# Why should I use the KJV?



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

First of all, I am new and realize I am opening a possible  But I have been battling, in my own mind anyways, with which translation to make my primary. I am in seminary and plan to be a ministry of God's precious Holy word. I use several translations. Mostly ESV, NKJV, and of course the beloved Authorized Version. I think each of these have their pros and cons. I know there are some who hold the Old Authorized dearly, understandably. I enjoy the KJV very much and have no trouble with it's language but I know that some do. Are their any fellow pastors that use it? Is the language a barrier at times? Also realistically is it really good enough in terms of beauty and even more so accuracy to hold on to? Or should I just move on and use the EVS or NKJV? I'd love to hear from both sides meaning KJV lovers and/or those who think it's time to move on to a more modern version. Let the sparks fly lol jk


----------



## Romans922 (May 8, 2015)

You should use anything that comes from the Byzantine (Majority) Text --> KJV, NKJV


http://biblicalblueprints.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/HasGodIndeedSaid.pdf

This article uses the Bible to show that Byzantine is superior and the Alexandrian is the work of liberals.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

I do have a preference for the Majority text but think the critical text is valuable as well. More so wondering is the KJV as accurate as some claim? I've heard some say like Michael Marlowe that it is a fairly defective translation.


----------



## JimmyH (May 8, 2015)

I'm doing M'Cheyne's 1 year Bible reading plan I primarily use the AV. I'm 66, been reading it for over 30 years, and love the translation. However, I supplement that with the 1984 NIV, the NASB, and the ESV. The pastor at the OPC congregation I attend preaches out of the NKJV and I use that as well. In spite of the length of time I've read the AV I sometimes get stuck on syntax. 

I've wrestled with this controversy over which translation in the past and did quite a bit of reading on the topic. Michael Marlow's site is very good, but reading The King James Version Debate, A Plea For Realism, by D.A. Carson, and of course James White's, The King James Only Controversy, Can You Trust Modern Translations? offers more detail, and explores the various sides more thoroughly. There are many more, and I've read quite a few, but those two are the best of the bunch In my humble opinion.

Try reading Song Of Solomon in the AV, then read it in the NIV (1984) or NASB, ESV. As far as I'm concerned that is a great example of the value of the modern translations. Reading Carson, White, and others, convinced me that the CT is reliable, despite what many say.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (May 8, 2015)

Edward,

I'm a retired pastor (now primarily writing), and here are a number of threads and posts on Puritanboard discussing this matter: Jerusalem Blade's textual posts (a partial compilation). I call my view, King James _priority_ (not "only"), and stress scholarship and graciousness when dealing with this topic.

I hope this will be helpful to you.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Are their any fellow pastors that use it? Is the language a barrier at times? Also realistically is it really good enough in terms of beauty and even more so accuracy to hold on to?



I use the AV in all contexts of specific worship, i.e., secret, family, and congregational. I have always found it to speak with authority, sufficiency, and perspicuity; to be a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. But it is clear that the Scriptures do not work mechanistically like a computer. It is not a matter of putting in and getting out. The Scriptures are a gift and the profit derived from them is a gift. Because of this, meekness is necessary. Ps. 22:26; 25:9. We must come to them in the heart-posture of listening and learning. When men take it upon themselves to set the requirements by which they will hear God they have made a challenge they are bound to lose. When we come to the Bible we should say, Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth. It is the Word of God we should desire -- the word which liveth and abideth for ever.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

Thank you very much for the replies. Jimmy, I just ordered DA Carson's book along with a book on the history of the KJV Lee Rekien(I forget his last name) and the Potter's freedom. I love James White his videos opened my eyes to reformed theology through the work of the Spirit of course. Matthew I agree my friend as James 1:21 says "Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls." The word is a gift and we as saints of God are given not only the privileged to read it but also discern and receive it. The KJV does have much authority and beauty. Maybe it's just tradition but when I read it it just sounds more like the Bible to me. I enjoy the New KJV and the ESV but most of my memory verses are KJV. I get some looks in my bible study at church like "what's this 24 year old kid doing reading the King James Version" But they deal with it. I'll most likely stick with it because I always go back to it. I guess I questioning myself whether or not I was using it just for the sake of being different. I am a rebel at heart lol


----------



## MW (May 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> I guess I questioning myself whether or not I was using it just for the sake of being different. I am a rebel at heart lol



Indwelling sin would lead us to doubt our sincerity in following Christ with the intention of leading us to follow Him with a little more confusion. That is the only way sin will meet with any gratification. In such a warfare the saints have to stick with what they have been given by God. The middle of the battle-field is not the place to be questioning whether one's sword is made of the right metal.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > I guess I questioning myself whether or not I was using it just for the sake of being different. I am a rebel at heart lol
> ...



