Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

17

There are two differences here: "from evil" (KJV) versus "from the evil one" (NIV) "for thine is the kingdom..." in the KJV but not the NIV. The first difference reflects an alternative translation choice for the Greek word "πονηροῦ". This might be in the masculine or the neuter gender - the word forms are the same. But there is a difference in meaning: ...


15

It's really not a denominational issue, per se, but a doctrinal issue or a simple preference. The King James Only movement are people and churches that believe that the King James version is the only one to use. They have various reasons for this. James White has broken it down into five primary reasons for sticking with the KJV: "I Like the KJV Best" - ...


13

The King James (KJV) was translated from a different Greek text than most modern translations. In the early 1500s, Desiderius Erasmus took the best copies of the Greek New Testament available to him, and compared and collated them to create the Textus Receptus (TR), the first Greek New Testament to be printed rather than hand-written. The TR was the Greek ...


13

The King James Version or Authorized Version as it was originally known, was translated by a group of 47 scholars. It was actually a thought-for-thought translation, rather than word-for-word translation. The idea is that they tried to take the original meaning of the text (not just the individual word) and translate that into the (then) common language. ...


13

The reason is that "Jehovah" (or any transliteration) does belong there, and in these specific cases, the replacement would sound strikingly incorrect. Exo 6:3: And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, but the Name of God Almighty, but by my name LORD was I not knowen to them If both occurences were to be understood as "title", ...


12

The usual criticism is readability. The KJV was originally translated in the 1600's, and even though it's been updated several times since then, there are still words that have different meanings now than they did in the English of the time. The literary style is clearly less modern than more recent translations. Another criticism is based on the ...


12

This is a sign of honesty on the translators' part. The italicized words are interpolations, words that were not in the original documents but were added to the English text. Many of them are there to make things make better grammatical sense in English, but a few of them can actually change the meanings of the passages, so they ought to be examined ...


11

Some major problems with "KJV-onlyism" lies in the assumptions it makes and some of which you enumerated. From an evangelical perspective, we accept the idea that the Bible is, indeed, the word of God. Specifically, "men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from ...


10

The 'red letters' are not themselves part of the KJV translation. The red letters appear in many different translation of the Bible. To answer the question: no, there is not universal agreement about exactly what words in the Bible were spoken by Jesus. The New Testament languages did not include punctuation like quote marks. Most of the time it is pretty ...


8

This may not be the best answer, but, as @warrend pointed out, I don't think that there's any definitive reasoning. However, looking at the original Hebrew for the passage, we see: (from the Online Hebrew Interlinear Bible) The original Hebrew here for that phrase "expected end" is achrith uthque. The original wording appears to have two words ...


8

Since one of the reasons for the English Reformation by King Henry VIII which lead to the creation of the Church of England was divorce, I doubt King James I would have needed a new translation. From Wikipedia, it sounds like the main reasons for the commissioning of the KJV 70 years after the reformation were around translation errors believed to be in the ...


8

The two translations are probably similar enough that you don’t need to get both. I would recommend getting the KJV because of its historical importance. In your studies, it will be useful to get a historical perspective on passages, as well as a taste of truly traditional language. I wouldn’t advise getting the NKJV in your particular case: anything it ...


7

A quick Google search turns up an overwhelming amount of information, mostly blogs. Of the ones the I skimmed, I found this one to be somewhat informative. In addition to this, I think that it's probably also somewhat of a social phenomenon in that it was the first English translation to really gain mainstream adoption (only slightly younger than the ...


6

The biggest problem with the KJV is that no one is fluent in its language any more. It simply is not written in an English anyone speaks today. When you read the KJV the problem isn't words you don't know - you can go look them up in a dictionary like you do any other words you haven't read before. The problem isn't complicated sentences or strange word ...


6

To begin with, that statement is logically flawed as the Bible does not condone divorce — KJV or not. As far as your actual question, according to Wikipedia it seems like a new English version was proposed "[...] in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England." PS: There also seem ...


