KJV ONLY

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why I Like the KJV

1. It scans like poetry, making it easy to memorize.
2. It follows the Textus Receptus, which I like.
3. It seems less like a paraphrase than some of the others(though I'm going to give the ESV a whirl).
4. I cut my teeth on this version, the hard words were explained, when I took foreign languages in high school, I found the familliar form easier to memorize than I think I would have if I hadn't learned it in English first.:wr50:
 
Well, I am responding very late to this discussion but here it goes. Something that is missing in this discussion is that there are different groups of manuscripts that our translations come from. Another part missing is the way they are translated. (i.e. Formal equivalence or Dynamic equivalence) Does anyone understand what I am talking about? I have been introduced to the argurments many years past but admit I am only a novice. I have a friend named J. P. Green Sr. Baker Bookhouse publishes his interlinear. He maintains that the line of manuscripts the King James comes from is more accurate to the originals probably. They are not the oldest but there is evidence, by outside older sources, that they are probably what was truly written. I read Dr. Whites book years ago, and if I did not misunderstand him, he misunderstood Mr. Greens position. I know J. P. Green Sr. and have spent some time with him. He is not a KJV only person. He is a majority text person. The Textus Receptus is a result of the Majority Texts. He has a 3 volume work called Unholy Hands on the Bible. He has Dean Burgon and His writings in the first volume. He has the 3rd volume done but it hasn't went to the printers yet. The third volume includes a critique of Dr. Whites book 'The KJV Controversy'. Click on the site below to get the books and other puritan writings.

For Christs Crown and Covenant, R. Martin Snyder:banana:
My son likes the banana. So do I.

Sovereign Grace Publishers/Christian Literature World
Jay P. Green Sr. books


[Edited on 1-4-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Just came across this web site and thought those here might be interested. http://www.bible-researcher.com/kjvdefects.html

I love the KJV bible and have quite a few copies but I have learned over the years that the KJV like any other version of the bible has it's flaws to. I do not wish to get rid of the KJV though as it is still one of the best on the market and I would still reccomend it over some of the newer versions on the market today.

Blessings.


Tom
 
I have many different versions at home.
Because I believed in the Sovereignty of God, I will hold to the Textus Receptus. However I do read and use the King James, NKJ, ESV, NASB, NIV.
I prefer the NKJ over all others and the Geneva a close second.

I will stay away from the Message (too much new age terminology), NLT (have interpreted andy calvinistic phrases out, see Rom 8:28-30), and most paraphrased, except I like JB Phillips.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco
Originally posted by Wannabee
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that "ye" had been out of use for almost two centuries when the KJV was translated. However, in an effort to convey the meaning of the text more accurately the translators chose to use it for the plural second person.
Click to expand...
I'd be interested in this as well. The loss of the 2s/2p distinction is regrettable. And in at least one case, "you are the temple of the Holy Spirit" it has lead to some very bad theology. The "you" there is plural, and the text is about the unity of the church, not drug use or smoking (like everyone thinks today).

Having said that, I have often gotten around this issue by emphasizing that it really is "y'all are the temple..." Even Northerners get that.

[Edited on 10/17/2004 by fredtgreco]
Click to expand...

Y'all make an excellent point! :lol:

One can note this distinction clearly in the French Bible. It's interesting to see that God is referred to as the more intimately personal/singular Tu oftentimes rather than the more formal/plural Vous. I happen to pray in KJV-style English and one of my reasons for doing so is based on my preference to address God more intimately in prayer than is possible in modern English.
 
Hello, everyone. I am kind of jumping in late on this thread.

I am a AV1611 KJB-only Baptist. My friend has done a lot of research on this topic, and would like to share his website, http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/articles.html
When I start looking at other versions, and noticing words taken out, and complete verses missing, while other words are added, it makes me scratch my head. We are talking about God's Word, not some text book.
I have yet to find any errors in my KJB, and have yet to have any one show me one.
 
No errors in the KJV?

"monogenhs" is wrongly translated in the KJV. It is from "genos," not "gennaw."

And in your post you assume what you need to prove: that the KJV is the standard. You say verses are missing. Perhaps it is rather that verses are added in the KJV.

Joel

[Edited on 1-3-2005 by Covenant Joel]
 
brother.John,
Although I am not a KJV man myself, your position would be strengthened exponentially if you focused your defense on the Textus Receptus and not the AV1611.
 
