Is the KJV the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

[onewithhim]

.

As for judging the most accurate, I believe that would depend on one's theology and how closely a Bible conformed to it. Maybe it's the KJV or perhaps one of the "All other translations"

.

Should this be the way a person determines what Bible translation is accurate, by depending on one's theology? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

You mean pick a theology that best conforms to Bible X? Why not.

No, I do not mean that. I mean is it right to pick a Bible that conforms to one's theology?

Why not? IOW, why would you purposely pick one that didn't?

Or should one just guess?

As an atheist who doesn't put any trust in the Bible whatsoever, I regard guessing as good a method as any other.

.

Even as an atheist I'm sure you would want your translated books on how to maintain your car to be accurate.

Yup, but only because of necessity. I need to maintain my car properly, but I have no need for a Bible, any Bible, to be correct in any sense of the word.

So I'm sure you can at least appreciate why an accurate Bible would be important to a Christian.

Only marginally so. So many Biblical notations, pronouncements, and stories being apparently immaterial to one's salvation, I wouldn't think it would matter if they're accurate or not. Take Philippians 3:8 where the King James Version says

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

But the American Standard Version doesn't count them as "dung," but
Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ,

And the Amplified Bible considers them as
But more than that, I count everything as loss compared to the priceless privilege and supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord [and of growing more deeply and thoroughly acquainted with Him—a joy unequaled]. For His sake I have lost everything, and I consider it all garbage, so that I may gain Christ

And the Common English Bible thinks of them as
But even beyond that, I consider everything a loss in comparison with the superior value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. I have lost everything for him, but what I lost I think of as sewer trash, so that I might gain Christ

While other Bibles use words such as

"rubbish"
"filth"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"

Think it really matters what word is used here? It doesn't appear so. So why would a person really care what Paul (the writer speaking here) thought of what he lost? Think the salvation of one's soul depends on the accuracy of the translation? I wouldn't think so.

.

It matters very much what word is used where. Your above example does not touch the importance of the subject. Even a COMMA out of place distorts the true meaning of a verse. (Luke 23:42,43) Now, our belief about whether or not Jesus is God is vastly important to our relationship with God, which Christians of any denomination maintain that they have. To massacre John 1:1 is just one example. It was written originally in Greek and Greek has no upper-case or lower-case letters, and no punctuation marks. John 1:1 has upper-case letters incorporated, and ignores the rules for translating Greek to English, which we have discussed on these threads before. It should read: in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word. Totally different rendering than the KJV and all the versions that copy it. If the latter translation is correct, the Word could not be God. This means an entirely different relationship with the Son and with the Father (God). (See John 17:3 which contradicts the KJV version of John 1:1.)

[Eddie Ramos]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

Yes, the KJV is by far the most accurate of any translated English Bible. But this doesn't mean that the KJV itself is the inspired Word of God (as many "KJV only" believe). It is a translation of the inspired word and not the inspired word itself. This is why it contains its share of errors. But these errors can be easily seen when we compare the KJV to the manuscripts from which they were translated (The Masoretic text (O.T.) and the Received text (N.T.). The way the accuracy of a translation is categorized is by how much the translation differs from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. The reason the KJV is the most accurate is because it differs in the least from the original manuscripts. And as this Bible is studied and compared against the Hebrew and Greek texts, its accuracy becomes very evident.

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word. This word can be seen to be the word "passover", but the fact that it was translated once here as "Easter", just means that we have to dig a little deeper in our studies in order to figure out what the translators meant by using that word, and they meant "passover".

[1213]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

I don't think it is an error, because it can be called also Easter.

But, I think World English Bible is more accurate than KJV generally. However I have not calculated it exactly.

[2timothy316]

.

As for judging the most accurate, I believe that would depend on one's theology and how closely a Bible conformed to it. Maybe it's the KJV or perhaps one of the "All other translations"

.

Should this be the way a person determines what Bible translation is accurate, by depending on one's theology? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

You mean pick a theology that best conforms to Bible X? Why not.

No, I do not mean that. I mean is it right to pick a Bible that conforms to one's theology?

Why not? IOW, why would you purposely pick one that didn't?

Personally my picks are the Bibles that are the most accurate in their translation.

