Is the KJV more than a translation

[Dave G.]

Well for the record I have both KJV and NKJV on my tablet and own 3 NKJV in paper and ink, we have pastors who are liable to use either one in service and still go on to quote a particular passage in the Amplified, which I then just pull up in Bible Gateway. I also have a paper back New Testament only Wuest. We have hard cover Interlinear and Brenton Septuagint as well.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Elevating an English translation of the bible as better than any other and one that is specifically locked to a geographical location and time is ethnocentric. This leads to being offensive as all ethnocentric expressions tend to be because they can only interpret the world in very narrow lense; it is very colonialist mindset and can send a message that you must confirm to western/english cultures to understand the bible or be a true Christian.

Do you remember when Jesus said to the Canaanite woman the following?

"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26).

In other words, the gospel first went out to the Jews. At the time, the nation of Israel was God's chosen people and they were the ones who had God's Holy Word (i.e. the Scriptures).

I would say that this is definitely "ethnocentric" if you ask me.
Yes, God sent Jonah to preach to a Gentile nation. But God's chosen people was Israel. This is "ethnocentric."

Sophistication is lacking because the gospel is narrowed and boxed in rather than looking at cultures as added value they are only tolerated at best but not accepted. Perhaps to a colonialist there is a ethnocentric sophistication that they may feel is best but this only repeats the same problems and is not the sophistication I'm referring to.

I do not believe all KJV-onlyists hold to the view that a person has to believe the KJV is divinely inspired to be saved or to accept Christ and the gospel. A person can be saved by hearing a few verses in Scripture. However, it is the pure Word of God (the KJV) that will have more impact in a person's life in their walk with God because the evidences point to that fact that the KJV is divinely inspired and 100% trust worthy. Seeing the KJV is true and trust worthy it is then a faith issue. For without faith it is impossible to please God. For we are not following a bunch of different faiths (or different translations) but we are following one faith from one Word of God. There cannot be many Words of Gods or variations of such a thing. God is not the author of confusion.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Is the KJV more than a translation?

Yes. While the 1769 KJV was intended as a translation of God's Word, it turned out to be God's perfect Word for our day today (By the power of God). For the world language today is English, just as Greek was one time the world language. God chooses a language to preserve His Word perfectly according to His greater plan for good.

God did not fail to preserve His Word for this world today.

 

[nChrist]

I use the KJV every day, even though I know it's not the most accurate English Translation of the Holy Bible. It's JUST a translation because the Holy Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew. The NASB and ESV are more accurate word for word English translations of the Holy Bible, so I use them in more serious studies. I also like to use parallel comparisons between the KJV, NASB, and ESV. There are more accurate translations than the KJV that I didn't mention. I also use Greek and Hebrew in more difficult portions of Scripture.

In short, I use the KJV every day because I grew up with it and am more familiar with it.

 

[Phil 1:21]

Some folks can read the KJV fluently, and to others it may as well be written in Gaelic. It's more important that the reader understand the Word than that he/she read it in a particular language, veiled insults regarding their educational levels notwithstanding.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not ethnocentric, AFAIK, but more reactionary towards more modern translations.

KJV-onlyism may not be ethnocentric, but I think it'd be hard to deny that it's Anglocentric.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DamianWarS]

Do you remember when Jesus said to the Canaanite woman the following?

"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." (Matthew 15:26).

In other words, the gospel first went out to the Jews. At the time, the nation of Israel was God's chosen people and they were the ones who had God's Holy Word (i.e. the Scriptures).

I would say that this is definitely "ethnocentric" if you ask me.
Yes, God sent Jonah to preach to a Gentile nation. But God's chosen people was Israel. This is "ethnocentric."

there is an ethnocentrality to the old covenant which overlaps into Jesus' ministry on earth but this dramatically changes in the beginnings of the early church well documented in scripture; a release of these ethnocentric values so that the gospel can spread to the ends of the earth. We know Christ's words after all outside of this ethnocentric old covenant through Greek not through Hebrew. Paul tells us to "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some." this is not a call to adopt a new culture and new language and preach it to the world but rather a call to contextualise and understand our mission as much as possible. the KJV today need it's own level of interpretation as English has evolved past many of the words used in the the 17th century.

I do not believe all KJV-onlyists hold to the view that a person has to believe the KJV is divinely inspired to be saved or to accept Christ and the gospel. A person can be saved by hearing a few verses in Scripture. However, it is the pure Word of God (the KJV) that will have more impact in a person's life in their walk with God because the evidences point to that fact that the KJV is divinely inspired and 100% trust worthy. Seeing the KJV is true and trust worthy it is then a faith issue. For without faith it is impossible to please God. For we are not following a bunch of different faiths (or different translations) but we are following one faith from one Word of God. There cannot be many Words of Gods or variations of such a thing. God is not the author of confusion.

I know KJV onliest don't subscribe to salvation only through the KJV and I don't go to that length to accuse them but it may very well be received that way especially in non-english speaking cultures. Why does God care about english speaking nations more than other nations? Of course you could retort why did he care about the Hebrews over other nations but this is an establish focus of scripture that is well articulated as the design and plan of God. We are not the new Hebrews nor should we be so arrogant to claim that God values his gospel through 17th century english over any other language.

