Featured How important is the KJB?

Can of worms...

This would probably be a good topic for another thread but just a fast walk through any of the more successful "Christian" bookstores (of which there are several in my area) gives evidence that most of the motive and motivation for even the existence of these places is NOT to edify the church with sound doctrine and good Bibles OR good Bible teaching. Rather it is the pursuit of $$$$$ profit. By the way...I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with making money....but if that becomes your chief pursuit while you are professing to be a "Christian" entity....then yes....I think there is a problem with THAT. If you went in some of these places and discarded all the titles that represented false doctrine and heresy there would not be much left on their shelves (in my admittedly very narrow-minded opinion). The average "Christian bookstore these days is a spiritually DANGEROUS place. I also believe that the pursuit of filthy lucre is the prime factor in what has polluted the modern-day publication of supposedly "more accurate" versions of the Bible. God doesn't need all the high dollar "Madison Ave" advertizing to promote His Word. He promotes by the Spirit of God and His fruit. We need to QUIT measuring the "success" of God's Word by sales and distribution (I never have...how about you?) numbers and look at the fruit of the Word. I think the KJB has a pretty solid record in that regard. Literally HUNDREDS of years of souls saved and lives changed.....I think I'll stand on that. We don't necessarily need MORE Bible knowledge in this generation. We are inundated with Bible teachers and Bible teaching (not that that is always a bad thing....). What we need is for us all to have a more submissive and obedient heart to the plain truths of the Word of God and the God of the Word. I'd far rather folk could brag about me for being faithful than for me being smart.......AMEN?

Bro.Greg:saint:

 

And HOW would that affect the Modern versions such as NASB/ESV etc then?

 

About the same...

Since the ones you mentioned rest on the same underlying textual foundation as the rest of the MV's (with the ONLY possible exception (that I know of)being the NKJV) (by the statements of the publishers)I'd say they are all about the same. That's MY opinion....obviously you differ. I respect that as your right. I hope for the same from you in return. My opinion about the KJV vs the MVs issue is the result of the textual/manuscript evidence that I have studied and read about over the course of the last 32 years. I am very settled in my convictions in this regard although I have ALWAYS been willing to change my mind if God so impressed/led me. As of yet,He hasn't....not even close!

Bro.Gregraying:

 

As long as one sees that the modern versions, even when using CT, are the word of God also to us in English, no problem!

 

Amen.

Amen. Although to be fair, be sure to check back in a few hundred years to count the souls saved and lives changed by the NASB & NIVs.

And amen, again.

 

200 yearas from now, for all we know, KJV might be ONLY in museums, while Niv/Esv/nasb would be the bibles!

And there will be those Niv/Nasb Only people there, as the Star Trek bible edition will be seen as being translated from inferior cosmic manuscripts

And think more persons been touched by say Niv past few decades then even ole KJV!

 

If it's profit you are concerned about, the KJV is number two in sales (to the NIV).

I don't see them exactly giving away the KJV in Christian bookstores either.

ALL businesses are in it for profit- if not what's the use?

And I'd kind of prefer to be both "smart" and "faithful". I believe that is what Jesus wants us to be- wise as serpents and harmless as doves, no?

 

I Disagree

Sorry Yeshua.....I disagree.....and it is BECAUSE I believe that God is sovereign and in control that I do. I really can't say what I really think about this matter here because of the way the BB posting rules are written. As a member of this board and a Christian gentleman I try to respect that. I will say this...I believe that comparing the KJV in it's most published modern editions today with the MV's like the NASB/ESV/NIV/NKJV/etc. is not a fair comparison. It is,in my opinion, like comparing a VW bug with a Rolls Royce Silver Shadow....Apples to Oranges. That is my opinion. I will also venture to add one more thing.....I don't believe you'll EVER have (as you suggested) NIV/NASB ONLY types of people because adherents to MV's (at least as far as I have observed) are NOT noted for "planting their flag" on ONE hilltop. They are more than likely looking for the next new updated and more "accurate" version than to place their loyalty in any one version like us KJV'ers. This is NOT an accusation but rather an observation. As my daughter says so often....."It is what it is"!

Bro.Greg:type:

 

It's about motive...

Mex...It is like I believe I said..."I'm NOT saying there is anything wrong with making money....but if that becomes your chief pursuit while you are professing to be a "Christian" entity....then yes....I think there is a problem with THAT."

What is even worse is that most of them profit by selling many items,be they false or substandard bible translations,teaching materials,books by heretical false teachers, "Christian fiction/romance novels",etc.. It is like I said....many of our Christian (so-called) bookstores are terribly dangerous places that sell many things that are dangerous to the spiritual health of today's saints. 1 Timothy 6:10a "For the love of money is the root of all evil:......"

That's all I will say about that here since I don't wish to derail this thread.

As to your "smart and faithful" comment above....AMEN!

Bro.Greg

 

Well, brother, even churches must make a "profit" because if they don't get at least enough to cover the bills they won't be around long, and if they only make enough to cover the bills they likely won't be around long either.

 

Do you hold to MV bibles as being the word of God in English?

Just not as "good' a one as the KJV?

