• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

TotD: KJV = inaccurate translation?

fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Skwim said:
So what would be an error "per se," which is unlike a non-"per se" error in the KJV ? I would think an error is an error is an error. :shrug:
Click to expand...

It means that there wasn't an error in the translation. The translation, from the sources that were available, is quite good. The problem instead is that the sources simply were not the best.
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
CDWolfe said:
The KJV was an English translation, taken from the Latin Vulgate. It was done during the Protestant Reformation, at the start of the 17th century. At that time, very few textual resources were available to scholars outside of what they already had. The Dead Sea Scrolls were not found until some ~450 years later.

Modern translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, etc) have gone back and revised their respective translations for accuracy, given the greater amount of material that is now available for cross-referencing. If you compare the KJV to the modern ones you'll find where the KJV had numerous errors throughout it.

I know that the scholars and authors *claim* that they were divinely inspired and that the KJV is the word of God, and can't be refuted. If I claim the same and write something, does that make it irrefutable? :no:

Like I said, keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture.
Click to expand...
Hi CD,
Using the information given in the 1611 preface it states that the 'original Greek' was used for the NT and Greek to English would not have been a task that would have been difficult at all and done to perfection. They promote that the 'original Hebrew' was used for the OT and they consulted with Jews (in Jerusalem if I remember correctly). The original Greek could have been done by the original eye-witnesses as the gift of understanding all of them is describes in the early part of Acts. If not the if in Hebrew or Aramaic Paul always went to a Synagogue first and that is was who made the 'original Greek'. I think both groups were professionals and the book does not suffer any errors, let alone serious ones such as other Bibles with a copyright. To get that text had to be changed, intentionally and for that to happen in a book where the placement of every jot cab be importand as is specific word phrases. All flesh is land, sea and air and man that 'breathe' . 'All flesh' shall see salvation is not the same as 'all of mankind' and one forn fits into many passages and the other creates many conflicts in many passages. The KJV doesn't come with any footnotes so the reader isn't forced to accept the opinion of the 'translators' modern version have an endless supply of such 'aids'. they can help but they are not perfect, so mileage varies with the topic. That is trying to show the NT is still letter perfect from what was first written down so the same has to be done for the OT if God is supposed to be the single author. Good as they were in intent the Torah could not have survived intact as being letter perfect from when Moses spoke it into being, however Daniel and 3 friends were in Babylon and being in good with God they would have put the oral into written before the return to Jerusalem and any copies made after that are still letter perfect but thhe 'opinion' texts are not inspired and if part of what is now called the NT id the 'increase in knowledge ' Daniel mentions then they are making conclusion when not all of the information is being used, namely the Gospel of John and Revelation.

I'm quite sure any bible will give the same basic outlook if you read just the first 3 and the last 3 they will still all agree but if you want the best picture Scripture can provide of what the original text conveys then the later editions just don't work at all. Using the 1611 text yiou cab pile on passage after passage almost without end and it is nor more difficult that using stepping stones when going down a path.

Later.
 
Skwim

Skwim

Veteran Member
fallingblood said:
It means that there wasn't an error in the translation. The translation, from the sources that were available, is quite good. The problem instead is that the sources simply were not the best.
Click to expand...
Thanks.
icon14.gif
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
fallingblood said:
The problem instead is that the sources simply were not the best.
Click to expand...
Hi,
Not according to the preface, it is basically the same books the RCC had in 323AD, their Latin version was later but well before 1611, that is why they were so upset.

(in part)
If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

Later.
 
oldbadger

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
Jayhawker Soule said:
And because the KJV may have employed the idiom of the day you presume that the King "leaned on the scholars somewhat." Doed that strike you as a reasonable inference?
Click to expand...

Idiom of the day? Witches were being burned all over Europe at that time! Although King James was not quite as fiery as most European countries, he was really interested in witches.

This is reproduced from 'Foyles':-
But King James (who came to the throne in 1603, and who claimed to be descended from Banquo) took a special interest in the subject. In 1597 he published a book that he had written on the subject of witchcraft, his Daemonologie. In this work, James put the traditional arguments in favour of a belief in witchcraft, and his lifelong interest in the subject is evidenced by the fact that he himself participated in a number of trials of alleged witches.


KJ 'leaned'!
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
The King was looking for what the divorce laws actually said as the RCC was making big bucks off 'sin taxes' when some things were never a sin to begin with.
 
