Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Sign in to follow this  
countressrascal

Could someone explain to me - King James Version

Recommended Posts

countressrascal

Why is there such a big thing about being a follower of the King James version vs others? Not being of the faith, Jewish,why is this a big deal? I know I am missing out on the trilogy (Old and new testament plus The Book of Mormon), that is life.

Edited by OnceUponATime
adding tags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ilovetchotchkes
Why is there such a big thing about being a follower of the King James version vs others? Not being of the faith, Jewish,why is this a big deal? I know I am missing out on the trilogy (Old and new testament plus The Book of Mormon), that is life.

Supposedly (and FMOTT here) I've heard from fundie friends that its because its the "only true translation" because it was supposedly inspired by G-d directly or something.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
snarkykitty

Supposedly (and FMOTT here) I've heard from fundie friends that its because its the "only true translation" because it was supposedly inspired by G-d directly or something.

:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:

And they know this because of...oral tradition? You mean the method by which the stories were told until they started writing them down, verse by verse, book by book?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
slickcat79

I really think the KJV was the Conservapedia Bible Project of its day. It was only the third English translation, and the puritans weren't happy with the earlier versions. It's supposed to most accurately reflect the structure of the Church of England, which had a huge influence on protestantism in the US.

I'm not really sure how they figured the KJV was supposed to be more legit than anything else. Even translating from Latin and Greek, you're still going off of texts that were translated, added to and altered (accidentally and deliberately) over the course of centuries :?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
O Latin

I think it's because it's the oldest English translation that is widely available today. Presumably they think that the further back you go, the closer you get to the original, which doesn't seem like bad logic if you don't know anything about Bible translating (which I don't). I know some people have issues with the KJV, but I like it because I like that flowy, 16th/17th century style of writing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GeoBQn

Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman does a great job of explaining why the KJV ended up the way it did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
QuoVadis

The people that are KJV only are a small subset of fundies. They are known as "KJVO-ers" (O for only). Ruckmanites are the best known. Basically the reasons are two-fold. The extreme view is "re-inspiration" - that God actually re-inspired the 1611 KJV version; less extreme is that He has "miraculously preserved" only that English version. The other reasoning behind it has to do with which texts were used for translations - the KJVOers believe that the Textus Receptus is superior.....there are also arguments made against later translators due to their beliefs. It is also held as the best translation because of the "direct translation" technique that was used, versus, say, paraphrased translation. And then, many people simply prefer it due to familiarity, tradition, and its perceived "magnificence" of language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
myanimus
It is also held as the best translation because of the "direct translation" technique that was used, versus, say, paraphrased translation. And then, many people simply prefer it due to familiarity, tradition, and its perceived "magnificence" of language.

That would be me, I have little explanation for my feelings except it's what I like.

We also have other Bible's though, my husband has the NIV or something and that's cool but for me I prefer the KJV. Don't even get me started on my desire to find a 1611, I think there are some differences but couldn't tell you what they are, either way I want one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bookworm89

My sister being in this camp, says its because it was the "best inspired word of God in English" translation. She tried to tell me it was the first english translation and I told it wasn't, she was mad and said I was misinformed, I did the research and printed it out (since they don't use the internet) and handed it to her. It felt good and bad to see her eat her words...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CynicMom

I was taught that versions subsequent to the KJV had changes made for readability reasons. The KJV was better because it wasn't watered down. KJV=more intellectual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joykins

If you get a really hardcore KJV-only they start nattering about Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrine manuscripts.

Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Vulgate (St. Jerome's translation into Latin), not the original language manuscripts (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). The same issues arise when translating the Old Testament from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). You get a translation of a translation. But even the oldest copies of the manuscripts available weren't the originals. I believe some of the KJV was translated from the Septuagint, but also some of the gospel writers also appeared to be quoting that rather than the Hebrew texts.

KJV was done during the Jacobean era, it has some of the beauty of the language of 16th century English poetry in it, a lot of people like it for that reason but aren't really kooky about it like the KJV-only people are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Joykins

That would be me, I have little explanation for my feelings except it's what I like.

We also have other Bible's though, my husband has the NIV or something and that's cool but for me I prefer the KJV. Don't even get me started on my desire to find a 1611, I think there are some differences but couldn't tell you what they are, either way I want one.

Most of the differences are spelling/grammar/punctuation, and some wording. 1611 was before standardized English spelling. Wikipedia explains them with examples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
punkiepie

It all has to do with the manuscripts used for translation. The KJV was translated from many Byzantine manuscripts that's collectively referred to as the Textus Receptus. Those were created between 500-1000 AD and when the KJV was being translated, there were no other known older texts- they hadn't been found yet. The newer translations, like the NIV, use different sets of manuscripts- ones that were found after 1611, but were created earlier than the Textus Receptus. Those sets are called the Alexandrian Family Manuscripts and their date of creation is somewhere between 200-400 AD. (Specifically, they are the Codex Alexandrius, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus)

The KJV includes a number of things that most other translations leave out because of irregularities between what the original manuscripts said and what was translated. There is also the issue of interference from the Church of England and the influence it had on

the translating process, for example, baptism. In the original Greek, the word used is "immerse." (As in, Jesus was immersed by John the Baptist.) But because the COE didn't baptize by immersion, they had every use of the word immerse changed to baptize.

The KJVO believe that God wouldn't allow any corruption of His word to ever occur without having another unadulterated source. The true word of God was revealed in the 1611 translation and any attempts to change or alter it is of the DEVIL. Seriously. That's what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VintageJen1984

A lot of KJVO-ers think the newer English translations are simply rephrasings on the KJV. And rephrased because we are too stupid. Which changes the meaning because this word doesn't mean the same thing as that word.

