Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

[MarysSon]

from post 62
"Okay, Marys son -
Please inform us of your education."

since you could not understand that simple question - I will ask specific questions

Did you graduate High school?
Did you complete college -
how many years -
what degree and what major.
any other formal training

and did you read (and understand) post # 67?

Sooooo, because you couldn't address the NT and historical evidence I presented in posts #21 and #46 - you steer the conversation away from the topic onto MY educational history?
Ummmmmm, I'm NOT the one writing a reference Bible and claiming its "accuracy".

Pretty pathetic . . .

 

[Yeshua1]

Sooooo, because you couldn't address the NT and historical evidence I presented in posts #21 and #46 - you steer the conversation away from the topic onto MY educational history?
Ummmmmm, I'm NOT the one writing a reference Bible and claiming its "accuracy".

Pretty pathetic . . .

So is rejecting Pauline Justification, as Rome did and still does!

 

[Salty]

Once again - some do not want to answer questions -

MS - you made a charge about education level.
I was just curious ......

 

[MarysSon]

Once again - some do not want to answer questions -

MS - you made a charge about education level.
I was just curious ......

I merely stated that C.I. Scofield didn't have any formal Theological training before he set out to write his Reference Bible.
That is a fact of history - NOT my opinion.

I had NO idea that you would be so offended by that . . .

 

[MarysSon]

So is rejecting Pauline Justification, as Rome did and still does!

Really?
Can you explain that one?

 

[Salty]

I merely stated that C.I. Scofield didn't have any formal Theological training before he set out to write his Reference Bible.
That is a fact of history - NOT my opinion.

I had NO idea that you would be so offended by that . . .

1) I am not offended -
2) that discussion is over -

3) I have learned one thing - its a waste of time to discuss anything with you.

lets get back to the OP


(Note: this is only the first paragraph of the OP - go to post # 1 for the full post

There are many good version such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Geneva Bible, so why do some claim it is the only version Christians should use. The Bible was attacked long before the King James Version ever came about, and if you look in history you find some of the first changes to Canon came out of Alexandria and the Gnostics. Any version coming out or based on these Alexandrian Text of the Alexandrian Codices are corrupted and many are surprised to find the Septuagint is one of these.

 

[MarysSon]

1) I am not offended -
2) that discussion is over -

3) I have learned one thing - its a waste of time to discuss anything with you.

lets get back to the OP


(Note: this is only the first paragraph of the OP - go to post # 1 for the full post

There are many good version such as the Wycliffe Bible and the Geneva Bible, so why do some claim it is the only version Christians should use. The Bible was attacked long before the King James Version ever came about, and if you look in history you find some of the first changes to Canon came out of Alexandria and the Gnostics. Any version coming out or based on these Alexandrian Text of the Alexandrian Codices are corrupted and many are surprised to find the Septuagint is one of these.

Those who hold the KJV as "inerrant" - and there are many - simply live in a world of make-believe.
Virtually EVERY translation is an errant copy of God's inerrant word.

Just off the top of my head - I san point to where the KJV uses the word "ministering", where "priestly service" is used in the Greek. It is a verb form of the Greek word for "Priest", (heirus).

Romans 15:16 - ESV
to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service of the gospel of God, so that the offering of the Gentiles may be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit.

King James Bible - KJV
That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

I don't think that makes the KJV particularly "inferior" - but it certainly is NOT without linguistic error.

 

[MarysSon]

1) I am not offended -
2) that discussion is over -
3) I have learned one thing - its a waste of time to discuss anything with you.
lets get back to the OP

And by the way - it's only a "waste" of time when I am asked ridiculous and otherwise irrelevant questions . . .

 

[utilyan]

So is rejecting Pauline Justification, as Rome did and still does!

Oh is Rome DOING something WRONG?

SOUNDS like they are required to do the right thing, Obviously you agree faith alone is nonsense.

 

[Michael Hollner]

The proposition by the OP regarding whether the KJV should be the only version Christians read is simply ludicrous. Is there a Mandarin KJV? How about a Spanish, French, Arabic or Vietnamese KJV?

The Spanish equivalent of the KJV is called the “1602P VALERA PURIFICADA,” which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish), just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English, and is the closest to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.

The French equivalent of the KJV is the King James Francaise; Le Nouveau Testament King James Francaise by Nadine L Stratford December 21st, 2016.

The Arabic is that of the “ARABIC SMITH-VAN DYKE VERSION” of 1865 claiming source texts from the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus.

The closest Chinese equivalent is the older 1875 “MANDARIN CHINESE BY SCHERESCHEWSKY” of which seems very close to the KJV, it appears there are efforts now underway by “Global Bible Translations” to give the Chinese a pure text. Their website bpsglobal.org, currently has the Gospel of John and the book of Romans translated, as they claim they are using the T.R. for an even more pure text. Another pure version is the “Robert Morrison Chinese Bible” of 1823, which is also available in PDF form online.

 

[Michael Hollner]

Do you ignore the fact that the textually-varying editions of the Textus Receptus have some readings found in no preserved Greek New Testament manuscripts and have a number of readings found in a minority of preserved Greek NT manuscripts? Do you inconsistently accept some minority readings?

Here is one example of a TR reading in the editions of Beza that is not found in preserved Greek NT manuscripts. According to KJV defender 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). Edwards F. 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).

In an edition of the KJV with commentary as edited by F. C. Cook and printed in 1881, William Lee in his introduction to the book of Revelation referred to “the conjectural reading of Beza’s last three editions” at Revelation 16:5 (Vol. IV, p. 463). James White agreed with Edward Hills that Beza’s reading at Revelation 16:5 was a conjectural emendation, a change “made to the text without any evidence from the manuscripts” (King James Only, first edition, p. 63). James White claimed: “Every Greek text--not just Alexandrian texts, but all Greek texts, Majority Text, the Byzantine text, every manuscript, the entire manuscript tradition--reads ‘O Holy One,‘ containing the Greek phrase ‘ho hosios’” (second edition, p. 237). William W. Combs maintained that “Beza simply speculated (guessed)” in introducing this reading (Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, Fall, 1999, p. 156). J. I. Mombert listed Revelation 16:5 as one of the places where he asserted that “the reading of the A. V. is supported by no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error of Erasmus or Beza” (Hand-book, p. 389). In 1844, Samuel Tregelles maintained that the reading adopted by Beza at Revelation 16:5 “is not found in any known MS” (Book of Revelation in Greek, p. xxxv). Jonathan Stonis asserted that Theodore Beza “modified the Traditional Text against manuscript evidence by dropping the words, ’Holy One’ and replacing them with ’to be’” (Juror’s Verdict, p. 60).

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.” Bullinger indicated that 1624 edition of the Elzevirs’ Greek text has “the holy one” at this verse (Lexicon, p. 689). In his commentary on the book of Revelation, Walter Scott asserted that the KJV’s rendering “shalt be” was an unnecessary interpolation and that the KJV omitted the title “holy One” (p. 326).

Have you ever read Nick Sayers book on Revelation 16:5? http://textus-receptus.com/files/Revelation 16.5 and the Triadic Declaration.pdf

 

[AustinC]

The Spanish equivalent of the KJV is called the “1602P VALERA PURIFICADA,” which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish), just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English, and is the closest to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.

The French equivalent of the KJV is the King James Francaise; Le Nouveau Testament King James Francaise by Nadine L Stratford December 21st, 2016.

The Arabic is that of the “ARABIC SMITH-VAN DYKE VERSION” of 1865 claiming source texts from the Hebrew Masoretic and the Greek Textus Receptus.

The closest Chinese equivalent is the older 1875 “MANDARIN CHINESE BY SCHERESCHEWSKY” of which seems very close to the KJV, it appears there are efforts now underway by “Global Bible Translations” to give the Chinese a pure text. Their website bpsglobal.org, currently has the Gospel of John and the book of Romans translated, as they claim they are using the T.R. for an even more pure text. Another pure version is the “Robert Morrison Chinese Bible” of 1823, which is also available in PDF form online.

