KJV Only, and Bible Translations

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
The NKJV was originally planned to be nothing but the KJV with updated English. But, the people behind the NKJV found that they couldn't copyright the NKJV unless they made more changes than just that. And, so they did.

You really can't just update the KJV without changing it. The English language hasn't just changed, it has degraded. For example, those "thees" and "thous" carry meaning from the original Greek that modern English doesn't have. In this example, the KJV has four words where modern English uses just the one word "you": plural and singular subject, and plural and singular object. If Jesus said "you", in the KJV you'd know who he meant. In the modern English, you'd have to speculate and you might be wrong (unless the translator did some paraphrasing, which itself causes other problems).

There are a number of KJV variants with modern English. But, most of them, except the NKJV, are poorly done. And, they're hard to find.

The Holman Bible (HCSB) was originally planned to use the same manuscripts as the KJV, and to follow the KJV closely, except with modern English. But, the man in charge of the project died and his replacement had other ideas.

There likely won't be a good KJV in modern English. We are a post-Christian society and you're not going to be able to assemble a team of academics (those with the expertise) who have any use for the KJV.

It's not a big loss. The age of the KJV gives it benefits that can't be had in modern English (in addition the problem of modern English being less fit for a translation). Even if I produced a great KJV2015, ten years from now, I might feel the need to revise it. It would probably still be great, but it wouldn't be the same as what you've memorized. And, maybe it wouldn't be great (like the NIV 2011 is vastly inferior to the NIV 1984, or like George Lucas' later tweaks to the original Star Wars degraded the movie). The KJV is beautiful. The archaic language forces you to pay attention to what it's saying. When it's quoted, you know it's being quoted. There's no copyright on it. It unites conservative Christians with a common translation. Its idiosyncrasies are well known. I could go on all day praising the KJV, so don't fret over the lack of a modern English KJV. If you spend enough time with the KJV, its language will hardly seem archaic anymore.

I am a conservative Christian that cannot use the KJV because the Masoretic Text it relied on for the Old Testament causes it to lack LXX-compatible versifcation in the Psalter, which our liturgy requires; it lacks several important Christological prophecies as well. It does have the deuterocanonical works, in its original form, which is good, but on the whole the problems with the OT create an obstacle to relying on it exclusively. Also even the traditionalist Anglicans do not do that; the BCP has its own Psalter based on the Coverdale.
 
Upvote 0

His Disciple

Active Member
Nov 1, 2015
185
37
✟520.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Private
I am a conservative Christian that cannot use the KJV because the Masoretic Text it relied on for the Old Testament causes it to lack LXX-compatible versifcation in the Psalter

The KJV was one of the first Bibles to use the Masoretic. I don't trust the chain of custody of the Masoretic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
The KJV was one of the first Bibles to use the Masoretic. I don't trust the chain of custody of the Masoretic.

There is one other rather large problem with the KJV and that is that in the UK, it is subject to perpetual Crown Copyright, held by Cambridge University Press, which seeks to apply this odious restriction on reproduction:

Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown and administered by the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press. The reproduction by any means of the text of the King James Version is permitted to a maximum of five hundred (500) verses for liturgical and non-commercial educational use, provided that the verses quoted neither amount to a complete book of the Bible nor represent 25 per cent or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted, subject to the following acknowledgement being included:

Scripture quotations from The Authorized (King James) Version. Rights in the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown. Reproduced by permission of the Crown’s patentee, Cambridge University Press.

When quotations from the KJV text are used in materials not being made available for sale, such as church bulletins, orders of service, posters, presentation materials, or similar media, a complete copyright notice is not required but the initials KJV must appear at the end of the quotation.


Source: http://www.cambridge.org/bibles/about/rights-and-permissions
 
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
Upvote 0

Paul of Eugene OR

Finally Old Enough
Site Supporter
May 3, 2014
6,373
1,857
✟256,002.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi Paul,

Yes, that is also my thoughts on the subject. There are a number of good, reliable translations of what we hold as the most accurate translations of the copies of manuscripts that we have available to us today. I have always understood the Scriptures to be our Father's attempt to reveal Himself to His created, and through them, to show us His offer and way of salvation from our sin.

