Am a King James Bible Believer

[Jipsah]

I still say that the Korean translation is the definitive Bible, because God ought to sound like my grandparents.

 

[nChrist]

I still say that the Korean translation is the definitive Bible, because God ought to sound like my grandparents.

I don't know anything about your Korean translation, but it might be just as good or better than my English translation.

 

[KJBBeliever]

Do you think that the marginal readings the translators of the KJV provided are also perfect?

Sometimes they propose alternate meanings to the text.

marginal readings are not perfect the content of the King James Bible is what is most important

 

[Strong in Him]

marginal readings are not perfect the content of the King James Bible is what is most important

They are part of the content of the KJB.

 

[Jipsah]

I don't know anything about your Korean translation, but it might be just as good or better than my English translation.

Best I can tell it says roughly what the KJV does. I learned such Korean as I know relatively late in life, so I'm no scholar.

 

[DeaconDean]

They are part of the content of the KJB.

And they seem to forget, that the marginal notes by the KJ Translators pointed out that:

• There were alternative readings.

• There were links back to the Apocrypha. (Think of it as an early "Chain Reference" bible)

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Strong in Him]

And they seem to forget, that the marginal notes by the KJ Translators pointed out that:

• There were alternative readings.

• There were links back to the Apocrypha. (Think of it as an early "Chain Reference" bible)

That's interesting. Your posts have been very informative, Deacon Dean.

I haven't come across anyone before who insists that the KJV is a perfect Bible, chosen by God. But, even without knowing anything about textural criticism, I do not believe this to be the case.

 

[DeaconDean]

That's interesting. Your posts have been very informative, Deacon Dean.

I haven't come across anyone before who insists that the KJV is a perfect Bible, chosen by God. But, even without knowing anything about textural criticism, I do not believe this to be the case.

I have. I read, study, preach, and teach from my KJV. Why? Partly because that is the version I was raised on, partly because that is the version I prefer. But, I also look at other versions because simply put, the RSV may say it in a better way.

One of my seminary professors urged me to take Greek. He said to me: "If you take Greek, you can translate it for yourself without having to rely on somebody else." (Dr. James Willingham, Phd, D, Minn)

To say that the KJV is the version "God chose" is really ignorant.

Show me the facts. Show me where the KJ Translators claimed to be "inspired by God". If so, why did God do this for them, and forsake the rest of the Godly men who led the way prior to them. We also know from history, and we also know that when King James "authorized" this work, the KJ Translators only had at the most, some 53 pieces of material. To say they got it 100% correct flies in the face of what the KJ Translators themselves said.

I would also like for the KJV Onlyists to point out to me, which edition of the KJV is the "inspired" one. Since it was first published, it has undergone some five (5) revisions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning textual criticism. I have learned a lot. But unlike some who lost their faith over it, I haven't.

Gordon Fee presented his dissertation "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism," (Aug. 1966; Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV ” refers to P66 and P75) which I downloaded and printed. I have also read, studied, took notes, and highlighted. I know I will be put down for saying this, but as far as the Book of John is concerned, both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are completely reliable. Which also casts doubt on the validity of the last nine verse of Mark 16 as being part of the original work of Mark.

If people would just study, and take somebody else's word as fact, we all would be better off.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

I was also having this discussion the other day with two preachers. One of them who is a KJV Only advocate, when I pointed out that between the first writing of the Codex Baeza, where we get our translation for the book of Acts, that there were as many as 18 different scribes that can be shown at work over the course of it writing. One of the preachers had the gall to say that God "inspired" all those scribes.

I also point out that the argument was also made that "spirit and ghost" were equal as far as referencing the Holy Spirit was concerned. Or so I was told.

Funny, the original Nicene Creed in the Greek, identified the Holy Spirit with the correct term "pneuma".

"Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν Πατέρα παντοκράτορα, πάντων ὁρατῶν τε και ἀοράτων ποιητήν."

Source

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but does not the Latin version follow what was said in the Septuagint?

"Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto"

Source

At the time of the Reformation, most Protestant churches held the same view as Catholicism as far as the Holy Spirit is concerned, they just differed a bit regarding the "gifts of".

It wasn't until fairly recently that perhaps as early as 1689, that "ghost" became synonymous with "spirit. (Some 78 years later)

So it really is not proper to refer to the Holy Spirit and use the term "ghost" because in the Greek, they are two different words, with two different meanings.

If the KJ Translators followed that pattern, as it was shown by me they did, then they can't be "inspired by God" as they followed the teachings and writings of men rather than God!

If the KJV was "inspired by God" then the KJ Translators would not have need to add marginal notes. Or "chain references", their word would have been final. There would be no links back to the Apocrypha.

One simply put, has to ignore a lot of history, and Greek texts to hold to the view KJV Onlyists do.

