I am a proud King James Version Bible Belt Baptist

[TCassidy]

I consider the KJV with the help of the Holy Spirit authoritative.

That was not the question. Once again you run away from answering the actual question. Here it is again in case you forgot, "Do you consider the traditional, majority Hebrew and Greek texts to be authoritative?" Yes or No?

 

[TCassidy]

Just playing the game you wanted.

No, I wanted to "have an honest and mature discussion on English bible translations and how best to evaluate their relative merits, or lack thereof."

Unfortunately you are unable to do that so you just run away.

You know the old saying, "If you can't run with the big dogs, better just stay on the porch."

 

[dysert]

Yes. It was a good early effort but the Robinson/Pierpont work is superior, in my opinion, largely due to the methodology used in determining the reading most likely to represent the original.

Re the methodology, I assume you're talking more than just textual criticism?

 

[TCassidy]

Re the methodology, I assume you're talking more than just textual criticism?

Yes. The philosophy of selection and the application of the text-critical principles.

External evidence, internal evidence, intrinsic probability, transcriptional probability, and transmissional probability must all be considered when coming to a decision which variant reading most likely represents the original.

My personal methodology would include:

1. Antiquity - The age of the actual manuscript. This is not a conclusive text for a 14th century mss may be an accurate copy of a 3rd century mss, whereas a 6th century mss may be a poor copy of a 3rd century mss.

2. Consent - The number of other witnesses. Normal practice is to accept the word of the majority of witnessess against the different readings of a few, especially when those few do not agree with each other.

3. Variety - The universality of evidence. Manuscripts supporting a certain reading should come from a variety of geographical locations and be attested to by a variety of other mss, lectionaries, versions, and Patristics.

4. Respectability - The reliability of the witness. Manuscripts which habitually contain errors are poor witnesses.

5. Continuity - The unbroken tradition of a witness. Have the readings/mss in question been widely accepted by churches over a wide spectrum of time?

6. Context - The evidence of the whole passage. The nature of the text surrounding a questioned reading can cast much light on the issue. If the reading is surrounded by obvious errors, it is much less likely to be a true reading.

7. Reasonableness - The internal credibility of the text. If a text contains grammatical absurdities, or obvious geographical, scientific, or biblical errors, the reading is not likely to be reliable.

8. Geography. The area of origin of the manuscript. Did the manuscript originate in a geographic location to which books of the New Testament were addressed? A geographic location where the autographs may have existed for as much as several hundred years to which early copies could be compared with and corrected from.

 

[Drought of the Heart]

That was not the question. Once again you run away from answering the actual question. Here it is again in case you forgot, "Do you consider the traditional, majority Hebrew and Greek texts to be authoritative?" Yes or No?

So James ordered a new translation. It was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed fifty of the nation's finest language scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results.
Story Behind King James Bible


I trust that God called King James to do what he did so I can open the word of God today in English, with Scholars that still feared God... I do not run from answering a questions.
I always assumed since we are told he translated from the originals and Hebrew and Greek is what the original Scrolls where written in , then I trust KJV. Will anything that man has touched have mistakes , God will tell us all One Great day if it matters. Will KJV have errors , will your version have errors , will the originals have errors ??? I only have to read Matthew , Mark and Luke to see even the best saw different things and recorded different perspectives. They all agreed Jesus was the Son of God , went to the Cross , died and rose again and that is what matters. I know the Apostles walked with Jesus himself and got stuff wrong all the time, they and we are human, not perfect. Then Peter to me and you where left the Holy Spirit to be our guide through these thistles and thorns . satan whispered in the Garden "did God indeed say, " and he does it now. Having people argue over ancient text is what he does well. I trust God enough that if there is something in the KJV that is not of Him , He will let me know. Have a good day...

