5 Reasons The King James Version Only Movement Is
Completely Nuts
Let me get one thing straight before
I even start this list. The King Jame Bible on your shelf right now is not the
same as the original 1611 KJV. In fact, the 1611 KJV Bible that you can buy on
amazon or any other Bible store is still not the same as the real 1611 King
James.
The Bible you see above…..is
“like” the 1611 version. Except it’s missing all
the Apocryphal books. Which, contrary to popular belief, were
included in all the original Bibles. But just to stay as “pure” as possible, I
will only quote from the 1611 KJV Bible in this post.
And when hee had apprehended
him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers
to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.
This is one of the funnest things to point out to people who refuse to read those wretched, evil, new-age translations, and swear by only the good old King Jimmy. Why is it so fun? Because most of them are willing to bet an arm and a leg that the translators of the KJV would NEVER make a mistake like that! This is much to big of a mistake to overlook. And after all, the King James is the perfect word of God in English. At least that is what they were taught to believe.
Yea, that’s how I remember it. Jesus
was all about Easter!
But KJV advocate are SOOO intent on
proving that that KJV is the only Word of God that they will go out of their
way to justify even the smallest mistakes.
Here is one guy’s web page trying to explain why Easter was actually the correct translation. You can see right from the start this its going to be special ….
Here is one guy’s web page trying to explain why Easter was actually the correct translation. You can see right from the start this its going to be special ….
“I will prove to you from the King
James Bible that “Easter” is in fact, the proper word to use.”
And that is exactly what he tries to
do. He attempts to discuss how a word should be translated…..but never actually
looks up what the stinking word was in Greek. This is like trying to fly to the
moon without a rocket ship. How can you prove that something was translated
into English correctly if the only thing you look at is the English
translation? It’s so completely ludicrous it makes my head hurt.
So, before I continue, let me take a
look at the actual text in question.
The Greek word being used is “pascha
(πάσχα).” Which happens to also be the same word used in the Greek version of
the Old Testament that Jesus and the disciples used. Every time they spoke the
word Passover in Greek, it was pascha. Therefore, every Greek lexicon ever has
the definition as Passover.
Ye know that after two dayes is the
feast of the Passeouer, and the Sonne of man is betrayed to be crucified.
Even more special than 400 year old
translation mistakes is when the actual translation sound like a 5th
grader’s joke. That is exactly what happened in James 2:3 when James is giving instructions for people not to give
special treatment to those who are dressed in fine clothes. Unless you’re
reading the KJV; than it’s gay clothes.
Ok now that you mention it, I think
the KJV might be onto something……..
Lets be realistic here. In 1611 gay
meant something different. It meant happy, bright, or radiant. Therefore, the
translation was not actually that far off. It was a fairly good translation
actually. The real issue that the KJV has kept that rendering for over 400
years. Why would any Bible translation do this? Why the heck
not?! Contextualization means nothing when you have mindless drones
who are willing to promote your work whether it is right or wrong.
All I’m saying here is that keeping
language translation up to date with current trends is necessary is something
is going to be relevant.
3.
The KJV is rated at a 5th grade reading level and is statistically easier to
read than the newer translations
The first time I heard this idea I
thought to myself…..”how exactly was this test performed? Because if this is
true than somewhere there are a bunch of 5th graders that have a higher reading
level than I do!!”
The facts of the matter is that this
is information that has been forwarded over and over again in people’s email.
It has NO factual basis. It came originally from charts like the one below.
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level Indicator
|
|||||
KJV
Grade Level |
NIV
Grade Level |
NASB
Grade Level |
TEV
Grade Level |
NKJV
Grade Level |
|
4.4
|
5.1
|
4.7
|
5.1
|
5.2
|
|
4.6
|
4.8
|
5.1
|
5.4
|
4.6
|
|
6.7
|
16.4
|
6.8
|
11.8
|
10.3
|
|
7.5
|
7.1
|
7.7
|
6.4
|
7.7
|
|
Grade
Level Average |
5.8
|
8.4
|
6.1
|
7.2
|
6.9
|
Like all of the KJVO arguments this
one seems like it could almost have some legitimacy about it. But
just a quick look under the hood tells a much clearer story.
The Flesch-Kinkaid reading scale
basically calculates scores based on how many words are in a sentence and
how many syllables are in a word. The more syllable in a word
and the more words in a sentence then the higher it ranks on the “hard to read”
scale. Anyone who thinks this test proves that KJV (against all
normal sensibilities) is easier to read than the NIV obviously doesn’t
understand what the chart represents.
Now, here is why this system has
absolutely nothing to do with the readability of the KJV; no one cares how many
syllables are in a word or how many words are in a sentence. We want the Bible
to use the correct lingo. That is all. Nothing less and nothing more. In fact,
most people would love to read a King James Bible…..but they can’t. Because the
words are no longer understandable by modern English readers.
The preface to the 1611 KJV even
states…
But how shall men meditate in that,
which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept
close in an unknowen tongue?
2.
Modern Bible translations remove the name of Jesus, among other evils
The first time I read about this
issue I was legitimately concerned. I thought to myself that if
this information is true then the modern translators have some real
explaining to do . I did some research and found a table outlining the issue…
Scripture
Reference
|
KJV
|
NIV
|
Jesus
|
he
|
|
Jesus
|
his
|
|
Jesus, thou Son of God
|
Son
of God
|
|
Jesus the Christ
|
the
Christ
|
|
Jesus Christ
|
Christ
|
|
Christ Jesus
|
Christ
|
|
Jesus
|
the
Lord
|
|
Lord Jesus
|
Lord
|
|
Lord Jesus Christ
|
Lord
Christ
|
|
Lord Jesus Christ
|
Lord
|
|
the
body of Jesus
|
the
body
|
|
Son Jesus
|
servant
|
|
Son Jesus Christ
our Lord
|
Son
|
|
Jesus
|
Joshua
|
|
Jesus
|
[not
present, but it is in the footnote]
|
|
Jesus
|
[not
present]
|
And then I did what every
responsible should do; I did a reverse look up in my NIV Bible for the name of
Jesus and found that quite often the KJV removed the name of Jesus where the
NIV kept it. Hrrrmm that’s interesting! As it turns out this is one of those
arguments that can be turned right back around to defeat the claim it
initially made. Never mind the fact that the claim was erroneous to
begin with since the word “he” in the context of the passage is the same as
using the name of who ever the subject is……Jesus. Here is the list of the times
the NIV uses the name of Jesus and the KJV does not.
As you can see, this argument
doesn’t bode well for those who claim that modern translations are trying to
remove the name of Jesus. But thanks to Gail Riplinger’s famous book, “New Age Versions.” But wait, it gets better. This is perhaps the worst
teaching on Bible translation I have ever heard…..ever! But it is so fun to
listen to I can’t stop myself.
That good KJV Bible preacher sure
was getting upset talking about this issue! This audio track is so full
of hilarious gibberish that I can’t even address it all right
now, but it is worth your time in entertainment value to listen to the whole
thing. I will be writing an entire post on this video soon. Look back soon for
that post.
However, for now I will say that you
can’t prove if something is correct or not by comparing it to the thing you
claim is correct. You have to compare the NIV and the KJV to the original
language to see which is the most accurate. I could easily perform the same
arguments on the KJV if I held that the NIV was the only Word of God in
English.
1.
The King James Version has not been changed or altered, but has been preserved
because it is God’s perfect Word in English
Out of all the items on the list the
KJV people throw at me, this one makes the least amount of sense. This is why;
because in the front of nearly every KJV is a preface that explains
how it was that the Bible the reader is now holding came to be. It also explains
that the KJV has been updated and revised a dozen times or so. It also states
that the newest updates include newly discovered manuscripts and new critical
revisions. Which means that the KJV has indeed changed over time. They just
keep that same archaic language to make you think its the same….because most
people who own Bibles won’t notice the difference between one or two words.
The editors also note that it was
not their intent to make a perfect translation, just a better translation. This
is evidenced by the 8,500+ marginal notes that describe translation issues and
alternate readings.
Wait a minute….did they cut the
ankers or did they take them up? Ooh no! Satan has altered the sacred
text! Burn it!!!!
Hey why doesn’t my spell-check
recognize anker? Oooh that’s right, it isn’t spelled that way anymore!
For
more KJVO fun visit some of these sites!
Related
In "Christian Living"
In "Christian Living"
In "Comedy"
1611 king james
· authorized version
· easter in the bible
· errors in the king james
· errors in the KJV
· flesch-kincaid grade level indicator · gail ripllinger
· is the king james perfect? KJVO · kjv 5th grade reading level · modern translations remove the name of jesus · new age translations
· new translations omit verses · passover in the bible
· perverted bible translations · the NIV is satanic
Previous
Article
Next Article
Related
Articles & Comments
- Pingback: Unicorns In The Bible (The King James Bible [KJV] Of Course) | Dust Off The Bible
- Pingback: An Article I wrote on the ESV - Christian Forums
- I have to tell you that it’s hard to find
build some quality backlinks in order to rank your webiste,
i know how to help you, just search in google – k2 seo tips
0 likes
- I see a lot of interesting posts on your blog. You have to spend
creates unique, SEO friendly posts in couple of minutes, just search in google
– laranita’s free content source
0 likes
- Pingback: Bible Verses That Don't Actually Appear In The Bible | Dust Off The Bible
- Pingback: Christian Assault Rifles Now For Sale; Metal Jackets For Jesus | Dust Off The Bible
- See more
at:
http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2012/08/24/5-mistakes-the-prove-the-king-james-version-only-people-are-completely-nuts/#sthash.mdYfqmRN.dpuf
http://dustoffthebible.com/Blog-archive/2012/08/24/5-mistakes-the-prove-the-king-james-version-only-people-are-completely-nuts/
0 comments :
Post a Comment