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Wayfaring Stranger said:
They promote that the 'original Hebrew' was used for the OT and they consulted with Jews (in Jerusalem if I remember correctly). The original Greek could have been done by the original eye-witnesses as the gift of understanding all of them is describes in the early part of Acts.
Click to expand...
What does this mean?
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
Jayhawker Soule said:
What does this mean?
Click to expand...
It means the preface tell us what material they used and to what lengths they went to to make sure the Hebrew translation was letter perfect. It also means the event in Acts:2 is something all writers would also have experienced and that means the writers of the Gospels could have made the first copy anytime after the cross and done it in letter perfect style in Greek so no translation was needed, just make perfect copies letter for letter.

Witch in the Bible would be somebody that can mix up poisons.

Re:21:8:
But the fearful,
and unbelieving,
and the abominable,
and murderers,
and whoremongers,
and sorcerers,
and idolaters,
and all liars,
shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone:
which is the second death.
 
Last edited:
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
You do realize that the law given in Re:21 is for man when they are immortal and know about good and evil. That is the same law that angelic beings would have been under when on earth and taking women for wives, that same law survived past the flood (when the fallen angels were put in the Pit)with the Giants being an off-spring. It was only just before they were exterminated that the 10 Commandments came along. Those 10 laws will be gone and replaced by the Re:21 law when the 1,000 year reign starts as people alive for that period will be immortal and sinless so the 10 Commandments won't be applicable any longer. They are the standard for the sorting that takes place when the 7th trump sounds. How many sacrifices for sin would be made in the temple described in Ezekiel if it was there for the whole 1,000 years? (all the people alive will be of the 2nd birth so sin for them doesn't mean the grave, it means the fiery lake. That group is also static in number for the whole 1,000 years and even in the new earth when they live inside New Jerusalem that number doesn't increase, only the ones not alive for the 1,000 years will live outside the city and their numbers do increase.

M't:22:30:
For in the resurrection they neither marry,
nor are given in marriage,
but are as the angels of God in heaven.
 
Last edited:
Jayhawker Soule

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
oldbadger said:
Hang on! Your translations are very very early. So, come on, give us some earlier versions. I asked you about these already.
Click to expand...
Again: Show me where the use of the term employed in the original translation was derogatory and the result of being "leaned on"?
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
Really, I would think you would be interested in how God found the world to be in sin when Adam and Ever were only given 1 law. Cain fits the Re:21 law does he not, do the 'sons of God' taking human wives get covered in the Re:21 law?

Da:12:4:
But thou,
O Daniel,
shut up the words,
and seal the book,
even to the time of the end:
many shall run to and fro,
and knowledge shall be increased.
 
Last edited:
McBell

McBell

Unbound
Wayfaring Stranger said:
Chat partners who don't understand the OT or the NT, oh goodie.
Click to expand...
wow.
Your arrogance is only out shadowed by your ignorance of those with which you engage in discussion.


Let me ask you this:
do you believe the Book of Mormon to be a continuation of the Bible?
​
 
fallingblood

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
Wayfaring Stranger said:
Hi,
Not according to the preface, it is basically the same books the RCC had in 323AD, their Latin version was later but well before 1611, that is why they were so upset.

(in part)
If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.

Later.
Click to expand...
I would venture to say that the preface is wrong with it's dating then. Many of the texts in which the KJV is based on are really late. In fact, some of the Hebrew texts actually were Latin translations, that were then translated into English.

Also, they did not have the Dead Sea Scrolls, which provided older copies of nearly all of the OT books. And they were a thousand years older than other texts that we had. Even with Greek texts of the NT, shortly after the KJV was published, some of the best manuscripts of the NT were discovered.

So the KJV simply was not using the best sources.
 
W

Wayfaring Stranger

Member
Have you read the preface? What parts of these headings do you think they were lying about?

THE TRANSLATION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT OUT OF THE HEBREW INTO GREEK

TRANSLATION OUT OF HEBREW AND GREEK INTO LATIN

THE TRANSLATING OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES

THE UNWILLINGNESS OF OUR CHIEF ADVERSARIES, THAT THE SCRIPTURES SHOULD BE DIVULGED IN THE MOTHER TONGUE, ETC.

THE SPEECHES AND REASONS, BOTH OF OUR BRETHREN, AND OF OUR ADVERSARIES AGAINST THIS WORK

"shortly after the KJV was published, some of the best manuscripts of the NT were discovered"

They just happened to qualify as a new copyright making some money for them also right? Where were they hiding for 1300 years?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top