Featured Is the KJV the only Bible Christians should use?

‘God does not consider the KJV to be His authorized version.’

How do you know that? Did you learn that from Scripture or man?

‘I read the ESV, its translation is closer to the original Greek.’

There is no such thing as ‘the original Greek.’ The original manuscripts are long gone and now dust in the wind. What you really mean is the ESV is closer to the Alexandrian manuscripts of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Bezae, etc, as compared to the KJV’s Greek Textus Receptus, and even with that, there is no consistency. One example of this among thousands is….

“And he said unto Jesus, LORD, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom” (Luke 23:42 (KJV).

Your ESV OMITS the “LORD” in this verse even with a few of your so-called ‘original Greek’ manuscripts of Codex Alexandrinus, Codex GA-04, and Codex Washingtonianus all reading LORD. Not to mention the Greek Textus Receptus has both Jesus and LORD, along with the majority (over 95%) of all existing Greek manuscripts.

Ok, you may then say, well, Codex Vitanicus and Sinaiticus do not have it, and scholars weigh heavy on their readings along with ancient papyri. Ok. Then, how about one with Codex Sinaiticus, GA-04, along with papyri P-46 (below), (175-225 AD) all reading “Jesus Christ” in II Corinthians 4:6 (KJV) and modern versions still omit it?

The KJV says ”Jesus Christ” whereas the NASB, NIV, NET, RSV, and others all omit JESUS. Are you willing to say these other versions are in error in this verse? You may have to in this case, for your ESV has it right here as the KJV does, they both read Jesus Christ.

Do you sense the lack of consistency here?

 

Where does it say that the King James Version is perfect?

Perhaps you take Scripture verses about the original-language Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles and assume by the fallacy of begging the question that they supposedly apply only to the 1611 KJV.

Do the verses to which you may appeal teach that the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV is a revision had to be perfect?

Do any verses teach that the 1611 KJV has to have a quality or attribute which was not also present in the pre-1611 English Bibles of which it was a revision?

Do you sense the lack of consistency in your human KJV-only reasoning?

 

Perfection lies only in the originals in Hebrew and Greek, not in ANY English translation!

 

The Preface did not state concerning the 1611 Kjv what KJVO asserts!

 

Perfection and Inspiration only applied to the originals!

 

Jesus is not the actual name of Christ, yet the English translations all call him Jesus. He would have responded to Yeshua.
There is no inspired English translation. There are many earnest attempts to translate from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts into English so that us gentiles could read what God has spoken to us. The KJV is one attempted translation that has been serviceable, but has never been inspired. God has used many English translations to redeem many an English speaking person. To raise up one translation as an idol upon a mantel is an act of...idolatry. May God forbid such a horrid thing be done by a believer in Christ Yeshua.

 

KJVO indeed makes an idol of the Bible!

 

Austin, I am curious about your responses about the name of “Jesus”. Do you believe the New Testament Scriptures were originally inspired in Greek? If so, do you believe the Greek manuscripts that we have are generally reliable, which use Ιησου/Ιησους? If the fact that he would have responded to “Yeshua” means we should not call him “Jesus”, would that not mean the biblical NT writers were wrong to call him Ιησους? If we prefer the Jewish “Yeshua” over “Jesus”, should we not also prefer “Messiah” over “Christ”? Should Spanish speakers not use Jesucristo, or the Italians Gesù Cristo? Where does it end?

Thanks.

 

Would think that His "real name" would be Yeshua in Hebrew, or Yashua in Arabic!

 

Yexus in Hmong.

Jeesus in Finnish.

Losa in Scottish Gaelic.

Isuse in Serbian.

Ciise in Somali.

Yeeshu in Hindi.

Yesusi in Amharic.

Iso in Tajik.

Kiṟistava camayattai tōṟṟuvittavar in Tamil.

Chúa Giêsu in Vietnamese.

NguYesu in Xhosa.

Yoshke in Yiddish.

UJesu in Zulu.

Jezusi in Albanian.

Hisus in Armenian.

Yayshu in Burmese.

Jizọs in Igbo.

Preahyesaouv in Khmer.

Jesosy in Malagasy.

Ihu in Maori.

 

You are answering my question with a question. I asked first where within the KJV does it claim not to be perfect or have flaws.

While you are searching for those verses, I will do likewise for claims of perfection, and we can tally our references and see where we are at.

 

I prefer Messiah over Christ. Did Yeshua live in a Greek culture or a Jewish culture?
I also have no problem with the use of Jesus and Christ. However, these are transliterations of what our King was called on earth.
My point: The KJV is one translation in English. It was not the first and it isn't the last. God has used it to redeem people, but it is not a version to be worshipped as more holy than all others.

 

Thanks.

So are Yeshua and Messiah, when you get right down to it.

 

Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?

16:14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.

16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?

16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

No matter what name you call Jesus by, you didn't learn it on your own, now did you?... Brother Glen

 

Why aren’t these folks Anglican?

Funnier still is Anglicans themselves wouldn’t insist that the KJV is the only good Bible and it belongs to them.

 

Suppose I’m in a denomination and we say Sunday worshipers are in league with the devil, in what logical frame of mind would I ever consider that the Anglicans put together a perfect Bible when they consider themselves a branch of the Catholic Church a.k.a. whore of Babylon?

Would it make more sense for me to get off my rear to research and choose the proper books of the Bible add to translate the works myself?

Shouldn’t I only rely on something like The Clear Word Bible?

 

The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul:
the testimony of the Lord is sure,
making wise the simple.
Psalm 19:7

As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him.
Psalm 18:30

Doesn't your version say the same about His law and His word?


The word of our God shall stand for ever (Isaiah 40:8).


Makes no difference whatever version, it's the word of God!

Everybody says so.

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Matthew 4:4

God can say the same thing in different ways.

So I agree with what everybody says.

 

I have already read your list of references (p. 184 and p. 442 in Michael Hollner's book The King James Only Debate, 2021 edition) which you cite as claimed proof for your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning. The references that you cite do not at all suggest that the word of God is bound or limited to the imperfect textual criticism decisions, Bible revision decisions, and translation decisions of one exclusive group of Church of England critics in 1611. It is human, non-scriptural reasoning that claims absolute perfection and exclusive only claims for only one English Bible translation in 1611 since that reasoning is not actually stated nor taught in the Scriptures. You read your own KJV-only opinions into verses that do not actually teach what you assume or claim.
Perhaps you jump to wrong conclusions based on your own private, unproven assumptions that involve use of the fallacy of begging the question.

Promises of preservation of the actual specific words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles are not promises concerning only the different words in the 1611 KJV.

Does Michael Hollner in effect condemn what the Scriptures teach concerning preservation as he asserted: "God's promise to preserve His Word has no practical relevance if it does not extend to translations" (p. 184)? Does Michael Hollner dictate to God what He has to do since he cannot soundly back up his KJV-only opinions from the Scriptures?

 

In response to the question "Can and did the KJV correct the Greek T. R. and Hebrew variations," Michael Hollner replied: "YES!" (King James Only Debate, p. 395, 2021 edition).

Michael Hollner asserted: "Our position is that the KJV is to be used as primary in any foreign Bible translations, and that the Greek and Hebrew sources are to be used as secondary. We must all make sure that the T. R. is used secondary in all foreign translations" (pp. 416-417).

 

Is the word of God is idea based and not word based?

The word of our God shall stand for ever. Isaiah 40:8

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Matthew 4:4