KJV Preferred

Beat you at what? Everybody has preferences. There's nothing wrong with prefering the KJV.

OK. My reply: "No they don't."

 

What's the point of this? Just for fun? This issue is already to devisive to make sport of. (my opinion, of course)

 

Yeah, it's amazing how the KJVO's run whenever someone asks them for scriptural support.

It's nothing that needs to be beaten. Having a preference for a specific translation is perfectly allowable.

The problem is that you have to provide support that the earlier source documents are indeed inferior to the later source documents. In actuality, the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the time of Christ, generally support the OT sections of the Alexandrian texts, which affirms the idea that the older texts are the more reliable texts. That's not to say that the TR are worthless. They are not by any means.

 

Yeah, it's amazing how the KJVO's run whenever someone asks them for scriptural support.

</font>[/QUOTE]Gentlemen,

Please keep your debates focused on translations and versions, NOT on a group of posters.

Thank you.

 

I would definitely join you on this Philip, I am KJV preferred.

But my reasons have nothing to do with the source manuscripts.

I love and preach from the KJV because:
1. I grew up with it.
2. It 'sounds' like God's word. Thou and Wherefore and Verily, that's just what the Bible is supposed to sound like (reveals my raising I guess)
3. The formal phrases and wording demand a level of respect that I think God's word is due.
4. When I read from it the congregation can read along in their own bibles (cause that is what they carry).
5. When I read or quote a familiar verse it sounds like it did when the congregation memorized it.

Now I am certainly not above diligent study of the Bible. I believe we should study Greek and Hebrew. We should look up the original words used by the Bible and their definitions we should look at other verses where they are translated the same or differently. All of this gives us a deeper appreciation of God's word. I also realize that some words have changed in meaning since 1611 (corn, conversation, etc.) These things must be explained as we read the KJV for us to properly understand it. I certainly believe that the NIV, NKJV, ASV and other versions are God's word and are equally inspired as the KJV. I would never make which version someone used a test of their salvation or the level of their commitment to God.

As far as source documents and Alexandrian vs. Samaritan texts. I don't think their is a bit of truth to it. I read Riplinger's book. I don't think she knows what she it talking about and I worry that some of the misrepresentation in her book are outright lies. But then we have discussed her on other threads havent we?

 

You have assumed that the "Alexandrian based" Bibles have an inferior source. In reality all Bibles have the same source, the autographs.

It is your right to believe whatever you wish and, as a matter of fact. I agree with you in so far as it is my belief that the Alexandrian mss are not as accurate as the Byzantine in the preservation of the autographs.

This presents one big problem for both sides.
We don't have the autographs so we can't say with certainty from the text of the manuscript evidence (apographs) that one is superior to the other in the preservation of those autographs.

We can give other surrounding evidences that the one family of mss might be more accurate than the other and/or make a faith based decision concerning which we are more apt to choose as the better.

If it is a faith based decision then there is nothing further to be said from either side and this is why the "debates" concerning this matter devolve into name-calling contests.

On the other hand, if you have other surrounding evidences than the raw texts then bring them forth and we can discuss them.

As it is now this thread is going (and already has begun) to turn ugly and a one-ups-man of IS! ISN'T!, IS! ISN'T!, IS! ISN'T!, ad naseum... ending with "I on the other hand believe God".

HankD

 

I am also KJV perfered and it has to do with source material and ease of use. That may sound odd to some, but if you have used a translation for some time it is not difficult to determine the meaning of the text.

That said, I have been studying in the NKJV lately and am leaning toward it as my main preaching bible.

 

There are going to be different reasons why we believe the TR to be more accurate and reliable. I don't want to be silly and say "just because" but my question is:

" why do you say they aren't?"

 

I am afraid Phillip you will find that many here who debate the KJVO issue are KJV preferred like myself.
Many of us read the KJV,memorize from it,preach& teach from it.We recognize the poetic beauty and power of the KJV.We recognize that it is one of the very best translations of God's Holy Word.

The worthiness of the KJB or the KJV preferred position has never been questioned.

 

I think Phillip is trying to give reasons other than taste (ie. source text) For his position. I would also like to see some of these reasons. Some of the other threads have been all emotion and no study. I want to see a real source text debate

 

Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue here. Is it the fact that you people are believing that the KJV is great, but that SOME of the other Versions are ok too?

I WILL not even touch the other so-called "Versions" of the Bible (perversions is more the word to use.)

Quote:

Rev 22:19

"And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

Why should we try to IMPROVE on God's Book.

No other version was translated under such care and the King James Version 1611. Read your history.

 

What gives you that idea?

I would imagine many have decided--like myself--to stop practicing Proverbs 26:5 for a while and practice the fourth verse instead..


I believe Pastor_Bob has said this numerous times in the past:being silent does not concede defeat;nor does it prove ignorance.

Carry on.

 

Jeremiah Hart,

That is the question. What standard do you place on the existing manuscripts to make that statement? I understand your scriptural point, but how do you determine which that Word is. There are reasons why most of us prefer the text we do, but what is your textual reasoning for this? If you have none than it doesn't apply to this thread.

 

pastorjeff,

For me it is a matter of error and selectivness.

What I mean is, other versions have left out verses, changed verses, and have even tried to lower the Deity of Christ.

But the KJV has stood the test of Time.

 

Once again, I am KJV perferred, but what is your basis for saying other versions add and take away? Do theychange the text as intended by the MSS or change the KJV rendering? What MSS do you choose and on what basis? I am going to argue for the TR if we ever get started, but we can't get anywhere if we aren't going to speak of MSS.

 

Good article, worth the read:

"Westcott & Hort vs. Textus Receptus: Which is Superior?"

http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_westcott.htm

 

Will look at it. Pick back up tomarrow.