While the KJV onlyists get caught up in arguing over this particular word or that particular phrase or verse, or even a few verses, I think they miss the point of why God gave to us His Scriptures. He didn't give them to us for us to idolize. That's what Israel did. Jesus rebuked them that they seemed to idolize the Scriptures in all of their diligent studying, but explained that their purpose was to tell them about him. And yet, through all of their many, many days of poring over and reading and studying the Scriptures, they refused to accept and come to the one that they were written about.

Similarly, KJV onlyists pore over and study the Scriptures for hours on end, but refuse to accept that their purpose is to tell us about Jesus and though a word or phrase or verse here and there may be different from one translation to another, there is not a one of the good, reliable translations that fails in this point. I can sit down and read the KJV, the NIV, the NKJV, the RSV, the NRSV, etc. and I will still find understanding of God, His plan and His purpose in this realm, and what He asks of me. I believe that is the only reason that God gave us His Scriptures.

He didn't give them to us to bicker and banter over a few words or verses, but to understand what He is doing in this realm and what He asks of each one of us. Many KJV onlyists will say that if some particular word or verse is missing then we don't get the true understanding of the Scriptures. I say that's hogwash! There is nothing that is important for us to know in the Scriptures that is only mentioned or written of just once in the Scriptures. So, if the point of a particular word or verse might be missed here, it will be found somewhere else. God is wiser than you or I could ever hope to imagine. He has already planned for our stubborn and unyielding hearts.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
When I first started looking into the issue of Bible Translations in the English language, I was appalled. I suppose I should have been savvy enough to realize that modern translations would be agenda driven, and that the Word of God would be tampered with for nefarious purposes. But I wasn't. At that time, I was happily reading my NKJV bible, thinking that it was simply a copy of the KJV, only written in modern instead of archaic English. How naive I was! Meat for the Devil's feast.

Well, I know better now. I am a staunch KJV Only believer. But, I still wonder why no one has published a modernized KJV, which remains rigorously true to the content and meaning of the KJV, but replaces the archaic with modern English.

Technically, I think such would be a revision of the KJV, rather than a new translation. In fact, I think that is the problem. I'm not at all interested in a new or different translation from the Hebrew or Greek. I think the KJV translation is perfect. But the archaic English is a bit of a bother.

PS: No doubt some of my fellow forumites will jump in with information about the "new" or newly discovered texts that were not available to the translators of the KJV. I haven't yet researched that issue. But for the purpose of this posting, let's just ignore all that, and concentrate on the idea of a revised KJV, same content and meaning, but in modern English.

You are not really wanting to dialogue about this are you. You made a statement and so it is. I personally have never felt it worth while to dialogue with some so "staunch" which is understood by me to mean "don't even go there with me". I would suggest that you really consider looking at a reprint of the 1611 KJV, and being so "staunch" you might consider using the "original KJV" for complete accuracy as God directed those men back then.
 
Upvote 0

faroukfarouk

Fading curmudgeon
Apr 29, 2009
35,901
17,177
Canada
✟279,058.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
When I first started looking into the issue of Bible Translations in the English language, I was appalled. I suppose I should have been savvy enough to realize that modern translations would be agenda driven, and that the Word of God would be tampered with for nefarious purposes. But I wasn't. At that time, I was happily reading my NKJV bible, thinking that it was simply a copy of the KJV, only written in modern instead of archaic English. How naive I was! Meat for the Devil's feast.

Well, I know better now. I am a staunch KJV Only believer. But, I still wonder why no one has published a modernized KJV, which remains rigorously true to the content and meaning of the KJV, but replaces the archaic with modern English.

Technically, I think such would be a revision of the KJV, rather than a new translation. In fact, I think that is the problem. I'm not at all interested in a new or different translation from the Hebrew or Greek. I think the KJV translation is perfect. But the archaic English is a bit of a bother.

PS: No doubt some of my fellow forumites will jump in with information about the "new" or newly discovered texts that were not available to the translators of the KJV. I haven't yet researched that issue. But for the purpose of this posting, let's just ignore all that, and concentrate on the idea of a revised KJV, same content and meaning, but in modern English.
Hi; I think your reference to the New King James Version as the 'Devil's feast' is unwarranted strong language.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Hi; I think your reference to the New King James Version as the 'Devil's feast' is unwarranted strong language.

