KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE VS. MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

The KJV had a huge impact on the English language as well as the spread of Christianity, so I wouldn’t knock it. Check out Melvyn Bragg’s ‘book of books’.
As for the main post I don’t really see a reason for insisting on using it over any modern translation though, I’ve always found comparing different translations or breakdowns of the Greek and Hebrew when necessary helps me to get an understanding of anything unclear. I’ve read some of the arguments but I don’t see anything in it beyond personal choice or the weight of tradition in some churches.
Btw Tyndale did most of the hard work, much of the KJV is taken directly from his translation.

If your going to read one of those arguments, in every way this is the one I would consider reading. THIS IS NOT THE ONE I WOULD IGNORE.

 

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

Okay you like the KJV we get it and you think it is just the best bible ever (in English) - absolutely fabulous better than any other! Great. Now what?

The intention was at very least that you would consider partaking in my way of Faith.
God Bless.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

3 Scriptural Reasons to Trust in A Perfect Word Today.​

#1. God's Word claims that it is perfect.
God's Word claims that it is perfect (Psalms 12:6) (Psalms 119:140) (Proverbs 30:5) and that it will be preserved for all generations (Psalms 12:7) and it will stand forever (Isaiah 40:8) (1 Peter 1:25). Therefore, seeing Scripture plainly states these facts, it then becomes an issue of a test of your faith in God's Word (See the test the devil gave to Eve in Genesis 3:1); For the Bereans were more noble because they compared the spoken Word of God with the written Word of God (Acts of the Apostles 17:11). In other words, if the Bereans thought the written Word was corrupt in some way they would have no way of really knowing if the spoken Word of God was true or not.

#2. KJV vs. Modern Translations.
A simple side by side comparison of the KJV vs Modern Translations shows us that the devil tries to place his name in the Modern Versions. Have no idea what I am talking about?

Well, many Bible versions say that it is the dragon who is standing on the sea shore in Revelation. This is just evil and wrong.

See Parallel Version for Revelation 13:1 here...

Revelation 13:1 The dragon stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name.

See, if you know anything about Bible language, standing on something means that you "own it"; And the devil wants to own you. In the King James, John is standing on the seashore. Yet in many Bible versions the dragon (i.e. the devil) is standing on the seashore.

Why is this a problem?

Let's look at...

Genesis 22:17

"That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;"

Did you catch that? God says to Abraham that He will multiply his seed as the stars of the heaven and as the sand which is upon the seashore where he will then possess the gate of his enemies (i.e. the devil and his kingdom). The apostle John who wrote Revelation was Jewish and he was the promised seed of Genesis 22 standing on the seashore in Revelation 13. It was not the dragon or the devil standing on the seashore.

For certain Modern Versions eliminate the part of the passage in Revelation 13:1 that says that John is standing on the seashore (When he refers to himself as "I").

To see more of where the devil places his name in Modern Translations, just click on the following "spoiler button."

Spoiler

In fact, this is not the only time the devil has tried to place his name in the Bible in exchange for something that is supposed to be sacred or holy. We see the devil tries to place his name in Modern Translations in Daniel 3.

In Daniel 3, the Babylonian king says there is one like the "Son of God" in the fiery furnace along with Daniel's three friends. This is Jesus! Yet, in the Modern Translations it says the "son of the gods." In many false religions we can see how certain gods had mated with human females and created a hybrid. This is popular even in Greek mythology. So who saved Daniel's friends? Jesus or some hybrid like Hercules?

Nebuchadnezzar thought this was an angel of God (singular and not plural).

"Then Nebuchadnezzar spake, and said, Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel, and delivered his servants that trusted in him, and have changed the king's word, and yielded their bodies, that they might not serve nor worship any god, except their own God." (Daniel 3:28).

This was not the "son of the gods (plural) (little "g")!!!
No way Hosea! I mean, "No way José!"
Nebuchadnezzar clearly was referencing the most high God.
The Bible says (even something similar in your Modern Version),

"Then Nebuchadnezzar came near to the mouth of the burning fiery furnace, and spake, and said, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, ye servants of the most high God, come forth, and come hither. Then Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, came forth of the midst of the fire." (Daniel 3:26).

Angels are called the: "sons of God" in Job.

The fourth person in the fire was still Jesus! The son of God. The Scriptures were still correct in their inspiration by God when they say, "and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God." While Nebuchadnezzar did not know it was the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity, the Lord our God who inspired Scripture surely would have glorified the name of the Son of God (Jesus) in this instance. For it was Jesus who was in the fire with Daniel's three friends!

