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

The King James Version

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

  1. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of good information. :nod: Hopefully an eye opener for those who don't realize how fast and far language changes over time.

    Even then, the KJV dictionary does not include them all. Such as Zion/Sion. Both the same place and name but spelled differently for some unknown reason.

    We have tangled with I don't know how many KJVO that have built doctrines around these two spelling that totally redefine some important Biblical teachings.
     
  2. conan

    conan Guest

    A Strong's should just about take care of the rest.

    Probably due to the early printer's. The translators were concered with translating, and there different spellings were the norm of the time. Plus, the printers could and did change spelling's to fit their line's. Some of it may be old spellings left over from the Bishop's Bible, from which copies of the translator's worked from. All books back then had varient spelling's, especially Shakespeare.

    None of the KJV defender's that I know would do such a thing, you must of run into some really weird ones.:eek:
     
  3. Jessie

    Jessie Pro Poster

    Messages:
    394
    it is amazing at some of those words. some of them from the context I could understand but
    some are so opposite today from that day its day and night.
     
  4. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Hey Conan, we agree the KJV is a Bible, not the Bible, and has issues?

    Gets to the question of why anyone, who understands these issues, would use it, when it requires jumping through so many extra hoops?
     
  5. conan

    conan Guest

    It is well worth the effort to use the KJV. One, it is a very skilled literal Version. They followed William Tyndales Version for 80-90%, that alone makes it an excellent translation. Two, there are a great many tools for the KJV, which do not neccesarly work for other version.

    Alls one has to do is read it (especially the Gospels and Acts) and see the quality.

    I kinda like this persons recomended Versions.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/links06.html


    Bible Versions. No version is perfect. I have never seen a version of the Bible that completely satisfied me. But I recommend the following three versions for people who are able to read English at a twelfth grade level.
    • The King James Version. This is historically the most important version and it continues to be the most impressive literary translation of the Bible ever made. All serious students of the English Bible should make themselves thoroughly familiar with it. The best editions are those printed by the Cambridge University Press. I recommend their Cameo Reference Edition.
    • English Standard Version. This is, in my opinion, the best general-purpose Bible now available. It is more accurate than the NIV, more idiomatic than the NASB, and I think it is second only to the KJV in literary quality. Suitable for devotional reading, study, and expository preaching. See my review of the ESV for more information.
    • New American Standard Bible. This is (usually) the most literally accurate version of the Bible. It is sometimes difficult to understand, and "hard to love," but it is always very useful for close study.
    • The American Standard Version (1901), which is even more literal than the NASB, is also available now in a reprint by Star Bible Publications.
    • [​IMG]The Cambridge Interlinear Bible. I recommend this convenient edition for those who want to use the KJV while taking regular notice of the text of a more recent version (the English Revised Version of 1885). Where the two versions are identical, only one line of type appears. Where there is any deviation, the Revised Version is given as an upper line of smaller type, and the KJV as the lower line. This method immediately indicates where variations exist, yet it is possible to read either version with ease. Buy it from Amazon.com ($90 - but well worth it!)
     
  6. conan

    conan Guest

    Check out the samples for the Englishman's Greek Concordance

    http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=32079&netp_id=128469&event=PR&item_code=WW

    Also The Englishman's Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament

    http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=32087&event=CF

    A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament
    By:
    E.W. Bullinger

    http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=20962&netp_id=117320&event=EBRN&item_code=WW
     
  7. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, you don't need to use the KJV to look up word definitions. And concordances are doctrinally based, so you are reading someone's doctrine, not a actual unbiased study.

    When I began studying, before you could go online and look things up, I used Bible dictionaries, encyclopedias and more. Laid them down next to the KJV and later the NIV.

    Nor do they overcome the KJV mistranslations and archaic English. Despite what many think they just do not.

    And I note, here, that all you are listing is from individuals reaching back into the 1800s. So, the English issues of the KJV simply carry over into them.

    I used a variety of resources. I found the Zondervan's, in the 1960s, very valuable, because instead of taking their doctrinal stances on these things they took their own works, those you listed here and others and compared the thinking. They also did so in the English we use.

    And further, they also dealt with KJV problems, clarifying and explaining many of them as the went.

    These men are not to knocked. But so much more information and ready availability exists in more current times than ever existed for them.

    This disdain and feelings by many that theologians and linquist, today, are less credible or sincere, because they do not use the KJV, is simply invalid.

    Now, I use Strong's a lot. But I recognize his definitions include doctrinal statements. So I also refer to other linquists, which, in the places where his doctrinal inclusion are strongest, add a diminision lacking in his presentation.

    And I look at archaelogy and such as well.

    Bottom line is, ones who limits themselves to the old is missing a lot of good study and other information.
     
  8. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    For its day.

    I know of no recognized reputable linquist that takes the position it is either are superior to the NASB or NIV.