With so many Bible versions to choose from---I have immediate access to nearly 60---how did you ever decide?

I have read the Bible so many times I have lost count. When I read it and come to a puzzling part of the Bible I'll read the same passage in many different translations so as to get a better understanding of what is being said. Now just do this for years and anyone with a humble and truth seeking heart will find Bibles they will favor.
Lets take the scripture in the OP an focus on the word quaternions and Easter.
Acts 12:4
KJV 1611 "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
KJV 2000 "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four squads of soldiers to keep him; intending after the passover to bring him forth to the people."
BLE "and did capture him and put him in prison, committing him to four fours of soldiers to guard, meaning to bring him up to the people after the passover."
NIV "After arresting him, he put him in prison, handing him over to be guarded by four squads of four soldiers each. Herod intended to bring him out for public trial after the Passover."
NWT "He seized him and put him in prison, turning him over to four shifts of four soldiers each to guard him, intending to bring him out before the people after the Passover."

Now, what is a quaternion and were the Jews really celebrating Easter? Which translation/s explains what happened most accurately in a way we can understand it?

I didn't let my personal beliefs factor into my personal choice for a Bible. I use many Bibles in my studies so as to get a complete picture of what the writer was trying to convey.

Picking a Bible to fit my beliefs is like only picking laws that I believe should be obeyed. Then expecting cops and judges to uphold my view of the law.

So what's your solution, looking at various bibles and choosing the one that best suited your needs? Kind of like cherry-picking Bible verses?

.

Keeping an open mind and not being dogmatic even if I do have a favorite Bible translation. I have even found translations that do a better job of explaining a scripture than my favorite Bible translation. When a person does their Bible reading this way it is easy to spot when a person is cherry picking their way through their dogma because they will post a scripture and immediately I can tell that the scripture they posted is out of context. Like the KJV 1611 translation above. Lets say a person was trying to convince me that celebrating Easter is ok and they used the KJV 1611 version. I might fall for it except when I compare I see that not only is this scripture not a command to celebrate Easter but that the word Easter shouldn't have been used at all. If I was dogmatic in my choice of translation I might think its ok to celebrate a pagan holiday.

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word.

To you have proof of this? Where does the English word "Easter" come from?

[Miles]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word.

To you have proof of this? Where does the English word "Easter" come from?

"Etymology
Main articles: Ēostre and Names of Easter

The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern Dutch ooster and German Ostern, developed from an Old English word that usually appears in the form Ēastrun, -on, or -an; but also as Ēastru, -o; and Ēastre or Ēostre.[nb 4] Bede provides the only documentary source for the etymology of the word, in his eighth-century The Reckoning of Time. He wrote that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English 'Month of Ēostre', translated in Bede's time as "Paschal month") was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says "was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month".

In Latin and Greek, the Christian celebration was, and still is, called Pascha (Greek: Πάσχα), a word derived from Aramaic פסחא (Paskha), cognate to Hebrew פֶּסַח (Pesach). The word originally denoted the Jewish festival known in English as Passover, commemorating the Jewish Exodus from slavery in Egypt. As early as the 50s of the 1st century, Paul the Apostle, writing from Ephesus to the Christians in Corinth,[38] applied the term to Christ, and it is unlikely that the Ephesian and Corinthian Christians were the first to hear Exodus 12 interpreted as speaking about the death of Jesus, not just about the Jewish Passover ritual.[39] In most languages, Germanic languages such as English being exceptions, the feast is known by names derived from Greek and Latin Pascha. Pascha is also a name by which Jesus himself is remembered in the Orthodox Church, especially in connection with his resurrection and with the season of its celebration. Others call the holiday "Resurrection Sunday" or "Resurrection Day," after the Greek: Ἀνάστασις, romanized: Anastasis, lit. 'Resurrection' day.
source: Wikipedia

----------------------------------------------------

Easter (n.)
Origin and meaning of Easter

Old English Easterdæg, from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from Proto-Germanic *austron-, "dawn," also the name of a goddess of fertility and spring, perhaps originally of sunrise, whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox, from *aust- "east, toward the sunrise" (compare east), from PIE root *aus- (1) "to shine," especially of the dawn.