I agree that whoever said this was not right to say that. But it was not me(farout)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dale1257

Member
Nov 27, 2015
9
2
66
✟15,139.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When I first started looking into the issue of Bible Translations in the English language, I was appalled. I suppose I should have been savvy enough to realize that modern translations would be agenda driven, and that the Word of God would be tampered with for nefarious purposes. But I wasn't. At that time, I was happily reading my NKJV bible, thinking that it was simply a copy of the KJV, only written in modern instead of archaic English. How naive I was! Meat for the Devil's feast.

Well, I know better now. I am a staunch KJV Only believer. But, I still wonder why no one has published a modernized KJV, which remains rigorously true to the content and meaning of the KJV, but replaces the archaic with modern English.

Technically, I think such would be a revision of the KJV, rather than a new translation. In fact, I think that is the problem. I'm not at all interested in a new or different translation from the Hebrew or Greek. I think the KJV translation is perfect. But the archaic English is a bit of a bother.

PS: No doubt some of my fellow forumites will jump in with information about the "new" or newly discovered texts that were not available to the translators of the KJV. I haven't yet researched that issue. But for the purpose of this posting, let's just ignore all that, and concentrate on the idea of a revised KJV, same content and meaning, but in modern English.
Sorry, but you cannot just 'ignore' new, or newly discovered texts, as you put it.
That said, you apparently like the KJV. If that is the translation that speaks to you, great. That is more important than anything else. So more power to ya.
Personally, I went through a phase of "Which bible"...it simply does not pay. I ended up spending $$ I didn't have, and had numerous bibles hanging around that I never looked at. I zeroed in on the NIV for awhile but ultimately settled on the NASB. I have had it for about 5 years now, and have not burning desire to change. It is a good translation, easy to read, and has adequate amounts of notes and cross references for when I get myself confused (which is often). NET bible is not too bad either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wgw
Upvote 0

Danny7995

Member
Nov 29, 2015
7
2
44
Midville, GA
✟7,637.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
I am a firm believer in KJV only as well. I have found an awesome site that really explains why we should use KJV as opposed to other translations. The website is www.bigdealkjv.com and it is awesome take a look at it if you have not seen it when you get a chance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWood
Upvote 0

Wgw

Pray For Brussels!
May 24, 2015
4,304
2,074
✟15,107.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Conservative
I am a firm believer in KJV only as well. I have found an awesome site that really explains why we should use KJV as opposed to other translations. The website is www.bigdealkjv.com and it is awesome take a look at it if you have not seen it when you get a chance.

I propose we should emphatically reject that film, and the website that contains it, based on this glaring "howler":

To the average English-speaking Christian, it is simply a “rabbit trail” to argue for one Bible version over another. Many consider it to be “divisive” to the Body of Christ. The truth is, as recently as 100 years ago the King James Bible was used exclusively by the vast majority of Christians who believed it to be the perfect Word of God. We believe that if it ever was inerrant, it remains so to this day.

In Psalm 12:6-7 God promised to preserve His pure Word forever. Thus, there must exist somewhere on the earth today a complete and inerrant Bible. The question every Christian must answer is this, “Where is the Final Authority of God’s Word, uncorrupted, complete, and accessible?” No other book but the King James Version fits all the requirements. It was produced by the most potent collection of 54 English scholars ever assembled, at a time when the English language was at its zenith. It has simultaneously withstood the scrutiny and attacks of its enemies, sparked the flames of hundreds of revivals, inspired more missionaries than any other Bible in church history, and comforted the hearts of struggling saints for over 400 years. And all without a copyright.

