KJV only debate

AudienceOfOne07 · Sep 18, 2004

I work at Christian bookstore and this issue has always been of interest. What are your thoughts on Bible translations and the KJV only debate?

GreenEyedLady · Sep 18, 2004

I am a KJV only person. These threads get pretty heated. Lets sit down and see who comes through the door! MUHOOOHAHAHAHAHAH
*Hands AndienceofOne a Dr. Pepper and sits at the table*

verismo · Sep 18, 2004

Hi all!

My only question would be: On who's authority would one base that belief; i.e. it is the ONLY usable translation because... who said so? I mean, it isn't the original language; it isn't the first English translation...so what?

mesue · Sep 18, 2004

I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.

verismo · Sep 18, 2004

mesue said:
I am KJV only. I believe it is on God's authority and that He has blessed this Bible.

Yeah, that is what I am saying...where did you get that idea?

mesue · Sep 18, 2004

verismo said:
Yeah, that is what I am saying...where did you get that idea?

His Word
The very 2 middle words in the KJV are "The Lord"
but that's not why I believe God has blessed the KJV.
I can type up a summary, but not tonight.
I'm going to bed. I have church and work in the morning.

Sword-In-Hand · Sep 18, 2004

I'm a NKJV only, which some argue is no different than other translations that are not the KJV. Personally I don't like reading Elizabethean English. When it was translated, no one really spoke like that it was done to make it sound "prettier" and if it's the only true translation, what of Bibles that are translated in other languages for other countries? Are these not correct because they aren't in Old English? Can you believe a hardcore Baptist has these thoughts on the KJV? LOL, Gasp!

God holds His word above His very head and His word is forever settled in heaven, so it should be settled on earth too, but we humans have to make things difficult

I won't post anything else that I know of this translation or any other, as some don't think I'm correct.

Cright · Sep 19, 2004

Okay... I think this is a silly debate. The KJV is a great translation... but it's JUST THAT... a TRANSLATION... so how can you be JKV ONLY? What's wrong w/ the orginial language before it?
What about the NIV, was translated by over 100 scholars who worked direcdtly from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts and were from over 15 different denominations (including Baptist, Bretheren, Mennonite and Wesleyan) who all agreed that the NIV translation was indeed a modern English translation of the old text.

