1. We strive to be a place where there can be honest discussion, debate and fellowship. The rules are few so you can speak your mind. We know we are living in tough times and we hope to share answers and help with each other. Please join us.
    Dismiss Notice

Issues with the KJV

Discussion in 'King James Version' started by CoreIssue, Feb 3, 2006.

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    There are number of good reasons why the KJV is not the best Bible to use today.

    Let me clarify. The KJV is a true Bible. It did serve well for centuries. But the language used is centuries out of date, context and norms of communication for today. Word meanings and usage have changed.

    Contrary to the claims of some it is not the Bible, it is far from the oldest Bible still in use and there have been a good number of version changes, so it is not the 1611 version carried forward unchanged until today.
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2014
  2. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started


    O Boy could we have fun here.
    But I will spare you.
    I like how Palmer says he loves the King James Bible,and then he goes to slam it right to the very end.Some three or four hundred lines.

    Then He lies to the publick making you think that the AV translators didn't have very much or very good manuscript evidence to back up their faithful work.
    He conveniently ommits that the thousands of manuscripts that showed up AFTER the AV was out all support the AV other than a couple.

    In fact the AV agrees with over 5200 Greek Manuscripts that all agree with each other.
    But the Alexandrian Fakers[mainly two] put out by heretics,Necromancers,Arians,Unitarians,can't even agree with each other any two verses in a row.

    The language was not even used in the Translators day.They used the highest grammar for to make it agree with the tences of the Greek and the Hebrew languages.They would use "eth" "dst" that agree with many other languages that use endings.And many other similar things.
    Just check out the Preface and you will see then address the King as YOUR Majesty,not THY majesty,etc.
    But the Holy Bible uses terms consistently like:

    Plus this Palmer tries to fake you into using his corrupted bible by saying that there are too many old words in the King James Bible.

    Well the NIV has quite a few old worn out words themselves.That is because of copyright laws,they are forced to use "significant and very diferent words,enouph to warrant a copyright.
    Plus the NIV is owned by Rupert Murdock which owns Porn rags around the world.A billionaire.One dollar per bible you waste on the NIV goes to his evil empire.

    Just because language has changed does not mean we degrade ourselves to ITS level.We are to set the standard,NOT be conformed to the image of the world,RIGHT?

    Is man your standard or is the pure word of God?Choose now.
    The AV may not be the oldest Bible in use,but it is the oldest English Bible that is used by the English publick and many other folks as a second language.You try to prove too much,and when you prove too much,you in fact prove nothing at all.

    There are no version changes in the Holy Bible.
    All there was ,was updating of the font to the roman font,and the spelling errors that were not yet finalized as of that time.Why I have found the same word spelt two or three ways on the same page.That is because they still spelled phonetically.The spelling were not finalized.
    Plus there were 400 typo errors found also.
    That is all corrected,and you can be certain of having a pure Holy Bible in the English just like God said his word is.
    Every word of God is pure.
    Thy word is very pure,therefore thy servant loveth it.

    You can sit a congregation down and have one half read the AV1611 and the other half read the 2006 edition of the AV1611 and they will read alike.
    Start with Matthew and see how you are completly wrong.


    Holy Bible
    There is only one.
  3. removed


    This sounds like faith-based dogma, not substantiated fact. Can you prove that today's King James Version is "pure" and/or "inspired"? Or that the original translators performed inerrant work?
  4. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Nope. He cannot.

    His rhetoric totally avoided the list of issues in the links.

    I agree with you, Lucky.

    PeterAV, you have made a bunch of claims. Now please post links to the manuscript evidence that back your claims.

    Talking about manuscripts found later because they were created later is no proof. Or manuscripts dating back to 400 AD created in Rome or by Catholics is not proof either.
  5. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Just a note here. This is a false statement.

    The Wycliffe and Tyndale Bibles are the oldest English Bible still in use today. And were two of the Bibles used to formulate the KJV.