I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB.
People unfortunately think that God must have made mistakes when giving His Word, so newer is better.
It was on thing to point out spelling errors, and we don't need to go into the process of printing Bibles back in the 1600's, but it is another to have a Bible that has doctrinal changes.
I am new to this board, and a bit surprised.
For a board to be labeled "Puritan", there sure is a lot of ecumenism in here.
 
At the beginning of this thread, Randall Pederson said "Does anyone here buy into the KJV only arguments? I find them somewhat unsettling as the original preface to the 1611 version states that as the English language changes, so, too, must the translation."

I have a different take on this question than I have heard expressed elsewhere. I find myself between two camps and rejected by both.

On the one hand, the old language of the KJV is definitely a hindrance, especially to unbelievers. It is good to have a translation in modern English, if that translation is reliable and based on proper principles of translation and also on the right manuscripts. After all, even the KJV advocates use an updated edition of the 1611 version (made in the 1700's) and I have never seen anyone use an exact reprint of the 1611 version (these can be purchased). This is what the translators of the KJV meant when they referred to the need for new translations. It does not follow from that however they would instantly accept any and every new translation no matter what its content, just because it was new.

On the other hand, I believe the KJV is the best available translation, and the only one I accept and use. Newer translations are in my view based on faulty manuscripts and faulty scholarly principles, and are not reliable. Furthermore, I believe deletions, or questioning passages such as Mark's account of the resurrection of Christ, are nothing less than the devil's attack on the word of God. I don't know about anyone else, but when someone says that a gospel account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not part of the original, I hear the hissing of the serpent.

It is true that many defenders of the KJV use weak arguments and bad arguments - some of them are an embarrassment and I want nothing to do with them. I have not looked at Gail Riplinger's book as I do not believe in feminism and do not think it is suitable for a woman to lecture and teach on such subjects. From what I have heard second hand, her arguments (some of them) are very weak, and I am a KJV Only-ite.

I debated this once on another board and some defender of New Bible-ism (or Let's Improve the Bible-ism) brought up and refuted extreme arguments which I didn't make. It might be that defenders of the new bibles prefer to debate the extremists - it is much easier for them to win. They may prefer to avoid the best defendants of the KJV as there are serious problems with modern scholarship that many do not want to examine.

Going over this whole thread, there are so many comments one could write a book in response. I don't want to be tedious with an excessively long post, so for now I would only like to comment on James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.' I thought the book was full of mistakes and errors. I spent a fair amount of time researching and writing an in-depth response - I sent James White a copy and got no answer (the essay was not hostile or abusive). I would like to mention four or five problems I had with the book.

1) He said the KJV Only position was "anti-freedom." In no sense is it anti-freedom to say one bible translation is more authentic and accurate than others. Some KJV people do go to extremes, but the belief that modern translations are seriously flawed is not "anti-freedom."

2) He repeatedly said that the KJV was inaccurate and what the Greek "really" meant was.... In EVERY case I looked in my Liddell-Scott Greek Lexicon and found the KJV's rendering included in the possible definitions. It seems that White looked at some bible dictionary and just picked out the very first definition out of many, or the one that he liked, and thought this is what the Greek "really" means. I definitely got the impression he was overeager to find fault with the KJV and he did not think much about why the KJV translators chose the word they did. I also think James White and many other critics of the KJV could not read a page of Plato or Xenophon in the original to save their lives, and know much less about Greek than did the men whose work they criticize so freely. This does not apply to the rare occasions where the meaning of a word (such as "lust") has changed over time.

3) He criticized a KJV rendering where Jesus said "Let these sayings sink down into your ears," and asked "What father would speak to his child that way?" But what father would say to his child "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father through sanctification of the Spirit"? The bible is not a children's book and Jesus was not talking to children. This is one reason why the KJV has a degree of spiritual power that none of the modern versions have - it follows the original, and if it is difficult or unusual or hard to understand, so be it. It does not repeatedly and consistently make the bible simpler for the modern reader, thuis diluting its impact.

