King James Bible

[McCulloch]

[...] I extracted it from the King James Bible ,(the kjv is most acurate to date )

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England. This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

In addition to the original 1611 edition there have been numerous other corrected editions: the Cambridge editions of 1629, 1638 and 1762 and the 1769 Oxford edition.

Question for debate: what possible reason could there be to claim that any of these editions are the most accurate translation of the Bible into English?

[SpiritQuickens]

[...] I extracted it from the King James Bible ,(the kjv is most acurate to date )

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England. This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

In addition to the original 1611 edition there have been numerous other corrected editions: the Cambridge editions of 1629, 1638 and 1762 and the 1769 Oxford edition.

Question for debate: what possible reason could there be to claim that any of these editions are the most accurate translation of the Bible into English?

I don't think it makes sense to argue that any Bible is the "most accurate." I personally like the NASB and the ESV. Each translation has its pros and cons (some are notoriously bad, and some are very good). The King James is not a "bad" translation, but it's outdated, and one aspect of the translation that's misleading is that it translates Greek present tense-continuous verbs into English in such a way that makes them look like one-time actions. Heb. 10:26 is a good example. "If we sin willfully" should be "If we go on sinning deliberately." The King James makes it look like the author is saying, if you EVER sin willfully, whereas the author has in mind a life of continual sin.

[Student]

Since the KJV was published we have gained access to a much wider range of ancient manuscripts which, in some cases, serve to cast doubt upon the authenticity of some of the source texts of the KJV. For example much of the New Testament in the KJV is based upon Tyndale's translation of Erasmus' third edition Novum Instrumentum. (the KJV translators are also believed to have used Stephanus 1550 edition.) It is well known that Erasmus’ text was based upon a few, late and defective manuscripts.

Therefore, to be fair, the deficiencies in the KJV are not entirely due to the failings of its New Testament translators but rather the shortcomings of their source material. Any Bible translation can only aspire to be as accurate as the texts upon which it is based. Therefore, the AV might be a reasonably accurate translation, albeit an accurate translation of a somewhat unreliable / flawed Greek text from Erasmus’ Novum Instrumentum.

Secondly the English of the KJV (mostly derived from Tyndale) was archaic and somewhat quaint even by the standards of the time in which it was originally published! Admittedly, to many, the attraction of the KJV is their familiarity with its magisterial tones. But how often are its words misunderstood and/or misinterpreted with the mis-application of a modern meaning never intended by its original translators/editors? How many people can read and understand Shakespeare without the aid of a commentary?

Based upon these arguments I consider that the KJV does not always accurately convey the meaning of the original texts to the modern reader and therefore cannot claim to be the most accurate translation of the Bible.

Having said that, I should like to know by what objective measure someone, who is not well versed in Greek or Hebrew, arrives at the conclusion that any particular version represents “the best� or “most accurate� translation?

In the past I have debated the meaning of the words contained in the Hebrew or Greek texts. However I have since come to realise the futility of such an approach. To many the actual written words are irrelevant, mere window dressing. They prefer instead to believe whatever satisfies the strictures of their chosen faith. Subsequently, although blessed with better Greek Texts, many modern Bibles do not always represent more “accurate� translations of these texts; their editors have agendas to serve and markets to satisfy.

[drhoecker]

[...] I extracted it from the King James Bible ,(the kjv is most acurate to date )

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England. This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop's Bible of 1568.

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was done by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

In addition to the original 1611 edition there have been numerous other corrected editions: the Cambridge editions of 1629, 1638 and 1762 and the 1769 Oxford edition.

Question for debate: what possible reason could there be to claim that any of these editions are the most accurate translation of the Bible into English?

i do not get it .you dont want me to post here but now you are debating if the KJV bible is acurate?every book was changed after the roswell incident.The KJV bible is exactly letter for letter identical from the earliest dated book i posess 1902 copyright until the new international version came out.thereby the old KJV bible is acurate.this is where i pulled my text from . every capital letter and following small letter reveals the story of us.
so debate this then. is my claim true or not? when you find it is i will forgive the meanies here.you all are suppose to be christian ,not attackers.