 

[TCassidy]

So James ordered a new translation. It was to be accurate and true to the originals. He appointed fifty of the nation's finest language scholars and approved rules for carefully checking the results.
Story Behind King James Bible


I trust that God called King James to do what he did so I can open the word of God today in English, with Scholars that still feared God... I do not run from answering a questions.
I always assumed since we are told he translated from the originals and Hebrew and Greek is what the original Scrolls where written in , then I trust KJV. Will anything that man has touched have mistakes , God will tell us all One Great day if it matters. Will KJV have errors , will your version have errors , will the originals have errors ??? I only have to read Matthew , Mark and Luke to see even the best saw different things and recorded different perspectives. They all agreed Jesus was the Son of God , went to the Cross , died and rose again and that is what matters. I know the Apostles walked with Jesus himself and got stuff wrong all the time, they and we are human, not perfect. Then Peter to me and you where left the Holy Spirit to be our guide through these thistles and thorns . satan whispered in the Garden "did God indeed say, " and he does it now. Having people argue over ancient text is what he does well. I trust God enough that if there is something in the KJV that is not of Him , He will let me know. Have a good day...

Once again your run away from honestly answering the question. Here it is again:

"Do you consider the traditional, majority Hebrew and Greek texts to be authoritative?" Yes or No?

 

[dysert]

I always assumed since we are told he translated from the originals and Hebrew and Greek is what the original Scrolls where written in , then I trust KJV.

Whoever told you that "he" translated from the originals was badly mistaken. And you don't have to take anyone's word for it; just read the front-matter to your KJV Bible. I sincerely doubt that it says it was translated from the originals.

 

[TCassidy]

Whoever told you that "he" translated from the originals was badly mistaken.

I agree. The KJV is a revision of the Bishops' Bible of 1568, which was the 2nd Authorized Version, the 1st Being the Great Bible of 1539. The readings of the Bishops' Bible were compared to the 1598 edition of Theodore Beza's Greek Text for the New Testament and Daniel Bomberg's Second Rabbinic Bible of 1524. The earlier English versions were also compared and oft times followed those earlier readings word for word.

I sincerely doubt that it says it was translated from the originals.

It wasn't, even though the title page of the First Edition, First Printing of 1611 reads, "Newly Translated Out of The Original Tongues."

 

[now faith]

Westcott and Hort.
When will people wake up?

The reason for King James only is simply corrupt mystic text always delete or attack the Devine nature of Jesus Christ.

Like others here I had tried to reason this topic, by showing side by side examples of the corruption.
But read the Vulgate if that helps with your belief.
Actually there are more deletions in the New King James, than the Jehovah Wittness Bible.
So rather than debate where I am not allowed here is a link

 

[now faith]

If you want a very long lecture Mr. Veith goes much deeper in other video's named the battle of the Bibles.

 

[dysert]

Actually there are more deletions in the New King James, than the Jehovah Wittness Bible.

You've made the same mistake that most other KJV onlies make. You talk about deletions, but deletions from what? Is the NKJV actually deleting text that was in the originals, or did the originals simply not have the "deleted" text to begin with?

The reverse of this problem (viz., that the NKJV *added* text that was likely not in the originals) is seen in 1 John 5:7, which should only say something like: "For there are three that bear record". The "in heaven" (and following) were probably not in the original...

As per Robertson: "At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (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 last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus."

 

[Heavenhome]

I love the King James bible, so I suppose I should also say a KJO and just thought I would respond to the OP as I am NOT interested in any discussion as to why etc. simply that I love the Word of God, it is new every time I read it.
Blessings to all fellow King James lovers , most of all may God bless all who seek Him with sincere hearts that put their trust in Him alone

 

[TCassidy]

Oh, I hope he'll answer you, TCassidy, because I want to know the answer to his question, too!

Well, he ran off without committing to answering, but I will tell you anyway.

The question was

What Bible do you read and why ???

For over 50 years my bible of choice was the KJV. The reasons are varied but include:

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

#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, and the pew bibles being KJV.

#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 and cleaning up what have become rather risque words such as changing "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall" to "urinates against the wall."

So, back to the KJV, 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.

 

[faroukfarouk]

I love the King James bible, so I suppose I should also say a KJO and just thought I would respond to the OP as I am NOT interested in any discussion as to why etc. simply that I love the Word of God, it is new every time I read it.
Blessings to all fellow King James lovers , most of all may God bless all who seek Him with sincere hearts that put their trust in Him alone

Heavenhome:

I love it and use the KJV as well. (I don't necessarily accept as historically and theologically accurate some of the claims made about it from time to time.) But it's what I use in English.

 

[now faith]

You've made the same mistake that most other KJV onlies make. You talk about deletions, but deletions from what? Is the NKJV actually deleting text that was in the originals, or did the originals simply not have the "deleted" text to begin with?

