Hot answers tagged

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&...


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 ...


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

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). ...


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

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

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

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

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 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

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. In ...


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

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 Him in ...


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 ...


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

Since other answers respond well to your question, I will add only one point here. 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 ...


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