22 Tough Questions for King James-Only Advocates

[mythbuster]

Is there a similar debate going on in all the other languages? Does German and French and Chinese also have their version of a King James Only translation of the Bible? or is this just in English?

 

[herev]

For those who wrongly assume the name JEHOVAH is incorrect, consider the following.

Also, Scott Jones has written a well researched article showing that JEHOVAH is correct, and that Yahweh is an Egyptian slur. For Scott's article go here:

http://www.kjbbn.net/jehovah_by_scott_jones.htm

Here are my findings about this.


The Significance of the Name JEHOVAH

In regards to JEHOVAH, a remarkable thing about the King James Bible is that the name is found exactly 7 times - Genesis 22:14; Exodus 6:3, 17:15; Judges 6:24; Psalm 83:18; Isaiah 12:2 and 26:4. Seven is the number of spiritual perfection. This Hebrew word is translated three different ways by the KJB. As LORD, GOD, and JEHOVAH.

The NKJV, NIV and NASB only translate this word in two ways--as LORD, and GOD. But God is a triune God, and the KJB has translated it in three ways. God is the creator, Lord is the sovereign ruler of His creation, and JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God, who redeems His people.

The first time JEHOVAH appears is in Genesis 22 when Abraham is stopped from offering up his son Isaac. All of this of course is a type of the Father offering up His Son. "As it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen". God will provide, JEHOVAH JIREH.

The second time the name appears (and Christ is the second person of the trinity) is in the second book of Exodus, which is the book of redemption. In Exodus 6:3-6 God appears to Moses and here the name is used again in connection with REDEMPTION. "And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them." Likewise the second time the word 'redeem' occurs in the Bible is found right here in this context. Verse 6 "And I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments." So JEHOVAH is the personal name of the Redeemer God.

The word JEHOVAH, as the personal name of God, is found not only in the KJB, but also in Tyndale 1530, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1902, Young's, Darby's, Webster's 1833 translation, the 1936 Jewish translation (Hebrew Pub. Com. New York), the Spanish Reina Valera 1902, 1960, the KJV 21st Century, the New English Bible 1970, and the Third Millenium Bible. This name has disappeared from the RSV, NKJV, NIV, NASB.

Some people tell us the name of God should be something like YAHWEH, Jahweh or Yaweh, rather than JEHOVAH. The problem with this argument is that there are a multitude of Biblical personal names that all have JEHOVAH as part of the name. We read in all English versions that I am aware of names such as JEHOiakim, JEHiah, JEHOshaphat, JEHOhanan, JEHOiachin, JEHOiada, JEHOram and JEHOshua. I have yet to see one of these English bibles come out yet spelling these as Yahhosaphat, Yahoiakim, Yahoiada etc.

Another significant thing about the KJB is found in Psalm 68:4 "Sing unto God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rideth upon the heavens by his name JAH, and rejoice before him."

This word JAH is found only once in the entire Bible. It is one word composed of three letters. Thus representing the triune God. And it is the eighth time total that this personal name occurs. What is the significance of the number 8? Eight is the number of a new beginning. Seven days in a week, 8 is a new beginning. Also the males were circumcised on the eighth day, to signify a new covenant relationship with God.

In Leviticus 25:22 we see the land was to rest the seventh year and they were to sow a new crop in the eighth year. Noah was the eighth person saved during the flood when God began again to repopulate the earth. Even in Revelation 17:11 when the Beast begins his reign of the Antichrist, he is the eighth.

Seven is the number of spiritual perfection and in the KJB the name JEHOVAH is found 7 times. Three in one is the Trinity and we have the name JAH found only once. Eight is the number of a new beginning, and it is through the redeeming grace of JEHOVAH that we are made new creatures in Christ and begin a new life in Him.

In addition to this, another interesting thing found only in the King James Bible is the name JEHOVAH in capital letters is found four times in the Old Testament - Exodus 6:3; Psalms 83:18; Isaiah 12: 2 and 26:4. Likewise the name JESUS in capital letters is found only four times in the New Testament - Matthew 1:21, 25; 27:37; and John 19:19. Four is the number of the earth and JEHOVAH God Himself has come to this earth to save His people from their sins.

So, only in the King James Bible do we have these precious truths revealed. This is just one of the many marks of God on this Book that shows it is indeed His inspired word in the English language.

Will Kinney

I personally know much more than a handful of Hebrew scholars who disagree

 

[aggie03]

I personally know much more than a handful of Hebrew scholars who disagree

What do the Hebrew scholars you know say to argue against what has been said?