Good Point. I'm only questioning because I am admittedly a new convert. There's a whole lotta info out there on the subject of Bible translation can be kinda confusing. Was just bringing it up here to gain some clarity. I wasn't questioning the Bible itself but merely my intention of using the KJV. My intentions can often be misplaced, by being different I meant everyone at my church uses the ESV but I prefer the KJV. My backround prior to salvation is quite severely dark so I always check my intentions these days before proceeding to do something. So it's not a matter of me questioning the metal of my sword but rather the heart of the hand that wields it.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Good Point. I'm only questioning because I am admittedly a new convert. There's a whole lotta info out there on the subject of Bible translation can be kinda confusing. Was just bringing it up here to gain some clarity. I wasn't questioning the Bible itself but merely my intention of using the KJV. My intentions can often be misplaced, by being different I meant everyone at my church uses the ESV but I prefer the KJV. My backround prior to salvation is quite severely dark so I always check my intentions these days before proceeding to do something. So it's not a matter of me questioning the metal of my sword but rather the heart of the hand that wields it.



Just some suggestions; not to be taken as criticisms: (1) The issues surrounding Bible translation can be complex but it is worth asking where the complexity comes from. The Bible has a self-evidencing light as far as the believer is concerned. This light has the ability to sort out motives and put doubts to rest. Commit thy way to God and trust in Him. He will guide through the confusion. (2) The pressure of preparing to teach others may be adding to the confusion over motives. The process of being taught is of first importance in learning how to teach others. It would be better to hold off on teaching others until you have passed from the stage where you call yourself a new convert. (3) According to Eph. 5 we were all darkness. There is nothing more severe than that. We should avoid the tendency to make our experience of sin and grace something different than others' experience of it, especially if we hope to teach others about it.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

Thank you Matthew. I actually just entered pre-seminary, so I got a ways to go. I am not currently teaching anyone but am just beginning. My intention here was to seek some opinions on the matter. I have no doubt that the KJV is the living word of God. But I think it's good personally to question "translations" because not all are created equal. My question was more geared towards the literal-accuracy of the KJV. I wasn't trying to differentiate myself just merely being factual. I am a recovering heroin addict and have been in prisons and rehabs most of my life. So my conversion has been quite radical, the Christian life is very foreign to me. I don't say that to make myself seem like a worst sinner than others but it is in reality quite different than most folks. I am extremely grateful for Christ's effectual call and saving work on me. It blows me away that I am where I am at right now. So I may have an over sensitive conscience at times and judge myself a little harshly. But for me personally I make a practice of checking my motives and intentions because like you said I still have indwelling sin. I took no offense at your comments, there are much appreciated. I think you may misunderstood me a little but I should have probably explained myself better. Thanks my friend!


----------



## MW (May 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Thank you Matthew. I actually just entered pre-seminary so I got a ways to go. I am not currently teaching anyone but am just beginning. My intention here was to seek some opinions on the matter. I have no doubt that the KJV is the living word of God. But I think it's good personally to question "translations" not all are created equal. My question was more geared towards the literal-accuracy of the KJV. I wasn't trying to differentiate myself just merely being factual I am a recovering heroin addict and have been in prisons and rehabs most of my life. So my conversion has been quite radical, the Christian life is very foreign to me. I don't say that make myself seem like a worst sinner but it is in reality quite different than most folks. I am extremely grateful for Christ's effectual call and saving work on me. It blows me away where I am at right now. So I may have over sensitive conscience at times and judge myself a little harshly. But for me personally I make a practice of checking my motives and intention because like you said I still indwelling sin. I took no offense at your comments there much appreciated. I think you may misunderstood me a little but I should have probaly explained myself better. Thank my friend!



All praise to the grace of God in saving you from these depths! I am sorry if I have misunderstood or spoken out of place. I only seek to be of benefit to you.

