Why not the King James Bible?

I use the 1982 KJV or NKJV. The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use is a fine translation possibly only second in greatness and influence to Jerome's Latin Vulgate.

So in a real sense if one uses the NKJV they are still in the KJV tradition. I like the NKJV because it retains the KJV dignity yet makes the 1611 KJV contemporary. I also use the NKJV because I am not certain that the Alexandrian manuscripts are superior to the Byzantine and believe caution should be used. I think all people on this board have a great respect for the 1769 KJV but just don't believe that it is the standard by which all translations should be judged.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dajuid:
And, I have noticed that there only seem to be a small majority on this board who share my view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would venture that it is a sizeable minority rather than a small majority.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The rest tend to lean toward more 20th century versions...So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the words of the KJV translators,

"Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures..."

Likewise, I use several translations, depending on the situation.

For day to day reading, the NIV. It reads smoothly and is organized in paragraph form that is easier to follow and prevents taking every verse as an independent thought (by keeping them in context).

For serious study, the NASB or NKJV. The NASB is a fine formal equivalency translation of the CT. I consider it to be the most accurate translation/textual base on the market (my opinion; I know that there are others who disagree).

The NKJV does a similar job in terms of quality of translation, but of the TR. And, I believe it reads a little more smoothly than the NASB. With its foot notes, even the textual base doesn't bother me too much, just as long as the variants are made clear (after all, "Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be sound in this point...Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."-the KJV translators).

For memorization, the KJV 1769. Let's face it, the Shakespearean language is beautiful. When quoting passages this is the way to go as long as current meaning is not compromised.

Just my thoughts,

 

If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.

As a result all, except the KJV, are mere commentaries. They may have some limited value to help illuminate and make clearer, certain verses but I have not met anyone who claims them to be God's pure, preserved, perfect Word.

On the other hand, there are thousands who have not waivered, have not been tricked and who believe that the KJV is the infallible, inerrant word of God, every jot and tittle exactly where God intended it to be.

Why would He want less for His children?

It is a difficult concept to grasp, that God would preserve a perfect Word for us in our language and that satan would simply overlook the idea of getting into and messing with God's word. Certainly, Satan would never even think of doing such a thing. RIIGGHHTTT!!

Why would anyone even consider want a counterfeit when the real McCoy is so easily available today?

The KJV is the genuine Word of God. Again, All the others are commentaries.

The KJV is adequate and easy for anyone who is a true believer to read. The Holy Spirit, if you have Him, will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings but are exactly what God intended for us to read and apply.

This precious book is far more than our "instruction for living" manual. This is the revelation of Jesus Christ and God's plan for the ages. Satan has succeeded in getting into the Word, watering it down, perverting it weakening it and making many believers less effective than they would be had they not been sidetracked.

As a result, we now have 2 1/2 generations of believers being weened and fed on "commentaries".

This, however, is part of the plan for the end-times. Prophecy is being fulfilled.

The reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board is because they are out there winning souls, not trying to figure out which of the 150 "bibles" they should be reading and pushing. They have the TRUTH.

Which reminds me, I had better get out there myself, right now. I have spent too much valuable time trying to get you folks on the right track. There is a whole world out there headed for the Lake of Fire. Who will save them if me and my KJ faithful do not.

God Bless you all for seeking, finding truth and getting with the program.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>What about those of us who use a KJV which is not the 1769 (Oxford) edition. I use a 1762 Cambridge edition. Doesn't the 1762 count as a KJV?

 

Dr. C,

Maybe you should consult with the Ruckmanites in their heresy of departing from the KJV faith LOL and not holding to the original 1611. I'll stick with my 1611 NKJV!

 

Kiffin, why should I consult with the Ruckmanites regarding your error?

 

Alex:

Once again you have exemplified the futility in discussions with a KJVO. You make a papal proclamation without a shred of evidence (and in fact repeat a known error refuted many times on this board concerning the NKJV) and assume everyone to just accept what you have said.

No, the KJV is not pure.
No, the KJV is not perfectly preserved.
No, all other translations are not commentaries.

In fact the large majority of believers use MVs because they are more accurate, easier to understand, and many believe based on better mss. If one prefers the mss behind the KJV, then the NKJV is more accurate and easier to understand.

This discussion is like trying to climb a
mudslide - work your way to the top and then slide all the way down to the bottom and start all over again.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Hey Dr. C.,

What error? If you gonna say 1611, you better be using the 1611 and not the 1762, 1769, 1982, 2001 etc, etc...KJV. If you are they want to call your 1762, 1769 KJV a 1611, I'll call my NKJV a 1611!

 

Kiffin, you said <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The 1769 KJV that all KJVO's use . . .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My post indicated that all KJVOs do not use the 1769, but many use the 1762. See?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:
No, the KJV is not pure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it is pure in one sense. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, the KJV is not perfectly preserved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, it is in one sense. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, all other translations are not commentaries. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Well, in the sense of non verbal translation, several of the MVs could be considered more commentary than translation. The "thought to thought" rather than "word to word" kind of thing. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In fact the large majority of believers use MVs because they are more accurate,<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean they believe they are more accurate?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alex H. Mullins:
If you are interested in the pure , preserved perfect Word of God, the KJV is the only one that measures up. The NKJV, like all of the others, is derived from different "original" manuscripts which were corrupted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex,

As usual, you are making statements of opinion without fact (or, in this case, with the facts against you).