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Why Are There Errors in the King James Version? [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]You have probably heard the joke about the bigoted Protestant fundamentalist who said, "If the King James Version was good enough for the apostles, it is good enough for me!" People sometimes forget that the KJV was published in 1611 A.D. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]For centuries prior to 1611, Latin was the only scholarly language in Europe. The Latin Vulgate translation of Jerome, based upon a corrupt Alexandrian Text, was the "official" text of the powerful Roman Catholic Church. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Protestant translators sometimes did not have access to all of the Received Greek Official Text, and being familiar with the Vulgate, they sometimes put words into their translations based upon the Latin which were never there in the original Greek. Schaff points out that in about 80 places in the New Testament, the KJV adopts Latin readings not found in the Greek. Erasmus had a corrupt, incomplete text of Revelation to work from, and hence this book has many errors in the KJV. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]The King James translators did a marvelous job with the materials they had. While this article is necessary to point out the KJV errors, it should be noted that the errors, omissions and additions made by the RSV, NIV, and other modern translations are worse! [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Translation Errors[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Here is a partial listing of King James Version translation errors:[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Genesis 1:2 should read "And the earth became without form . . . ." The word translated "was" is hayah, and denotes a condition different than a former condition, as in Genesis 19:26.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Genesis 10:9 should read " . . . Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of [in opposition to] the LORD." The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a good guy, which is false.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Leviticus 16:8, 10, 26 in the KJV is "scapegoat" which today has the connotation of someone who is unjustly blamed for other's sins. The Hebrew is Azazel, which means "one removed or separated." The Azazel goal represents Satan, who is no scapegoat. He is guilty of his part in our sins.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Deuteronomy 24:1, "then let him" should be "and he." As the Savior explained in Matthew 19, Moses did not command divorcement. This statute is regulating the permission of divorce because of the hardness of their hearts.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]II Kings 2:23, should be "young men", not "little children." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Isaiah 65:17 should be "I am creating [am about to create] new heavens and new earth . . . ."[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Ezekiel 20:25 should read "Wherefore I permitted them, or gave them over to, [false] statutes that are not good, and judgments whereby they should not live." God's laws are good, perfect and right. This verse shows that since Israel rejected God's laws, He allowed them to hurt themselves by following false man made customs and laws. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Daniel 8:14 is correct in the margin, which substitutes "evening morning" for "days." Too bad William Miller didn't realize this. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Malachi 4:6 should read " . . . lest I come and smite the earth with utter destruction." "Curse" doesn't give the proper sense here. Same word used in Zechariah 14:11. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Matthew 5:48 should be "Become ye therefore perfect" rather than "be ye therefore perfect." "Perfect" here means "spiritually mature." Sanctification is a process of overcoming with the aid of the Holy Spirit. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Matthew 24:22 needs an additional word to clarify the meaning. It should say "there should no flesh be saved alive." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Matthew 27:49 omits text which was in the original. Moffatt correctly adds it, while the RSV puts it in a footnote: "And another took a spear and pierced His side, and out came water and blood." The Savior's death came when a soldier pierced His side, Revelation 1:7. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Matthew 28:1, "In the end of the sabbath as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week . . ." should be translated literally, "Now late on Sabbath, as it was getting dusk toward the first day of the week . . . ." The Sabbath does not end at dawn but at dusk. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Luke 2:14 should say, "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men of God's good pleasure or choosing." That is, there will be peace on earth among men who have God's good will in their hearts. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Luke 14:26 has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family! [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]John 1:31, 33 should say "baptize" or "baptizing IN water" not with water. Pouring or sprinkling with water is not the scriptural method of baptism, but only thorough immersion in water. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]John 1:17 is another instance of a poor preposition. "By" should be "through": "For the law was given by [through] Moses . . . ." Moses did not proclaim his law, but God's Law. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]John 13:2 should be "And during supper" (RSV) rather than "And supper being ended" (KJV).[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Acts 12:4 has the inaccurate word "Easter" which should be rendered "Passover." The Greek word is pascha which is translated correctly as Passover in Matthew 26:2, etc.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Corinthians 1:18 should be: "For the preaching of the cross is to them that are perishing foolishness; but unto us which are being saved it is the power of God", rather than "perish" and "are saved." Likewise, II Thessalonians 2:10 should be "are perishing" rather than "perish." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Corinthians 15:29 should be: "Else what shall they do which are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?" [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]II Corinthians 6:2 should be "a day of salvation", instead of "the day of salvation." This is a quote from Isaiah 49:8, which is correct. The day of salvation is not the same for each individual. The firstfruits have their day of salvation during this life. The rest in the second resurrection. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Timothy 4:8 should say, "For bodily exercise profiteth for a little time: but godliness in profitable unto all things . . . ." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Timothy 6:10 should be, "For the love of money is a [not the] root of all evil . . . ." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Hebrews 4:8 should be "Joshua" rather than "Jesus", although these two words are Hebrew and Greek equivalents. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Hebrews 4:9 should read, "There remaineth therefore a keeping of a sabbath to the people of God." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Hebrews 9:28 is out of proper order in the King James. It should be: "So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them without sin that look for him shall he appear the second time unto salvation." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I John 5:7-8 contains additional text which was added to the original. "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The italicized text was added to the original manuscripts. Most modern translations agree that this was an uninspired addition to the Latin Vulgate to support the unscriptural trinity doctrine. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Revelation 14:4 should be "a firstfruits", because the 144,000 are not all the firstfruits. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Revelation 20:4-5 in the KJV is a little confusing until you realize that the sentence "This is the first resurrection." in verse five refers back to "they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years" in verse four. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Revelation 20:10, "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are [correction: should be 'were cast' because the beast and false prophet were mortal human beings who were burned up in the lake of fire 1,000 years previous to this time, Revelation 19:20], and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever." The point is that Satan will be cast into the same lake of fire into which the beast and false prophet were cast a thousand years previously. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Revelation 22:2 should be "health" rather than "healing."[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Italics: Sometimes Helpful, Sometimes Wrong [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]No language can be translated word for word into another language. Hebrew and Greek idioms often do not come through clearly into literal English. Thus, beginning in 1560 with the Geneva Bible, translators initiated the practice of adding italicized clarifying words to make the original language more plain. The fifty-four King James translators did the same. Often, the added italicized words do help make the meaning clearer. At other times, the translators through their doctrinal misunderstandings added errors instead. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]In Psalms 81:4, "was" is totally uncalled for and not in the original Hebrew. New Moons are still a statute of God. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]We have shown how in Revelation 20:10 that the italicized "are" is incorrect and that "were cast" in italics would have been more appropriate. Another instance is John 8:28 where Jesus said (KJV), "I am he." The "he" is in italics and was not actually spoken by Jesus, completely obscuring the fact the Jesus was claiming to be the great "I AM" of the Old Testament, John 8:58 and Exodus 3:14. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]In Luke 3:23-38, the italicized words "the son" are not in the original Greek. Actually, Luke gives the fleshly descent of the Savior through Mary, while Matthew gives the legal descent through Joseph. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Matthew 24:24 should not have the italicized words "it were". It IS possible for the elect to be deceived. We need to be on guard! [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Romans 1:7 incorrectly has the italicized words "to be." The fact is, Christians are now saints. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Corinthians 7:19 needs some italicized words to make the meaning clear. It should say: "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but [the important thing is] the keeping of the commandments of God." [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Colossians 2:16-17 can be properly understood only if the KJV italicized word "is" in verse 17 is left out, as it should be. The message of these verses is: don't let men judge you as doing wrong when you observe the holy days, new moons and sabbaths; let the body of Christ (the Church) do the judging.[/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I Timothy 3:11 has "their" in italics, which is not implied in the original. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]II Peter 2:5 should not have "person, a." Noah was the eighth preacher of righteousness. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]I John 2:23 has "[but] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also" in italics. This is an addition based upon the Latin text and not in the original Greek. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Punctuation Problems [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Luke 23:43 has been erroneously used by some to claim that Jesus went straight to heaven at His death. The original Greek did not have punctuation marks as we do today. The KJV states, "And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise." The comma should not be after "thee", but "day." The believing malefactor would be with Christ in the paradise of the redeemed when he was resurrected far into the future. [/font]