    Remember, the KJV is not an original translation. Contrary to what KJV Only groups want to claim.
  6. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    No need for ms evidence

    Right,as if they just popped out of thin air and coppied nothing.
    The simple fact remains is that the AV is its own internal witness.Unlike any other.
  7. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    I was talking about the publick AT LARGE.Not by the tiniest minority of specialized scholars.
    And no,they did not use the wycliff as you say.They may have had it and refered to it on many occassion but it was not the version that they followed.
  8. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Re: No need for ms evidence


    You do not prove the KJV THE Bible by referencing the KJV.

    It contains errors. Thus it was not an inspired, God guided work.

    Yes, it is a Bible. But it is a Bible containing Catholic influence.

    In the Genesis 1:2 'and' is not to be found in ANY Hebrew manuscript. And 'was' is an error. The correct word is became.

    The OT Temple had oil lamps and Lampstands, not candlestands.

    The KJV talks of OT female Temple Prostitutes. They were male. Look up the Hebrew.

    'Peace on earth and goodwill toward men' is wrong. It says 'peace to men of goodwill.'

    The Greek does not say overcoming certain demons requires fasting. That is a Catholic, pure and simple, add.

    Unicorn is a complete mistranslation. There are no unicorns. It was a now extinct species of goat. And it had two horns.

    And on and on. Not even getting into the word and verse adds.

    Post your actual evidence we can study. Where are the ancient manuscripts supporting your claims? Give us a link to where they are being stored and the linquistic research on them.

    Your are just making claims. Nothing more.

    I repeat. The KJV is a Bible version. But it is not the most accurate Bible version. And it is not an orginal translation.

    Please give us some actual evidence. Link us to the manuscripts backing your claim.
  9. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    There are answers for every one of those false claims.Now prove that they are in error,first.
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    The old negative proof claim effort. Classical of those supporting false doctrine.

    They are part of the Textus Receptus. That did not exist before the 1500s. I have posted links to scholarly material showing this. No scholarly source says otherwise.

    Now, refute me with some FACTS. Not doctrinal positions just declared by KJV Onliest.
  11. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    By the way, on the mistranslation issues, just pull up a KJV linear and click the words to get the definitions of such as candlestand and so on. You will see the definition does not match the KJV translation.
  12. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    What was part of the TR?You quoted Gen.1:2 of which you provide no proof,and claim you cave proof.
    Also you blurt out about Unicorns being wrong,but of course you are thinking the New Age Unicorn,right?
    So,I must assume you are talking about Prayer and fasting.And Luke 2:4 Peace,good will toward men?

    To start off with,just how do you think that all manuscripts are available to give such an athoritative statement,Namely "That did not exist before the 1500's"

    I know for sure that there are many many manuscripts that are gone for good.Most likely in the hundreds of thousands.We have only about 5.200 extant Greek manuscripts.Plus,who is to say that all originals were in only Greek?All originals are gone and even if one showed up,you wouldn't be able to prove that it is.So you still have yet to prove your possition to start with.
    Plus you can't call in err what is regularily done in both the Hebrew and the Greek on all translations of them.Namely adding words that are not really there in the Hebbrew tongue or Greek,just for it to make sense in English.All Bibles do this as a matter of course.But of course,you won't stop these false accusations will you?:catfight:

    It would be of some even playing field if you would show me your perfect Holy Bible.And then we could discuss real issues,instead of attack and defend.

    So name me your perfect pure Holy Bible that God preserved and inspired,that I can read and learn and preach and teach with.

    Then we can get into this matter of Fasting,and Peace.Fair enough?
    O,and if you think that it is just a ruse to not answer your statements,think again.

    So,have at it;show me your Bible.:tiphat:

    Holy Bible
    There is only one.
  13. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Obviously you have not tested anything. You just assume the KJV Only position without checking out personal challenges. Not the position one should take if they are interested in truth.
    Now, check out 'was' and see the Hebrew word means became, not was. And 'and' is not in the Hebrew at all.
    A clear Catholic doctrine interjected into the translation.

