KJV: Why is it the one and others wrong?

[Bobby Hamilton]

I've seen people mentioned things along the lines of the subject line here, and had it mentioned to me multiple times.

I've always brushed it off and gone about my life. I have 3 Bibles I look at on a consistent basis: KJV, NKJV, and NASB. But I guess I don't get why one is THE one, and the others are a "perversion"...if you will.

I do realize that some translations aren't word for word, but thought translations, but leaving those out...someone tell me why the KJV is the only one?

 

[Amy.G]

...someone tell me why the KJV is the only one?

It's not. Your choices of translations are great. No need to worry about it.

 

[jbh28]

It's not. You have good translations.

 

[saturneptune]

It's not. You have good translations.

I think your translations are great. I read out of the NKJV for church, and use the NIV for one when something is unclear to me. NASB is very good. I heard a rumor that if you look at the birth records of the KJVO people, you will see the doctor dropped them on their head at birth.

 

[convicted1]

I think your translations are great. I read out of the NKJV for church, and use the NIV for one when something is unclear to me. NASB is very good. I heard a rumor that if you look at the birth records of the KJVO people, you will see the doctor dropped them on their head at birth.

.......repeatedly..........

 

[convicted1]

I used to be a KJVO'er, but over time, I came to realize that even this translation IS a translation as well. Prior to 1611, there was no such thing as a KJB. So, the Word of God has been in existance in other languages way longer than the KJV has.

I have several KJV's, and I read from them probably 95% of the time, but I also have an NIV, ESV, and the Hebrew-Greek Interlinears by Jay Green.

 

[Oldtimer]

I think your translations are great. I read out of the NKJV for church, and use the NIV for one when something is unclear to me. NASB is very good. I heard a rumor that if you look at the birth records of the KJVO people, you will see the doctor dropped them on their head at birth.

Here it goes again. (sigh)

First, there are some extremists among the KJVO people who have outlandishish ideas. That's a given. Right or wrong, they are DEFENDING GOD'S WORD. Same thing for NIV supporters, even though some of their reasoning can't withstand a spotlight either.

Personally, I use the KJB as my primary one. However, there are about a half dozen others within arms reach, including the NIV. And, on-line access to others that I don't own myself.

In the news section, we moan about the potshots repeatly taken at Christians and our faith. We cry out in disappointment with every news headline that further limits our religious freedom to openly practice our faith. We express outrage when our faith is mocked by this PC world.

Yet, we do the same thing. It's OK to make fun of someone who believes the KJV is the best source for God's word. It's OK to state the verbal equivalent of spitting on them. Or, maybe throwing a shoe at them.

It's fine to disagree, even strongly disagree, about which translations are the best, most accurate, etc. & etc. But, isn't God's word due respect even if it's written in crayon on a paper napkin and held by someone withwhom you totally disagree?

If I were making jokes and other crude, callous, sarcastic remarks about someone who truely believes the NASB is the best, the only one to be used, wouldn't you (as a group of people) quickly come to his or her defense?

Disagree with the KJVO position as much as you want. Agree with it as much as you want. But, please, stop throwing shoes at other Christians who disagree with you. As believers in HIM, please let the Holy Spirit guide your fingers on the keyboard.

PS: Saturneptune, please don't take these remarks personally. I used your post as a soapbox only to make a general plea to all. It pains me greatly when any form of God's word isn't treated with the reverance due its Author.

 

[saturneptune]

Here it goes again. (sigh)

First, there are some extremists among the KJVO people who have outlandishish ideas. That's a given. Right or wrong, they are DEFENDING GOD'S WORD. Same thing for NIV supporters, even though some of their reasoning can't withstand a spotlight either.

Personally, I use the KJB as my primary one. However, there are about a half dozen others within arms reach, including the NIV. And, on-line access to others that I don't own myself.

In the news section, we moan about the potshots repeatly taken at Christians and our faith. We cry out in disappointment with every news headline that further limits our religious freedom to openly practice our faith. We express outrage when our faith is mocked by this PC world.

Yet, we do the same thing. It's OK to make fun of someone who believes the KJV is the best source for God's word. It's OK to state the verbal equivalent of spitting on them. Or, maybe throwing a shoe at them.

It's fine to disagree, even strongly disagree, about which translations are the best, most accurate, etc. & etc. But, isn't God's word due respect even if it's written in crayon on a paper napkin and held by someone withwhom you totally disagree?

If I were making jokes and other crude, callous, sarcastic remarks about someone who truely believes the NASB is the best, the only one to be used, wouldn't you (as a group of people) quickly come to his or her defense?

Disagree with the KJVO position as much as you want. Agree with it as much as you want. But, please, stop throwing shoes at other Christians who disagree with you. As believers in HIM, please let the Holy Spirit guide your fingers on the keyboard.

PS: Saturneptune, please don't take these remarks personally. I used your post as a soapbox only to make a general plea to all. It pains me greatly when any form of God's word isn't treated with the reverance due its Author.

I do not take it personally, this is a debate forum. I think the point is missed though. There is nothing wrong with KJV, as I pointed out in my post, I use NKJV almost all the time. The point is that there is something wrong with the thinking of individuals who condemn others using a different version. There is a difference between making a little fun of and condemning.

 

[glfredrick]

The KJV is a good translation as long as one takes into consideration that many of the words used within it have a different usage TODAY than they did over 400 years ago when they were put to paper.

Other than that, it is a direct and intentional fallacy to insist that ALL OTHER TRANSLATIONS be compared to the KJV. That means that SOMEONE set the KJV up as THE standard. Who, and Why? And there are no "good" answers to that (acknowledging that some HAVE answers, but they are not "good" nor "coherent" answers, but rather CHOICES).

