Why is the King James Version not the Perfect Word of God?

Yes, there are many reasons. Perhaps is the number one reason is that the Scriptures do not state nor teach that the KJV is perfect. The Scriptures do not teach that God's perfect Bible was created nor given by inspiration in 1611 or 1769. A present-day KJV may have as many as 1800 words that are different from the words in the 1611 edition of the KJV [both editions could not be 100% perfect]. The Scriptures do not teach that the interpretations of Church of England scholars in 1611 should be made greater in authority than the preserved words of the prophets and apostles that were given by direct revelation from God and under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. A Scriptural view of Bible translation would be true for all believers, not just those who speak English. A scriptural view of Bible translation would be true both before and after 1611 while the KJV-only theory was definitely not true before 1611 and is not true for believers that speak languages other than English.

It is a fact that the KJV is a revision of earlier English Bibles (Tyndale's to Bishops').
The KJV-only theory makes the KJV into a revision of imperfect Bibles, and thus an unscriptural implication of some kind of advanced or additional revelation is needed in 1611 or 1769 or both to somehow produce 100% perfection.

 

Hi av1611preacher,

Before this gets too far along, knowing that you are in High School....take a minute, if you will, to give us your definition of "perfect" so we may know how to answer you.

Thanks

 

Well, the KJV is not inerrant, to begin with.

 

The KJV is a translation. It is not the original and therefore not inspired.

 

Hello again AV,

If by this you mean: Is the Bible all truth with no mixture of error, fully sufficient and authoritative in all manner pertaining to doctrine, theology, holiness, Christian life, faith and salvation? That the word of God is living and powerful?

If that is the case, then yes, the KJV is the "perfect" word of God......but then so are the NASB,NIV,HCSB,NKJV, etc., as well as the Bible printed in any other language.
I believe that God is well able to keep His word from generation to generation, in any language He chooses.

If by inerrant/perfect you mean to say that the KJV is identical to the origional autographs.....Well, no bible in any language is identical to the manuscripts penned by the authors.

As soon as one word is mis-spelled, one punctuation mark is missed, one word is added (if, the, and) to make it readable in English (or any other language), if a translator chooses the "best" meaning of a Greek word; then "perfection" in the sense of being exactly like the originals is lost.

Your KJV is the word of God, and you can trust it. Is it the best translation? Is it the bible you can most readily understand? That is a matter of personal choice.

 

Gods perfect Word was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. While Scripture itself testifies to being inspired by God, we have no reason to believe that any particular translation is ordained by God.

God did promise to preserve his Word and has blessed the English speaking people with many excellent translations. As the English Language changes it moves further from the dialect of the KJV. The newer translations simply convey the same truth that the KJV portrays, but in a language that allows todays reader to understand Scripture in the same way the reader of the KJV did in the 1600's.

When the KJV was introduced many Puritans rejected it as being a "paraphrase".

 

Because if it is, then "God's PERFECT Bible" did not exist for the first 80% of church history. Isn't KJV-onlyism founded on some sort of concept of "preservation"?

 

This horse is so dead it don't even stink anymore...

In Christ,
Trotter

 

Several other versions, some older, some newer, are as perfect as the KJV.

The KJV was perfect for its intended use, as the NASV, NKJV, or NIV are today.

 

Undoubtedly some commercial publishing house is working on the hip-hop Bible to reach the world with the latest in language devolution. And when it is released, it will be advertised as a modern version for today's reader.

The fault is the watering down of the educational system since World War II. Shakespeare and the KJV are modern English and can be mastered with little effort. Shakespeare is probably more difficult than the KJV, but I took up the KJV again about 25 years ago in order to prepare myself for evangelization of the cults. People have already established that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons use KJV, but I would add the United Pentecostal Church and its Black Apostolic branch also use the KJV.

Big cities like Indianapolis are a sea of cults with a sprinkling of rich liberal denominations here and there. There is very little Evangelical presence in a city like Indianapolis. Indianapolis spends its Sundays and Christian holidays at the Indy motor speedway, the Colts games and the Pacers games. Indianapolis wants slot machines and betting parlors and even Larry Bird of the Pacers is trying to build a casino.