We certainly have to examine ourselves, and being different or fitting in to a Christian group of people is no guide as to whether we are doing the right thing. But I think we can easily become tied in knots over ourselves and whether we are doing things for the right reason. It is a blessed thing to be able to look back at the end of the day and acknowledge it is of the Lord's mercies we were not consumed.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you Matthew. I actually just entered pre-seminary so I got a ways to go. I am not currently teaching anyone but am just beginning. My intention here was to seek some opinions on the matter. I have no doubt that the KJV is the living word of God. But I think it's good personally to question "translations" not all are created equal. My question was more geared towards the literal-accuracy of the KJV. I wasn't trying to differentiate myself just merely being factual I am a recovering heroin addict and have been in prisons and rehabs most of my life. So my conversion has been quite radical, the Christian life is very foreign to me. I don't say that make myself seem like a worst sinner but it is in reality quite different than most folks. I am extremely grateful for Christ's effectual call and saving work on me. It blows me away where I am at right now. So I may have over sensitive conscience at times and judge myself a little harshly. But for me personally I make a practice of checking my motives and intention because like you said I still indwelling sin. I took no offense at your comments there much appreciated. I think you may misunderstood me a little but I should have probaly explained myself better. Thank my friend!
> ...



I agree very much so. No you didn't speak out of place. I think I was simply unclear in what I said. God's grace is amazing. My conversion is really what led me to Calvinism, actually. I just couldn't buy into "me" having something to do with it. I knew I was absolutely dead in trespasses and sins. I always rejected any idea of God. I was actually a militant atheist for years prior to being made alive in Christ. The doctrines of grace were kind of a no brainer when I heard them. And yes I definitely need to work on beating myself up sometimes. I can't forget that I am a new creature in Christ. Usually a verse I keep in mind is "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. " 1 Cor 6:10


----------



## Edm (May 8, 2015)

My main Bible is NASB. I read KJV also and appreciate it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

Edm said:


> My main Bible is NASB. I read KJV also and appreciate it.



The NASB is a solid formally equivalent translation. I used it in study sometimes because of it's literalness.


----------



## MW (May 8, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> I agree very much so. No you didn't speak out of place. I think I was simply unclear in what I said. God's grace is amazing. My conversion is really what led me to Calvinism, actually. I just couldn't buy into "me" having something to do with it. I knew I was absolutely dead in trespasses and sins. I always rejected any idea of God. I was actually a militant atheist for years prior to being made alive in Christ. The doctrines of grace were kind of a no brainer when I heard them. And yes I definitely need to work on beating myself up sometimes. I can't forget that I am a new creature in Christ. Usually a verse I keep in mind is "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. " 1 Cor 6:10



Yes, the more we know ourselves the more precious the doctrines of grace.

Actually the doctrines of grace might be the best place to start in comparing translations. You could have a look at some of the key texts. My own view is that the modern tendency towards doctrinally neutral translations has led to a blunter message of grace.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 8, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > I agree very much so. No you didn't speak out of place. I think I was simply unclear in what I said. God's grace is amazing. My conversion is really what led me to Calvinism, actually. I just couldn't buy into "me" having something to do with it. I knew I was absolutely dead in trespasses and sins. I always rejected any idea of God. I was actually a militant atheist for years prior to being made alive in Christ. The doctrines of grace were kind of a no brainer when I heard them. And yes I definitely need to work on beating myself up sometimes. I can't forget that I am a new creature in Christ. Usually a verse I keep in mind is "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. " 1 Cor 6:10
> ...



Interesting. The ESV has some Calvinistic renderings that are stronger then other translations. For instance, and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. 
2:8 and Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 1 John 5:1


----------



## Romans922 (May 9, 2015)

I have found in my preaching when translating passages, that the NASB (from the Critical Text) is generally okay and when it is on it is literal. And the KJV and NKJV are generally good translations as well. 

The thing I hate is the ESV, with a passion. It removes verses from Holy Scripture. It doesn't even bracket them in like the NASB which I can accept, it just deletes verses. And that is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture. I hate the NIV too for obvious feminist reasons.


----------



## MW (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Interesting. The ESV has some Calvinistic renderings that are stronger then other translations. For instance, and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
> 2:8 and Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been born of God, and everyone who loves the Father loves whoever has been born of him. 1 John 5:1



1 Pet. 2:8, I don't see how "destined" means anything more than "appointed." On the other hand, the phrase "to do" places a limitation that I cannot see in the original. I must be missing your point on 1 John 5:1 because I can't see any difference.

I was thinking of texts which are adduced because they explicitly teach salvation by grace. E.g., Rom. 9:16. The addition of qualifiers only serves to blunt the edge.