[font=Times New Roman, Arial]Mark 16:9 does not say that Jesus was resurrected Sunday morning. There is a missing implied comma between "risen" and "early" and there should be no comma after week as the KJV has it: "Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ." Thus, it should say, "Now when Jesus was risen, early the first day of the week he appeared first to Mary Magdalene . . . ."

[/font]

With that quoted.. I will close by saying that I don't think that any "translation" is perfet... and I think that KJV is excellent. I don't think anyone should be KJV only or NIV only or whatever ONLY!! (unless it's orginial text).

My $.02
Carina

Jessica Lauren · Sep 19, 2004

I use the NKJV, and it seems to be exactly the same as the KJV, just without the "thees" and "thous".

Iosias · Sep 19, 2004

KCJls said:
I use the NKJV, and it seems to be exactly the same as the KJV, just without the "thees" and "thous".

Wrong! There are many changes to the text but obviously without reading the KJV you would not know that

Gold Dragon · Sep 19, 2004

As others have stated, the KJV is a wonderful version and literary masterpiece of biblical scholarship written in some of the most impactful Elizabethan English known to man. It has served Christians well throughout the ages. However as with most good things, some Chrisitans have pulled it to the extreme beyond its intended use almost to the extent of idolization.

The authors of the KJV and its source materials (Textus Receptus) never claimed to be a perfect reflection of God's word at the exclusion of other translations at the time. When King James got puritan and conformist Anglican scholars together to agree on an English version of the Bible, they did the best job they could with the resources they had available to them and created a masterpiece that has been a wonderful blessing to the english world for a long time. It brought unity to english speaking Christians who disagreed on many other things, and for that, it must also be praised. Their work was truly blessed by the Holy Spirit working in them. That doesn't mean their work could not be improved.

Since 1611, biblical scholarship and archeology has advanced tremendously. Hoards of ancient biblical manuscipts have been found since then. Knowledge about the life and culture of the biblical authors have been unearthed and rediscovered. Resources available to modern biblical scholars are vastly superior to those in the middle ages. And from these resources, prayerful scholars filled with the Holy Spirit are giving us new translations that not only reflect the intent of the originals authors better, but also reflect language of people of this generation better. Probably in another 400 years, the english language will have evolved to the point where our current translations will seem archaic to them, just as the KJV is to this generation. And new manuscripts and resources will demand revisiting our translations.

Gold Dragon · Sep 19, 2004

I personally use the New American Standard Bible for bible study because it is a quality word-for-word modern translation done by evangelical scholars.

The New International Version is a useful thought-for-thought modern evangelical translation that I use for devotionals and more casual usage.

I use The Message which is an evangelical paraphrase that strays significantly from the source materials to get a "different perspective" on a verse that is often insightful for non-Christians or young people because of the use of modern analogies.

I use the King James Version when talking to older folks or for a more poetic reading of the Bible.

I use the New Revised Standard Version when looking for the perspective of more liberal Christians and communicating with them.

Gold Dragon · Sep 19, 2004

I posted this basic primer on this thread and thought it would be appropriate here too.