This is at times deeply offensive, and at other times simply incorrect, on these grounds:

  1. It proposes that only English speakers have access to an "uncorrupted, complete and accessible" "Final Authority of God's Word." This Anglo Centrism is a huge smear against the very large number of non-English speaking Christians.
  2. There would have been no KJV had there not been the original Greek from which to translate the NT from, nor the original OT scriptures in various languages; nor would there be a KJV without the Vulgate, the predominant Bible in Great Britain for nearly ten centuries before the publication of the KJV. A great many people were converted as a result of the ancient translation of the Bible into Syriac, Coptic, Ge'ez, Armenian, Georgian, Church Slavonic and other languages.
  3. The KJV was influenced by earlier English Bibles on a textual basis.
  4. The KJV is still under Crown Copyright in the United Kingdom.
One lastly cannot help but wonder if these chaps are aware that the KJV strictly speaking includes the "Apocrypha"?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
After 33 years as a believing Christian, I am convinced that there is no English Bible that is inerrant. I use the AV 1611 but it is chock full of errors, no matter what Peter Ruckman says (he says you can correct the Greek with the inerrant AV). Many are punctuation errors. The original manuscripts contained no punctuation and all the punctuation found in any Bible is added by man.

The most glaring and dangerous punctuation error in the AV and most all other Bibles is in Luke 23:43 which, as written, gives the false impression that, upon our death, we immediately will be translated to heaven to be with Christ (today). Of course, this defies everything the Bible says about death and resurrection. If it is true, as it stands in the AV, Christ would have to perform about 50,000 individual resurrections per day. The problem is that the comma should be AFTER the word(s) "To day" instead of before. When changed, it comes out as a common Jewish idiom. We still use it today when we say, "I'm telling you today, you'd better....." or, "I'm telling you right now, you should....."

A very common error in the AV and, even in modern bibles, is to mix up the words "sons" and "children", mainly because the legal meanings of these words, as used in NT times, weren't known until archeologists later on discovered documents explaining them. There are many cases in the AV where the Greek word meaning son or sons is translated child or children, and visa versa. This is a big deal when you consider that they had totally different meanings back then than they have today. Then, the term "son" was a legal term. A natural born "child" was essentially a slave and could be sold into slavery. A child could only become a "son" through a legal adoption procedure. Adoption made a son an automatic heir and, as I understand it, this was irrevocable once made. The terms "son" and "heir" back then were essentially interchangeable. Also, a man could select someone from out of the family to adopt and be a son (and heir). This person would have a much higher status than a non-adopted natural born child. In the AV NT, the term "adoption" is used 5 times as a part of our blessings. NT adoption is a fascinating subject. It would behoove us to double check any occurrence of the words son, sons, child, or children that we find, with a good lexicon.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
After 33 years as a believing Christian, I am convinced that there is no English Bible that is inerrant. I use the AV 1611 but it is chock full of errors, no matter what Peter Ruckman says (he says you can correct the Greek with the inerrant AV). Many are punctuation errors. The original manuscripts contained no punctuation and all the punctuation found in any Bible is dding by man.

The most glaring and dangerous punctuation error in the AV and most all other Bibles is in Luke 23:43 which, as written, gives the false impression that, upon our death, we immediately will be translated to heaven to be with Christ. Of course, this defies everything the Bible says about death and resurrection. If it is true, as it stands in the AV, Christ would have to perform about 50,000 individual resurrections per day. The problem is that the comma should be AFTER the word(s) "To day" instead of before. When changed, it comes out as a common Jewish idiom. We still use it today when we say, "I'm telling you today, you'd better....." or, "I'm telling you right now, you should....."

A very common error in the AV and, even in modern bibles, is to mix up the words "sons" and "children", mainly because the legal meanings of these words, as used in NT times, weren't known until archeologists later on discovered documents explaining them. There are many cases in the AV where the Greek word meaning son or sons is translated child or children, and visa versa. This is a big deal when you consider that they had totally different meanings back then than they have today. Then, the term "son" was a legal term. A natural born "child" was essentially a slave and could be sold into slavery. A child could only become a "son" through a legal adoption procedure. Adoption made a son an automatic heir and, as I understand it, this was irrevocable once made. The terms "son" and "heir" back then were essentially interchangeable. Also, a man could select someone from out of the family to adopt and be a son (and heir). This person would have a much higher status than a non-adopted natural born child. In the AV NT, the term "adoption" is used 5 times as a part of our blessings. NT adoption is a fascinating subject. It would behoove us to double check any occurrence of the words son, sons, child, or children that we find, with a good lexicon.