 

I'll try to clarify

What I believe is that the MV's (some, but not necessarily all) contain the words of God but due to additions, deletions, sometimes poor renderings, and footnoting that calls into question the authority of small/large portions/passages of scripture, I find them, by comparison, (and the comparison seems to ALWAYS be with the AV/KJB) to be, in my opinion, substandard and not trustworthy. That is my conclusion after examining this issue for the better part of 32 (plus) years.

No....I don't personally believe that the MV's are as good as the KJV and since they originate from two different "families" of manuscripts the comparison will never be equal. Things that are different ARE NOT THE SAME my dear brother. I shall stick with my KJV. If I'm wrong then I'm sure the Lord will straighten me out (and I am willing if need be) between here and the JSOC. Until then, I respect your liberty and your right to use whichever Bible you are comfortable with and I won't call you names for doing so. I think you are wrong as I'm sure you think I am as well....but I won't throw you under the bus for believing as you do....okay? Happy New Year!

Bro.Greg:saint:raying:

 

Your assertion is incorrect since some modern versions originate from the exact same "families" of manuscripts or printed original language editions as the KJV. The 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists, the NKJV, the Modern KJV, the 1994 KJ21, the KJ2000 are not from any different family of manuscripts.

There are the same type differences between the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision and the KJV as there are between the KJV and the NKJV. There are actually some actual clear textual differences [some involving whole verses] between several of the pre-1611 English Bibles and the KJV while no such clear textual differences have been demonstrated or proven between the KJV and the NKJV.

 

Isn't the NKJV really the improved version of the KJV though?

 

Interesting.....

Logos....the only one of the translations you listed above that I am personally familiar with (I never have nor will claim to be an expert) is the NKJV. I will admit that I would find the others interesting to do some comparative analysis with if I ever get my hands on them. I am teachable and interested. The only other TR based NT translation I have ever really looked at was George Ricker Berry's Interlinear Greek-English New Testament which gives the Greek text along with Berry's literal rendering along with the accompanying KJV text. Very interesting. As to the NKJV, it has the same confusing/authority-killing footnotes in it that the rest of the MV's have and frankly I think the removal of the "thee's and thou's",etc. does NOT make things any better. In some cases I think it actually harms the reading of the text. That is my opinion. I don't personally believe there is anything to gain by constantly monkeying around with the Bible. We have more "resources" today than we know what to do with and the spiritual condition of the world, our country, and specifically the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ is getting steadily worse. The so-called "improvements" to the Word of God have, in my opinion netted very little ....although I know that there will probably be endless disagreement to that kind of opinion. The old Book is just fine with me. My understanding of it (what little I claim to have) comes via the illumination by the Holy Spirit in answer to prayer...not some "updated" version with the latest english language or slang. Everytime somebody rolls out a new version the water just gets muddier (or the soup gets thinner and loses more flavor!) This much I do know....The Word of God is given to us by Inspiration, "forever settled in heaven" and Preserved for us...I believe perfectly in English (and any other language it is properly translated into). As always, I'm sticking with my KJV.

Bro.Greg

 

A consistent application of your claim would seem to harm or even attack the KJV translators and the 1611 edition of the KJV.

Are you rejecting the greater wisdom of the KJV translators that you seem to trust completely concerning their textual and translating decisions?

The KJV translators clearly rejected your type reasoning or claims about marginal notes or footnotes as not being "sound" or "wise".

In their preface to the 1611, the KJV translators asserted: "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point."

The KJV translators maintained: "They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, then to be captivated to one, when it may be the other."

The KJV translators asked: "doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?"

The 1550 Stephanus Greek text, one of the printed editions of the Greek New Testament on which the KJV was based, provided many textual notes. Brian Walton observed that Stephanus “reckons sixteen Greek copies, which he collated, and out of them noted 2384 various readings, which he though fit to put in the margin of his edition” (Todd, Memoirs, II, p. 132). Edwin Bissell maintained that “in the edition of 1550, indeed, the first collection of variations in manuscripts was actually published, numbering two thousand one hundred and ninety-four” (Historic Origin, p. 128). While the KJV translators were inconsistent in providing the textual information that they had available in the 1550 Stephanus text, they clearly indicated that providing such information was good.

How does it supposedly kill the authority of a text by providing actual information concerning the existing manuscript evidence?

The NKJV can be obtained without marginal notes just as the KJV can be obtained without the marginal notes. I have an edition of the NKJV that has no textual marginal notes.

If all editions of the NKJV are to be smeared, condemned, or attacked because of a certain type marginal note, the same would apply to all editions of the KJV that were based on the 1611 edition that had some of the same type marginal notes.

 

isn't it true that except for the originals penned by Apostles, NO Greek text has NO varients/other renderings as a possibility though?

 

Gregory Perry Sr:

Have U ever read the AV 1611 - the ORIGINAL KJV? I suggest U do so and notice all the marginal notes it has. Its translators, as well as those of the NKJV, put them there for a reason - to show alternative translations of the same words in the source manuscripts, NOT to "kill their authority".

Why not? They're no longer in everyday use, as they were in 1611.