Ancient Manuscripts
Modern translations are done using the entire collection of Greek and Hebrew documents and fragments of the bible that have been preserved. Obviously none of them are the "originals" that were penned by Moses, Paul, etc. but compared to other ancient documents, the bible is one of the most well preserved documents in human history in terms of the age and number of preserved manuscripts.

Some examples of these manuscripts are:
1. Dead Sea Scrolls (2nd century BC - 1 century AD)
2. Codex Vaticanus (4th century AD)
3. Codex Sinaiticus (4th century AD)
4. Codex Alexandrinus (5th century AD)
5. Masoretic Text (9th century AD)

Greek and Hebrew Compilations
Granted some of the documents and fragments have discrepancies between them and biblical scholars generally try to go with the older documents, although there is an element of decision making that does need to be done. Most modern translations use the Greek and Hebrew compilation primarily done by Eberhard Nestle, Erwin Nestle and Kurt Aland initially in 1897 with the latest revision in 1993 which is currently published by the United Bible Society. It was strongly influenced by manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type dating back to the 4th century but also used manuscripts of the Byzantine text-type. Notable bibles that use the United Bible Society versions as a source are the NIV, NASB, NRSV. Another significant compilation was the one used in the translation of the KJV called the Textus Receptus which was created by Erasmus beginning in 1516 with his final edition in 1535. This work was based primarily on manuscripts with the Byzantine text-type dating from the 12th century. Revisions are made as older manuscripts are discovered and the editors have a better grasp of the original languages or they change their mind on a word selection because of new evidence.

Translating into the modern language
Once a Greek and Hebrew compilation has been chosen as the source material, a translation into the modern language must be made. At this point, biblical scholars have many more choices to make in terms of word selection because as anyone with experience in multiple languages knows, one word in one language may not have an equivalent in another language or may have many equivalents depending on the context. And the grammar and sentence structure between languages is usually so different that a completely literal sequential translation would result in gibberish. This is especially true the further languages are from each other linguistically and historically. The decision process of selecting the appropriate words/phrases in most modern translations and the KJV was done by large groups of biblical scholars who agreed on a translation philosophy. They discussed and debated about the best translation for each verse within their philosophical framework. Some translations are done by individuals.

Literal Translations
A decision has to be made by translators regarding the "literalness" of a translation because highly literal translations, while being more faithful to the structure and words of the source materials, tend to be more difficult for modern readers to comprehend since they are not familiar with the language and sentence structure of the original language. Although an element of interpretation is necessarily, the aim of literal translations is to minimize this. English examples of more literal translations are the NASB, KJV and NRSV. I find literal translations highly useful for indepth bible studies.

Free Translations
On the other hand "freer" translation philosophies allow the translator to diverge more from the literal wording and sentence structure to produce a translation more easily understood by modern readers. It requires more interpretation by the translator but still tries to remain faithful to source material. The NIV is an example of this. I find free translations to be useful for general church audiences who many not be very experienced with in-depth bible studies, but I would recommend a literal translation as they get more involved in bible studies.

Paraphrase Translations
Finally paraphrase translations make very little attempts to follow the literal wording of their sources and the primary aim is to relate to the audience of their time with language and idioms of the time. These translations allow the bible to become similar to easy reading for those not interested in serious bible study but often diverge significantly from source material. Examples of this are The Message and the Living Bible. I find that paraphase translations are useful for young people and newer Christians, although I would always recommend a free or literal translation to go along with reading a paraphrase translation.

Theological leanings
The theological leanings of the translators also has an impact in word selection depending on their theological view. Generally, NIV and NASB were translated by evangelicals while the NRSV was translated by theologically more liberal translators. The KJV was translated by Anglicans in the 1600s with contributions from both conformist and puritan scholars.

Melbelle · Sep 19, 2004

I am KJV, nothing is wrong with the Original version at all but the NIV I know for sure there is scriptures takeing out, if you have a KJV and a NIV please get them both out, turn to Acts 8:37 now tell me, is there an Acts 8:37 in the NIV, No there isn't and this is why I do not read the NIV. Thank you and God Bless

P.S.
That is just one of many scriptures takeing from the word. I don't read the NKJV or Living bible because there are also scriptures takeing away but I do not have them bibles in my home to look them up right now and I do not know them off of the top of my head. I have a NIV because my husband use to read it until I pointed this out to him, he is now a KJV reader also.

