Talk:King James Only/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 7 October 2021. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

King James is Best

Perhaps a "King James is Best" position would be more reasonable.Tolerance 15:09, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Why is that? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:12, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Bless you for the corrections. It is clearly the most inspired. Tolerance 15:16, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Thank you. I always wondered: wouldn't learning the original Hebrew and Greek be the truest method of interpreting the Bible? -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:21, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Well obviously, its in English and we all know that is what they speak in Heaven. tmtoulouse ^heckle 15:18, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

(edit conflict)How could it be the most inspired if it was first written in another language and translated at a much later date? The original language would be the most inspired, would it not, and the most accurate translation would be the second most inspired? Rational Ed^think! 15:20, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

It obviously hasd the most inspired Translators. At least that is my opinion. Tolerance 15:25, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

If it could be clearly demonstrated that an error in translation had been made, would that indicate that the original version was wrong or that the KJV was more inspired? Rational Ed^think! 15:27, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Personally, I feel that all translations had exactly the same amount of divine inspiration. tmtoulouse ^heckle 15:28, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Otherwise I suppose those who were guided by a different version might be in danger of losing their souls... Rational Ed^think! 15:30, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Equality of inspiration is possible - though, perhaps, unlikely. If an error were found, the mistake might have been in the earlier version and then devinly corredted in the KJV. Tolerance 15:31, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

Oh I think equal inspiration is by far the most likely, by a very long shot. They all received the exact same amount of inspiration. (for those not catching on that amount is zero) tmtoulouse ^heckle 15:34, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

KJV issues

1 John 5:7

KJV

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

NLT

So we have these three witnesses

One of the monks preparing the KJV (Erasmus) was under pressure from Rome to include "the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one." to argue against those who where unitarian (in the 1600s sense of the word - someone who argued against the trinity, for example Issac Newton[1]). There is no basis for this translation in any Greek manuscript.

http://www.angelfire.com/hi2/graphic1designer/errors.html also lists many additions that came from the Latin Vulgate rather than any Greek manuscript.

Romans 8:16

KJV

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God

NKJV

The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,

This passage is one that the Jehvoa's Whinesses use in claiming that there is no trinity (the itself vs himself).

Acts 9:7 and Acts 22:9

And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.

And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.

This pair of passages is apparently in contradiction in KJV and used by the Mormons.[2] The issue is that it is a very poor translation into English.[3]

Unicorns

Numbers 23:22, Numbers 24:8 Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9-10, Psalms 22:21, Psalms 29:6, Psalms 92:10, and Isaiah 34:7

The Hebrew is ךםא 'r@'em, r@'eym, reym, or rem depending on how you want to write it.[4] A better translation would probably be auroch or wild bull... not 'unicorn'. Unless someone wants to take the stance that unicorns really existed.

Conclusion

Given the above errors and insertions, while the KJV is poetic and traditional it is still in error and has lead to misinterpretations of the original text. --Shagie 16:33, 13 May 2008 (EDT)

title

"only" should not be capitalized. Shall we move this thing? ħuman 03:22, 17 July 2008 (EDT)

NewAge thingyamagig

I'm really not sure what the New Age bible has to do with the King James Only page. There is a page on bible translations, and perhaps it goes there, but this page seems to be about the phenomena in the US that some archaic book that no one understands anyhow is BEST when translated into some archaic language that no one understands. Unless I'm missing the point of the 2nd section.--WaitingforGodot 15:17, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

I'm not quite sure what this is about. Haven't read the book, but Jack Chick apparently likes it. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:29, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

eh, i went and read amazon.com. I edited the paragraph so it makes a bit more sense to me, at least. Give me a google, and i'll find anything. Course, some of us didn't even HAVE google in school. we had to do things the hard way, with Science Citation Index, and LLM Index. so, "riplinger bible" or better "riplinger wiki" is a nice thing to have at your fingers. ;-)--WaitingforGodot 15:34, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Hmm. I must have been in last year of high school when Google started (late '98?), so it wasn't much use to me until in uni a few years later, either. Or Wiki, for that matter. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 15:40, 24 July 2008 (EDT)

Quotes from preface

A BON has added some quotes from the preface, however I always dislike incomplete quotes as they always feel quote-miney. Any thoughts? - User $\pi$ 23:58, 4 December 2008 (EST)

I dunno, they look sort of ok to me. Do they check out, at least, as being representative of what the editors meant? Remember, the KJV was the first wiki ;) (that we know of) ħuman 00:39, 5 December 2008 (EST)

I'm not thrilled with the placement of the quotes, but they are fairly "fundamental" to the article I guess, so belong above the TOC. Or should they get their own section??? ħuman 00:41, 5 December 2008 (EST)

Maybe under a section with a snarky title like selected quotes or something. - User $\pi$ 01:05, 5 December 2008 (EST)

So, there you go for refs to Google Books scanned copy in full context. Enjoy. --Shagie 01:24, 5 December 2008 (EST)"

It is not the legitimacy of quotes I am questioning it is whether they reflect what the author intended them to say. - User $\pi$ 05:35, 5 December 2008 (EST)