Why I am KJV only

[Raulf7]

The KJV is not accurate in many many place and heres one example

KJV says:

Revelation 22:14 (King James Version)
“Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.”

Revelation 22:14 (New King James Version)
“Blessed are those who do His commandments, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter through the gates into the city.”

But others say:

Revelation 22:14 (New American Bible)
“Happy are they who wash their robes so as to have free access to the tree of life and enter the city through its gates!”

Revelation 22:14 (Revised Standard Version)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.”

Revelation 22:14 (New Revised Standard Version)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they will have the right to the tree of life and may enter the city by the gates.”

Revelation 22:14 (Good News Bible)
“Happy are they who wash their robes clean and so have the right to eat the fruit from the tree of life and to go through the gates into the city.”

Revelation 22:14 (New International Version)
“Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city.”

Revelation 22:14 (Darby Version)
“Blessed are they that wash their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life, and that they should go in by the gates into the city.”

Revelation 22:14 (NASB) Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Legalists use the KJV to justify keeping the law and this has led to many cults

 

[DocCas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Raulf7:
The KJV is not accurate in many many place and heres one example

KJV says:

Revelation 22:14 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I am sorry but all you have done is point out a textual variant in the Greek. The KJV and the NKJV correctly translate the Byzantine text-form reading of tas entolas autou or "the commandments of Him." The other version you mention correctly translate the Alexandrian text-form reading of plunontes tas stolas auton or "washing the robes of them."

If you will check a good Greek NT with a textual apparatus you will see the Alexandrian reading is supported by Aleph, A, 1006, 2020, and 2053 while the Byzantine reading is supported by 046, 1, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2024, and 2065. As you can see, the reading which underlies the KJV is the reading with the most MSS attestation.

 

[HankD]

Dear Raulf,

You posted the following:

&gt;&gt;Legalists use the KJV to justify keeping the law and this has led to many cults&gt;&gt;

Dear brother, How or why is the KJV legalistic because it directs us to keep Jesus Commandments?

What about the following passage.

KJV John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

ASV John 14:15 If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments.

NIV John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

NIB John 14:15 "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

NAS John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

NAU John 14:15 "If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.

RSV John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

NRS John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

NKJ John 14:15 " If you love Me, keep My commandments.

WEB John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

DRA John 14:15 If you love me, keep my commandments.

DBY John 14:15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

BBE John 14:15 If you have love for me, you will keep my laws.

YLT John 14:15 'If ye love me, my commands keep,

NAB John 14:15 "If you love me, you will keep my commandments.

Here are two of His commandments:

KJV 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

ASV 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, even as he gave us commandment.

NIV 1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

NIB 1 John 3:23 And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.

NAS 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

NAU 1 John 3:23 This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, just as He commanded us.

RSV 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

NRS 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he has commanded us.

NKJ 1 John 3:23 And this is His commandment: that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment.

WEB 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment; That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.

DRA 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment: That we should believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as he hath given commandment unto us.

DBY 1 John 3:23 And this is his commandment, that we believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and that we love one another, even as he has given us commandment.

BBE 1 John 3:23 And this is his law, that we have faith in the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love for one another, even as he said to us.

YLT 1 John 3:23 and this is His command, that we may believe in the name of His Son Jesus Christ, and may love one another, even as He did give command to us,

NAB 1 John 3:23 And his commandment is this: we should believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and love one another just as he commanded us.


HankD

[ August 11, 2001: Message edited by: HankD ]

 

[Raulf7]

HankD


I agree with your posting, what I mean is many use that verse to justify OT law keeping and especially sabbath keeping, thats what I mean.

 

[HankD]

&gt;&gt;I agree with your posting, what I mean is many use that verse to justify OT law keeping and especially sabbath keeping, thats what I mean.&gt;&gt;

OK, I see.

My feeling is that the KJV needs an upgrade that everyone can accept.
miracles still happen, oops, I mean miraculous things can occur.
There are many places where the KJV translators could or should have made another choice of words. Or, the meaning of certain words had a different or an additional meaning in 1611. For instance, we have learned that in 1611 "easter" also meant "passover" as well as "easter".

