The King James Version

Lik3

Newbie
Nov 21, 2011
2,809
410
South Carolina
✟94,571.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Is the KJV only view a false view of preaching or studying the Bible? I am just wondering because I believe all translations are written about the same things? They are translations, not a promotion of false doctrine. When did the KJV only view take place? Why would it be considered more accurate than the NKJV and other translations?
 
  • Useful
Reactions: brinny

brinny

everlovin' shiner of light in dark places
Supporter
Mar 23, 2004
248,786
114,476
✟1,339,895.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Constitution
Is the KJV only view a false view of preaching or studying the Bible? I am just wondering because I believe all translations are written about the same things? They are translations, not a promotion of false doctrine. When did the KJV only view take place? Why would it be considered more accurate than the NKJV and other translations?

You might want to research it. Many versions leave out crucial God-breathed elements.

In addition, pray about it.
 
Upvote 0

HereIStand

Regular Member
Supporter
Jul 6, 2006
4,080
3,083
✟317,987.00
Country
United States
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
I believe the NKJV is translated from the same manuscripts as KJV. Technically, the KJV-only debate hinges on different manuscripts used for it, than other translations, such as the ESV. Historically, I'm not sure the KJV-only movement really emerged until other translations, such as the NIV, became more common in evangelical circles. Preferring the KJV over other translations is fine. KJV-only goes to far.
 
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,211
7,289
Tampa
✟768,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
They are translations, not a promotion of false doctrine.

I am not a KVO person, not by a long stretch (I prefer the Jewish tradition translations, such as Artscroll, for the Tanakh). However, translations absolutely do promote whatever the translators are biased to in terms of doctrine, which is why one should look at several translations when taking doctrinal issues in study. One translation might use a different set of texts, which may or may not be older or more exact, than another and might translate a particular passage differently, which can lend credence to different doctrines or differences. A extreme of this would be the NWT from the Jehovah's Witnesses which has passages translated that support their doctrines, seen as heresy by most mainstream Christians.

But no one translation has everything correct.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
As Brinny was thinking, the answer is too big to handle in a couple of paragraphs, but one thing must be understood. If there are elements in the KJV that have been questioned, that doesn't make every new, modern language, translation that has come along since the KJV be better! Their own errors have been well documented.

None of that supports the *KJV Only* people, however. There are many more people who prefer the KJV than those who say it is somehow the only true Bible.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
I am not a KVO person, not by a long stretch (I prefer the Jewish tradition translations, such as Artscroll, for the Tanakh). However, translations absolutely do promote whatever the translators are biased to in terms of doctrine, which is why one should look at several translations when taking doctrinal issues in study. One translation might use a different set of texts, which may or may not be older or more exact, than another and might translate a particular passage differently, which can lend credence to different doctrines or differences. A extreme of this would be the NWT from the Jehovah's Witnesses which has passages translated that support their doctrines, seen as heresy by most mainstream Christians.

But no one translation has everything correct.

How does the Artscroll state Isaiah 9:6? Can you type it out for me?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Lik3
Upvote 0

tampasteve

Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Supporter
May 15, 2017
25,211
7,289
Tampa
✟768,111.00
Country
United States
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
How does the Artscroll state Isaiah 9:6? Can you type it out for me?
Sure, no problem; I wrote out 5 and 6 since you are probably looking for verse 5, but Isaiah is numbered slightly differently in most Jewish Tanakh translations.This is from the Artscroll Tanakh Stone Edition:

5. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and dominion will rest on his shoulder; Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called name Sar-shalom; 6. upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this!
 
  • Informative
Reactions: SBC and Lik3
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
My Bible of choice is the NKJV, just so I can read the KJV more easily. I'm not aware of any changes in meaning from this updated version of the KJV. Is anyone aware of any?

I choose the KJV and NKJV because of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7. Tyndale's English version has them. I would like to see an updated Tyndale NT using modern spelling, instead of Spirit spelled Fpirit, etc. It takes a long time to read. I would like to compare it to the KJV to see how closely Erasmus used it and other sources for the KJV. (I think it was Erasmus...)
 
Last edited:
  • Friendly
Reactions: Lik3
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Sure, no problem; I wrote out 5 and 6 since you are probably looking for verse 5, but Isaiah is numbered slightly differently in most Jewish Tanakh translations.This is from the Artscroll Tanakh Stone Edition:

5. For a child has been born to us, a son has been given to us, and dominion will rest on his shoulder; Wondrous Adviser, Mighty God, Eternal Father, called name Sar-shalom; 6. upon the one with the greatness in dominion and the boundless peace that will prevail on the throne of David and on his kingdom, to establish it and sustain it through justice and righteousness, from now to eternity. The zealousness of Hashem, Master of Legions, will accomplish this!

Thanks. It was interesting. The Tanakh reads:

5. For a child has been born to us,
A son has been given us.
And authority has settled on his shoulders.
He has been named
"The Might God is planning grace;
The Eternal Father, a peaceable ruler" -
6. In token of abundant authority
And of peace without limit
Upon David's throne and kingdom,
That it may be firmly established
In justice and in equity
Now and evermore.
The zeal of the Lord of Hosts
Shall bring this to pass.

What I like in yours is the lack of a comma between Wonderful and Adviser. That's how I prefer it.

NKJV:
And His name will be called
Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God,
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Is the KJV only view a false view of preaching or studying the Bible? I am just wondering because I believe all translations are written about the same things? They are translations, not a promotion of false doctrine. When did the KJV only view take place? Why would it be considered more accurate than the NKJV and other translations?

Good questions all. With regard to the last question ----
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.
 
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

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Good questions all. With regard to the last question ----
The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text (the Textus Receptus) that was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and yet he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. We now possess many more ancient manuscripts (about 9000 compared to just 10) of the New Testament, and thanks to another 400 years of biblical scholarship, are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Much as we might love the KJV and the majesty of it’s Jacobean English, modern translations are more accurate.

Outside missing the complete verses of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7, I like to read the New American Standard Bible also. I don't like the NIV thought for thought version, but I do love the paraphrase of the Living Bible. When I read it, I was astounded by Romans 6. It changed my complete understanding of the gospel. Of course, I immediately compared it with the KJV which said the same thing, only I never understood it before. I praise God for the Living Bible and it's author. It's like reading a very good commentary.
 
Upvote 0

JackRT

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Oct 17, 2015
15,722
16,445
80
small town Ontario, Canada
✟767,295.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Unorthodox
Marital Status
Married
Outside missing the complete verses of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7, I like to read the New American Standard Bible also. I don't like the NIV thought for thought version, but I do love the paraphrase of the Living Bible. When I read it, I was astounded by Romans 6. It changed my complete understanding of the gospel. Of course, I immediately compared it with the KJV which said the same thing, only I never understood it before. I praise God for the Living Bible and it's author. It's like reading a very good commentary.

Perhaps those verses were removed because they were not present in the oldest manuscripts. And there are verses that are included but shouldn't be: If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Perhaps those verses were removed because they were not present in the oldest manuscripts. And there are verses that may are included but shouldn't be: If you have been paying attention to more recent translations of the Gospel of John, you will have noticed that John 7:53 - 8:11—the story of the woman caught in adultery of whom Jesus says, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her"—has been getting some interesting treatment by the scholars. The evidence that it was not an original part of this gospel is clear. The verses are absent from a wide array of early and diverse witnesses (papyrus 66, papyrus 75, Aleph [Codex Sinaiticus], B [Codex Vaticanus] and a host of others), and there is evidence that some manuscripts of John place these verses after John 7:36, some after John 7:52, some after John 21:25, and one manuscript even has it in the Gospel of Luke after Luke 21:38.

I really don't want to debate whether or not those verses actually exist on the oldest manuscripts we have TODAY. I believed they did in Tyndale's time.
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
My Bible of choice is the NKJV, just so I can read the KJV more easily. I'm not aware of any changes in meaning from this updated version of the KJV. Is anyone aware of any?

I choose the KJV and NKJV because of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7. Tyndale's English version has them. I would like to see an updated Tyndale NT using modern spelling, instead of Spirit spelled Fpirit, etc. It takes a long time to read. I would like to compare it to the KJV to see how closely Erasmus used it and other sources for the KJV. (I think it was Erasmus...)

IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.
A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV
 
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

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Outside missing the complete verses of Romans 8:1 and 1 John 5:7, I like to read the New American Standard Bible also. I don't like the NIV thought for thought version, but I do love the paraphrase of the Living Bible. When I read it, I was astounded by Romans 6. It changed my complete understanding of the gospel. Of course, I immediately compared it with the KJV which said the same thing, only I never understood it before. I praise God for the Living Bible and it's author. It's like reading a very good commentary.

All important aspects of Christianity are explained
by multiple authors in different ways, spread over time.
Some things do not pass this test.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
All important aspects of Christianity are explained
by multiple authors in different ways, spread over time.
Some things do not pass this test.

I'm not sure what you are saying - it is too brief. Do you mean the different apostles wrote the same things in different ways for clarification? If so, I would agree. But I'm not sure if that is what you meant.
 
Upvote 0

1stcenturylady

Spirit-filled follower of Christ
Supporter
Feb 13, 2017
11,189
4,193
76
Tennessee
✟431,122.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
IN THE "NEW KJV," THERE ARE

22 omissions of "hell",
23 omissions of "blood",
44 omissions of "repent",
50 omissions of "heaven",
51 omissions of "God",
66 omissions of "Lord".

The term "JEHOVAH" is completely omitted.
A Deadly Translation - The "New" KJV

I stopped reading your attachment when I read this:

"There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries."

:eek:
 
Upvote 0

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I stopped reading your attachment when I read this:

"There's nothing "new" about the NKJV logo. It is a "666" symbol of the pagan trinity which was used in the ancient Egyptian mysteries."

:eek:

The pagan trinity is not a mystery. It is symbolic of a father, mother, and child.
You should remember that Adam wrote the first scriptures, so ideas in scripture
were not formed "late" in humanity. You might find them anywhere.

What and when you stop doing research is always up to you. I don't endorse my sources in any way. I provide them for your interest.
 
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

SkyWriting

The Librarian
Supporter
Jan 10, 2010
37,279
8,499
Milwaukee
✟410,918.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I'm not sure what you are saying - it is too brief. Do you mean the different apostles wrote the same things in different ways for clarification? If so, I would agree. But I'm not sure if that is what you meant.
All important aspects of Christianity are explained by multiple authors
with different viewpoints, in different ways, in the New or Old Testaments.
There are no "central points" in our faith, covered only once.

Some things do not pass this test.
 
Upvote 0