Indeed, during the Reformation many translations were made in many languages. Were they perfect? No. Neither was the KJV.
There is no justifiable reason to make people have to translate old English in order to understand what God has spoken. Many English speaking people have been brought to salvation reading other translations that are not KJV. This KJV only belief is an idol taking the place of God, much like the Pharisees traditions were idols taking the place of God.

 

[37818]

You have the unmitigated GAUL to quote a charlatan like the “Rev.” Samuel Gipp, who champions a NON-scholarly work like the Scofield Reference Bible??

C.I. Scofield was an uneducated 19th century rube who fell for the teachings of John Nelson Darby and his “Rapture” claptrap, so he decided to write his OWN Bible – even though he had ZERO theological training OR education. And THIS is the guy whose teaching Gibb adheres to.
What a JOKE.

As I said before - let me know when you're ready to have an intelligent conversation . . .

Actual issues should be addressed. Questions of scholarship does not deal with an issue of disagreement. My first study Bible was an 1917 edtion of the Scofield Reference Bible I had bought as a teenager. If there is a particular inaccuracy make a case against that one issue. While the issues may be many. One should, I think, deal with one issue at a time. We might find we agree on some points of issue.

I agree with the saying, "Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ" - St. Jerome. Which is a true saying.

 

[Wesley Briggman]

This is why I have always said that the KJV is best and safest.

I agree.

However, I like to refer to the ESV for clarity of some KJV text.

Example:
(Jas 4:13 KJV) Go to now, ye that say, To day or to morrow we will go into such a city, and continue there a year, and buy and sell, and get gain:
(Jas 4:13 ESV) Come now, you who say, "Today or tomorrow we will go into such and such a town and spend a year there and trade and make a profit"--

 

[Logos1560]

The Spanish equivalent of the KJV is called the “1602P VALERA PURIFICADA,” which is Old Castellan Spanish (not modern Spanish), just like the KJV is old Elizabethan English, and is the closest to the pure texts underlying the King James Bible.

KJV-only groups or KJV-only advocates are actually divided concerning the Spanish Bible. They do not all recommend the same edition of the Spanish Bible.

Some KJV-only advocates advocate the 2010 Reina-Valera Gomez (RVG) Spanish Bible. For example, KJV-only advocate Emanuel Rodriguez wrote a book entitled God's Bible in Spanish--How God preserved His words in Spanish through the RVG. On the other hand, KJV-only author Robert Breaker III wrote a book entitled The History and Truth about the Reina-Valera Gomez Spanish Bible that attacks the RVG and recommends the 1602 Valera Purified. Some other KJV-only advocates use a different edition of the Spanish Bible than those two.

 

[Yeshua1]

Really?
Can you explain that one?

Trent stated that per Rome, the "saved by grace alone thru faith alone", which IS Pauline Justification, was declared anathema!

 

[Salty]

Trent stated that per Rome, the "saved by grace alone thru faith alone", which IS Pauline Justification, was declared anathema!

Yeshua - Marys son has been banned -so he will not be able to respond

Declared At the Council of Trent (1545-1563)
of course they had to do it - by believing in Eternal Security - they would have no control over Roman Catholics.
How Rome Denies Salvation by Grace Alone

 

[Michael Hollner]

Indeed, during the Reformation many translations were made in many languages. Were they perfect? No. Neither was the KJV.
There is no justifiable reason to make people have to translate old English in order to understand what God has spoken. Many English speaking people have been brought to salvation reading other translations that are not KJV. This KJV only belief is an idol taking the place of God, much like the Pharisees traditions were idols taking the place of God.

Where does it say in the KJV that God's Word is not perfect? Just present the Scriptures, perhaps I overlooked a few.

 

[Salty]

Where does it say in the KJV that God's Word is not perfect? Just present the Scriptures, perhaps I overlooked a few.

And where in the KJV - does it state that the KJV is the ONLY version to use.

 

[AustinC]

Where does it say in the KJV that God's Word is not perfect? Just present the Scriptures, perhaps I overlooked a few.

God does not consider the KJV to be His authorized version. I read the ESV, its translation is closer to the original Greek.

Here's what we read.

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.
~ 2 Timothy 3:16-17