Is the King James Bible version the most accurate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter runandsew
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

runandsew

Guest
I had written in another thread that this subject of “King James being the most accurate” should be dicussed in its own seperate thread so more people could have (name removed by moderator)ut.

Due to this Post:
Acts 5:13 -
the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves. YOUR inaccurate version
Acts 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. Accurate version
I will stick with the KJV which tells me to "study to show thyself approved unto God. 2Ti 2:15 " I will also continue to "preach the cross 1Cr 1:18 ", “For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; Romans 1:16”
According to the Bible, I have the authority whether your translation or church says so or not.

I had written the following:
I really apprieciate that you love the Bible so much, we all love Gods words written to us, but to say that the Kings James version is the only accurate bible is false.
In less you are fluent in the Greek used at the time the original text were written, then it is best if you have several different versions to compare, maybe 3 or 4. Then you can compare the differences and have a better idea of what the the passage means.
Here is a link from wikipedia about king james only.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_Movement
I recommend that you look up both the pro and con arguments to have a better grasp on what english version is most accurate.
NO ENGLISH TRANSLATION IS PERFECT, THEY ALL HAVE STRONG POINTS, AND WEAK POINTS.
That is why you need to check out several different versions on the passages which don’t make sense, or if someone else tells you it means something else.

If you want to ague a point in the Bible, but say that you have the only accurate version of the Bible, that the other person’s version in unaccurate, well you won’t win many debates. In a debate you need to use the version of the Bible that the other person uses, and prove to them using their version that they are wrong.

and the response to this was :
believers said:
The Word of God does not change… only translations. I did my homework and found KJV to be the most accurate. One can easily determine the accuracy of a translation by going to the Greek text and verifying. If you’re confident in your translation, why not post one of your verses and we’ll go to the Greek text and see how accurate it is?
Click to expand...
So my question is the King James Version the most accurate?
 
One big problem with the statement about translations is that there is no absolute Greek source text to translate from - there wasn’t then and there isn’t now. To say that one translation is better than the other requires complete knowledge of what the source texts were. We have numerous source texts today that weren’t discovered when the KJV was created, and many of them may be better sources.

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all scholars use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament.

So there are a few questions:

What sources did the KJV use? Does anyone know?

What better sources are available today?

How has the english language evolved such that translated words that once were very clear to the reader are today either unclear, difficult to read, or can be conveyed to the modern reader with more modern wording, syntax, and context?

It is difficult to imagine that a document written in a form of English no longer spoken could be clearer to the reader that one written in the current style of the language.
 
Who is going to establish the official Greek texts?

Should we use the LXX for the Old Testament?

Is Greek the official language of the New Testament?

Why isn’t it the same for the Old Testament?

Which books are in the Bible? The Greek Church has more books that the rest of the Christian versions. Should we use their list of books for the HOLY BIBLE?

One wins nothing, all is grace.

One needs Charity, Faith, and Hope, just to mention a few!!!

And Charity is the GREATEST!!!
 
Jim_Baur said:
Who is going to establish the official Greek texts?

Should we use the LXX for the Old Testament?

Is Greek the official language of the New Testament?

Why isn’t it the same for the Old Testament?

Which books are in the Bible? The Greek Church has more books that the rest of the Christian versions. Should we use their list of books for the HOLY BIBLE?

One wins nothing, all is grace.

One needs Charity, Faith, and Hope, just to mention a few!!!

And Charity is the GREATEST!!!
Click to expand...
Al tranlsation is commentary. Having said that, I’m sure you are familar with compalints about the KJV. At least as far as the “OT” goes it would seem to make sense to read a translation that is from the oiginal Hebrew as opposed to one that is a translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew.

If you have some time, check out this online translation and compare it with KJV.
 
  • One can easily determine the accuracy of a translation by going to the Greek text and verifying. If you’re confident in your translation, why not post one of your verses and we’ll go to the Greek text and see how accurate it is?
Well here is just an example of just how accurate the KJV is.

Matthew 16:18 - And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

John 1:42 - And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone.

In the New Testament of the KJV every time the word stone is used the Greek word lithos is used for stone, except for this one time in John 1:42 where Petros is used for stone.
Absolutely every other time in the New Testament of the KJV Petros is translated as Peter.

Most of the Bibles use Peter instead of stone in John 1:42, except for the KJV, NKJV, and a couple others based off of it.