    There were tons of debates when the NIV came out. All the top conservative Bible scholars debated it, on TV and print.

    As far as accuracy of meaning and translation went, the KJV did not win.

    Remember, there is no such thing as a literal Version. All are dynamic. And often where they attempt to stay word for word they are actually more inaccurate because languages do not translate word for word accurately.

    Translaters translate meaning for meaning.
    Working better with the KJV does not make them more accurate. It is good to be challenged by differences of wording. Makes one think and research more.

    As with candlesticks/lampstands. Stunning how many think they were acutally candles.

    Or, with the OT prostitutes, female/male. Stuns people the KJV is wrong and they were male, not female.

    Or, that they do not have the faith of Christ.

    And so on.

    So many false doctrines come from the blind acceptance and failure to see the issues of the old English. The challenge is good, not bad, in the not working together that easily.

    And the old is not always right. Challenge is good there as well.
    Colorful and poetic reading does not equal quality.
    I kinda like this persons recomended Versions.

    http://www.bible-researcher.com/links06.html


    Amen to that statement.
    But I recommend the following three versions for people who are able to read English at a twelfth grade level.
    • The King James Version. This is historically the most important version and it continues to be the most impressive literary translation of the Bible ever made. All serious students of the English Bible should make themselves thoroughly familiar with it. The best editions are those printed by the Cambridge University Press. I recommend their Cameo Reference Edition.
    I do not disagree with this statement. But the key reason why is the word historically.

    But, being familiar does not mean beginning with the KJV. That is a road to problems to correct later.
    • English Standard Version. This is, in my opinion, the best general-purpose Bible now available. It is more accurate than the NIV, more idiomatic than the NASB, and I think it is second only to the KJV in literary quality. Suitable for devotional reading, study, and expository preaching. See my review of the ESV for more information.
    Not a bad one at all. But in the attempts to be word for word literal, it looses things along the way.
    • New American Standard Bible. This is (usually) the most literally accurate version of the Bible. It is sometimes difficult to understand, and "hard to love," but it is always very useful for close study.
    Sums it up nicely.
    But more literal does not mean more accurate. That was a key note stated over and over in the linquistic debates about the NIV when it came out.

    They all said the NIV fulfilled the more important role. Being more accurate meaning for meaning.

    Literal word for word is deceptive in meaning and results for many.
    • [​IMG]The Cambridge Interlinear Bible. I recommend this convenient edition for those who want to use the KJV while taking regular notice of the text of a more recent version (the English Revised Version of 1885). Where the two versions are identical, only one line of type appears. Where there is any deviation, the Revised Version is given as an upper line of smaller type, and the KJV as the lower line. This method immediately indicates where variations exist, yet it is possible to read either version with ease. Buy it from Amazon.com ($90 - but well worth it!)
    We part company on that one. I don't think cross referencing those two is of value.

    I disagree all the digging and such required to get the KJV right and into modern understanding is worth it. It is an excuse for not using other versions.

    Use the better versions and learn. Then read the KJV and there is value... THEN.
     
  9. conan

    conan Guest

    I do not understand? A Greek/English Concordance list's everywhere a Greek word is used in the New Testament, no matter what English word/words are used to translate the Greek word. At the Link you can look at sample pages. In this case it uses lines from the KJV, but you can see how they translated, or even in some places mistranslated the original term. It is the same for the Hebrew/English concordance. If you use a regular Strong's, and the KJV translates a greek word five different ways, you would have to look up 5 different words, and that can be a lot of flipping. The same is true for the NASB.

    Did they ever give information when the NIV was wrong?


    That is back when scholars cared to make Bible study tools for laymen. They tried to include their countrymen.


    Yep, back in the good old days, when Zondervan was republishing older works that had gone out of print, bringing them back because they had great worth. By the way, Zondervan back then had republished all three works that I listed at one time or another. How about that?!


    Excellent!

    Agreed.

    True, but it is a plain fact that there are some today that will lie and misslead to sell a product. It appears to be a regular business tactic with some. The "New Zondervan" has some on the payroll like that. There is nothing wrong with them making money, for they are a business, but to lie or misslead is unthinkable.

    His definitons are designed to be brief, consise.

    Amen! Matthew 13:52
    He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."
     
  10. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem is that a KJV concordance only lists the words used in the KJV.

    In example, you will get no return on lampstand, but will on candlestick.

    Then you have to go to the Lexicon to get the word definition to find candlestick is wrong.

    The point of a concordance is to show how it is used in the translated version. So, you must know the version to know what to look for. And that means you have studied your foundation using that version.

    The key is, and always remains, the beginner reads and attempts to absorb how the version phrases it. With deeper study some will start using the Lexicon, but most will not. They will just see see how the version uses the word in different places and let it go at that.

    Getting started with the best foundational version remains key.
    They were not based on one version. They gave references from multiple versions and predated the NIV.

    I was saved at 10 in 1961. The NIV did not come out until up in the 70s.