Police have to be aware of the potential for criminal activity within the cults, such as Jim Jones of Indianapolis evidenced in Peoples Temple. The cults are a facade. How much polygamy still exists within Mormonism? In the case of Jehovah's Witnesses there are many reports that the Brooklyn headquarters is overwhelmingly homosexual and the New York organization is constantly trying to deny their children life-saving blood transfusions just as Christian Science wants to deny minors under their control medical treatment.

I don't know if it is true but radio preacher Lester Roloff (1914-1982) of Corpus Christi, Texas, always used to say that only the KJV ever led to a revival--that the other versions just lacked the firepower (paraphrase). Some of you may remember him for his good works with the worst juvenile offenders.

http://www.roloff.org/

 

The KJV certainly is the best read.

Just listen to Alexander Scourby read.

 

cmg
"radio preacher Lester Roloff (1914-1982) of Corpus Christi, Texas, always used to say that only the KJV ever led to a revival--that the other versions just lacked the firepower (paraphrase)."
"
Considering that revivals have happened outside of the English speaking world we can savely dismiss this claim as nonsense.

 

This sort of answer is obviously by someone who not much (if any) education in Textual Criticism! To class the KJV with the likes of the NASV and NIV is a tragic error in your judgement. Firtsly, the manuscripts as well as the scholars used by the KJV are way ahead of any for the modern versions. Just because someone reads Hebrew and Greek, does not qualify them to become a TC. As I read the remarks on the "Bible Versions/Translations" section of this board, I see that the vast majority (I would say 90%) of those posting here, only do so to express their views, and have no knowledge or experience in Textual matters. I mean, how many have actually studied the Greek, Latin manuscripts? How about the Church fathers in the original language? TC is very serious, and needs much study and prayer to determine the correct reading for many of the varied texts in both Testaments.

 

icthus, You appear to be someone who approached the evidence with a bias, applied that bias to the evidence, molded the evidence to fit your bias,... and now proclaim that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant.

We debate the same kind of reasoning when the topic of evolution comes up. Those arguing for evolution almost invariably accuse us who believe in biblical creationism of being either stupid, ignorant, or dishonest. No middle ground for honest disagreement over how to interpret the know facts- just agree with them or else you're marked. I suppose that it might be necessary for them to discount the notion that intelligent, thinking people of faith could look at the evidence objectively and deny that evolution was responsible.

You do the same thing with this issue. Many of us don't have the time to look at every shred of evidence. What we do is compare the arguments from those who do. Those who account for the facts consistently well will garner more credence. You have a tendency in my opinion to ignore or re-shape things that disagree with your conclusions. I wonder, why do you find it necessary to degrade those who disagree with you?

 

icthus,

Are you ignorant?

To say that the manuscripts that the KJV scholars used are "way ahead of any for modern versions" is the most <inflammatory language snipped> statement that I have heard today. The modern translations use the manuscripts that the KJV scholars used in addition to others that the KJV scholars didn't have access to. And you claim to be a Textual Critic. Get real.

[ March 29, 2005, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

A reason why a politically-motivated Bible promulgated by an autocratic "Head" of a state-sanctioned baby-christening church which contains many words and phrases that mislead a modern reader and was claimed by its own translators as one among many Words of God, is not THE perfect Bible?

Welll, it may be hard to think of one.

 

Sorry,but the KJB translators indeed had access to every variant found in the "oldest and best." You would do well to study church history before you go to calling folks ignorant.
The rejection of Egyptian counterfeits is nothing new!!

 

A reason why a politically-motivated Bible promulgated by an autocratic "Head" of a state-sanctioned baby-christening church which contains many words and phrases that mislead a modern reader and was claimed by its own translators as one among many Words of God, is not THE perfect Bible?

Welll, it may be hard to think of one. </font>[/QUOTE]In my opinion Mr. Alcott; you have just slandered the greatest Book God has graced this planet with.

Rather than wax eloquently sarcastic, perhaps you could give a sound and biblical reason for your hysterics against that Book.

Kindly note; I said it was my opinion. We are all entitled to an opinion, but when such an opinion slanders God's Book, you lost all credibility with me.

In HIS service;
Jim