-2

Proponent of King James bible themselves points the differences between King James and modern standard. If we assume the modern translation is accurate, that means KJV must be quite wrong then.

The doctrines that they complain about are significant:

Let the heathen rage, God is still on His throne! To those who love the Lord Jesus Christ enough to protect the Doctrine of Christ (2nd John 1:9), the King James Bible is unquestionably the ONLY Bible standing true to that purpose. ALL modern versions attack the deity of Christ, His virgin birth, the blood of Jesus, the Godhead, the reality of Hellfire, and the sinlessness of Christ. Don't believe it? Hundreds of words, phrases, and even entire Bible verses were removed from the Word of God by the NIV butchers. Take a look at all the words REMOVED just from the New International version alone...

Whereas the King James Bible mentions the "Godhead" three times, the NIV has completely removed the word. You won't find the word "propitiation" in the NIV either. In fact, all of the following words have been removed from the Bible by the NIV butchers: regeneration, mercyseat, Calvary, remission, Jehovah, immutable, omnipotent, Comforter, Holy Ghost, Messiah, quickened, infallible, et cetera. One of the most blasphemous omissions in the NIV is in John 3:16 where Jesus is no longer proclaimed as the "only BEGOTTEN Son of God."

Yes, that's right, the NIV butchers removed the word "begotten" from John 3:16. How in the name of truth and justice could any professed Christian use the New International Version? Yet, it's the most popular bible version sold on the market today. If I had a billion dollars, I'd make an offer to churches all across America. I'd exchange brand new King James Bibles for their perverted NIVs. I'd give them new Bibles for their old corrupt bibles. They would first have to give me their NIVs so I could BURN THEM! I'd burn every NIV I could find.

That's not all that the wicked NIV deceivers took out of the Bible. The word "sodomite" is completely gone, as is the words: fornication, trucebreakers, winebibbers, carnal, slothful, unthankful, effeminate, backbiting, vanity, lasciviousness, whoredom, devils, Lucifer, damnation, brimstone, and the bottomless pit. I'm not kidding, go check for yourself! All these words in the King James Bible have been stricken from the New International Version. We ought to call it the H.I.V., because it's more deadly than the AIDS virus.

Atheists have their own complain about KJV bible

The King James Version of the New Testament

The King James version of the New Testament was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England.

There were (and still are) no original texts to translate. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the last apostle died. There are over 8000 of these old manuscripts, with no two alike.

The King James translators used none of these, anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version their king and Parliament would approve.

So, 21st Century Christians believe the “Word of God” is a book edited in the 17th Century from 16th Century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th Century scrolls that claim to be copies of lost letters written in the 1st Century.

That’s not faith. That’s insanity.

References: http://bit.ly/MbXj7Z, http://bit.ly/Mymb9J

This is what atheists claim. If the most popular version of the bible in history is so messed up, can we believe that God take care of gospels?

I've also heard that King James are actually homosexuals and many verses are heavily influenced by political interests at that time. Also many important christian doctrines, like shedding of blood is necessary for forgiveness of sin (which is nowhere mentioned in the bible explicitly) is added. In fact, that's why we have King James only movement. Namely that they defend doctrines only relevant if your bible is king james.

