Correcting the King James Bible

[John81]

Correcting the King James Bible

by Steven Anderson, 2006


1. Is the King James Bible the Word of God?

2. Do the Original Greek and Hebrew Manuscripts Still Exist?

3. Why Do Preachers Correct the King James Bible?

[Jerry]

I am certainly not for "going back to the Greek" to correct the KJV - but I think Word studies, etc. are very useful. The English language has changed - though the underlying Biblical Hebrew and Greek have not (they are dead languages) - therefore the meaning of those words has not changed.

I use the Hebrew and Greek to better understand the English, not change or correct it. As such it is a tool, not a replacement. I believe Scrivener's is the closest we will get to NT Greek today. Yes, it was a reconstruction, based on studying out the various TR manuscripts, finding out which readings the KJV translators used, and then putting them into one text. I use it for vocabulary - and not to translate the Bible over myself. You don't have to understand verb tenses to be able to figure out what a word means (you would need to know them if you were translating the sentence itself).

[quote]
Not only that, but a fire destroyed all the notes of the King James Bible translators shortly after the work was completed, so we are left with almost nothing as to which texts they actually translated from but pure guesswork.
[/quote]

I have never heard this before - a little interesting.

[Kubel]

[url=http://www.datchet.com/users/history/Robert%20Barker%20complete/robert_barker.htm]History of Robert Barker[/url]

Basically, if Norton got the prototype KJV in the lawsuit, there's a very good chance it is ashes, since his HQ was in London, and London went up in flames in the great fire.

But if what the printers say is correct, it was probably hidden by the Barkers, most likely in the village of Datchet.

In any case, history first notes that it was gone in 1701 (printers note it was hidden), or as early as 1666 (Great Fire of London). And that I find very interesting but I'll spare you all as to why.
:hide

[pneu-engine]

We still have to answer the following questions:::::::::

1. Is God in control, or not???

2. Is God capable of preserving His Word in all of Its Magnificent Perfection, or not???

3. Are we going to believe God or the devil???

4 To whom will we give the benefit of the doubt::: God or Satan???

It matters not to me what some historian may say about the translators' notes of the KJV. I personally choose to believe that God not only can, but did indeed, preserve His perfect Word in Its entirety.

[John81]

I know I really hate it when I'm reading what seems to be a fine biblical article, sermon or text and suddenly you come to a point where the author states something like, "The KJV says this, but it would be BETTER put this way." Or, "A better translation would be ________." Or even worse, they start quoting from various Bible versions and then add their own interpretation!

I don't mind an author clarifying or expanding from the Greek, but when they are outright changing the word or phrase, that's something else entirely.

There was a little publication I used to read that started adding "better than the KJV" bits in it. Eventually this led to them adding the NIV verse next to what they didn't like in the KJV as a "better choice". I dropped that publication.

[pneu-engine]

I know what you mean, John. :(

Equally terrible is what Scofield says in many of his notes. He'll say something like, [b]"The oldest MSS say...", [/b]or [b]"...not in the oldest MSS". [/b]I hate it when I see that. :mad: :B :B :B

[Pastorj]

I agree with Jerry on this one. The article is too much like Ruckmanism for me.

[John81]

I have a Ryrie Study Bible and there are places where he says that "older manuscripts" say or don't say something as the KJV does. :roll:

Who is this Ruckman? I noticed his name mentioned here before but thought maybe he was some local preacher or something y'all were discussing. Now I see his name mentioned elsewhere too where someone said people either love or hate Ruckman, there is no in between. So what's the deal with this guy?

[pneu-engine]

He's one that makes a very bad name for us KJV-only-ites. He goes to the other extreme and says that the KJV corrects the original manuscripts. He's all soaking wet. :(

The KJV is the English translation blessed by God all down through the ages, and is completely perfect in its translation, but we cannot translate backwards and get the TR or the Masoretic text.

[John81]

I think I ran into one of his followers on another list. He was spouting off about the KJV was somehow more accurate that the texts it came from! :? Eventually, the name of Ruckman showed up as someone he was quoting to back up his position.

Interestingly, or worriedly, there were at least three other people that there that seemed to agree with him. :(

[Pastorj]

John,

Unfortunately all of the notes in the study bibles out there are for all of the versions. I have stopped using these notes. I use a Thompson Chain, but only for Cross Ref. helps and maps. I don't read the notes because they are predominantly based on the modern translations.

[dwayner79]

PastorJ,

Just curious. Do you use any commentaries. Study Notes to me are a watered down commentary.

Thanks.

[Pastorj]

I use a couple, but over the years, I have gotten away from commentaries more and more. I use them now if I am really stuck or if I am looking for someone else's opinion on a verse to see if my interpretation lines up with someone else. I also only use reference books from people who are dead. They can't change their beliefs, unless someone else edits them.

[dwayner79]

I use them after I have studied out the passage. Once I have a firm grasp of what my interpretation is, I try to check it with some of the greats. I find that helpful, because they will sometimes give a bit of history or some other bit of knowledge that will solidify a point, or require its adjustment. If I am way off in Left field, I know I need to start over. I do not really trust myself enough to go it alone, so that is why I generally check what I am thinking with a few trusted sources.

Interesting view on the dead people. Makes sense, however I find it important for people to realize that God is not dead, and that he is working today. To each his own, I guess, I just like some of the current preachers as much as the old timers.

Thanks for the reply.

[Pastorj]

I like the current preachers, but I choose not to use their commentaries yet.