Melissa

Crimson Rose · Sep 19, 2004

there are lots of translations of the Bible, each touch different people in different ways,
the usually purpose of a new translation is to write the Bible in words that the people of today can understand, with each new tranlations-- things get changed because errors were found or because things have been simplified to make it easier to understand

i like kjv but it is not always the easiest to understand, yet along with siplifing things some parts of the true meaning of the scripture gets lost

thats why for daily reading is suggest-- reading the version that is easiest for you to understand

but for study i suggest--- having many different versions of the Bible to compare, along with looking up the original jewish\greek meaning of words(and phrases), and looking up the original context that the scripture was written in and therefore is meant to address

Melbelle · Sep 19, 2004

Crimson Rose said:
there are lots of translations of the Bible, each touch different people in different ways,
the usually purpose of a new translation is to write the Bible in words that the people of today can understand, with each new tranlations-- things get changed because errors were found or because things have been simplified to make it easier to understand

i like kjv but it is not always the easiest to understand, yet along with siplifing things some parts of the true meaning of the scripture gets lost

thats why for daily reading is suggest-- reading the version that is easiest for you to understand

but for study i suggest--- having many different versions of the Bible to compare, along with looking up the original jewish\greek meaning of words(and phrases), and looking up the original context that the scripture was written in and therefore is meant to address

I understand things getting changed but when you make a new bible for better understanding atleast do it right 36 and then just totaly skip 37 and go right to 38 just don't make any sense to me. If you have both KJV and NIV please open them both up and see what I am talking about.

WiredSpirit · Sep 19, 2004

When I was growing up as a Baptist we used the KJV in church and us children used the "Good News" Bible (it was the new and popular thing). My mom is still a Baptist and I've noticed when I've attended her church that they use the CEV a lot.

Personally, I don't know much about the CEV, but I'm not fond of the NIV. When it was translated (along with the NAS and several other contemporary Bibles) the translators consulted religious leaders from various denominations to get their opinions on certain scriptures. I'd rather read a Bible that was translated to be as accurate as possible, not one that was influenced by church tradition and popular opinion.

A lot of innaccuracies have been pointed out to me in the KJV, but its still one of my favorites. I really like the language and its my favorite Bible to quote because I like the way it sounds. One of my favorite contemporary translations is the NRSV because it really was translated to be as accurate as possible, but my all time favorite is the New Oxford Annotated Bible. It has all kinds of footnotes that describe the original text and offers alternative and somewhat unorthodox interpretations of certain scriptures. There's nothing too radical about the text itself, but reading the footnotes and alternative translations really lets you take discussions of the text to a new level (especially if you're discussing it with someone who knows the original language)

Gold Dragon · Sep 19, 2004

sethsmommy said:
I understand things getting changed but when you make a new bible for better understanding atleast do it right 36 and then just totaly skip 37 and go right to 38 just don't make any sense to me. If you have both KJV and NIV please open them both up and see what I am talking about.

I'm not sure about this particular verse, but omission of verses in modern translations relative to the KJV are not arbitrary decisions that the translators took lightly. These are a result of comparing the greek and hebrew source documents available to the translators. In many cases, older source documents (4th century) that are used in modern translations do not have sections/verses that are found in the newer source documents (12th century) used by the KJV suggesting that the originals may not have contained those verses and they could possibly have been later additions. 800 years of manual copying can result in that sort of thing.

Gold Dragon · Sep 19, 2004

Here is the footnote on Acts 8:37 in the NIV bible.

8:36 Some late manuscripts baptized?" 37 Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." The eunuch answered, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Link

Suggesting that earlier manuscripts and possibly the originals did not contain this verse.

TheScottsMen · Sep 19, 2004

sethsmommy said:
I am KJV, nothing is wrong with the Original version at all but the NIV I know for sure there is scriptures takeing out, if you have a KJV and a NIV please get them both out, turn to Acts 8:37 now tell me, is there an Acts 8:37 in the NIV, No there isn't and this is why I do not read the NIV. Thank you and God Bless

P.S.
That is just one of many scriptures takeing from the word. I don't read the NKJV or Living bible because there are also scriptures takeing away but I do not have them bibles in my home to look them up right now and I do not know them off of the top of my head. I have a NIV because my husband use to read it until I pointed this out to him, he is now a KJV reader also.

Melissa

Those who are not KJV only would say the original manuscripts did not have the extras, long readings, that the KJV has, that the supposed oldest manuscripts to date do not have the extras that the TR has, that they were later added by scribes to bring out the meaning a bit more.

As for myself, I stick with the KJV for personal or group Bible studies, but have no problem reading other translations for devotional reading.

KJV only debate

Active Member

My little Dinky Doo

Regular Member

Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.

Regular Member

Love all, trust a few. Do wrong to none.

Born again to raze hell

Veteran

Out of The Darkness

Senior Contributor

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Deadheadmakeup

Active Member

Deadheadmakeup

and all God's people said... meh

Senior Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads