Why defend the KJV?

[Glory Bound]

If, as some say, the KJV (or KJB, as you may prefer) is the preserved Word of God in English, while the more modern versions are not...

... then why the arguments? Why the books defending the KJV? Seems to me that God is capable of defending His Word and if the KJV is the TRUE Word of God then that will always prevail.

50 years from now, the NIV, NASB, ESV, TNIV, NKJV, etc. will all be dust and the KJV will be going strong.

Just wondering...

 

[NaasPreacher (C4K)]

Originally posted by Glory Bound:

50 years from now, the NIV, NASB, ESV, TNIV, NKJV, etc. will all be dust and the KJV will be going strong.

Just wondering...

You really think so?

It is getting harder and harder to find KJV Bibles on the shelves in this part of the world (British Isles).

Interesting thought though.

 

[David J]

50 years from now, the NIV, NASB, ESV, TNIV, NKJV, etc. will all be dust and the KJV will be going strong.

Seems that bible sales point in favor of MV's and not the KJV...

50 years from now in America there is no telling what kind of English will be used. If the Rev. Jesse Jackson had his way we would be speaking Ebonics! Our English is becoming nothing but slang.

David J.

 

[TC]

No need to. The KJV stands on its own. IMO the people defending the KJV do it more harm than good.

 

[Johnv]

Defending the KJV (or, for that matter, any translation) is perfectly fine. Choosing only one version to use, and eschewing all others, is also perfectly fine for an individual to do. However, espousing KJVOnlyism as a doctrine for all Christianity is a different story. It is heretical, anti-fundamental, and unscriptural.

 

[Johnv]

Originally posted by David J:
Seems that bible sales point in favor of MV's and not the KJV...

To be specific, the best selling translation today is the NIV.

 

[Charles Meadows]

KJBO doesn't DEFEND the KJB - the movement actually serves to besmirch the name of the "King James Bible" - or the Kiang Jayems Bahble as we say here in WV!

 

[Ed Edwards]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Defending the KJV (or, for that matter, any translation) is perfectly fine. Choosing only one version to use, and eschewing all others, is also perfectly fine for an individual to do. However, espousing KJVOnlyism as a doctrine for all Christianity is a different story. It is heretical, anti-fundamental, and unscriptural.

Amen, Brother JohnV -- Preach it!

Don't forget "liberal"

 

[Dr. Bob]

I use the KJV. I would not allow it to be condemned, just as I would not allow such condemnation of the NKJV or NASB.

I would not allow it to be worshiped, either, which is what many (not all) of the only sect de facto do.

The Word of God needs no defense. Questioning some of the English translations, words, phrases, is NOT attacking the Word of God.

 

[robycop3]

Charles Meadows:KJBO doesn't DEFEND the KJB - the movement actually serves to besmirch the name of the "King James Bible" - or the Kiang Jayems Bahble as we say here in WV!

Yerp! Dere's a fue uv us'n hyar dat spekes HILLBONIX! You'se in Milton, Tiny Tim's in Sutton, I'se in de Apalachin part uv suthrn Ohia.

Seems as if the KJV was a lot more popular before the KJVO myth got started.

 

[David J]

The KJV is just fine without David Cloud, Riplinger, Chick, Gipp, Waite, J.J. Ray, Wilkinson, Fuller, and Ruckman. People like the above do not help the KJV.

I simply don't see the KJV going away. I love the wording of the Pslams and Proverbs in the KJV!

I would be the first to tell anyone that the KJV is the Word of God. Pointing out translation errors or differences in the text used by the KJV is not an attack on the Word of God. The KJV revisions prove that... I have and will continue to defend the KJV when someone calls it untrustworthy.(please note that when I question the trustwortness of the KJV it's on the basis of KJVO doctrines just to prove a point)

I'm glad that this board respects the Word of God and does not allow it to be called names by KJVOist and MV users!

In Christ,
David J.

 

[Ken4JC]

Originally posted by Johnv:
Defending the KJV (or, for that matter, any translation) is perfectly fine. Choosing only one version to use, and eschewing all others, is also perfectly fine for an individual to do. However, espousing KJVOnlyism as a doctrine for all Christianity is a different story. It is heretical, anti-fundamental, and unscriptural.

Psalms 12:6,7
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Tim 1:7
Rev 3:17-19

God preserved the Holy Bible or God is a liar, it would seem you all think maybe God is a liar. But you are very up to date on that I am sure.

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Ken4JC:
Psalms 12:6,7
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Tim 1:7
Rev 3:17-19

God preserved the Holy Bible or God is a liar, it would seem you all think maybe God is a liar. But you are very up to date on that I am sure.

