King James Bible

[AVBunyan]

Think about it - anything that is claimed to be truth should have biblical support and it should be honest, both of which are severely lacking...

Sorry – I’m back – not for long but couldn’t resist.

Biblical support? I mentioned this before but I feel this issue needs to be addressed again.

“Honest”? – BTW, What are you insinuating here Keith?

Keith - Do you have biblical support for bathrooms in your church? Give me scripture Keith for having bathrooms in your church – I’m easy to do business with. How about TV’s, computers, copiers, projectors, etc.?

Now let’s be practical – does having bathrooms violate scripture? There are principles which govern our everyday actions. One most know the book to be in order to properly apply the scriptures. What about bathrooms? Do they in anyway violate scripture? No – so one is safe having bathrooms in a church.

Now take our stand on the King James Bible – does it violate scripture? You folks have yet to prove it does not violate scripture. We believe it doesn’t so therefore we are safe.

Plus when we line up a KJV with all the modern versions we find the KJV:

1. To be more accurate
2. To be more precise
3. Contains no error or mixture of error
4. To be more Christ exalting
5. Easier to memorize
6. Easier to cross reference
7. More “majestic” sounding
8. Has a proven track record
9. More authoritative sounding
10. More attacked than the modern versions
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1

I open up a King James Bible to Prov 30:5 and I Tim. 3:16 (to name a few) and by faith assume it is talking about what I hold in my hands. I couldn’t, with a clear conscience, say the same about the modern versions. If you can then fine. I find the modern versions lacking.

So by process of elimination we take the King James Bible to be the one God choose to preserve his words foro us today. All we can do is compare a King James Bible with the modern versions – that is the issue is it not? Quit comparing the KJV with the older Bishops, Geneva, etc.. Compare it with the modern versions – that is the real test – the modern versions are what’s being used today not the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bishops, etc.

Your modern versions have some of God’s words and many other verses that are close but they are not as accurate, precise, Christ exalting, etc. as a simple King James Bible. yes, I know, in our opinion - that's fine.

I honestly told you folks a year ago on my first post that I could not take facts to prove to you the King James Bible was the inspired word of God any more than you could prove it wasn’t.
You couldn’t prove by facts that Christ died for your sins either – we take this great truth by faith - the just shall live by faith.

But…but…when we lay our KJV along side your versions it is pretty simple to see which one is superior in every way, at least in our eyes.

You have your standards and we have ours. Our standard is a King James Bible. What is your standard by which you go by?


God bless

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

1. To be more accurate
2. To be more precise
3. Contains no error or mixture of error
4. To be more Christ exalting
5. Easier to memorize
6. Easier to cross reference
7. More “majestic” sounding
8. Has a proven track record
9. More authoritative sounding
10. More attacked than the modern versions
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1

I would personally agree with 1,2,5,7,8,9

I would disagree with 3 (every translation has errors) ,4 (simply not true),6, (I don't get this one), 10 (Wrong, IMHO, the other versions are much more attacked than the KJV. I rarely hear the KJV in particular attacked specifically),11 (the world does not accept any Bible. When they quote it, they tend to quote the KJV from my experience).

But all of these are opinions and we are wrong to build a doctrine on or theology around opinions. We are wrong to claim that those who not hold to our opinions are somehow denying God or His wrong.

This is an issue in which every man must be fully persuaded in his own mind and one where we should condemn those who disagee.

I have never heard a poster attack a person because he uses and prefers the KJV. On the other hand I have read many cases where those who use other versions are attacked for their choice of version.

I just can't see why this is an issue and why a tiny segment of the American church chooses to fight over so small an issue.

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Two more of "my opinions" (for what thats worth)

The KJV was translated from superior manuscripts
The KJV was translated using a superior philosophy of translation

Can and should I build a doctrine around this? No.

Can I attack those who disagree with my opinion? No.

Beside, they will find out I was right when we get to heaven :tongue3:

 

[Ed Edwards]

Sorry if this is duplicate answers. I had a disconuity of Internet Service
long enough to write a complete answer. (I get e-mails of posts on the
BB = Baptist Board, which contain the text of the post).