 

[JackRT]

Language does indeed change over the centuries. When Christopher Wren, the architect of St Paul's Cathedral in London, was asked what he thought of it, he replied "It is the most awful thing I have ever done."

 

[DamianWarS]

KJV-onlyism may not be ethnocentric, but I think it'd be hard to deny that it's Anglocentric.

-CryptoLutheran

I don't see that you can be anglocentric without being ethnocentric. languages carry inherent culture with them and cultures carry inherent ethnicities, we may not like that in our pluralistic world and perhaps it is becoming more washed out but it still is true.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't see that you can be anglocentric without being ethnocentric. languages carry inherent culture with them and cultures carry inherent ethnicities, we may not like that in our pluralistic world and perhaps it is becoming more washed out but it still is true.

That's a fair point. Though I could understand how someone might be KJV-only and not believe their ethnicity is superior; but it's hard to deny that someone who believes in KJV-onlyism isn't saying that English is somehow uniquely special or superior. It's definitely Anglocentric in that it imagines the world as somehow revolving around the English tongue; it does this by denying the importance of the original source languages of Scripture, and seemingly ignoring the fact that English isn't the only language spoken on the planet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JackRT]

That's a fair point. Though I could understand how someone might be KJV-only and not believe their ethnicity is superior; but it's hard to deny that someone who believes in KJV-onlyism isn't saying that English is somehow uniquely special or superior. It's definitely Anglocentric in that it imagines the world as somehow revolving around the English tongue; it does this by denying the importance of the original source languages of Scripture, and seemingly ignoring the fact that English isn't the only language spoken on the planet.

-CryptoLutheran

Worldwide, more people speak Mandarin as their native tongue (13%) than English as their native tongue (8%).

 

[Dave G.]

Bottom line is the question was " is the KJV more than a translation". My answer is no.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

a lot of my memory of the passages is in KJV but I don't mind using another translation ... especially when people seem to act like being British is necessary for salvation. Not that I've encountered anyone like that in years though.
.
I tend to look at the strongs word if the phraseology is awkward or it disagrees with other translations.
.
If I were to learn another language it would be the biblical languages, and not King Jamese.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

I find that the only christians who believe the KJV is the only book at the ones that were told it is as a kid and thus they assume its true. Yes, maybe its close to the original greek, however unless one has studied greek and the greek version themselves, one cannot really know if the KJV is close or not.

And obviously there are some important things in the bible that needed to be translated just right. But I find the various versions of the bible apply to certain people. For example if you are good with kings english, you understand the deeper words in KJV. Where as if you have a hard time learning, maybe something like the NSB is easier. Though there are even easier ones I've seen recently but they are SUPER different sounding word wise.

In the end I tell people to choose the version that they feel seems to be easier to understand. Because if you get a version you don't understand, then its hard to learn. Also Gods not going to base if you enter heaven or not based on what version you read.

 

[DamianWarS]

Worldwide, more people speak Mandarin as their native tongue (13%) than English as their native tongue (8%).

this may be true but that 13% of native mandarin speakers are all lumped in one part of the world were the 8% of native english speakers are far more spread out.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

there is an ethnocentrality to the old covenant which overlaps into Jesus' ministry on earth but this dramatically changes in the beginnings of the early church well documented in scripture; a release of these ethnocentric values so that the gospel can spread to the ends of the earth. We know Christ's words after all outside of this ethnocentric old covenant through Greek not through Hebrew. Paul tells us to "become all things to all people so that by all possible means [we] might save some." this is not a call to adopt a new culture and new language and preach it to the world but rather a call to contextualise and understand our mission as much as possible. the KJV today need it's own level of interpretation as English has evolved past many of the words used in the the 17th century.

Not true. We are joint heirs of Christ who is Jewish.
Jesus Himself said salvation is of the Jews (John 4:22).

"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Galatians 3:29).

When believers will be resurrected bodily, they will have the flesh and blood of Jesus Christ (who is of Jewish descent). We will be joint heirs of Abraham's seed (Who is the father of faith of the Jews).

I know KJV onliest don't subscribe to salvation only through the KJV and I don't go to that length to accuse them but it may very well be received that way especially in non-english speaking cultures. Why does God care about english speaking nations more than other nations? Of course you could retort why did he care about the Hebrews over other nations but this is an establish focus of scripture that is well articulated as the design and plan of God. We are not the new Hebrews nor should we be so arrogant to claim that God values his gospel through 17th century english over any other language.

Again, I am not talking about salvation here. God cares enough to have the gospel spread to all nations by various translations in different languages all over the world. I am talking about God preserving His Word in one particular language for our world today. A pure Word of God for man today that he can understand whereby He can deepen His faith and walk with the Lord in such a way that is according to His one and only pure Word (and not many Words).

The world language (or global language) is actually English.

https://englishlive.ef.com/blog/english-in-the-real-world/english-became-global-language/
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/linguistics/why-is-english-considered-a-global.php

Our faith is based upon the Bible; And not all Bibles say the same exact thing.

God is not the author of confusion.

Side Note:

Oh, and the King James has been translated into other languages, so I would not say that the pure Word of God is just isolated to the English alone today.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Worldwide, more people speak Mandarin as their native tongue (13%) than English as their native tongue (8%).

A world language is characterized not only by the total number of speakers (native and second language speakers), but also by its geographical distribution, as well as use in international organizations and diplomatic relations.

Source:
World language - Wikipedia

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I find that the only christians who believe the KJV is the only book at the ones that were told it is as a kid and thus they assume its true. Yes, maybe its close to the original greek, however unless one has studied greek and the greek version themselves, one cannot really know if the KJV is close or not.

And obviously there are some important things in the bible that needed to be translated just right. But I find the various versions of the bible apply to certain people. For example if you are good with kings english, you understand the deeper words in KJV. Where as if you have a hard time learning, maybe something like the NSB is easier. Though there are even easier ones I've seen recently but they are SUPER different sounding word wise.

In the end I tell people to choose the version that they feel seems to be easier to understand. Because if you get a version you don't understand, then its hard to learn. Also Gods not going to base if you enter heaven or not based on what version you read.

No. Nobody knows how to speak and write Biblical Greek. That is just a fantasy. It's a dead language. The way to truly tell which Bible is true today is to do a fruits test with a Word of God in today's global language (That God would have undoubtly used). This would be comparing the various translations next to each other to see which translation stands above the rest. The KJV wins hands down compared to other translations. It is also confirmed to be divine (just like the Greek Scriptures) by Biblical Numerics, as well.

 

[MeritFromGrace]

[There seems a specific culture that looks at the KJV as the supreme authority of the written word of God above all else. I have a hard time following this logic as there is a whole lot of history before the KJV and after the KJV in thousands of languages that it seems rather arbitrary to pick the KJV above all else. This culture feels very ethnocentric I might add which then dips into offensive areas. Should not our quest in determining responsible scripture be a little more sophisticated and more focused at our mission?]

I believe KJV is in the inerrant Word of God. The translators have produced an inerrant translation in 1611 but due to printing errors and such, not everyone whom receive the 1611 Bible have 100% inerrancy. Furthermore from 1611 to 1769, English language was evolving. The 1769 changes is to reflect the latest language evolution. From my observation, it is 1769 KJV that standardized the English language. The inerrant translation and inerrant printed Bible is the 1769 KJV.

I am a Chinese whom is well-read about history, before coming to Christ I am proud of China and view western nations as competitor to China's leading position in the world. Now I love God and my love for worldly things have reduced, as my walk in God gets closer, national idolatry gets erased. Nonetheless, there is certain facts that I ascent to without being emotionally committed to them, that China and Western civilization are the first-class civilizations. 2000 years ago, Roman Empire and Han Dynasty China are the 2 superpowers. Today, we see United States and China as the 2 leading superpowers.

I was a person of pro-China ethnocentrism.
But I have no problem accepting the position that God chose KJV as the inerrant translation.

1. English is the primary international language today.
2. KJV is the most read Bible in history.

God has to wait for the Christian nations in 15th century to have access to the invention of the printing machine (the first paper printer is invented in China) first and after around 100 years after that that the perfect Bible is produced. My observation is that the entire set of inerrant Old Testament is preserved by the Jews and the Greek people are responsible for preserving the New Testament. Before KJV, the inerrant word of God is preserved but scattered around. Thus from 1st century Ad to 1611, people can have access to good enough knowledge to have the knowledge of salvation but would find it difficult to access the entire inerrant Word of God. Only rich people can buy an entire manuscript of Scripture written by hand before there is printing machine.


You have to understand that God scattered mankind during the tower of Babel when mankind has one language to communicate with each other. God sees the entire of humanity being able to speak with one another in one language is something very powerful. God did not even trust the Roman Empire with such kind of responsibility that allow its empire can have outposts all over the globe. But God apparently permitted Britain and USA to have such influence all over the globe.

My position on 1769 KJV as inerrant word of God is not by faith only. It is by sight. In a number of verses, KJV produces translations that are correct when all other modern translations get them wrong. It is KJV that produced translations that allow the Scripture not to contradict with itself.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

a lot of my memory of the passages is in KJV but I don't mind using another translation ... especially when people seem to act like being British is necessary for salvation. Not that I've encountered anyone like that in years though.
.
I tend to look at the strongs word if the phraseology is awkward or it disagrees with other translations.
.
If I were to learn another language it would be the biblical languages, and not King Jamese.

I believe a person can be saved by a primarily picture version of the gospel.

One Way.

But when it comes to having a pure Word of God that can truly matter the most in your life in your walk with God (to deepen your faith and relationship with the Lord), I would say it is the KJV because no other translation today comes close to matching it. Modern Versions have tons of corruptions within them. Granted, I use Modern Translations to help update the language sometimes in the KJV, but Modern Translations are not my final word of authority because they all say something different. There can be only one Word of God; And not many. Pure logic will lead you to that conclusion.