The King James Version is Perfect- Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

Every point is interesting! Here is one of them:

4. The King James Version is perfect. This myth continues to be promoted today, yet even the translators of the KJV were not sure on hundreds of occasions which rendering was best, allowing the reader to decide for himself. Again, the preface notes: “Therfore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversitie of signification and sense in the margine, where the text is not so cleare, must needes doe good, yea is necessary, as we are perswaded… They that are wise, had rather have their judgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.” The original KJV had approximately 8000 marginal notes, though these have been stripped out in modern printings of the Authorized Version. Further, some of the typos and blatant errors of the 1611 KJV have continued to remain in the text after multiple corrections and spelling updates (weighing in at more than 100,000 changes) through the 1769 edition. For example, in Matthew 23.24 the KJV says, “Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.” The Greek means “strain out a gnat.” Or the wording of Hebrews 4.8, which says, “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.” Instead of ‘Jesus,’ Joshua is meant. It’s the same word in Greek, but the reader of the text will hardly think of Joshua when he or she sees ‘Jesus’ here since ‘Joshua’ is found everywhere in the OT.

Source

8 responses to “The King James Version is Perfect- Fifteen Myths about Bible Translation

  1. Also FTA: 8. Homosexuals influenced the translation of the NIV. It is true that a woman who later admitted to being a lesbian was a style-editor of the NIV originally, but according to Dr. Ken Barker, one-time editor of the NIV, she had zero say on the content of the NIV.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. WERE THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS KJV ONLY?

    FTA: There is a group today that is called the King James Only. This is because they insist that the King James Version is the preserved Word of God and the only Bible for the English speaking people. They usually attack all other versions and delight in pointing out the errors in them.

    I want to raise and answer the question, is this the position of the King James translators? If I can prove that the King James translators disagreed with the King James Only group in every point, then the KJV Only group does not have a leg to stand on. They base everything on the King James translators. The KJV advocates revere and lift them to the high heavens. They were superior translators, they say. You can see how inconsistent it is to be KJV Only and believe the opposite of what the KJV translators themselves believed.

    In the original 1611 KJV there are eleven pages in the front called, THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER…In this introduction, the translators explained their philosophy and beliefs about Bible translations. I want to use their introduction, taking the translators’ own words and show you that they disagreed with the KJV Only group in every point…

    http://www.kjvonly.org/robert/joyner_were_the_kjv.htm

    Liked by 1 person

  3. An Addendum to The Spirit Itself

    FTA: Several years ago it occurred to me that perhaps the very worst error in the King James Bible is its reference to the Holy Spirit of God as an it. While the KJV contains this transgression in four passages, it was Romans 8:16 which first captured my attention…

    There is nothing that can be said by King James Only defenders that can in anyway excuse or justify, let alone validate, the shocking corruption of God’s word that occurs when the Holy Spirit is referred to as an it…Such translation is heresy, pure and simple. Our long familiarity with the language in the KJV has unfortunately bred acceptance rather than contempt. While the noble men of 1611 may be worthy of our admiration on many points—indeed in other passages they have referred to the Holy Spirit as he…–what they have done here deserves only condemnation. Those erudite men were fully aware of the heresies of the Socinians, Arians, and Sabellians. They also knew the difference between he and it. Opening the door to false teachers in four New Testament passages cannot be excused. The Holy Spirit of God is a person, an adult person if you will, and he should never be referred to as an it. While it is not surprising to find such blasphemy in cult literature, it has no place in the New Testament of a Bible widely used by conservative, orthodox, God-fearing Christians.

    http://www.kjvonly.org/james/may_addendum_spirit_itself.html

    Liked by 1 person

Your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s