Real Reasons to Use the KJV

[37818]

https://www.thecollegechurch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/HANDOUTS-Is-Scripture-Reliable.pdf

The New Testament in it's number of copies:
"The internal consistency of the New Testament documents is about 99.5% textually pure."

 

[Revmitchell]

It takes only a little practice to read the original Bibles in English. William Tyndale's Bibles. Miles Coverdale's Versions. The Great Bible, many Geneva Bibles, Matthews Bible. These are still some of the best Bibles in English on this planet. Why would someone not read the original Bibles in English? Everyone should know how to read an English Bible. It's not hard. It's actual easy.

uh no

 

[Conan]

uh no

Here is one in todays type.
The English hexapla : exhibiting the six important English translations of the New Testament Scriptures, Wiclif, M.CCC.LXXX., Tyndale, M.D.XXXIV., Cranmer, M.D.XXXIX., Genevan, M.D.LVII., Anglo-Rhemish, M.D.LXXXII., Authorised, M.DC.XI. : the original Greek text after Scholz, with the various readings of the textus receptus and the principal Constantinopolitan and Alexandrine manuscripts, and a complete collation of Scholz's text with Griesbach's edition of M.DCCC.V : preceded by an historical account of the English translations : Scholz, Johann Martin Augustin, 1794-1852 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

 

[CJP69]

I am not a KJVonlyist.

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...ons-for-Keeping-to-the-Authorised-Version.pdf

https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.tbsbibles...EAE1CF/A-Textual-Key-to-the-New-Testament.pdf

So, I've looked at the two articles you linked too and skimmed through most of the thread and just want to ask you the following questions...

Is there any reason given in support of the KJV that would not also support the NKJV?

Or asked the other way around, do you know of any reason why the NKJV would not be at least as good as, if not better than, the KJV?

In my view, the NKJV is little more than the KJV in modern English and the fact that it is in modern English makes it superior to the KJV for practically everyone who hasn't spent their entire lives getting "used to" the antiquated English in the KJV.

 

[CJP69]

I now mainly teach teenagers and non college educated adults. We can use the ESV, read the Bible, and the reading is easily comprehended. They may not know the theology of the passage, but they at least comprehended the wording.
We try the same in the KJV and I spend more time explaining the language of the passage than the meaning of the passage.

You make an excellent point concerning the difference between using modern English vs. the antiquated English of the KJV! That single point alone make nearly any modern translation superior for use by newer Christians who are just trying to learn the basics.

However, there are real problems with the source material for nearly all of the modern translations like the ESV and NIV, etc. to the point that, for anyone doing serious bible study, who wants to get into the deeper details beyond what would be typically taught to laymen in a Sunday school class, these translations are prone to lead people into serious error and should be avoided.

For most of the reasons given so far in this thread, as well as many others, what are referred to as the "Majority Texts" is superior source material and, since modern English is clearly superior to a centuries old form of English that no one speaks any longer, the clear choice for the serious bible student is the New King James, along with a healthy understanding of, and frequent reference to, the original languages, of course.

 

[37818]

So, I've looked at the two articles you linked too and skimmed through most of the thread and just want to ask you the following questions...

Is there any reason given in support of the KJV that would not also support the NKJV?

Yes, but is not in either articles. Of the modern translations the NKJV is a translation I would recomend. Bur the NKJV has no apperatus to distinguise singular pronouns from plural pronouns that the Old English offers. Otherwise the NKJV can be considered better the than our currently used KJV. The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is largely why I use the KJV.

 

[robycop3]

Yes, but is not in either articles. Of the modern translations the NKJV is a translation I would recomend. Bur the NKJV has no apperatus to distinguise singular pronouns from plural pronouns that the Old English offers. Otherwise the NKJV can be considered better the than our currently used KJV. The distinction between singular and plural pronouns is largely why I use the KJV.

We don't use distinctions in our everyday speech & writings, except context, & we get along fine.

 

[37818]

We don't use distinctions in our everyday speech & writings, except context, & we get along fine.

Mere context does not typically work with Scripture when it comes to plural and singular pronouns.

 

[CJP69]

Mere context does not typically work with Scripture when it comes to plural and singular pronouns.

Yes, it does. It would be the exception to find an instance where it isn't made clear by the context and even then, such examples would be instances of poor translation work, not a lack of sufficient words in the English language.

 

[37818]

.

Yes, it does. It would be the exception to find an instance where it isn't made clear by the context . . .