Also, please check out this thread here, as well. It will help to explain this situation a little better, too.

Jesus is the Messenger of the Lord in the Old Testament.
(Please take note: I do not believe Jesus is an angelic being; I believe Jesus is the second person of the Godhead or the Trinity and that He is fully 100% God who took on the flesh of man).

In Isaiah 14:12, the devil's name "Lucifer" is replaced with "Day Star" or the "Morning Star."
Yes, I am aware that "morning stars" are angels in the book of Job.

But Modern Translations also say this is the Shining Star or the Son of the Dawn. Why?

Jesus says,
"I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star." (Revelation 22:16).

So Jesus is the BRIGHT and MORNING star!

Yet, the individual in Isaiah 14:12 in Modern Translations is called the shining (bright) and morning star or the Day Star, etc.

So the devil is trying to be like the most high here. He is taking a similar sounding title of Jesus in Isaiah 14:12.

For where is the bright and morning star up in the sky?
It is the sun.
That is why He is called the bright and morning star because the sun is bright and rises in the morning.

Also, Lucifer means "light bearer."
Scripture tells us this is what it means.

"And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14).

The word "angel" also means "messenger." So 2 Corinthians 11:14 is saying that Satan is a light messenger or light bearer. In fact, when Satan is described with having all kinds of jewelry on him, it was symbolic of who he was. Certain gemstones refract light. They are not light themselves, but they merely reflect whatever light is in existence. Gemstones are like little light bearers. So how fitting the name "Lucifer" is for the devil. Yet, Modern Translations seek to give the devil a name that is similar to Jesus. This is wrong (of course).

Also, the devil tries to take out key points in important discussions within the Bible (Which can affect doctrine). For example: In Romans 7 Paul talks from the Jew's perspective in keeping the Old Testament Law (Which leads to problems), and he gives us the climax or heart of his message as a solution in Romans 8:1. Now, certain modern translations have eliminated "who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." Eliminating this passage destroys the whole thrust of Paul's argument. Walking in the Spirit is the key to being in Christ Jesus. You eliminate that and you destroy Paul's argument. Also, 1 John 5:7 is the only verse in the Bible that is the clearest and most concise teaching on the Godhead (i.e. the Trinity).

#3. Biblical Numerics.
Bible Numbers that glorify God and His Word. (Note: These are not equidistant letter sequences or numbers that attempt to get one to have a special dream, or to divine the future in some way - Striving to foretell the future is forbidden in the Bible). Numbers are something that we deal with in our everyday life and all things glorify God. So obviously the numbers in God's Word would naturally glorify Him in some way. What am I talking about? Check out this video on Numbers & the Greek New Testament.​

Sevens in the Bible - Chuck Missler:

Also, here is a video series by Mike Hoggard that talks about the number 7 in the King James.

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 1):

King James Code - Number 7 - Mike Hoggard (Part 2):

Now, while I may not agree with Mike on everything he teaches in the Bible nor on the way he teaches Bible numbers in every example, I have found that he has made some startling discoveries. Discoveries that do not appear in the modern translations but only in the King James. Note: I also do agree with everything Chuck Missler says, either; But that is a whole another topic (And I do honestly love both Mike and Chuck from the heart even though we may disagree on very important things within the faith).

Anyways, I believe the 1769 KJV is the Word of God for our world language (English) today. In 1611, the printing process was not perfected yet and there was no set standard in spelling yet, either.

From my experience, I have discovered that there are two wrong extremes on this topic. One wrong extreme says the KJV is evil and to even use it is to be a part of a cult (That teaches that one must worship a book - Which is simply not true). The other wrong extreme says the same thing. For I have found that many KJV-Onlyists believe that you should only read the King James. Many other KJV-Onlyists will also say that the King James is not all that hard to understand, too. However, I disagree with both of these conclusions, though.

Anyways, while I believe the KJV is the divinely inspired Word of God, I do not think one should stick to just reading it alone. For I have found Modern Translations to be very helpful in updating the language (From Old English); However, I do not put my entire trust in Modern Translations because the devil has placed his name all over them and key doctrines have been watered down and important messages within God's Word have been neutered.

In other words, I read Modern Translations as if I am panning for gold. I have to sift thru the dirt or the garbage in order to get to the gold of the passage that lines up with the King James (and the original Hebrew and Greek).

