Featured Real Reasons to Use the KJV

While what you say is certainly true, there is archaic, out of date language, much is still is a very likable original English. Translated 76 years or so before the 1611 Revision of the Bishops Bible. William Tyndale's pioneering original translations.

 

The real reason I use the KJV is that it contains the words of God that He has revealed to Mankind.

Didn't you see the list of 650 verses in the O.P., that have portions of God's revelation unceremoniously edited out and omitted?

And that's just the the words that God has spoken to us in the New Testament.

It doesn't list the content from the Old Testament that has been removed, or the instances where God's words have been questionable altered.

That causes every Bible reader to have to always go back on every Bible verse they are trying to read and look it up in the King James Version, in order for them to find out and see, "what God said".

Since, along with a few others, the King James is complete and unabridged, making it suitable and sufficient to be in accord with any given Confession of Faith and/or Bible verse that we know of that describes God's words that it proposes to possess.

I just call the King James a "Christian" version of the Bible.

That's all.

The Book of books, as opposed to one translated like it was any other book and you see what's happening to them.

A Magnificent Supernatural Masterpiece of Literature.

It's contents are "Spirit and they are Life", so you will have to find someone else to tell you that the Spirit removed a huge portion of It's Own Divine revelation.

The KJCV.

The real reason I use it is because it is the King James Christian Version.

It contains the words of God that have always been associated with Christianity for centuries.

Then, I don't't know if too many people have caught onto it, but the underlying original text documents were overhauled and took on some major changes, and were switched out, where the words of God that had been associated with Christianity were essentially abandoned in favor an apparitions.

Yet, the Christian version and Christianity still march on.

 

That is only because of William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale. God used them to translate his words well before 1611, and they are the real reason behind the "Masterpiece of Literature." It was not the KJV translators, who were humans that sometimes made errors in translation and text. But they were smart enough to copy William Tyndale.

 

The Board is saying that I am ignoring this member. Thank God!

 

The begyn=
nyng of the
Gospell of
Jesu Christ
the sone of
God as it is wrytten in
the prophetes: behold I
send my messenger befor
thy face/ which shall pre=
pare thy way before the.
The voice of a cryar in
the wilderness: prepare ye
the way of the Lord/ ma=
ke his pathes strayght.

 

Real Reasons to Use the KJV,

Purer Manuscripts behind the King James Bible

The two main manuscripts which underlie all the modern versions have been corrupted repeatedly. Let us look at the characteristics of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, which are the darlings of the modern bible editor.

The Vaticanus Manuscript (B)

The word “Vatican” in Latin means “Hill of Divination.” (Deu 18:10 KJV) There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, or that useth divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch, The Vaticanus manuscript was found in the Vatican library in 1481.

It was rejected by the King James Translators because it was very corrupt and unreliable. The following portions of Scripture are missing from the Vaticanus: Genesis 1:1-31; 28; Psalms 106-138; Matthew 16:2-3; Mark 16:9-20; The Pastoral Epistles (1 & 2 Timothy and Titus); Hebrews 9:14-13:25 and all of the book of Revelation.

These were intentional omissions because the manuscript was found in excellent condition with no pieces missing.

In the Gospels it leaves out 237 words, 452 clauses, and 748 whole sentences. These omissions were intentional since there was room left on pages to write these in.

The Vaticanus manuscript was written on expensive Vellum and was in good condition when found which means that the missing areas were not due to missing sections but intentional omission.

The Sinaiticus Manuscript (a) Aleph

The major characteristic of this manuscript is that it is a literary mess. There are mistakes, erasures, sentences written on top of other sentences plus many words are omitted.

It contains nearly all the New Testament, the Apocryphal Books plus two other false books, “The Shepherd of Hermes” and “The Epistle of Barnabas.”

Every page contains corrections and revisions by at least ten different people. Corrections on the manuscript were made as late as the sixth or seventh century A.D.

With so many revisions and corrections done to this manuscript, it made it totally worthless.

It was found in a garbage can in St. Catherine’s Monastery in 1844 by Constantine Tischendorf. The manuscript was so bad, the monks were going to burn the manuscript just for heat. It too omits Mark 16:9-20. Dr. Scott McKendrick, Head of Western Heritage Collections, in the British Museum did a close analysis and found 35,000 variations in this manuscript.

“On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament.” --- Dean Burgon


Textual Variations between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus

There are 3036 textual differences in the Gospels alone. 656 in Matthew - 567 in Mark - 791 in Luke - 1022 in John. With these amounts of disagreements in the Gospels alone, how can these manuscripts ever be trusted for accuracy, yet all your modern versions rely heavily on these two manuscripts.