Peperoni123: //I wouldn't consider the NIV God's complete preserved word.//

Then you err by taking away from God's complete preserved word.
The NIV is a critical part of God's complete preserved word
for it is in the language I used as a successful
(in this world and the next)


Peperoni123: //in Acts 8:37 in my KJV it says "And Philip said, If thou
believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered
and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."
I can't find that verse in the NIV.//

I have a problem with your statement on two different levels:

1. Some people make this statement
"I can't find that verse in the NIV" but have not even
looked in the NIV. This is deceptive (it could be the person
saying it is the one who is deceived). If one is taking the word of another,
without checking them out, one is NOT a good Berean Christian.
If one is taking the word of another about what a version says,
one should be quoting that person and giving the reference.

Act 17:10-11 (KJV1611 Edition)
And the brethren immediatly sent away Paul and Silas
by night vnto Berea: who comming thither, went into the Synagogue of the Iewes.
Act 17:11 These were more noble then those in Thessalonica,
in that they receiued the word with all readinesse of minde,
and searched the Scriptures dayly, whether those things were so.

BTW, some people deliberately deceive others (lie) by telling thier
wards: "I can't find that verse in the NIV."
I will (i've been called) expose their lie.

2. Here is what the NIV says:

Acts 8:36 (NIV)
As they traveled along the road, they came
to some water and the eunuch said, "Look, here is water.
Why shouldn't I be baptized?" *

Footnote:
* 36 Some late manuscripts
baptized? "
17 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart
you may"
The eunuch answered "I beleive that Jesus Christ
is the Son of God".

So you can see from the NIV itself that this verse is very present.
Not only is the verse there, there is the information in the
Translator's Footnote, information that is frequently & deceivngly
withhead by many of the same people who don't want you to
check out for yourself what the Translation/Version really says.

If you get a paper reprint of one of the actual KJV1611 Edition Bibles
(I recommend either Nelson's reprint or the Henderson reprint - both
use a Latin font instead of the hard-to-read Gothic font) you
will see that the original KJV1611 Edition had Translator's Margin
Notes (they are at the sides of the page).

Here is such a footnote and the verse it goes to:

Mat 1:11 And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Margin note: * Some read, Iosias begate Iakim,
and Iakim begat Iechonias.
This Margin note shows that the Translators of the King James
Version (KJV) had available to them more than one source
language document and that those documents varied among
themselves.

Peperoni123: //In my KJV bible it says not to add or take away from God's word.
Since that verse was taken away from God's word,
the NIV isn't the complete preserved word of God.//

One of my three KJVs says (And I'll even share which of the KJVs it is from):

Revelation 22:18-19 (KJV1611 Edition):
For I testifie vnto euery man that heareth
the wordes of the prophesie of this booke,
If any man shal adde vnto these things,
God shall adde vnto him the plagues, that are written in this booke.
19. And if any man shall take away from
the wordes of the booke of this prophesie,
God shal take away his part out of the booke of life,
and out of the holy citie, and from the things
which are written in this booke.

In fact, the NIV has not used a Bible source that has taken away
from the Written* Word of God; it is the KJV that has used
a Bible source which has added to the Written* Word of God.

* I say 'Written Word of God' because some (a very small
minority, but it was said on this board) say "The Written
Word of God (the Holy Bible) is the same as The Living Word
of God (Messiah Jesus).

 

[annsni]

I'm adding my comments in red.......

Plus when we line up a KJV with all the modern versions we find the KJV:

1. To be more accurate (not true)
2. To be more precise (again, not true)
3. Contains no error or mixture of error (not true)
4. To be more Christ exalting (nope)
5. Easier to memorize (no way!! Even ask my 6 year old!)
6. Easier to cross reference (only if this is what you're used to - I can cross reference my ESV pretty well already)
7. More “majestic” sounding (well, THAT'S important)
8. Has a proven track record (this is true - as do many other versions)
9. More authoritative sounding (again, of utmost importance, huh?)
10. More attacked than the modern versions (only because of the stance of those who say that this is the only version. It's not the version attacked but the idea that one version is right, all others are wrong)
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1 (Not true - as a matter of fact, most people, even those who don't know Bibles would accept the KJV - it's what so many grew up with!)