I have a preacher friend and brother, who just like those I mentioned above, would have their church members stand up, hold their KJV bible up, and pledge allegiance to it.

I cannot in good faith do that.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Strong in Him]

I have. I read, study, preach, and teach from my KJV. Why? Partly because that is the version I was raised on, partly because that is the version I prefer. But, I also look at other versions because simply put, the RSV may say it in a better way.

That's great.
There is nothing at all wrong in using the KJV and I hope my posts haven't implied otherwise.

It was the OP stating that the KJV is perfect, the only true Bible and all other Bibles perversions of God's word, that I disagree with.
There is also a post where there say that the KJV is the Bible that God chose. I don't accept that I am reading a corrupt, perverted and inferior translation of the Bible. Apart from anything else, I don't believe God would allow such translations to exist; Psalm 138:2 says that God has exalted, above all things, his name and his word. Why would the God of truth allow his word to become perverted?

 

[DeaconDean]

That's great.
There is nothing at all wrong in using the KJV and I hope my posts haven't implied otherwise.

Oh no, I hope I didn't imply that towards you.

I have always said that the KJV has served the church well for 400 years now. And if the Lord tarries, it will serve the church well for another 400 years.

Perfect? No.

God's choice? No.

If it was, then the salvation of every person who called themselves "Christian" would be in doubt from AD 33 until 1611.

It was the OP stating that the KJV is perfect, the only true Bible and all other Bibles perversions of God's word, that I disagree with.
There is also a post where there say that the KJV is the Bible that God chose. I don't accept that I am reading a corrupt, perverted and inferior translation of the Bible. Apart from anything else, I don't believe God would allow such translations to exist; Psalm 138:2 says that God has exalted, above all things, his name and his word. Why would the God of truth allow his word to become perverted?

I agree 100% with you on that.

My comments were directed at the KJVOnlyists here.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Strong in Him]

Oh no, I hope I didn't imply that towards you.

Not at all; just checking I had explained myself properly.

I have always said that the KJV has served the church well for 400 years now. And if the Lord tarries, it will serve the church well for another 400 years.

Perfect? No.

God's choice? No.

If it was, then the salvation of every person who called themselves "Christian" would be in doubt from AD 33 until 1611.

My comments were directed at the KJVOnlyists here.

ok

 

[The7thColporteur]

Hello everyone,
it's great to be here
i began reading the good news bible that my Nana gave me in 1996
i became a Christian in 1996 where i felt supernatural peace and joy after praying
In 2008 i became a king james bible believer after reading about the perfection of the
king james bible from an online ministry www.contendingfortruth.com
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.
i believe that Christians should be on the same team and a part of that is that we all should use the same English Bible.
Blessings,
Anthony

You got my vote - KJV Bible Vindicated

 

[Strong in Him]

Why does anyone feel the KJV needs to be vindicated? It's a translation of God's word; Scripture.
It's just that it's not perfect or the only true translation of Scripture, and the vast majority of us don't worship it as such.

 

[gordonhooker]

I have. I read, study, preach, and teach from my KJV. Why? Partly because that is the version I was raised on, partly because that is the version I prefer. But, I also look at other versions because simply put, the RSV may say it in a better way.

One of my seminary professors urged me to take Greek. He said to me: "If you take Greek, you can translate it for yourself without having to rely on somebody else." (Dr. James Willingham, Phd, D, Minn)

To say that the KJV is the version "God chose" is really ignorant.

Show me the facts. Show me where the KJ Translators claimed to be "inspired by God". If so, why did God do this for them, and forsake the rest of the Godly men who led the way prior to them. We also know from history, and we also know that when King James "authorized" this work, the KJ Translators only had at the most, some 53 pieces of material. To say they got it 100% correct flies in the face of what the KJ Translators themselves said.

I would also like for the KJV Onlyists to point out to me, which edition of the KJV is the "inspired" one. Since it was first published, it has undergone some five (5) revisions.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with learning textual criticism. I have learned a lot. But unlike some who lost their faith over it, I haven't.

Gordon Fee presented his dissertation "The Significance of Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV for Methodology in New Testament Textual Criticism," (Aug. 1966; Papyrus Bodmer II and Papyrus Bodmer XIV-XV ” refers to P66 and P75) which I downloaded and printed. I have also read, studied, took notes, and highlighted. I know I will be put down for saying this, but as far as the Book of John is concerned, both the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are completely reliable. Which also casts doubt on the validity of the last nine verse of Mark 16 as being part of the original work of Mark.

If people would just study, and take somebody else's word as fact, we all would be better off.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dean I agree with you 100% even in regards to the additions to the end of Marks Gospel, and I am sure not going to abandon my faith because of it. Which ever translation becomes your favourite at the end of the day it still contains all you need to know to guide you to salvation.