    But when it did, my learning curve accelerated. Gave a clearer base that gave clearer questions to ask.
    Propoganda.

    The best tools I have ever seen came out in written form from the 70s forward. They pulled together the best of the old and new and gave a broader foundation of study.

    Those from the 1800s also had some serious doctrinal problems. Work heavily stemmed from the doctrine dictating the findings.
    Indeed they did. But the stuff that was new when I was young was superior. Why? Because they included the older works and brought in the new with them.
    That has always been an issue. Read the history of the Bibles from the 1500s and even the KJV. There were heavy monetary and political considerations in those days as well.

    And really, the KJV has been pulling in money from the beginning.

    The copywrite has been continuously with the royalty of England from the start. It is not a free book, as many have been misled to believe.

    Nor is every use of the NIV, NASB and such paid, either.

    So get over the moral superiority argument. That is a KJVO invention.
    And many most assuredly contain doctrinal statement unjustified by the word meaning. That is a fact.
    Well said!
     
  11. conan

    conan Guest

    Sorry that I have taken so long to answer!:scratch:

    True enough. I was complaining that there is not one for the NASB. There is one for the NIV, but it is expensive and to free of a Version for that kind of work. However it is just a wish list, perhaps I have no right to complain.

    Ok.

    Agreed.

    I appreciate your feed back. I am glad you found usefull newer works as well:tiphat:

    True enough, but I wasn't meaning any of this. But since you brought it up, Tyndale New Testament's were very affordable.

    It is true that Robert Baker paid the King for the right to print the KJV, and would be a money making enterprise. However it is my understanding that America has never recognized the copywrite on the KJV from day one of this country. You can copy it for free, hence all the internet sites that have the Version for free all over the place.

    As far as I know, only the Biblegateway has the NIV, and they paid for the rights to have it. Perhaps 10,000 anually I think I heard.

    I wasn't saying that, but since you brought it up, should the NIV and NASB charge alot of money to use it on the internet?
     
  12. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    No problem.

    I wasn't disagreeing with your frustration. Just saying there are problems with the KJV concordances as well.
    It is never easy.

    I have no idea what they offer in the book stores now on these things. I moved past concorandances a long to time ago. As in the them telling me what it means.

    The copyright issues is a international law status thing. No one, not just America, recognizes a legal copyright on it outside of the UK.

    It is not free because of the goodness of anyones heart or original intent, as KJVO tries to declare.


    On all the versions other than the KJV, I believe, they have it set up where x% can be quouted and such for free in other peoples works. More has to be paid.

    Read here for permissions standards. Not as clear cut an issue as KJVO wishes to state. Many non-commerical usages are allowed free of charge.

    The International Bible Society also has it on line. They pay nothing since they hold the copyright.
    Plus, scripts are provided to allow non-commercial sites to link to the BibleGateway lookup free of charge. I had one on here on a previous script.

    As I said, IBS puts it on for free. And they allow more than enough free usage for most needs.

    I cannot find anything saying what the BibleGateway pays, if anything. Can you provide a source from a non KJVO site showing the arrangement BibleGateway has with the IBS?
     
  13. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    An added note here.

    All the commerical aspects of any Bible is expensive.

    The Apostles and God, expected them to be fed, clothed and such. Thus they were not 'free.'

    The real issue is how much, how often and why.
     
  14. conan

    conan Guest

    Amen to your last two post's CoreIssue!

    I cannot remember, but it was a site which listed many Versions. If I find it, I will report back with the information.
     
  15. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks.
     
  16. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    Messages:
    20
    Even better than all these lexIcons and dictionaries and modern versions are the built in dictionaries right in the Holy Bible itself.
    Should try it out.
    I can show a few examples if you would like.
     
  17. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Really? The Bible, regardless of which version one uses, has a built in dictionary?

    No. Not in the sense of defining every word as used in the Hebrew and Greek.

    But if you mean a study version, I have an NIV and KJV study Bible. The NIV HOLY BIBLE study version is the more useful.

    Parallel versions are also useful. Espcially the NIV and NASB in parallel.
     
  18. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    Messages:
    20
    No Core,I am talking of the only Holy Bible that IS the pure Holy Bible.
    It alone has the built-in dictionary.
    Right in the text and not with notes either.:tiphat:
     
  19. CoreIssue

    CoreIssue Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,556
    Gender:
    Male
    Which version is that?

    Sure isn't the KJV with the errors and adds it contains. ;)
     
  20. PeterAV

    PeterAV Getting Started

    Messages:
    20
    So yer answer is no I presume?
    Fair enough.
    If you repent and change yer mind,I would be more than happy to show you the Built-in bible dictionary that is in the pure Holy Bible that I believe is the AV.K?I promise to be a gentleman:tiphat: and not get my dooks up.:catfight:

    PeterAV
    Every word of God is pure:
     

Share This Page