----------



## Dearly Bought (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Are their any fellow pastors that use it? Is the language a barrier at times? Also realistically is it really good enough in terms of beauty and even more so accuracy to hold on to?


Our presbytery has written the following into our Form of Government,


> The Authorized King James Version shall be the text used in the public reading of the word, and the Scottish Metrical Psalter the text for singing in worship.



If you are interested in audio, electronic, and print resources on this subject from a Reformed perspective, I would heartily commend the website of the Trinitarian Bible Society to you.


----------



## TylerRay (May 9, 2015)

Here is Beeke's piece, Practical Reasons for Retaining the KJV, and here's a blog post from David Murray: 10 Reasons Why the KJV is Still the Most Popular Version.


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (May 9, 2015)

And, as long as you're reading White and Carson, you may also read E.F.Hills, The KJV Defended for the counterpoint. It is available here: http://standardbearers.net/uploads/The_King_James_Version_Defended_Dr_Edward_F_Hills.pdf


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 9, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Interesting. The ESV has some Calvinistic renderings that are stronger then other translations. For instance, and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.
> ...



I suppose pet 2:8 is can go either way. 1 John 5:1 is the phrase "has been" rather then "is" in the KJV. I feel has been suggest they believe because they were born of God. The has been is past tense which is the proper translation.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 9, 2015)

Dearly Bought said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Are their any fellow pastors that use it? Is the language a barrier at times? Also realistically is it really good enough in terms of beauty and even more so accuracy to hold on to?
> ...



That's good to know. I have quite a way to go before I am behind the pulpit but I agree with this. I think the AV is a great pulpit bible. Some people say you waste valuable time explaining obsolete words but in expositional preaching I think defining words makes sense to me. Plus it takes maybe 2 seconds to explain for instance that "conversation" means your "conduct" I don't see how that is wasting time.


----------



## KMK (May 9, 2015)

Its not all about textual criticism. The sheer literary weight of the KJV is recommendation itself: The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation: Leland Ryken: 9781433513886 - Christianbook.com


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 9, 2015)

KMK said:


> Its not all about textual criticism. The sheer literary weight of the KJV is recommendation itself: The Legacy of the King James Bible: Celebrating 400 Years of the Most Influential English Translation: Leland Ryken: 9781433513886 - Christianbook.com



Hey that's actually the Book I ordered! lol I forgot the title and the authors name. I should be getting that soon. The KJV's language/literary quality is definitely untouchable. I am beginning to feel more comfortable about my decision to use the KJV. I guess I was letting some modern critiques of it weigh on me to much. Some of the good folks here and others have shown me the reliability of the Authorized Version. I believe I will continue to make it my primary bible choice and use others as resources for better understanding. Thanks to everyone who commented I appreciate your input. Bible translation is a issue crowded with ideas, good to get some clarity. I see now that the KJV only position and it's advocates are in their own world. But their are obviously some well grounded Christians who have some good arguments in defense of the KJV. I will read my beloved KJV with confidence from now on. Grace and Peace to all of you.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (May 9, 2015)




----------



## timmopussycat (May 9, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> I do have a preference for the Majority text but think the critical text is valuable as well. More so wondering is the KJV as accurate as some claim? I've heard some say like Michael Marlowe that it is a fairly defective translation.



My own experience with Greek / textual comparison is limited: specifically to the book of Galatians. What I found for that book was, leaving all question of text types aside, the KJV had considerably more points where it was arguably a lesser accurate translation of the Greek text than other versions particularly the NASB, (the ESV had not then come on the scene.)


----------



## DMcFadden (May 9, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> I hate the NIV too for obvious feminist reasons.



You hold to feminist convictions that lead you to hate the NIV???


----------



## Captain Picard (May 10, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> I have found in my preaching when translating passages, that the NASB (from the Critical Text) is generally okay and when it is on it is literal. And the KJV and NKJV are generally good translations as well.
> 
> The thing I hate is the ESV, with a passion. * It removes verses from Holy Scripture. It doesn't even bracket them in like the NASB which I can accept, it just deletes verses. And that is blasphemous *and contrary to Scripture. I hate the NIV too for obvious feminist reasons.



Ok, I hate to wade into what appears to be a little bit of an AV love-fest and be "that guy" defending the ESV, but this post...one, you have established the Majority Text as the standard, without proving it, and then, reasoning from the unsourced presupposition that Majority Text/KJV/TR/whatever="Holy Scripture", you've made two claims 1) the ESV "deletes verses without even bracketing them" and 2) "this is blasphemy" (because again Majority Text=Scripture). 

Some rejoinders: 1) The source you linked to in your above post made the usual borderline conspiracy theory claims about the history of Alexandria, among other things I consider to be pretty rough arguments (although it also made good points). 
2) I reject your implication a) that MT=HS, and also implication b) that passages like the longer ending of Mark are Scripture because you can find Byzantine witness for them. If you were not implying the second one, I retract my statement, but your link certainly made that claim.
3) The only paper copy of the ESV I have at home is a five-buck paperback my church hands out en masse, not even a study bible or serious scholarly resource, it has less than a footnote a page, but it includes the entirety of the Pericope Adulterae and the Longer Ending, with annotation regarding manuscript witness. So does the ESV on Bible Gateway (the internet source I most frequently use). Don't just throw around unqualified accusations about hiding God's Word, please. 

Also, my Zondervan NIV from the 80's has perfectly orthodox gender pronouns. Not all NIVs are created equal.


----------



## TylerRay (May 10, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > I have found in my preaching when translating passages, that the NASB (from the Critical Text) is generally okay and when it is on it is literal. And the KJV and NKJV are generally good translations as well.
> ...



See this thread: Verses Omitted from the ESV


----------



## Romans922 (May 10, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> You hold to feminist convictions that lead you to hate the NIV???







Captain Picard said:


> you have established the Majority Text as the standard, without proving it



I have proved it, with the article I posted. No reason to rehash what it clearly says proving it from a presuppositional approach using Scripture itself. No one interacted with it. I can't help that. Steve also posted a link to where this discussion has taken place in the past on the PB in many locations, and no one has interacted with it. 

The issue in this thread must start with Alexandrian (Critical) or Byzantine (Majority), otherwise it just goes into what do you prefer. This is not an argument over KJV only or not. It requires us to go further back than that. The Majority Text is the true text and it does not rely on unlearned/semilearned men to try to figure out what the best reading is at the end of the day. Men who, by the way, come to different conclusions, which means if I go to one church and hear a sermon I could get a totally different reading than if I heard the same passage preached from a different preacher.

And I wasn't referring to Mark's ending. Tyler's post provides what I was saying about ESV deleting verses. Moreover, the ESV removes many more phrases from Scripture that are not referred to in Tyler's link. As for the NIV, I was referring to the current addition. However, any translation that refuses to use the word 'propitiation' and instead uses 'atonement' is questionable and diminishes the Gospel.


----------



## Cymro (May 10, 2015)

I am not qualified to enter into the debate on the merits of the various manuscripts etc. Yet I 
would add my experimental persuasion. It has been my only version of the Bible for fifty six 
years, and possibly such long usage colours my preference. But I feel safe when I read it, and
it communicates the voice of God as no others I have looked at. Even as one reads it, it reads with a poetic rhythm
melodious and flowing. It's language having a gravity, dignity and reverence that expresses supremely the revealed
thoughts of the High and Lofty One. Also its impressive style admirably matches the holy subject content. Whilst the
plain terse Saxon English lends itself to memorisation and to the tongue.
Long has it reigned, long may it reign, until the Word himself comes! It still stands without peer amongst the one
hundred other English Bible translations.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (May 10, 2015)

My favorite is the NKJV (Reformation Study Bible). It notes alternate readings of the critical text. I supplement my study with the NASB and the ESV.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 10, 2015)

Cymro said:


> I am not qualified to enter into the debate on the merits of the various manuscripts etc. Yet I
> would add my experimental persuasion. It has been my only version of the Bible for fifty six
> years, and possibly such long usage colours my preference. But I feel safe when I read it, and
> it communicates the voice of God as no others I have looked at. Even as one reads it, it reads with a poetic rhythm
> ...



Thank you Mr.O'Neil for your reply. It's not all about textual criticism anyway so I appreciate your experimental persuasion, Sir. I have been trying to humble myself as of late in approaching the topic of which Bible to use. I think it is an extremely important decision to make In my humble opinion. The Word of God is my standard for all of life and as an aspiring minister in seminary I feel that my decision must be grounded in research and the advice of my elder brothers and sisters in Christ. But above all I must prayerfully seek the right decision. I realize this discussion can get heated which is understandable seeing that we are dealing with the Living Word of our God. But I have learned that I must humble myself and respect other's opinions. If I feel they are being mislead then I should gently redirect them. That being said I think they are several quality translations and In my humble opinion the TR/Majority text and the Critical text both have their own merits. I lean toward the Majority text but embrace the new manuscript findings but reject some of techniques and unbelievers that handle them. I personally think I am going to stick with studying the Authorized Version as my primary translation and use the NKJV to supplement it. But I totally respect those who prefer the ESV or NASB they are both very fine translations. I personally will only recommend a formally equivalent translation for primary usage. I think the NIV and the like are useful to supplement a more literal translation. Honestly I haven't used the NIV much but my Mom does and I am sometimes impressed with it's renderings. But at the end of the dayI usually read the ye Ol' faithful Authorized Version and the more I use it and research it the more impressed I am with it's beauty of language, It's faithfulness to Hebrew and Greek idioms and it's boldly unique translation choices. I have seen some criticism of the AV on some of it's unusual renderings and will admit I thought they were mistranslations. King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 10, 2015)

Dabney is instructive here:

TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.

"Let us, then, briefly sum up the results attempted in this discussion. If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text, whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Yet they have their interest, and should receive the intelligent watch of the {390} teachers of the church. Absolute historical certainty of results is not to be expected, since so many of the documents of the primitive church are gone forever; but probable conclusions are all which are to be expected. But, after all, the weight of that probability brings back the critical conclusions to the theory of Nolan and Scholz, restoring the claims of the Κοινη Εκδοσις, or received text, to be a faithful one, and invalidating the claims of exclusive accuracy made by our recent critics in favor of the so-called oldest _codices."_


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 10, 2015)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Dabney is instructive here:
> 
> TrueCovenanter.com: The Doctrinal Various Readings of the New Testament Greek, by R.L. Dabney.
> 
> "Let us, then, briefly sum up the results attempted in this discussion. If all the debated readings were surrendered by us, no fact or doctrine of Christianity would thereby be invalidated, and least of all would the doctrine of Christ's proper divinity be deprived of adequate scriptural support. Hence the interests of orthodoxy are entirely secure from and above the reach of all movements of modern criticism of the text, whether made in a correct or incorrect method, and all such discussions in future are to the church of subordinate importance. Yet they have their interest, and should receive the intelligent watch of the {390} teachers of the church. Absolute historical certainty of results is not to be expected, since so many of the documents of the primitive church are gone forever; but probable conclusions are all which are to be expected. But, after all, the weight of that probability brings back the critical conclusions to the theory of Nolan and Scholz, restoring the claims of the Κοινη Εκδοσις, or received text, to be a faithful one, and invalidating the claims of exclusive accuracy made by our recent critics in favor of the so-called oldest _codices."_



Thanks for that. This is true and the real beauty of the new testament is the precise consistency of it across the board even comparing tr and ct. Thankfully none of our doctrine hangs on one verse and one can find all of Christianity's doctrines in any "reasonable" translation. That being said I think it's still important to educate yourself on what translation your using, whether it's formal or dynamic equivalent and especially what the underlying Greek text is. To say the ESV is blasphemous is a little out of line. I believe it is a faithful translation of it's underlying text whether you agree with that or not is a different story.


----------



## ZackF (May 10, 2015)

Edm said:


> My main Bible is NASB. I read KJV also and appreciate it.




That's how I roll as well. Who's knows where I will be in five or ten years though.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2015)

DMcFadden said:


> You hold to feminist convictions that lead you to hate the NIV???



Joking aside, feminists might find the NIV distasteful for its rendering of 1 Cor. 11:3, which at this point is more accurate than the ESV.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> 1 John 5:1 is the phrase "has been" rather then "is" in the KJV. I feel has been suggest they believe because they were born of God. The has been is past tense which is the proper translation.



Technically, the ESV translates the tense but the AV reflects the aspect. The AV simply picks up on the fact that the passage emphasises the present state rather than something which has been done in the past. Neither translation makes believing and being born of God a cause-effect relationship. The argument is that believing is a sign or manifestation of being born of God.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 10, 2015)

MW said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > 1 John 5:1 is the phrase "has been" rather then "is" in the KJV. I feel has been suggest they believe because they were born of God. The has been is past tense which is the proper translation.
> ...



That's a good point I suppose if one want's it to be cause-effect they interpret it that way regardless.


----------



## timmopussycat (May 10, 2015)

TylerRay said:


> See this thread: Verses Omitted from the ESV



The verses in question were not entirely ommitted from the ESV but are found in the footnotes.


----------



## TylerRay (May 10, 2015)

timmopussycat said:


> TylerRay said:
> 
> 
> > See this thread: Verses Omitted from the ESV
> ...



True, with the caveat, "some manuscripts add ..." or "some manuscripts insert ..." Thus they are omitted from the text and footnoted with honorable mention as readings that didn't quite cut the mustard.


----------



## MW (May 10, 2015)

If by some distortion of history it could be proven that the ecclesiastical text is in error and the scholars were correct about the validity of those manuscripts which had been laid aside, the best translation would then be the Revised Version. Why? It would be the most accurate translation of what is deemed to be the original reading. It lacks the literary quality of the AV, but the AV attained that literary quality through years of influencing the language. Part of the problem with most modern translations is that they attempt to instill "literary quality" into their version and fail miserably.


----------



## joebonni63 (May 10, 2015)

I don't know what it is but I always go back to the KJV. I have never been a King James only kinda guy but for me because of the diff spellings of same words but diff meanings seems very important.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 11, 2015)

Unrelated to the exact topic, but for those who like the AV, see:
An exhaustive listing of the marginal notes of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible | Literatura Bautista


----------



## Logan (May 11, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.



Just read the website with a grain of salt. The website's stated purpose is "to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant."

After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage. That being said I do have a love for the KJV and if that's the direction you go, you'll be among good company.




Romans922 said:


> The thing I hate is the ESV, with a passion. It removes verses from Holy Scripture. It doesn't even bracket them in like the NASB which I can accept, it just deletes verses. And that is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture.



And many godly men who use the ESV (or CT) could just as easily say "the KJV adds verses, which is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture". But is either statement really helpful?


----------



## Romans922 (May 11, 2015)

Logan said:


> And many godly men who use the ESV (or CT) could just as easily say "the KJV adds verses, which is blasphemous and contrary to Scripture". But is either statement really helpful?



Rightly it could be said that the KJV does add verses (John's comma)...I'm not in disagreement. But then again I'm not arguing for KJV or KJV-only.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

Logan said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > King James Version Today I don't know who is behind this website but they make some excellent points on many of the seeming "errors" in the KJV. in my opinion they do a really good job defending the the KJV. This website opened my eyes to a lot of translation choices I thought were errors in the KJV.
> ...



Thanks for the advice Logan. I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.


----------



## Romans922 (May 11, 2015)

Logan said:


> After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage.



There are great issues with the TR just as there are with the Critical Text. So one with the KJV or NKJV should still look for discrepancies. That's why one must go to the Byzantine Text and not TR.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 11, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> Logan said:
> 
> 
> > After much study, I personally do not believe the TR has the weight of manuscript evidence behind it in many places, only the weight of presupposition or usage.
> ...



The World English Translation claims to adhere to the Majority Text. I have it on e-sword. It's a modernization of the 1901 ASV but with the majority text instead of W&H text. I've been using it a little it seems to be very literal likes it's parent translation.


----------



## Logan (May 11, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> That's why one must go to the Byzantine Text and not TR.



If I understand you correctly, that's an endeavor that I've also thought would be worthy of undertaking. Basically a "critical text" but compiled from the subset of manuscripts that were actually in use in the Greek church, i.e., the Byzantine manuscripts (instead of also including manuscripts that had been "buried" or "corrected" for years). There is a good bit of merit to this in my mind.

The TR represents this for the most part with some significant exceptions. The Majority Text doesn't quite get at it either because it just counts noses per se instead of serious critical analysis. The "Byzantine Text", if compiled, would definitely be a contender with the Critical Text in my mind.


----------



## MW (May 11, 2015)

Romans922 said:


> Rightly it could be said that the KJV does add verses (John's comma)...I'm not in disagreement.



Even if the comma were not original (which as an absolute negative has no evidence to support it), it would be absurd to say the AV "adds" the verse. The verse was accepted by reformation teachers well before the AV came into existence.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (May 12, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.



Just a note, it wouldn't be a good thing to defend a subject with no bias or preferences at all, if you have no bias it means you do not believe either position is correct or worst accept both as equally valid, which is a logical fallacy if you reject relativism in matters of faith. If we would apply this to any other theological subject it would mean "calvinist" should always be taken "with a grain of salt" in their defense of calvinisitic soteriology, we should take paedobaptist "with a grain of salt" in their defense of paedobaptism etc. 

Of course we have to be careful to weight arguments properly to see if they are factual, logical, scriptural etc. But it's always good to hear arguments from people who believe what they are defending and then evaluate it. Not saying you aren't doing that already you seem open minded which is good, but not properly evaluating an argument because it might be perceived by some to be in error is not helpful. Fear of deception can leave you in a state of error.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 12, 2015)

Fogetaboutit said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > I have taken it with a grain of salt because there's an obvious bias towards the KJV on the site but they do make some excellent points.
> ...



Thank you. You make a good point. Like you said we should weigh options from various perspectives. The website I mentioned KJVtoday.com in my opinion does a really good job of defending the KJV. It doesn't seem to be from an extremist KJV only point of view. Seeing, that they never deem all other bibles satanic. They do actaully give credit to other translation quite often but merely show how the KJV translation choices are just as justifiable as theirs. The "demonstrably errant" did trouble me a little but that is a rather loose term. So I'm not sure what it could mean exactly, I don't think it is saying the KJV perfect. My personal opinion right now is that there are some fine modern translations available and I do like to use them. But the more study I do on this subject I find the KJV to be more and more impressive. I think the KJV is as useful and scholarly as the NASB,NKJV, and ESV and oftentimes surpasses them. A lot of the inconsistencies and errors people have pointed out to me about the KJV have proved either false, very minor, justifiable or just plain unique and awesome translation choices. For instance "Easter" in Acts 12:4 to me it would seem to me illogical to just say they messed up, mistranslated. Considering they translate this word as Passover everywhere else. Maybe they were separating the Jewish Passover of the past from the Christian Passover or "Easter" that was occuring in Acts 12:4?


----------



## Captain Picard (May 12, 2015)

My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it. 

Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 12, 2015)

Captain Picard said:


> My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.
> 
> Obviously I reject gender neutrality in the Bible, the TNIV, versions of the NIV after the late nineties, paraphrase bibles and *shudder* the NLT. The NLT is HUGE in contemporary evangelicalism in my county, and it is a plague. A paraphrase masquerading as a critical-text Bible. That doesn't alter my conviction that there are holes in the MT-only or "ecclesiastical text" argument, or my adherence to the Chicago Statement.



The ESV is a fine Bible. I never understood the attacking of some on this subject. At the end of the day it comes down to preference. I love the KJV but I am not going to reject all modern translation scholarship because of my preference. There's a lot to gain from the good modern translations. I admit the KJV is a tough read at times and it's certainly not perfect but if it was good enough for the Apostle Paul then it's good enough for this guy.


----------



## JimmyH (May 12, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> Captain Picard said:
> 
> 
> > My primary concern in all textual-critical conversations is not 'which Bible do you prefer', as I think that all accurate translations can be valid representations of the Word in English. My primary concern is "accurate translations". I do not call Byzantine-text bibles "not the Word", but as an ESV reader (who does all his serious study in parallel with the NKJV), I expect the same courtesy extended to me. And I don't always get it.
> ...


I suppose it goes without saying but ......... the Apostle Paul never saw a complete NT, much less a KJV, and probably read the Hebrew scrolls, and the LXX.


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 12, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > Captain Picard said:
> ...



Lol That was clearly a joke Jimmy. but thanks


----------



## JimmyH (May 12, 2015)

God'sElectSaint said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > God'sElectSaint said:
> ...


Apologies for taking it seriously (I should have known better) Reminded me of this ;
Quoted (allegedly) from the 4 December 1926 issue of The New Yorker (Talk of the Town, Pg. 27),

Old English

A gentleman connected with the Rockefeller Institute discloses that, among hundreds of letters of denunciation received by the institution during the past year was one from a man in Arkansas who took the view that all this modern education is dangerous and that the new-fangled practice of grounding preachers in Latin and Greek is especially pernicious. They ought to be taught in English, and only English, he said, adding in conclusion, *"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me."*


----------



## God'sElectSaint (May 12, 2015)

JimmyH said:


> God'sElectSaint said:
> 
> 
> > JimmyH said:
> ...



Lol Wow. There some KJV onlyers that are serious when they what I said, sadly. It's pretty crazy how intense we can get over translations sometimes. Of course God's Word is important and we should stand for what we believe but with meekness.


----------

