Is KJV superior to all other translations?

[Logos1560]

According to Edward F. Hills, this KJV rendering “shalt be” at Revelation 16:5 came from a conjectural emendation interjected into the Greek text by Beza (Believing Bible Study, pp. 205-206). Hills again acknowledged that Theodore Beza introduced a few conjectural emendations in his edition of the Textus Receptus with two of them kept in the KJV, one of them at Revelation 16:5 shalt be instead of holy (KJV Defended, p. 208). Hills identified the KJV reading at Revelation 16:5 as “certainly erroneous” and as a “conjectural emendation by Beza” (Believing Bible Study, p. 83). William W. Combs maintained: “Beza simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was ‘shall be’ instead of ‘holy one’” (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). The earlier English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision did not have “and shalt be“ at this verse. Tyndale's New Testament, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew's Bible, Great Bible, Whittingham's New Testament, and the Geneva Bible all have "holy" while the Bishops’ Bible has “holy one.”

 

[Eliyahu]

And that is fine and acceptable by any and all. I have no problem with this statement, as it is stated as a personal belief, not a hard and cold fact that cannot be denied.

Personal preference is fine and dandy, and is a hallmark of the Baptist tradition. But so is pig-headedness...

Basically, people can choose to say the KJV is better in their own opinion, or it not the best in their own opinion. But it gets to be messy when anybody decides to try and make that decission for everyone else.

I agree. But I admit that sometimes I preach my belief on it. We are not supposed to preach KJV or KJV translators, but Jesus Christ and what He has done for us. However, which instrument(Bible) we have to use for it is important as well.
Sometimes it is hard for us to define the line between the preference and the persuasion.

 

[Glory~To~God]

AKJV is the common abbreviation for the American King James Version. Are you saying the American King James Version is superior to other versions? If you're referring to the KJV (any edition) that version is referred to as either the AV or the KJV.

Actually the AKJV is the Authorized King James Version and it is superior to all other versions.

 

[go2church]

Not really sure how calling a particular version garbage is any less repugnant then calling another version superior....

I was being ironic, I am sure I sounded as silly calling the KJV garbage as those who choose to elevate it to god-like status, "preserved for the English speaking world". If you like the KJV use it, but don't abuse it and go on thinking for a minute that God is pleased by the divison KJVOism brings to the body of Christ.

 

[Keith M]

Actually the AKJV is the Authorized King James Version and it is superior to all other versions.

Well, if you want to use AKJV to refer to the KJV rather than the American King James Version, that is your choice, but it can be misleading.

Is the KJV superior to all other versions in every reading? If so, which KJV is the superior one and which KJVs are inferior? Since there are differences in the various KJV editions then one of them must be the superior KJV while the others are inferior. Please show us which KJV you are referring to and tell us why it is superior to the others.

 

[Eliyahu]

Is the KJV superior to all other versions in every reading? If so, which KJV is the superior one and which KJVs are inferior? Since there are differences in the various KJV editions then one of them must be the superior KJV while the others are inferior. Please show us which KJV you are referring to and tell us why it is superior to the others.

Did OP ask "Is KJV superior to all other versions in every reading?" No.

Which KJV is superior or pointing out the corrections are really misleading question, because they are trivial matters!
How many corrections were made during the past 30 years, on NIV?
Which serrious doctrinal modifications have you found in the editions?
From my survey and experience, I think KJV is superior to any other modern translations in about 995 verses when we compare 1000 controversial verses. I mean the modern translations which are not coinciding with KJV, excluding Young's Literal, Third Millenium, MKJV, Darby, NKJV, Webster, etc, as they are almost on the same line with KJV.

Asking the question of which edition of KJV is superior to all other translation is a kind of political question to find a flaw there. Any edition of KJV has been superior to any then-current other versions at that time, I believe.

This type of argument is time consuming in the same way as the argument that the KJV is inerrant and presuppositional is groundless and presumptuous.
I don't force anyone accept my belief, or expect anyone accept mine so easily, but would say simply,
When we compare various translations in many controversial and doctrinal issues,
KJV is superior to all other translations in English, though it need to be updated in modern or colloquial language.

 

[Rippon]

Well Eliyahu , please do us a favor and start posting some of those 995 verses in which the modern versions got it wrong . And convince us more importantly -- in what ways the mv's are wrong .

 

[Keith M]

Did OP ask "Is KJV superior to all other versions in every reading?" No.

Uh, Eliyahu, what is this?

Is there clear evidence to support a claim that the KJV is superior in every rendering of every verse to any other English translation?

The question as to which KJV is the superior edition is neither misleading, political, nor time-consuming as you falsely claim, Eliyahu. When someone claims superiority for the KJV they must be speaking of one particular edition of the KJV since the various editions have differences. Either they speak of one particular KJV edition or they are confused in their thinking. To ask someone to clarify which KJV edition is superior is to seek clarification of their claim and none of the things you falsely claim, Eliyahu.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

in what ways the mv's are wrong

Try John 1:18 and 1st Timothy 3:16 for starters.

 

[Anti-Alexandrian]

they must be speaking of one particular edition of the KJV since the various editions have differences.

But the "differences" found in the various editions of the KJB are to be likened to the blatant changes the Alexandrian Bibles* made to the reformation text.. RIGHT????


Why not address those changes instead of skirting the issue?

*Edited to remove questioning of versions of the Bible as Bibles

 

[Pastor Larry]

Try John 1:18 and 1st Timothy 3:16 for starters.

Yes, great point. The MVs clearly testify to the deity of Christ in these verses, somethign that might be missed in the KJV translation of John 1:18.

But the "differences" found in the various editions of the KJB are to be likened to the blatant changes the Alexandrian Bibles* made to the reformation text.. RIGHT????

Surely you would not have us believe that some errors do not really qualify as errors? When something is wrong, it's wrong. The various editions of the KJV give clear, unrefutable testimony to the fact that the KJV had and has errors in it. There is no other way to explain it.

 

[AVBunyan]

Yes, great point. The MVs clearly testify to the deity of Christ in these verses, somethign that might be missed in the KJV translation of John 1:18.

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;

 

[Pastor Larry]

2 Tim 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine;

Yes, I have noticed this, particularly in the last thirty years or so as many have abandoned the sound doctrine of bibliology for KJVOnlyism that tickles their ears and gives them falsely based assurances.

The church in history has never held the KJVO position, and with good reason. They were far too devoted to the teachings of Scripture to depart from them for something like this. But as sound teaching waned in the pulpit and emotionalism and pragmatism ruled the day, teachings such as KJVOnlyism reared their ugly heads because people would not sit long and endure the accurate and complete teaching of the Scripture on bibliology.

Rather than endure the studies and the teaching, it was far easier just to default to a one version only position. And it has wreaked havoc on the church as people's confidence in God's word has been shaken. Just this fall, I had a couple in my church who had been exposed to the KJVO teaching and their confidence in God's word was severely shaken. After a couple hours of conversation and teaching from Scripture and history, we were able to work through many issues and help them to see God's teaching on this subject more clearly. How nice it would be if all people were willing to endure sound doctrine as they were that night.

 

[Eliyahu]

Yes, great point. The MVs clearly testify to the deity of Christ in these verses, somethign that might be missed in the KJV translation of John 1:18.

Would you explain to me what is missed in KJV, in these 2 verses?

In my opinion MV's are missing or mis-translating these 2 verses. Therefore please show me what you think is missing in KJV.

This can be a real misunderstanding between 2 parties.
Nobody has seen God, God showed himself - This doesn't prove the deity of Jesus Christ.

Nobody has seen God, the one in the bosom of God (which means Jesus) revealed (Him) - this shows deity of Jesus Christ.



He appeared in flesh - This doesn't tell the deity of Jesus ( MV's)
God was manifested in flesh - That is Jesus Christ - This confirms the deity of Jesus.(KJV)

How many manuscripts support this ?
For Timothy - there is no Timothy in Vaticanus B ( maybe because RC don't like chapter 3 of 1 Tim). Sinaiticus, A, C plus a few manuscripts support MV's
More than 500 manuscripts support KJV.

John 1:18 - only a few B, Aleph, etc support MV
I estimate over 900 support KJV, even Alexandrian Text A support KJV.

 

[Eliyahu]

Surely you would not have us believe that some errors do not really qualify as errors? When something is wrong, it's wrong. The various editions of the KJV give clear, unrefutable testimony to the fact that the KJV had and has errors in it. There is no other way to explain it.

Would you show me any significant changes between the editions of KJV which shows the doctrinal changes?
I hope you are not pointing out the trivial corrections.

 

[AVBunyan]

1. Yes, I have noticed this, particularly in the last thirty years or so as many have abandoned the sound doctrine of bibliology for KJVOnlyism that tickles their ears and gives them falsely based assurances.

2. After a couple hours of conversation and teaching from Scripture and history, we were able to work through many issues and help them to see God's teaching on this subject more clearly. How nice it would be if all people were willing to endure sound doctrine as they were that night.

1. Actually I was referring to you not seeing the begotten of John 1:18 in the NASV as being false.

2. Very sad - they saw the word of God and you and your folks talked them out of it and then proceeded to renew their faith in modern verions - how sad.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Would you explain to me what is missed in KJV, in these 2 verses?

John 1:18 in the modern versions call Jesus God. The KJV does not.

In my opinion

This is the key point. You are relying on your opinion. This matter however is not even debatable. One set of manuscripts call Jesus God, the other does not.

He appeared in flesh - This doesn't tell the deity of Jesus ( MV's)

Yes, it does, if you look at what the passage is talking abuot. This argument only works if you don't actually read the passage.

How many manuscripts support this ?

So the Bible is now a democracy? We are taking votes to see what God said? Of course not. That's silly. How many times does an error have to be repeated before it becomes true?

Would you show me any significant changes between the editions of KJV which shows the doctrinal changes?
I hope you are not pointing out the trivial corrections.

So only doctrinal errors are errors? That is a classic line from those who deny inerrancy: The Bible is inerrant in matters of faith and practice, but not in everything else.

The biblical doctrine of inerrancy is "in the whole and in the part."

Furthermore, your line of reasoning undermines opposition to modern versions. No "change" in the modern versions undermine any doctrine. Those who have honestly studied it know this. Some simply won't say it because they realize the outcome of it. Others are deceived.

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. Actually I was referring to you not seeing the begotten of John 1:18 in the NASV as being false.

That didn't make any sense. John 1:18 in modern versions is not false. (And BTW, there is no such thing as a NASB. There is an ASV, and there is a NASB. Please get it right.)

2. Very sad - they saw the word of God and you and your folks talked them out of it and then proceeded to renew their faith in modern verions - how sad.

Why is telling people the truth sad? Why do you object to the truth? That makes no sense to me. I didn't talk them out of anything. I sat down with great patience, and the word of God and answered every question, showing them from the Scriptures these things.

You should have no problem with that. Perhaps you have a problem because your loyalty lies somewhere other than truth.

BTW, they didn't come in believing in the word of God, per se. They came in believing in a man made doctrine with absolutely zero scriptural and historical support, and were exposed to the truth. They came in doubting the word of God, since they didn't believe the NASB was the word of God. They were exposed to the truth. And that is good. The fact that you object is heinous.

 

[AVBunyan]

1.Perhaps you have a problem because your loyalty lies somewhere other than truth.

2.They came in doubting the word of God, since they didn't believe the NASB was the word of God. They were exposed to the truth. And that is good. The fact that you object is heinous.

1. My loyalty lies in God who speaks to me through his pure words which are found in a common everday King James Bible.

2. You should be proud of yourself of the job you did on that couple - get your explanations down pat for one day you will an account.

Good day to you

 

[Pastor Larry]

1. My loyalty lies in God who speaks to me through his pure words which are found in a common everday King James Bible.

Then how do you hold a KJVO position? Do you not understand that the "pure words"of the King James Version do not teach this? Surely you must. It would be well nigh impossible not to.

2. You should be proud of yourself of the job you did on that couple - get your explanations down pat for one day you will an account.

I am very grateful that I was able to talk to them about truth. Anytime that I have the opportunity to speak truth with someone I am humbled by it and take it as a very serious responsibility. With the Bible to back me up, I do not fear. I have no need to.