Ho hum, nothing new here.
The changes that the 1611 between then and the 1769 were simply updates in spelling and sentence punctuation.
The actual text of the 1611 was not changed, and every edition reads exactly as the rest do.
Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45). Are you prepared to enter Purgatory at the end of your life, if you are judged worthy of everlasting life in Heaven?
Ho hum.
The original 1611 had the Apocrypha in the middle of the Bible, as not it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon of Scripture.
Apocrypha was put in for reference purposes only, unlike how it is put into the RC bibles, which have the books dispersed throughout the Old Testament Canon.
So, the King James translators (no Protestant's did) ever regarded the Apocrypha as equal to the Canon for doctrinal purposes and it was not considered part of the Inspired Canon.
Jude 25: “To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (NIV). “To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen” (KJV). John 14:14: “You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV). “If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (KJV).
And the problem with the two King James verses above are what?
a comparison between the KJV and Young’s Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads: “The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation” (KJV). “. . . who declare to us a way of salvation” (Young’s Literal). Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield “the way of salvation.” Young’s Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates — a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR — “a way of salvation.”
Gee, the translators of the Douey-Rheims 1582 had the reading just as the King James did, with 'the way of salvation'
Now, translators have the freedom to translate sentences that do not have definite article based on the context of the passage and the need for correct English.
To prove that the King James is incorrect, you have to prove that a particular verse cannot be translated as it was, not that some commenter disagreed with how it was translated.
Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible: “For example, in Mat. 2. 4, Herod is represented as enquiring “where Christ” should be born. But “Christ” is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James’ Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where “the Christ” should be born. Herod knew of “the Christ,” the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original”
Once again the Roman Catholic Douey-Rheims has the same reading as the King James, as does the Geneva, the Great Bible, and Tyndale, and the modern KJ21, with no article before Christ.
So, again, translators have to use their own judgment regarding articles and when to translate them and not to.
There is no hard and fast rule regarding their translation.
Also note Jn. 3:16 in Youngs, regarding the continuous tense for believe: “For God did so love the world, that His son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.” This translation, with the verb tenses, opens up the clear meanings of Scripture, hidden to people who only read the KJV.
LOL!
A person couldn't even understand what that passage said!
You Interlinear guys crack me up!
The Roman Catholic NAB, reads, For God so loved the world that he gave his Son [left out begotten], so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but have eternal life
Same tense as the King James translators, and every English translation of that verse.
A translation is not an interlinear.
Another verse from the 1611 edition of the KJV is Rev 21:8. Please note how hard it is to read:
Hard to read, after what you tried to give us with Jn.3:16!
“But the feareful, and vnbeleeuing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all lyars, shall haue their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death.”
And what is the problem with this verse?
In our personal library, we have a book written by Ralph Earle titled, Word Meanings in the New Testament, published by Baker Book House. He comments on the words “now full” as used in Mark 4:37 of the KJV: “The Greek does not have the aorist tense, suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is ‘already filling up’ (NASB) or ‘nearly swamped’ (NIV). If the boat had been ‘now full’ (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!” (p. 37). Earle also comments on the KJV rendering in Romans 8:16 of “itself” (on page 179):
Well, all of the pre-1611 translations, including the Douey-Rheims had filled, as does the modern KJ21.
So, it can be translated that way and
Maybe the boat should have sunk but didn't because God would not allow it to.
“The KJV reads: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ The RSV changes ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ Orthodox Christianity has always held to the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Modern liberalism has frequently denied both. The KJV rendering here would seem to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, calling Him an ‘it.’ Even if one is reading the KJV in the pulpit he should always change ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ By doing so we affirm our faith in the Holy Spirit, not as an impersonal influence, but as a living Person who dwells in our hearts.
I never change a word of the King James when I am in the pulpit.
The problems people have with it is due to their own ignorance of the Original languages, the English or theology.
Now, after running to the Greek to change the King James translation, the 'scholars' then just ignore the Greek word 'auto' which is in the neuter gender.
The translation of the word 'itself' doesn't attack the person of the Holy Spirit at all.
When someone calls your house and you are busy, you yell to the person taking the call, 'who is it'.
Does that mean you think that the person calling is a thing?
The King James translators correctly translated the neuter pronoun, as does Webster, and Darby in their translations, and so does the modern KJ21.
and there are a bunch of other errors noted in more detail at
Well, you haven't proven a single one.
There were some verses that I wasn't sure what the problem was, such as Jude 25 and Jn.14:14, and Rev. 21:8, so you can post them to me as well.
So, once again, to prove an error you have to prove that the verse cannot be translated as the King James did, not that you don't like how it is translated or that there is an alternative way to translate it.
So, rather than that, how about you tell me how the different versions of the KJV came to be, other than modern usage.