Who's "monkeying"? Given the MANY correct English translations of many Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words, different translators make different translations, simple as THAT. U should thank God that He's caused several valid English translations 2 B made, so we have a broader overview of His word, giving the HOLY SPIRIT more to work with as He teaches us.

Thing is, some wannabee, and somewhat dishonest booksellers started the KJVO myth from a goof-filled book by a cult official. Just try Googling "J. J. Ray", the author of the first KJVO book, God Wrote Only One Bible (1955) and see if you can find out who he/she was. Some sources call "him "Jasper James Ray"; others say "James Jasper Ray" of Eugene Or. The only person we found by either name in Eugene was a used-car salesman who died in the 1980s And in "his' book, he copied heavily from Dr. Wilkinson, the cult official I referred to, without mentioning his name once! Is that Christian honesty or not?

The next KJVO book was Which Bible?(1970) by Dr. D. O. Fuller. He also copied heavily from Ray and Wilkinson. He at least credits Wilkinson for his work, but DISHONESTLY FAILS TO MENTION THAT WILKINSON WAS A CULT OFFICIAL!(7th day adventist) Again, is that Christian honesty or not? So U see, the very source and beginnings of the KJVO myth were tainted.


KJVO is NOT fornd in the KJV itself by the slightest quark of the least implication. It's a man-made doctrine and therefore false. OK if U wanna use only the KJV, Mr. perry, but it's VERY wrong to tell anyone that the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

 

Calling it what it is....

Roby...well merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too!!.. I know who J.J.Ray was...actually, that Interlinear Greek-English testament that I have was purchased through his organization back in the early 80's and though I had heard of the book you mentioned (and now have one), my first exposure to his materials (which,by the way, I like) was a pamphlet/tract he published called a "New Eye Opener" which was a simple publication that noted (to my memory) a fairly lengthy list of verse comparisons between the KJV and numerous other MV's. Certainly not exhaustive but it was indeed "eye-opening". You and I will continue to disagree on this until (and after) the cows come home. So be it.

I would further point out that Unless you can prove that Fuller actually "plagiarized" Wilkinson's actual words and works then it makes no sense to make accusations about dead men. There are plenty of people who believe the same things (on both sides of the fence) who may express them in print (even today) who are NOT guilty of any such thing.

Furthermore....you have, in the past (to my memory) made the statement that people like myself, who believe as we do, have not one single specific verse of scripture to support what you call our "myth". Well...I do admit that there is not one verse of scripture that makes the direct assertion/statement that we make that the KJV is the only valid English-language translation. We believe that the extra-biblical manuscript evidence that we embrace does in fact support that assertion and that the wording of the scriptures do in fact teach that the Word of God is perfect in it's Inspiration, and it's transmission and Preservation down through the years since it was originally penned by the Holy Spirit Inspired writers. We reject the work of men like Westcott and Hort and the Critical text as being flawed and thus we have to reject the MV's that are a product of that school of thought/work. This is well established as the facts of our position.
I want to further say, in respect to what I have just said, that you, Bro.Roby, and those who believe like you do are in THE SAME POSITION THAT ME AND MY "CROWD" ARE IN..... you have NO SPECIFIC VERSES in either the KJV OR any of your Modern Versions that support your position specifically from scripture EITHER. You are just as dependent on extra-biblical manuscript/textual "evidence" to support YOUR assertions on this matter as I am. The simple truth is...we don't agree on the evidence for the positions we hold. You and I have chosen opposing viewpoints and they/we will never agree.....as stated. One of us is right and one of us is wrong....at least to some degree. It goes to motive and neither of us has any business trying to accuse the other since it is extremely difficult for anyone to truly discern the motivations of other folks hearts.

Bro.Greg

 

Benjamin G. Wilkinson

In his book Which Bible, David Otis Fuller freely acknowledged that he included several chapters of Benjamin George Wilkinson's book Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, including some information about its author. Fuller incorrectly claimed that "here is a scholar of the first rank with a thorough knowledge of the subject about which he wrote" (p. 91).

David Otis Fuller knew that Benjamin G. Wilkinson (1872-1968), Dean of Theology at a Seventh-Day Adventist college, was a Seventh-Day Adventist, but he kept that information hidden from the readers of his book. Fuller stated that Wilkinson taught at a small and obscure Eastern college, but he did not give the name of it. Fuller even removed or deleted a footnote where Wilkinson quoted Ellen G. White favorably in order to conceal Wilkinson's identity as a Seventh-Day Adventist. Wilkinson quoted some other Seventh-Day Adventist authors listed in his footnotes, but Fuller likely did not know or realize that they were Adventists.

One reason Wilkinson objected to the Revised Version was because it robbed Adventists of several of their favorite KJV proof texts for soul-sleep and Saturday Sabbath-keeping. Another Seventh-Day Adventist author Standish claimed that “the King James Version portrays the sleep of death awaiting the resurrection through clearly translated texts” (Modern Bible Versions Unmasked, p. 25).

The main problem with Wilkinson's book is that much of the information is inaccurate or false; nevertheless, this same information is often repeated in fundamentalist KJV-only publications without careful and thorough research to check its validity.