4) He pointed to a major doctrinal mistake in the KJV and said no defenders of the KJV had been able to answer it. This was in Acts 19:2 where Paul asks "Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?" He made quite an issue of this, asserting that it was bad translating and bad doctrine - people receive the Holy Spirit the instant they believe, according to him. But what does Paul say in Ephesians? "...in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise" (1:13). Another mistake in the bible? Also in Acts we read that the people of Samaria believed and were baptized, but received the Holy Spirit later. White's preferred rendering is in my mind definitely related to a false gospel which says "Just agree to some basic doctrines intellectually and you are guaranteed of a place in heaven no matter what you do" - not that White said this himself. As to the grammar, the Greek (in the TR at least) uses the aorist participle (pisteusantes), which refers to actions that were completed prior. His argument that the aorist participle can refer to simultaneous actions was extremely weak and contrary to basic grammar.

5) White spent some time refuting the most extreme and obvious arguments, but there were some substantive issues he did not deal with.

I strongly agreed with one comment made by someone that some new versions are easier to read because they alter the wording to what they guess it might mean. The KJV is much more inclined to leave the difficulties as they stand and let the reader search out the meaning.
 
brother. John,

Excuse me for not responding to some more significant topics about the KJV, as I just put up one post that I wrote the other day without having read your comments. About ecumenism though, personally I like to see some different points of view on a discussion forum, though of course a local church needs more unity.

[Edited on 1-3-2005 by Joe Keysor]
 
Jie Hu Li,

I was very glad to see some insightful comments on this question from China. Some American Christians are not aware that some Chinese Christians are deeply informed on many theological and spiritual questions.
 
I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB.
People unfortunately think that God must have made mistakes when giving His Word, so newer is better.
It was on thing to point out spelling errors, and we don't need to go into the process of printing Bibles back in the 1600's, but it is another to have a Bible that has doctrinal changes.
I am new to this board, and a bit surprised.
For a board to be labeled "Puritan", there sure is a lot of ecumenism in here.
Click to expand...

You do indeed need to prove something. You say taking out some verses is bad because the KJV had them. But thereby you assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the infallible standard. Why should I take the KJV over the ESV? Just because it's older? If so, then why shouldn't the Geneva be the standard, since it is older than the KJV?

I do not support every modern translation. I think (as the KJV translators did) that variety in translations is good for understanding the text, but that does't mean I think every translation is good. I personally don't like the NIV much, and the RSV obviously has some problems. But I do like some, like the NASB, and the ESV.

And another thing about taking verses out. If you have a copy of the actual 1611 KJV, if you look at Luke 17:36, and see the marginal note to the side of it, you will see this: "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." The KJV translators acknowledged that one of the verses was most likely not original.

And show me where my ESV constitutes any doctrinal changes.

Joel
 
Originally posted by Covenant Joel

And show me where my ESV constitutes any doctrinal changes.

Joel
Click to expand...
There are a few places that deity is not mentioned in the text and John 3:13 definitely says something different. But these things only relate to the different lines of Manuscripts.
 
I just started reading the Geneva bible, and so far i like it.

It could by sayd that the spelling takes some time to come vnto my understanding. But, i will giue it a chance.
 
Originally posted by Covenant Joel
I really don't need to prove anything, when it comes to the KJB.
People unfortunately think that God must have made mistakes when giving His Word, so newer is better.
It was on thing to point out spelling errors, and we don't need to go into the process of printing Bibles back in the 1600's, but it is another to have a Bible that has doctrinal changes.
I am new to this board, and a bit surprised.
For a board to be labeled "Puritan", there sure is a lot of ecumenism in here.
Click to expand...

You do indeed need to prove something. You say taking out some verses is bad because the KJV had them. But thereby you assume what you need to prove, namely, that the KJV is the infallible standard. Why should I take the KJV over the ESV? Just because it's older? If so, then why shouldn't the Geneva be the standard, since it is older than the KJV?

I do not support every modern translation. I think (as the KJV translators did) that variety in translations is good for understanding the text, but that does't mean I think every translation is good. I personally don't like the NIV much, and the RSV obviously has some problems. But I do like some, like the NASB, and the ESV.

And another thing about taking verses out. If you have a copy of the actual 1611 KJV, if you look at Luke 17:36, and see the marginal note to the side of it, you will see this: "This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." The KJV translators acknowledged that one of the verses was most likely not original.

And show me where my ESV constitutes any doctrinal changes.

Joel
Click to expand...

I suppose it's time for all Christians to learn Hebrew and Greek.
 