HankD

 

[Larry]

Ok, I let about three months go by and have reread the posts several times. I’m not trying to be antagonistic with this new post its’ just that after reading and rereading everything, I do understand what you all are saying BUT I disagree for the same reason “the new bibles are translated from manuscripts that are different from the KJV, they say different things and if the new bibles are correct that means that God let all those generations of Christians, that didn’t have the NIV etc, down by not preserving his word.”

I respect your right to have an opinion and I appreciate the spirit this thread has taken and will read and consider any and all opinions expressed hear, although I may let a lot of time go by before I post to this thread again.

Please understand that I have chosen to opt out of the back and forth / point counter point exchange that is so typical when it comes to Bible Versions because as I have said, I’m not good at it and for the most part it only serves to entrench people from both sides in their original opinion.

 

[Chick Daniels]

Thomas Cassidy said:
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I am sorry but all you have done is point out a textual variant in the Greek. The KJV and the NKJV correctly translate the Byzantine text-form reading of tas entolas autou or "the commandments of Him." The other version you mention correctly translate the Alexandrian text-form reading of plunontes tas stolas auton or "washing the robes of them."
If you will check a good Greek NT with a textual apparatus you will see the Alexandrian reading is supported by Aleph, A, 1006, 2020, and 2053 while the Byzantine reading is supported by 046, 1, 94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2024, and 2065. As you can see, the reading which underlies the KJV is the reading with the most MSS attestation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thomas,

Of course the Alexandrian reading is also supported by 2062, 3rd century Coptic version, a ninth century Old Latin version, Ethiopic (500 AD) versions; fathers: PS-Athanasius, Ambrose, Fulgentius, and Apringius.

Of course the "reading with the most MSS attestation", if you mean by this that the reading with the most evidence wins--and maybe you don't--is fallacious. The variant with the most support is not always the original. There are examples where even the Byz. evidence is split somewhat evenly.

Chick

 

[Baptist Bible Believer]

Memorization is a great joy to me, as I've spent hours memorizing my New Testament from Romans to Jude. Now, years later, whenever I am engaged in posting a reply or speaking to others - the verses fly in my mind. If I need a chapter and verse, I generally run to my concordance - cuz' not even I am that good!

As to my preference, well, KJV hands down. Its meter is such as it lends itself easily to memorization.

Also, my first pastor used to like to have the whole congregation stand and read the Bible aloud. We all had the same book. Even though the majority of the members were Filipino's - the passage came across clear as a bell.

Visiting my mother's church, a charismatic thing, the pastor tried the same trick. "OK, Everybody stand and read aloud such and such ..." Believe me, brethren, it sounded and felt like I was in a tongues meeting. At the time, I innocently conjectured that Baptist churches would NEVER give up their precious KJV. Boy, was I wrong.

Incidentally, my wife and I were present for one of their tongues services - and my wife had to run out of the building. She heard them cursing God in her native language.

Oh yeah, I've heard of Peter Ruckman. Had some of his tapes which I devoured. When I went to college I started to learn more about him, including his marital problems. Reading some of his commentaries - I was sickened that so much vile and hatred could spew forth from one human being. The fact that he referred to a few of my beloved profs as Alexandrian Cultists certainly didn't ingratiate him in my eyes either.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pilgrim's Progress:
As to my preference, well, KJV hands down. Its meter is such as it lends itself easily to memorization.

Also, my first pastor used to like to have the whole congregation stand and read the Bible aloud. We all had the same book. Even though the majority of the members were Filipino's - the passage came across clear as a bell.
[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one problem with the myriad of modern translations: memorization and public reading.

Of course this can be overcome by the use of pew Bibles and/or the corporately read Scriptures printed in the bulletin.

Also, a congregation can have an official "corporate version" that everyone understands is to be used for services/Sunday School.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pilgrim's Progress:
As to my preference, well, KJV hands down. Its meter is such as it lends itself easily to memorization.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It has been my personal experience that the MVs are not harder to memorize. They are just different. I think those of us who have memorized scores and scores of verses over our lifetime forget how hard it was to memorize it the first time. After years of knowing it, it flows off the tongue so easily we forget the hard work.

I now memorize primarily from the NASB and find, in a verse by verse comparison with verses I don't already know, that the NASB is easier.

I don't think the important thing in memory is the version it is from; it is the discipline and knowledge that comes from doing it.

As for public reading, it is a bit more of a problem, but what did they do for public reading in the early church? Nothing -- because there was no Bibles. Public reading meant one person standing in front and reading the text. Thus, the "problem" of public reading is a modern problem that is solved by having pew Bibles, or by doing public reading the way they did it in the New Testament. We use both here.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Pastor Larry ]

 

[Searcher]

I was baptized a catholic, though my dad was an atheist, and my mother was terribly mixed up doctrinally. We never went to church, and what I knew of God I weaned from my mother's erroneous and infrequent teachings.

When I was about eight years old, my school was visited by an evangelist. This kind fellow offered to take some of us to an evangelical church in another city to attend a Billy Graham Crusade meeting. Since it meant getting out of school, I attended.

While I was there, someone asked me if I wanted to go to heaven when I died. When I said “Yes,” he made me repeat a prayer, and sign a card. Then he joyfully informed me I was now a Christian. I have to be honest with you all. I did it so that I could get one of the black, hard cover bibles they were giving away. It was a KJV. I didn't believe for a second that I was saved. I didn't even know what being saved was – but I got that cool looking faux – leather bible! It scares me to think that I was counted as one of the many converts on that particular Billy Graham tour, but that is another story.

So there I was, eight years old, with this brand new KJV bible, and only a vague, catholic tainted understanding of who God was. Even though I was reading above my grade level, the KJV gibberish was totally beyond me. I did memorize John 3:16, because the Billy Graham Crusade made me memorize that verse, and I had forgotten it. When I opened to that chapter I tried to read it. By the time I got to John 3:8 I gave up. Wind bloweth where it listeth?

That bible sat on my shelf and stayed there.

Thankfully, as an adult, by the grace of God, I accepted Christ as my Lord and Savior.

This topic has reminded me of those early days before I was saved, and how the KJV was more of a hindrance to my salvation than anything else. I gave up on the bible because it was too difficult to understand, a stigma that stuck in my head for years. If someone had given me a MV as a child I may have found my savior much sooner.

This obfuscating quality of the KJV is not only a hindrance to children. Remember that a significant percentage of English speaking people are not literate enough to read the KJV.

That observation is easily dismissed if you don’t consider it carefully.

Don't get me wrong; I have three copies of the KJV at home. I especially refer to it in my study of Biblical Greek. My main bible is a NKJV. It reads well, and is fairly accurate in my opinion. I use the NASB too, and every now and again I will glance at an NIV. Just recently I purchased an ESV for the next time I do a read through. I certainly prefer the most literal translations, but I am not a fool. I understand that there are things that will never translate literally. Sleeping in a bed of roses is an English pun; since ‘bed’ can be an object you sleep in and also a place where we plant flowers. The pun disappears when you translate the sentence out of English. The same is true when we translate Greek. The pun in John 3:8 disappears in English, even in KJV English.

My gifting is that of a Teacher, and as such I doubt that I will ever be perfectly satisfied with any one translation of the Bible. That is why I study Biblical Greek. I find the KJV an excellent translation ... into obscure and archaic English. But I recognize it as simply that - a translation. Olde English translates the Greek inflection and tense better than modern English, but a good modern translation will explain these discrepancies in the margin.

My issue is with people who say that the KJV is superior, rather than say the KJV is their preferred bible. To understand the KJV, you need a working knowledge of many obsolete words, and more than that, you need a very firm understanding of which words have changed their meanings. This means that to use the KJV requires a scholastic investment. The KJV can still be used without making that scholastic investment (and indeed it is) but without the investment the reader is likely to miss a lot, and worse, misunderstand a lot (because many words no longer mean the same as they did at the time scholars translated the KJV).

