Warning: session_start(): open(/var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80/sess_hnur1hhvried0qvgdrutgjtg7a, O_RDWR) failed: No space left on device (28) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2
Warning: session_start(): Failed to read session data: files (path: /var/lib/lsphp/session/lsphp80) in /home/kjv.site/public_html/Discussion-Thread/index.php on line 2 BIBLE DISCUSSION THREAD 140163
Why so hung up on King James? It was the 8th English translation (not the first as is often taught) and the translators had no access to much older, and obviously more accurate manuscripts, which are available today and have been incorporated into more modern translations. I am curious why KJV is considered by many to be the only valid translation. And even more curious about what missionaries do with non-English speaking peoples. And don't tell me that you translate the KJV into their language because that's impossible. The word SNOW is found in the KJV but equatorial tribes don't have any concept of snow or even cold. I see this as a problem that KJV worshipers have. A Baptist friend of mine - whose church has NIV's for pew Bibles, once said that those who hold only to the KJV are worshiping the book rather than the author. I'd be interested in your answer. Please respond to my email address as well as on line because I may not see your answer on your website.
c. Lastly, on KJV worshippers. Personally, I don't consider myself as such but do admit in taking the KJV translation very seriously simply because of my desire to not err when reading & understanding both the historical & spiritual message of God's Word to mankind. Since this is such an important matter to us: after all we didn't ask to be born, but we're here now & only have threescore & ten years or so to live on this Earth & therefore must be prepared for eternity in a relatively short time, I would hope that each person who believes in the afterlife & accountability to their Creator, would want to ensure that the message to them comes from the most reliable source. And though I'm heavily reliant on those who have studied this matter of the veracity of the many Bible translations we have as well as on those learned folk who've gathered & translated from the original texts, I have to, in all good conscience, accept the translation I deem correct & in harmony with all Scripture. I never implore anyone who reads from another translation to switch to the KJV, but would be prepared to defend the words & truths contained therein. I think in this day & age, when God-consciousness & accountability has been replaced with temporal unsatisfactory worldly offerings, if anyone insists reading from another version, I would be so grateful that he takes that road rather than dwell in ignorance.
b. Actually, those missionaries involved in Bible Translation work can use the KJV in their projects. I'm familiar with the ministry of Wycliffe Bible Translators knowing a few (now, elderly) folk still involved in some way with their target people group. In many cases, where there is no script for them to work with, these translators have to also develop a script, along with learning the language - no easy task & a work that can go on for decades before the Word is produced in the tribes' language. So, in your example of a people group unfamiliar with 'snow or the feeling of cold', the translators have to develop another word or imagery that conveys the meaning. So, in fact, there would be Bibles produced for such folk that vary markedly from what we have now in English, simply because biblical Truths need to be conveyed to the sacrifice of the original, accurate words. So, Exodus 4:6 "leprous as snow" could be translated "a sickness turning your skin as the colour of the clouds". Or, Proverbs 25:13 "As the cold of snow in the time of harvest" could be translated "as a refreshing drink in summertime".
Dr. Burgess, thank you for your questions regarding the great value we place of the KJV Bible. As you will understand, I can't give you a full answer here as it would go well beyond the limitations of such a Site as this, but you no doubt, would have already done some other research. As well, we don't get to see your email address which we can personally respond to; you should however, get an alert from KJB Online to your email address that "someone has responded to your comment". So to your questions.
a. Indeed, the KJV isn't the oldest translation and yes, there were older Manuscripts available at that time. However, when King James commissioned the leading biblical scholars (approx. 47 translators) to translate the Bible at the behest of the Puritans, he wanted them to be accurate & consistent with the original texts, yet to conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Hence, in 1 Timothy 3:1 (& elsewhere), the word for the Gk. 'episkopon' has been given as, Bishop, which should have correctly been translated, Overseer. It was never the intention of Apostle Paul to have such appointments in the Church, but simply, Elders & Deacons. But that aside, these KJV translators had found a number of errors from those 'older' manuscripts (from the Alexandrian text: Textus Vaticanus & Textus Sinaiticus). Even when compared with each other, the Alexandrian texts varied by as much as 3000 separate 'disagreements' just in the Gospels. So the 'later', & deemed more reliable & faithful to the Textus Receptus, (from Erasmus' five manuscripts & to which even later manuscripts gave support to and also from the original Masoretic Text, for the O.T. translation), was the Authorized King James Bible born. We can't consider all the differences between the RSV, NIV, etc. with the KJV, since they are many (e.g. Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"; Luke 2:33 "Joseph"; Acts 20:28 "Blood", are just a few changes or omissions).