    The KJV is wrong.
    The NIV, NASB and NKJV all recognize the problems and drop the 'and,' linkage to being part of verse 1. The NIV is the most accurate in conveying the meaning by saying 'Now' and adding the footnote.

    God is a God of light, not darkness. He does not create chaos. And he created darkness, not light. Three firm Biblical declaration the KJV is in conflict with via mistranslation.

    While another topic that you may wish to reply to there, search for the thread on Pre-Adamic Creation. The language and such or Genesis 1 is greatly expanded upon within it.

    But of course, that is a different topic, and should be replied to there.
    There is no room for the word unicorn in the Hebrew. Unicorn means one horn, any way you cut it.

    Yep, the New Age Unicorn did exist in the thinking of the time the KJV was written. But not at the time the OT was written.
    Fasting is not in the Greek. It is an add.

    And the 'good will' is a flat out mistranslation.
    Where are they then? Ones supporting these errors before 1500? Give us a link to them.
    Guessing is not proof of your claims. It is wishful thinking.
    Your claims that what did not appear until 1500 is proof?

    You are exercising negative proof claims. Prove your claim wasn't true else it is true.

    That is an unacceptable practice in any court of law, logics class, semantics class and any formal debate. One must deal with what is, not what might be.

    And there are far older manuscirpts. No manuscript even begins to support your position until under the Catholics of the Byzantine Empire.

    I have older mansuscripts. And testimony from those who knew the Apostles. You have offered nothing but assumptions.

    By your claims that means in the older finds those things added to the Textus Receptus would have had to been removed. An idea for which there is no support.
    There is a big difference between translation clarifications and deliberately changing the thought and word meanings, such as 'and' does to Genesis 1:2, unicorn and fasting.
    Yep, even the KJV contains dynamic translation. But adding such as already mentioned is not dynamic translation. It is alteration.

    And I also, in recognition of dynamic translation, cross reference and use interlinear. Which is obviously something KJV Only do not do.
    A nonsensical and illogical argument that does not justify using the KJV over other versions.

    The errors of the KJV are real errors. And you have already made your statement on other translations being heretical. So you have staked your claim and position very clearly.
    Perfect? Cannot do.

    Superior to the KJV? That I can do. Cross reference the NIV and NASB using an Interlinear on the side for serious study. For less serious the NIV because its has very good dynamics to it (but always have the NASB and Interlinear available as well for head scratching areas.)
    If you wish to discuss any doctrine, I and others here are always ready to dig into research and discussion.

    The issue of fasting, in example, gets into doctrines some hold. Fasting adds to the Biblical stated position of faith, name of the Lord and being wise as to when to cast out. So do you really want to add to how God said to handle things?
    It is a bait and switch technique.

    Notice the thread topic. The KJV. Not the NIV. Not the NASB. The KJV.

    You want to challenge them, start a new thread on which ever you wish. But don't try to change the thread issue, the KJV.

    We don't need to drag in the others to resolve the issue of the KJV. We need to look at the KJV.

    Yep, done this too many times. KJV Onliests always want to divert to other versions.

    Please stay on topic. If you can defend the KJV manuscript sources, do so. If you can only defend by trying to discredit older manuscripts, then you have failed already.

    Again, Majority Text did not begin until 400 AD. Textus Receptus until 1500s. And the alterations and such involved are not theories and such. They are documented and known historical facts.

    So, if you have manuscript history linking back into the origins of the Greek manuscripts used to formulate the Majority Texts, please provide it. I would love to study it.

    But that will not and does not overcome the known changes made when moving from the Majority Texts to the Textus Receptus. Those problems I would love to see you arguments for.