The website Blue letter Bible you can look up the passages for the different bible versions, plus look up the Greek/Hebrew words used.

blueletterbible.org/kjv/Jhn/Jhn001.html

Now was it the intent of the author of this book, to call Peter “stone”, or was it the intent of the men translating the KJV some 1,500 years to use the word “stone”, to prove the Catholic teaching on Peter as the “rock” is wrong, therefore when the word Petros is compared to the word Cephas which means rock, they were biased and used stone as the meaning of Petros.
 
To give another example, the KJV translates “paradosis” as “tradition” when Jesus is condemning the traditions of the Pharisees and as “ordinances” when Paul is commending the Corinthians for observing the traditions that he had handed on to them.
  • Liberian
 
Many moons before the great crash of ’ 06 someone posted this on a long lost thread here at CAF. I do not know who to credit for this information but I will submit it for them in answering the OP.

Errors in the KJV not found in the Septuagint
  1. The scripture specifically mentions seven nations that the Israelites were forbidden to enter into covenants with. All seven are listed in Deuteronomy 7:1. But for some reason, when these “seven” nations are repeated in other parts of scripture, the KJV deletes one of them, the Girgashites, whereas the Septuagint retains all seven of them (Exodus 23:23; 34:11). Likewise, Genesis 15:21 lists five nations, but the King James deletes one of them, the “Evites.”
  2. In Acts 7:14, Stephen relates the story of the Israelite nation and refers to 75 people who traveled from Canaan to Egypt in the emigration of Jacob’s family. Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the King James falsely states “70.” Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in the Septuagint correctly read 75, which agrees with Acts 7:14. The Old Testament books, in most bibles, is translated from a corrupted Masoretic Text, which is why “70” is mistranslated at Genesis 46:27 and Exodus 1:5 in most bibles.
  3. In the King James bible, 2 Samuel 24:13 says there would be seven years of famine, but 1 Chronicles 21:12 says three years of famine. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read three years of famine.
  4. In the King James bible, 2 Kings 8:26 says Ahaziah was 22 years old when he began his reign, 2 Chronicles 22:2 says he was 42 years old. The Septuagint accurately reads 22 years old for both.
  5. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 5:16 says there were 3300 overseers, and 2 Chronicles 2:18, speaking of the same thing, says there were 3600 overseers. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 3600 (3600 is also confirmed in III Kings, chapter 3, first paragraph, in the Septuagint).
  6. Speaking of the same exact event, the King James Bible says there were 700 horsemen in 2 Samuel 8:4, but 7000 horsemen in 1 Chronicles 18:4. In the Septuagint, both verses accurately read 7,000 horsemen.
  7. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 7:26 says there were 2000 baths, and 2 Chronicles 4:5 says there were 3000 baths. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 7:26 does not exist, so there’s no contradiction.
  8. In the King James Bible, 1 Kings 9:23 says there were 550 people that bear rule, and 2 Chronicles 8:10 says that 250 people bear rule. In the Septuagint, 1 Kings 9:23 does not exist, so there’s no contradiction.
  9. In Joshua 10:15, where this verse is omitted in the Septuagint, it can easily be seen that this verse, in the King James, does not belong and is out of place. Because the Israelitish army did not return to the camp at Gilgal till after the hanging of the five kings and the destruction of their cities. This is sufficiently evident from the subsequent parts of this chapter. When all this business was done, and not before, is when they returned to the camp to Gilgal (see Joshua 10:43). This verse is omitted by the Septuagint; and it does not appear to have existed in the ancient hexaplar versions; it stands in its proper place in Joshua 10:43, and is not only useless in Joshua 10:15, but appears to be an encumbrance to the narrative. Should it be considered as genuine and in its proper place, I would propose that the camp at Gilgal should be read instead the camp at Makkedah, for we find from Joshua 10:21 that Joshua had a temporary camp there, after which we may suppose that Joshua having secured the cave, sent some detachments to scour the country and cut off all the remaining straggling Canaanites; when this was done they also returned to the camp at Makkedah, as is related Jos 10:21, and when the business was completed they struck the camp at Makkedah, and all returned to their fortified camp at Gilgal (Joshua 10:43).
 
patg said:
One big problem with the statement about translations is that there is no absolute Greek source text to translate from - there wasn’t then and there isn’t now. To say that one translation is better than the other requires complete knowledge of what the source texts were. We have numerous source texts today that weren’t discovered when the KJV was created, and many of them may be better sources.

The original copies of all the written sources have completely disappeared. The oldest fragment of any portion of the New Testament dates from the 2nd century, 100 years after Jesus’ death. The next oldest fragments (of Matthew, Luke, John, and Thomas) date to about 200. The first complete copy of the Greek New Testament (Codex Sinaiticus) is from the 4th century. Thus, three centuries separate Jesus from the earliest complete surviving copies of the gospels.

The translations all scholars use are not even from a single source - they are formed from about 5000 Greek manuscripts that contain all or parts of the New Testament.

So there are a few questions:

What sources did the KJV use? Does anyone know?

What better sources are available today?

How has the english language evolved such that translated words that once were very clear to the reader are today either unclear, difficult to read, or can be conveyed to the modern reader with more modern wording, syntax, and context?

It is difficult to imagine that a document written in a form of English no longer spoken could be clearer to the reader that one written in the current style of the language.
Click to expand...
patg,

In this thou hast spoken rightly. 🙂
 
Jim_Baur said:
Who is going to establish the official Greek texts?
Click to expand...
In Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943), Pius XII expressed his wish that Catholic biblical scholars could/would produce an authoritative Greek, as well as a Hebrew, source text. He was echoing the sentiments of the Council of Trent.
Jim_Baur said:
Should we use the LXX for the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
WHICH rescension? Theodotion’s? the Lucianic?
Jim_Baur said:
Is Greek the official language of the New Testament?
Click to expand...
Yes.
Jim_Baur said:
Why isn’t it the same for the Old Testament?
Click to expand...
The originals - all lost - were written in either Hebrew or Chaldaic, except for perhaps a few of the Deutero-canonicals.
Jim_Baur said:
Which books are in the Bible? The Greek Church has more books that the rest of the Christian versions. Should we use their list of books for the HOLY BIBLE?
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church has a list of 73 books, 46 in the OT, 27 in the NT. It’s been this way since the 4th century.

Jim, something tells me you were trying to say something else here, but, whatever it was, it eluded me.
 
I am saying that the Body of Christ or the Church came first. The Holy Bible came from, in and through the Church.

Also, I believe that the Teaching Office of the Church came before the Holy Bible. In fact, I know that the Teaching Office came first.

The Holy Bible comes from, through and in the Teaching Office of the Church or the Body of Christ. The Teaching Office is inspired by the Holy Spirit.

I believe in the Teaching Office of the Roman Catholic Church.

I believe that no individuals could discern which manuscripts should be used for the Holy Bible.

I believe that no individual could discern which books are inspired.

I believe that the Teaching Office of the Church was inspired to select the books of the Holy Bible.

No scholar could discern or deduce which books are in the Bible.

No scholar could have enough knowledge or time to discern which manuscripts are correct.

I was not trying to be vague.

I was trying to show how complex and mysterious the Holy Bible is.

The Biblical principle: Hear and one will see.

Scholarship that tries to deduce the Bible: They try to see and then hear.

They actual hurt their faith. They become blind people leading blinded people.

One must hear (believe), then one will see (know and understand).
 
I mistakenly stated that the KJV’s translation is inferior because it translates the “OT” fromthe greek. This is not the case. I still don’t like the tranlsation and think it is not the best, but it did translate the OT from the Hebrew.
 
runandsew said:
Acts 5:13 -
the people acknowledged the apostles’ special authority and did not dare take it upon themselves. YOUR inaccurate version
Acts 5:13 And of the rest durst no man join himself to them: but the people magnified them. Accurate version
Click to expand...
των δε λοιπων ουδεις ετολμα κολλασθαι αυτοις, αλλ’ εμεγαλυνεν αυτους 'ο λαος
but/and - of the remainder - no one - was venturing - to be joined - with them, but - were exalting/magnifying - them - the people

The first version is quite far from a literal rendition of that particular text. Of course, this indicates nothing about the accuracy of either translation in any of the other verses in the Bible.
So my question is the King James Version the most accurate?
Click to expand...
If it were, why would scholars continue to produce new versions? They work to improve our understanding of the text, not to merely create shadows of one alleged classic.

There is a good introduction to the issue here.

I have a friend who works for the United Bible Societies as a translation consultant: he flies around, checking the accuracy of new translations. His recommendation for an English version is the New King James, because it is more faithful (i.e., literal) than many others. As a professional translator, he has no liking for the methodology underlying the KJV (q.v. the site linked above).
 
Jim_Baur said:
I believe that no individuals could discern which manuscripts should be used for the Holy Bible.

No scholar could have enough knowledge or time to discern which manuscripts are correct.
Click to expand...
So, then, Jim, just which manuscripts has the Teaching Office of the Church
discerned and proclaimed should be used to produce a vernacular translation of the bible?

FYI - I am not a fundamentalist or evangelical Protestant; I am a cradle Catholic who attended parochial school in the pre-Vatican II era.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top