Dr. John Burgess
c. Lastly, on KJV worshippers. Personally, I don't consider myself as such but do admit in taking the KJV translation very seriously simply because of my desire to not err when reading & understanding both the historical & spiritual message of God's Word to mankind. Since this is such an important matter to us: after all we didn't ask to be born, but we're here now & only have threescore & ten years or so to live on this Earth & therefore must be prepared for eternity in a relatively short time, I would hope that each person who believes in the afterlife & accountability to their Creator, would want to ensure that the message to them comes from the most reliable source. And though I'm heavily reliant on those who have studied this matter of the veracity of the many Bible translations we have as well as on those learned folk who've gathered & translated from the original texts, I have to, in all good conscience, accept the translation I deem correct & in harmony with all Scripture. I never implore anyone who reads from another translation to switch to the KJV, but would be prepared to defend the words & truths contained therein. I think in this day & age, when God-consciousness & accountability has been replaced with temporal unsatisfactory worldly offerings, if anyone insists reading from another version, I would be so grateful that he takes that road rather than dwell in ignorance.
b. Actually, those missionaries involved in Bible Translation work can use the KJV in their projects. I'm familiar with the ministry of Wycliffe Bible Translators knowing a few (now, elderly) folk still involved in some way with their target people group. In many cases, where there is no script for them to work with, these translators have to also develop a script, along with learning the language - no easy task & a work that can go on for decades before the Word is produced in the tribes' language. So, in your example of a people group unfamiliar with 'snow or the feeling of cold', the translators have to develop another word or imagery that conveys the meaning. So, in fact, there would be Bibles produced for such folk that vary markedly from what we have now in English, simply because biblical Truths need to be conveyed to the sacrifice of the original, accurate words. So, Exodus 4:6 "leprous as snow" could be translated "a sickness turning your skin as the colour of the clouds". Or, Proverbs 25:13 "As the cold of snow in the time of harvest" could be translated "as a refreshing drink in summertime".
Dr. Burgess, thank you for your questions regarding the great value we place of the KJV Bible. As you will understand, I can't give you a full answer here as it would go well beyond the limitations of such a Site as this, but you no doubt, would have already done some other research. As well, we don't get to see your email address which we can personally respond to; you should however, get an alert from KJB Online to your email address that "someone has responded to your comment". So to your questions.
a. Indeed, the KJV isn't the oldest translation and yes, there were older Manuscripts available at that time. However, when King James commissioned the leading biblical scholars (approx. 47 translators) to translate the Bible at the behest of the Puritans, he wanted them to be accurate & consistent with the original texts, yet to conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Hence, in 1 Timothy 3:1 (& elsewhere), the word for the Gk. 'episkopon' has been given as, Bishop, which should have correctly been translated, Overseer. It was never the intention of Apostle Paul to have such appointments in the Church, but simply, Elders & Deacons. But that aside, these KJV translators had found a number of errors from those 'older' manuscripts (from the Alexandrian text: Textus Vaticanus & Textus Sinaiticus). Even when compared with each other, the Alexandrian texts varied by as much as 3000 separate 'disagreements' just in the Gospels. So the 'later', & deemed more reliable & faithful to the Textus Receptus, (from Erasmus' five manuscripts & to which even later manuscripts gave support to and also from the original Masoretic Text, for the O.T. translation), was the Authorized King James Bible born. We can't consider all the differences between the RSV, NIV, etc. with the KJV, since they are many (e.g. Isaiah 7:14 "virgin"; Luke 2:33 "Joseph"; Acts 20:28 "Blood", are just a few changes or omissions).
This comment thread is locked. Please enter a new comment below to start a new comment thread.
Note: Comment threads older than 2 months are automatically locked.
Do you have a Bible comment or question?
Posting comments is currently unavailable due to high demand on the server.
Please check back in an hour or more. Thank you for your patience!
Report Comment
Which best represents the problem with the comment?