Hot answers tagged

24

It is important to understand that we do not have an "original copy" of any book of the Bible. What we have are copies of copies of copies... (manuscripts), from which "Textual Critics" seek to ascertain the original wording. It is the original wording that most Bible scholars hold to be perfect and inspired by God. Many modern Christians view "The Bible" ...


21

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", "authority"...


20

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 ...


20

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 ...


20

The NIV has some "missing" verses because it is based on different manuscripts than, say, the King James version. For some background, we don't have manuscripts of the original writings of the New Testament. We have copies of them, and as with text that is copied manually, there is room for copyist error, or for people to add or remove things - purposely ...


20

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 ...


20

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: if ...


20

First of all, these two translations are extremely different. Here's Genesis 1:1 in The Street Bible: First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all off and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! And in the KJV: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. There's obviously a significant difference between ...


17

No, the Book of Mormon has never been revised into a more modern English dialect. There have been various updates to the printing of the Book of Mormon over time to correct errors in the typesetting of earlier editions. The first edition was set and printed in haste, from a manuscript handwritten by Oliver Cowdery under Joseph Smith's dictation. Cowdery ...


14

A brief history of events leading up to the publication of the King James Authorised version of the Bible may help to explain why the Catholic Church does not sanction this translation. Mary Queen of Scots gave birth to her son James in 1566 in Scotland. In June 1567 the Protestant lords rebelled against their queen. They arrested and imprisoned Mary in ...


13

Before selecting a translation of the Bible for reading or study, it is helpful to understand the goals of the various translations available and how they relate to what you're trying to accomplish by reading the Bible. The way this is commonly categorized is "word for word" translations vs. "thought for thought" translations. Word for word translations ...


13

Yes. While Jesus did tell his followers to focus on the Jews and not the Gentiles during his lifetime, after the Resurrection that changed, quite explicitly: And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. --Mark 16:15 Matthew records a slightly different version of this commission: Go ye therefore, and ...


12

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 ...


12

As a matter of fact, it appears from two etymological entries (in Etymonline.com) that "James" comes not from "Joshua" but from "Jacob": masc. proper name, name of two of Christ's disciples, late 12c. Middle English vernacular form of Late Latin Jacomus (source of Old French James, Spanish Jaime, Italian Giacomo), altered from Latin Jacobus (see Jacob). ...


10

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 ...


10

There are five places in the Bible where Jesus gives what is known as the Great Commission: to go and preach to everybody in the world. Matthew 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel ...


10

All languages change over time, all aspects of it are subject to change from basic orthography to fundamental meanings of words. It is highly unlikely that even you are actually using the KJV as published in 1611. Given the spelling and choice of words used in your question, you don't speak King James era English, you speak something quite a bit more modern....


9

Opponents to the KJV-Only position generally don’t disparage the King James Version (KJV) or treat it as necessarily inferior to contemporary English translations, but instead point out that it faces many of the same challenges and errors that face any English translation. Depending on the opponent you ask, each will probably tell you one of any number of ...


9

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 ...


9

One acceptable approach to KJV-Onlyists is to make a foreign translation based on the English text of the KJV. For example, this is from Peter Ruckman: The only LIVING BIBLE on earth today is the AV (1611), or translations made from it. And from Brian Donovan, writing in Peter Ruckman's publication: Any effort to translate the Bible into other ...


9

Briefly, the Catholic Church doesn't accept the King James Version/Authorized Version for the same reason that it doesn't accept as authoritative any bible containing only the protocanon, or containing the deuterocanon only under the description of "Apocrypha". Bibles fitting this description display an understanding of Sacred Scripture very different from ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

Another piece of evidence for "No, it's merely a coincidence" is that the Douay-Rheims translation, which is a Catholic translation slightly earlier than the Protestant King James translation, also uses "James" to translate the name of the author of this epistle.


8

You will find the among some KJV-Onlyists the assertion that the 1611 KJV Bible was directly inspired by God. That cuts away any need for them to explain why the KJV can be considered the infallible word of God while its immediate predecesors should be viewed with scepticism. For example, Peter Ruckman: The text of the A.V. 1611, in Genesis 27, is the ...


8

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, which is the most prominent group of people associated with the name 'Mormon', have only issued new editions when previous editions were found to not agree with the original manuscripts (as detailed in MasonWheeler's answer). However, the Community of Christ (previously called the Reorganized Church of Jesus ...


8

There are many reasons, but here are two: Most Christians don't speak English. This is obvious, but there are millions of Christians around the world who can't understand even basic English. Asking them to use the King James Version is folly, which is why there are Bible translations in every major language and why Bible translators work tirelessly to ...


7

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 ...


7

I'm pretty sure this is just a typesetting decision---more akin to using quotation marks. For example, when the Gospels say what was written on the sign above Jesus' cross, they tend to typeset the message in all caps: And the superscription of His accusation was written over, THE KING OF THE JEWS. Mk 15:26 And a superscription also was written over ...


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 ...


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