The reverse of this problem (viz., that the NKJV *added* text that was likely not in the originals) is seen in 1 John 5:7, which should only say something like: "For there are three that bear record". The "in heaven" (and following) were probably not in the original...

As per Robertson: "At this point the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek MS. save two late cursives (162 in the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, 34 of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin). Jerome did not have it. Cyprian applies the language of the Trinity and Priscillian has it. Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek MS. had it and 34 was produced with the insertion, as if made to order. The spurious addition is: en tōi ouranōi ho patēr, ho logos kai to hagion pneuma kai houtoi hoi treis hen eisin kai treis eisin hoi marturountes en tēi gēi (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 last clause belongs to 1Jo_5:8. The fact and the doctrine of the Trinity do not depend on this spurious addition. Some Latin scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus."

Many of the deletions, are verses that promote Christ as God.
Any more I simply do not want to debate this subject, but rather write something that sparks a persons curiosity to do a side by side comparison and let The Spirit guide them to the truth.
How ever a person decides is fine by me.
My life has been and will be spent reading The King James.
This is my 50th year and it has never failed to guide me in all truth.

God has not given me purpose to evangelizing the Bible version, God gives me his Word to evangelizing the Gospel of Christ.
I am not SDA and yet there is a great deal of teaching fo us in Walter Vieth.
Oddly some mainstream SDA have turned to the New King James.
It would not surprise me if Mr Veith departed from their doctrines.

Growing up Baptist, in the Churches I was part of if anything but the King James was used it would have been thrown out.
There is a good reason it is the most popular book in the World and most widely used translation in English.

God Bless

 

[now faith]

Well, he ran off without committing to answering, but I will tell you anyway.

The question was
For over 50 years my bible of choice was the KJV. The reasons are varied but include:

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

#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, and the pew bibles being KJV.

#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 and cleaning up what have become rather risque words such as changing "[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]eth against the wall" to "urinates against the wall."

So, back to the KJV, 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.

I respect your opinion, yet the description of the King James being archaic for me seems a bit extreme.
It somewhat seems that you have chose to find your own text, rather than what God gave so many years ago.
God does not Change, and I really do not understand if it was his inspired Word and venerable for salvation, can we improve it with out changing it?

 

[now faith]

I know one thing, if we were at war it would be our goal to confuse our enemys' messages from the High command.
The devil is always in the details.

 

[dysert]

Any more I simply do not want to debate this subject

ok

 

[TCassidy]

I respect your opinion, yet the description of the King James being archaic for me seems a bit extreme.

I didn't say the KJV was archaic. I said it contains some archaic words. And it does. Without looking up the meaning or Googling them, do you know what "avouch" means? "Bruit?" "Collop?" "Durst?" Or "emerods?" How about "concupiscence," "greaves" and "wist?"

t somewhat seems that you have chose to find your own text, rather than what God gave so many years ago.

I don't have a text. I use the text God preserved for us in the extant textucopia, the Byzantine Greek New Testament text and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew Old Testament text. And, in English, I use bibles translated from those texts, the WEB, the NKJV, and the KJV.

God does not Change, and I really do not understand if it was his inspired Word and venerable for salvation, can we improve it with out changing it?

I agree. I have no idea why they wanted to abandon the inspired word of God as found in the Bishops' Bible and replace it with the KJV which changes words, added words, and deleted words. After all, God does not change, and I really do not understand if it (the Bishops' Bible) was his inspired word and venerable for salvation, can we improve it with out changing it?

I know one thing, if we were at war it would be our goal to confuse our enemys' messages from the High command.
The devil is always in the details.

I agree again. There are over 1100 changes from the KJV of 1611 to the KJV of 1769, which most KJV readers use. So, why do you use a bible that you think the devil has changed in 1100+ places?

I posted a partial list of those changes. Did you look at the list? How do you respond to those "devilish" changes in the KJV?

In case you missed it, you can find it here: Am a King James Bible Believer

 

[TCassidy]

Many of the deletions, are verses that promote Christ as God.

Could you post a couple examples where the NKJV leaves out verses or parts of verses that promote Christ as God? Thank you.

There is a good reason it is the most popular book in the World and most widely used translation in English.

Actually, as of about 12 years ago, the NIV passed the KJV as the most used English translation of the bible.