 

[TSIBHOD]

I do not argue here against the use of the KJV, but against the prejudice against other versions.

Examine the differences between the Bible versions. The differences are not huge. If you want to believe false doctrine, you can do it with any manuscript and any version. If you want to hear the truth, any of the main manuscript families and any of the main Bible versions will give you that.

So they have minor differences -- big deal. Is anyone going to misunderstand God solely because they read a Bible proceeding from the critical text rather than the majority text (or vice versa)? No. . . .

I have dealt with this issue before on these forums, and I had one simple argument that no one was able to refute. It is good to keep arguments simple, after all, when one can. Try your hand at my argument:

I. THE DISTINGUISHING MARK OF A CHRISTIAN

1.) You can tell a good tree because it produces good fruit (Matthew 7:15-20).
2.) Christians are good trees and thus produce good fruit (John 15:5-8).
3.) If "Christians" do not bear good fruit, they are cut down and cast out (Matthew 3:10; John 15:2).
4.) If God's children, however, mean to bear good fruit, but are hindered, they are "pruned" (John 15:2); they then produce good fruit (Hebrews 12:11).
5.) It is clear then that good fruit is mutually inclusive with being a follower of Christ and having eternal life (Romans 6:21-22).
6.) Jesus speaks of "commandments" and the "commandment" in John 15. The "commandment" is that we love one another (John 15:12).
7.) Indeed, the summary of all the commandments is love, both of God and of "neighbors" (Matthew 22:37-40).
8.) If we keep the commandments, which are based on love, then we will "abide" in His love (John 15:10).
9.) Whoever "abides" in Christ bears good fruit (John 15:5).
10). Therefore, whoever loves is a Christian (1 John 4:7-8).
11.) Additionally, while love is the chief virtue (1 Corinthians 13:13), it is not the only fruit, and others will be present with it, as a "package deal," so to speak (Galatians 5:22).
12.) Thus, you can tell that a person is a Christian by seeing if he loves others (John 13:35).​

II. PEOPLE WHO BEAR THE FRUIT OF THE SPIRIT

1.) I know numerous people who bear the fruit of the spirit. Their lives have been changed by Jesus.
2.) These people do not all use the same Bible version. Some use KJV; others use NASB; others prefer NKJV, or Amplified, or NIV; and so on. (The same point could be made that these people do not all go to the same type of church.)
3.) Since these people manifest the fruit of the Spirit, and they do not all use the same Bible version, it is therefore necessarily not the Bible version that makes the Christian.
4.) One could argue, "They would be better Christians if only they would use the right Bible version."
5.) However, this argument is circular, presupposing that a certain version is the "right" version.
6.) For example, I could argue that eating pork rinds makes you smarter. When you note that Einstein didn't eat pork rinds, I could respond, "But just think of how smart he would have been if he would have eaten them!" This kind of "logic" is really just a pile of assumptions.
7.) Additionally, Christians of all maturity levels are represented fairly evenly among the users of most (if not all) of today's popular Bible versions.
8.) I conclude that all of those Bible versions are essentially equal in furnishing a believer with the Scriptures.​

III. THE REAL REASON FOR CLOSENESS TO GOD

1.) I have established that just because one uses a certain Bible version will not make him holy.
2.) Also, one could use a variety of different versions based upon a variety of different manuscripts, and be holy in any case.
3.) It is having our hands (our deeds) cleansed and our hearts (our motives) purified that draws us near to God (James 4:8).
4.) The outward manifestation of a pure heart is a pure tongue (James 1:26).
5.) Also. . . there is one other main manifestation of a pure heart: love for one another (1 Peter 1:22).
6.) This kind of love is such that will "go to the wall" for someone (John 15:13).
7.) If this love within causes you to use a certain Bible version, well and good. You must not expect it to affect others in the same way though.
8.) For God within always causes love, and this love may cause various other things in your life. But while love may cause you to adopt a certain Bible version or certain denomination, the adoption of the said things can never cause you to love.
9.) "We love because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19 ESV).​

IV. WARNING AGAINST LOGICAL FALLACY

1.) For this section, I will start off with a quote from Wikipedia.

Argument: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Reply: "But my friend Angus likes sugar with his porridge."
Rebuttal: "Ah yes, but no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
This form of argument is a fallacy if the predicate ("putting sugar on porridge") is not actually contradictory to the accepted definition of the subject ("Scotsman"), or if the definition of the subject is silently adjusted after the fact to make the rebuttal work.