I open up a King James Bible to Prov 30:5 and I Tim. 3:16 (to name a few) and by faith assume it is talking about what I hold in my hands. I couldn’t, with a clear conscience, say the same about the modern versions. If you can then fine. I find the modern versions lacking. I feel very confident in my ESV. If you love to sit and hold the KJV in your hands, wonderful!! The Word of God is important. However, the modern versions might be lacking the 'poetry' of the KJV, but it is not lacking in God's annointing.

So by process of elimination we take the King James Bible to be the one God choose to preserve his words foro us today. All we can do is compare a King James Bible with the modern versions – that is the issue is it not? Quit comparing the KJV with the older Bishops, Geneva, etc.. Compare it with the modern versions – that is the real test – the modern versions are what’s being used today not the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Bishops, etc. How about comparing ALL to the original transcripts that we have (obviously not the autographs but very close to them)? I think that is more proper.


Your modern versions have some of God’s words and many other verses that are close but they are not as accurate, precise, Christ exalting, etc. as a simple King James Bible. yes, I know, in our opinion - that's fine. My ESV is quite accurate, precise and Christ exalting - as is my NIV and NASB.

I honestly told you folks a year ago on my first post that I could not take facts to prove to you the King James Bible was the inspired word of God any more than you could prove it wasn’t.
You couldn’t prove by facts that Christ died for your sins either – we take this great truth by faith - the just shall live by faith.

But…but…when we lay our KJV along side your versions it is pretty simple to see which one is superior in every way, at least in our eyes.

You have your standards and we have ours. Our standard is a King James Bible. What is your standard by which you go by? God's revealed Word to us in the original texts.


God bless and you too!

 

[Ed Edwards]

AVBunyan: // So by process of elimination we take
the King James Bible to be the one God choose
to preserve his words foro us today//

Logically no such 'process of elimination' took process.
Logically you assumed "the King James Bible is the one
God choose to preserve his words for us today".
If you cannot by assuming that statement
prove that statement, then you don't understand Logic.

Here is the logical proof:

If the King James Bible is the one
God choose to preserve his words for us today;
then the King James Bible is the one
God choose to preserve his words for us today.

This is true and correct logic. But you have assumed
the conclusion not proved it.

For the sake of this discussion and for the edification of those who
are new to the debate: Just what is the King James Bible?

I have three different King James Versions
(some say they are pronounced the same) that
call themselves 'King James Version' NOT 'King James Bible'.
So what is this 'new' item called 'The King James Bible' (KJB)?
I was saved reading from a 'King James Version (KJV)' back
55 years ago (in April 1952) NOT from a KJB.

And logically I think your assumption would read better
and more accurately if it said:

The King James Versions are the ones
God choose to preserve his words for us today.

By contrast, I believe (assume) that:

All valid English Versions are the ones
God choose to preserve his words for us today.

From which I prove that ONLY the HCSB = Christian
Standard Bible /Holman, 2003/ is written in the English
of the 21st Century (2001-2100) - the actual language
of 'today'.

 

[AVBunyan]

I would personally agree with 1,2,5,7,8,9

Appreciate your comments Roger and I'm glad we are in agreement on the majority -

Please allow me to explain some of the points:
10. More attacked than the modern versions
11. Less accepted by the world – Rom. 12:1

10. - In that it appears to me that most of "modern christianity" seems to find more faults with the KJV than the modern versions. Look at most forums. Far more time seems to be spent on what is wrong with one version (KJV) than with the 100 others.

11. - When I used the world I was referencing the "christian world" in that even now the Cambridge catalogues push the NIV over the KJV - the KJV is not the most popular modern christian bible in sales - as far as I know. I'd love to see some real stats on this and I admit I am assuming based upon observations these last 24 years.

Also regarding " 6. Easier to cross reference" - this is a theory with me and I admit it. I came across this while doing some comparative cross-referencing between a KJB and the NIV adn NASB a while back - I lost my notes but am seriously considering restudying the issue. It is my personal opinion that saints today are not studying and using concordances like they use to and that the modern versions make comparing spiritual with spiritual more difficult. But again the average saint would not notice today anyway.

Well - gotta go - the ole wrist is freezing up again.

Godo bless ya Roger :wavey:

 

[Rufus_1611]

the KJV is not the most popular modern christian bible in sales - as far as I know. I'd love to see some real stats on this and I admit I am assuming based upon observations these last 24 years.

