KING JAMES' BLUNDERS

[Rella]

POST 3 OF 3

12. The Septuagint and Hebrew mistranslations could hold major revelations about the Virgin Mary.​

The text of the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek more than two centuries before the Common Era, meaning some Old Testament books were available in Greek before the New Testament was written. The Greek translation is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint is generally agreed upon by scholars as containing numerous errors of translation based upon poorly understood Hebrew synonyms. The translators allowed several Hebrew words to be used interchangeably when their meanings in the original were very much different. One of these is the Hebrew word alma, which was translated into Greek as meaning virgin, when in fact it refers to a young woman, betulah being the Hebrew word to refer to a pure woman, that is, a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 prophecies the birth of Emmanuel to a virgin, and is quoted in the first Chapter of Matthew, describing the virgin birth of Christ, one of the bases of Christianity. But Isaiah uses the Hebrew word amah, meaning a young woman, rather than betulah, meaning a pure woman. Matthew quotes the virgin birth as being the fulfillment of the prophet, the delivery of the Messiah. But the translation is wrong. The word amah appears only once in Isaiah (7:14) but the word betulah appears five times in the book, each time clearly in reference to a virgin (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5). The translation into Greek remains the source of the description of the prophecy of the virgin birth, it is not apparent in the original Hebrew.

13. Problems from the beginning – the very beginning. The creation story translated directly from Hebrew Texts gives Genesis a whole new meaning.​

The first verse of the King James Version of the bible reads, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. The original Hebrew does not contain the definite article the, and pluralizes heaven to heavens. It also includes when correctly translated into English the word had and thus the verse should read, “In a beginning God had created the heavens and the earth”. This translation contains several implications when applied to the verses which follow, since it clearly states that the earth and indeed the universe had been created at an earlier time. Whether the translators of the KJV deliberately altered the meaning or translated it thus out of a lack of knowledge of Hebrew is a matter of speculation.

The same cannot be said of the second verse of Genesis, which refers in the KJV to the earth being “without form and void” a reflection of Calvinist views of the earth being chaotic and shapeless. The Hebrew word translated as meaning without form is tohu, which does not mean what the KJV states it means, but rather refers to consequences, as in the consequences for sin. A word for word translation from Hebrew into English changes the verse to read, “And the earth had become waste and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The basis of the mistranslation of the second verse was based largely on the mistranslation of the first verse of Genesis.

14. “Giants” in the earth could be an enormous mistranslation that rewrites many of the Bible’s stories​

The word giant appears a multitude of times in the King James Version of the bible, nearly always implying persons of enormous size, when the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to stature, but rather character. One example is in the book of Job, when that symbol of extraordinary patience laments, “He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant”. The English word giant is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word gibbor which more accurately translated means a mighty man or a mighty warrior. The word appears accurately translated in Genesis, an indication of the problems input into the King James bible by its manners of creation.

Not all of the committees which produced different books of the King James Bible were staffed with men of equal ability and knowledge of the ancient languages to which they referred. Often nuanced words of Hebrew, which had at one time become nearly extinct, were improperly translated, and when confronted with a Hebrew word of which the committee had insufficient knowledge the corresponding English word in the existing English translations was used. The technique meant that in some books the correct Hebrew meaning was achieved while in others an incorrect meaning prevailed, and still prevails. Newer translations which strive to be more reflective of the original Hebrew and Greek thus detract from the KJV, causing its celebrants to claim they are distorting God’s inerrant word.

15. Isaiah Chapter 9, verses 6 and 7 written in the King James Version reflects the Monarchy’s message to the people: Being King is a divine right.​

The necessity of the creators of the King James Bible to please the monarch who commissioned them is evident in Isaiah, which in Chapter 9 contains two verses which read “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

The Hebrew word mistranslated as government actually means to have power, and appears nowhere else in the Old Testament besides these two verses. The verses as mistranslated support the concept of government to be assumed to be the rightful burden of kings on their thrones. The verse correctly translated substitutes the word power for government, and places it firmly upon the shoulders of the child born, with that power increasing forever. The writer of Matthew (and its KJV translator) correctly summarizes the two verses of Isaiah which served to support the divine right of kings.