[cnorman18]

"...Every book was changed after the Roswell incident"?

Love to see the documentation on that.

This person needs professional help. Seeing patterns in nonsense writing is a symptom; I'll leave it to the professionals to say of what. Theists are often called "delusional" here, but in this case that's objectively and tragically accurate.

I think engaging this person in debate, as if he or she had anything coherent to say, is cruel. As I said, this person needs professional help - and to make it clear, I don't mean from a theologian or a cryptographer. I mean from a clinical psychologist, or, better, a psychiatrist. This stuff is quite literally demented.

[McCulloch]

[...] I extracted it from the King James Bible ,(the kjv is most acurate to date )

Question for debate: what possible reason could there be to claim that any of these editions are the most accurate translation of the Bible into English?

i do not get it .you dont want me to post here

I want you to post here. Something comprehensible would be nice.

but now you are debating if the KJV bible is acurate?

Yes, you asserted and I challenge that the KJV is accurate.

every book was changed after the roswell incident.

Clue me in. I am completely unaware of any roswell incident that affected the Bible.

The KJV bible is exactly letter for letter identical from the earliest dated book i posess 1902 copyright until the new international version came out.

What has 1902 have to do with anything?

thereby the old KJV bible is acurate.

I'm missing a few steps. How did you conclude this?

this is where i pulled my text from . every capital letter and following small letter reveals the story of us.

Why?

so debate this then. is my claim true or not?

You have not shown your claim to be true

when you find it is i will forgive the meanies here.you all are suppose to be christian ,not attackers.

I am not a Christian. I used to be but now I am a Humanist. But you can forgive me if it makes you feel better.

[drhoecker]

"...Every book was changed after the Roswell incident"?

Love to see the documentation on that.

This person needs professional help. Seeing patterns in nonsense writing is a symptom; I'll leave it to the professionals to say of what. Theists are often called "delusional" here, but in this case that's objectively and tragically accurate.

I think engaging this person in debate, as if he or she had anything coherent to say, is cruel. As I said, this person needs professional help - and to make it clear, I don't mean from a theologian or a cryptographer. I mean from a clinical ps
ychologist, or, better, a psychiatrist. This stuff is quite literally demented.

Like Jesus was attacked.I am able to see things hidden and i asked the lord for my knowledge.You say I need help.are you a doctor?I think you religious guys here are fucked up in your heads as well.You were shown a hidden matter and you dont want to debate and then you start debating.debate this.I am the messenger sent by the lord and i come with proven prophesys that were told and then came to be.who is sick? you for slamming the sent one.All i will say from now on to your site is .When the world realises I AM correct I will come for you all and give you your reward.Do not even comment ,I curse your false egotistical pride.The world is beyond quoting verses over and over.read the bibles and see how they changed them.anyway Fuck your site.you arter all damned.

[otseng]

I think you religious guys here are fucked up in your heads as well.

I curse your false egotistical pride.

Fuck your site.you arter all damned.

Moderator formal warning.

Such language is not allowed on this forum. Further rule violations will result in probationary action.

[scottlittlefield17]

Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others. Ephesians 2:3

That word Conversation actually means behavior. It has nothing to do with speech. The word is translated conversation many times when in fact it means (in today's speech) behavior. It can be very misleading and that is only one example of the King James bible's weakness. It is a good translation but it in no way is the "only God-inspired translation" as some would like to view it as. Some go so far as to say if you use any other Bible version you are dammed (I am using the proper sense of the word dammed).

[cholland]

Question for debate: what possible reason could there be to claim that any of these editions are the most accurate translation of the Bible into English?

Whichever is most loyal to the original text. It seems that the ones you pointed out above were somewhat politically motivated. Even those that don't seem to be that way (NIV, NASB, ESV) are still translations and therefore commentaries of the texts we have of the original languages.