-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Real Reasons to Use the KJV
- Thread starter 37818
- Start date
I have used the KJV for over 25 years, I'm not comfortable using any other version. Maybe I am KJVonlyist.
The reasons given are subjective.
The KJV and NKJV are based on the same manuscripts (and commentary) as technically the NKJV is an update to the KJV (maintaining a translation in the vernacular, which is essential).
But to suggest the KJV is based on a superior text is subjective. The KJV isn't the only translation based on the TR.
We can't ignore that the KJV was also based on other translations (it even retains Latin in the OT). There were translation errors (like maintaining the Latin, translating the "sea of reeds").
Most importantly, however, is that the KJV no longer meets its goal to provide God's Word in the English vernacular.
That said, I love the KJV as I have memorized so many verses in that translation. It is familiar to me.
Would I recommend it to a new Christian? No. I would the NKJV, but not the KJV. I'd also the NIV and NASB.
The KJV and NKJV are based on the same manuscripts (and commentary) as technically the NKJV is an update to the KJV (maintaining a translation in the vernacular, which is essential).
But to suggest the KJV is based on a superior text is subjective. The KJV isn't the only translation based on the TR.
We can't ignore that the KJV was also based on other translations (it even retains Latin in the OT). There were translation errors (like maintaining the Latin, translating the "sea of reeds").
Most importantly, however, is that the KJV no longer meets its goal to provide God's Word in the English vernacular.
That said, I love the KJV as I have memorized so many verses in that translation. It is familiar to me.
Would I recommend it to a new Christian? No. I would the NKJV, but not the KJV. I'd also the NIV and NASB.
37818
Well-Known Member
.
The Biblical manuscripts are objective. Translation should have an objective basis. Is there subjectism, yes likely.
37818
Well-Known Member
I agree.
Yes. No matter what manuscripts are used they are subjective.
I agree that there is some subjectively in all translations, even though translators try to avoid it.
I was speaking of the linked article.
37818
Well-Known Member
Man is subjective. If all the Bible manuscripts are purely subjective, where is there any real god in them?
Last edited:
The first article has it wrong the KJV is not the most accurate translation. that is assumed not proven. Using the worst of translations like the Living Bible does not make the case.
Calling the KJV "the authorized version" is all hat and no cattle.
37818
Well-Known Member
Looking at the number New Testament variants between the manuscipts used in translations, one I think, could make that case. It wasn't proven, but was merely asserted. And would need to be done case by case. And not everyone is going to agree. The second article presents the cases for the New Testament.
I have a cousin who is a KJVO pastor and he gets frustrated when he talks to me about this. All the arguments for KJVOism fall short of anything reasonable. There are problems with some translations and I despise anything other than a formal equivalence translations but there are translations that are either older than the KJV like the Geneva Bible or more word for word that the KJV like the ESV. Hanging on tot he thee's and thou's is absurd.
37818
Well-Known Member
The ESV in Revelation 13:8 follows the RSV.
So actually having singular pronuns are absered.
Hanging on to the thee's and thou's are absurd.
If all of the available manuscripts are purely subjective then man is the god in them.
But none of the manuscripts are purely subjective.
Whether one believes the older (date) manuscripts are more accurate or the earlier used manuscripts are more accurate involved subjectivity. There are good arguments on both sides.
My view, however, is that God's Word transcends the differences in these manuscripts.
Was the KJV wrong to use a Latin name in the OT? Yes, of course it was as this was an English translation. Should they have translated directly from the Greek and Hebrew rather than translating from Latin to Hebrew to English (in places)? Well.....yes, but they had to work with what was available.
I am getting to the point I see no real reason to use KJV.
Given the translations available, I'm there with you. It seems to serve as a barrier to communicating God's Word (nothing against the translation itself, just that it no longer communicates as it once did).
Too many view the KJV as a superior translation by comparing the translation to itself. We have seen that so many times here these threads become boring.
I have actually heard people pray as if they were speaking a language contemporary to the writing of the KJV. That is troubling as it becomes almost (if not actually) ritualistic.
I appreciate the archaic. But I will gladly set aside what appeals to my antiquated likings to effectively communicate Christ.
37818
Well-Known Member
The Hebrew and Greek have both plural and singular pronouns. The old English has them too. The 1977 NASB reserved their use for reverence to God. And didn't use the thee, thy, thou and thine for the singular pronouns. Now that was absurd! With the KJV one does not need to read the Hebrew or Greek to know the pronouns are singular.
37818
Well-Known Member
The KJV is still useful and with it's known faults is still generally a better Bible. I am not nor ever been a KJVonlyist.
37818
Well-Known Member
Why? More often than not it has the better readings. And it's actual problem readings are well known.
I now maly teach teenagers and non college educated adults. We can use the ESV, read the Bible, and the reading is easily comprehended. They may not know the theology of the passage, but they at least comprehended the wording.
We try the same in the KJV and I spend more time explaining the language of the passage than the meaning of the passage.