16. More Calvinistic influence​

Divine retribution in the form of punishment was a favorite theme of John Calvin, who was a fan of delivering punishments himself whenever the opportunity beckoned. His influence on the Geneva Bible led to a mistranslation which was repeated by the translators in the King James Version. In Zechariah 14:19, the KJV version reads, “This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.” The use of the word punishment first appeared in the Geneva Bible, and is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word meaning not punishment but to sin. The Bishop’s Bible changed the wording to read the plague of Egypt and all nations.

The translators of the KJV accepted the Geneva Bible version of the verse, which if correctly translated from Hebrew reads, “This shall be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles”, clearly an altogether different meaning from the Calvinistic view expressed by the mistranslation. The verse indicates a vengeful and punishing God, a view espoused by Calvin and his followers, but not by the writer of the verse in its original language. Luther’s German bible contained the correct word for sin in German, as did the Latin Vulgate in Latin, but they were not influenced by the Calvinistic views which affected much of the Protestant theology in England at the time.

17. Jesus on the pinnacle verses reflect the views of the translators rather than the original writers.​

According to the King James Version of Matthew, in verse 4:5, “Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple”, a mistranslation which reflected the views of the translators rather than that of the original writers. The Latin Vulgate bible used the word pinnaculum to describe the roof of the temple, which had no steeples or pinnacles as did the churches of seventeenth century England. It was flat. The proper translation from the Greek texts would read on the corner of the roof rather than to a pinnacle, which implies an elevation above the roof itself.

Although the change is relatively insignificant in terms of its reflection on the meaning of the verse, it does indicate that influences besides the source documents and previous translations were included in the King James Version by its translators. Spires, steeples, and church towers were part of the environment for the King James translators, but not the original writers of the gospels. That their (the translators) religious views and their belief in what a proper house of worship should contain was included in their work is evident from such small changes, adding information which was not contained in the original texts, by alterations both large and small.

18. All scripture is inspired by God, including each and every verse in the Bible is NOT what God’s messengers intended.​

One of the most frequently quoted verses cited as proof that the entire contents of the Bible is divinely inspired comes from 2 Timothy. Verse 3:16 reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This is a mistranslation and likely a deliberate one in the King James Version, which was written in part to be the only bible available for use in the Church of England, rendering it, and by extension its leader, the King, infallible and incontrovertible.

The correct translation from the oldest extant copy of 2 Timothy renders the verse in this manner, “All God-breathed scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” By writing that God-breathed scripture – not all scripture – is profitable Paul implies that there is scripture that is not directly the word of God, while some parts of the scripture are. This mistranslation appears in the King James Version and has been altered in later revisions of the bible, which reject the theory that the entire work is the literal word of God, and thus infallible in its teaching, an outrage to some believers in the King James Version.

Where do we find this stuff? Here are our sources:​

“The Text of the New Testament”, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, 1987

“The Amplified Bible of 2015”, by the Lockman Foundation, 2015

“Bible Word Count”, by Vaughn Aubuchon, Vaughn’s Summaries, online

“Amplified Bible Version Information”, by the Lockman Foundation, 2015, online

“Perspectives on the ending of Mark: 4 Views”, by David Alan Black, 2008

“A Possible Case of Lukan Authorship”, by Henry J. Cadbury, The Harvard Theological Review, July 1917

“When God Spoke English: The Making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2011

“Alexander the Corrector: the tormented genius who unwrote the Bible”, by Julia Keay, 2005

“Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2003

“Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why”, by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005

“Extremely rare Wicked Bible goes on sale”, by Alison Flood, The Guardian, October 21, 2015

“When God Spoke Greek”, by Timothy Michael Law, 2013

“The Bible Doesn’t Say That,” by Dr. Joel M. Hoffmann, 2016

“And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning”, by Dr. Joel M. Hoffmann, 2009

“When the King Saved God”, by Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, May 2011

“The Bible in English: history and influence”, by David Daniell, 2003

“God’s Secretaries: the making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2003

“The Real Story Behind the Translation of 2 Timothy 3:16”, by Frank Nelte, nelte.net, November 2008, online

 

[Josheb]

In order to ascribe perfection and error free top the Kjv translation, they would have to hold to inspiration granted to the 1611 translators

I'm not sure I'd agree because a translation is not an original and the infallibility of scripture doctrine does not hold that translations are perfect (only the original revelation). However, tell your view to KJVOnlyists and see how that goes. Gird your loins beforehand .