Some behaviours are actually contradictory to the label; "no true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian".

In particular, Christians are often charged with employing this fallacy when they say that no true Christian would do something. Christian is used by such a widely disparate set of people that it has very little meaning when it comes to behaviour. If there is no one accepted definition of the subject, then the initial argument should be accepted as the definition for the discussion at hand.

2.) So do not attempt an argument that "no true Christian would do that," unless "that" is some action contrary to love. For love makes the Christian (1 John 4:16-17).​

The challenge is there. Show the bad fruit (or lack of good fruit) that failing to use the KJV causes. Show the doctrinal errors that necessarily manifest, solely from a lack of the KJV. (People can, after all, err in doctrine with any version.)

 

[herev]

What do the Hebrew scholars you know say to argue against what has been said?

they say it's not true! The word "Jehovah" is a mistranslation--it is not a real word. It is made by taking the hebrew letters for YHWH and inserting in them the hebrew letters for the vowels in Adonai--which is lord.

 

[aggie03]

I do not argue here against the use of the KJV, but against the prejudice against other versions.

Examine the differences between the Bible versions. The differences are not huge. If you want to believe false doctrine, you can do it with any manuscript and any version.

This much I know is true. There was a group who used to call themselves the "Bible Students". They believed some very strage things, in particular about the deity of Christ and His existence from everlasting to everlasting. They said that He was nothing more than another created being (which John 1:1,14 clears up ) and that He was the archangel Michael (Hebrews 1:8 ought to make this painfully wrong ). They taught all of these things using the King James translation of the Scriptures.

After a few years they changed their name to the Jehovah's Witnesses.

They believed all of these strange things and taught them to other people using the King James translation of the Scriptures before they used anything else or made their own translation.

The challenge is there. Show the bad fruit (or lack of good fruit) that failing to use the KJV causes.

How you define good fruit here is going to have implications on the puissance of your point. Aren't there atheists who do very good things?

Show the doctrinal errors that necessarily manifest, solely from a lack of the KJV. (People can, after all, err in doctrine with any version.)

I agree with you - but this agreement is qualified - that people can stray from the Truth using any version, because if they are unwilling to accept the Truth, or would rather have their ears tickled by that which is not the Truth, no version can make them change their minds. It is something that they have to do on their own.

My lack of total agreement hinges on this point: I believe that some versions are much more accurate than others, and being such, are less likely to lead someone astray becuase of poor translation or word choice. Dynamic equivalence, for example, is something that I do believe should be used when making a translation.

It seems that it would always be in our best interest to try and find the most accurate translation available; we should want to know, as close as possible, exactly what was written to the first century Christians in our own languages of today. It just so happens that I do not believe the King James translation to be the most accurate. I think that it is one of the most accurate, but not the most. This is perhaps while I still follow this thread with great interest. Should someone be able to prove the King James translation to be the most accurate, that's what I would start to use, however, I currently believe the American Standard to be the most accurate.

 

[TSIBHOD]

How you define good fruit here is going to have implications on the puissance of your point. Aren't there atheists who do very good things?

Good fruit is defined in Galatians 5:22-23.

A KJV-O could argue that those who don't use the KJV don't have true fruit. However, this is one of the ways they would fall into my point 4 logical fallacy (the "no true Scotsman" fallacy).

The problem with KJV-Os is that they want to be right, just like the rest of us, but they think that there cannot be two right ways to do anything pertaining to the Christian faith, or they think more specifically that there cannot be two correct Bible versions. That multiple Bible versions could be used with success and minister life to Christians is inconceivable to them.

 

[Ave Maria]

“Let me begin with a disclaimer. I am not saying that every Christian who prefers the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is a member of a cult”

Well, thank you for those kind words. Show me where any King James Bible Believer is a member of this cult using the definition of the word cult. I’ve heard this before and find it amusing. It is amazing that people get upset when others say they believe the book in their hands is “it”. Why do you and others resent some of use saying we believe the book in our hands? Why does it bother you so? Is it because you can't say the same for yours?

Why does it bother me? Because KJV-Only advocates are spreading a lot of confusion among Christians. They are causing many unnecessary divisions. It is rediculous! I can only imagine how many newly converted Christians have been scared away from a church because someone says that modern versions of the Bible are "New Age" versions!

“Hey, my parents prefer the KJV!”