Now if someone has made this scholastic investiture, and that someone desires to read only the KJV, I have no objection! Nor do I believe any fair minded person would. Preference is, after all, preference. But when that same person imagines that only the artificially verbose English speaking elite can know the word of God… that is when they have become sadly deceived.

Anyway, As I have said, I believe the KJV is a great translation, especially the latter versions. But I don’t think it is a superior translation.

Enter the real question. What makes a superior translation?

Answer: Usage by God.

God used the KJV to speak to seventeenth century Anglophones; and in that, it was superior to its predecessors. We are not seventeenth century Anglophones, and as such, the KJV is not the superior translation it once was. Of this fact, I am sure a few radicals, hobbyists, and paranoids will always disagree, but that is my opinion none-the-less.

If my opinion is offensive to anyone I ask that they accept this post in the spirit in which it was written, that of "here is my opinion" and not that of "I am right and everyone else is wrong".

I am not immune to bias, so if I sound like I think I have all the answers, or that my opinion is more than an opinion, rest assured that I suffer no such delusion. I just believe that while all translations are imperfect, many translations are still inerrant.

Searcher.

[ January 10, 2002: Message edited by: Searcher ]

 

[Phillip]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Bob Griffin:


End of sermon <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For any "non-Baptists" reading this post, "amen" is typically used in a service to state agreement with the speaker.

My response for Dr. Griffin's sermon &gt; AMEN!

 

[Chris Temple]

Searcher:

great post; thank you.

 

[DocCas]

searcher, have you ever considered the possibility that the problem was not the KJV but 1 Corinthians 2:14?

 

[Pete Richert]

I really hate it when people say that. I am an adult now and I can understand the King James Bible with a little effort, patience, and a dictionary. But when I was in Junior High or even earlier, I COULDN'T understand it. But I could understand the NIV just fine. It was then that I was saved and have never turned back. I don't read the NIV anymore, but I certainly don't doubt my conversion on it.

My friend, however, is a graduate student in literature and thrives on that language. He is also, unfortuantly, a atheist. Strangly enough, he is very KJVO and refuses to read anything but the KJV when I talk him into reading passages. (which he does quite frequencty, for my sake). He reads Shakespear and others as a living and loves the beautiful language of the Bible. He can explain to me passages, words, and expressions that are totally missed on me. Yet he is very unsaved. 1 Corinthians is right in that my friend thinks the Bible and the Gospel message itself is "foolishness". He does however, understand the language better then myself.

 

[Pastor Larry]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1 Corinthians 2:14?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This passage does not address the issues of translation and modern vernacular but rather the issues of significance of Scripture to an individual's life. 1 Cor 2:14 is just as true with regards to the NIV and NASB as it is to the KJV.

 

[rsr]

From C.S. Lewis' "God in the Dock":

And finally, though it may seem a sour paradox -- we must sometimes get away from the Authorised Version, if for no other reason, simply because it is so beautiful and so solemn. Beauty exalts, but beauty so lulls. Early associations endear but they also confuse. Through that beautiful solemnity the transporting or horrifying realities of which the Book tells may come to us blunted and disarmed and we may only sigh with tranquil veneration when we ought to be burning with shame or struck dumb with terror or carried out of ourselves by ravishing hopes and adorations. Does the word 'scourged' really come home to us like 'flogged'? Does 'mocked him' sting like 'jeered at him'?

 

[ChristianCynic]

&lt; Does the word 'scourged' really come home to us like 'flogged'? Does 'mocked him' sting like 'jeered at him'? &gt;

And does 'any that pisseth against the wall' have the same flow of 'as much as one male?'

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: ChristianCynic ]

 

[DocCas]

It is called "honesty of translation." The KJV does not attempt to interpret it just translates.

The Hebrew "shathan" in the Hiphil means to urinate or one who urinates.

If God had desired the Hebrew to read differently, He would have inspired it differently.

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pete Richert:
IMy friend, however, is a graduate student in literature and thrives on that language. He is also, unfortuantly, a atheist. Strangly enough, he is very KJVO and refuses to read anything but the KJV when I talk him into reading passages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now I've heard everything - an atheistic KJVO!

Great post, Pete.