The King James Version

Kilrathi827 · #31 26th October 2009, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

Thank you; sorry to misunderstand I thought you were a KJV Onlyist not someone who prefers KJV.

I'm a KJV-Onlyist in that the KJV is the only Bible I use for teaching, reading, meditation, memorization, witnessing, and preaching. I don't apply to the belief in double-inspiration of the KJV that voids the validity of any other translation. The main reason I hold to the KJV is that I think the origins of it (from the Textus Receptus) are more likely the closest to the original manuscripts than the translations founded on the Critical Text. That said, I have and hold discussions with friends who use all different translations of the Bible. On a recent road trip for example, there were 5 of us in a bus, discussing 1 John, and not one of us had the same translation. I had KJV, another friend had the ESV, another the NKJV, another the NIV, another the NASB. All contain the Word of God.

BigNorsk · #32 26th October 2009, 10:33 AM

And why would you believe that it is the closest to the original?

Why were a handful of mostly late manuscripts found mostly in one place the most accurate?

Is it just because after the KJV was done a couple of guys decided to call the product they were trying to sell the Textus Receptus?

What's the basis of your belief?

Marv

Kilrathi827 · #33 26th October 2009, 01:12 PM

The basis for the belief is that the TR is based not simply off of two or three manuscripts that were gathering dust in the back room of an Alexandrian monastery for over 1000 years as the Codex Sinaticus and the Codex Vaticanus were.

The TR is in agreement with well over 90% of the early Greek manuscripts that we have. It is further to note that the TR agrees with all of the lectionary manuscripts that we have from the first 5 centuries of the church's existence which indicates that these were the translations that were being ACTIVELY USED by the church. The vast majority of the disagreements between the core Textus Receptus documents are easily identifiable as copyist errors (i.e. missed capitalizaiton of a word, running together of words, slight changing of one word into another, etc.). The manuscripts that agree with the TR readings are drawn from 3 continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), indicating a widespread use of this version. Further, the datings of the TR manuscripts are spread over a period of close to 1500 years.

There are also several Latin and Aremenian translations from the period of 400-600 (the period the Codex Vaticanus is believed to have been written) which are clearly translated from a Greek text that held readings in agreement with the TR.

Ultimately though, for me the biggest test of the validity of the TR is that it, or Greek texts that agree with it, were in common use throughout the history of Christendom. In Psalm 12:6-7, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David said "The Words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." To me that reads that if the Word of the Lord is true, it will be preserved from error, and available to ALL generations. Not lost for 1000 years. Not gathering dust in a backroom. Open, available, and in use by the people of God.

That is why for me, in a nutshell, I consider the TR to be the best of the Greek texts we have available to us now, and by extension the KJV to be the most perfectly preserved translation in the English language.

General Mung Beans · #34 26th October 2009, 09:18 PM

BTW, for KJV users which KJV do you use: the 1611 version or the 1769 edit?

Izdaari · #35 27th October 2009, 06:52 AM

Originally Posted by General Mung Beans

BTW, for KJV users which KJV do you use: the 1611 version or the 1769 edit?

For me, the KJV is one among many that I use, but I do use it.

My KJV is an Old Scofield, the 1917 edition. It doesn't say which KJV edition it is. I guess whatever Oxford was using at the time.

Izdaari · #36 27th October 2009, 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Kilrathi827

The basis for the belief is that the TR is based not simply off of two or three manuscripts that were gathering dust in the back room of an Alexandrian monastery for over 1000 years as the Codex Sinaticus and the Codex Vaticanus were.

The TR is in agreement with well over 90% of the early Greek manuscripts that we have. It is further to note that the TR agrees with all of the lectionary manuscripts that we have from the first 5 centuries of the church's existence which indicates that these were the translations that were being ACTIVELY USED by the church. The vast majority of the disagreements between the core Textus Receptus documents are easily identifiable as copyist errors (i.e. missed capitalizaiton of a word, running together of words, slight changing of one word into another, etc.). The manuscripts that agree with the TR readings are drawn from 3 continents (Asia, Europe, and Africa), indicating a widespread use of this version. Further, the datings of the TR manuscripts are spread over a period of close to 1500 years.

