I have no problem reading the NIV and preaching from it, and growing closer to God with it... all without thee's and thou's and other such irrelevant jargonism.

There does exist an old English dictionary that defines word meanings per the KJV era.

 

[biggandyy]

So what? That doesn't go to the point that the KJV English is imperfect and outdated and far better translations exist. I should not need ANY special dictionary just to understand common English words.

 

[Nomad]

So what? That doesn't go to the point that the KJV English is imperfect and outdated and far better translations exist. I should not need ANY special dictionary just to understand common English words.

Ditto.

Maybe our KJOnlyist friends can give us a textual critical reason for us to cling to an almost 500 year old English translation. I welcome the challenge.

 

[FHII]

Because it seems to me that I should not need a dictionary to read my own language to simply look up a word that hasn't been used for near 400 freakin' years. Seems the KJOnlyists have the problem, I have no problem reading the NIV and preaching from it, and growing closer to God with it... all without thee's and thou's and other such irrelevant jargonism.

Seriously... Do you need a dictionary to read the KJV? Does the word "thee and thou" confuse you that much?

Now let me back up. I actually have a copy of the 1611 KJV. It's a tough read, and frankly, I dont read it that much... I do with a cleaned up version, so I admit to a bit of hypocracy for that. Likewise, if you want to go a bit further and not have to read the word "thee" and "thou", I can understand. I also understand you are just making a point. I read the word "bier" and from my trusty "cleaned up version" of the KJ and it has nothing to do with Budweiser, or as they called it in the original, Bdvisor". It actually means the base of a coffin.

See my point? I have no problem with folks going to different versions. I happen to own a Dickson Bible, which is a publisher of KJV, and Esword which is KJV. My point is I have no problem with the language. And yes, I don't understand why anyone does, but that's me... Sometimes I have to go to a dictionary, but that's fun for me. I like research.

Nomad,

Well, we've had our differences in interpretions in the past. So be it. Like I said, I will not argue about them. You will either have to accept what the KJV says, or I will have to accept what your version says. If neither of us can do that, then there is no other reasonable option but to walk away or to fight. I believe that the KJV is right, and every word is right. If you don't, then I have to prove it to you or you have to prove it to me. When I can get God to come to your house, ask for a cup of coffee, and prove let God tell you that the KJV is right, I expect you to believe. I'll believe it too, when you and God show up at my door. Until then, please don't get upset if I humbly walk away and say, "I'm not going to argue about this!"

But can I cling to a 500 year translation? Yea. I actually can. When words are changed where "bad" means "cool", yea... I can. When words like "evil" mean "thunderstorms", yea I can.... Our language hasn't progressed. It's regressed.

 

[veteran]

So what? That doesn't go to the point that the KJV English is imperfect and outdated and far better translations exist. I should not need ANY special dictionary just to understand common English words.

The KJV is definitely not an "outdated" work, and there are reasons why irrespective of its remnants of Old English. The editions of the 1611 KJV in later print are not even exactly the same as the original Old English first edition. So much has been done to make it easier to understand while leaving in all the 'ye's', 'thee's', and 'thou's'.

The dictionary for the KJV is for understanding the idioms and expression of the 1611 era; that's what it's really for.

 

[aspen]

Yes, Aspen, that's correct. I am a KJV user, and its the only version I use. I do however, understand that others use other versions, and respect that they do. What I am more against is people who switch Bible versions when they don't like what one version says. In other words, I'm against using the KJV to get scripture on one particular subject, but when they don't agree with it, they then switch to the ASV, for example. It seems to me they are trying to make the Bible line up with their doctrine, instead of the other way around.

There are some that use several different versions just to get (what they say is) an overall perspective. I'm not as hard on that as I used to be, but it doesn't suit me personally.

As for the language being outdated... Frankly I don't have a problem with it, and really don't understand why people do. But, ok....

Yeah, I understand what you are saying.

Personally, I was raised on th KJV so I enjoy reading the Psalms especially, in the KJV. However, I do not have a problem with attempts to gain a wider understanding of scripture by using other translations. I still like the NIV warts and all for daily reading. One of my least favorites is the Catholic translation The American Standard.

 

[FHII]

The editions of the 1611 KJV in later print are not even exactly the same as the original Old English first edition. So much has been done to make it easier to understand while leaving in all the 'ye's', 'thee's', and 'thou's'.

How did you come by that bit of information? Not doubting you, just want to hear what you know about it...

I have a copy of the 1611 KJV via Hendrickson publishers... Let me quote a few verses:

From S.Mathew Chapter xiiij. verse 1-3:

At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard of the fame of Iesus, and said vnto his seruants, This is Iohn the Baptist, hee is risen for the dead, and therfore mighty workes II doe shew foorth themselues in him. For Herode had layd hold on Ion, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias sake, his brother Philips, wife.

Obviously, it's a bit tough to read! And there wasn't a thee or thou in it! :)

 

[veteran]

How did you come by that bit of information? Not doubting you, just want to hear what you know about it...

I have a copy of the 1611 KJV via Hendrickson publishers... Let me quote a few verses:

From S.Mathew Chapter xiiij. verse 1-3:

At that time Herod the Tetrarch heard of the fame of Iesus, and said vnto his seruants, This is Iohn the Baptist, hee is risen for the dead, and therfore mighty workes II doe shew foorth themselues in him. For Herode had layd hold on Ion, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias sake, his brother Philips, wife.

Obviously, it's a bit tough to read! And there wasn't a thee or thou in it! :)

Didn't you say you had a copy of the 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible? Or was that someone else? Look at the difference between the printed letters of Old English and a later edition.

Also, later KJV editions removed the original 1st edition margin notes the translators put in the original. And also, the Apocrypha was contained in the original 1st edition, as also a guide for daily prayer, etc. And still also, the Letters the translators wrote to King James and to the Reader were removed from later KJV editions.

Thus the later KJV editions have many changes from the original 1st edition. You can still get an original 1st edition 1611 KJV Bible from Nelson Publishers in Nashville, TN., U.S.A.