Is the KJV the most accurate translation of the Holy Scriptures?

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "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."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

[otseng]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

No, it's not the most accurate translation. And even the KJV translators did not set out to produce "the most accurate translation".

As for which translation is the most accurate, in my biased opinion it would be the translation I'm currently working on - the Transliteral Bible.

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "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."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The verse you posted which uses the word "Easter", does not mean that the translators had anything to do with whatever pagan ritual someone associated with the same word.

To you have proof of this? Where does the English word "Easter" come from?

It doesn't matter where the word "Easter " comes from.

It does to me.

What doctrinal benefit do you obtain by looking outside the Bible for any kind of truth?

The Bible doesn't teach English. So the truth about the English language comes from outside the Bible.
What kind of truth are you talking about? There is a lot of truth outside of the Bible. The planet Earth being here is truth. Creation is truth. All of the laws of physics are truth. No one gets on an airplane and thinks 'I hope the law of aerodynamics are still true.' The Bible doesn't teach the law of gravity or aerodynamics, yet they are truly there. God made them all. Te Bible encourages that we look at everything He has created and see His work of truth in it. "For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable." - Romans 1:20 https://biblehub.com/romans/1-20.htm
God has another 'book', the book of creation.

A person that doesn't verify everything is susceptible to gullibility and credulity.

The question should be, what does this word mean in the Bible? And when we search the Bible, we discover that it means "passover". And now the verse is understood just fine.

To care about how words that appear in the Bible are used outside of the Bible is to head in the opposite direction when looking for truth.

There is no need to keep the word Easter in the Bible. When the KJV of the was translated out of the dead Latin language, according to your dogma that was 'going the wrong direction for truth', right?

The truth is, things change. Including languages and keeping something that wrongly translated is not the direction of truth it is the direction of giving opportunists to hide truth. Adapting to another language to match what people read and speak is something Jehovah God has done on many occasions. One the most famous was at Pentecost 33 CE. Where people began speaking in different languages so that the truth about the Good News could be preached. Now why wouldn't He want change His Word so that the truth of the Good News was clear to understand? The use of the word Easter is not clear and for today's readers it gives the wrong impression. To not want to clear it up is wrong and isn't consistent with has been done with the Good News in the past.

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

No, it's not the most accurate translation. And even the KJV translators did not set out to produce "the most accurate translation".

As for which translation is the most accurate, in my biased opinion it would be the translation I'm currently working on - the Transliteral Bible.

The question needs to be asked: Is Bible accuracy subjective or objective?
While I see the KJV as inaccurate for today's English speaking person, yet give one of today's modern Bibles to a person in the 17th century and I don't think they would call it accurate.
That leads to the next question: What makes a Bible an accurate translation?
To me, It would also need to be translated by those who are experts in all of the languages and their grammar of the Bible and the language they are translating it into. This goes without saying. But for me it doesn't stop there. it would seem that the most accurate Bible would be the most harmonious Bible from book to book, chapter to chapter, and from verse to verse. Taking the Easter/Passover debate for example. Why use Easter in Acts 12:4 but use Passover in Mark 14:1? Some might be ok with this, I know many that are not.

[JehovahsWitness]

No I dont believe so; hundreds of manuscripts have been discovered since 1611, most of which have shed light on the probable content of the original script. Further, it is a fact that it the KJB mistranslated the tetragrammaton as "God" thousands if times.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

To learn more please see other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BEST TRANSLATION

* bible interpretation

[Conversator]

Verily, it seemeth ought. Whence shall we seek the contrariwise? Whither ascertanest us the letter of sacred writ, if not by terrestrial behoovement of our bowels of knowledge, heretofore letteth by unsavoury tongues of heathen bewitchery? Nay, sith concupiscent counsel doth scorn our mortal travail of wisdom, donned by leaves of scribal scroll; and naught preventeth it but syllabication rightly divided; I fret not ever slightly, even that some oughteth it so. I extol the king of magisterial Britain, Ireland, etc., vast of meritly the count; for the carnal privilege, nay it beseteth by ethereal provincial might; our mother tongue of Christendom most gay!

[bjs1]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "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."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The KJV is an overall excellent translation for its time with occasional glaring errors, such as the one pointed out in this thread. The mistake here is not all that important, since the correct translation was “Passover” instead of “Easter.” Correcting the translation doesn’t create a practical change in the story. Anyone who knows a second language knows that we can’t always translate word-for-word what was said. We have to get the sense of something means. “Passover” is the correct term, but a reasonable person can understand the sense of what was happening even with the mistranslation of “Easter.”

The larger problem is that the KJV was translated 400 years ago and English is a living language, so words today can have a different meaning than what they did when the KJV was translated.

[Conversator]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

No, it's not the most accurate translation. And even the KJV translators did not set out to produce "the most accurate translation".

As for which translation is the most accurate, in my biased opinion it would be the translation I'm currently working on - the Transliteral Bible.

Shouldest thine doubt; of syllabication rightly divided; by our imperishable and celestially-noble Kjv, venture unscathably? Hast thou to consider, that contrariwise leadeth to iniquitous unsavoury? Whence arriveth our schisms, if not by concupiscent counels of nought? Nay, relent from this thy devilish scrutiny and acquaint thyself with Christendom's most gay, and incorruptible sacred writ; sealed by king magisterial, lord potentate James; defender of faith; and avenger to divers obstacles! Laudest it, and solely it, for bestowal by Providence, unto our most happy masses! Glory to our imperishable Kjv! Anathema upon any contrary writ!

[Conversator]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. " Comedy is often our best teacher", George Carlin

[2timothy316]

There are those that think that the King Jame Version of the Bible is the most accurate Bible translation there is. Many have placed their whole dogma on this belief. What evidence is there that it is or it is not the most accurate translation?

In the 1611 KJV Acts 12:4 says, "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."

Here it says that people where celebrating Easter. Is this one of the errors in the KJV?

The KJV is an overall excellent translation for its time with occasional glaring errors, such as the one pointed out in this thread. The mistake here is not all that important, since the correct translation was “Passover” instead of “Easter.” Correcting the translation doesn’t create a practical change in the story. Anyone who knows a second language knows that we can’t always translate word-for-word what was said. We have to get the sense of something means. “Passover” is the correct term, but a reasonable person can understand the sense of what was happening even with the mistranslation of “Easter.”

The keyword is 'reasonable person' or 'educated person'. But lets be honest, are they teaching reasonableness or educating people about such things in the Bible in churches around your town? I have found less than 1% teaching such things in mine.

The larger problem is that the KJV was translated 400 years ago and English is a living language, so words today can have a different meaning than what they did when the KJV was translated.

This is a fact. Which means that Bible translations should be changed to match and it's better to do it sooner rather than later. Otherwise, there a kind of language barrier starts to appear.

[Conversator]

Nasb is probably the most competent translation, but the translators attempt to gloss over Paul's gnostic language a bit too much. But this is fairly typical. All translations will have a theological bias that influences their wording of things. In this regard the kjv is probably the most neutral translation you can find, but its plagued with hilariously inaccurate translations, outdated grammar, cultural quirks ( unicorns, satyrs etc.), and reliance on shabby manuscripts.