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

In order to ascribe perfection and error free top the Kjv translation, they would have to hold to inspiration granted to the 1611 translators

Jesus Fan, yes, the translators would have to have been divinely inspired if the KJV is a perfect translation. The only perfect translations are the original manuscripts of the writers who were guided by the Holy Spirit, which no one has access to. But we do have copies of the oldest.

 

[Buff Scott Jr.]

POST 3 OF 3

12. The Septuagint and Hebrew mistranslations could hold major revelations about the Virgin Mary.​

The text of the Hebrew bible was translated into Greek more than two centuries before the Common Era, meaning some Old Testament books were available in Greek before the New Testament was written. The Greek translation is known as the Septuagint. The Septuagint is generally agreed upon by scholars as containing numerous errors of translation based upon poorly understood Hebrew synonyms. The translators allowed several Hebrew words to be used interchangeably when their meanings in the original were very much different. One of these is the Hebrew word alma, which was translated into Greek as meaning virgin, when in fact it refers to a young woman, betulah being the Hebrew word to refer to a pure woman, that is, a virgin.

Isaiah 7:14 prophecies the birth of Emmanuel to a virgin, and is quoted in the first Chapter of Matthew, describing the virgin birth of Christ, one of the bases of Christianity. But Isaiah uses the Hebrew word amah, meaning a young woman, rather than betulah, meaning a pure woman. Matthew quotes the virgin birth as being the fulfillment of the prophet, the delivery of the Messiah. But the translation is wrong. The word amah appears only once in Isaiah (7:14) but the word betulah appears five times in the book, each time clearly in reference to a virgin (23:4, 23:12, 37:22, 47:1, and 62:5). The translation into Greek remains the source of the description of the prophecy of the virgin birth, it is not apparent in the original Hebrew.

13. Problems from the beginning – the very beginning. The creation story translated directly from Hebrew Texts gives Genesis a whole new meaning.​

The first verse of the King James Version of the bible reads, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. The original Hebrew does not contain the definite article the, and pluralizes heaven to heavens. It also includes when correctly translated into English the word had and thus the verse should read, “In a beginning God had created the heavens and the earth”. This translation contains several implications when applied to the verses which follow, since it clearly states that the earth and indeed the universe had been created at an earlier time. Whether the translators of the KJV deliberately altered the meaning or translated it thus out of a lack of knowledge of Hebrew is a matter of speculation.

The same cannot be said of the second verse of Genesis, which refers in the KJV to the earth being “without form and void” a reflection of Calvinist views of the earth being chaotic and shapeless. The Hebrew word translated as meaning without form is tohu, which does not mean what the KJV states it means, but rather refers to consequences, as in the consequences for sin. A word for word translation from Hebrew into English changes the verse to read, “And the earth had become waste and empty; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.” The basis of the mistranslation of the second verse was based largely on the mistranslation of the first verse of Genesis.

14. “Giants” in the earth could be an enormous mistranslation that rewrites many of the Bible’s stories​

The word giant appears a multitude of times in the King James Version of the bible, nearly always implying persons of enormous size, when the Hebrew word so translated does not refer to stature, but rather character. One example is in the book of Job, when that symbol of extraordinary patience laments, “He breaketh me with breach upon breach, he runneth upon me like a giant”. The English word giant is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word gibbor which more accurately translated means a mighty man or a mighty warrior. The word appears accurately translated in Genesis, an indication of the problems input into the King James bible by its manners of creation.

Not all of the committees which produced different books of the King James Bible were staffed with men of equal ability and knowledge of the ancient languages to which they referred. Often nuanced words of Hebrew, which had at one time become nearly extinct, were improperly translated, and when confronted with a Hebrew word of which the committee had insufficient knowledge the corresponding English word in the existing English translations was used. The technique meant that in some books the correct Hebrew meaning was achieved while in others an incorrect meaning prevailed, and still prevails. Newer translations which strive to be more reflective of the original Hebrew and Greek thus detract from the KJV, causing its celebrants to claim they are distorting God’s inerrant word.

15. Isaiah Chapter 9, verses 6 and 7 written in the King James Version reflects the Monarchy’s message to the people: Being King is a divine right.​

The necessity of the creators of the King James Bible to please the monarch who commissioned them is evident in Isaiah, which in Chapter 9 contains two verses which read “For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, the mighty God, the Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this.”

The Hebrew word mistranslated as government actually means to have power, and appears nowhere else in the Old Testament besides these two verses. The verses as mistranslated support the concept of government to be assumed to be the rightful burden of kings on their thrones. The verse correctly translated substitutes the word power for government, and places it firmly upon the shoulders of the child born, with that power increasing forever. The writer of Matthew (and its KJV translator) correctly summarizes the two verses of Isaiah which served to support the divine right of kings.

16. More Calvinistic influence​

Divine retribution in the form of punishment was a favorite theme of John Calvin, who was a fan of delivering punishments himself whenever the opportunity beckoned. His influence on the Geneva Bible led to a mistranslation which was repeated by the translators in the King James Version. In Zechariah 14:19, the KJV version reads, “This shall be the punishment of Egypt, and the punishment of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles.” The use of the word punishment first appeared in the Geneva Bible, and is a mistranslation of the Hebrew word meaning not punishment but to sin. The Bishop’s Bible changed the wording to read the plague of Egypt and all nations.

The translators of the KJV accepted the Geneva Bible version of the verse, which if correctly translated from Hebrew reads, “This shall be the sin of Egypt, and the sin of all nations that come not up to keep the feast of tabernacles”, clearly an altogether different meaning from the Calvinistic view expressed by the mistranslation. The verse indicates a vengeful and punishing God, a view espoused by Calvin and his followers, but not by the writer of the verse in its original language. Luther’s German bible contained the correct word for sin in German, as did the Latin Vulgate in Latin, but they were not influenced by the Calvinistic views which affected much of the Protestant theology in England at the time.

17. Jesus on the pinnacle verses reflect the views of the translators rather than the original writers.​

According to the King James Version of Matthew, in verse 4:5, “Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple”, a mistranslation which reflected the views of the translators rather than that of the original writers. The Latin Vulgate bible used the word pinnaculum to describe the roof of the temple, which had no steeples or pinnacles as did the churches of seventeenth century England. It was flat. The proper translation from the Greek texts would read on the corner of the roof rather than to a pinnacle, which implies an elevation above the roof itself.

Although the change is relatively insignificant in terms of its reflection on the meaning of the verse, it does indicate that influences besides the source documents and previous translations were included in the King James Version by its translators. Spires, steeples, and church towers were part of the environment for the King James translators, but not the original writers of the gospels. That their (the translators) religious views and their belief in what a proper house of worship should contain was included in their work is evident from such small changes, adding information which was not contained in the original texts, by alterations both large and small.

18. All scripture is inspired by God, including each and every verse in the Bible is NOT what God’s messengers intended.​

One of the most frequently quoted verses cited as proof that the entire contents of the Bible is divinely inspired comes from 2 Timothy. Verse 3:16 reads, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” This is a mistranslation and likely a deliberate one in the King James Version, which was written in part to be the only bible available for use in the Church of England, rendering it, and by extension its leader, the King, infallible and incontrovertible.

The correct translation from the oldest extant copy of 2 Timothy renders the verse in this manner, “All God-breathed scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” By writing that God-breathed scripture – not all scripture – is profitable Paul implies that there is scripture that is not directly the word of God, while some parts of the scripture are. This mistranslation appears in the King James Version and has been altered in later revisions of the bible, which reject the theory that the entire work is the literal word of God, and thus infallible in its teaching, an outrage to some believers in the King James Version.