This gold that is found within the dirt of the translations can be very useful because it reflects what is in the King James. This is the gold that people hear and are saved when they hear the gospel message. For someone can be saved just by hearing a few Bible verses about the gospel message of Jesus Christ. This gold shines thru and penetrates their heart.

Like the Parable of the Sower. Believers receive the Word of God into their heart from those passages that are talking about salvation. Words that line up with the King James. These words are sown in their heart. And if they let this Word take root in their heart by continually reading the Word of God, then they will have hidden His Word in their heart so they will not sin against Him. It will have taken root and they will not fall away due to persecution or the trials of this life.

For it only takes a few Bible verses to get someone saved. However, washing yourself with the water of the Word is going to be a lot more effective if you use the pure Word of God.

I hope someone found what I had written here helpful.

May God's love shine upon you all.

Sincerely,

~ Jason.

 

[pescador]

It constantly astonishes me that KJVO people completely throw out the accomplishments that have been made in the field of biblical scholarship for the last four centuries. There have been many gains in understanding the ancient languages, discovery of many contemporaneous texts, greater understanding of the cultures in which those texts were written, etc.

The KJV, also known as the Authorized Version, was a great accomplishment for its time and is a monument to the most beautiful English ever written, but it is NOT the word of God. It is just a translation, one among many.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We also have to think, which position lines up with what we see in God's Word?

Do we see men of God constantly arguing over the Word of God being written in another older language that is superior to get their understanding from God's Word? No. The KJV only position is basically saying that we trust that God's Word exists today and that it has one clear meaning that all can understand plainly in today's language. Remember in Acts 2? God translated the languages at Pentecost just fine so that everyone could understand each other. God does not change. He wants us to understand His Word clearly and not by some dead language that nobody truly knows. For if I speak Biblical Greek to you or write out Biblical Greek to you, chances are you will not know what it says unless you had a website like BlueLetterBible or something. Biblical Greek does not come natural to people today because it no longer exists as a spoken language. Imagine if you wanted to teach something that was not in the Word of God? You could easily pull the wool over people's eyes and say that the Bible says this in the Greek and they will be none the wiser. However, it is not so easy to do that with the English because it is our world language for today.

In other words, the Modern Translation position or all translations speak the Word of God is not a position that is taught in the Bible. But we can see something like the KJV position in the fact that men of God spoke God's Word with an authority and knew what God was saying clearly.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It constantly astonishes me that KJVO people completely throw out the accomplishments that have been made in the field of biblical scholarship for the last four centuries. There have been many gains in understanding the ancient languages, discovery of many contemporaneous texts, greater understanding of the cultures in which those texts were written, etc.

The KJV, also known as the Authorized Version, was a great accomplishment for its time and is a monument to the most beautiful English ever written, but it is NOT the word of God. It is just a translation, one among many.

Jesus said beware of the scribes. The scribes are those who "tran-SCRIBED" the law or the Scriptures. In other words, the scribe for our day is the scholar. This is not to say that all scholars cannot be trusted, but the point here is that Jesus said to beware of them.

Also, there are two vines or two sets of manuscripts going on here and they both do not exactly say the same thing.

(a) Vine #1. - (KJV - taken from Textus Receptus).
(b) Vine #2. - (Modern Translations - taken from the Critical Text).

A simple side by side comparison shows that Vine #2 seeks to attack Vine #1 by watering down the Trinity, the blood of Jesus, holiness, etc. Vine #2 has also eliminated key words in Scripture that changes the meaning of important points trying to be made in Scripture like with Romans 8:1, and 1 John 5:7, etc. The Modern Translations also like to put the devil's name within them, as well. In fact, for hundreds of years (before the Modern Translations came onto the scene) we only had the KJV. So if you lived during that period in time, we would not be having this conversation.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

KJVO folks worship a book, in other words, an idol.

This is just an ad hominem that is totally silly.
Nowhere do KJV Only folks claim to bow down and worship the Bible as if it was a magical object or say that the book itself is God. Most KJV Only people I know believe God is spirit and that we should worship Him in spirit and in truth. To revere or hold dear God's message or words to us is not worship of God's message. For example: I can send a love letter to my wife, and she may later cherish it after reading it. But that is not her worshiping my letter. She would have to think the letter is me and kiss the letter and take the letter out on dinner dates and talk to the letter and stuff as if it was me. Do KJV only people do that with the Bible? No.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing the Word of God.
What is your faith standing upon?
Is it standing upon a Word that you are not exactly sure in what it says because you do not speak Biblical Greek or write Biblical Greek?
For me, I do not seek to change God's Word like the scholar does.
God's Word should change me.
Yet, today we see men claiming to be of God and they are re-writing yet another new Bible for us because we still do not have a perfect Bible yet. Come on now. Do we really think the devil has not attacked God's Word today?

