The King James Version: Better Than The Originals?

Stuff Fundies Like shared the above image. At first I thought it must be satire. But apparently not…

 

  • TrevorN

    Hebrew and Greek readers, we pity you. Europeans, Asians, and Africans, we ignore you. God has always been an Englishman (probably living in New York).

  • http://www.facebook.com/reed.hamil Reed Hamil

    I love how the pricing for individual cards (they sell these things?!?) reads “Single card .05 cents each.” That’s one heck of a prophet (pun-dropped-so-hard-it-hurts).

  • Dustin

    this has to be a joke…..

    • http://www.facebook.com/Glenn.Andrew.Peoples Glenn Andrew Peoples

      You better believe it’s not.

    • hansmast

      It may not be, but it should be. I’m an ultra-conservative Christian, but no person that understands language can believe this stuff. It helps, of course, that I grew up Amish-Mennonite, so we had the Bible in German and English growing up.

    • hansmast

      Oh. You’re right. It is a joke. When I looked up Jeremiah 36:23 I realized it was a joke. My bad. :-D

  • hansmast

    Just for fun, because I started this response before realizing that this is a parody:

    1. True. However, simple commonsense tells us that we should go with the copies of the originals closest in time to the originals. The KJB is not only 1000 years after the earliest copies we have, it’s also been translated. Translations are necessary, but fallible. Only the original word of God is infallible.

    2. So?

    3. That’s a historical account of an evil king burning God’s word. It says nothing about the desire or actions of God in regard to the NT Scriptures.

    4. That’s why we have translations like KJV, NASB, NET, NIV, etc.

    5. No, it’s not. Only English-speakers. Other languages are not able to read KJB. Also, there’s this little thing called copies…

    6. No one says the originals should be used for daily study, but rather that they should form the basis for rigorous translations.

    7. See #1.

  • Johnw

    Hey! If the AV/KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it’s good enough for me.

    • James M

      It’s not a parody. Try these, especially the last:

      http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=28.htm

      http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=29.htm

      and (in particular) http://samgipp.com/answerbook/?page=30.htm

      “ANSWER:
      A translation cannot only be “as good” as the originals, but better.

      EXPLANATION:

      There are three “translations” spoken of in the Bible. In all three
      cases, the translation referred to is better than the original. Since we
      accept the Bible as our final authority in all matters of faith and practice, ITS “practice” will have more authority than any “mere human” opinion.

      …….

      3. The third translation found in the Bible is located in Hebrews 11:5.

      “By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was
      not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation
      he had this testimony, that he pleased God.”

      The word “translate” only appears five times in scripture. Once in II
      Samuel, once in Colossians and the remaining three times here in Hebrews
      11:5.

      A Christian with even a shallow knowledge of the Bible is familiar with
      the story of Enoch from Genesis 5. Enoch walked with God and is known to
      have pleased God. He was a prophet (Judges 14) and a man of faith. God saw fit to physically take Enoch to heaven so that he would not have to experience death. This individual action is a miniature version of what Christians call “The Rapture,” mentioned in I Corinthians 15, I Thessalonians 4, Titus 2 and various other places in the Bible. Since the word “Rapture” appears nowhere in scripture a more proper name for this future occurrence might be “The Blessed Hope” (Titus) or “The Catching Up” (I Thessalonians) of “Our Translation” (Hebrews).

      It is obvious that Enoch’s translation was an improvement over his “original” condition.

      Thus we see that every translation mentioned in our final authority in all matters is an improvement over the original.

      If you are a simple Bible believer you will have no trouble accepting
      this. If you worship education or just hate to be wrong you will reject
      this Bible fact as easily as you have rejected every Bible fact that you couldn’t agree with.

      It should be noted here that the perplexed translators of both the New
      American Standard Version and the New International Version, when faced with this glaring contradiction of their own personal
      prejudice, could not bring themselves to allow the word “translation” in
      any of the above mentioned passages.

      Which will you follow, the Bible or men?”

      ## Implication: the AV-KJV is a translation, and in view of the reasoning just quoted, it it is better than the originals. If – that is – one accepts the man’s reasoning as valid; which it demonstrably is not.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

        Apparently that is a pretty poor translation of Hebrews 11:5, since by using the word “translated” they misled some people into thinking it was relevant to Bible translation. :-)

  • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.lang1 Jimmy Lang

    I have only ever heard of a couple authors that write stuff like this, and the majority of individuals that read the KJV do not view it like this. Come clean and tell us why you hate it so?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

      I am not sure if this was addressed to me, since I have only great appreciation for the KJV. But I do oppose KJV-onlyism because it is a diabolical attempt to manipulate people and keep them from understanding the Bible, by keeping them reading it in antiquated English that is hard to understand, so that they will trust their self-appointed and deceitful teachers to tell them what it means. But if those teachers have lied about something as basic as Bible translations, can they be trusted when it comes to the meaning of the Bible?

      • http://www.facebook.com/jimmy.lang1 Jimmy Lang

        umm is this your blog? If so it would be addressed to you. lol. Just seems kind of funny that you dedicate a post to a position so few people hold to. Are they really that influential? I realize with some people they are. However, by and large I fail to see the point here. I have never attended church with anyone that held this position. I linked here from a scholarly sight. I have no idea why scholars would care about this issue. Well, they don’t.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/ James F. McGrath

          You seem to be new to the phenomenon of blogging, so let me see if I can explain it to you. On blogs, people often share quotes and images that they came across which made them laugh, or which were silly or ridiculous. I do not see in this post anything that suggests that the viewpoint is one that scholars care about. I do see in is post evidence of why it would be considered worth sharing for the chuckle it provides.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X