The King James Version

[gordonhooker]

Gordon backs out of this thread quietly hoping not to wake the inmates.....

 

[JackRT]

Gordon backs out of this thread quietly hoping not to wake the inmates.....

SHHHHHH!!!

 

[rockytopva]

KJV is all I ever read. It is the book the Holy Spirit led me to read. Any other version to me wil always remain unfamiliar and unwelcome.

 

[Ancient of Days]

Same here. I read the NIV for years but never felt like I was filling up spiritually. Every time I needed to check something I found myself going back to the KJV. It was the first bible I bought as a new Christian but had a hard time when I started reading in Leviticus and numbers so I got an NIV. Wish I had never of done that. When you compare verses its just not saying the same thing. "Things that are different are not the same"

 

[Tom 1]

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?

I’m curious about this too. I get the impression some people feel that the archaic language used makes it more ‘holy’, and get confused over what is meant by it being called the ‘authorised’ version, which was only relevant at the time of it being accepted by the then English monarch. The KJV was an incredible achievement in its day, and had a tremendous impact on the English language and English speaking cultures, but its just one of many translations, with different strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

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.

I agree for the most part, however my view of the KJV, if laid out, would be a bit more on the positive side of Biblical criticism. We should consider the source of Scripture even in translation, and the long period of time in English Bible translation history where for English readers, the options were a.) read from the KJV, or b.) learn the original languages. I would also make note of the underlying manuscripts behind the KJV are known as the Byzantine family of manuscripts, while nearly every modern translation comes from the Alexandrian family of manuscripts. I believe whether a person is reading from the KJV or a modern translation such as the ESV, they can read with confidence that the message is faithful to the original intended meaning. I believe God has always had His mighty providential hand, in the originals, copies, and translations. To most modern English readers, I would recommend a translation with an essentially word for word approach to translation as a primary Bible, like the ESV, NASB, or NKJV, and other more thought for thought translations to help assist with difficult passages. For younger readers especially, a translation such as the NLT would be an excellent choice. But perhaps I am overly hopeful?

 

[ViaCrucis]

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?

The King James Version is more-or-less the informal name for The Authorized Version, that is, authorized by King James I of England. There had been several English Bibles in print by the early 17th century. The Bishop's Bible had been the Authorized Version for the Church of England since 1568, and went through several revisions. James wanted an improvement of the text and to standardize the text for use throughout the entire English Church, as such the translators didn't simply update the 1602 Bishop's Bible, the provided an entirely new translation--one primarily based on the 1602 Bishop's Bible, but also relied on the work of other English translations, such as Tyndale and Coverdale.

In 1611 this fresh translation was published, but continued to see updates and revision every several decades until a new standardized text was necessitated, the job of producing a new standardized text fell to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. Cambridge published theirs first, but ultimately the 1769 Oxford won out as the authorized text for use in the Church of England and is still the text of the KJV one will find at any book store in the English-speaking world.

By the 19th century English-speakers had been using some form of the KJV since 1611, and now all over the world via the British Empire and the expanding United States of America. Thus for Protestant English-speakers, the KJV was simply the Bible. There weren't a whole lot of alternatives, and new translations were largely revisions of the KJV, such as Webster's Bible (from the same Daniel Webster who is responsible for the American English dictionary)--which didn't exactly catch on.

Without looking into it specifically, my suspicion is that KJV-onlyism was borne out of that old human instinct to like what is familiar and distrust what is new and different. The KJV was familiar, it was common, and it was everywhere--a new Bible was likely hard for many people to accept. The 20th century saw a proliferation of new translations, spurred by new manuscript discoveries (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls), a desire to update language, etc likely didn't sit well with many who associated these new translations with modernity--and thus grudgingly insisted that the KJV was the one and only true Bible.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Radagast]

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

In most cases, these so-called "left-out" bits are in the other versions, but in a different place.

And in most cases, the ESV, CSB, or NIV are better translations.

 

[Athanasius377]

If one wants to use the KJV so be it. It is a fine translation and a monument to 17th century scholarship and is the translation I am most familiar with. The KJV only movement is essentially a man-made tradition no less toxic than Rome's previous insistence on the Vulgate only. During the 19th century as the Ottoman Empire was crumbling new discoveries were being made in regards to the text and transmission of the New Testament. This alarmed many in the church and these discoveries somehow got linked with the higher critical method that was raging in Europe at the time. The result was the accusation that new translations and revisions are somehow corrupted.

You can usually spot the bias the moment someone starts to list verses that are "omitted". This assumes the KJV is the standard. It is assuming the same thing they are trying to prove and the reasoning (if there is any) becomes circular. At no point will there be an appeal to the text of a manuscript or anything in Greek. In most cases there is a complete lack of understanding how manuscripts were transmitted, why scribes tried to harmonize parts of the text, etc. A goodly amount of the KJV only crowd have never seen an ancient papyrus manuscript.

If you want to use the KJV because you prefer it, fine. If you have concerns about the family of underlying manuscripts but have issues with Jacobean English then use the NKJV. If you think the newer critical text is closer to what the original autographs said, then use the NASB or the ESV. Don't be afraid to consult more than one translation if the text is unclear. Each has their strengths. My advice is to be a student of scripture regardless of which translation you use.

 

[Galilee63]

The Catholic Bible has everything in Jesus, God The Most High's, Holy Spirit's Holy Word, Holy Will and Holy Ways

 

[simonbrooks]

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

Here we go again!

Let's just look at the last statement. JEHOVAH is omitted? You are aware of course that the word JEHOVAH never appears in any of the manuscripts? It is a mis-translation of Yahweh.

In fact to replace it with Yahweh or Lord is technically more correct.

God bless

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Adam wrote scripture?

 

[Tom 1]

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?

For a rounded view on the KJ translation I’d recommend Melvin Bragg’s ‘Book of Books - the radical impact of the KJ bible’

 

[Tom 1]

Adam wrote scripture?

Nb I’m not being facetious here that was a genuine question. I’ve never heard of any copy of anything supposedly written down by Adam. I mean it doesn’t seem credible to me, seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language, but I wasn’t trying to be funny.

 

[Ancient of Days]

"seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language"

That doesn't mean God didn't give him those skills. He had the other skills so why not?

 

[JackRT]

"seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language"

That doesn't mean God didn't give him those skills. He had the other skills so why not?

What language did he write in?

 

[Ancient of Days]

"seems that he lived before people started using any written form of language"

That doesn't mean God didn't give him those skills. He had the other skills so why not?

Even if he didn't physically write it down he gave the account of the garden to whomever did write it down so in essence he did write part of it. It starts with God, then Adam, Noah and these are the generations of means its a passing of the torch. But at the end of the day who God used to write down his words is irrelevant after all God is the author and if its infallible which it has to be, ultimately God wrote it down.

 

[Ancient of Days]

What language did he write in?

I don't know. At this point in time the people that would know are long gone so you would have to ask God that question.

 

[Monk Brendan]

Thanks. It was interesting. The Tanakh reads:

I find, when I run across certain passages, that I hear the voice and recit/music from Handle's Messiah, which was not from the KJV, but from the libretto by the Rev. Mr. Jenner.

 

[gordonhooker]

Adam wrote scripture?

Yep apparently he did according to some sources.....
My youngest sons name is Adam but he doesn't write scripture he only reads, studies, and strives like the rest of us to live by it.