 

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

You say:
<< Pre 1611 (New Testament):
Before year 1611, The New Testament was present on earth in the Greek language; in texts known as the Textus Receptus, Yet, not yet translated into the English Language. >>

You're ignoring the Latin Vulgate, but I'll leave that to the Catholics.

As a basic point of religious history, there were English translations before the KJV. Someone has already pointed out the Geneva Bible.

The KJV was actually the eighth (8th) English translation! The most widely used translation when King James commissioned the KJV was known as the Bishop's Bible.

I personally have found the KJV to be unreliable and misleading in a number of places.

Are you unable to notice the different listing of
- Pre 1611 (Old Testament)
- Pre 1611 (New Testament)
- Pre 1611 (English Bibles)
Last I knew the New Testament was known to be the equivalent of the Full Bible
&Once Again, another hint, there all separated.

If you still don't understand, reply and ill help you further.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It constantly astonishes me that KJVO people completely throw out the accomplishments that have been made in the field of biblical scholarship for the last four centuries. There have been many gains in understanding the ancient languages, discovery of many contemporaneous texts, greater understanding of the cultures in which those texts were written, etc.

The KJV, also known as the Authorized Version, was a great accomplishment for its time and is a monument to the most beautiful English ever written, but it is NOT the word of God. It is just a translation, one among many.

While Jesus is referred to as the "Word of God", the Holy Scriptures are also referred to as the word of God, as well.

"And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God." (Luke 4:4).

"And he answered and said unto them, My mother and my brethren are these which hear the word of God, and do it." (Luke 8:21).

 

[Devin P]

Its not completely about what came 1st, I would absolutely in your case consider; the KJV Bible was chosen & proved to have more of an impact. Is there truly a question if it was God's will or not?
&
There are currently no laws against using the Geneva Bible within my knowledge, Yet, Still the KJV is highly favored.

- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV)

Well yeah, now. But when the kjv came out it flopped. No one wanted it. James made the Geneva illegal, and punished, outlawed and killed those with out and printing it.

The people by a landslide preferred the Geneva.

I think the kjv is alright, but it's definitely not perfect. A lot of words that don't belong in scripture have snuck themselves in to the kjv and all other translations after.

There's many errors in the kjv, but I definitely think it can still be used to save people and lead them to our Savior, but there are better translations. No translation is perfect, but there are better ones.

The Septuagint, halleluyah scriptures, the cepher, isr the scriptures, the original hebraic and Greek scriptures, etc.

There's some very alarming issues in the kjv that bother me, but it is a good version to have around. I don't read from it really anymore, but I compare with it and use it in certain word studies and such, but it's not my go to translation.

 

[GingerBeer]

The intention was at very least that you would consider partaking in my way of Faith.
God Bless.

Christians have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. Is that not the same faith as you have?

 

[GingerBeer]

There's many errors in the kjv, but I definitely think it can still be used to save people and lead them to our Savior, but there are better translations. No translation is perfect, but there are better ones.

Five loaves of bread and two fish were used to save many souls so it looks like loaves and fish work and that may imply that the KJV could work too.

 

[Dale]

Are you unable to notice the different listing of
- Pre 1611 (Old Testament)
- Pre 1611 (New Testament)
- Pre 1611 (English Bibles)
Last I knew the New Testament was known to be the equivalent of the Full Bible
&Once Again, another hint, there all separated.

If you still don't understand, reply and ill help you further.

Your reply in post #48 has nothing to do with the point I made.

You made a serious mis-statement of fact in the OP by implying that the KJV was the first English translation. It wasn't, it was the eighth translation of the Bible into English.

It would be far more mature to admit that you made a mistake.

 

[Dale]

Look at it this way. The King James Bible is almost contemporary with the Shakespeare plays. Everyone knows that Shakespeare, for all his virtues, is not easy for modern readers to understand.

For instance, in one scene in Hamlet, he is talking to his friends and he says, "Buzz, buzz."

Do you know what Hamlet meant by "Buzz, buzz" without looking it up?

Elizabethan English contains many figures of speech that are highly confusing for people living today.

 

[Dale]

We also have to think, which position lines up with what we see in God's Word?

Do we see men of God constantly arguing over the Word of God being written in another older language that is superior to get their understanding from God's Word? No. The KJV only position is basically saying that we trust that God's Word exists today and that it has one clear meaning that all can understand plainly in today's language. Remember in Acts 2? God translated the languages at Pentecost just fine so that everyone could understand each other. God does not change. He wants us to understand His Word clearly and not by some dead language that nobody truly knows. For if I speak Biblical Greek to you or write out Biblical Greek to you, chances are you will not know what it says unless you had a website like BlueLetterBible or something. Biblical Greek does not come natural to people today because it no longer exists as a spoken language. Imagine if you wanted to teach something that was not in the Word of God? You could easily pull the wool over people's eyes and say that the Bible says this in the Greek and they will be none the wiser. However, it is not so easy to do that with the English because it is our world language for today.

In other words, the Modern Translation position or all translations speak the Word of God is not a position that is taught in the Bible. But we can see something like the KJV position in the fact that men of God spoke God's Word with an authority and knew what God was saying clearly.

Jason in post #45:
<< In other words, the Modern Translation position or all translations speak the Word of God is not a position that is taught in the Bible. But we can see something like the KJV position in the fact that men of God spoke God's Word with an authority and knew what God was saying clearly. >>

This is circular reasoning, it is nonsense. You simply start from the assumption that the King James version is superior, even God-ordained. On the contrary, Scripture tells us nothing about the value of one translation over another.

 

[pescador]

Five loaves of bread and two fish were used to save many souls so it looks like loaves and fish work and that may imply that the KJV could work too.

I don't understand this at all. People were (literally) fed with bread and fish, but it doesn't say that they were saved. And nobody I know has eaten the KJV.

 

[GingerBeer]

I don't understand this at all. People were (literally) fed with bread and fish, but it doesn't say that they were saved. And nobody I know has eaten the KJV.

Seems to me that you got the point - the loaves and fishes were instrumental in attracting people to Christ and some (perhaps many) became his followers because of that miracle the same applies to the KJV it too can be instrumental in attracting people to Christ and some (perhaps many) become his followers. Like you I do not know anybody saved by the KJV much less by eating it.

 

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

Christians have faith in Jesus Christ as Lord and God. Is that not the same faith as you have?

- 2 Corinthians 11:3-4 (KJV)
- Galatians 1:6-7 (of Galatians 1:1-12) (KJV)
What does the Bible say? If we believe in different Gospels of Christ, these scriptures show that we do not share the same faith. ​

 

[KingJamesVersionBibleOnly]

Your reply in post #48 has nothing to do with the point I made.

You made a serious mis-statement of fact in the OP by implying that the KJV was the first English translation. It wasn't, it was the eighth translation of the Bible into English.

It would be far more mature to admit that you made a mistake.

Its not completely about what came 1st, I would absolutely in your case consider; the KJV Bible was chosen & proved to have more of an impact. Is there truly a question if it was God's will or not?
&
There are currently no laws against using the Geneva Bible within my knowledge, Yet, Still the KJV is highly favored.
- 1 Corinthians 2:13 (KJV)

 

[Deadworm]

Again with the snake thing. Come on now. Luke 10:19 mentions that we can tread on snakes. The idea here is that one can touch snakes without intentionally setting out to do so and not be harmed. Mark 16:18 is referring to Paul's encounter with a snake that wrapped around his hand and yet it did not bite him. The KJV says, "take up serpents" in Mark 16:18 and yet we see in Acts of the Apostles 28:3-4 a snake fasten onto Paul's hand and the barbarians had seen this snake then hanging on Paul's hand.

You obviously don't know Greek. Your argument can be summarily dispatched by 4 points:
(1) The Greek verb in question is haireo, which means deliberately "pick up," as in "pick up a fish (so Matthew 1727). Unlike Acts 28:3, the act is deliberate and hence a test of God's protection.
(2) You conveniently duck the point that Mark 16:9-20 has a Greek style so different from Mark's that its status as a later interpolation is universally accepted by Bible scholars who teach in accredited seminaries and university religious studies departments.
(3) You conveniently ignore the fact that more reliable manuscripts omit Mark 16:9-20 and that other bogus endings are supplied to manuscripts of Mark.
(4) You also ignore the fact that Aristo of Pells (after 150 AD) is identified as the author of this contrived text in one early manuscript of Mark.