I van, though it would be nice for every Christian to learn Greek and Hebrew, the AV1611 was translated by people who spoke the language, not some ruffled collar, wig wearers who studied the language.
If you start getting into your NASB, NIV, etc. you are dealing with completely different text. A text from a trash can in the vatican, and onefrom a cave in egypt. Exactly where I would expect to find Gods preserved Word.
Lets look at the NASB. Lets look at Luke 2:33, for example. Is Joseph, Jesus' father?
KJB: And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him.
NASB: And his father and his mother were marvelling at the things which were spoken concerning him;
?
look at Luke 2:43:
KJB: And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it.
NASB: and when they had fulfilled the days, as they were returning, the boy Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and his parents knew it not;
? Is Joseph the father of Jesus? I thought God is the Father of Jesus.
Aren't there cults out there that try and tell us that Jesus is just a human? If Joseph is the father, then Mary wasn't a virgin.

Now, some JW's believe that "Christ" did not die on the cross. They believe that the "œChrist" (the spiritual) left, leaving only "œJesus" (the physical) to die on the cross.
KJB: And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
NASB: And he said, Jesus, remember me when thou comest in thy kingdom.

We are all familiar with the story of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego in the fiery furnace. Let´s take a quick look at how our Bibles translate Dan. 3:25:

KJB: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
NASB: He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the aspect of the fourth is like a son of the gods.
Lets just throw in the JW's NWT, also: He was answering and saying: "œLook! I am beholding four able-bodied men walking about free in the midst of the fire, and there is no hurt to them, and the appearance of the fourth one is resembling a son of the gods."

How about an attack on the Sonship of Jesus. in Acts 3:13.
KJB: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus;
NASB: The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Servant Jesus;

Next we want to look at what perhaps is the greatest statement in scripture declaring that Jesus was "œGod". Nothing could be more clearer about the Deity of Christ than I Tim. 3:16.
KJB: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
NASB: And by common confession great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed in the flesh,
Lets throw in the NWT also, just to see what the JW's have:
Indeed, the sacred secret of this godly devotion is admittedly great: "˜He was made manifest in flesh,...´

The Jehovah´s Witnesses translated this verse as they did since they completely reject that Jesus was "œGod manifest in the flesh". It is quite shameful that the NASV has followed along with this corrupt work in changing "œGod" to "œHe".

How about the Trinity? One of the clearest verses in the Bible, describing the Trinity, 1John5:7
KJB: For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
NASB: And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth.

Im not sure about you, but I would reject any translation that rejects the Diety of Christ, the Trinity, etc.

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
II Tim. 3:16
 
As Lawrence said a long time ago in a galaxy far far away:

The argument for KJV only are based in a gross misunderstanding of language, translation and textual criticism. For a very good easy to read book get a copy of James White's 'The KJV Only Controversy.'
Click to expand...

Read White and then see if there are any arguments left standing for KJV onlyism.

The KJV is a fine English translation of the Word of God. But it is not the end all translation, the final word, the only Bible in the English language. Latin may be dead but English is still alive and kicking. As long as the language lives, we should be striving to have accurate translations available for people to read and for God to use!

Phillip

PS - what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God? Do they tell them they must learn English to have a Bible they can trust? If so, it had better be a long out of date version of the language because if that is all the English they learn then those who do speak the language will have a hard time understanding them when they ask doctrinal questions! :judge:
 
pastorway, we all know that the arguement is over the correct Enlgish translation, as given to us by God. Just as God has preserved his word for others who don't speak English.
How much more do we have to learn until we get the "correct" trnalation? You make God's Word sound like medical science, something in whcih we are always on the brink of finding the cure for the common translation.
Now we are dealing with folks who study the languages of the original texts, instead of the folks who spoke the language. Now we have groups getting together, behind closed doors, dishing out the latest greatest marketing campaign, for yet a "better translation".
Not one jot or tittle has past from KJB. Now we have translations that deny the Diety of Christ, that deny the Trinity, and some of you folks just brush it off, because the words are old, in the KJB. Hogwash.
Did it ever cross any of your minds that Satan might want to get his translation in our hands?
I find it hard to believe that so many scholarly people on here, do not believe that Alimghty God, wouldn't want us to know His Word. Like it is some secret code, in which we may some day get correct.
Maybe, in some ways it is. Maybe our Lord doesn't want everyone to know and understand His Word, so He sent strong delusions, that people may believe a lie.
Ahh, Im sure God would have put something like that in His Word, if it were true.

[Edited on 1-4-2005 by brother.Jon]
 
brother. John,
While I appreciate your conviction. The attitude that is coming across in your posts makes it almost impossible to take your points seriously. Much of your arguments are straw man arguments. eg. the denial of the Trinity, deity of Christ, etc. by the NAS. Those verses, and any others cited, do no such thing. If they truly wanted to deny the Trinity they would have to rework significant portions of scripture.

BTW, why don't you just use an even better translation, the Geneva?
 
pastorway,

what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God?
Click to expand...
I must say that this seems a little disingenuous.
Do you believe that the original languages contain the perfect word of God?
If so, then you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages.
If you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages, you can't really criticize someone else for thinking it is in a particular language (english).
 
LawrenceU,

I think the main point is that modern versions "chop away at" certain doctrines, not so much that they take them out of the bible completely.

Let's look at one of the newest "conservative" translations, the ESV, at Dan 9:26, "And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off..."
Many people would no longer see Jesus prophesied about here because it no longer says "the messiah".

To many in the kjvo camp it just seems like every new version chops away at our Lord a little bit more.
 
The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q#107 says the following...
"The conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen. teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only , and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him ; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen."
Since this says that the conclusion of the Lord's prayer has these verses in it, and the ESV does not contain these verses in the Lord's prayer - will this shape reformed congregations into the bible version they pick? Will it lead to changing the catechsim?
I find that it is a bit hypocritical if the confession is not changed, and at the same time bibles excluding these verses are embraced. You can't have it both ways.
 
Originally posted by larryjf
The Westminster Shorter Catechism Q#107 says the following...
"The conclusion of the Lord's Prayer, which is, For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever, Amen. teacheth us to take our encouragement in prayer from God only , and in our prayers to praise him, ascribing kingdom, power, and glory to him ; and, in testimony of our desire, and assurance to be heard, we say, Amen."
Since this says that the conclusion of the Lord's prayer has these verses in it, and the ESV does not contain these verses in the Lord's prayer - will this shape reformed congregations into the bible version they pick? Will it lead to changing the catechsim?
I find that it is a bit hypocritical if the confession is not changed, and at the same time bibles excluding these verses are embraced. You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. Not going to a church that follows the WSC, naturally I don't have an answer to your question, but it's a good point.
 
Originally posted by larryjf
pastorway,

what do KJV only people tell people who don't speak English about the Word of God?
Click to expand...
I must say that this seems a little disingenuous.
Do you believe that the original languages contain the perfect word of God?
If so, then you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages.
If you believe the word of God was preserved in particular languages, you can't really criticize someone else for thinking it is in a particular language (english).
Click to expand...

Actually, yes you can. That is a denial of the doctrine of Inspiration, which states that the Holy Spirit was the author of the Scriptures by means of the men who wrote them (You can review the Children's Catechism on this point). What an "inspired translation" does is the same thing that continuing revelation does. It mistakes the work of Inspiration for Illumination and the other ordinary works of the Spirit. it is dangerous beyond description.
 
Originally posted by larryjf
LawrenceU,

I think the main point is that modern versions "chop away at" certain doctrines, not so much that they take them out of the bible completely.

Let's look at one of the newest "conservative" translations, the ESV, at Dan 9:26, "And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off..."
Many people would no longer see Jesus prophesied about here because it no longer says "the messiah".

To many in the kjvo camp it just seems like every new version chops away at our Lord a little bit more.
Click to expand...

Come on. That is ridiculous. Messiah means anointed one. That is what the Hebrew word (which is a transliteration means). That is like saying that some one would not understand the "Lord Almighty" because the Hebrew title was not retained.

This is a classic example of the KJVO camp, of which I have found almost none of them have any working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.
 
Originally posted by fredtgreco This is a classic example of the KJVO camp, of which I have found almost none of them have any working knowledge of Hebrew or Greek.
Click to expand...


Really?! I find that interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

I
  • Locked
KJV only
2
Replies
55
Views
14K
PointyHaired Calvinist
PointyHaired Calvinist
JM
  • Locked
KJV Only
2 3
Replies
64
Views
12K
Marrow Man
Marrow Man
Neogillist
  • Locked
Question to KJV-only people
Replies
25
Views
7K
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
R
  • Locked
KJV-Only Versus Byzantine Superiority
3 4 5
Replies
122
Views
30K
staythecourse
staythecourse
tellville
  • Locked
Question for KJV only/preffered users
Replies
23
Views
3K
KMK
KMK
Back
Top