All those verses were inspired long before the KJV was translated. What you have demonstrated with your post is what is called the anachronistic fallacy, or the fallacy of anachronism.

 

[David J]

Originally posted by Ken4JC:
Psalms 12:6,7
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Tim 1:7
Rev 3:17-19

God preserved the Holy Bible or God is a liar, it would seem you all think maybe God is a liar. But you are very up to date on that I am sure.

This could be applied to the Gevena Bible, NASB, etc...

All those verses were inspired long before the KJV was translated. What you have demonstrated with your post is what is called the anachronistic fallacy, or the fallacy of anachronism.

Amen!

 

[Ken4JC]

Originally posted by skanwmatos:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ken4JC:
Psalms 12:6,7
1 Tim 4:1-2
1 Tim 1:7
Rev 3:17-19

God preserved the Holy Bible or God is a liar, it would seem you all think maybe God is a liar. But you are very up to date on that I am sure.

All those verses were inspired long before the KJV was translated. What you have demonstrated with your post is what is called the anachronistic fallacy, or the fallacy of anachronism. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, then God did preserve His word (I think He could do that, after all God is God). We have many versions to look at especially now with the Bible of the month club, and you must agree that they are not all of equal value in your great recognition of what is good. So tell me what version is ‘preserved’?

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by David J:
Seems that bible sales point in favor of MV's and not the KJV...

To be specific, the best selling translation today is the NIV. </font>[/QUOTE]JohnV is right. For the first time in recent history the KJV has been surpassed by another version, and that version is the NIV. The KJV still runs a good second, but the NIV is growing stronger. This means the NIV is now the number one selling book in the world, followed by the KJV.

I still predict the die hard KJVs will eventually accept the NKJV as a KJV replacement, very much the way they did the Oxford or the Cambridge versions. It may take a generation for this to occur, because most major changes take place with the change from one generation to the next. I would guess that fifty years from now there will be KJVo die-hards who say the NKJV is the ONLY true Bible--the direct descendent of the KJV1611, the same as the 1769 version is right now.

If I heard Skan properly, the NKJV is a good translation of a good compilation of the TR and the OT. This makes it a good contender for the next revision. This is just my opinion, but just watch the trend. I have already seen a lot of people who were KJV preferred whole-heartedly accept the NKJV without question. Give it another generation and see what happens.

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by robycop3:
Charles Meadows:KJBO doesn't DEFEND the KJB - the movement actually serves to besmirch the name of the "King James Bible" - or the Kiang Jayems Bahble as we say here in WV!

Yerp! Dere's a fue uv us'n hyar dat spekes HILLBONIX! You'se in Milton, Tiny Tim's in Sutton, I'se in de Apalachin part uv suthrn Ohia.

Seems as if the KJV was a lot more popular before the KJVO myth got started.

Hey, I'san Okie, I kin spekes HILLBONIX as goot as yous guys.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm willing to bet the KJV will be around for a long time. I think it will always be here, and always be used. The KJV is a beautiful bible, and there really is no valid reason to stop using it. There will be newer versions all the time, but I don't think a bible that has been in print for 250 years is just going to dissappear.

 

[David J]

I'm willing to bet the KJV will be around for a long time. I think it will always be here, and always be used. The KJV is a beautiful bible, and there really is no valid reason to stop using it. There will be newer versions all the time, but I don't think a bible that has been in print for 250 years is just going to dissappear

I fully agree! The Geneva Bible has not gone away. The Geneva Bible is a beautiful bible that I enjoy reading. Likewise I don't see the NIV or NASB going away. I personally think that the NKJV will gain the traditional KJV readers who are none KJVO simply because a lot of people are just tired of using a dictionary with the KJV(proof: the NIV sales etc...). Nothing against the KJV, it's one of my favorite bibles and the above is my opinion.

In Christ,
Dave

 

[skanwmatos]

Originally posted by Ken4JC:
Ok, then God did preserve His word (I think He could do that, after all God is God).

Yes, God preserved His word. We know that for we still have it today.

We have many versions to look at especially now with the Bible of the month club, and you must agree that they are not all of equal value in your great recognition of what is good.

I agree. Many English versions are not only poorly executed, but, in my opinion, a waste of time, money, and otherwise good paper.

So tell me what version is ‘preserved’?

None. Versions are given to us by translation, not by preservation. Look at it this way.

Inspiration - the original autographs.

Preservation - the words of the original autographs were preserved in the Hebrew and Greek copies.

Translation - the English versions were translated from the preserved Hebrew and Greek copies of the inspired original autographs.