Wonderful! – Good for them – you should have followed you parents! What happened to you? I know - you were educated out of believing the Bible God has been using for over 380 years with unparalleled fruit and success. Somebody taught you there are errors in the King James Bible. Who taught you the King James Bible is not the pure word of the living God – the Lord or the devil?

Actually, there is errors in the KJV. Please compare these verses:


[bible]1 Kings 4:26[/bible]
Compare With
[bible]2 Chronicles 9:25[/bible]


[bible]1 Kings 5:16[/bible]
Compare With
[bible]2 Chronicles 2:2[/bible]


[bible]1 Kings 7:26[/bible]
Compare With
[bible]2 Chronicles 4:5[/bible]


[bible]2 Samuel 10:18[/bible]
Compare With
[bible]1 Chronicles 19:18[/bible]


[bible]2 Kings 8:26[/bible]
Compare With
[bible]2 Chronicles 22:1[/bible]


Of course, these are all minor errors and don't affect any major doctrines. I am sure these are just copyist errors and that they don't exist in the autographs. BUT, as you can see, they do exist in the KJV. Looks like your so called "inerrant" version isn't so "inerrant" after all. I do believe it is infallible though like most modern versions.

“I have noticed a rather stuffy superiority and smug arrogance attached to their preference for the translation and, worse still, a certain cultlike exclusiveness to their small and declining fellowship”

Probably so, but I have notice an ignorance of the basic spiritual truths and doctrines of those who seek after the great wisdom of the newer translations. I have noticed that many who follow the newer translations are now following the world more everyday in everything they do.

I have also noticed this arrogance and air of superiority from KJV-Onlyers.

“(believe it or not, there are actually "KJV-Only" churches . . . no kidding!)”

Yes there are – I am in one – praise God! Years before all the new perverions came out all churches were King James and they did a lot more for God than your churches that don’t believe it today! We have one authority we follow. We have one book we can trust. We don’t sit around saying, “What does your say, mine says this.” “In the Greek mine says this...” “Yea, but mine came from the Syriac, Alexandrian, Aramaic special scrolls, etc.” “Yes, but mine came directly from Nestle’s 400th Addition edited personally by Warfield and A.T. Robertson themselves….oh goodie, goodie, goodie!” We don’t have that type of confusion in our church. We open up our Bibles and believe that what we have in our hands is from God without error and not to be questioned which in turn gives us confidence and comfort plus….it saves us a lot of time. My goodness, I saw on a previous post where some person has a different versions, manuscript or ancient text for just about every book in the Bible, gasp – I feel for the guy!!!

There is a KJV-Only church less than a block away from me. I used to attend it. It's a nice church and has many activities for the members but I only fear that they are just confusing people by forcing people (including the young Sunday School age children) to use the KJV. Most people don't learn any Elizabethan English whatsoever until they are in high school and read the works of Shakespeare.

“They have made a doctrine, even a religion, out of a personal preference. It is to these devotees that I offer this paper.”

I don’t know anybody like that. The doctrine is found in II Tim. 3:15,16 if there is one. Out of personal preference you say? We believe it is out of God’s preference, thank you kindly and history has born witness to this.

[bible]2 Timothy 3:15-16[/bible]


Where does this verse say that the Bible is totally inerrant?

“Why not benefit from the scholarship of modern translators?”

Don’t try to tell me again that the scholarship of today is better then the scholarship of 1611 – surely you jest! Look how sad your scholars are - you would think after 60 or so newer and improved versions they would eventually get it right!!!

Of course modern scholars have the advantage. They have newer manuscripts and better tools for analyzing the text (like computers) than the ones in 1611 did.

 

[Ave Maria]

2 Kings 8:26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
Compare With
2 Chronicles 22:1And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
Hi everyone. I meant to compare 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 not 22:1! Sorry!

[bible]2 Kings 8:26[/bible]

[bible]2 Chronicles 22:2[/bible]

 

[aggie03]

2 Kings 8:26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.
Compare With
2 Chronicles 22:1And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.
Hi everyone. I meant to compare 2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 not 22:1! Sorry!