 

[gordonhooker]

That's great.
There is nothing at all wrong in using the KJV and I hope my posts haven't implied otherwise.

It was the OP stating that the KJV is perfect, the only true Bible and all other Bibles perversions of God's word, that I disagree with.
There is also a post where there say that the KJV is the Bible that God chose. I don't accept that I am reading a corrupt, perverted and inferior translation of the Bible. Apart from anything else, I don't believe God would allow such translations to exist; Psalm 138:2 says that God has exalted, above all things, his name and his word. Why would the God of truth allow his word to become perverted?

Totally agree the KJV is like any other translation it has its pro's and it con's.... all of which have been mentioned throughout this thread.

 

[TCassidy]

There are several reasons the KJV has been so popular.

#1. For a long period it was the only bible being printed by authorized printers due to Royal decree with no serious competition until the RV of 1881, thus giving it 270 years to be "the bible" in English translation.

#2. It was "the bible" for most of my generation, the exception being the ASV of 1901 which never really caught on with the reading public but was largely limited to use in academia. Many in academia, including my former pastor and mentor R.V. Clearwaters, Pastor of Fourth Baptist Church of Minneapolis and President of Central Baptist Seminary, would study and prepare his sermons using the ASV then preach them from the pulpit using the KJV. This may have been, at least in part, due to the majority of the congregation carrying their KJV to church.

#3. The KJV had what some called a "majesty of language" using "sonorous phrases" and having an "austere beauty" of language, being almost poetic even in the non-poetic passages. Some said when you read the KJV you know you are reading the bible and not a modern novel.

#4. The above "sonorous phrases" contained a rhythm or cadence that made memorization easier and the recall of memorized passages simpler.

#5. The KJV has stood the test of time. For over 400 years we have had the KJV to read, study, memorize, teach, and preach from. Over those 4 centuries we have ferreted out the translational anomalies, the scribal errors, the transmissional departures from accepted original language texts. In short. We are used to it. It is familiar to us and we tend to like what is familiar.

#6. And lastly, but for the most part not a consideration of the average bible reader in the pew on Sunday, it is mostly a translation using a formal and verbal translation philosophy, and was translated from (an admittedly flawed) representative of the Byzantine textform which is the most widely attested textform in existence. In short it is a good translation of a good underlying text.

Now, with all that said, I no longer use the venerable old KJV. I use the Byzantine Greek Text of Robinson and Pierpont for study in that language, and the WEB translation for my daily reading and study in English, and the NKJV for my teaching and preaching. But even then, when I quote a passage from memory it is usually the KJV that I quote. I do, consciously, update some of the more archaic language, changing "thee" "thou" "thy" and "thine" to the more generic pronouns in present use in early 21st century English, as well as updating the second and third person verbs to currant practice.

Although not as widely used as in former times, it is still a venerable and valuable old translation which should be given the respect it rightly deserves.

 

[tall73]

marginal readings are not perfect the content of the King James Bible is what is most important

Do you think they were led to the correct reading then? And if so, why did they not know that? Because they wrote about how they put both rather thank picking one.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dean I agree with you 100% even in regards to the additions to the end of Marks Gospel, and I am sure not going to abandon my faith because of it. Which ever translation becomes your favourite at the end of the day it still contains all you need to know to guide you to salvation.

The "Gospel Message" salvation by faith through the finished work of Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, manifest for us, bore our sins upon Himself, sacrificed on a cross, died for my sins, buried, arisen on the third day by the power of God, waiting to come get His children" that message is in every version. That is the Gospel message.

I just merely say that the last nine verses of that book, are questionable. Not to mention that they "add" a condition to a persons salvation.

I believe B. H. Carroll said it best:

"The first thing I have to say on Mark 16:16 is that it is very doubtful whether it is a part of the word of God. Certainly if you were in the Vatican library in Rome, and they were to hand you the old Vatican manuscript of the New Testament and you were to read Mark's Gospel you would not find in it the last twelve verses of chapter 16. And if you had before you the Sinaitic manuscript, discovered by Tischendorf, and which is supposed to be the oldest manuscript, you would find that this last paragraph of twelve verses is not in it. On that account I never preach from any part of those twelve verses. I never preach from a passage where it is really questionable as to whether or not it is a part of God's Word, and especially would I not attempt to build up a doctrine on it."

Source

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[TCassidy]

The evidence in favor of the last 12 verses of Mark's Gospel is overwhelming.

Even the copier who produced Vaticanus recognized something was missing and left room for the last 12 verses. It was not uncommon for the last several verses of a papyrus or vellum scroll to be missing as, when it was rolled up, the very end of the manuscript would be the outermost layer of the roll and was more likely to be damaged.

Photo of the last pages of Mark in Vaticanus.