Hot answers tagged

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 ...


18

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 ...


17

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 Loch ...


14

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 ...


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 ...


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). ...


11

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 ...


11

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....


10

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 ...


10

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 ...


10

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 ...


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 ...


9

This is to address a part of OP's question which does not yet seem addressed in the existing answers. He asks about differences between the KJV and traditional Catholic Bibles, and whether the KJV was "fundamentally changed" to fit a Protestant perspective. The Douay-Rheims Version, as Ken Graham points out, was completed before the KJV and this was 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

Today's "King James-only" movement, and its argument that the KJV is itself inspired, does indeed have historical precedence, though it's debatable if the 20th-century movement can claim a strong link to similar thinkers in previous centuries. There are two major precedents to today's movement, so we'll look at those first: Pre-KJV elevations of ...


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 ...


7

According to a 1992 statement by the First Presidency of the Church: Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable ...


7

In an attempt to obtain a professional answer to this question, I emailed the Trinitarian Bible Society and received the following reply : Dear Mr Johnstone, Greetings from London. I have never found a valid list or count of translations made strictly from the Authorised (King James) Version. Many people believe that the AV has been translated into ...


6

In this passage Paul is quoting from Psalm 32. The King James Version in both cases uses derivatives of the verb to impute. However, other well-respected more modern versions of the Bible do not translate it this way e.g. the NIV or the NRSV. There is a less common meaning of the word impute meaning "to assign a value to" which is used in finance. In this ...


6

This is more of an English question than a Christianity question, but the basic principles are: Capitalize Satan, Lucifer, Devil, Evil One, Father of Lies, etc., when used as a name or title of a specific being. Do not capitalize when used in a general sense, or when using it as an expletive. It may be helpful to consider the example of the word "mother" ...


6

The italics indicate a word that is implied in the Hebrew or Greek. Although some people describe these as "added" words, that is not really a useful way of thinking of them. Yes, there is often ambiguity in what is implied, but there's just as much ambiguity in the explicit words. Every Bible translation accounts for these implied words, but most do not put ...


6

This relates only to Chuchill's assertion of "more than 760". Churchill began his History of the English-speaking Peoples in the late 1930s. Like many authors, not all of whom perhaps have as much justification, Churchill allowed himself to become distracted by other things, and did not complete it until after he finally ceased to be PM in the mid fifties. ...


5

Jesus' message is a pretty simple one, although we can glean a deeper lesson from it by paying attention to every word in his message. In modern parlance, Jesus' message could be paraphrased, loosely, as follows: Get your own act together before criticizing someone else. A mote is a speck of dust. A beam is a log or a piece of lumber used in constructing ...


5

Several answers have pointed out that the KJV's word choice may be due to usage of archaic English. What has not been adequately explained, as far as I see, is why the KJV and, e.g., the ESV (cf. NASB) differ in the use of one vs. two noun here — "a future and a hope" (ESV) vs. "an expected end" (KJV). This variation is somewhat surprising given that ...


5

In the past, the Catholic church had a serious monopoly on Bible translations. Most bibles were exclusively in Latin. A language which was reserved for the higher members of society, the Scholars and Church leaders. The average working person could not read the bible for themselves. And Catholic church services were presented in Latin too. During the ...


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