2 Kings 8:26Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

2 Chronicles 22:2Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

Adam Clarke says the following:

***********
2Ch 22:2 -

Forty and two years old was Ahaziah - See the note on 2Ki_8:26. Ahaziah might have been twenty-two years old, according to 2Ki_8:26 (note), but he could not have been forty-two, as stated here, without being two years older than his own father! See the note there. The Syriac and Arabic have twenty-two, and the Septuagint, in some copies, twenty. And it is very probable that the Hebrew text read so originally; for when numbers were expressed by single letters, it was easy to mistake מmem, Forty, for כcaph, Twenty. And if this book was written by a scribe who used the ancient Hebrew letters, now called the Samaritan, the mistake was still more easy and probable, as the difference between caph and mem is very small, and can in many instances be discerned only by an accustomed eye.

The reading in 2Ki_8:26 is right, and any attempt to reconcile this in Chronicles with that is equally futile and absurd. Both readings cannot be true; is that therefore likely to be genuine that makes the son two years older than the father who begat him? Apage hae nugae!

**********

John Wesley says the following:

**********

Forty two years - Some acknowledge an error in the transcribers of the present Hebrew copies, in which language the numeral letters for 22 and 42 are so like, that they might easily be mistaken. For that it was read 22 here, as it is in the book of Kings, in other Hebrew copies, they gather from hence, that it is at this day so read in divers ancient Greek copies, as also in those two ancient translations, the Syriack and the Arabick, and particularly in that most ancient copy of the Syriack which was used by the church of Antioch in the primitive times, and to this day is kept in the church of Antioch. The daughter - Of Ahab, Omri's Son. Grand - children are often called sons and daughters.

**********


So as it actually turns out, the King James translators were true to the text that they had in this instance, they just didn't correct what was a mistake in the codex they had. Many other versions also stay true to what the manuscripts read without making any changes. This would seem to prove that the best the King James translation could possibly be is as good as what it was translated from.

This brings us, again , to the crux of our situation: all translations are simply that: translations. In order for us to understand what is the most accurate version, we must be able to know as close as possible what the original manuscripts said. I believe that when all things are compared, all the codecies, all the manuscipts, we can know for certain what was in the original letters.

Those original letters were infallible, were perfect. My translation can have a mistake or two in it - just like the King James translation obviously does. Does this mean that God has nor preserved His word? No, because we can still determine His will, as well as what the originals said.

 

[herev]

Absolutely,

I believe there are two components to this debate, one (unless I missed it) which has not been addressed. The first is the text. The second is the integrity of the translators.
By the second, I do not mean the morality of the translator, but the "honesty" of the translation. Does the bible in question tend to enforce or detract from a particular doctrine by, its use of punctuation, capitalization, word choice etc.
It has been argued by some for instance, that the NIV is skewed towards a Calvinistic viewpoint. I think that side by side comparisons with different versions can be helpful in this regard. I think it was a little naive to declare this debate as "dumb", especially since this is one of the longest, if not the longest thread in this category. (btw I will move my thoughts on my text preference to the "new" AV thread that deals specifically with this issue, but I may post some of ideas on what I perceive as a bias in different translations, but it would be foolish to do so without being prepared.)

Peace to you

agreed, thanks for taking the time to explain

 

[wayfaring man]

Please excuse my lack of ability to review and address all the posts and individual issues in this thread .

Once , when I was pondering what made the King James stand out as the best English Translation , I sought the Lord to hear His thoughts on the matter [ I know to some this may sound crazy - seeking the Lord for an answer ... who do you think you are !!! ]

Well , here's what I heard .... Judge for yourself -

" That which is spoken gracefully , can be put stongly , and still be received "

[ I know ] - That even sounds like the King James !

As an example , compare - " Take no thought " KJV ( from sermon on the mount Mt. Ch 5 )w/ Be not anxious or do not worry , or however the other versions convey that thought [ It's been a while since I looked at the others ]

Take no thought is more absolute and specific in it's aim at the start of what can or will lead to worry etc .

But if one were to say ;" Don't think about something " , it conveys the specific point , but lacks the gracefulness .

Also , Take no thought fits well with , Pauls charge of bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ .( See 2nd Corinthians 10:5 )

Along with the definition of repentance - being ; to think differently ; have a changed mind .

Another place to compare is in 1st Timothy 4:8 - KJV says ," bodily exercise profitteth little ", other version say , physical exercise is of some value .

But the verse is making a comparison between the physical and the spiritual - " godliness " , therefore , because the KJV is graceful it can put the contrast strongly , without sounding as overbearing ; but the other , because it lacks the same degree of gracefulness , moderates the comparison , and waters down the distinctiveness of the thought being conveyed , giving an ambiguousness to how much value should be attributed to physical exercise .