If you are looking for a debate on using the KJV only, I am not interested in this now or ever! I have learned in my 60 years as a believer that not only is debating over the WORD or God wrong, but is a worthless effort. I do not agree with your understanding of a believer when they die. Hebrews 9:27 says after Death comes Judgment. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That's my understanding, and I present it as you have given your understanding, I will not debate this either.

There are much better translations today than the KJV such as the NASB and the HCSB. IMO, no debate here either.
 
Upvote 0

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
If you are looking for a debate on using the KJV only, I am not interested in this now or ever! I have learned in my 60 years as a believer that not only is debating over the WORD or God wrong, but is a worthless effort. I do not agree with your understanding of a believer when they die. Hebrews 9:27 says after Death comes Judgment. Paul says to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. That's my understanding, and I present it as you have given your understanding, I will not debate this either.

There are much better translations today than the KJV such as the NASB and the HCSB. IMO, no debate here either.
I certainly wasn't looking for a debate and, after reading your post, certainly not with you. I was just stating what I felt about the AV. The title of this thread includes the words "KJV only", a term often used by those which believe that the KJV is without error. No version is without error, including the AV.

Arguably, the Rotherham Emphasized Bible is considered the most accurate Bible by many. I've had a copy of it for many years and, unfortunately, it is definitely not a "reading" Bible. I use it just to see what it says about certain verses in comparison with the AV. From what I've read, the Holman Bible, HCSB, is worth looking into. I have an NASB and, in my opinion, its best function is to serve as a doorstop.

If you don't like debate, what are doing on a wide-open forum like CF. Debate is constant on here. Wouldn't you like it better on a forum that is only made up of your "kind", whatever that is?"
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

farout

Standing firm for Christ
Nov 23, 2015
1,813
854
Mid West of the good USA
✟14,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I certainly wasn't looking for a debate and, after reading your post, certainly not with you. I was just stating what I felt about the AV. The title of this thread includes the words "KJV only", a term often used by those which believe that the KJV is without error. No version is without error, including the AV.

Arguably, the Rotherham Emphasized Bible is considered the most accurate Bible by many. I've had a copy of it for many years and, unfortunately, it is definitely not a "reading" Bible. I use it just to see what it says about certain verses in comparison with the AV. From what I've read, the Holman Bible, HCSB, is worth looking into. I have an NASB and, in my opinion, its best function is to serve as a doorstop.

If you don't like debate, what are doing on a wide-open forum like CF. Debate is constant on here. Wouldn't you like it better on a forum that is only made up of your "kind", whatever that is?"


I was referring to the KJV only people which I have learned there is no dialogue possible. If that was not your intention, I am very pleased.

the HCSB is now my Bible of choice, and IMO is far better than most all for reading and even study. The HCSB has an excellent study Bible with notes actually worth reading! The NASB flows oddly, and I read it often along side of the Holman just to see how it compares. The ESV is used approved by the National Council of Churches and that is a problem for me. I am an old man and remember the liberal ways of that group. I do like my 1984 NIV and it was before Zondervan messed up with their Todays NIV which was so bad it was dropped and then Zondervan combined it with the gender nutral new NIV which I do not recommend at all.

I respect the KJV of 1769 which most people have today, few know how many times the KJV was renewed. However I do have a photo copy of the 1611 reprinted by Thomas Nelson some years back. I find it useful when someone tells me they want only the KJV and after reading the 1611 they are really confused. I t is unique to read.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ac28

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2013
608
140
✟46,442.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
My favorite AV study Bible, by far, is Bullinger's massive Companion Bible, printed in the very early 1900's. It is best used for the OT, since, when Bullinger died, he had only completed it through John 10. As I understand it, Sir Robert Anderson completed it from Jn 10 on. About 1/2, or more, of each page is study notes. The notes aren't doctrinal. They are mainly things like what the words really mean, grammar, history, etc. - factual stuff. In the back, there are 218 pp of 198 appendices that are very informative - I think all those had been completed before his death. It is also my OT reading Bible, since more information about the text is always at my fingertips in the massive notes. A better AV/KJV study Bible doesn't exist.
 
Upvote 0