The King James Version

[joshuanazar]

I am not Baptist. However, I recently went to a fellowship of Baptist preachers with a baptist friend of mine and I have a few questions. I will only ask the one right now.

I heard a Baptist preacher say that the King James Bible is the only true word of God. Is that a belief that is generally held by most Baptists? If so then are Baptist saying that English is the only language that the Word of God can be in? And if that is the case then would that mean that God is only interested in reaching English speaking people. Of course these questions seem ridiculous, so we would really have to assume that the kjv is not the only version that is God's Word. Would you all agree?

 

[ClothedInGrace]

Don't listen to KJV-onlyists. They hold their traditions above the Truth.

 

[tall73]

It is a position some Baptists hold. It is not a position that all Baptists hold, or even the majority that I am aware of.

There are a number of threads on the topic throughout this forum lately.

 

[Goodbook]

No.
It's a translation, a really good one, but it's not THE only one. Of course there are translations in other languages!!

Not all baptists adhere to KJV-only. I think some of the independent fundamentalist baptists ones do, but, it seems the baptist church I go to reads a lot from the Good News Bible.

I read the KJV myself, but I don't insist others read it. I do believe though, its the best translation in English and I don't really need to read others. And many of my christian friends read from it too. KJV has not let me down.

I'm kinda wary of KJV-only if they are teaching dispensationalism see my thread on scofield bible. although that seems to come mostly from NKJV and the commentary ADDED to the KJV, not the KJV itself. it is actually the Anglican church that originally used the KJV, they call it the Authorised Version, appointed to be read in their churches. Because it was one of the first full translation in English from the original tongues. Its 400 years old..and still as relevant today as it ever was. Even when language fashions change, the word for word translation rings true.

Hope that helps! If you have a copy, I encourage you to read it and find out for yourself.

 

[inlight12]

My belief is that KJV is indeed COMPLETELY correct translation AND almost every other translations out there, which may not be outright or wholly wrong, DO CONTAIN a few verses in all of them which perverts the word of God to something clearly incorrect.

Now, can anybody be saved reading other translations? Sure, as long as they do not use the corrupted verses. Does that mean this translations are completely correct? No. Is KJV completely correct? Yes.

Do this thing. Make a list of all or major bible translations out there and go to their Wikipedia entry. Most will have a NT and OT source entry. Read and note that down. You'll notice that most of the bibles are translated from "Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament" or "Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857" or "Novum Testamentum Graece". All these family of manuscripts are called minority text and contain two major blasphemous manuscript called Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Moreover the origin of these manuscripts are found to be from 4th century AD Alexandria, Egypt. Whereas if you look at KJV, NKJV and Geneva Bible, it has taken its NT from Textus Receptus which is taken from a group of manuscripts called the Majority Text which have their origin in 1st century AD and the text style is Byzantine. They are called Majority Text because there are over 5000 of them. You can read more about these things at below link and decide which line of manuscripts you will follow.
http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles/what-todays-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-greek-new-testament

Unfortunately although NKJV traces its origin to Textus Receptus, it still contains blasphemous verses as it was influenced by other modern versions. You can learn more about these things at the following link.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq.html
Also look at this pages for a list of these verses
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ESV_Fruit.html

So, there. As long as you avoid these verses you are OK. But are you going to bear the extra mental burden to look out for these kind of verses when you read your bible or are you going to have peace of mind reading a KJV bible?

As for the question of other languages, would you choose a bible of questionable heritage or would you choose one known to be correct? Well if you want to read bible in other languages, it's fine. Just keep your KJV ready for doublecheck.

EDIT: When you look at these changed verses you will find that many of them are cosmetic changes which do not interfere with the central doctrine of Christianity at all, but they are changes nonetheless.

 

[inlight12]

Don't listen to KJV-onlyists. They hold their traditions above the Truth.

And does this Truth comes out of nothing? We believe in word of God as the only truth. But we definitely want to know if its source the Bible is perverted or not.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I am not Baptist. However, I recently went to a fellowship of Baptist preachers with a baptist friend of mine and I have a few questions. I will only ask the one right now.


I heard a Baptist preacher say that the King James Bible is the only true word of God. Is that a belief that is generally held by most Baptists?

No; that belief is held almost exclusively by radicalized Christian fundamentalists in independent Baptist churches pastored by men who lack the qualifications to pastor a Baptist church belonging to a Baptist denomination.

If so then are Baptist saying that English is the only language that the Word of God can be in?

That is the necessary conclusion, but radicalized Christian fundamentalists either do not realize that fact, or they deny the reality of it.

And if that is the case then would that mean that God is only interested in reaching English speaking people.

If that were the case, it would mean that God is not the God of the Bible.

Of course these questions seem ridiculous, so we would really have to assume that the kjv is not the only version that is God's Word.

Your questions are not ridiculous; it is the belief of radicalized Christian fundamentalists that is ridiculous and severely perverted.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And does this Truth comes out of nothing?