Where do we find this stuff? Here are our sources:​

“The Text of the New Testament”, by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, 1987

“The Amplified Bible of 2015”, by the Lockman Foundation, 2015

“Bible Word Count”, by Vaughn Aubuchon, Vaughn’s Summaries, online

“Amplified Bible Version Information”, by the Lockman Foundation, 2015, online

“Perspectives on the ending of Mark: 4 Views”, by David Alan Black, 2008

“A Possible Case of Lukan Authorship”, by Henry J. Cadbury, The Harvard Theological Review, July 1917

“When God Spoke English: The Making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2011

“Alexander the Corrector: the tormented genius who unwrote the Bible”, by Julia Keay, 2005

“Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2003

“Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why”, by Bart D. Ehrman, 2005

“Extremely rare Wicked Bible goes on sale”, by Alison Flood, The Guardian, October 21, 2015

“When God Spoke Greek”, by Timothy Michael Law, 2013

“The Bible Doesn’t Say That,” by Dr. Joel M. Hoffmann, 2016

“And God Said: How Translations Conceal the Bible’s Original Meaning”, by Dr. Joel M. Hoffmann, 2009

“When the King Saved God”, by Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair, May 2011

“The Bible in English: history and influence”, by David Daniell, 2003

“God’s Secretaries: the making of the King James Bible”, by Adam Nicolson, 2003

“The Real Story Behind the Translation of 2 Timothy 3:16”, by Frank Nelte, nelte.net, November 2008, online

Rella, as to Hebrews 1:8, as well as many other passages, "God" is used in the generic sense, which entails God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. In other words, a general name of deities or divinities, per the Greek.​

 

[Rella]

Rella, as to Hebrews 1:8, as well as many other passages, "God" is used in the generic sense, which entails God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. In other words, a general name of deities or divinities, per the Greek.​

Thank you Buff

 

[JesusFan]

Jesus Fan, yes, the translators would have to have been divinely inspired if the KJV is a perfect translation. The only perfect translations are the original manuscripts of the writers who were guided by the Holy Spirit, which no one has access to. But we do have copies of the oldest.

Kjvo usually denies that is what they hold with, and yet the only way to get to their perfect translation would have to be that the 1611team was infallible guided by the Holy Spirit to always make the correct decision on any and all variant readings in their source text materials

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you Buff

Usually in the NT greek text, the term God used to describe the Father, Lord for Jesus, and the Holy Spirit was called the Holy Spirit

 

[QVQ]

The King James is beautiful. The Elizabetheans were masters of the English language; Milton, Shakespeare.
The newer translations clunk, mostly.
Poetry is the best possible words in the best possible order.
Compare the 23rd Psalm in different translations

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want (KJV)
The Lord is my shepherd; I have all that I want (New Living Translation)

I feel the 1st, the King James version, is true as I shall not want. (God is all I want. "Seek you first the kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto you" God is the summation of man's desire)
The 2nd version is not true. No one on this planet has ever had all they want. And it is correctly written without the "that."

The King James may not be translationally actual in fact, but the King James is literally true in spirit, in my humble opinion.

 

[JesusFan]

The King James is beautiful. The Elizabetheans were masters of the English language; Milton, Shakespeare.
The newer translations clunk, mostly.
Poetry is the best possible words in the best possible order.
Compare the 23rd Psalm in different translations

The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want (KJV)
The Lord is my shepherd; I have all that I want (New Living Translation)

I feel the 1st, the King James version, is true as I shall not want. (God is all I want. "Seek you first the kingdom of Heaven and all else shall be added unto you" God is the summation of man's desire)
The 2nd version is not true. No one on this planet has ever had all they want. And it is correctly written without the "that."

The King James may not be translationally actual in fact, but the King James is literally true in spirit, in my humble opinion.

It was translated in the English of its time, but there have been so many changes in the English language past over 400 years, that it would make sense to have them revise and update the Kjv to a fully current English vocabulary and grammar now

 

[QVQ]

It was translated in the English of its time, but there have been so many changes in the English language past over 400 years, that it would make sense to have them revise and update the Kjv to a fully current English vocabulary and grammar now

The majority of English speakers in the mid 19th century could easily read and understand the KJV. What is it that happened in the past 75 years that renders the current generation unable to read and comprehend the most well known dialect of English?