 

The false witness of KJVOnlys unfortunetly still alive.

Lies. The ancient, valuable Christian Bible was only discovered there. It is so old, closer to the time of Jesus that no one knows where it was written. It was not made in Rome but only ended up there in their library, where many valuable, ancient Christian Bibles are in all languages. Its one of the best libraries in the world. There will even be KJV Bibles there. There is nothing wrong with that. You are a slander of Bibles, trying to make them into something evil.

And here you give false witness, misleading, trying to deceive Christians. Codex Vaticanus is one the Oldest Bibles on this planet. It is from the 4th century AD. It was witten so long ago that the Bible is damaged because of age. The first thing to go on books that close to 2,000 years old are the front and backs are lost first. All ancient books are like this. Nothing man made lasts forever. Think of all the ancient Bibles that have been lost to us down throughout the ages. Of course nothing this old can survive completely intact, but time destroys ancient valuable books. Just like first century, second century, third century books are no more.
Most of our ancient hand written Bibles are from the 10th-15th centuries. Its hard for something older to survive, and when they do the are treasures to be valued, especially very old Bibles.
When an old KJV Bible is worn out do you condemn it because the stitching has gone and has missing pages? Of course not. You have slandered Bibles falsely, and should be ashamed for misleading Christians about old Bibles, telling lies about them.

Again, you lie and give false witness. 748 whole sentences? That's because the Bible is so old and ancient that worms have destroyed the front from (Old Testament) to the end New Testament.

 

But the Y'all Version [LINK] IS SO MUCH MORE FUN!

It identifies the English Second Person Plural and uses regional English equivalents to represent the Hebrew and Greek forms.

Choose between:

Southern US (Y'all Y'all's Y'all's Y'allselves)
Western US (You guys Your guys's Your guys's Your guys selves)
NYC/Chicago (Youse guys Youse guys's Youse guys's Youse guys selves)
Pittsburgh (Yinz Yinz's Yinz's Yinzselves)
United Kingdom (You lot You lot's You lot's Yourlot's)
Old English (Ye Ye's Ye's Yeselves)
Australia (Youse Youse's Youse's Youseselves)


John 3:12 New American Standard Bible - NYC/Chicago Version
If I told youse guys earthly things and youse guys do not believe, how will youse guys believe if I tell youse guys heavenly things?

John 3:12 English Standard Version - Southern US Version
If I have told y’all earthly things and y’all do not believe, how can y’all believe if I tell y’all heavenly things?

Rob

 

Your claimed "real" reason is misleading and inconsistent.

The 1611 KJV does not actually contain an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture in its underlying texts. If you are suggesting that it does, your claim would not be true. The KJV is not a literal every word, word-for-word English Bible translation. Later editions of the KJV add over 160 whole words that were not in the 1611 edition of the KJV. More importantly, the makers of the KJV themselves clearly acknowledge in their 1611 marginal notes that they omitted giving any English word/rendering for many original-language words of Scripture. They did not put a marginal note every time that they omitted giving an English word/rendering, but still their marginal notes show that they omitted words many times. They also added many words in English for which they had no original-language word of Scripture in their underlying texts.

There are a few other English Bible translations that are more word-for-word than the KJV is, and that fact exposes the inconsistency of your claim.

 

I assume that you are sincere and believe what you stated, but that does not mean that your reason is correct. You may wish or assume your reason to be true, but your reason may possibly be dependent upon use of the fallacy of begging the question. You may be merely assuming your statement to be true instead of proving it to be true. You do not actually prove that the KJV contains all the words of God revealed to mankind or that it contains an English word/rendering for each and every original-language word of Scripture. Is my more specific statement what you are suggesting by your statement? Please clarify and explain if you think that I misunderstand what you are claiming in your reason.

All the varying editions of the KJV do not contain every one of the same exact words of God that have always been associated with Christianity for centuries. The 1611 KJV does not contain every word or all the words that were in the pre-1611 English Bibles. In addition, all editions of the KJV from the 1611 edition until today are not every word the same, and they do not all contain all of the same exact words.