The truth is that the editions of KJV that members of the KJO movement believe to be the perfectly preserved word of God are severely edited editions of editions of editions of the “The Holy Bible Containing the Old Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised; by his Majesty’s Special Commandment, Appointed to be read in Churches, Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, printer to the king’s most Excellent Majesty.”, with a total of about 24,000 corrections to the 1611 edition.

 

[joshuanazar]

My belief is that KJV is indeed COMPLETELY correct translation AND almost every other translations out there, which may not be outright or wholly wrong, DO CONTAIN a few verses in all of them which perverts the word of God to something clearly incorrect.

Now, can anybody be saved reading other translations? Sure, as long as they do not use the corrupted verses. Does that mean this translations are completely correct? No. Is KJV completely correct? Yes.

Do this thing. Make a list of all or major bible translations out there and go to their Wikipedia entry. Most will have a NT and OT source entry. Read and note that down. You'll notice that most of the bibles are translated from "Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament" or "Westcott and Hort 1881 and Tregelles 1857" or "Novum Testamentum Graece". All these family of manuscripts are called minority text and contain two major blasphemous manuscript called Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Moreover the origin of these manuscripts are found to be from 4th century AD Alexandria, Egypt. Whereas if you look at KJV, NKJV and Geneva Bible, it has taken its NT from Textus Receptus which is taken from a group of manuscripts called the Majority Text which have their origin in 1st century AD and the text style is Byzantine. They are called Majority Text because there are over 5000 of them. You can read more about these things at below link and decide which line of manuscripts you will follow.
http://www.tbsbibles.org/articles/what-todays-christian-needs-to-know-about-the-greek-new-testament

Unfortunately although NKJV traces its origin to Textus Receptus, it still contains blasphemous verses as it was influenced by other modern versions. You can learn more about these things at the following link.
http://av1611.com/kjbp/faq.html
Also look at this pages for a list of these verses
http://www.av1611.org/niv.html
http://www.av1611.org/nkjv.html
http://www.av1611.org/kjv/ESV_Fruit.html

So, there. As long as you avoid these verses you are OK. But are you going to bear the extra mental burden to look out for these kind of verses when you read your bible or are you going to have peace of mind reading a KJV bible?

As for the question of other languages, would you choose a bible of questionable heritage or would you choose one known to be correct? Well if you want to read bible in other languages, it's fine. Just keep your KJV ready for doublecheck.

EDIT: When you look at these changed verses you will find that many of them are cosmetic changes which do not interfere with the central doctrine of Christianity at all, but they are changes nonetheless.

You say that the kjv is completely correct however there are in fact several translation errors in the kjv. For instance in Revelation where is talks about the white, red, black, and pale horses; the Greek word that they translated pale is actually chloros which means green not pale. It is not an error that will give us the wrong idea of grace, but it is still an error none the less.

 

[joshuanazar]

Thank you all for your comments. I myself read the KJV. Though it is not perfect it is a really good translation. But I mainly use it because a lot of other Christians use it and when I quote something or hear someone else quote something I want there to be the lest misunderstandings as possible. I myself really don't care what version a person reads because it isn't about the words on the pages but the Spirit behind the words, while the words can change the Spirit will remain the same and it will teach you the spiritual Word of God. Jesus said the words that I speak are Spirit and they are life. And again the Bible also says that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. So what about the versions that are totally incorrect? I don't read anything but the kjv for the reason that I named above (I don't know of any versions out there but I admit the possibility of them), but I am sure that if someone is truly in the spirit that they will be guided away from any version that is like that.

 

[Goodbook]

I dont think if you reading the kjv you really need to worry bout what other versions are saying. In general. I found.


It does seem that other versions lack clarity and even have bits missing. But you can look up comparisons on biblehub. There is a thread about the NIV on this forum if you want to read about what ppl say about that one. i dont really have the time to go reading every other version out there!!!!

 

[joshuanazar]

@Goodbook
Thank you but I prefer primary research over secondary. The fact that so many Christians single out that version as one being corrupt does hold significant weight with me but I would rather based my final opinion on my own reading of the NIV. By the way I love your signature.

 

[Avid]

For comparisons, your own being the most useful, make a comparison between the KJV and any other using the list at the following link.

http://achristian spirit.com/200VERSES.HTML

Very enlightening.

Problem generating link because I am on my StupidPhone.

When I got home from Church, I repaired the link...

 

[JM]

The Authorized Version (as it is known in the Commonwealth) is a fine translation. I use it daily for study, devotions and my Pastor preaches from it. That stated it is a translation, the providential preservation of the scriptures refers to the inspired Hebrew and Greek, not the translation of them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

 

[tall73]

The Authorized Version (as it is known in the Commonwealth) is a fine translation. I use it daily for study, devotions and my Pastor preaches from it. That stated it is a translation, the providential preservation of the scriptures refers to the inspired Hebrew and Greek, not the translation of them.