There are also several Latin and Aremenian translations from the period of 400-600 (the period the Codex Vaticanus is believed to have been written) which are clearly translated from a Greek text that held readings in agreement with the TR.

Ultimately though, for me the biggest test of the validity of the TR is that it, or Greek texts that agree with it, were in common use throughout the history of Christendom. In Psalm 12:6-7, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, David said "The Words of the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in the furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." To me that reads that if the Word of the Lord is true, it will be preserved from error, and available to ALL generations. Not lost for 1000 years. Not gathering dust in a backroom. Open, available, and in use by the people of God.

That is why for me, in a nutshell, I consider the TR to be the best of the Greek texts we have available to us now, and by extension the KJV to be the most perfectly preserved translation in the English language.

Sounds reasonable. But then why not the NKJV, which also is TR-based?

Kilrathi827 · #37 27th October 2009, 08:30 PM

Originally Posted by Izdaari

Sounds reasonable. But then why not the NKJV, which also is TR-based?

Two reasons, at least personally.

1.) As good of a translation as the NKJV is, there are still a few readings which seem to diagree in content in the English with the TR reading in the Greek. I forget exactly what these passages were....I'd have to go look for my notes and see if i can find them. When I did a side-by-side comparison between NKJV and KJV, the meanings of the passages were changed. In alot of cases it was slight, maybe one or two words different, but had some effect on the overall meaning of the passage. Again though, the overall disagreement is minor, I think less than 100 verses overall (if I remember correctly), compared to over 1000 points of difference in the Gospels alone between the Critical Text and the TR.

2.) As far as it goes, the NKJV is so close to the KJV for me personally that to switch doesn't really seem to change all that much for me. I personally understand both equally well. That being said, I'll stick with the original.

Cody2 · #38 11th November 2009, 01:42 AM

Originally Posted by Kilrathi827

I'm a KJV-Onlyist in that the KJV is the only Bible I use for teaching, reading, meditation, memorization, witnessing, and preaching. I don't apply to the belief in double-inspiration of the KJV that voids the validity of any other translation. The main reason I hold to the KJV is that I think the origins of it (from the Textus Receptus) are more likely the closest to the original manuscripts than the translations founded on the Critical Text. That said, I have and hold discussions with friends who use all different translations of the Bible. On a recent road trip for example, there were 5 of us in a bus, discussing 1 John, and not one of us had the same translation. I had KJV, another friend had the ESV, another the NKJV, another the NIV, another the NASB. All contain the Word of God.

So God can't inspire a translation? (2 Samuel 3:10, Colossians 1:13, Hebrews 11:5)

Do you believe the second set of the Ten Commandments were inspired?

Jesus Christ quoted Hebrew into Greek. When He changed the language, did scripture lose inspiration?

God promised to preserve His word in Psalms 12:6-7. What better way to get His word out with the King James Bible that is on a 5th grade reading level. And guess what? He has done exactly that.

Ecclesiastes 8:4 "Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?" KJV

Barefooter · #39 1st December 2009, 08:17 PM

I use the KJV because that's what I grew up with and am comfortable with. But I believe many, many christians have been saved and learned to live a godly walk with other translations. I also have a J.N. Darby translation that went back to the best original greek and hebrew writings. But I try and never get into an argument over translations. I would rather encourage one another than argue about differences.

WannaWitness · #40 4th December 2009, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by Barefooter

I would rather encourage one another than argue about differences.

A big AMEN to that! Although there is nothing wrong with rational discussion and healthy debating (after all, sometimes we can learn from them), there does come a time when we as Christians should learn to "agree to disagree" on our differences (be it Bible versions, music, politics, and so on) and focus on the one point we have in common -- faith in Jesus Christ.