In 1985, KJV-only author D. A. Waite had listed only 36 examples for his category of adding a word in his list of changes made to the 1611 edition. According to more careful research, there were over 180 whole words not found in the 1611 edition that are added in a typical, post-1900 KJV edition. At one verse (Eccl. 8:17) which was overlooked by Waite, six whole words are added to the 1611. At nine verses (Lev. 26:40, Num. 7:31, Num. 7:55, Josh. 13:29, Jud. 1:31, 2 Kings 11:10, Ezek. 3:11, 2 Cor. 11:32, 2 Tim. 4:13), three whole words are added. In at least seventeen verses, two whole words are added (Exod. 15:25, Exod. 21:32, Exod. 35:11, Lev. 10:34, Lev. 26:23, Deut. 26:1, 1 Sam. 18:27, Ezra 4:11, Ezek. 34:31, John 7:16, 1 Cor. 14:15, 1 Cor. 15:41, 2 Cor. 9:5, 2 Cor. 9:6, 1 John 5:12, Rev. 1:4, Rev. 5:13). At over one hundred twenty verses, one whole word is added to the 1611 (Gen. 19:21, Gen. 22:7, Gen. 36:14, Exod. 26:8, Exod. 34:25, Lev. 7:23, Lev. 11:3, Lev. 14:54, Lev. 18:3, Lev. 20:11, Num. 9:13, Num. 20:5, Deut. 4:25, Deut. 4:32, Deut. 5:29, Deut. 9:10, Deut. 20:7, Deut. 24:10, etc.).

Considering the other categories of changes of substance, over 45 whole words found in the 1611 edition are omitted in the post-1900 KJV edition in the Scofield Reference Bible if the 21 words omitted at Exodus 14:10 are included in the count. Thus, typical post-1900 KJV editions do not contain all the English words that were found in the 1611 edition.

Most English-speaking believers have not actually read and used an English translation 100% identical in every word to the 1611 edition for centuries or for 400 years.

 

I use a King James, it's what I'm used to and grew up with.

 

Real Reasons to Use the KJV.

The Preeminence Of Christ
By Thomas Holland, ©2000, used with permission.
This is an except from Dr. Holland's book, Crowned With Glory.

Some have proclaimed that modern versions or their Greek texts deny the deity of Jesus Christ. Certainly there are some, such as the New World Translation, that seek to diminish Christ's deity. It is also true that some versions are stronger regarding Christ's deity than others. While most translations clearly and strongly proclaim this basic biblical truth, the Traditional Text does present a stronger Christology regarding His deity (Matthew 19:16-17; Romans 14:10, 12; Philippians 2:6; 1Timothy 3:16; 1John 5:7; and Revelation 1:8, 11).

Additionally, other aspects of Christology are more strongly presented in the Traditional Text. For example, in Luke 2:33, 43 the Traditional Text calls the stepfather of Christ by his name and separates him from the person of Mary. We read, "Joseph and his mother marvelled" and "Joseph and his mother knew not of it." However, the Critical Text changes "Joseph" to "father," making the texts read "his father and mother marveled" and "his father and mother knew not of it." Such readings do not in themselves deny the virgin birth of Christ; still the reading found in the Traditional Text upholds this doctrine and removes any possible confusion in this regard.

The same may be said of Christ's redemption. Again, the truth of salvation is found in all Greek texts and English translations. Yet, certain aspects are presented more forcefully in the Traditional Text and the KJV in certain places. We are told that we have redemption "through his blood" in Colossians 1:14. The Critical Text does not contain this phrase at this place, though it does appear in all texts in Ephesians 1:7. This raises two questions. First, why would the phrase be found in Paul's letter to the Ephesians and not in his letter to the Colossians? Second, how is it possible to have redemption without divine payment for that redemption? Clearly the phrase should remain in regard to this doctrine. The Greek manuscripts are evenly divided as to its inclusion or omission. This can be demonstrated with the two editions of the Majority Text. The internal evidence, based on Ephesians 1:7, would argue for its inclusion in that the phrase is used by Paul elsewhere and is consistent with what he would have written. Overall, when we consider other textual sources, the reading must remain because it is biblical and in character with Paul's other writings.

An additional example concerns 1Peter 2:2. We are told in the Traditional Text that as newborn babies in Christ we should "desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby." The Greek phrase found in the Traditional Text reads ina en auto auxethete (that ye may grow). The Critical Text adds eis soterian (to salvation) at the end of the phrase, suggesting that salvation is something we grow to. This is why the NRSV renders the phrase as "that by it you may grow into salvation." Certainly the reading of the Traditional Text omits the confusion and provides a stronger Christology here regarding redemption.

In regard to Christ, Paul reminds us that "in all things he might have the preeminence" (Colossians 1:18). If Christ is to have the preeminence in all things, this would include Bible translations. Just as one can use a modern version to prove the deity of Christ, so modern versions proclaim the person of Jesus Christ. Though this may not be in question, divine names are not always as strongly proclaimed in the Critical Text. Instead of phrases such as "Lord Jesus Christ" we might find "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus." In fact, there are about two hundred such examples found in the New Testament where the expanded title is found in the Traditional Text.