Bede says Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted her name and many of the celebratory practices for their Mass of Christ's resurrection. Almost all neighboring languages use a variant of Latin Pascha to name this holiday (see paschal).

paschal (adj.)
"of or pertaining to Passover or Easter," early 15c., from Old French paschal (12c.) and directly from Late Latin paschalis, from pascha "Passover, Easter," from Greek pascha "Passover," from Aramaic (Semitic) pasha "pass over," corresponding to Hebrew pesah, from pasah "he passed over" (see Passover). Pasche was an early Middle English term for "Easter" (see Easter), and the older Dutch form of the word, Paas, was retained in New York.


source

.

[Miles]

It matters very much what word is used where. Your above example does not touch the importance of the subject. Even a COMMA out of place distorts the true meaning of a verse. (Luke 23:42,43) Now, our belief about whether or not Jesus is God is vastly important to our relationship with God, which Christians of any denomination maintain that they have. To massacre John 1:1 is just one example. It was written originally in Greek and Greek has no upper-case or lower-case letters, and no punctuation marks. John 1:1 has upper-case letters incorporated, and ignores the rules for translating Greek to English, which we have discussed on these threads before. It should read: in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word. Totally different rendering than the KJV and all the versions that copy it. If the latter translation is correct, the Word could not be God. This means an entirely different relationship with the Son and with the Father (God). (See John 17:3 which contradicts the KJV version of John 1:1.)

Makes one wonder why god, who gave all scripture (2 Timothy 3:16-17), all of which is true (Proverbs 30:5-6), would create such a confounding and even contradictory opus. So much so that in some cases it would mislead readers to come to very conflicting conclusions, e.g. Trinity: True. False.

.

[Miles]

.

As for judging the most accurate, I believe that would depend on one's theology and how closely a Bible conformed to it. Maybe it's the KJV or perhaps one of the "All other translations"

.

Should this be the way a person determines what Bible translation is accurate, by depending on one's theology? Shouldn't it be the other way round?

You mean pick a theology that best conforms to Bible X? Why not.

No, I do not mean that. I mean is it right to pick a Bible that conforms to one's theology?

Why not? IOW, why would you purposely pick one that didn't?

Or should one just guess?

As an atheist who doesn't put any trust in the Bible whatsoever, I regard guessing as good a method as any other.

.

Even as an atheist I'm sure you would want your translated books on how to maintain your car to be accurate.

Yup, but only because of necessity. I need to maintain my car properly, but I have no need for a Bible, any Bible, to be correct in any sense of the word.

So I'm sure you can at least appreciate why an accurate Bible would be important to a Christian.

Only marginally so. So many Biblical notations, pronouncements, and stories being apparently immaterial to one's salvation, I wouldn't think it would matter if they're accurate or not. Take Philippians 3:8 where the King James Version says

8 Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

But the American Standard Version doesn't count them as "dung," but
Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ,

And the Amplified Bible considers them as
But more than that, I count everything as loss compared to the priceless privilege and supreme advantage of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord [and of growing more deeply and thoroughly acquainted with Him—a joy unequaled]. For His sake I have lost everything, and I consider it all garbage, so that I may gain Christ

And the Common English Bible thinks of them as
But even beyond that, I consider everything a loss in comparison with the superior value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. I have lost everything for him, but what I lost I think of as sewer trash, so that I might gain Christ

While other Bibles use words such as

"rubbish"
"filth"
"trash"
"worthless"
"less than nothing"
"manure"
"waste"
"dirt"

Think it really matters what word is used here? It doesn't appear so. So why would a person really care what Paul (the writer speaking here) thought of what he lost? Think the salvation of one's soul depends on the accuracy of the translation? I wouldn't think so.

.

It matters very much what word is used where. Your above example does not touch the importance of the subject. Even a COMMA out of place distorts the true meaning of a verse. (Luke 23:42,43) Now, our belief about whether or not Jesus is God is vastly important to our relationship with God, which Christians of any denomination maintain that they have. To massacre John 1:1 is just one example. It was written originally in Greek and Greek has no upper-case or lower-case letters, and no punctuation marks. John 1:1 has upper-case letters incorporated, and ignores the rules for translating Greek to English, which we have discussed on these threads before. It should read: in the beginning was the word and the word was with the god and a god was the word. Totally different rendering than the KJV and all the versions that copy it. If the latter translation is correct, the Word could not be God. This means an entirely different relationship with the Son and with the Father (God). (See John 17:3 which contradicts the KJV version of John 1:1.)