According to the Christian Booksellers Association, the 10 best- selling Bibles for April 2006 are:

1. New International Version

2. New King James Version

3. King James Version

4. New Living Translation

5. Holman Christian Standard Bible

6. Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)

7. The Message

8. New American Standard Bible (updated)

9. English Standard Version

10. New International Readers Version

(Source: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4155/is_20060416/ai_n16165804)

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

10. - In that it appears to me that most of "modern christianity" seems to find more faults with the KJV than the modern versions. Look at most forums. Far more time seems to be spent on what is wrong with one version (KJV) than with the 100 others.

At least two link in this thread were dedicated to attacking the NIV. I would have to say that this is probably the post attacked version.

I still have seen very, very few attacks on the KJV itself.

 

[AVBunyan]

I still have seen very, very few attacks on the KJV itself.

I was mainly speaking of most christian forums. college, etc. - Maybe the word "attack" might be strong in some cases - How about having "issues" with the KJV may be better?

God bless

 

[Mike Berzins]

I'm adding my comments in red.......

Plus when we line up a KJV with all the modern versions we find the KJV:


7. More “majestic” sounding (well, THAT'S important)
9. More authoritative sounding (again, of utmost importance, huh?)

Psalms 29
1Give unto the LORD, O ye mighty, give unto the LORD glory and strength. 2 Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name; worship the LORD in the beauty of holiness.3 The voice of the LORD is upon the waters: the God of glory thundereth: the LORD is upon many waters.4 The voice of the LORD is powerful; the voice of the LORD is full of majesty.5 The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.6He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn.7 The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire.8 The voice of the LORD shaketh the wilderness; the LORD shaketh the wilderness of Kadesh.9 The voice of the LORD maketh the hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests: and in his temple doth every one speak of his glory.10 The LORD sitteth upon the flood; yea, the LORD sitteth King for ever. 11 The LORD will give strength unto his people; the LORD will bless his people with peace.


Yes, the way the Lord's voice sounds is of utmost importance. Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful. Part of the reason for this is the type of sound made by all the "eth"s; they convey a sense of strength.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful...

 

[Brother Bob]

AW, give me the KJV. When considering that English grammar had to be added by all the translators, again, I say give me the KJV that has stood the test of time and still rides tall among the timber.

 

[AVBunyan]

4. To be more Christ exalting (nope)

Annsni - remember you have now put this in writing and is for all to see and take note.

If the Lord wills and I make the time I will show you and others that think the same that you made this rather hastily and it may come back on you. You may have pulled the trigger too quicly on this one my friend.

I never said the modern versions did not exalt our Lord but I will say with confidence that the KJV exalts Christ more and treats him and his names more reverently. If this can be shown then this alone should make one to consider and ponder.

One example for now - regarding the name "Lord Jesus Christ"...
NIV - 60 times
NRSV - 62 times
KJV -- 84 times

God bless

 

[kubel]

To whomever mentioned 'myth' as being offensive: When people say 'X' translation is a perversion, that is an attack on a faithful translation of the word of God. When a person says 'Y'-onlyism is a myth, they are not attacking the Y translation of Gods word, they are attacking a doctrine regarding different translations. There is a difference between an attack on Gods word and an attack on a doctrine. That is why MV attacks are not permitted, but calling KJVO a myth is.

Can a perfect Bible have errors? The writers of this link on one hand claim the Bible is perfect, yet here say it had errors. Can it be perfect and have errors?

I think this is one of the best arguments against KJV-Onlyism (aside from the fact that this doctrine is not found in the Bible).

KJVO suggests that God supernaturally inspired the translators to create an inerrant translation. Lets assume that this was 100% true. Why would God then allow the printers to publish errors? That would mean all printed KJVs to this day are suspect, since the translators manuscript (the prototype that was sent to the printer) was lost just 50 years after the first printing (and probably consumed in the Great London Fire of 1666). So what were the printing corrections based on after this date?

Why would God inerrantly translate the KJV if once man got hold of it, he would mess it up with the very first printing (and second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and...).

To the OP: You don't have to give up your KJV to not believe in KJVO. I prefer the KJV because of the readability, the style, and my overall familiarity with it. When I study at home, or read at church, I only use a KJV. But it's out of preference that I chose the KJV, not out of a doctrine from man.