    Really, created in the 1500s and they are suppose to be THE Bible?
    Start another thread to discuss other versions. But make sure you answer the questions to the issues you started here. Part of our rules is to not run away from one argument to restart issues elsewhere.
    Do both if you wish. But don't dodge answering here as well.:tiphat:

    That rule exists because it is so common, on other forums, for people to get boxed in on an argument, then just stop posting there while cranking up the issues again on another topic. An endless cycle of preaching the same position but never answsering challenges.

    If you can give us the evidence, please do so. Truth is our goal here.
  14. removed


    PeterAV, you never answered my question for you.

  15. conan

    conan Guest

    CoreIssue, this is not a translation issue, but a Textual one.


    Luke 2:14:

    TEXT: "on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!"
    EVIDENCE: S* A B* D W lat vg cop(south)
    RANK: B

    NOTES: "on earth peace, good will among men!"
    EVIDENCE: Sc B3 K L P Delta Theta Xi Psi f1 f13 28 565 700 892 1010 1241 Byz Lect syr(s,h,pal) syr(p) ("good hope to men") cop(north)

    COMMENTS: The text reading can also be translated "on earth peace among men of good will," but the sense seems to be "men of [God's] good pleasure." This is a Semitic expression found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The difference between the two readings is only one of one letter, the Greek letter "sigma" or "s" at the end of the word. Where the word occurs at the end of a line, the letter "sigma" is written as a little raised "c" which it would be possible for a copyist to overlook. Therefore, the change from "among men of good pleasure" to "good pleasure among men" may have happened either accidently (when the "sigma" was overlooked) or deliberately (by copyists who did not understand that in the Semitic expression "men of good pleasure" the good pleasure was God's).
  16. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Such an error on the 'peace' issue is indeed possible. I cannot answer that absolutely either way.

    But most assuredly the fasting, Genesis 1:2 and such are deliberate, doctrinal based errors.

    An interesting presentation on the 'peace' issue though. That one I had not seen before. But will remember it.:D
  17. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Hi Folks,

    Lets take this one, since it is a good beginning.
    Thank you Lord Jesus for your beautiful word.

    Genesis 1:1-2
    [FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
    And the earth was without form, and void;
    and darkness was upon the face of the deep
    And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    First, the real issue here is 'was' or 'became' ... conjunctions are frequently added (or subtracted) between languages in good language translation.

    Please, Core...

    Do you actually accuse teams of world-class scholars who lived and breathed the languages, and read and knew Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra, simply by looking at a concordance or a lexicon ???? ... Now that is truly chutzpah.

    Do you even at least go to any modern Hebrew-savvy folks such as the biblical Hebrew forum before you look foolish as a false accuser of the word of God ?

    Do you even look at the Jewish translations, which are often superior on Hebrew grammar and often agree with the King James Bible against modern Christian versions (suggestion .. study Jeremiah 8:8) ?

    Judaica Press,
    "Now the earth was astonishingly empty, and darkness was on the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the face of the water."

    Soncino - (also JPS-1914)
    "Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep;
    and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters."

    Are these Jewish translations "catholic" in giving
    the common translation of hayah as "was" ?

    For more depth, some might appreciate this article,
    which goes into the grammar deeper.

    Should 'was' be 'became' in Genesis 1:2 ? - by John W. Adey
    Linquistics of 'become' / 'became'

    Core, I do understand you pick up nonsense accusastions like this from articles like the error-laden Richard Nickels article. Please realize that they generally do not research what they write deeply, and it is foolish to depend on such articles and a lexicon or concordance.

    And definitely not to accuse the word of God.

    In general, the folks at WhichVersion on Yahoogroups can answer one at a time for you if you are interested in learning about all the errors you are parrotting . I just pulled this one out because it is interesting and a good example, and I love Genesis and desired to learn more about the word of God.

    (Also you had apparently spent a few minutes on it.. rather than just cut-and-paste).

