Why is the KJV still selling in high numbers

Let me add my voice to the symphony of accolades for J. Mark Bertrand's reply.

 

Have you ever personally done a study on teh blood of Christ from the modern versions or are you simply listening to what someone is telling you? The blood of Christ is greatly revered in all modern translations. It is not removed in the least. It is held up as the only answer for the terrible problem of sin.

I always wonder when I see a post like this if the poster has actually done any study at all. My suspicion is probably not. They are simply relying on someone else's statements about a topic. I think the recent exchanges with Granny Gumbo have shown this to be true. She has admitted that she didn't even know about many of the issues under discussion here. It was completely foreign to her. All she knew was from what a few people had told her. She had never studied it for herself.

 

I have a copy of many translations on my computer just to compare scriptures to those who ask my why I use KJV. Also, I have studied, although not as much as I plan in my lifetime, enough to know that the original texts that KJV was translated from (Textus Receptus )were different than those that most others were translated from. (Although several years ago I contacted the makers of Quickverse -the computer Bible I use- and was informed that the "God's Word" translation, which was new at the time, was actually going to be the only other Bible translated from the same text that KJV was translated from.

The Sinaiticus,the manuscript from which the NIV, NASB, PHILLIPS, and every other modern version you can think of besides the King James and New King James Bible, was found in St. Catherine's Monastery near Mt. Sinai in 1844 by Tischendorf.

Do you know what this most valuable Word of God was being used for? It was in a trash pile and was being used to light the fireplace. It contained nearly all the New Testament with a few other delightful editions. The "Shepherd of Hermes" and the "Epistle of Barnabas". To me, this would be a huge red flag not to trust them.

There is much more information that makes me doubt these scripts, but it is very late and I don't want to get into a heated discussion with my Brothers in the faith. If you are not open to using the KJV all I am going to do is make you mad, which makes this discussion irrelevant. I am not here to fight.

[ August 11, 2002, 02:07 AM: Message edited by: onevoice ]

 

Just a minor side-note that is near and dear to my heart: I think you are wrong about Quicken, because Quicken is the world's greatest personal finance software, and is made by Intuit. Quickverse is made by Parsons/Broderbund.

 

Sorry about that. . I ordered my Quicken from them. . I was thinking that they made it as well. My bad

 

Onevoice,

My question really was dealing with your specific statement that does not seem to match the facts of the translations in questions. Where a manuscript was found is not important. The quality of the manuscript is. For all we know, hundreds of manuscripts from all families were burned, lost, or destroyed in some other means. I can't see how that argument carries any weight at all.

My position is and has always been, If you or anyone else likes the KJV, then read it, love it, memorize, preach it, and live by it. But don't question our commitment to orthodox bibliology because we use a modern version. We too believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, the blood of Jesus, the deity of Christ, etc. And we preach it ... right out of our modern versions.

 

I think the future of the KJV will depend partly on God's timing for the return of Christ. If it is within the next one hundred years I would expect the KJV to remain a dominant force within the Church. If God has in mind though to wait another five hundred, or even 1000 years, then I'm positive English will continue to evolve, change, mold, be merged into other languages, and likewise, and we will need many more "modern versions" that keep up with the language of the time.

I think the American Standard Version of 100 years ago is already difficult (in terms of fluency) for me to read, even though I don't know how "modern" the language was. Perhaps they kept much of the KJV prose to begin with.