Featured How best to deal with KJV Onlyists.

I know that because I'm a different type of KJV user but you don't find those translations in the modern editions... That is the history and linage of the KJV... Well here is something for you the KJV talks about the blood of Christ and is it not strange that the KJV came from the blood of a martyr?... Coincidence?... I don't think so... All those Bibles were inspired before the KJV, not to say they were not but the Geneva would have been the Bible and there would be no need of another without all the Calvinistic footnotes... Now name me another modern translation that came about by the blood of a martyr?... Brother Glen

 

The illustration at the site you shared shows the exact reason for the differences and changes in the RV and ASV, as compared to the KJV.

The two gray bars on the right side of that illustration indicate that the RV and ASV, and subsequent versions we know and suppose, included the "Most Ancient Copies", as it says, while all the Bible versions on the left-hand side are shown to have been developed without those "Most Ancient Copies" (to any extent if they were ever known and used at all), such as eventually in the production of the KJV.

Those "Most Ancient Copies" are listed as a.) Codex Sinaiticus, b.) Codex Alexandrinus, and c.) Codex Vaticanus.

An individual's perception of the value, cogency, and reliability of those three "Most Ancient Copies", a.) Codex Sinaiticus, b.) Codex Alexandrinus, and c.) Codex Vaticanus will determine their confidence in "the Modern Bibles", such as the RV and ASV, and subsequent versions as we know them, compared to the KJV and the previous volumes shown on the left, from whence it sprang.

Ruckmanism and the KJVOnly myth are truly disturbing and distracting Red Herrings in comparison to that issue in the use of those three "Most Ancient Copies" in the translation of the "Modern Bible Versions", IMHO.

Rucmanism and the KJVOnly myth should have been dismissed out of hand, historically, as having zero presidence or previous substantiated Pedigree whatsoever, as that illustration shows that versions of the Bible certainly did, in their backstory.

However, Rucmanism and the KJVOnly myth weren't summarily discharged from service by everyone as deceitful and disingenuous, which they deserve IMHO, and I am very sorry for that.

The employment, use, and heavy dependence on those three "Most Ancient Copies" in the translation of the "Modern Bible Versions", is tantamount and pertinent to an extended discussion and perhaps the possibility of a new thread, with regard to their validity vs the validity, or not, of the KJV and where they greatly differ, to me.

That's a red flag issue that is rarely touched upon, for some reason, though.

Defending the KJV these days always defaults to a person apparently or 'obviously' being a KJVOnlyist, and that after all, KJVOnlyists are irrational(?)

Of course, they are. It comes with their rationally indefensible territory.

KJVOnlyists and their cultlike myth should have just been jettisoned from that conversation as a totally false dead issue, to start with, in order to then talk about the "Most Ancient Copies" fiasco, the way I see it.

 

That's the way I see it, based on the philosophy that "Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks".

There are differences in the New Testament writers' quotes of the Old Testament, but that doesn't make one or the other less authoritative as God's Word.

"Inspiration doesn't always follow in the same set of tracks", and if so then the differences between the KJV and previous versions, which were faithfully translated from knowingly reliable original language texts used by God's people for centuries, are irrelevant from the standpoint of them all being 'inspired', as you say.

My meaning of inspired is not about those translations being Directly God-breathed perfectly, word-for-word as if practically Handwritten by God Himself, as the OP KJVOnlyists want people to believe, but 'inspired' and 'Life' as to its overall content in the closed canon, the way Jesus said,

"It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 6:63.

How did Jesus know that the words He was speaking would be written down and preserved for us to read, until right this second, as "spirit" and "life", as well as until the Judgment when He will use them there?

Because He is God and God promised over and over to preserve His Word and is, therefore, Big enough to make sure that job got done, in a final form that was not to be broken or added to or taken away from, with corrections and clarifications, consultation and comparison of other versions and the original language texts, etc., notwithstanding, etc.

Those Bibles may be said to be 'inspired', according to me and myriad preachers of old, derived (however humanly imperfect regarding each and every idiosyncrasy inherent in the nature of translation) as ultimately being Holy and Sacred and of Divine Origin wherein they contain the Words of Life in whatever language it is translated into, wherever it points and lands, as accompanied by the Holy Spirit as to them being God's Words, as God said,

"So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it." Isaiah 55:11.

Whereas an initiative commenced to treat the translation of a version of the Bible as if it "is any ordinary book", may be indicative of and leave the prospect of those translations being "faithful to God" weighed in the balance and left wanting.

 

@37818 the text of the KJV is archaic, has many words not in use today or have changed meanings. So it is not a matter of them thinking the Elizabethan English of the 1769 KJV poses a problem understanding the text, It does present a problem. My question is why use the KJV if you have to have another bible to tell you what the KJV text means. Just use a modern text whether it be the NKJV, NASB, NIV etc.

While you like and use the KJV most people do not as they do not want to struggle with the text. Having said that, I agree with @JonC using the KJV is better than not using any bible

 

I said to leave those with closed minds to their fate, but be intolerant of false teachings such as KJV onlyism.
Only a closed mind would claim no one has presented places where the KJV mistranslates God's word. There is no need to present the same evidence over and over to those whose minds are closed. What is needed to to present the truth, God's new testament in its inspired language is Greek, not English, and translations differ and to claim the KJV is never off target and the others are always wrong when different from the KJV is nonsense.

 

The ASV, RV and RSV could all make the claim of Tyndale just as much as the KJV. The RV actually claimed to go back to Tyndale when the KJV had changed him. The KJV translators revised the Bishops Bible in peace. No danger to them. The right to have an English Bible was already won well before 1611. They even took from the pursecuters of Tyndale, the Roman Catholic Rheims. All of those Bibles and many more also talk about the Blood of Jesus Christ.

I find no fault in your type of KJV only use. You do not condemn the word of God or tell lies and slander like others. Your only use of the KJV is different than other Onlyist.

 

So from your perspective one has to use the KJV if they do not understand the Greek as none of the other translations are as good as the KJV.

Question for you 37, why are you so invested in the KJV? It is just a translation of God's word and not the best one at that. Why not use a modern translation that has more and better manuscripts to work from?

I am always amazed that people think the KJV is the gold standard for translation.That is why I actually do not like this type of discussion.

 

Not only are modern versions in OUR English, but they're often more-accurate, I. E. "pascha" in Acts 12:4 is correctly rendered "passover", not "Easter", which is incorrect.

 

Their

They're introductions say otherwise. They claim to be in the Tyndale-King James tradition. Specifically the RSV. I know it's not as accurate as the KJV, but it can trace thousands of words and readings to the Tyndale-KJV tradition.

 

In this is the problem. They don't use the better thousands of manuscripts, but dismiss them for a tiny fraction of inferior quality manuscripts full of mistakes like eye skip.

The newer versions should be more accurate. But they are often not. I mean surely they can be more accurate. But why are the not when they should be.

 

King James English

 

That is a matter of opinion. But if you think the KJV is so good then you should you not be promoting one of the modern versions of the KJV rather than the archaic language version?