    Steven Avery
    Queens, NY
  18. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    No the issue is the full phrase, including the critical 'and' that sets the contextual meaning of 'was.'
    First, they were not a team.

    Second, they never worked on the KJV.
    Third, Kimchi lived 400 years before the KJV was written. Rashi ahd Ezra 600.
    Your statement is misleading.
    Bury yourself deeper here. I actually have actually heard linquists on this issue. Not doctrinal proponents.
    First, Jeremiah 8:8 says identically the same thing as the NIV and NASB.

    You are looking at Jewish Torah translation made in archaic English. Try modern on Jeremiah for a change. There is nothing sacred about archaic English.
    Judaica Press,
    No. And they do not agree with the KJV.

    Again, you are not paying attention. 'And' is used in the KJV. 'Now' is used in the modern translations. 'And' grammatically sets 'was' as the condition of verse one. 'Now' sets 'was' as the condtion the earth 'became' after verse one.
    Your own postings agree with the NIV and NASB, both of which use 'was.' But 'was' meaning 'became.' Became would still have been a better word. Less vague.
    So, you just shot down the KJV as being in error in Genesis 1:2.
    You are referencing a Christadelphian as proof for a Biblical discussion? Really?

    But it is okay to go to a Christadelphians for answers?
    The KJV is not THE Bible. It is A Bible.
    Actually, I believe your answers just got answered pretty solidly. Jeremiah in the KJV says the same as the modern. And the Torah does not agree with the KJV in Genesis. It agrees with the NIV and NASB.

    Don't believe in just cut and paste, unless excellent work.

  19. Steven Avery

    Steven Avery Guest

    Hi Core,

    Essentially you have abandoned your main argument on Genesis 1:2, the "was/because" argument ... then you go all over the map with was/because/became. Tis a joke now, and sad to see how Bible correctors end up tripping over themselves.

    Anyway, someday you should read Jeremiah 8:8 in the Jewish translations. It will open your eyes that, as the KJB shows, the verse is not a reference to "lying scribes" (who could be tampering with the word of God). The historic and accurate Hebraic understanding is mirrored in the King James Bible.

    The team referred to the KJB translators, who were very familiar with the Hebraic understandings, including Kimchi, Rashi and Ibn Ezra.

    The conjunction "and" does not "set .. the condition". Where do you come up with this stuff ?

    If an orthodox Jew or a Christadephian understands Hebrew grammar, then they are a good reference for Hebrew grammar.

    Steven Avery
  20. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member


    Actually, I have not.

    Look at the meaning. You just keep disregarding it.

    Contextually 'was' in the KJV is 'was' as it existed in verse one. If one insists on keeping the 'And,' which absolutely should not have been used, then the translation demands the usage of 'became' and not 'was,' because the Hebrew denotes a change of condition from verse 1 to verse 2.

    But, when you use the NIV or NASB 'was' still means the condition it 'became,' in constrast to what the earth 'was' in verse 1.

    The KJV translators failed totally when the added 'And.' There is no linquistic justification for that word to be there.

    It is an issue of proper meaning in contextual usage. The KJV fails.

    I have. There is no problem.

    And again you disregard the word meanings. The Hebrew word means lie and deceit. Which is what archaic English translation used in both the old Torah and KJV English means.

    A perfect example of where the archaic English is a stumbling block for modern English users.

    And yet, here you are refusing to accept the meaningof the word 'rgX.'

    From the Torah. In deceit the scribes written falsely.

    And which they did not follow exactly.

    And they are included in references from Torah sites.

    But the KJV did not include all they wrote. And the KJV does not agree with the Torah on Genesis 1:2, in example.

    It is called grammar. Plus, the word 'and' is not in the Torah, NKJV, NIV, NASB and so on. 'Now' is. Or a form that shows change from verse 1 to 2.

    And the Torah rejects the KJV translation.

    And no, I am not going to accept anything from a Christadelphian, who rejects the Trinity and claims they base it on the Bible.

Share This Page