Two problems: the newer versions are also based off Textus Receptus or Alexandrian, not the KJV.

Also, the English that was spoken in 1611 was Early Modern, the English we speak today is Modern. (Sounds similar, but isn't the same.) The KJV is fairly contemporary to Shakespeare, and we all know how everyone loves to and is so great at studying that. :roll:

So yes, even translating from the same source, the words they will use will be different. Because we don't speak the same way and we don't understand Early Modern English.

I feel I am not explaining this very well. :oops:

P.S. no foul meant to any Shakespeare lovers and understanders, I am one of you. ;)

P.P.S. The 1611 King James Bible had the deuterocanonicals included. The lack of deuterocanonicals in over 90% of the Protestant church is one of the things that drive me crazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patsy

Huh. I am totally ignorant on this. So do the KJV proponents use a different KJV Bible? Because I have to say, it would surprise me a little to hear that all the KJV proponents we hear about have actually been including "Tobit" and "Judith" in their preaching. Or do they have the 1611 translation but with those passages removed, and no other changes? According to Pastor Wikipedia, the 1769 Oxford version also included the apocrypha. Also according to Pastor Wikipedia, there have been a few versions printed over the years excluding the apocrypha. All the same, doesn't that mean their KJVs are also an extra step removed from a true translation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
VintageJen1984
Huh. I am totally ignorant on this. So do the KJV proponents use a different KJV Bible? Because I have to say, it would surprise me a little to hear that all the KJV proponents we hear about have actually been including "Tobit" and "Judith" in their preaching. Or do they have the 1611 translation but with those passages removed, and no other changes? According to Pastor Wikipedia, the 1769 Oxford version also included the apocrypha. Also according to Pastor Wikipedia, there have been a few versions printed over the years excluding the apocrypha. All the same, doesn't that mean their KJVs are also an extra step removed from a true translation?

Yes, this. Although most of them are pretty comfortable buying a KJV without the number 1611 in front of it.

I spent the first 20ish years of my life not only being fed the lie "Catholics added extra books to the Bible!" But also never hearing it refuted. I was in college before I ever heard a Catholic say "actually, no, Protestants took books out of the Bible." Which, to someone not educated on the Apocrypha at all, sounded like a "tit for tat" type of response. It wasn't until I studied it in a college Humanities class that I found out the Catholic was right. I then also learned the Orthodox have 3 or 4 books the Catholics don't have.

It wasn't until earlier this year (I'm 26) that I was visiting a friend's Episcopal church and learned "Hey! Some Protestants have the Apocryphal books, too!" and went home and learned even more about the subject. Luther never removed the Apocrypha (he did stick them all at the back of the Old Testament and called them "inter-testamental") but some time during the history of the Lutheran church, they stopped using them.

I have often wondered why the Christians omitted so much of the Jewish canon that was available at the time. Is it because most of it was simply Jewish law that was unnecessary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FuManchu

The rationalisation is sometimes used that when Greek was the international language (lingua franca) of the world, the true Bible was in Greek to ensure that it reached the most people; when Latin was the international language of the world, God allowed the true Bible to be in Latin for the same reason, and now English is the most important language in the world the true Bible is in English - and God's translation project resulted in the KJV.

Not that the KJV-only people can conceive of English being supplanted in due course like the other languages were: for non-evolution types you'd be surprised to what degree they regard the day and age in which they happen to be living as the pinnacle of human development.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
formergothardite

Most of the KJV only people I know say that all other versions are translated from the KJV but leave things out, therefore the KJV is the only "real" Bible. Almost all of them are IFB who also believe that the IFB denomination can trace it's history back to Jesus, so it is the only "true church". I think they just like feeling superior to everyone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bananacat

I think a lot of people who are KJV-only just think it sounds more intellectual to have fancy old-fashioned words. That often means that they can't even understand it themselves, but that's a bonus for them because it's easier to misinterpret it to mean anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1004srs

I am RC, but I do have a NIV Women's BIble that I enjoy reading. The stories are actually really good.

Before my year or so in the fundie-lite church I had never even opened a bible. Catholics just don't generally read the bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnoDomini
If you get a really hardcore KJV-only they start nattering about Textus Receptus vs. Alexandrine manuscripts.

Wycliffe's Bible was translated from the Vulgate (St. Jerome's translation into Latin), not the original language manuscripts (Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic). The same issues arise when translating the Old Testament from the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament). You get a translation of a translation. But even the oldest copies of the manuscripts available weren't the originals. I believe some of the KJV was translated from the Septuagint, but also some of the gospel writers also appeared to be quoting that rather than the Hebrew texts.

KJV was done during the Jacobean era, it has some of the beauty of the language of 16th century English poetry in it, a lot of people like it for that reason but aren't really kooky about it like the KJV-only people are.

That's what my parents say. Also they refer to Harold Camping's 'Let's Weigh The Evidence' book comparing KJV and other versions. I grew up with and therefor prefer the KJV, but sometimes the run-on sentences, endless paragraphs and labyrinthine language makes me wish there were an equally faithful, modern-day language translation, because oftentimes I do not understand even the historical account portions of the Bible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kitty

A lot of KJVOers I know of insist that since the KJV is the oldest English translation, it hasn't been marred by "political correctness" and "social agendas". As if political bias were one of those newfangled ideas that didn't exist until 300 years later...

I find that a lot of conservatives and fundies take the Bible at face value, ignoring the original Greek/Hebrew texts, historical context, and knowledge of bloody anything relating to the Bible. Which leads to cherry-picking. Which is hypocrisy, something fundies are notorious for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.