Also compare Luke 16:9 , the KJV is the only version I could find , out of 6 or 7 , that conveyed the context with the insight which only an indigent person could readily relate . [ Jesus and his disciples were indigent , travelling about with little or no money .]

Besides this ; I'm including a post I wrote on another board -- I hope this is helpful in addressing these questions .... Peace ---wm

**********************************************************
In spite of the scholars employed by king James , William Tyndale , is the major contributor , regarding human involvement , concerning the King James Bible .

Tyndale has the testimony of a true martyr - [ one who is unjustly killed , who at the time of their death , shows forth nothing but graciousness towards their murderers .]

As Jesus on the Cross said : Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. <---> Luke 23 :34

And Stephen said , while being stoned : Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge. <-----> Acts 7 : 60

To have that kind of grace , one must be full of The Spirit of Grace ,( i.e. The Holy Spirit ) . Hence , William Tyndale was qualified , by The Spirit , to translate The Scriptures .

For which he was pursued by " falsely religious zealots " , and eventually strangled while flames of being " burnt at the stake " danced about him ; his last words were ," Lord , open the kings eyes " .

Approxiametely , 70 years later , king James comes along , and in what was totally out of character with the " high minded , hypocritical religiosity " of the times , declares that the Sacred Scriptures shall be put in the language of the common people - to the horror and dismay of the " high minded " .

The scholars assembled , the best available , and after comparing all other translations available to them , agreed that the work of William Tyndale , and his understudy , Miles Cloverdale , was the best , " the English language could afford " .

And so with little modification , William Tydale's prayer was answered and his work preserved in great numbers and with much honor and esteem .

This is the story , behind the story , of The King James Bible .

It may not be absolutely perfect ( can any thing which man has handled be ? )

But God has ensured that the Truth of Salvation is still clearly expressed therein and thereby .

Wherefore I give thanks . Amen .

sincerely ,

wm

 

[christian-only]

William Tydale's prayer was answered and his work preserved in great numbers and with much honor and esteem.

The prayer of the KJV translators in the Epistle Dedicatory was answered as well: King James is still a wonder of the world.

 

[pylgrym1]

I still can't get past Jim's first sentence in the first post. I am a Christian but I do not 'prefer' the "King James Version". I hold in my hands a perfect revelation of the One who graciously gave it to me. It is as perfect as He is: Infallible.
My copy of the Holy Scriptures bears internal witness to itself and internal witness to me by the same Holy Spirit that originally gave It and Who sovereignly and providentially preserved it. My mind is made up. My heart is fixed. i will hang with no false god and no false scriptures. I am a good reader and can easily compare others' copies of what they call their 'holy bibles' with the one God Almighty gave me. They simply are not the same book. I wil NOT play the harlot!
I don't have many gods any more than I have many 'bibles'. I could play the harlot under every green tree with a multitude of translators. I have vowed a vow to the Faithful One. He is my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is my King and who am I to pollute His words? Call it theKing James Version if you want.... join the club of noisy detractors!
I look at the beautiful book my Heavenly Father so kindly allows me to have and it says "In the Beginning God..."

 

[herev]

I look at the beautiful book my Heavenly Father so kindly allows me to have and it says "In the Beginning God..."

I look at the beginning of my NIV, and guess what, it says the same thing!

 

[herev]

My copy of the Holy Scriptures bears internal witness to itself and internal witness to me by the same Holy Spirit that originally gave It and Who sovereignly and providentially preserved it.

tell me how the KJV bears internal witness to itself? Quote chapter and verse please.

 

[herev]

My mind is made up. My heart is fixed.

Good, nobody's trying to change your mind, it's the other way around

 

[herev]

i will hang with no false god and no false scriptures.

prove my NRSV is a false scripture. Since the Holy Spirit has given me the NIV, THE NRSV, THE JB, THE NKJB, etc., are you bearing false witness against the Holy Spirit?

 

[herev]

I am a good reader and can easily compare others' copies of what they call their 'holy bibles' with the one God Almighty gave me. They simply are not the same book.

And Since God Almighty gave me other versions, how is it that you choose to insult the translation I prefer.
I assume that as a good reader and can "easily compare", you do well with Greek, Hebrew, Latin, Aramaic, Syriac...?

 

[herev]

I have vowed a vow to the Faithful One. He is my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. He is my King and who am I to pollute His words?

serious question here, are you suggesting that If I don't read the KJV, that Jesus is NOT my Lord and SAvior?