 

[InTheLight]

..someone tell me why the KJV is the only one?

The first video at the link below is a pretty good summary of the KJVO position.

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=5004

Basically, it comes down to this: Which of the existing manuscripts should be used as a basis for translating the Bible? The Byzantine texts or the Alexandrian texts?

The ensuing videos take apart the KJVO position.

 

[menageriekeeper]

Because we have failed in our command to "love one another" and instead chose to beat one another over the head with any percieved difference to our own beliefs.

 

[Bobby Hamilton]

Thanks gang for all of the replies. I was just curious to see what people thought.

I usually just blow off "one version only" people, because at the end of the day it doesn't really effect me.


But I was curious as to why some people are so staunch, specifically on the KJV being the "only version"

It's still a translation, right? And some people just don't seem to get that.

 

[KobrinFamily]

I read KJV only but thats becuse thats what my Church use and with haveing luring disabiltys I think I would get even more confused useing something else too read along with...I DO have other Bibles though, My Hubby likes too bug me and say I have a addiction too collecting Bibles lol :tongue3:

 

[Grasshopper]

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=77336

 

[Askjo]

I've seen people mentioned things along the lines of the subject line here, and had it mentioned to me multiple times.

I've always brushed it off and gone about my life. I have 3 Bibles I look at on a consistent basis: KJV, NKJV, and NASB. But I guess I don't get why one is THE one, and the others are a "perversion"...if you will.

I do realize that some translations aren't word for word, but thought translations, but leaving those out...someone tell me why the KJV is the only one?

Which one will you pick? -- Take your Bible:

The Antiochan Bible VS the Alexandrian Bible

 

[Salty]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me.:smilewinkgrin:

 

[Winman]

I am one of those loathed and despised KJB "onlies". I do not accept other versions because they are based on another text.

It is not possible that the Word of God should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. That is impossible. These verses should either be there, or they should not be there. There is no middle ground.

I only point out these 12 verses because they are the most well known and famous difference between the two texts. There are many other differences between the texts besides these 12 verses.

I will not get bogged down in a big debate over this, but this is why I do not accept the MVs.

 

[David Lamb]

I am one of those loathed and despised KJB "onlies". I do not accept other versions because they are based on another text.

It is not possible that the Word of God should both contain and omit the last 12 verses of Mark. That is impossible. These verses should either be there, or they should not be there. There is no middle ground.

I only point out these 12 verses because they are the most well known and famous difference between the two texts. There are many other differences between the texts besides these 12 verses.

I will not get bogged down in a big debate over this, but this is why I do not accept the MVs.

Let me start by saying that I, for one, do not loath or despise you. :love2:

Surely you need to insert the word "some" twice to make your post correct, Winman?

Your second sentence would then say: "I do not accept some other versions because they are based on another text." (Not all other versions, be they modern or old, are based on another text).

Your last phrase would then read: "this is why I do not accept some MVs."

Also, there are plenty of English translations apart from the AV/KJV which do include Mark 16.9-20. I have looked at the 28 translations into English included on the bible software I have, and they all include the verses. Two of the 28 include a note:

Noyes: {The remaining twelve verses, according to Tischendorf and others, made originally no part of Mark’s Gospel. As the passage was added very early, however, since it is referred to by Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century, it is here given, as an appendix.}

Message: {Mark 16:9-20 [[the portion in brackets]] is contained only in later manuscripts.} ​

I'll leave it there, because, like you, I don't want to "get bogged down in a big debate" on this. :laugh:

 

[saturneptune]

I've said it before and I'll say it again. If the KJV was good enough for the Apostle Paul, its good enough for me.:smilewinkgrin:

You know what, you are exactly right. Also, I am so greatful Amazing Grace it part of the Psalms that the early church sang at services.

 

[Winman]

Let me start by saying that I, for one, do not loath or despise you. :love2:

Surely you need to insert the word "some" twice to make your post correct, Winman?

Your second sentence would then say: "I do not accept some other versions because they are based on another text." (Not all other versions, be they modern or old, are based on another text).

Your last phrase would then read: "this is why I do not accept some MVs."

Also, there are plenty of English translations apart from the AV/KJV which do include Mark 16.9-20. I have looked at the 28 translations into English included on the bible software I have, and they all include the verses. Two of the 28 include a note:

Noyes: {The remaining twelve verses, according to Tischendorf and others, made originally no part of Mark’s Gospel. As the passage was added very early, however, since it is referred to by Irenaeus in the latter part of the second century, it is here given, as an appendix.}

Message: {Mark 16:9-20 [[the portion in brackets]] is contained only in later manuscripts.}
​

I'll leave it there, because, like you, I don't want to "get bogged down in a big debate" on this. :laugh:

Well, I can only say it was footnotes like this that made me investgate the subject in the first place. I simply wanted to know what God said. Did God really say the last 12 verses or Mark or not? It cannot be possible that the scriptures should both contain and omit these verses.

Either one version of the scriptures is correct and the others wrong, or they are all wrong. They cannot all be right, because they are all different.

I believe the whole purpose of the scriptures is for God to communicate with man over the most important issue in life, whether we are saved or lost for eternity. I believe God would preserve and protect his Word. I believe his Word would be a reflection of himself and be without error.

So, I came to the conclusion that ONE version must be correct. You may disagree, but that is what I believe. After much prayer and study I came to believe the KJB is the correct version in English. If the scriptures were translated into any other language properly from the same text, then they would be the Word of God in that language.

This can never be settled through scholarship, that is why I will not get bogged down in a debate. Folks have to choose for themselves what they believe.