Please stop saying the NKJV is "derived from different 'original' manuscripts which were corrupted." THE NKJV WAS TRANSLATED FROM THE VERY SAME TEXT (your hallowed TR) THAT THE KJV WAS. STOP SAYING IT WASN'T.

If you honestly believe it was translated from different manuscripts, then you are ignorant of the facts. A little honesty would go a long way toward strengthening your credibility. Right now, you seem to know nothing but you seem to be full of opinions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a result all, except the KJV, are mere commentaries.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, they aren't. They are translations--better translations than the KJV. Most of the "differences" are due to the manuscript base followed.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>...I have not met anyone who claims them to be God's pure, preserved, perfect Word.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is because most MV users live in a land far, far away from KJVOdom. It is called reality, and in reality perfect translations were neither promised in scripture (show me the verse that says they are), nor do they exist in English. Every translation has its problems.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>On the other hand, there are thousands who have not waivered, have not been tricked and who believe that the KJV is the infallible, inerrant word of God, every jot and tittle exactly where God intended it to be.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie.

BTW, Alex, where are the "jots and tittles" in your Bible? If the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings.

Why would He want less for His children?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It is a difficult concept to grasp, that God would preserve a perfect Word for us in our language and that satan would simply overlook the idea of getting into and messing with God's word. Certainly, Satan would never even think of doing such a thing. RIIGGHHTTT!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Satan, like the serpent he inhabited, is subtle above all creatures. In order to keep people from the meaning of God's word, he tricks them into believing it may only be found in an archaic English translation. People so deceived are then in bondage to a language different than their own, not ever actually having a full understanding of even the basic language of the Bible, let alone some of the deepest theological implications.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The KJV is adequate and easy for anyone who is a true believer to read. The Holy Spirit, if you have Him, will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings but are exactly what God intended for us to read and apply.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is simply ludicrous. WHERE in the Bible (any version), does it say that the Holy Spirit "will tell you how to interpret those beautiful old English words which, today, have different meanings...?" Tell me chapter and verse. Alex, your credibility is slipping with me and, I would venture a guess, with many others on this board.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board is because they are out there winning souls...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You idealize your fellow deceivees too far. I would assert the "reason you don't hear much from the KJVO crowd on this board" is because there aren't as many as you think. I also doubt that using only the KJV makes you more or less of a "soul winner."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is a whole world out there headed for the Lake of Fire. Who will save them if me and my KJ faithful do not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

These statements epitomize what is wrong with your thinking. Think about what you have written.

Jesus Christ will save them, not the KJV, not you, not me. Jesus alone can save.

Starting to look a little scary toward the end here, Alex...

 

Blade, you chastize Alex for stating his opinions as if they are facts, but don't you do the same thing? Examples: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They are translations--better translations than the KJV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean, in your opinon they are better translations? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Every translation has its problems.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean, in your opinion every translation has its problems? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"Thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean in your opinion "thousands" like you have been deceived by the likes of Ruckman and Riplinger into believing an awful lie? <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW, Alex, where are the "jots and tittles" in your Bible? If the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Don't you mean in your opinion if the KJV is perfect, it should preserve these Hebrew markings? After all, shouldn't you hold yourself to the same standard you hold Alex to?

[ May 14, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

Dr. Cassidy,

There is nothing wrong with presenting opinionated statements; I have absolutely no problem with it (you do it, I do it, etc. and it makes the discussion more interesting).

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Alex's posts are purely opinion. He never argues from the mss. evidence. He never addresses specific passages. He never does anything but say "The KJV is the preserved Word of God...MVs are commentaries...MVs are watered down...yada, yada, yada..." Alex makes statements, but never attempts to support them with evidence of any kind.

Furthermore, my answer to him was simply opinion for opinion. There was no fact or evidence that he presented with which I could take issue.

I would figure you, of all people, would demand a few facts here as well. If a MV proponent made statements like that against the KJV, you would demand evidence; I am no different.

Sincerely,

 

Dr. C,

My point is that it is not the 1611 that anyone uses today as KJVO's say. Not trying to debate a minute point of 7 years whether it be 1762 or 1769 KJV or even my 1982 KJV.

 

Excellent post Blade! What shocks me however is that if anyone on this board would say that the NIV is the only pure word of God and that all other translations are just commentaries, they would be accused of heresy. A KJV Only can say that about the KJV and we are to take that opinion seriously?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dajuid:
So, simply put, why do you prefer your bible over the King James Bible? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK... I prefer both the NKJV and the NASB over the KJV because:

1)It is too difficult to read. I am a good reader; I have a B.S. in Biology, worked for 15 years in biotechnology, and am now in Seminary working on my M.Div., but I don't understand much of the KJV. I was not raised Christian, and if I was perhaps I might have a better familiarity with the KJV.

2) Its 17th or 18th C archaisms render it inaccurate for the 21st Century. That does not mean it is in error for its time, but the words mean different things in the 21st C.

3) There is no need to learn to read an archaic translation, because it is not monolithic. The Bible is a history of revision up to the KJV and it has been since the KJV.

4) Both the NKJV and the NASB translate the original languages better (i.e., in accurate 21st century renderings) than does the KJV.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kiffin:
My point is that it is not the 1611 that anyone uses today as KJVO's say. Not trying to debate a minute point of 7 years whether it be 1762 or 1769 KJV or even my 1982 KJV. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>My point was, you criticize Alex, Pioneer, et. el., for posting inaccurate information, then you turn around an do the same thing. Not all KJVs in present use are 1769s as you stated.