The King James uses a very precise vocabulary, both for sound and meaning. IT is and always will be a masterpiece.
The KJV was accessible to the last generation (many of whom are still alive) and it is not the KJV that is to blame if it is inaccessible to the current generation.

The 23rd Psalm in modern English, "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know."

I will say that the more we know about every Word, comparing translations, studying the meaning of the Words is edifying and useful but the KJV is the literal truth as written.

 

[JesusFan]

The majority of English speakers in the mid 19th century could easily read and understand the KJV. What is it that happened in the past 75 years that renders the current generation unable to read and comprehend the most well known dialect of English?

The King James uses a very precise vocabulary, both for sound and meaning. IT is and always will be a masterpiece.
The KJV was accessible to the last generation (many of whom are still alive) and it is not the KJV that is to blame if it is inaccessible to the current generation.

The 23rd Psalm in modern English, "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know."

I will say that the more we know about every Word, comparing translations, studying the meaning of the Words is edifying and useful but the KJV is the literal truth as written.

Are you then KJVO?

 

[QVQ]

Are you then KJVO?

For me but not necessarily for thee. I use the KJV but occassionaly I will use the NASB as the differences are confined to minimal such as changing the "eth" endings.
For the people who can read Hebrew and Greek, the ability to translate and compare could and probably does add to their understanding of the Word.

I thought while on this thread that the KJV is meant to be heard, read aloud as well as a reading study Bible.
That is the reason for the flow, perhaps, as "I shall not want" is not a big clunk as the NIV... "I lack nothing." (That is also untrue. I lack many things.) Notice the KJV does not say "will not want" because of course, I will want but I shall not be in want with God as my Shepherd.
But I can't prescribe The Word for anyone else.

I would ask translators to be aware of what makes the KJV such an enduring and beloved translation in the English language. IT should be the template even if the "eth" endings are dropped as archaic. But then I am particularly fond such phrases of "my cup runneth over" so back to the original KJV

 

[David Lamb]

The majority of English speakers in the mid 19th century could easily read and understand the KJV. What is it that happened in the past 75 years that renders the current generation unable to read and comprehend the most well known dialect of English?

The King James uses a very precise vocabulary, both for sound and meaning. IT is and always will be a masterpiece.
The KJV was accessible to the last generation (many of whom are still alive) and it is not the KJV that is to blame if it is inaccessible to the current generation.

The 23rd Psalm in modern English, "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know."

I will say that the more we know about every Word, comparing translations, studying the meaning of the Words is edifying and useful but the KJV is the literal truth as written.

I disagree that the majority of English speakers, whether now or in the mid 20th century (which I think you meant, rather than mid 19th, because you also said "75 years ago", that is, 1950) would understand that "carriages" in the KJV didn't mean wheeled vehicles, but equipment, that "prevent" didn't refer to stopping something happening, but to going before something, that "awful" meant awe-inspiring, not dreadful, that "conversation" meant conduct, behaviour, not two or more people talking to each other, that "quit" meant "behave", not to leave, or to stop doing something, and so I could go on. All these words and many others have changed their meanings since 1611.

None of the modern Engish translations of the bible that I have seen has any think resembling your "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know." as a supposed "translation" of Psalm 23:1. Here are just a few examples:

NKJV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

HCSB: 1 A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

RSV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want;

YLT: 1 A Psalm of David. Jehovah is my shepherd, I do not lack,

A Google search seems to show that the phrase "I got all I want" is a paraphrase of the first verse of Psalm 23.

 

[JesusFan]

For me but not necessarily for thee. I use the KJV but occassionaly I will use the NASB as the differences are confined to minimal such as changing the "eth" endings.
For the people who can read Hebrew and Greek, the ability to translate and compare could and probably does add to their understanding of the Word.

I thought while on this thread that the KJV is meant to be heard, read aloud as well as a reading study Bible.
That is the reason for the flow, perhaps, as "I shall not want" is not a big clunk as the NIV... "I lack nothing." (That is also untrue. I lack many things.) Notice the KJV does not say "will not want" because of course, I will want but I shall not be in want with God as my Shepherd.
But I can't prescribe The Word for anyone else.

I would ask translators to be aware of what makes the KJV such an enduring and beloved translation in the English language. IT should be the template even if the "eth" endings are dropped as archaic. But then I am particularly fond such phrases of "my cup runneth over" so back to the original KJV

One good thing that the Kjv does is to highlight to us if persons are singular or plural in meaning

 

[JesusFan]

I disagree that the majority of English speakers, whether now or in the mid 20th century (which I think you meant, rather than mid 19th, because you also said "75 years ago", that is, 1950) would understand that "carriages" in the KJV didn't mean wheeled vehicles, but equipment, that "prevent" didn't refer to stopping something happening, but to going before something, that "awful" meant awe-inspiring, not dreadful, that "conversation" meant conduct, behaviour, not two or more people talking to each other, that "quit" meant "behave", not to leave, or to stop doing something, and so I could go on. All these words and many others have changed their meanings since 1611.

None of the modern Engish translations of the bible that I have seen has any think resembling your "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know." as a supposed "translation" of Psalm 23:1. Here are just a few examples:

NKJV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

HCSB: 1 A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

RSV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want;

YLT: 1 A Psalm of David. Jehovah is my shepherd, I do not lack,

A Google search seems to show that the phrase "I got all I want" is a paraphrase of the first verse of Psalm 23.

Think those who are KJVO fail to accept that there have been so many changes in the English language from 1611 until now that literally would be to many like reading and understanding biblcal Greek

 

[QVQ]

I disagree that the majority of English speakers, whether now or in the mid 20th century (which I think you meant, rather than mid 19th, because you also said "75 years ago", that is, 1950) would understand that "carriages" in the KJV didn't mean wheeled vehicles, but equipment, that "prevent" didn't refer to stopping something happening, but to going before something, that "awful" meant awe-inspiring, not dreadful, that "conversation" meant conduct, behaviour, not two or more people talking to each other, that "quit" meant "behave", not to leave, or to stop doing something, and so I could go on. All these words and many others have changed their meanings since 1611.

None of the modern Engish translations of the bible that I have seen has any think resembling your "Hey, I got all I want with my Bro' god here, ya know." as a supposed "translation" of Psalm 23:1. Here are just a few examples:

NKJV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.

HCSB: 1 A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

RSV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want;

YLT: 1 A Psalm of David. Jehovah is my shepherd, I do not lack,

A Google search seems to show that the phrase "I got all I want" is a paraphrase of the first verse of Psalm 23.

Etymology
"Carriages" Carry
"Pre Vent To go before or to anticipate
Awful Full of Awe

The KJV was often the only book a person had any access to for centuries. Some of those people had vocabularies and grammar as foriegn to the KJV as Ancient Greek. "I ain't knowed where they done took him"
So, KJV can be and was used a grammar, a dictionary and lexicon.
In many cases, our ancestors had to learn the KJV as a foriegn langauge.
And it became the common coin of language. In one post, I stated "for me but not for thee." How far removed is the KJV "thee" from modern English and comprehension? Did I have to use the common "you" because you don't comprehend "thee?"
A study of the KJV English would be highly edifying to the current generation.


NKJV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
HCSB: 1 A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

I object to the word "lack" substituted for "want" Those are two entirely different concepts. "Want" and "Lack" are so far apart in meaning that the word "lack" makes the statement untrue. There is a huge difference between "lack" and "want." Rewriting the KJV into "modern" English is fraught with the possibility of changing the meaning or even making the verse untrue.

When a word is changed, the meaning is changed. Who uses "shall?" Everyone uses "Will."
So
1) I am the Lord thy God, thou SHALT not
I am the Lord thy God you WILL not
That is a significant change in the meaning and intent.

Then the Living Bible
Exodus 20 (TLB) "You may worship no other God's than me"
That is grammatically awkward.
It is better to write that sentence thusly: "You may not worship any god other than myself."
But even this construct is tedius compared to Thou Shalt Not.

So changing words around is a dangerous pursuit when the KJV has served well for centuries.

So give me that old time religion and the KJV as studying the words, teasing the meaning, admiring the sound and sense while learning there are more words in the English language than are commonly used, and the "old" spellings for "U" and "LOL" required more thought and letters is good for a person.
Also people did learn Latin and Greek until about the 1950's.

 

[JesusFan]

Etymology
"Carriages" Carry
"Pre Vent To go before or to anticipate
Awful Full of Awe

The KJV was often the only book a person had any access to for centuries. Some of those people had vocabularies and grammar as foriegn to the KJV as Ancient Greek. "I ain't knowed where they done took him"
So, KJV can be and was used a grammar, a dictionary and lexicon.
In many cases, our ancestors had to learn the KJV as a foriegn langauge.
And it became the common coin of language. In one post, I stated "for me but not for thee." How far removed is the KJV "thee" from modern English and comprehension? Did I have to use the common "you" because you don't comprehend "thee?"
A study of the KJV English would be highly edifying to the current generation.


NKJV: 1 A Psalm of David. The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
HCSB: 1 A Davidic psalm. The LORD is my shepherd; there is nothing I lack.

I object to the word "lack" substituted for "want" Those are two entirely different concepts. "Want" and "Lack" are so far apart in meaning that the word "lack" makes the statement untrue. There is a huge difference between "lack" and "want." Rewriting the KJV into "modern" English is fraught with the possibility of changing the meaning or even making the verse untrue.

When a word is changed, the meaning is changed. Who uses "shall?" Everyone uses "Will."
So
1) I am the Lord thy God, thou SHALT not
I am the Lord thy God you WILL not
That is a significant change in the meaning and intent.

Then the Living Bible
Exodus 20 (TLB) "You may worship no other God's than me"
That is grammatically awkward.
It is better to write that sentence thusly: "You may not worship any god other than myself."
But even this construct is tedius compared to Thou Shalt Not.

So changing words around is a dangerous pursuit when the KJV has served well for centuries.

So give me that old time religion and the KJV as studying the words, teasing the meaning, admiring the sound and sense while learning there are more words in the English language than are commonly used, and the "old" spellings for "U" and "LOL" required more thought and letters is good for a person.
Also people did learn Latin and Greek until about the 1950's.

Even the 1611 translators though looked upon their translation as building and improving upon earlier editions such as th Bishop and Geneva bibles, and they were also into using contemporary grammar of that time, so would be very open to retranslation into modern day English grammar and usage, as they did not produce by the Holy Spirit some type of "Holy English"

 

[QVQ]

Even the 1611 translators though looked upon their translation as building and improving upon earlier editions such as th Bishop and Geneva bibles, and they were also into using contemporary grammar of that time, so would be very open to retranslation into modern day English grammar and usage, as they did not produce by the Holy Spirit some type of "Holy English

Maybeso
However, we are not so far removed from the English of the KJV that it needs a major overhaul.
The fact that it has been and remains the most popular Bible means that people can still understand the words.
I haven't seen any improvements in the various translations.
I am used to "thee" and "thou." The "eth" rather than "s" endings are hardly enough to justify a major, modernizing overhaul because when you start with the little, the entire project becomes huge.
Then there is change from "want" to "lack" and that is a fundamental change in meaning and intent.

I am sufficiently educated, intelligent and literate to understand the meaning of thou and runneth. I am not going to contend with changes to the fundamental meaning embodied by substituting "lack." for "want."

 

[JesusFan]

Maybeso
However, we are not so far removed from the English of the KJV that it needs a major overhaul.
The fact that it has been and remains the most popular Bible means that people can still understand the words.
I haven't seen any improvements in the various translations.
I am used to "thee" and "thou." The "eth" rather than "s" endings are hardly enough to justify a major, modernizing overhaul because when you start with the little, the entire project becomes huge.
Then there is change from "want" to "lack" and that is a fundamental change in meaning and intent.

I am sufficiently educated, intelligent and literate to deal with thou and runneth. I am not going to contend with changes to the fundamental meaning embodied by substituting "lack." for "want."

They is no legitimate reason though not to translate the bible into the contemporary language of the time, as once again, the Holy Spirit did not give to us eternally "Holy English" bible

 

[QVQ]

They is no legitimate reason though not to translate the bible into the contemporary language of the time, as once again, the Holy Spirit did not give to us eternally "Holy English" bible

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.