Yours in the Lord,

jm

Sounds about right.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Thank you all for your comments. I myself read the KJV. Though it is not perfect it is a really good translation. But I mainly use it because a lot of other Christians use it and when I quote something or hear someone else quote something I want there to be the lest misunderstandings as possible. I myself really don't care what version a person reads because it isn't about the words on the pages but the Spirit behind the words, while the words can change the Spirit will remain the same and it will teach you the spiritual Word of God. Jesus said the words that I speak are Spirit and they are life. And again the Bible also says that the letter kills but the Spirit gives life. So what about the versions that are totally incorrect? I don't read anything but the kjv for the reason that I named above (I don't know of any versions out there but I admit the possibility of them), but I am sure that if someone is truly in the spirit that they will be guided away from any version that is like that.

I like the KJV, but find the NASB a wonderful study Bible. I also like to look scripture up at www.scripture4all.org for the Interlinear Greek Bible (NT) and the Interlinear Hebrew Bible (OT). It is good for study as well. Then also, there is www.blueletterbible.org which has various translations and lexicons and more. It gives some depth to scripture to read the interlinear imho

 

[miamited]

I dont think if you reading the kjv you really need to worry bout what other versions are saying. In general. I found.


It does seem that other versions lack clarity and even have bits missing. But you can look up comparisons on biblehub. There is a thread about the NIV on this forum if you want to read about what ppl say about that one. i dont really have the time to go reading every other version out there!!!!

Hi all,

I just wanted to clarify that just because 'some verses are missing' when comparing the KJ to other translations, doesn't mean that the other versions are corrupted. We don't have any reliable proof that the missing verses were in the original manuscripts and so the newer translations have taken the stand to leave them out, but usually there are footnotes to explain the discrepancy. There are quite a few reliable sources that explain that there were a number of places, when the translators worked on the KJ, that they had incomplete information and had to do the best that they could. Further, there is quite a lot of reliable information that the base text which they used, had suffered the same problem. Erasmus, it is reported, felt the need in several places to write his own words to complete some passages.

However, I believe the purpose for which God gave unto mankind the Scriptures, is that men might know Him and find the way of His salvation through His Son. In my 18 years of studying and reading and praying and walking with the Lord, I have found that the various reliable translations do not fail at that task. In our fellowships today, the greater problem is that so many are hearers and not doers of the things that our Lord asks of us. The best translation is the one that pierces an individual's heart that he then comes to know, understand and believe the truth of God and through that knowledge seeks to be born again. The truth is that anyone can read the Scriptures. It is only those who are born again who will be saved on the day of God's judgment.

In the days of Jesus in Israel the leaders of the Jews knew the Scriptures backwards and forwards and yet Jesus rebuked them that they had all this information but didn't understand that its purpose was to lead them to him. So, like Phillip, I'm not much concerned with what 'translation' one uses so much as I am with whether or not one understands what they are reading. Just as Jesus said, God's word will not pass away from the earth until the plan of God is consummated. Even in the midst of all the bickering and arguing over which translation is the more reliable, God's truth prevails in all of them.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JM]

Hi Ted, do you believe the biblical canon is closed? If so, when?

Thank you.

 

[miamited]

Hi Ted, do you believe the biblical canon is closed? If so, when?

Thank you.

Hi JM,

I don't know about the 'canon' being closed, after all, that's just the idea that some writings are those which the Holy Spirit caused men to write. I do believe that there are no more Scriptures to be written since John's final writing of the Revelation. It seems to be the right place to end God's testimony. God starts by telling us how all things began, gives us a reasonable history of His work and efforts to bring His salvation to mankind, gives us the last and final testimony of His Son, then ends with a testimony of how all this is going to resolve.

There doesn't seem to be anything else that God needs to let us know. However, when you speak of the 'biblical canon' you have to define which canon you're referring to. I do trust that whether the books that we have as the 27 books of the protestant (that is protestant vs. Jewish) canon are all of the Scriptures that God intended us to understand as His testimony, they do contain all that we need. As far as the old covenant canon, I'm of a mind that that was closed prior to the intertestamental period. God seems to have been silent for about 400 years before Jesus came. Allowing ample time for His people to understand His testimony of all that He has done and the coming way of salvation.

I do also believe that any Scripture, since the days following Moses, would have to come to us by way of the Jews. The only book that might be in question on this is the book of Luke. He seems to be the only one who has contributed to the Scriptures that may not have been Jewish, although he may just as much have been a Jew living outside of Israel. In Paul's journeys throughout the area surrounding Israel, he seems to have made a point of letting us know that there were Jews throughout the area that were not in Israel. He tells us that whenever he entered a city he would go first to the Jews of that city before proclaiming the gospel to the Gentiles of the city.

That's my understanding of the Scriptures.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[JM]

deleted