6

If you are interested in accuracy, the NKJV is the way to go, since it corrects errors present in all other editions of the KJV. Some are errors in the manuscripts used, some are translation errors, some are typographical errors present in the original 1611 edition (when compared to the translators’ notes), some typographical errors introduced in subsequent ...


6

The NKJV is probably the most similar translation to the KJV of any of the modern translations. It should be noted that the KJV you are probably referring to is the latest update of 1769 and not the original 1611. The translations that predate the KJV 1611, like the Bishop's Bible or Coverdale Bible, will likely be more similar to that than any of the ...


5

There is much misinformation in the article you cite. The King James Version First of all, there were not merely eight people who translated the KJV, but 47, as Wikipedia attests. Manuscript Variance It is true, too, that no two original language manuscripts are identical. However, the differences are, in the vast number of cases, meaningless or minute. ...


5

The KJV has been the 'standard' English translation for a very long time - in fact literally for centuries. It had no real rival for popularity until the publication of the Revised standard Version in 1952. This means that in the early part of the 20th Century a huge number of Christians formulated their doctrine based almost entirely on the KJV. When the ...


5

As a KJV Onlyer I guess I can at least answer what my view is. I go a little stronger than the only English translation. I believe it is the Word of God for this generation. To try to concisely answer the reasons for that view: Psalm 12:6-7 says that God has promised to preserve His Word unto all generations. Inspiration without preservation doesn't make ...


5

There are differing groups throughout the United States that argue (quite vehemently) about solely using the King James version. It seems to be divided (very roughly) based on the culture of the area. In the South, for example, some denominations tend to preach out of the King James version more often than churches from the Northern parts of the US (or ...


5

An Angel moved it. Matthew 28:2 states: There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. Footnote: the other Gospels (Mark, Luke and John) only mention that the stone was moved, but not by whom.


4

English has a long and venerable history as a language. Over time the meaning of words shifts. Different words come into common usage for the same meanings. Words can in fact reverse meanings. The King James Version, originally translated some 400 years ago, has seen all of these things happen to its words. One commonly cited example is the word "charity". ...


4

If you don't care about modernized English, then there is one important difference that few people tend to note. The KJV has one superiority over every single modern translation I've ever seen (including the NKJV): it correctly uses "thees" and "thous" to reflect the singular versus plural "you" in English. Thus, if you want to read an English translation ...


3

See the original KJV 1611 online at: http://sceti.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?TextID=kjbible&PagePosition=77 Click on the radio buttons in the upper right to enlarge the image. Enlarged, you can see the Blackletter type (called Old English today) that all early English Bibles used. The KJV, called the Authorized Version back in ...


3

I disagree that there is a contradiction here. It is more of a subtle difference in the meaning of the two words being compared, “expected” and “hope”. I do see how “expected end” can be a greater indicator of an actual end that the word hope indicates. But, it appears that you are assigning the secular meaning to the word “hope” which is really wishful ...


3

Matthew 28:2 uses the word απεκυλισεν (apekulisen, rolls away). Mark 16:4 uses the word αποκεκυλισται (apokekulistai, has been rolled away). Luke 24:2 uses the word αποκεκυλισμενον (apokekulismenon, having been rolled away). John 20:1 uses the word ηρμενον (ermenon, having been lifted/taken away). No mention of flying, and the word "lifted" only indicates ...


2

The most popular Bible being used prior to the KJV was the Geneva Bible. Unfortunately for the crown, this Bible also contained footnotes of an opposing political nature. Thus the KJV was commissioned with the directive for minimal footnotes. The 1611 text is actually quite similar to the Geneva Bible.


2

The answer is found in the preface to the AV KJV of 1611 (The Translators to the Reader 11 pages), which has been removed from American KJV Bibles, and is not available on official King James Version web sites. This AV also lists the translators (Pages 36-38) who were all ordained except one; Sir Henry Saville. Many were Bishops, several Deans. On the WEB, ...


2

The major difference between the KJV and the NKJV, is that the King James Version 1611-1769 (the Authorized Version, so called) was written by the Bishops of the Church of England specifically to support the Ecclesiology and doctrine of that Church. American versions of the KJV are different, and not authorized to be read in the CofE. The Queens publishers ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible