why does many false doctrines today start with the King James bible?

[Big_Dummy]

Before the Bible Students morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both used the KJB.
Christian Science uses the KJB.
The Way before they came out with their own translation of the NT, used the KJB.
Mormons use the KJB.
World Wide Church of God uses the KJB in the past.
demon seed believers uses the KJB.
And, many more…

Whereas, “modern translations” tend to be used by orthodox christians.

Why is this?

 

[ZDHayden]

I have also found that most anti-Catholic Christians primarily use the KJV. Grant it, as an English translation, it is beautiful when read aloud, but it has certain flaws. Some of these are purely speculation, and I will mark those with an *.

The KJV was NOT translated from the Latin or any of the original documents, but rather from previous English translations. These previous English translations were translated from the original or the Latin, and were usually by private individuals. The KJV was instead the product of an order of King James I as a response to some “flaws” in previous English translations found by the Puritans. As Puritanism led to distinctly American protestant groups (though a few formed in other Germanic countries), the KJV could have been formed to justify Puritan ideals. It is also of note that the numbers of Protestants (This does not include the Eastern Orthodox faith, as its sacraments are recognized, if I am correct, by Rome) are distinctly higher in Germanic nations (Scandinavia, Germany, Netherlands, Britain, Australia, US) than in nations of other linguistic basis. Notably, these are also the same nations evangelized by Luther, the Puritans, and Henry VIII. Hope this helped. God bless.

 

[2Chronicles]

i like the Douay rheims

it seems that is a reliable version but i dont know a lot about the history of various bibles. All i know is that the DR is supposed to be a word for word interpretation of the Latin vulgate, which was translated by St Jerome (He was very scrupulous about the Word)

The Catholic Church uses the New American Standard. Does anyone know much about that version?

 

[Holly3278]

i like the Douay rheims

it seems that is a reliable version but i dont know a lot about the history of various bibles. All i know is that the DR is supposed to be a word for word interpretation of the Latin vulgate, which was translated by St Jerome (He was very scrupulous about the Word)

The Catholic Church uses the New American Standard. Does anyone know much about that version?

No, the Catholic Church does not use the New American Standard Bible. The New American Standard Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonicals. You are probably thinking of the Catholic Bible used in the United States with the similar name called the New American Bible.

 

[Joshua27]

Before the Bible Students morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both used the KJB.
Christian Science uses the KJB.
The Way before they came out with their own translation of the NT, used the KJB.
Mormons use the KJB.
World Wide Church of God uses the KJB in the past.
demon seed believers uses the KJB.
And, many more…

Whereas, “modern translations” tend to be used by orthodox christians.

Why is this?

The problem with “modern translations” is most modern translators - who (in good faith) try to provide an easier understanding through their versions - have failed to take into account the original scibe’s additions to the bible through its original English translation (KJB), which has resulted in a scewing the original purity and meaning of many passages.

---

Did you know: If you open an original (second edition) KJB you would see a multitude of italicized words & phrases throughout the passages of the books of the bible. Typically, most people read through these italicized words assuming they’re merely italicized for “emphasis”. But these italicized words are not from the original Greek or Hebrew versions!

In an attempt to help the reader “better understand” text, King James’s scribes added additional words or phrases to the text, but in their first KJB, they were harshly scolded by readers because they failed to distinguish between purely translated text and their added text. The scribes were presumably scolded because within many books of the bible God is recorded as warning against adding or subtracting from God’s words and laws…so in the next edition, the scribes distinguished their added words by italicizing them.

---

Throughout passages, the scribes failed to take into account the context and customs of the people for which the books of the bible were written [The Israelites, from which come the Jewish people]. This systemic (bible-wide) mistake has drastically changed the originally intended meanings of bible text…and not many believers have a clue that such a major mistake has even occurred, as the italics has disappeared because version after version of “modern translations” have assimilated these words as truth. Fast-forward hundreds of years later - and dozens of english translations - and you have bibles that are corruptions (for lack of a better word) of the original inspired words of God.

For example, most people believe that “Passover” was a feast held by Christ and that his last supper WAS this feast. This conclusion can easily be reached when we read passages like:

Matthew 26:2 KJV] Ye know that after two days is the feast of the Passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be cruciified.

Matthew 26:17 KJV] Now the first day of the feast of Unleavened Bread the disciples came to Jesus, saying unto him, where wilt thou that we prepare for thee to eat the passover?

These - and similar passages in Luke and Mark - lead the English reader (and theologian) to the conclusion that Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are the same day…but they are not the same day and have never been the same in the history of Israelite culture.

Yet notice the italicized words in the above passages…

“…the feast of…”
“…day of the feast of…”’

These words do not appear in the original text at all. So if we remove them we get a slightly different meaning of the provided text; one that does not link Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread as the same day.

Speaking for myself - this is why I read the KJB before any other modern translations, because I can clearly see which words and text are foreign to the original text so I can easily ignore them. Because when all italicized words are successfully removed, you’ll discover that the books of bible are no longer contradictory (but they do tell a completely different story than that of Christian tradition).

For further example, let’s continue with this notion that Passover and Feast of Unleavened Bread are indeed two different days (and that Christ was not betrayed on the Feast day):

Numbers 28:16] And in the fourteenth day of the first [Biblical] month is the Passover of the LORD.

17] And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days shall Unleavened Bread be eaten.

In Jewish custom, the Passover (that is, “the day the lamb is to be slaughtered”) is Prepared on the day before the Holy Feast day of God, to be eaten ONLY on the Unleavened Bread Day (that is “the next day”). Now re-read Matthew 26:2 again (excluding the italics). Notice how “in two days” is the Passover Day; the day the Passover (lamb to be slaughtered) is prepared, which is the same day when the Son of Man is betrayed.

This is why Christ says [in Luke 22:15], “…With desire I have desired to eat this passover with you before I suffer: [16] But I say unto you, I will not anymore eat thereof because - remember - there was another Feast of Unleavened Bread they participated in recorded earlier in the gospels] until it be fulfilled in the kingdom of God.”

…Christ did NOT eat the feast meal with his disciples because he was betrayed, imprisoned and killed on Passover (lamb preparation day), the day before the Holy Feast Day of Unleavened Bread when everyone actually eats the passover (slaughtered lamb) along with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

So Passover isn’t a Holy day! This is but one of the corruptions caused by the added text.

Beware of the leaven in your daily bread!

 

[DaveBj]

snip

The KJV was NOT translated from the Latin or any of the original documents, but rather from previous English translations.

snip

Not true.

From the frontispiece of the 1611 edition of the KJV:

“The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Teftament and the New, Newly Tranflated out of the Original tongues & with the former Tranflations diligently compared and revifed by his Maiestie’s fpeciall Comandment…”

DaveBj

 

[Bluegoat]

Before the Bible Students morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both used the KJB.
Christian Science uses the KJB.
The Way before they came out with their own translation of the NT, used the KJB.
Mormons use the KJB.
World Wide Church of God uses the KJB in the past.
demon seed believers uses the KJB.
And, many more…

Whereas, “modern translations” tend to be used by orthodox christians.

Why is this?

I wonder if this is not related to when these sects developed, rather than any sort of theological issue.

 

[RedBert]

The KJV was NOT translated from the Latin or any of the original documents, but rather from previous English translations…

The KJV was NOT translated from the Latin :
True

or any of the original documents,
True : no one has the original documents

but rather from previous English translations
Absolutely false

In common with most other translations of the period**, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) 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. -wiki

 

[RedBert]

Did you know: If you open an original (second edition) KJB you would see a multitude of italicized words & phrases throughout the passages of the books of the bible. Typically, most people read through these italicized words assuming they’re merely italicized for “emphasis”. But these italicized words are not from the original Greek or Hebrew versions!

stop the press:
Are you aware that going from one language to another is not a word for word translation?

Consider Luke 23:42

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom
.
vs.

New American Bible
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Is the word “Lord” in the original Greek? No it is not.

Then why is it “added” in the Douay-Rheims Bible and the KJV?

Because the Greek sentence structure and grammar implies a servant asking a master

That’s right, in other languages the sentence structure can change the meaning without changing the words.

So even though the word “Lord” is NOT in the the original Greek: adding it to the English version actually conveys a MORE ACCURATE translation of the meaning…

There are countless examples of the same process being used to more accurately translate “thought for thought” vs. “word for word”

so if it were up to you : do you add the word “lord” like the Douay-Rheims Bible or leave it out like the New American Version?

consider this compromise:*** initialize ***the added words

 

[Joshua27]

stop the press:
Are you aware that going from one language to another is not a word for word translation?

Consider Luke 23:42

Douay-Rheims Bible
And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom
.
vs.

New American Bible
Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

Is the word “Lord” in the original Greek? No it is not.

Then why is it “added” in the Douay-Rheims Bible and the KJV?

Because the Greek sentence structure and grammar implies a servant asking a master

That’s right, in other languages the sentence structure can change the meaning without changing the words.

So even though the word “Lord” is NOT in the the original Greek: adding it to the English version actually conveys a MORE ACCURATE translation of the meaning…

There are countless examples of the same process being used to more accurately translate “thought for thought” vs. “word for word”

so if it were up to you : do you add the word “lord” like the Douay-Rheims Bible or leave it out like the New American Version?

consider this compromise:*** initialize ***the added words

With respect, how is any other English word MORE ACCURATE to mean master than “Master”?

If it were up to me I’d use the originally intended word that you’ve shared; “Master” (for English translations) or “Adonai” (for Hebrew context of this same relationship, since the God we follow is the same God of the Hebrews who gave his name to them in Hebrew).

To me, “Lord” was too frequently used by pagan societies and kingdoms (often when referring to their gods and kings) to be worthy enough to be used for the Most High…even the Hebrew people believed (and believe) this as I do. Even the word “Lord” has a meaning; translated into also meaning “Baal” (look up “Baal” on your own if you’d like to see what it’s short for).

As for your compromise; I think that was already done long ago which is why people perpetuate incorrect meanings of bible text. How about we stop being lazy and actually learn to read in the original languages to reach a purer understanding…such is a real compromise because we’d all have to learn it. Let’s take an effort to actually pursue a truer understanding of God’s original words.

 

[Izdaari]

The KJV is not high on my favorites list, but considering the manuscripts it was translated from, and that it’s in Early Modern English and thus hard to understand, it’s a pretty good mostly literal translation. There’s nothing inherent in it that makes fringe elements like it, just that a lot of them seem to. I’d call it a mysterious syndrome. But lots of doctrinally sound folks like it too.

All that said, my preference is for the ESV and HCSB, though I also use many others.

 

[ZDHayden]

The KJV was NOT translated from the Latin :
True

or any of the original documents,
True : no one has the original documents

but rather from previous English translations
Absolutely false

In common with most other translations of the period**, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) 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. -wiki

With all due respect, I would not advise using Wikipedia in the best of times. The information I provided came from a book on the development of the English language. It is in my high school library, which is closing for the summer, so if I can find an online version of it, I’ll be happy to provide a link to it, if you’d like . It is called The Story of English and was written by Robert McCrum, Robert MacNeil, and William Cran and was originally published in 1982. If I provided inaccurate information according to this text, then I claim full responsibility.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Regarding the provenance and antecedents of the KJV, it was preceded by several English translations, the most important being the Tyndale Bible. The KJV New Testament took about 70% of its text from Tyndale’s translations. Miles Coverdale then completed the Old Testament from Tyndale’s unpublished notes and the Coverdale Bible was accepted by the English king only two years after he had ordered Tyndale’s death. The next English Bible was the Bishop’s Bible. By the early 17h. century, the language had become dated, so the KJV was envisioned as a Modern Language translation. In the forward, its writers foresaw future revisions to keep up with changes in English.

And to add another twist, the Vulgate was one of the sources for the KJV. The last six verses of the last chapter were missing from Erasmus’ manuscripts when he translated the Textus Receptus, so he translated the Latin into Greek and included it.

I recently bought an Orthodox New Testament in English and was shocked to find that instead of being a new translation, it was the NKJV. The explanation was that as the original documents were of the Byzantine type, they found the NKJV perfectly acceptable as an English translation.

As for sects forming around one translation or another, Russians fought a civil war over a translation of St. Cyril’s original scripture. As years had gone by, scribes had added glosses and rewording, and a number of errors had come into the text. The New Believers were the ones who believed in the wording of the re-translation of the original text and the Old Believers believed in the text that had the added material. Don’t try to re-read the previous sentence for clarification unless you want to make aspirin makers richer.

 

[RedBert]

The completed work was issued in 1611, the complete title page reading:
“THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties Special Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611.”
The New Testament had a separate title page, the whole of it reading:

“THE NEWE Testament of our Lord and Saviour JESUS CHRIST. Newly Translated out of the Originall Greeke: and with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Majesties speciall Commandment. IMPRINTED at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Majestie. ANNO DOM. 1611. Cum Privilegio.”

 

[2Chronicles]

No, the Catholic Church does not use the New American Standard Bible. The New American Standard Bible does not contain the Deuterocanonicals. You are probably thinking of the Catholic Bible used in the United States with the similar name called the New American Bible.

I have a NEw Amer Stand and it has ALL the books of the Bible in it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Some Protestant today who think Mary is overly venerated in the Catholic Church, and who are fans of the KJV, might be surprised to learn that in the Table of Contents of the 1st Edition of the KJV, the several feast days to be observed include “The Purification of the Blessed Virgin” and the “Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin.”

 

[Bluegoat]

I recently bought an Orthodox New Testament in English and was shocked to find that instead of being a new translation, it was the NKJV. The explanation was that as the original documents were of the Byzantine type, they found the NKJV perfectly acceptable as an English translation.

Yes, I read an article by an OC priest suggesting the KJV for English speaking readers, as preferable to many other choices.

 

[RoryMcKenzie56]

I wonder if this is not related to when these sects developed, rather than any sort of theological issue.

I agree Bluegoat.

It doesn’t seem like an indictment of the KJV that it was translated in 1611, thus available at the time when these groups got their starts. As for the contention that “orthodox Christians” tend to use modern translations, it would seem that the author has forgotten which Bible John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, and many other “orthodox Christians” of Engliush descent used until the modern versions appeared. Virtually all non-Catholic “orthodox Christians” of English descent will be found to have begun with the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

I am Catholic, and use the Douay-Rheims almost exclusively. But I am a convert and most of my memorization is from the KJV. I cannot see how it in any significant way hinders anyone from being a non-Catholic “orthodox Christian”.

 

[FantomScholar]

I agree Bluegoat.

It doesn’t seem like an indictment of the KJV that it was translated in 1611, thus available at the time when these groups got their starts. As for the contention that “orthodox Christians” tend to use modern translations, it would seem that the author has forgotten which Bible John Wesley, Charles Spurgeon, Dwight L. Moody, and many other “orthodox Christians” of Engliush descent used until the modern versions appeared. Virtually all non-Catholic “orthodox Christians” of English descent will be found to have begun with the 1611 AV (Authorized Version).

I am Catholic, and use the Douay-Rheims almost exclusively. But I am a convert and most of my memorization is from the KJV. I cannot see how it in any significant way hinders anyone from being a non-Catholic “orthodox Christian”.

Absolutely, Rory. It would be equivalent to saying that one cannot use the Douay-Rheims, New Jerusalem Bible, or New American Bible and be an orthodox Christian. Unless one is using a seriously mistranslated version, like the JW “Bible,” translations will never hinder one from being able to accurately understand the text. There are no major shifts in doctrine regardless which translation you are using.

I agree that there are modern translations which - like the ESV and NASB - are better Greek to English translations than the AV. Unless you are a Greek student, however, I am not sure that that is going to make much of a difference to an individual.

 

[Esdra]

Before the Bible Students morphed into the Jehovah’s Witnesses, both used the KJB.

**Hi

just a short remark: Are you sure Jehovah’s wittnesses used the KJV before they came out with the “New World Translation”? I have once read in the Internet that they used the ASV - because this was the last bible changing Jehovah to LORD (this was about until 1970 or so when they first published the NWT.)

EDIT: No, you are right. But they also used the ASV. Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation**.

Esdra

Christian Science uses the KJB.
The Way before they came out with their own translation of the NT, used the KJB.
Mormons use the KJB.
World Wide Church of God uses the KJB in the past.
demon seed believers uses the KJB.
And, many more…

Whereas, “modern translations” tend to be used by orthodox christians.

Why is this?