Sometimes a simple omission has profound impact. 1John 1:7 is a good illustration of this. The Traditional Text reads, "But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin." Modern versions based on the Alexandrian textual line read "Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ." The difference seems small on the surface, but we must remember that John wrote this epistle to confront the heresy of Gnosticism. The Gnostics taught that Jesus and Christ were two separate entities. Jesus, they said, was born of Joseph and Mary and was physical. At his baptism the Christ, who was spiritual, was said to have entered into him. At this point, according to the Gnostics, Jesus became Jesus Christ. At his crucifixion, the Gnostics claimed that the Christ left, leaving only Jesus to die. At the resurrection, the disciples saw the spirit Christ, but the mortal Jesus remained dead. Once we understand the heresy John was confronting, the differences between the two readings becomes abundantly clear. If John had written "the blood of Jesus" he would have been making a statement that the Gnostics would have been in agreement with. After all, they believed that it was Jesus who shed his blood. But by writing "the blood of Jesus Christ," John was making a direct assault on this Gnostic heresy.

 

Several pre-1611 English Bibles and many post-1611 English Bibles clearly, precisely, and accurately identify Jesus Christ as "our God and Saviour" at 2 Peter 1:1. William Tyndale in 1534, Miles Coverdale in 1535, and John Rogers in 1537 translated the last part of this verse as "righteousness that cometh of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ." In his 1538 Latin-English New Testament, Miles Coverdale rendered it “righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” The 1539 Great Bible, 1557 Whittingham's New Testament, 1560 Geneva Bible, 1568 Bishops' Bible, 1576 Tomson’s New Testament, 1657 Haak’s English translation of the Dutch Bible, 1755 Wesley's New Testament, 1842 Baptist or Bernard's, 1862 Young’s Literal Translation, 1866 American Bible Union Version, 1982 NKJV, 1994 Majority Text Interlinear, and other English translations render it "righteousness of our God and Saviour [or Savior] Jesus Christ." Thomas Goodwin maintained that “[Theodore] Beza reads it, ‘our God and our Saviour Jesus Christ,’” and that “it clearly meant one person, viz. Christ” (Works, VIII, p. 283).

At 2 Peter 1:1, the 2005 Cambridge edition of the KJV has this note taken from the standard 1762 Cambridge edition: “Gr. of our God and Saviour.” KJV editions printed at Oxford in 1810, 1821, 1835, 1857, 1865, 1868, and 1885, and at Cambridge in 1769, 1844, 1872, and 1887 also have this same note indicating the accurate translation and meaning of the Greek. An earlier KJV edition printed in London in 1711 had the same note and a cross reference to Titus 2:13. Granville Sharp observed: “In the margin of our present version the proper reading is ‘of our God and Saviour,‘ manifestly referring both titles to one person” (Remarks, p. 22). Concerning 2 Peter 1:1 in the Westminster Annotations printed in 1645, this note was also given: “Gr. Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.” Thus, the Bible scholars at the Westminster Assembly agreed with the pre-1611 English Bible translators and the editors of some standard KJV editions.

 

At John 8:58, Wesley’s N. T., the 1971 KJII, 1973 NASB, NKJV, MKJV, Green's Literal Translation, and Wuest's translation capitalize "I AM" to make sure the reader knows that Christ was claiming here to be God. Do these translations more clearly indicate a connection between this verse and Exodus 3:14 than does the KJV?

Oliver B. Greene wrote that “in John 8:58 He [Christ] told the Jews, ’Before Abraham was, I AM’” (Bible Truth, p. 105). In this same book, Oliver B. Greene noted that Jesus “had plainly told the Pharisees, ‘Before Abraham was, I AM’ (John 8:58), and they took up stones to stone Him because He applied Jehovah’s name to Himself” (p. 87). I. M. Halderman asserted: “The ‘I AM’ of John 8:58, is the ‘I AM’ of Exodus 3:14” (Bible Expositions, I, p. 519). Peter Ruckman referred to “the tremendous ‘I AM’ (John 8:58)” (Bible Babel, p. 40). Jay Green maintained that “those [translations] who do not capitalize ’I AM’ fail to reveal to the reader why the Jews picked up stones to stone Christ. It was because by saying I AM, our Lord was telling them that He was God” (Gnostics, the New Versions, p. 34). The 1560 Geneva Bible has this marginal note for “I am”: “Not only God, but the Mediator between God and man, appointed from before all eternity.” In his commentary on John, Elmer Towns observed: “The Jews of Christ’s time knew that when He said, ‘I am,’ He was claiming, ‘I am Jehovah of the Old Testament.’” Towns added: “Christ is implying, ’I am … I am,’ the self-existent One. He is claiming to be their God” (p. xiv).