 

[Amy.G]

Yes, the way the Lord's voice sounds is of utmost importance. Go read the same passage in the ESV and you'll see that it sounds a lot less powerful. Part of the reason for this is the type of sound made by all the "eth"s; they convey a sense of strength.

You're kidding right? Do you really think the Aramaic that Jesus spoke contained the eth's? Or how about the Greek that was the original NT language? The eth's were in the Elizabethean English. I thinketh you are funny.:laugh:

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Annsni - remember you have now put this in writing and is for all to see and take note.

If the Lord wills and I make the time I will show you and others that think the same that you made this rather hastily and it may come back on you. You may have pulled the trigger too quicly on this one my friend.

I never said the modern versions did not exalt our Lord but I will say with confidence that the KJV exalts Christ more and treats him and his names more reverently. If this can be shown then this alone should make one to consider and ponder.

One example for now - regarding the name "Lord Jesus Christ"...
NIV - 60 times
NRSV - 62 times
KJV -- 84 times

God bless

Are you sure you want to go there Bunyan? A simple count if a phrase does not really demonstrate if a version is more "Christ exalting" or not. Be ready now for a barrage of phrase that the KJV uses less times.

 

[annsni]

Annsni - remember you have now put this in writing and is for all to see and take note.

If the Lord wills and I make the time I will show you and others that think the same that you made this rather hastily and it may come back on you. You may have pulled the trigger too quicly on this one my friend.

I never said the modern versions did not exalt our Lord but I will say with confidence that the KJV exalts Christ more and treats him and his names more reverently. If this can be shown then this alone should make one to consider and ponder.

One example for now - regarding the name "Lord Jesus Christ"...
NIV - 60 times
NRSV - 62 times
KJV -- 84 times

God bless

How often is "Lord Jesus Christ" in the original autograph? THAT would be what I go by.

 

[Mike Berzins]

You're kidding right? Do you really think the Aramaic that Jesus spoke contained the eth's? Or how about the Greek that was the original NT language? The eth's were in the Elizabethean English. I thinketh you are funny.:laugh:

God's not limited to speaking in Aramaic or Greek. He speaks in English today, in the King James Bible. I am sure the sounds of the words conveyed power just like the meanings of the words did, in whatever language the Lord spoke.

John 7:46 The officers answered, Never man spake like this man.

Not just the meanings of the words, but also the sound of them, identify the speaker as the Lord.

 

[Logos1560]

I will say with confidence that the KJV exalts Christ more and treats him and his names more reverently.

One example for now - regarding the name "Lord Jesus Christ"...
NIV - 60 times
NRSV - 62 times
KJV -- 84 times

In a search at studylight.org, I find that there are 81 verses in both the KJV and the NKJV where the name "Lord Jesus Christ" is used. Two or three verses may use it more than once to make your 84 count.

Did you know that the Douay-Rheims has "Lord Jesus Christ" in 87 verses?

Did you know that Lamsa's English translation of the Peshitta has "Lord Jesus Christ" in 112 verses? Some examples where this English translation has the full title "Lord Jesus Christ" and the KJV does not include Acts 1:1, 3:6, 5:42, 8:12, 14:10, 19:5, 21:13, 1 Corinthians 5:5, 2 Corinthians 1:14, Ephesians 1:15, Philippians 2:19, Colossians 3:17, 1 Thessalonians 2:15, and 1 Peter 1:13.

 

[Mike Berzins]

To whomever mentioned 'myth' as being offensive: When people say 'X' translation is a perversion, that is an attack on a faithful translation of the word of God. When a person says 'Y'-onlyism is a myth, they are not attacking the Y translation of Gods word, they are attacking a doctrine regarding different translations. There is a difference between an attack on Gods word and an attack on a doctrine. That is why MV attacks are not permitted, but calling KJVO a myth is.

The KJO does not believe other translations are the word of God. So from their perspective, they are not attacking God's word when they call another bible a perversion. But from the MVs position, stating this would be offensive.

If one were to believe, the bible (any bible) is a good book, but not any more the word of God than any other relgious book, and that person called the belief of believing the bible a "myth", surely you see that this represents an attack on the bible, to those that believe the bible. Likewise, when one calls the belief in the KJV only a myth, it represents an attack on the KJV, from the perspective of the KJO.