I disagee. The 7 letters to the 7 churches were first addressing to each messenger first, before each whole church is given a believers promise. In John 3:7 Jesus explaied to Nicodemus everybody must be born again. In Romans 11:17 Paul adresses each individual as a wild olive tree.

 

[CJP69]

.
I disagee. The 7 letters to the 7 churches were first addressing to each messenger first, before each whole church is given a believers promise. In John 3:7 Jesus explaied to Nicodemus everybody must be born again. In Romans 11:17 Paul adresses each individual as a wild olive tree.

Again, the exception (granting for the sake of argument that his counts as an exception) proves the rule.

Your own use of the English language on a daily basis without separate words for singular vs. plural pronouns is proof by itself that their use is not necessary. Can it be useful? Yeah, sure, it can be useful. Does that relatively minor utility outweigh the cumbersome nature of the rest of the antiquated nature of the language found in the KJV vs. the modern language used in the NKJV? Certainly not. One's use of the KJV for that reason amounts to a personal preference, which is totally fine, by the way. If that's what you want then terrific, but it can't be rationally argued that the use of "Thee", "Thou", "Thine", etc makes the KJV objectively superior.

 

[Conan]

Thee, thou and thine are singular.
Ye, you and your are plural.

King James English

 

[CJP69]

Thee, thou and thine are singular.
Ye, you and your are plural.

King James English

Yes, and ONLY in King James English, which no one speaks any longer, which is why you feel the need to explain it.

Why not just read the New King James, which everyone can read and intuitively understand?

 

[Conan]

Yes, and ONLY in King James English, which no one speaks any longer, which is why you feel the need to explain it.

It represents the singular and plural in the original Greek. Used by William Tyndale. Although it might have been archaic by 1611, I think thats why the translators kept it.

Why not just read the New King James, which everyone can read and intuitively understand?

A good idea perhaps. Have they revised it lately?

 

[CJP69]

It represents the singular and plural in the original Greek. Used by William Tyndale. Although it might have been archaic by 1611, I think thats why the translators kept it.

I'm not an expert here but I'm reasonably sure that the KJV was translated into what was normal 1611 English. It has only become archaic in the four centuries since.

A good idea perhaps. Have they revised it lately?

No, I don't think so. It is a mere four decades old and so is written in what is still very much modern English but it too will eventually need extensive revision. Such is the nature of translating things into a language that is still in use.

 

[Conan]

I'm not an expert here but I'm reasonably sure that the KJV was translated into what was normal 1611 English. It has only become archaic in the four centuries since.

It does represent the original Greek, which was 37818's point.

No, I don't think so. It is a mere four decades old and so is written in what is still very much modern English but it too will eventually need extensive revision. Such is the nature of translating things into a language that is still in use.

I think I might aquire one. Back when I had one I thought it was inaccurate because it used the Textus Receptus. However now after many years I have learned that the Textus Receptus is more accurate than Nestle/Aland, GNT. Another point in the KJV's favor . Not that the Textus Receptus is alway right verses others (it is not), but in textual decisions it seems way more accurate to me.

 

[CJP69]

It does represent the original Greek, which was 37818's point.



I think I might aquire one. Back when I had one I thought it was inaccurate because it used the Textus Receptus. However now after many years I have learned that the Textus Receptus is more accurate than Nestle/Aland, GNT. Another point in the KJV's favor . Not that the Textus Receptus is alway right verses others (it is not), but in textual decisions it seems way more accurate to me.

It's translated from substantially the same texts as the 1611 and it reads very very similar to the 1611 (which itself was actually a revision of a previous translation, by the way) only with modern words, sentence structure and actual paragraphs. WAY easier to read and understand.

 

[Geneva Bible Reader]

It seems to me that using old, antiquated Bible language to try and bring someone to accept/acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Savior is placing an obstacle, a stumbling block, in their way and may even prevent them from becoming a believer. Am I the only one that thinks this?

And consider that most people (I assume) use modern English language commentaries to interpret and understand the KJV language, especially new readers, and that's not going to get better as the KJV language gets older and further from modern English.

 

[CJP69]

It seems to me that using old, antiquated Bible language to try and bring someone to accept/acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Savior is placing an obstacle, a stumbling block, in their way and may even prevent them from becoming a believer. Am I the only one that thinks this?

Nope! You're not the only one.

And consider that most people (I assume) use modern English language commentaries to interpret and understand the KJV language, especially new readers, and that's not going to get better as the KJV language gets older and further from modern English.

Quite so! I've often wondered why pastors who argue that the KJV is the only acceptable version of the word of God are willing to sing songs and preach their sermons in modern English.

 

[37818]

Real Reasons to use the KJV.