Which is why I said "[It matters] Only marginally so. So many Biblical notations, pronouncements, and stories being apparently immaterial to one's salvation, I wouldn't think it would matter if they're accurate or not. Take Philippians 3:8 where the King James Version says . . . ." Not that it never matters.

.

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word.

To you have proof of this? Where does the English word "Easter" come from?

"Etymology
Main articles: Ēostre and Names of Easter

The modern English term Easter, cognate with modern Dutch ooster and German Ostern, developed from an Old English word that usually appears in the form Ēastrun, -on, or -an; but also as Ēastru, -o; and Ēastre or Ēostre.[nb 4] Bede provides the only documentary source for the etymology of the word, in his eighth-century The Reckoning of Time. He wrote that Ēosturmōnaþ (Old English 'Month of Ēostre', translated in Bede's time as "Paschal month") was an English month, corresponding to April, which he says "was once called after a goddess of theirs named Ēostre, in whose honour feasts were celebrated in that month".

In Latin and Greek, the Christian celebration was, and still is, called Pascha (Greek: Πάσχα), a word derived from Aramaic פסחא (Paskha), cognate to Hebrew פֶּסַח (Pesach). The word originally denoted the Jewish festival known in English as Passover, commemorating the Jewish Exodus from slavery in Egypt. As early as the 50s of the 1st century, Paul the Apostle, writing from Ephesus to the Christians in Corinth,[38] applied the term to Christ, and it is unlikely that the Ephesian and Corinthian Christians were the first to hear Exodus 12 interpreted as speaking about the death of Jesus, not just about the Jewish Passover ritual.[39] In most languages, Germanic languages such as English being exceptions, the feast is known by names derived from Greek and Latin Pascha. Pascha is also a name by which Jesus himself is remembered in the Orthodox Church, especially in connection with his resurrection and with the season of its celebration. Others call the holiday "Resurrection Sunday" or "Resurrection Day," after the Greek: Ἀνάστασις, romanized: Anastasis, lit. 'Resurrection' day.
source: Wikipedia

----------------------------------------------------

Easter (n.)
Origin and meaning of Easter

Old English Easterdæg, from Eastre (Northumbrian Eostre), from Proto-Germanic *austron-, "dawn," also the name of a goddess of fertility and spring, perhaps originally of sunrise, whose feast was celebrated at the spring equinox, from *aust- "east, toward the sunrise" (compare east), from PIE root *aus- (1) "to shine," especially of the dawn.

Bede says Anglo-Saxon Christians adopted her name and many of the celebratory practices for their Mass of Christ's resurrection. Almost all neighboring languages use a variant of Latin Pascha to name this holiday (see paschal).

paschal (adj.)
"of or pertaining to Passover or Easter," early 15c., from Old French paschal (12c.) and directly from Late Latin paschalis, from pascha "Passover, Easter," from Greek pascha "Passover," from Aramaic (Semitic) pasha "pass over," corresponding to Hebrew pesah, from pasah "he passed over" (see Passover). Pasche was an early Middle English term for "Easter" (see Easter), and the older Dutch form of the word, Paas, was retained in New York.


source

.

Clearly the English word Easter is not the proper word to use for the Greek word Passover in Acts 12:4 in today's English speaking world. Maybe the 17th century reader knew the difference...maybe not. Perhaps it made since to use the word Easter in the 17th century but not today. So I agree with the change using Passover rather than Easter and I'd mark a Bible as using the word English word Passover as a more accurate translation.

[Eddie Ramos]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word.

To you have proof of this? Where does the English word "Easter" come from?

It doesn't matter where the word "Easter " comes from. What doctrinal benefit do you obtain by looking outside the Bible for any kind of truth? The question should be, what does this word mean in the Bible? And when we search the Bible, we discover that it means "passover". And now the verse is understood just fine.

To care about how words that appear in the Bible are used outside of the Bible is to head in the opposite direction when looking for truth.