Sample claims: http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html

Community
  • 1
user4951
  • 1,179
  • 7
  • 20
  • 30
  • 1
    See What is “Manuscript Evidence” and how is it useful? – David Stratton Jul 02 '13 at 02:23
  • Aaaand finally, this isn't the place to debate/discuss/ask/answer how "true" anything is. – David Stratton Jul 02 '13 at 03:02
  • 3
    The claims are mostly non sequitur arguments, presumably composed by individuals whose sole interest is to defame the Bible without ever having read it or taken it seriously in an academically rigorous and historical context. Nevertheless, the King James Version has been criticized for its weaknesses. The KJV is a well known remarkable achievement of English prose and may be studied as such. – Double U Jul 02 '13 at 03:15
  • Can you narrow down your definition of "true"? The problem with "true" is that it has many definitions. – Double U Jul 02 '13 at 03:35
  • It's interesting that the references generally support the diligence of the translators, and don't wholly support any of the claims made here. One specifically mentions the 47 translators (not eight); the other dates papyri to 200AD. – Andrew Leach Jul 02 '13 at 06:22
  • Shouldn't this be "how accurate a translation is the KJV"? That is an important question, and I have seen many argue (from both camps) that the Greek originals say different things – justbelieve Jul 02 '13 at 07:16
  • Eve though I gave an answer to much of this below, this question has so much unsubstantiated claims, misinformation, and outright falsehoods that I'm not sure it can be salvaged at all. – Narnian Jul 02 '13 at 12:33
  • 3
    I do not think it's duplicate. I am not asking how accurate bible is. I am asking how accurate king james bible is. Some comments shows that not very. If the most popular bible is not preserved, how do we know if God bother preserving bible at all. – user4951 Jul 03 '13 at 02:25
  • Can you please tell us what you mean by "accuracy of the Bible"? Do you expect that the Bible would be "accurate" on a certain topic, and how so? I think the term that you are looking for is not "accuracy", but rather, "biblically inspired". You may also want to look up "textual criticism" or "source criticism". – Double U Jul 03 '13 at 03:12
  • Some says that King James are actually homosexuals and many verses are heavily influenced by political interests at that time. – user4951 Jul 03 '13 at 07:42
  • I'm not going to vote to re-open this. Questions worded along the lines of "I've heard this, refute it if you can" are Not Constructive at best. – Andrew Leach Jul 03 '13 at 10:02
  • http://etb-history-theology.blogspot.com/2012/03/king-james-was-gay.html – user4951 Jul 03 '13 at 10:38
  • The question cited as evidence for "duplicate" takes an entirely different tack, is not about the King James bible. – pterandon Jul 03 '13 at 12:12
  • 1
    Even though the accuracy of various translations is an important topic, it's too wide for a single question, and it needs to be approached from a serious perspective, not based on random claims by misguided websites. Having said that, please change the close reason -- this is certainly not a duplicate. – justbelieve Jul 03 '13 at 13:29
  • Actually I added more reasons why this question is VERY important. King James proponent themselves claim that MAJOR christian doctrines are supported only by King James. If this were true and NIV is correct, we're in deep s*t.... – user4951 Jul 03 '13 at 13:32
  • What? The word sodomite is never in the original bible? That's very misleading there. What about if sodom is punished for high crime rate instead of homosexuality? It can be politically significant. – user4951 Jul 03 '13 at 13:34
  • KJV proponent says that KJV significantly differ from NIV. When something differs they can't both be right. So that means God doesn't preserve accuracy of the bible then? In this question, I presume NIV is correct and question KJV accuracy? – user4951 Jul 04 '13 at 12:03
  • Jim this question is turning into a bigger and bigger mess. Why don't you take a step back and ask yourself what you are actually trying to learn here, then edit it down to just that issue. Do you want to know how God could preserve his word? Or how the KJV translation process worked? Or what the deal is with the NIV having a few phrase differences? Stop trying to quote every antagonist on the web and just make this about what your question is. What do you want to come away understanding about the Christian perspective to an issue? – Caleb Jul 04 '13 at 12:44

1 Answers1

8

There is much misinformation in the article you cite.

The King James Version

First of all, there were not merely eight people who translated the KJV, but 47, as Wikipedia attests.

Manuscript Variance

It is true, too, that no two original language manuscripts are identical. However, the differences are, in the vast number of cases, meaningless or minute. In only a few cases is there really any question of meaning, but none of these brings into questions any doctrine of Christianity.

The differences largely consist of spelling variances, oftentimes in proper names like Moses or Capernaum. This is akin to the variant spelling of color and colour. Another major difference is word order, but in Greek this has not impact on meaning or translation. This is akin to saying either "I am going to the store" or "To the store I am going". So, again, are there differences? Yes. But is the meaning changed at all? No. See this question for more examples.

Indeed, the fact that scholarship continued to unearth new manuscripts shows the seriousness with which translation is done. There are codexes that date back to the 400s not discovered until the 1800s, and of course, the Dead Sea Scrolls unearthed in 1957 that weren't available to the translators of the KJV - and they prove how good that translation is.

The Invention of the KJV

The King James Version is, indeed, the most used translation of all time. However, the assertion that this is some invention of 16th Century religious fanatics with a message of their own to propagate is absolutely absurd.

The KJV is not the first translation of the Bible at all. It isn't even the first translation into English. Prior to that was the Wycliffe translation, Bishop's Bible, the Matthew's Bible, the Tyndale Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and others. All of these versions are extremely similar, and the differences have to do with either difficulties in translating a particular word or phrase or in the selection of close synonyms in English.

These also conform to the previous Latin translations, so the KJV is an accurate translation of a preponderance of evidence that supports the original readings. The Textus Recptus on which it was based literally means "the received text" because it was so widely used and translated.

Finally, even if the King James Version isn't the best available today, there are lots of other translations available. That they differ so little is testament to how ridiculous it is to assert that there was any form of collusion. Indeed, there are even questions on this site about how to judge the accuracy of the text yourself and published tools you can consult see how the various manuscripts came together to give us what we have today.

Conclusion

Thus, the article you cite might be amusing to the unlearned who are hostile to Christianity, but it is factually wrong on many points and dishonest about historical realities.

Even if all that were true, it would be pretty amazing that such a book would be banned by so many countries, attacked by so many secular philosophers, and hated by so many atheists.

Some have predicted the death of both God and His Word, yet its pulse today is stronger than ever, and its message continues to reach into the most remote and most hostile places of the world.

Many who have tried to disprove its message have convinced themselves, against their own will, of its truthfulness, and have come to faith in Christ (Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell, Simon Greenleaf and others).

Many others who have been prisoners of depravity, in the depths of corruption, or on the brink of suicide, have found hope and peace and fulfillment in its pages.

That is not a bad record for a book that is supposedly a man-made invention.

Community
  • 1
Narnian
  • 63,790
  • 69
  • 243
  • 482